/24-7/ -- On May 1, 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release urging consumers to stop using 14 varieties of the diet aid Hydroxycut and return unused portions to the place of purchase. The FDA also sent a letter to health care professionals stating that officials "believe [Hydroxycut] presents a serious public health risk." In response, the manufacturer of Hydroxycut, Iovate Health Sciences, Inc., decided to issue a voluntary recall of all products named by the FDA. But just how dangerous is Hydroxycut, really? Was the FDA justified in its action, or is this an overhasty response to a minor health concern.
About Hydroxycut Injuries
The main rationale for the FDA's action regarding Hydroxycut is liver damage. In some patients it seems to create acute liver toxicity that required hospitalization in more than 2/3 of the reported cases, and required liver transplants for two of them. One of the patients was deemed unsuitable for a liver transplant because of significant damage to other organs. This patient, a 17-year old male, had taken an elevated dose of Hydroxycut, and died after the decision was made not to pursue the liver transplant.
In addition to liver damage, the FDA determined that a number of serious illnesses have been associated with Hydroxycut use, including cardiovascular injury, seizures, and severe muscle damage known as rhabdomyolysis.
The Numbers of Hydroxycut Injuries
In its press releases and statements, the FDA claims there have been 23 cases of confirmed liver damage resulting from the use of Hydroxycut. The cases appeared over a seven year period. With millions of bottles of Hydroxycut being sold every year, the number of injuries may seem very small, making many believe that FDA's statement and subsequent recall is something of an overreaction.
The Rationale for the Hydroxycut Action
Hydroxycut seems to cause what is known as idiosyncratic liver toxicity, a condition which is inherently very rare. The toxic reaction occurs in less than 10 people per 100,000, and often in less than 1 per 100,000. Although toxic reactions are rare, idiosyncratic liver toxicity is the most common form of drug-induced liver toxicity because it is unpredictable, generally undetected in clinical trials, and often occurs with only recommended doses of a drug.
In addition, the FDA did not know what ingredient of Hydroxycut was responsible for the liver toxicity. It did not know whether liver toxicity was the result of a biologic extract or a heavy metal. It did not even know whether the toxicity may have been the result of contaminated or badly blended pills. Reports of liver damage have been associated with Hydroxycut since its introduction, but it was believed at first that the ingredient ephedra, associated with seizure, cardiovascular damage, and other adverse health effects, was responsible for the damage. But Hydroxycut has been ephedra-free since the ingredient was banned in 2004, and reports of liver damage have continued.
Because of all the unknowns, the FDA could not issue a specific caution that would identify users with an elevated risk from Hydroxycut and thereby reduce future cases of liver toxicity. The only way the FDA could protect users was to ask them to stop using Hydroxycut, a request that will likely stay in effect until a causative agent can be identified.
So, How Dangerous Is Hydroxycut?
We're back to the place we started then, with the question of how dangerous is this diet aid? The answer is: no-one knows. The FDA's action is designed to stop more people from suffering adverse, potentially deadly reactions to Hydroxycut while the agency and the manufacturer of the supplement determine what is the cause. Once the ingredient responsible has been identified, we can expect Hydroxycut to return to the market either reformulated or with specific warnings that may help users make informed decisions about whether a diet supplement with no proven effectiveness is worth the potential risk.
If you would like to learn more about Hydroxycut or other dangerous drugs, visit the website of pharmaceutical injury law firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton today.
Source: Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
-----
Please research all information and any organization prior to donating or contacting. The Georgia Front Page and the Fayette Front Page share information as provided from a variety of sources. We do not necessarily support, endorse or research the legitimacy of the various organization's information prior to including. We can not be held responsible for the reliability of the information or outcomes if you choose to donate or follow up with the organization (s).
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Follow on Twitter @GAFrontPage
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
'Hidden Health Tax' for Family Health Care Coverage Climbed to $1,017 in 2008
TT Note: Just another glimpse into the small print of taxes we pay everyday. It's just not called a tax.
/PRNewswire / -- The so-called "hidden health tax" for family health care coverage grew to $1,017 in 2008 according to a report released today by the consumer health organization Families USA.
The hidden health tax is the undisclosed insurance premium surcharge, paid by America's businesses and insured families, when they purchase health insurance. That surcharge subsidizes the uncompensated health care costs of the uninsured.
"As more people join the ranks of the uninsured, the hidden health tax is growing," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "That tax hits America's businesses and insured families hard in the pocketbook, and they therefore have a clear financial stake in expanding health care coverage as part of health reform."
"Reforming our health care system is not just a moral imperative -- it's an economic necessity," said Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "Today 46 million uninsured Americans turn to emergency rooms when they need medical care and the cost of that care is paid for by every American with insurance. As this report shows, that hidden tax will only continue to grow unless we do something about it. That's why I'm committed to passing comprehensive health care reform this year. We must repeal this hidden tax and lift the burden from American families and businesses by ensuring quality, affordable health care for all Americans."
Families USA contracted with Milliman, Inc., a well-respected, independent actuarial consulting firm, to array and analyze the data for the report.
