Health and Disease, Uncategorized

Gardasil Death Confirms Presence of HPV

hpv

 

Gardasil Death Confirms Presence of HPV DNA Fragments

Oncology Dietitian Exposes Fraud in CDC’s HPV Vaccine Effectiveness Study

 

There are currently two HPV vaccines on the market, but if there was any regard for sound scientific evidence, neither would be promoted as heavily as they are. The first, Gardasil, was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. It is now recommended as a routine vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 9-26 in the US.

 

On October 25, 2011, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also voted to recommend giving the HPV vaccine to males between the ages of 11 and 21. The second HPV vaccine, Cervarix, was licensed in 2009.

 

Most recently, an oncology dietitian pointed out significant discrepancies1 in a new HPV vaccine effectiveness study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases2, which evaluated data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), 2003-2006 and 2007-2010.

 

The study pointed out that HPV vaccine uptake among young girls in the US has been low but concluded that:

 

“Within four years of vaccine introduction, the vaccine-type HPV prevalence decreased among females aged 14–19 years despite low vaccine uptake. The estimated vaccine effectiveness was high.”

 

Assessing the Overall Impact of the HPV Vaccine

In her article3, Sharlene Bidini, RD, CSO, points out that the study’s conclusion was based on 740 girls, of which only 358 were sexually active, and of those, only 111 had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. In essence, the vast majority was unvaccinated, and nearly half were not at risk of HPV since they weren’t sexually active.

 

“If the study authors were trying to determine vaccine effectiveness, why did they include the girls who had not received a single HPV shot or did not report having sex?” she writes.

 

“Table 1 from the journal article compares 1,363 girls, aged 14-19, in the pre-vaccine era (2003-2006) to all 740 girls in the post-vaccine era (2007-2010) regardless of sexual history or immunization status.”

 

In the pre-vaccine era, an estimated 53 percent of sexually active girls between the ages of 14-19 had HPV. Between 2007 and 2010, the overall prevalence of HPV in the same demographic declined by just over 19 percent to an overall prevalence of nearly 43 percent.

 

As Bidini points out, this reduction in HPV prevalence can NOT be claimed to be due to the effectiveness of HPV vaccinations. On the contrary, the data clearly shows that it was the unvaccinated girls in this group that had the best outcome!

 

“In 2007-2010, the overall prevalence of HPV was 50 percent in the vaccinated girls (14-19 years), but only 38.6 percent in the unvaccinated girls of the same age.

 

Therefore, HPV prevalence dropped 27.3 percent in the unvaccinated girls, but only declined by 5.8 percent in the vaccinated group. In four out of five different measures, the unvaccinated girls had a lower incidence of HPV,” she writes.

 

Furthermore, in the single instance where unvaccinated girls had a 9.5 percent higher prevalence of HPV, a note stated that the relative standard error was greater than 30 percent, leading Bidini to suspect that “the confidence interval values must have been extremely wide. Therefore, this particular value is subject to too much variance and doesn’t have much value.”

 

Another fact hidden among the reported data was that among the 740 girls included in the post-vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of high-risk, non-vaccine types of HPV also significantly declined, from just under 21 percent to just over 16 percent.

 

So, across the board, HPV of all types, whether included in the vaccine or not, declined. This points to a reduction in HPV prevalence that has nothing to do with vaccine coverage. Besides, vaccine uptake was very LOW to begin with.

 

All in all, one can conclude that there were serious design flaws involved in this study—whether intentional or not—leading the researchers to erroneously conclude that the vaccine effectiveness was “high.” Clearly the effectiveness of the vaccine was anything but high, since the unvaccinated group fared far better across the board.

 

Case Report of a Gardasil Death Confirms Presence of HPV DNA Fragments

Earlier this year, a lab scientist, who discovered HPV DNA fragments in the blood of a teenage girl who died after receiving the Gardasil vaccine, published a case report in the peer reviewed journal Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology4. The otherwise healthy girl died in her sleep six months after receiving her third and final dose of the HPV vaccine. A full autopsy revealed no cause of death.

