Archive for Influenza

May
11

Our Government was Swindled by Tamiflu and Roche

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off
Tamiflu scandal

Photo courtesy of https://www.flickr.com/photos/rubyblossom/

It all starts with fear. When it comes to health, we are not ruled by science and wise financial decisions. When it comes to the flu, apparently it is not just the general public that gets manipulated, but the manipulating government itself.

I’m not usually one to scream about government conspiracies and control, but when it comes to influenza, this isn’t too far from the truth. Every single year, we gear up the resources to get the general public to get vaccinated for the flu. At the tune of millions of dollars just for the advertising alone. And that is what it is. It is NOT public health.

When asked, the average US citizen would mistakenly say that tens of thousands of people die every year in the US from the flu and children are plentiful among the victims. However, as I have written about in previous blog articles that can be read by clicking here, this just is patently not true. The numbers are far less scary (under 50 children per year). Worse, other measures to combat influenza infection, like vitamin D, probiotics, exercise and a good quality diet, are never disseminated along with flu shot propaganda.

But, lest you think that the general public is the only one susceptible to this propaganda, the government pushing the flu vaccination was led on a wild goose chase as well when it came to the purchase of mass amounts of the drug class known as the neuraminidase inhibitors. Specifically the one sold by Roche with the brand name Tamiflu (osteltamivir).

All this occurred in the aftermath of the ramped up fear over the H1N1 global catastrophe that never occurred.

Heck—there’s a good chance that your doctor wrote you a prescription for Tamiflu if you had flu-like symptoms, under the belief that, when given early in the course of the flu it could shorten the course of the illness.

At least, that’s the line everyone was given by Roche.

If it weren’t for a particularly astute researcher with the Cochrane Collaboration, Tom Jefferson (and no—not the President one), that was alerted to the fact that Roche may have been hiding data on Tamiflu that was not given to the Cochrane Collaboration at the time of a large review on Tamiflu.

By this time, however, governments around the world were stockpiling Tamiflu in massive doses, generating $18 BILLION in sales since 1999. Some of the bigger purchasers were:

  • The US stockpiled 65 million treatments for a cost of $1.3 billion.
  • The UK spent some 712 million on a stockpile of 40 million doses.
  • By 2009, 96 countries had enough Tamiflu for 350 million people.
  • Over this same timeframe, GlaxoSmithKline’s Relenza (zanamivir) only generated a paltry $2 billion (and what company can survive on that?)

Because of the concern over hidden data, Tom Jefferson backed by the Cochrane Collaboration and the British Medical Journal began a 5 year process of constant pressure on Roche to release all the data they had on Tamiflu.

One would think that, if it took 5 years of heavy pressure to release the data, that Roche was hiding something. Turns out they were. In this issue of the British Medical Journal Roche’s full data set was evaluated by the Cochrane Team. And guess what?

When the data was looked at in total, the benefits of Tamiflu did not exceed the harms. In general, a long list of side effects on one side was not counterbalanced by 16.8 hours less of the flu in adults. That’s just a wee bit more than half a day.

The side effects were far more common and included headaches, nausea and vomiting and psychiatric episodes.

TWENTY BILLION in sales for a drug that did not have the data behind it to support this massive global spending. Here’s the real kicker: if you think this is an isolated example of a drug company hiding data to preserve massive profits, then I’ve got proverbial beachfront property in Arizona for you.

 

Categories : Influenza
Comments Comments Off

 

vitamin D to fight infection

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissambwilkins/

Before we answer to question of how much, we should probably look at whether or not vitamin D can help with infections in the first place.

While vitamin D supplementation has been attributed to any number of health effects, there are a few situation where vitamin D seems to shine. This includes long term (10 years or more) risk of cancer, vascular health (heart disease, stroke, dementia) and immune balance. Vitamin D has also been shown in multiple studies to help with respiratory issues (pneumonia, influenza, asthma), but I’m not sure if the benefit is from an actual effect on the respiratory system, or indirectly from vitamin D’s immune effects. Either way, vitamin D has a pretty solid acceptance to support and balance immune function.

This aspect I find interesting, because every flu season there is a massive, expensive push to get every breathing person vaccinated for influenza, but never is there a mention about how to support the immune system through interventions such as vitamin D supplementation.

Doctors think they are doing the right thing by checking patients’ vitamin D levels. There are three problems with this:

  1. Very, very few patients are at optimal levels (60-100 ng/ml).
  2. Testing, when insurance is billed, is expensive.
  3. Even when patients come back deficient, doctors rarely know how much vitamin D to give and what the best forms to give are.

Between these three, we are wasting money testing patients who have a very high likelihood of being less than optimal and when we spend the money to confirm it, we’re not fixing it correctly. No wonder healthcare is so expensive.