According to the Families USA report, "uninsured people are less likely to get the care they need when they need it, and they are more likely to delay seeking care as long as possible." When they do receive care, it is paid for in several ways:
-- More than one-third (37 percent) of that care is paid by the uninsured
themselves out of their own pockets;
-- Third-party sources, such as government programs and charities, paid
for another 26 percent of that care; and
-- The remaining amount, approximately $42.7 billion in 2008, is
considered uncompensated care; those costs are shifted onto the health
care bills of insured people, ultimately resulting in the hidden
health tax through higher premiums.
Based on the Milliman, Inc. data, the uncompensated care cost in 2008 across the insured, non-Medicare, non-Medicaid population was $1,017 per insured family and $368 per insured single person.
Based on a previous Families USA report about the hidden health tax in 2005 -- using the same federal data sources used by Milliman, Inc. but arrayed by Dr. Kenneth Thorpe, Professor and Chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Emory University -- the hidden health tax has grown: for family health coverage it grew from $922 to $1,017 and for individual coverage it grew from $341 to $368.
"Due to the economic downturn, more and more people are losing their jobs and their health care coverage," said Pollack. "As a result, it is highly likely that the hidden health tax for 2009, which is not yet known, will be considerably higher than the $1,017 amount experienced in 2008."
"This new Families USA report shows why all Americans will benefit from health care reform and should push stakeholders to make health insurance work for everyone as soon as possible," said Ronald A. Williams, Chairman and CEO of Aetna Inc. "Covering the uninsured will lighten the burden of the hidden tax on those who have coverage today," he continued. "While doing so, we also must focus on other reforms to improve value and quality in health care."
"This research shows that the market in which we buy our healthcare is filled with cross-subsidies, making it dysfunctional and unsustainable," said Dan Danner, president and CEO, National Federation of Independent Business. "Until individuals understand how much they are really paying for their healthcare, costs cannot be brought under control. Until costs are addressed, we will continue to struggle with coverage."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire / -- The so-called "hidden health tax" for family health care coverage grew to $1,017 in 2008 according to a report released today by the consumer health organization Families USA.
The hidden health tax is the undisclosed insurance premium surcharge, paid by America's businesses and insured families, when they purchase health insurance. That surcharge subsidizes the uncompensated health care costs of the uninsured.
"As more people join the ranks of the uninsured, the hidden health tax is growing," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "That tax hits America's businesses and insured families hard in the pocketbook, and they therefore have a clear financial stake in expanding health care coverage as part of health reform."
"Reforming our health care system is not just a moral imperative -- it's an economic necessity," said Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "Today 46 million uninsured Americans turn to emergency rooms when they need medical care and the cost of that care is paid for by every American with insurance. As this report shows, that hidden tax will only continue to grow unless we do something about it. That's why I'm committed to passing comprehensive health care reform this year. We must repeal this hidden tax and lift the burden from American families and businesses by ensuring quality, affordable health care for all Americans."
Families USA contracted with Milliman, Inc., a well-respected, independent actuarial consulting firm, to array and analyze the data for the report.
According to the Families USA report, "uninsured people are less likely to get the care they need when they need it, and they are more likely to delay seeking care as long as possible." When they do receive care, it is paid for in several ways:
-- More than one-third (37 percent) of that care is paid by the uninsured
themselves out of their own pockets;
-- Third-party sources, such as government programs and charities, paid
for another 26 percent of that care; and
-- The remaining amount, approximately $42.7 billion in 2008, is
considered uncompensated care; those costs are shifted onto the health
care bills of insured people, ultimately resulting in the hidden
health tax through higher premiums.
Based on the Milliman, Inc. data, the uncompensated care cost in 2008 across the insured, non-Medicare, non-Medicaid population was $1,017 per insured family and $368 per insured single person.
Based on a previous Families USA report about the hidden health tax in 2005 -- using the same federal data sources used by Milliman, Inc. but arrayed by Dr. Kenneth Thorpe, Professor and Chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Emory University -- the hidden health tax has grown: for family health coverage it grew from $922 to $1,017 and for individual coverage it grew from $341 to $368.
"Due to the economic downturn, more and more people are losing their jobs and their health care coverage," said Pollack. "As a result, it is highly likely that the hidden health tax for 2009, which is not yet known, will be considerably higher than the $1,017 amount experienced in 2008."
"This new Families USA report shows why all Americans will benefit from health care reform and should push stakeholders to make health insurance work for everyone as soon as possible," said Ronald A. Williams, Chairman and CEO of Aetna Inc. "Covering the uninsured will lighten the burden of the hidden tax on those who have coverage today," he continued. "While doing so, we also must focus on other reforms to improve value and quality in health care."
"This research shows that the market in which we buy our healthcare is filled with cross-subsidies, making it dysfunctional and unsustainable," said Dan Danner, president and CEO, National Federation of Independent Business. "Until individuals understand how much they are really paying for their healthcare, costs cannot be brought under control. Until costs are addressed, we will continue to struggle with coverage."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Obama's Court Nomination Validates America's Rush to Buy Firearms
TT Note: Interesting story on the newest nominee for the Supreme Court.