 

Sin Hang Lee with the Milford Molecular Laboratory in Connecticut confirmed the presence of HPV-16 L1 gene DNA in the girl’s postmortem blood and spleen tissue. These DNA fragments are also found in the vaccine. The fragments were protected from degradation by binding firmly to the particulate aluminum adjuvant used in the vaccine.

 

“The significance of these HPV DNA fragments of a vaccine origin found in post-mortem materials is not clear and warrants further investigation,” he wrote.

 

Lee suggests the presence of HPV DNA fragments of vaccine origin might offer a plausible explanation for the high immunogenicity of Gardasil, meaning that the vaccine has the ability to provoke an exaggerated immune response. He points out that the rate of anaphylaxis in girls receiving Gardasil is far higher than normal—reportedly five to 20 times higher than any other school-based vaccination program!

 

HPV Vaccine Is Associated with Serious Health Risks, Including Sudden Death

Many women are not aware that the HPV vaccine Gardasil might actually increase your risk of cervical cancer. Initially, that information came straight from Merck and was presented to the FDA prior to approval5. According to Merck’s own research, if you have been exposed to HPV strains 16 or 18 prior to receipt of Gardasil vaccine, you could increase your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6 percent.

 

Other health problems associated with Gardasil vaccine include immune-based inflammatory neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting that something is causing the immune system to overreact in a detrimental way—sometimes fatally.

 

Between June 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008, there were 12,424 reported adverse events following Gardasil vaccination, including 32 deaths. The girls, who were on average 18 years old, died within two to 405 days after their last Gardasil injection

Between May 2009 and September 2010, 16 additional deaths after Gardasil vaccination were reported. For that timeframe, there were also 789 reports of “serious” Gardasil adverse reactions, including 213 cases of permanent disability and 25 diagnosed cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome

Between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011, another 26 deaths were reported following HPV vaccination

As of May 13, 2013, VAERS had received 29,686 reports of adverse events following HPV vaccinations, including 136 reports of death,6, as well as 922 reports of disability, and 550 life-threatening adverse events

Lawsuit Reveals Payouts of Nearly $6 Million to HPV Vaccine-Damaged Victims

On February 28, 2013 the government watchdog group Judicial Watch announced it had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to obtain records from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) related to the HPV vaccine7. The lawsuit was filed in order to force the DHHS to comply with an earlier FOIA request, filed in November 2012, which had been ignored. As reported by WND.com8:

 

“Judicial Watch wants all records relating to the VICP, any documented injuries or deaths associated with HPV vaccines and all records of compensation paid to the claimants following injury or death allegedly associated with the HPV vaccines… The number of successful claims made under the VICP to victims of HPV will provide further information about any dangers of the vaccine, including the number of well-substantiated cases of adverse reactions.”

 

On March 20, Judicial Watch announced it had received the FOIA documents from the DDHS, which revealed that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded $5,877,710 to 49 victims for harm resulting from the HPV vaccine. According to the press release9: “On March 12, 2013, The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of HHS, provided Judicial Watch with documents revealing the following information:

 

Only 49 of the 200 claims filed have been compensated for injury or death caused from the (HPV) vaccine. Of the 49 compensated claims, 47 were for injury caused from the (HPV) vaccine. The additional 2 claims were for death caused due to the vaccine.

92 (nearly half) of the total 200 claims filed are still pending. Of those pending claims, 87 of the claims against the (HPV) vaccine were filed for injury. The remaining 5 claims were filed for death.

59 claims have been dismissed outright by VICP. The alleged victims were not compensated for their claims against the HPV vaccine. Of the claims dismissed, 57 were for injuries, 2 were for deaths allegedly caused by the HPV vaccine.

The amount awarded to the 49 claims compensated totaled 5,877,710.87 dollars. This amounts to approximately $120,000 per claim.

This new information from the government shows that the serious safety concerns about the use of Gardasil have been well-founded,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Public health officials should stop pushing Gardasil on children.”