Basically, checking vitamin D levels is getting into the realm of functional medicine (much like checking testosterone). I feel very strongly that no doctor should be checking these values unless they fully understand to nuances that go along with functional testing. Consider the mess we’ve gotten into with testosterone, another lab value that I have had more and more patients come in who have had it tested by his or her primary care doctor. Patients who have low testosterone are given some form of testosterone (injections, cream, pills, pellets) rather than fixing the problem in the first place.

But I digress.

Back to this particular study looking at vitamin D’s ability to lower the need for an antibiotic prescription in a group of 644 Australian residents aged 60–84 years of age who were given monthly doses of a placebo or 30,000 IU of vitamin D3 (1,000 / day) or 60,000 IU D3 (2,000 / day) for up to a year. Here’s what the researchers found:

  • Those taking 60,000 IU were 28% less likely to have had antibiotics prescribed.
  • Specifically, in subjects old than 70 years of age, this group was 47% less likely.
  • In those aged 60-70, they werere only 7% less likely.

When you consider that the senior population, who are the most likely to suffer complications from influenza, benefit the least from the influenza vaccination, it makes the findings of this study even more important.

One last note—2,000 IU / week of vitamin D is still a very low level. This is the dosage I start patients on who already get decent sun exposure and little risk of chronic disease. Makes you wonder how much more powerful the study would have been at levels of 4,000 or 6,000 IU per day.

 

Categories : Influenza, Vitamin D
Comments Comments Off

Fatty acid composition and measures of immune cell function.

With so much worry out today about the SARS virus and the flu and West Nile Virus we are looking for emergency cures when we seem to forget that a healthy lifestyle is still one of our most powerful tools in the battle against foreign invaders. In this study, the researchers found markers of effectiveness of immune cells were reduced with saturated and with high omega-6 to omega-3 ratios.

AJCN — Abstracts: Kew et al. 77 (5): 1278

Click here for more information.

Categories : Influenza
Comments Comments Off
Nov
14

Timing of Vaccination–Your Doctor Knows Best, Right??

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off

 

delayed vaccination schedule

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/proimos/

Let’s get something out of the way right now.  The immune system in an infant is malleable and very susceptible to influence up until about 2 years of age.

This can be good or bad.

Good if it’s the right choices.  Breast feeding until at least 6 months.  Vaginal birth or at least not a planned C-section (it seems like the induction of labor, whether delivered by the vaginal route or C-section, is an important determining event).  Exposure to the right blend of bacteria through breast milk and / or supplementation.

Bad if it’s introduction of solid foods (especially grains) before 6 months of age.  Bad if we rely on dairy products.  EXTREMELY bad if antibiotics are used in the first 2 years of life.  Processed food choices.  Tylenol is not good for the developing immune system.  Bad if it’s vaccination before 2 years of age.

What??  Vaccination??  But we recommend some 25 vaccinations (not counting the flu vaccine) before the baby is 2 years old, so this can’t be correct.

It’s a dirty little secret that is never mentioned by your pediatrician.  Worse, if you asked, they might give you the blank stare of a doctor who hasn’t cracked a medical journal since med school.

In general, the goal of a vaccine is to stimulate an immune response.  Since the thing vaccinated against (such as a bacteria or virus) is usually not strong enough to wake up the immune system, vaccine manufacturers use what is called an adjuvant.  Most commonly the compound alum is used, and alum is well-known to elicit a Th2 response by the body.

“What’s a Th2 response?” you ask?  In general, the immune system has two arms–the guard dogs (Th2) and the attack dogs (Th1).  We need a healthy balance between the two.  Throwing this balance off kilter can lead to diseases like allergies, asthma and autoimmune conditions, and the first two years of life are absolutely critical to developing this balance.  This is why all the factors, both pro and con, noted above are so critical.  They all play a role in programming your little one for his or her immune future.

Back to alum.  It is a chemical used in vaccines to force your immune system to react more aggressively to whatever the vaccine is trying to protect against.  This creates a Th2 shift in the immune system–it’s what it is supposed to do.  The problem is that this throws off the balance of a developing immune system.  Couple this with wanton antibiotic use and you’ve got the perfect recipe for allergies and asthma.

This is the little tidbit pediatricians never seem to bring up when a parent questions the wisdom of vaccinations.

So what does all of this have to do with this particular study?  In it, researchers looked at a measles outbreak that occurred in a high school in Canada to see if the timing of the two doses of measles vaccination had any impact on the child’s risk of getting the measles.  The results may be a little shocking:

  1. There were 102 cases and these were matched to 510 controls.
  2. Most of the cases (89%) were in patients 13 to 17 years old.
  3. If that child had his or her first measles vaccination at 12 to 13 months (current CDC recommendations) instead of after 15 months of age, the risk of measles was 6 times higher.