/PRNewswire/ -- President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court validates the concerns of millions of American citizens who have been rushing to gun shops for the past seven months, fearing their Second Amendment rights are in jeopardy, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
Judge Sotomayor was part of a Second Circuit Court panel that ruled in January that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, in Maloney v. Cuomo. That is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit opinion earlier this spring in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states, and therefore does place limits on states' ability to regulate the individual right to keep and bear arms.
"Starting literally last Nov. 4 and every day since," noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "concerned Americans, many who had never before owned a firearm, have been crowding into gun shops. Their concerns that the Obama administration may somehow try to destroy Second Amendment rights have certainly been affirmed with the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
"Sure, Congress has turned a cold shoulder to renewal of the ban on semiautomatic sporting rifles," he continued, "and the president did sign the guns-in-parks bill, but only because he had to in order to save his credit card legislation.
"But a Supreme Court justice is a president's legacy," Gottlieb observed. "Judge Sotomayor would become a justice for life, and her anti-Second Amendment position would continue affecting her decisions long after Obama is gone from the White House.
"A Supreme Court nominee's philosophy generally reflects the philosophy of the president that nominates them," Gottlieb concluded. "Judge Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama's claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service from a man who consistently argued and voted against those rights in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. American gun owners have every reason to oppose this nomination, and let their senators know why."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court validates the concerns of millions of American citizens who have been rushing to gun shops for the past seven months, fearing their Second Amendment rights are in jeopardy, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
Judge Sotomayor was part of a Second Circuit Court panel that ruled in January that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, in Maloney v. Cuomo. That is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit opinion earlier this spring in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states, and therefore does place limits on states' ability to regulate the individual right to keep and bear arms.
"Starting literally last Nov. 4 and every day since," noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "concerned Americans, many who had never before owned a firearm, have been crowding into gun shops. Their concerns that the Obama administration may somehow try to destroy Second Amendment rights have certainly been affirmed with the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
"Sure, Congress has turned a cold shoulder to renewal of the ban on semiautomatic sporting rifles," he continued, "and the president did sign the guns-in-parks bill, but only because he had to in order to save his credit card legislation.
"But a Supreme Court justice is a president's legacy," Gottlieb observed. "Judge Sotomayor would become a justice for life, and her anti-Second Amendment position would continue affecting her decisions long after Obama is gone from the White House.
"A Supreme Court nominee's philosophy generally reflects the philosophy of the president that nominates them," Gottlieb concluded. "Judge Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama's claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service from a man who consistently argued and voted against those rights in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. American gun owners have every reason to oppose this nomination, and let their senators know why."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, May 21, 2009
H1 N.......what?!!? America's Mexican "Influenza"? asks Researcher Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD
TT Note: Hold on to your flu-like symptoms, folks. This doctor looks at the flu epidemic of 1918 and some researchers' findings. When compared to today's trendy virus, there appears to be some room for debate on the current flu-like symptoms. Is it really the flu?
/24-7 / -- All that is H1N1 does not glitter, at least with respect to the tireless efforts of Virologists, Epidemiologists and Health Officials to stake claim that the current "flu-like illness" pandemic is tied to "Influenza".
"The "H" and "N" of influenza sub-typing" Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD mentions, "revolves around two glycoproteins called Hemagglutin and Neuraminidase, both of which can be, and are, associated with infectious diseases such as the minuscule, viral forms of tuberculosis, a disease which ought to be high on the differential diagnosis for 'flu-like illness' . Since August, 2008, a Medline study in the Journal of Clinical Biochemistry showed that sputum neuraminidase levels over 1.0 mU per mL were proven associated with having tuberculosis in 92% of cases, previous to which bacteria closely related to TB where shown, through crystallization, to produce the same protein neuraminidase used to subtype 'Influenza'."
Furthermore, reminded Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, "Khomenko's 1993 study, showed that the explosive contagiousness of just such influenza-like forms of tuberculosis are exactly the stuff that previous epidemics and pandemics could have been made of." Khomenko was cited by Nobel nominee Lida Mattman in her textbook prior to her untimely death last year.
"That is exactly why", reiterated Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD "that in response to the present world "flu" pandemic, Japan's Health Ministry's Tuberculosis Infection Diseases Control Division deputy director Takeshi Enami went hand in hand with Yoshio Nanba, director of The Office of Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response, to attend a news conference in Tokyo on May 1, 2009."
But back in the US, the CDC and NIH seem to feel differently, ignoring everything but "the virus". There was much the same "Influenza" talk when in 1990, a new multi-drug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis outbreak took place in a large Miami municipal hospital. Soon thereafter, similar outbreaks in three New York City hospitals left many sufferers dying within weeks. By 1992, approximately two years later, drug-resistant tuberculosis had spread to seventeen US states, with mini-epidemics in Florida, Michigan, New York, California, Texas, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania and was reported, not by the American, but the international media, as out of control. Viral forms of swine, avian and human TB can be transmitted from one species to another. By 1993 the World Health Organization (WHO), proclaimed tuberculosis a global health emergency.