 

Review of HPV Vaccine Trials Conclude Effectiveness Is Still Unproven

Last year, a systematic review10 of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine by researchers at University of British Columbia showed that the vaccine’s effectiveness is not only overstated (through the use of selective reporting or “cherry picking” data) but also unproven. In the summary of the clinical trial review, the authors state it quite clearly:

 

“We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We found that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications).

 

Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odds with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

 

For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.

 

Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).

 

We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.” [Emphasis mine]

 

Talk to Your Kids about HPV and Gardasil

There are better ways to protect yourself or your young daughters against cancer than getting Gardasil or Cervarix vaccinations, and it’s important you let your children know this. In more than 90 percent of HPV infections, HPV infection is cleared within two years on its own, so keeping your immune system strong is far more important than getting vaccinated.

 

In addition, HPV infection is spread through sexual contact and research11 has demonstrated that using condoms can reduce your risk of HPV infection by 70 percent, which is far more effective than the HPV vaccine. Because this infection is sexually transmitted, the risk of infection can be greatly reduced by lifestyle choices, including abstinence. In addition, there are high risk factors for chronic HPV infection including smoking, co-infection with herpes, Chlamydia or HIV and long-term birth control use. Women chronically infected with HPV for many years, who don’t get pre-cancerous cervical lesions promptly identified and treated, can develop cervical cancer and die.

 

So it is important to remember that, even if they get vaccinated, girls and women should get Pap test screening every few years for cervical changes that may indicate pre-cancerous lesions because there is little guarantee that either Gardasil or Cervarix vaccinations will prevent cervical cancer. After Pap test screening became a routine part of health care for American women in the 1960’s, cervical cancer cases in the U.S. dropped 74 percent and continued Pap testing is recommended for women who receive HPV vaccines.

 

Why We Must Protect Vaccine Exemptions

There can be no doubt that we are in urgent need of a serious vaccine safety review in the US. Quality science is simply not being done. And very few vaccine recommendations, which prop up state vaccine mandates, stand on firm scientific ground. Your right to vaccine exemptions is also increasingly under threat.

 

I urge you to get involved in the monumentally important task of defending YOUR right to know and freedom to choose which vaccines you and your child will use. The non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), has been preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education for more than 30 years and is leading the advocacy effort in the states to protect vaccine exemptions. Supporting NVIC is one way you can help, in addition to signing up for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal so you stay informed about threats to vaccine exemptions in your state and contact your state legislators to make your voice heard.

 

All across the United States, people are fighting for their right not to be injected with vaccines against their will. These threats come in a variety of guises like California bill AB49912, which permits minor children as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines like Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent! In light of the evidence that HPV vaccines have not been proven safe or effective, how wise is it to allow doctors to give a minor child Gardasil or Cervarix vaccinations without informing and getting the consent of parents? How are parents supposed to monitor their children for signs of a vaccine reaction if they don’t even know their children have been given a vaccine? It’s nothing short of reprehensible.

 

I cannot stress enough how critical it is to get involved and stand up for your human right to exercise informed consent to vaccination and protect your legal right to obtain medical and non-medical vaccine exemptions. This does not mean you have to opt out of all vaccinations if you decide that you want to give one or more vaccines to your child. The point is, EVERYONE should have the right to evaluate the potential benefits and real risks of any pharmaceutical product, including vaccines, and opt out of any vaccine they decide is unnecessary or not in the best interest of their child’s health. Every child is different and has a unique personal and family medical history, which may include severe allergies or autoimmune and neurological disorders, that could increase the risks of vaccination.

 

It is your parental right to make potentially life-altering health decisions for your own children. Why wouldn’t you want to keep that right—even if you want your child to receive most or all vaccinations currently available? Tomorrow there might be a vaccine you don’t want your child to receive, but if you’ve failed to support strong informed consent protections in public health laws, which includes the legal right for all Americans to take medical and non-medical vaccine exemptions, you’ve given away your own freedom to choose in the future…

 

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at http://www.NVIC.org:

 

NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.

If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.

Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors, employers or school officials for making independent vaccine choices.