Six times higher.  And I have heard some suggesting that we delay certain vaccinations for the reasons noted above.  These vocal people suggesting delay are usually slammed by other commenters on message boards that there is no evidence that delaying vaccinations is a good idea.  Apparently these commenters are not reading pediatric medical journals like this one.

Overall, this clearly goes back to messing with the immune system at a critical time in its development.  Always remember that the first 2 years are critical.  Do everything you can in this timeframe to NOT mess with the immune system.  Let Mother Nature do what she is supposed to do and don’t think you can second-guess her wisdom.

 

Comments Comments Off
Nov
13

Lock Your Children in a Bubble–Flu Season is Here

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off
flu vaccination for kids

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/wonderal/

Being a parent, there are few things that hurt me as deeply as someone losing a child.  But to use this to scare the population into flu vaccination infuriates me.

Every fall begins the push by the drug companies and the vaccine manufacturers to get vaccinated for influenza.  These efforts are supported by doctors, pharmacists and the gas stations (ok..so maybe not the gas stations yet, but just you wait…).  And fear is behind it all.  Fear of getting the flu, fear of getting sick, fear of being out of work and fear of death.  Especially in a child, because we know that children die of the flu.  But if you knew the real numbers you’d be sick over how much we’ve been played.

But first, we need to identify just how effective the flu vaccination is.  I have covered this topic many times in the past, but one of the strongest articles can be found by clicking here.  Here is the summary from that post:

  • The greatest risk of influenza complications occur in the elderly and yet there is almost no evidence that available vaccines work in the group we really need it to work in.
  • Healthy adults showed strong evidence ONLY for the dead virus vaccine, but, in general, this group is the least likely to suffer complications.
  • The only group that showed high protection was 6 months to 7 years using the live vaccine (the nasal spray) , but this type is only licensed here in the US from 2 years on and is not commonly used.

With this in mind, we need to look at this particular article, which is directly from the CDC’s numbers.  Researchers looked at the number of influenza-related deaths in children (under 18 years of age) over the course of 8 years (2004-2012).  Here are the details:

  1.  There were 830 pediatric influenza–associated deaths (104 per year), and the average age was 7 years old.
  2. 35% of children never made it to a hospital.
  3. 43% had no high-risk medical conditions (about 45 per year).
  4. Surprisingly, children without high-risk medical conditions were more 90% likely to die before hospital admission.  This may be due to a secondary bacterial infection, which was found to be very common.

I will again note that ANY childhood death is awful.  But to put our efforts and money into a disease that takes 45 children per year and we don’t really have a good way to protect is almost as sinful as the loss of these children.

What if the energy went, instead, to educating about refined carbohydrates?  Ensuring adequate levels of vitamin D?  The massive danger of antibiotics in children, especially infants?  The return on investment would dwarf that associated with influenza vaccination.  It’s frustrating.  In Arizona alone in 2011, 33 children died as a result of being improperly restrained in a car seat during an accident.  We could buy a car seat for every parent and save more lives at a cost of millions of dollars less and not side effects.

 

Categories : Influenza
Comments Comments Off

Nutrient deficiency allows viral infection

Not that this is rocket science…a person with poor nutritional status is more likely to suffer effects of a viral infection. Do we really need a vaccine for the flu?? How about taking better care of ourselves?

Read entire article here

Categories : Influenza, vaccination
Comments Comments Off

Return of Haemophilus influenzae type b infections

It still amazes me how blindly the vast majority hop in line for vaccinations regardless or type or need. Everyone assumes that vaccinations are completely safe, and, furthermore, fully effective. Here the author suggests that the use of HIB vaccines may be setting the stage for more severe and frequent outbreaks in the future.

Read entire article here

Categories : Influenza, vaccination
Comments Comments Off

 

influenza vaccine effectiveness

Photo courtesy of http://www.sxc.hu/profile/zeathiel

The flu shot.  Influenza vaccine effectiveness.  Doesn’t matter what you call it, it is the center of controversy.  There are the opponents, and then there is seemingly every public health recommendation and forced mandatory vaccination in many hospitals across the country.

If all the public health officials and departments as well as the hospitals are pushing it so hard, everyone else has to be delusional, right?

Count me in the delusional group.  It is not that influenza cannot be dangerous; it certainly can.  But the number of deaths associated with influenza is far, far fewer than most realize and the government proposes.

Given that I’m a self-proclaimed research junkie and that influenza vaccination effectiveness is always on my watch list, what does the research actually say about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine?