"No one can deny the similarities between the onset of the 1918 epidemic and that of today," mentioned Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, "Yet a Press Release, issued on August 19, 2008, by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), contains a striking finding and conclusion: The 20 to 40 million deaths worldwide from the great 1918 Influenza ("Flu") Pandemic were NOT due to "flu" or a virus, but to pneumonia caused by massive bacterial infection."
Subsequently, a study published in JAMA by Talbot and Moore in 2000 showed that Mexican immigrants to the US have the highest case rates for tuberculosis among foreign born persons.
The research of Lawrence Broxmeyer MD first proclaimed that the 1918 pandemic was due to bacteria, particularly mutant forms of flu-like fowl, swine, bovine, and human tuberculosis (TB) bacteria. These forms of tuberculosis are often viral-like, mutate frequently and can "skip" from one species to another. Moreover the antibodies from such viral TB forms react in the compliment fixation and later "viral" assays. They also grow on cultures which are supposed to grow only viruses.
In a supportive 16-page-paper which appeared in Population and Development Review, University of California demographers Andrew Noymer and Michel Garenne came up with convincing statistics showing that undetected tuberculosis may have been the real killer in the 1918 flu epidemic.
Noymer's hypothesis stands sound against history. Few flu "experts" are aware that in medical texts printed circa 1918 "Influenza" was attributed not to a virus but a bacteria called Mycobacterium influenzae, discovered by Pfeiffer and Canon in 1892......not exactly a coincidence since Richard Pfeiffer worked, at one time, for Robert Koch, the discoverer of tuberculosis, a disease also caused by another bacillus called Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Both mycobacteria stained best with carbol-fuchsin, a bacterial stain commonly used in the staining of mycobacteria as it has an affinity for the mycolic acids found in their cell walls. Mycobacteria such as tuberculosis are particularly deadly because they share properties of the fungi ("myco-") as well as bacteria. TB was, not all that long ago, referred to as "captain of the men of death".
Mycobacterium influenzae was considered by most to be the cause of influenza until 1933. But there were serious diagnostic problems with Mycobacterium influenza. Stengel and Fox warned about them in their widely quoted W.B. Saunder's 1915 version of "A Textbook of Pathology". Problems with identification revolved mainly in that although the bacterial influenza occurred abundantly in the sputum of flu patients at first, it decreased in quantity as the cases advanced. And when purulent expectoration stopped Mycobacterium influenzae "disappears entirely".
In 1933 English physicians Wilson Smith, Christopher H. Andrewes, and Patrick P. Laidlaw removed secretions from the throat of a humans with flu-like symptoms thought to have "influenza" , and then filtered out a suspected infectious agent, which by virtue of the fact that it went through a filter was falsely proclaimed to be "a virus". Injecting it into ferrets, the ferrets then developed the same flu-like symptoms which Smith, Andrews and Laidlaw summarily declared as "influenza".
But to government pathologist and pioneer physician/researcher Sir John Crofton (1912-69 ), who by virtue of his office had examined some of Laidlaw's human "Flu" samples, Laidlaw's entire study was flawed. Crofton found Laidlaw's Flu samples to be laced with Mycobacteria influenza, which by then had been renamed Hemophyllis Influenza. Crofton personally confronted and challenged Laidlaw to come to his laboratory for the proof that his Influenza samples weren't viral. However historical and political momentum carried Laidlaw's study through and a great opportunity was missed to correct the record.
In a landmark study, Dr. Robert Donaldson, working out of the Pathological Society of Great Britain had ruled out that the mycobacteria now referred to as H. Influenza by itself was behind 1918, perhaps because of its disappearing nature. Yet at the same time he quickly added that there wasn't "the slightest shred of evidence" that the disease was due to a "virus" or influenza. Nor was Donaldson ever able to refute Broxmeyer and Noymer's feelings that TB was behind the many deaths in the pandemic, specifically because it is well known that secondary bacterial infections, be they from opportunistic Haemophillus influenza or any other common bacteria, are a common secondary manifestation in TB-infected lungs. During the pandemic, one-third of patients who had Haemophillus influenza where also found to have tuberculosis - keeping in mind, as always, that many other cases with TB went undiagnosed.
"In order to understand why we have this emphasis by those virologists invested in a 'killer flu' in the US today", said Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, "one must look back historically at the science itself."
In truth, until the late 1940s influenza 'viruses' were studied as infections, which, although filterable, were conceived of as analogous to bacteria, a kind of ultra or viral-like bacteria.
Not to be deterred, and still seeing Influenza as a great opportunity for virology, in 1941 virologist Hirst claimed that influenza ''virus'' could agglutinate (or clot) red blood cells of fowl and other animal species. The "H" in H1N1 comes to us through Hirst, who showed that ''virus'' particles first adsorbed to the red cells and, after a certain time, eluted again as a result of what could be interpreted as an enzymatic reaction. But 6 years later, Middlebrook and Dubos made this seem nothing more than a cheap hat trick by showing that similarly red blood cell agglutination could be produced by sera from patients with tuberculosis. Takahashi and Ono reviewed similar red cell agglutination occurring in the presence of tuberculous serums.