NVIC Advocacy Portal: Sign up today to be a user of this free online privacy-protected network of concerned citizens all working to educate legislators to protect vaccine exemptions in public health policies and laws.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

 

However, there is hope.

 

At least 15 percent of young doctors polled in the past few years admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

 

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

 

Health Wellness Associates

Archived

Dr. Anna Sullivan

312-972-WELL

 

HealthWellnessAssociates@gmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/HealthAndWellnessAssociates

Lifestyle, Uncategorized

Which Sport Lowers Your Risk of Premature Death

stretching2

Which Sport Lowers Your Risk of Premature Death

 

 

Consider Racket Sports and Swimming to Help You Live Longer

 

There’s no shortage of evidence showing that being active can extend your life. Less widely known, however, is whether certain types of activities may work in your favor more so than others.

Surprisingly, research on the health benefits of specific types of activities is scarce, so researchers from Europe and Australia examined the associations between six different sports/exercises and risk of death from heart disease and all causes. Three of them rose squarely to the top.

 

3 Top Physical Activities to Lower Your Risk of Death

 

Researchers analyzed data from more than 80,000 people, and it turned out racket sports, swimming and aerobics topped the list of best physical activities for lowering the risk of premature death.1

Those who played racket sports, such as tennis, badminton or squash, had a 47 percent lower risk of dying during the nine-year study period than non-exercisers. Swimmers, meanwhile, had a 28 percent lower risk of death while aerobics’ participants enjoyed a 27 percent lower risk of dying.

A significant reduction in cardiovascular death was also found for the three activities. Those who played racket sports were 56 percent less likely to die from cardiovascular disease during the study, followed by 41 percent less likely for swimmers and 36 percent less likely among aerobics enthusiasts.

No statistically significant reductions, however — for cardiovascular or all-cause mortality — were observed for the other three activities included in the study (cycling, running and football, i.e., soccer in the U.S.).

 

Are Full-Body Workouts Best?

 

Racket sports, aerobics and swimming require the use of your full body — arms and legs — which makes your heart work harder. This could be one reason why these full-body workouts lower the risk of death more than other activities.

In addition, they often require intense bursts of activity, which could be responsible for their life-enhancing edge. As noted by the University of Rochester Medical Center:2

“Racquet sports alternate bursts of high-intensity exercise while you score points, with brief rest periods while you pick up the ball and serve. This stop-and-start activity is similar to interval training.

Playing racquet sports, or any active sport, [three] hours a week can cut your risk of developing heart disease and lower your blood pressure, according to the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

One key to getting a good aerobic workout in tennis or racquetball is to keep your rest periods brief. Your heart will continue to work at an aerobic level, but without the sustained stress.”

On the other hand, cycling was only associated with a small decline in mortality risk, but this could be because many of the participants used cycling recreationally to get to and from work (as opposed to doing it vigorously as a workout).

The researchers speculated that running may not have made the top list because the runners in the study were younger, on average, and a longer follow-up period may have been needed to gauge its full benefits.

However, research is increasingly showing that short bursts of intense activity (such as you might engage in when playing a vigorous game of tennis) may be better than long, slow cardio like running.

Among the study participants, more than 44 percent met the minimum exercise recommendations (150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity a week for adults ages 18 to 65).

Popularity-wise, swimming topped the list as the favorite form of exercise, followed by cycling, aerobics, running/jogging, racket sports and football (soccer) or rugby.

It’s important to note that engaging in any type of activity was better than none at all; active participants reduced their risk of death by 28 percent, regardless of which activity they engaged in.

 

Swimming Versus Racket Sports and Aerobics

 

Ultimately, you should choose your physical activities based on what you enjoy, and keep your routine varied to get the best results. You might try swimming one day, a game of tennis another and do a high-intensity interval aerobics workout the next.

All of these exercises offer benefits for cardiovascular fitness, strength and fat burning, but swimming offers one clear benefit over the others for people who have trouble exercising on land: It’s not a weight-bearing workout.

If you are overweight or obese, struggle with joint pain or osteoarthritis or are elderly and unable to engage in higher impact activities, exercising in water will allow your body to move in a wider range of motion, often without pain, and with less of a risk of injury or falls.