The single most recent and comprehensive review I have come across was the subject of a massive review funded by the federal government that was published in December of 2012 (I reviewed this review back in December and that can be read by clicking here),  Here is a summary of the results:

  • The greatest risk of influenza complications occur in the elderly.  That means that there is very little evidence that either vaccine works in the group we really need it to work in.
  • Healthy adults showed strong evidence ONLY for the dead virus vaccine, but, in general, this group is the least likely to suffer complications.
  • The only group that showed high protection was 6 months to 7 years for the live vaccine, but the live vaccine (LAIV) is only licensed here in the US from 2 years on.

Let’s put the risks into perspective.  In 2003-04, according to the CDC’s own numbers, 42 children died of the flu.  40% of these had underlying chronic conditions that adversely affected their health.  You can read this info in a previous block post by clicking here.

Taking all of this together, can anyone actually tell me just why any hospital should have mandatory vaccination???

There is an underlying movement to bring medical back from the brink of chaos.  A movement to restore the concept of “first do no harm.”  The esteemed British Medical Journal has created the “Too Much Medicine” campaign to take a hard look at how much we have created diseases in an attempt to medicate them.

This particular review is part of this process and shines the bright light on our world’s obsession with the influenza vaccination despite paltry results at best.  Remember this next time your doctor suggests that flu jab.

Categories : Influenza
Comments Comments Off

Expansion of Eligibility for Influenza Vaccine for Children’s Program

I’m sorry, but the arrogance of medicine never ceases to amaze me. For the entire history of man, our immune systems, with complexity and wisdom modern science can only dream about, have dealt with countless assaults by viruses, bacteria and foreign chemicals. But now we feel that this is not good enough–we have to immunize everyone whether they are at “risk” or not. Thank you…I feel much better having vented…

Notice to Readers: Expansion of Eligibility for Influenza Vaccine Through the Vaccines for Children Program.

Read entire article here

Categories : Influenza, vaccination
Comments Comments Off
Dec
31

Flu Vaccine 2012-13: Does it Work?

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off

 flu vaccine 2012

It’s flu season Again. Time to run out and get your flu vaccine 2012-13 version before you too become infected. Everyone’s doing it, but does it work?

As a result of the near universal recommendation from your physician and the seemingly endless barrage of advertisements on the radio, TV and print media, you decide that the influenza vaccination must be effective.

As you reach for the car keys to run to your nearest drug store for your life saving vaccination, thoughts run through your head of smoking promotion for health (yes–for many years we denied the evidence that smoking was harmful), ineffective and even dangerous hormone replacement therapy for women and the marketing ploy that suggests that milk does a body good.

Is marketing and scare tactics running cover for an ineffective flu vaccine?

In case you haven’t been convinced by the evidence I have presented in previous blog posts that can be found here, you may want to pay attention here.

This particular report commissioned by the Federal Government at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy is described as one of the largest ever reviews of the influenza vaccination and the politics, recommendations and effectiveness surrounding it. I will not go into the specific details (they are available in the report), but just take my word for it that the undertaking was nothing short of massive.

The findings of the committee may be a little surprising to some.  The committee looked at the evidence for both types of vaccines in use. The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) uses a dead virus, while the live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV-aka Flumist) uses a weakened, but still alive, virus.  The TIV is given via injection while the LAIV is given as an intra-nasal injection.  Since the LAIV is still alive, it has the potential to cause the flu in those with weakened immune systems.

With this in mind, here is what the committee found for TIV:

  1. Moderate protection (about 59%) for healthy adults 18 to 64 years of age.
  2. Inconsistent evidence of protection in children age 2 to 17 years.
  3. Almost no evidence for protection in adults 65 years of age and older

For LAIV, the results weren’t too much better:

  1. High protection (about 83%) for young children 6 months to 7 years of age.
  2. Inconsistent evidence of protection in adults 60 years of age and older.
  3. No evidence for protection in individuals between 8 and 59 years of age.

The bottom line needs to be summed up in a short list:

  • The greatest risk of influenza complications occur in the elderly.  That means that there is very little evidence that either vaccine works in the group we really need it to work in (Tweet this).
  • Healthy adults showed strong evidence ONLY for TIV, but, in general, this group is the least likely to suffer complications.
  • The only group that showed high protection was 6 months to 7 years, but LAIV is only licensed here in the US from 2 years on.

Despite the strong push to vaccinate our children despite the weak evidence, few pediatricians will share the evidence on probiotics, vitamin D or green tea on lowering the risk of upper respiratory tract infections in children, all of which I have reviewed in previous blog posts that can be read here.

Overall, does this sound like the evidence is there to back up the massive push our country makes every single year for influence vaccination?

 

Categories : Influenza
Comments Comments Off
Lifecare Chiropractic • 1830 S. Alma School Rd • Bldg 7, Ste 135 • Mesa, AZ 85210 • 480-839-2273SitemapRSSDisclosures