"As Influenza historian van Helvoort aptly pointed out", summed-up Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, "indeed, in the 1930s and 1940s the concept of 'filterable viruses', including Influenza, were subject to such criticism that Virology's very foundations were threatened. Dogmatized statements like those coming from pioneer virologist Andre Lwoff in 1957 : ''Viruses should be considered as viruses because viruses are viruses'' were totally unacceptable, and did little to help the situation.
So it was in 1952 that Cornelius P. Rhoads, Director of Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in New York City, remarked in a conference introduction that the term ''viruses'', such as that of Influenza, had achieved ''a high professional status with doubtful credentials''.
What we have today, mentioned Broxmeyer, is a pandemic with "flu-like" symptoms. And flu-like symptoms dosen't necessarily mean Influenza is the underlying cause.
Reference: Pubmed. Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, Bird flu, influenza and 1918: The case for mutant Avian tuberculosis. Med Hypotheses. 2006;67(5):1006-15. Epub 2006 Jun 27. http://drbroxmeyer.netfirms.com/PDF%20001%20Bird%20Flu%20Editorial.pdf
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/24-7 / -- All that is H1N1 does not glitter, at least with respect to the tireless efforts of Virologists, Epidemiologists and Health Officials to stake claim that the current "flu-like illness" pandemic is tied to "Influenza".
"The "H" and "N" of influenza sub-typing" Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD mentions, "revolves around two glycoproteins called Hemagglutin and Neuraminidase, both of which can be, and are, associated with infectious diseases such as the minuscule, viral forms of tuberculosis, a disease which ought to be high on the differential diagnosis for 'flu-like illness' . Since August, 2008, a Medline study in the Journal of Clinical Biochemistry showed that sputum neuraminidase levels over 1.0 mU per mL were proven associated with having tuberculosis in 92% of cases, previous to which bacteria closely related to TB where shown, through crystallization, to produce the same protein neuraminidase used to subtype 'Influenza'."
Furthermore, reminded Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, "Khomenko's 1993 study, showed that the explosive contagiousness of just such influenza-like forms of tuberculosis are exactly the stuff that previous epidemics and pandemics could have been made of." Khomenko was cited by Nobel nominee Lida Mattman in her textbook prior to her untimely death last year.
"That is exactly why", reiterated Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD "that in response to the present world "flu" pandemic, Japan's Health Ministry's Tuberculosis Infection Diseases Control Division deputy director Takeshi Enami went hand in hand with Yoshio Nanba, director of The Office of Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response, to attend a news conference in Tokyo on May 1, 2009."
But back in the US, the CDC and NIH seem to feel differently, ignoring everything but "the virus". There was much the same "Influenza" talk when in 1990, a new multi-drug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis outbreak took place in a large Miami municipal hospital. Soon thereafter, similar outbreaks in three New York City hospitals left many sufferers dying within weeks. By 1992, approximately two years later, drug-resistant tuberculosis had spread to seventeen US states, with mini-epidemics in Florida, Michigan, New York, California, Texas, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania and was reported, not by the American, but the international media, as out of control. Viral forms of swine, avian and human TB can be transmitted from one species to another. By 1993 the World Health Organization (WHO), proclaimed tuberculosis a global health emergency.
"No one can deny the similarities between the onset of the 1918 epidemic and that of today," mentioned Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, "Yet a Press Release, issued on August 19, 2008, by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), contains a striking finding and conclusion: The 20 to 40 million deaths worldwide from the great 1918 Influenza ("Flu") Pandemic were NOT due to "flu" or a virus, but to pneumonia caused by massive bacterial infection."
Subsequently, a study published in JAMA by Talbot and Moore in 2000 showed that Mexican immigrants to the US have the highest case rates for tuberculosis among foreign born persons.
The research of Lawrence Broxmeyer MD first proclaimed that the 1918 pandemic was due to bacteria, particularly mutant forms of flu-like fowl, swine, bovine, and human tuberculosis (TB) bacteria. These forms of tuberculosis are often viral-like, mutate frequently and can "skip" from one species to another. Moreover the antibodies from such viral TB forms react in the compliment fixation and later "viral" assays. They also grow on cultures which are supposed to grow only viruses.
In a supportive 16-page-paper which appeared in Population and Development Review, University of California demographers Andrew Noymer and Michel Garenne came up with convincing statistics showing that undetected tuberculosis may have been the real killer in the 1918 flu epidemic.
Noymer's hypothesis stands sound against history. Few flu "experts" are aware that in medical texts printed circa 1918 "Influenza" was attributed not to a virus but a bacteria called Mycobacterium influenzae, discovered by Pfeiffer and Canon in 1892......not exactly a coincidence since Richard Pfeiffer worked, at one time, for Robert Koch, the discoverer of tuberculosis, a disease also caused by another bacillus called Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Both mycobacteria stained best with carbol-fuchsin, a bacterial stain commonly used in the staining of mycobacteria as it has an affinity for the mycolic acids found in their cell walls. Mycobacteria such as tuberculosis are particularly deadly because they share properties of the fungi ("myco-") as well as bacteria. TB was, not all that long ago, referred to as "captain of the men of death".