Vertical water workouts, such as deep water running, water aerobics, water yoga and more, are becoming increasingly popular because you experience much greater resistance (and hence greater fitness gains) than when swimming horizontally.

It’s quite possible to get a high-intensity, vigorous workout done in the water, and this may be an ideal form of exercise for those with chronic pain or mobility issues.

 

There’s a ‘Goldilocks Zone’ When It Comes to Exercising

 

If you want to reap the most benefits from exercising (i.e., lower your risk of premature death as much as possible), you might assume that the more you exercise, the better.

In reality, a large analysis involving data from 661,000 adults revealed that people who exercised 10 times the recommended level (150 minutes of moderate exercise per week) did not gain any additional benefits in terms of mortality risk reduction.3

Those who met the exercise guidelines lowered their risk of death during the 14-year study period by 31 percent while those who engaged in moderate exercise for 450 minutes per week (just over an hour a day) lowered their risk of premature death by 39 percent compared to non-exercisers.

Even those who exercised at all (yet didn’t meet the requirement) lowered their risk of premature death by 20 percent. Those who did not exercise at all had the highest risk of premature death, which again sends home the message that any exercise is better than no exercise.

Exercise intensity also plays an important role, however, and data from a separate study found that engaging in even occasional vigorous exercise led to additional reductions in risk of premature death.4 In fact, when you include brief bursts of high-intensity activity in your workouts, you can slash your workout time considerably.

 

Brief, Intense Activity Promotes Longevity Via Mitochondrial Biogenesis

 

Pushing your body to the extreme for a very brief duration, such as cycling on a stationary bike or elliptical machine for 30 seconds as fast as you can, then resting for a recovery period before repeating the cycle again, taps into a new level of exercise advantages that cannot be gained from moderate- or low-intensity workouts alone.

Such workouts, known as high-intensity interval training (HIIT), lead to immediate changes in your DNA, including reprogramming your muscle for strength and stimulating your fast-twitch muscle fibers, which in turn triggers production of vital human growth hormone (HGH).

HIIT also triggers mitochondrial biogenesis, which is important for longevity. According to one review in Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, exercise alters mitochondrial enzyme content and activity, which helps increase cellular energy production, and in so doing decreases your risk of chronic disease and slows down the aging process.5

 

Working Out Smarter

 

Research has clearly demonstrated that short bursts of intense activity are safer and more effective than conventional cardio — for your heart, general health, weight loss and overall fitness. The bonus is that exercising in this way allows you to exercise much more efficiently.

The American College of Sports Medicine, which recommends 20 minutes of more vigorous activity three days per week, even notes that HIIT workouts tend to burn 6 percent to 15 percent more calories compared to other workouts, thanks to the calories you burn after you exercise.

Even for HIIT, however, there are variations among workouts, and it’s important to find one that works right for you. If you’re very fit and want to take your workout to the next level, Tabata Training is one (very challenging) HIIT workout to try.

If you’re new to high-intensity interval training, however, don’t go directly to a full Tabata workout. Instead, try the Peak Fitness method of 30 seconds of maximum effort followed by 90 seconds of recuperation. When repeated eight times, and including a four-minute warm-up, this workout takes about 20 minutes.

 

Here are the core principles (I also incorporate Buteyko breathing into the workout, which means I do most of the workout by breathing only through my nose, which raises the challenge to another level). For another HIIT alternative, try Super Slow strength training.

 

Warm up for three minutes

Exercise as hard and fast as you can for 30 seconds. You should be gasping for breath and feel like you couldn’t possibly go on another few seconds. It is better to use lower resistance and higher repetitions to increase your heart rate

Recover for 90 seconds, still moving, but at slower pace and decreased resistance

Repeat the high-intensity exercise and recovery seven more times. (When you’re first starting out, depending on your level of fitness, you may be able to do only two or three repetitions of the high-intensity intervals. As you get fitter, just keep adding repetitions until you’re doing eight during your 20-minute session)

Cool down for a few minutes afterward by cutting down your intensity by 50 to 80 percent

Variety Is the Spice of Life — and Exercise

 

Remember that HIIT is only one facet of a well-rounded exercise program. Incorporating other physical activities you enjoy, such as the highly beneficial choices revealed in the featured study, will only add to your fitness and longevity. Let your interests guide you and feel free to experiment with new activities, like a water aerobics class one week or a game of tennis the next.

