EK
The following was issued by the United States Congress in 1936 Excerpts from Senate Document 264
In 1936 the United States Senate issued Document 264 relating to proper food mineral balances presented by Mr. Fletcher. The pioneers of this era and the genius in the field of nutrition demonstrated that countless human ills stem from the fact that impoverished soil in America no longer provides plant foods with the mineral elements essential to human nourishment and health! The pertinent excerpts from this document are published here for your review: —“Do you know that most of us today are suffering from certain dangerous diet deficiencies which cannot be remedied until the depleted soils from which our foods come from are brought into proper mineral balance?” –“The alarming fact is that foods – fruits, vegetables and grains – now being raised on millions of acres of land that no longer contains enough of certain minerals, are starving us – no matter how much of them we eat!” —“This talk of minerals is novel and quite startling. In fact, a realization of the importance of minerals in food is so new that the textbooks on nutritional dietetics contain very little about it. Nevertheless it is something that concerns all of us, and the further we delve into it the more startling it becomes”. —“Laboratory tests prove that the fruits, the vegetables, the grains, the eggs and even the milk and meats of today are not what they were a few generations ago. No man of today can eat enough fruits and vegetables to supply his system with the mineral salts he requires for perfect health…” “No longer does a balanced and fully nourishing diet consist merely of so many calories or certain vitamins or a fixed proportion of starches, proteins, and carbohydrates. We now know that it must contain, in addition, something like a score of trace mineral salts”. “It is bad news to learn from our leading authorities that 99 percent of the American people are deficient in these minerals, and that a marked deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually results in DISEASE. Any upset of the balance, any considerable lack of one or another element, however microscopic the body requirement may be, and we sicken, suffer, shorten our lives”. —“This discovery is one of the latest and most important contributions of science to the problem of human health”. —“Dr. Northern asked himself how foods can be used intelligently in the treatment of disease, when they differed so widely in content. The answer seemed to be that they could not be used intelligently. In establishing the fact that serious deficiencies existed and in searching out the reasons therefore, he made an extensive study of the soil. It was he who first voiced the surprising fact that we must make soil building the basis of food building in order to accomplish human building. Bear in mind, says Dr. Northern, that minerals are vital to human metabolism and health-and that no plant or animal can appropriate to itself any mineral which is not present in the soil upon which it feeds.” “We know that vitamins are complex chemical substances which are indispensable to nutrition, and that each of them is important for the normal function of some special structure of the body. Disorder and disease result from any vitamin deficiency. It is not commonly realized, however, that vitamins control the body’s appropriation of minerals, and that in the absence of minerals they have no function to perform. Lacking vitamins, the system can make some use of minerals, but lacking minerals, vitamins are useless”. “Certainly our physical well being is more directly dependent upon the minerals we take in to our system than upon calories or vitamins or upon the precise proportions of starch, protein or carbohydrates we consume.” “So it goes, each mineral element playing a definite role in nutrition. A characteristic set of symptoms, just as specific as any vitamin deficiency disease, follows a deficiency in any one of them. It is alarming, therefore, to face the fact that we are starving for these precious health-giving substances.” “The minerals in fruit and vegetables are colloidal; i.e., they are in a state of such extremely fine suspension that they can be assimilated by the human system. Therein lies the short cut to better health and longer life.” “Sick soils mean sick plants, sick animals, and sick people. Physical, mental and moral fitness depends largely upon an ample supply and a proper proportion of minerals in our foods. Nerve function, nerve stability and nerve cell-building likewise depend upon trace minerals.” “Our soils which are seriously deficient in trace minerals, cannot produce plant life competent to maintain our needs, and with the continuous cropping and shipping away of those trace minerals and concentrates, the condition becomes worse”. “One sure way to end the American people’s susceptibility to infection is to supply through food, a balanced ration of trace minerals. An organism supplied with a diet adequate to, or preferably in excess of, all mineral requirements may so utilize these elements as to produce immunity from infection quite beyond anything we are able to produce artificially by our present method of immunization. You can’t make up the deficiency by using a patent medicine or drug.” “Prevention of disease is easier, more practical, and more economical than cure. Disease preys most surely and most viciously on the undernourished and unfit plants, animals and human beings alike, and when the importance of these obscure mineral elements is fully realized, the chemistry of life will have to be rewritten. No man knows his mental or bodily capacity, how well he can feel or how long he can live, for we are all cripples and weaklings. In the future we will be a nation of fat bellies.” “It is a disgrace to science. Happily, that chemistry is being rewritten and we are on our way to better health by returning to our bodies the things (trace minerals) we have stolen from it.”