Mycobacterium influenzae was considered by most to be the cause of influenza until 1933. But there were serious diagnostic problems with Mycobacterium influenza. Stengel and Fox warned about them in their widely quoted W.B. Saunder's 1915 version of "A Textbook of Pathology". Problems with identification revolved mainly in that although the bacterial influenza occurred abundantly in the sputum of flu patients at first, it decreased in quantity as the cases advanced. And when purulent expectoration stopped Mycobacterium influenzae "disappears entirely".
In 1933 English physicians Wilson Smith, Christopher H. Andrewes, and Patrick P. Laidlaw removed secretions from the throat of a humans with flu-like symptoms thought to have "influenza" , and then filtered out a suspected infectious agent, which by virtue of the fact that it went through a filter was falsely proclaimed to be "a virus". Injecting it into ferrets, the ferrets then developed the same flu-like symptoms which Smith, Andrews and Laidlaw summarily declared as "influenza".
But to government pathologist and pioneer physician/researcher Sir John Crofton (1912-69 ), who by virtue of his office had examined some of Laidlaw's human "Flu" samples, Laidlaw's entire study was flawed. Crofton found Laidlaw's Flu samples to be laced with Mycobacteria influenza, which by then had been renamed Hemophyllis Influenza. Crofton personally confronted and challenged Laidlaw to come to his laboratory for the proof that his Influenza samples weren't viral. However historical and political momentum carried Laidlaw's study through and a great opportunity was missed to correct the record.
In a landmark study, Dr. Robert Donaldson, working out of the Pathological Society of Great Britain had ruled out that the mycobacteria now referred to as H. Influenza by itself was behind 1918, perhaps because of its disappearing nature. Yet at the same time he quickly added that there wasn't "the slightest shred of evidence" that the disease was due to a "virus" or influenza. Nor was Donaldson ever able to refute Broxmeyer and Noymer's feelings that TB was behind the many deaths in the pandemic, specifically because it is well known that secondary bacterial infections, be they from opportunistic Haemophillus influenza or any other common bacteria, are a common secondary manifestation in TB-infected lungs. During the pandemic, one-third of patients who had Haemophillus influenza where also found to have tuberculosis - keeping in mind, as always, that many other cases with TB went undiagnosed.
"In order to understand why we have this emphasis by those virologists invested in a 'killer flu' in the US today", said Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, "one must look back historically at the science itself."
In truth, until the late 1940s influenza 'viruses' were studied as infections, which, although filterable, were conceived of as analogous to bacteria, a kind of ultra or viral-like bacteria.
Not to be deterred, and still seeing Influenza as a great opportunity for virology, in 1941 virologist Hirst claimed that influenza ''virus'' could agglutinate (or clot) red blood cells of fowl and other animal species. The "H" in H1N1 comes to us through Hirst, who showed that ''virus'' particles first adsorbed to the red cells and, after a certain time, eluted again as a result of what could be interpreted as an enzymatic reaction. But 6 years later, Middlebrook and Dubos made this seem nothing more than a cheap hat trick by showing that similarly red blood cell agglutination could be produced by sera from patients with tuberculosis. Takahashi and Ono reviewed similar red cell agglutination occurring in the presence of tuberculous serums.
"As Influenza historian van Helvoort aptly pointed out", summed-up Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, "indeed, in the 1930s and 1940s the concept of 'filterable viruses', including Influenza, were subject to such criticism that Virology's very foundations were threatened. Dogmatized statements like those coming from pioneer virologist Andre Lwoff in 1957 : ''Viruses should be considered as viruses because viruses are viruses'' were totally unacceptable, and did little to help the situation.
So it was in 1952 that Cornelius P. Rhoads, Director of Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in New York City, remarked in a conference introduction that the term ''viruses'', such as that of Influenza, had achieved ''a high professional status with doubtful credentials''.
What we have today, mentioned Broxmeyer, is a pandemic with "flu-like" symptoms. And flu-like symptoms dosen't necessarily mean Influenza is the underlying cause.
Reference: Pubmed. Lawrence Broxmeyer MD, Bird flu, influenza and 1918: The case for mutant Avian tuberculosis. Med Hypotheses. 2006;67(5):1006-15. Epub 2006 Jun 27. http://drbroxmeyer.netfirms.com/PDF%20001%20Bird%20Flu%20Editorial.pdf
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
New Federal Stem Cell Rules Would Hinder Existing Research, Consumer Group Warns
TT Note: Another fine example of the changes made in policy over the last 3 months or so. Help one group. Destroy another. This seems to be the rule of the land these days.
Stem cell research does have some great potential. Why not let the earlier approved lines continue their research?
/PRNewswire / -- -- Regulations governing stem cell research proposed by the Obama Administration -- unless modified before final implementation on July 1 -- prohibit federal funding of important research that had received funding under the Bush Administration, Consumer Watchdog said today. The nonpartisan, nonprofit group called on the National Institutes of Health to change the draft regulations.
On March 9, President Obama signed an executive order intended to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. As part of the order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were directed to develop regulations "to help ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law."