By making simple tweaks, you can easily turn a fun game of tennis with a friend into a moderate-to-vigorous workout that enhances your longevity and strength. To get the most from your racket sports workout, consider these tips from the University of Rochester Medical Center:6

” … [Y]ou and your opponent should agree to play for the aerobic benefit, as well as for fun. Instead of firing aces past each other, plan on a volley-and-return match that keeps you both moving. Scatter your shots around the court to make the most of the distance you both run. Also limit your number of serves. Or play for total points instead of using traditional scoring.”

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived JM

312-972-WELL

 

Lifestyle

Doctors are the Third Leading Cause of Death in the US

doctors

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US

,

Killing 225,000 People Every Year

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins

School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the UShealth care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

•           12,000 —

unnecessary surgery

•           7,000 —

medication errors in hospitals

•           20,000 —

other errors in hospitals

•           80,000 —

infections in hospitals

•           106,000 —

non-error, negative effects of drugs

These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic

causes!!

What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as

induced in a patient by a physician’s activity, manner, or therapy. Used

especially of a complication of treatment.

Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these

numbers:

•           First, most

of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.

•           Second,

these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that

are associated with disability or discomfort.

•           Third, the

estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.

If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to

iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000

deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the

United

States

, after deaths from heart disease and

cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between

these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular

disease).

Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of

consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:

•           116 million

extra physician visits

•           77 million

extra prescriptions

•           17 million

emergency department visits

•           8 million

hospitalizations

•           3 million

long-term admissions

•           199,000

additional deaths

•           $77 billion

in extra costs

The high cost of the health care system is considered to be

a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health

results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many

as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a

result of medical errors.

This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but

does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the

United

States

ranks an average of 12th (second from

the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking

of the US

on

several indicators was:

•           13th (last)

for low-birth-weight percentages

•           13th for

neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall

•           11th for

postneonatal mortality

•           13th for

years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)

•           11th for

life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males

•           10th for

life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males

•           10th for

life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males

•           7th for

life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males

•           3rd for

life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males

•           10th for

age-adjusted mortality

The poor performance of the US

was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used

different data and ranked the United Statesas 15th among 25 industrialized countries.

There is a perception that the American public “behaves

badly” by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence.” However the

data does not support this assertion.

•           The

proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japanto 41% in Denmark

;

in the United States

,

it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Swedento 61% in Japan

;

it is 28% in the United States(third best).

•           The USranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage consumption.

•           The US has

relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years

in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol

concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.

These estimates of death due to error are lower than those

in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the higher estimates are

used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.

Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this

constitutes the third leading cause of death in the US

,

following heart disease and cancer.

Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to

the US

‘s low

ranking.

•           Among 29

countries, the United Statesis second only to Japan

in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography

scanners per million population. 17

•           Japan

,

however, ranks highest on health, whereas the USranks among the lowest.

•           It is

possible that the high use of technology in Japan

is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment,

whereas in the US

,

high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.

•           Supporting

this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed

(full-time equivalents) in the United Statesis highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan

,

far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family

members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.

Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5

****  Choose a Doctor

over the age of 50.  That was the last

time medical school taught how to cure and prevent diseases.  After that medical schools went to Managed

Care, meaning they treat a symptom, not a disease.

Health and Wellness Associates

ARchived Articles

312-972-WELL

Lifestyle

The Holidays ! When you loose a loved one.

life

When most people hear the word loss, they think of death, but it can also mean that your heart has been broken because someone or something you deeply cherish in your life has been lost. It is inevitable that at one point during your life you will experience a loss, but with some planning, you can get through the difficult time with grace and balance. There is no loss that you can’t recover from. “You can love, lose and survive. You can fall to your knees and cry in pain. You can feel a horrible, crippling emptiness, yet recover and fill yourself up again. We all seem to survive it,”

Be Patient with Yourself

Give yourself time to accept what has happened. There is no schedule for when you should feel certain emotions, or be over others. “Choose to stand up for you and the rest of your life, and choose to move on,” says . You don’t have to figure out how you’re going to get through the rest of your life. Just focus on staying in the game and moving forward now. It is normal to cry and be depressed, but you need to keep putting one foot in front of the other. “You have to continue carrying on with your life, because going MIA from your routine and support from friends and family will only magnify the grief you feel,” . “Regardless of the specific loss you are going through, expect that the day will come that you will begin to see hope again. You can survive. You do have the strength to get through this.”

Adjust Your Expectations

Accept that your emotions are a natural part of the grieving process. “Experiencing death, divorce or other loss that makes you feel rejected and alone isn’t a life sentence of grief,” . “You will emerge. But don’t put generic expectations on yourself and don’t let others do so either.” You will feel an array of emotions. Remember that grief from any loss is not a linear process. You will begin to move on in your own time; just be sure to move forward before you totally lose your way.

Accept What You Cannot Change

One of the most frequent struggles you may face when you lose someone is a sense of being out of control ” not being able to control when someone leaves you. “Even though we can’t even almost have that control, we are not victims ” or at least we don’t have to be,” . “There is a point in this process where you can and must choose to take a stand for how you are going to react to this hard hit.” You must actively, consciously choose to focus on what you can change, and accept what you can’t change. “This means mentally, emotionally and spiritually accepting the reality of your loss and letting go of a past that you cannot bring back.”

 

Find Strength in Others

Although it may feel like you’re all alone in your experience, try talking to someone who has experienced a similar loss or someone whose presence is a source of comfort. “Sometimes a compassionate person may be a great help, even though they have not been through a similar loss,” . “The very fact that they haven’t been down that road may bring some much-needed objectivity to your dark hour.”

Don’t Get Stuck

“It’s easy to get stuck in this negative experience and all the emotions of it,” . Don’t get stuck in anger or bitterness. “Do what you need to do to help you get unstuck.” This can be different for everyone. You may find help in taking up a new hobby, getting counseling or talking to your doctor about treatment options like antidepressants. “Grief may cause you to be biochemically unbalanced, and medication may be the short-term jump-start that you need to move forward.” Another way to move forward is to focus on all the reasons you need to return to being the person you were before the loss. Beware: if you’ve had an addiction in the past, make sure you don’t turn to that narcotic as a source of soothing.

Recognize that Time is Infinite

“There’s wisdom in that old saying about living every day as though it were your last,” . That doesn’t mean you should go out and be reckless, but rather recognize that the unexpected can happen to you. Nurture the relationships with the ones you love. “You have to see time as a currency that you need to spend now, not wait for a day that may never come.” You are not here forever, and neither is anybody you love.

Create Value from This Experience

Take the time to ask yourself what you’ve learned from going through this experience. “There is value in all experiences; it just may take a closer look or a little time to see what it is,” .

Think about How You Will Prepare for Your Own Death

It is hard to have a family discussion about death, but it is a necessity. Be sure to have the talk with other family members when it is a calm time. Prepare financially for your exit from this world, and prepare your children for life when you’re gone. For example, you can make videos for your kids, sharing your advice about life, and what your hopes and dreams are for them.

Celebrate Life

“It’s a tragic injustice if all you do is focus on the day you lost your loved one, or their illness, accident or death,” . Not only is it painful, it doesn’t help you heal or move on. “You can and need to mourn their passing, but don’t do that to the exclusion of celebrating their life.” Remember, life doesn’t stop just because that person is not alive. Ask yourself if your loved one would really want you to stop your life because they’re no longer alive.

“The past is over, and the future hasn’t happened yet. Adopt an attitude that says, ‘The only time is now: I need to live in the moment,’

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived Articles : Dr. McGraw

312-972-WELL ( 9355)