"Most of us were heartened when President Obama lifted Bush Administration restrictions on funding stem cell research, but the perverse effect of these proposed NIH rules is that the limited research scientists were able to conduct under Bush will now be ineligible for federal funding," said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Stem Cell Project Director. "Certainly this is not what President Obama intended and the regulations must be modified."
Bush allowed the NIH to fund research on embryonic stem cell lines that were derived before 9 pm, Aug. 9, 2001. In practice there were about 20 lines that were available to scientists that qualified for federal money. Embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to develop into virtually any cell in the body, are derived from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and would otherwise be destroyed.
The Bush approved stem cell lines were derived before the proposed NIH rules and do not meet some of their specific technical standards. In addition some stem cell lines derived with state or private funding or in other countries since 2001 don't meet some of the technical specifications of the proposed NIH rules.
For instance, under the new NIH guidelines donors would have to be told that the embryos would be used for stem cell research. When some of the earlier lines were derived, donors were told more generically that the embryos would be used for research. The new regulations call for an explicit statement that the results of using the human embryonic stem cells may have commercial potential and that the donor would not receive any financial benefit from such commercial development. They also would have to be told that the stem cell lines derived from the donated embryos might be maintained for many years.
"The NIH guidelines set the highest standards and make sense going forward," said Simpson. "However the earlier lines were derived under Institutional Review Board (IRB) supervision, following ethical guidelines then in place, suggested by such organizations as the National Academies of Science, or covered by state regulations like those of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. It would be wrong to preclude them from federal funding going forward. You can't hold someone to standards that didn't exist when these lines were derived in good faith according to then existing standards."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Stem cell research does have some great potential. Why not let the earlier approved lines continue their research?
/PRNewswire / -- -- Regulations governing stem cell research proposed by the Obama Administration -- unless modified before final implementation on July 1 -- prohibit federal funding of important research that had received funding under the Bush Administration, Consumer Watchdog said today. The nonpartisan, nonprofit group called on the National Institutes of Health to change the draft regulations.
On March 9, President Obama signed an executive order intended to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. As part of the order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were directed to develop regulations "to help ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law."
"Most of us were heartened when President Obama lifted Bush Administration restrictions on funding stem cell research, but the perverse effect of these proposed NIH rules is that the limited research scientists were able to conduct under Bush will now be ineligible for federal funding," said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Stem Cell Project Director. "Certainly this is not what President Obama intended and the regulations must be modified."
Bush allowed the NIH to fund research on embryonic stem cell lines that were derived before 9 pm, Aug. 9, 2001. In practice there were about 20 lines that were available to scientists that qualified for federal money. Embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to develop into virtually any cell in the body, are derived from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and would otherwise be destroyed.
The Bush approved stem cell lines were derived before the proposed NIH rules and do not meet some of their specific technical standards. In addition some stem cell lines derived with state or private funding or in other countries since 2001 don't meet some of the technical specifications of the proposed NIH rules.
For instance, under the new NIH guidelines donors would have to be told that the embryos would be used for stem cell research. When some of the earlier lines were derived, donors were told more generically that the embryos would be used for research. The new regulations call for an explicit statement that the results of using the human embryonic stem cells may have commercial potential and that the donor would not receive any financial benefit from such commercial development. They also would have to be told that the stem cell lines derived from the donated embryos might be maintained for many years.
"The NIH guidelines set the highest standards and make sense going forward," said Simpson. "However the earlier lines were derived under Institutional Review Board (IRB) supervision, following ethical guidelines then in place, suggested by such organizations as the National Academies of Science, or covered by state regulations like those of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. It would be wrong to preclude them from federal funding going forward. You can't hold someone to standards that didn't exist when these lines were derived in good faith according to then existing standards."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Congressional Credit Card Reform a 'Charade,' Consumer Advocate Says
/PRNewswire / -- The credit card legislation passed yesterday by the United States Senate won't protect consumers against outrageous interest rates or other egregious practices and represents an astounding victory for the banking and credit card industry, a consumer advocate said today.
Harvey Rosenfield, head of the California-based Consumer Education Foundation, noted that under the Senate bill:
-- There is no cap on credit card interest rates. In recent months,
companies have raised interest rates for some consumers -- even those
with good credit -- to over 30%.
-- Companies can raise interest rates on future purchases at any time.
The bill only prevents companies from increasing interest rates on
previous purchases.
-- Credit card companies can unilaterally changes the terms of the credit
card contract.
-- Companies can still use fine print "arbitration" clauses to prevent
consumers from suing them in court.
"This is not 'reform,' it's a charade," said Rosenfield. "After what American consumers have gone through, they deserve real relief. After all, the banking industry would not exist today were it not for a trillion dollar taxpayer bailout that allows banks to borrow our money from the US Treasury at a fraction of a percentage point and then turn around and loan it to us at twenty to fifty times that rate."
"The credit card industry's attempt to portray this as a defeat is just posturing designed to protect its political allies in Washington. As usual, no one in that city seems to be looking out for the interests of the people of our country."
The Consumer Education Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. In March, it co-published a two hundred page report on the causes of the financial debacle: "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America." The report can be downloaded at WallStreetWatch.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Harvey Rosenfield, head of the California-based Consumer Education Foundation, noted that under the Senate bill:
-- There is no cap on credit card interest rates. In recent months,
companies have raised interest rates for some consumers -- even those
with good credit -- to over 30%.
-- Companies can raise interest rates on future purchases at any time.
The bill only prevents companies from increasing interest rates on
previous purchases.
-- Credit card companies can unilaterally changes the terms of the credit
card contract.
-- Companies can still use fine print "arbitration" clauses to prevent
consumers from suing them in court.
"This is not 'reform,' it's a charade," said Rosenfield. "After what American consumers have gone through, they deserve real relief. After all, the banking industry would not exist today were it not for a trillion dollar taxpayer bailout that allows banks to borrow our money from the US Treasury at a fraction of a percentage point and then turn around and loan it to us at twenty to fifty times that rate."
"The credit card industry's attempt to portray this as a defeat is just posturing designed to protect its political allies in Washington. As usual, no one in that city seems to be looking out for the interests of the people of our country."
The Consumer Education Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. In March, it co-published a two hundred page report on the causes of the financial debacle: "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America." The report can be downloaded at WallStreetWatch.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Saturday, May 16, 2009
And Still the Smoke Is Thick..
TT Note: Guess the smoke will stay pretty thick over this burning issue. To me, it makes sense that a cigarette with no carcinogens and no secondhand smoke could be a very big boost for the family of someone who is a heavy smoker and who has been unable to quit. But what do I know. I'm only the asthmatic child of a heavy smoker who didn't know he was destroying my health with his habit. Did he quit? You bet. One week before his death.
Are E-Cigarettes Becoming a Victim of Friendly Fire or Vicious Assault From Special Interest Groups?
/PRNewswire/ -- While e-cigarettes have no known carcinogens and offer the benefit of no secondhand or sidestream smoke, some say that the products have been falling victim to friendly fire in the media. While the e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers believe they are on the same side of health organizations who want people to stop using tobacco, some anti-smoking campaigns are hostile to the idea.
Cheryl Healton, President and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation, is concerned that the product could be used to slow down the quitting process.
The American Legacy Foundation states on its website:
"We have seen no studies regarding whether e-cigarettes actually help smokers quit or, instead, delay cessation attempts by providing smokers with a way to continue their smoking behaviors when they cannot smoke a tobacco product."
With four prominent politicians on the board of directors, ranging from state attorney generals to senators and one who was named to World Pharmaceutical Frontiers' first "Pharma 40" list, it could easily be understood how this could be more of a political agenda than in the best interests of smokers and the public of the United States.
Even amid all of this, e-cigarettes are still rolling out to the public. Demand seems to be growing by the day, no matter what type of negative campaign comes along, suggesting that the public seems to be making up their own minds on the matter. After a recent spot on The Today Show concerning e-cigarettes, sales skyrocketed.
"Our sales shot up 100%," says Kyle Newton of EcigarettesChoice.com. "We're working harder every day to keep up with growing demand... people are elated that we're able to offer these products. I lost my mom to tobacco-related lung cancer, so this is an extremely personal issue for me... I wish they had been available for her."
And Kyle isn't alone in this personal quest. A quick search on blogs and forums for e-cigarette related information reveals a plethora of comments that support the product and an overwhelming displeasure of the FDA and special interest health groups' treatment of these products.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Are E-Cigarettes Becoming a Victim of Friendly Fire or Vicious Assault From Special Interest Groups?
/PRNewswire/ -- While e-cigarettes have no known carcinogens and offer the benefit of no secondhand or sidestream smoke, some say that the products have been falling victim to friendly fire in the media. While the e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers believe they are on the same side of health organizations who want people to stop using tobacco, some anti-smoking campaigns are hostile to the idea.
Cheryl Healton, President and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation, is concerned that the product could be used to slow down the quitting process.
The American Legacy Foundation states on its website:
"We have seen no studies regarding whether e-cigarettes actually help smokers quit or, instead, delay cessation attempts by providing smokers with a way to continue their smoking behaviors when they cannot smoke a tobacco product."
With four prominent politicians on the board of directors, ranging from state attorney generals to senators and one who was named to World Pharmaceutical Frontiers' first "Pharma 40" list, it could easily be understood how this could be more of a political agenda than in the best interests of smokers and the public of the United States.
Even amid all of this, e-cigarettes are still rolling out to the public. Demand seems to be growing by the day, no matter what type of negative campaign comes along, suggesting that the public seems to be making up their own minds on the matter. After a recent spot on The Today Show concerning e-cigarettes, sales skyrocketed.
"Our sales shot up 100%," says Kyle Newton of EcigarettesChoice.com. "We're working harder every day to keep up with growing demand... people are elated that we're able to offer these products. I lost my mom to tobacco-related lung cancer, so this is an extremely personal issue for me... I wish they had been available for her."
And Kyle isn't alone in this personal quest. A quick search on blogs and forums for e-cigarette related information reveals a plethora of comments that support the product and an overwhelming displeasure of the FDA and special interest health groups' treatment of these products.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