(Reprint from READER’S DIGEST – March 1936)
{Editors note: The farming ground is even more depleted today, 2004, and fertilizers add only 3 not so great ingredients that do not help us because putting only 3 of the 84 required for balance will create illness and disease from the imbalance!}
Healing SALT Recipe—take some Epsom Salt and essential oils of choice—what you will do is take a 1/8 cup of salt and add to it 8 drops of any 1 or combo of the essential oils—I will use –Pine—Camphor—Penny Royal—Cajeput—and Lugols iodine –8 drops of each with ¼ cup of Epsom salt to get started—then as the salt powders down I will add a little at a time ( 1/8-1/4 cup increments ) and allow this to also pulverize even more so—if the blender gets bogged at this point stop—unplug the blender and use either a chop stick or spoon and loosen up the bottom sediment—or pour some out and continue til there is a fine powder—and repeat the process just by taking out half the portion and then just adding more epsom salt —do this ti you make almost 4 times what you started with —In this all you are doing is using the base of the salts with the mixed oils and then you are just adding more salt—and as the blenders bog down you take out half and then just add new salt—DO this with both halves —you will pull out the 1st load and leave to the side —once you added new salt to the blender and re blended it then take it all out and add the 1st half and add more salt and re-blend. So ¼ cup will eventually wind up to about 20-30 ounces—bottle this and then add to your bath 3 table spoons minimum******This alleviate a lot of pain and cellular congestion—will increases circulation—remove cold or chill spots in the body—will allow for deep penetration and can assist in the removing of bacterial or fungals internally and externally—may see an improvement in vitality as well as a removal of chemicals and toxins or infections
TOP A
TOP B
HOME
Show of the Week Feb 8-2010
The Cost Of Pharmaceuticals
MEDICAL ERRORS, THE FDA, AND PROBLEMS WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUGS — FDA advisers tied to industry
What You Eat After Exercise Matters
An Unwelcome Third Wheel: Patient Vaccination Without Doctor Authorization
**************************************************************************
THE COST OF PHARMACEUTICALS
This is worth reading. Be sure to read to the end. You will be amazed
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension, a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United States contain active ingredients made in other countries. In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America
The data below speaks for itself.
| Celebrex: 100 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60 Percent markup: 21,712% Keflex: 250 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88 Percent markup: 8,372% Lipitor: 20 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37 Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80 Percent markup: 4,696% Prevacid: 30 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01 Percent markup: 34,136% Prilosec : 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97 Cost of general active ingredients $0.52 Percent markup: 69,417% Prozac: 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11 Percent markup: 224,973% Zestril: 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89 Cost of general active ingredients $3.20 Percent markup: 2,809 Zithromax: 600 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19 Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78 Percent markup: 7,892% |
Claritin: 10 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71 Percent markup: 30,306% Norvasc: 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14 Percent markup: 134,493% Paxil: 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60 Percent markup: 2,898% Tenormin: 50 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13 Percent markup: 80,362% Vasotec: 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20 Percent markup: 5 1,185% Xanax: 1 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024 Percent markup: 569,958% Zocor: 40 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63 Percent markup: 4,059% Zoloft: 50 mg Consumer price: $206.87 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75 Percent markup: 11,821% |
Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone should know about this. Please read the following and pass it on. –It pays to shop around. This helps to solve the mystery as to why they can afford to put a Walgreen’s on every corner. On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit, did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that’s not a typo…..three thousand percent! So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in t his case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. —The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are ‘saving’ $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10! –At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether, or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs. I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience, I had to use the drug, Compazine, which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients. —I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid –$72.57. I could have got 150 at Costco for $28.08. I would like to mention, that although Costco is a ‘membership’ type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in. (this is true) –I went there this past Thursday and asked them. I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own e-mail, and send it to everyone you know with an e-mail address.
Sharon L. Davis
Budget Analyst
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 6839
Office Ph: 202-482-4458
Office Fax: 202-482-5480
E-mail Address: [email protected]
**************************************************************************
MEDICAL ERRORS, THE FDA, AND PROBLEMS WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Medical Errors – A Leading Cause of Death
The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.—The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications – these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).–The National Academies website published an article titled “Preventing Death and Injury From Medical Errors Requires Dramatic, System-Wide Changes.” which you can read online at http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068371?OpenDocument or the book “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System” at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068371/html/ – These show medical errors as a leading cause of death.—Based on the findings of one major study, medical errors kill some 44,000 people in U.S. hospitals each year. Another study puts the number much higher, at 98,000. Even using the lower estimate, more people die from medical mistakes each year than from highway accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. And deaths from medication errors that take place both in and out of hospitals are aid to be more than 7,000 annually.
Prescription Drugs – Leading Killer in USA
According to information we have received, a statistical study of hospital deaths in the U.S. conducted at the University of Toronto revealed that pharmaceutical drugs kill more people every year than are killed in traffic accidents.–The study is said to show that more than two million American hospitalized patients suffered a serious adverse drug reaction (ADR) within the 12-month period of the study and, of these, over 100,000 died as a result. The researchers found that over 75 per cent of these ADRs were dose-dependent, which suggests they were due to the inherent toxicity of the drugs rather than to allergic reactions.–The data did not include fatal reactions caused by accidental overdoses or errors in administration of the drugs. If these had been included, it is estimated that another 100,000 deaths would be added to the total every year.–The researchers concluded that ADRs are now the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and stroke.—Source: Jason, et al. (Lazarou et al), Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vol. 279. April 15, 1998, pp. 1200-05. Also Bates, David W., Drugs and Adverse Drug Reactions: How Worried Should We Be? JAMA, Vol. 279. April 15, 1998, pp. 1216-17.—
One of the first JAMA article on medical errors appeared in JAMA 1994;272:1851-7. by Leape LL. Then in April 1998, JAMA 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5 See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9555760
Related articles are at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n20/related/jlt1125-1.html#searchmedline
Other related articles:
Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76:517-563. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9879302
World Health Report 2000. Available at: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/report.htm.
Starfield B. Evaluating the State Children’s Health Insurance Program: critical considerations. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:569-585. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10884965
Leape L. Unnecessary surgery. Annu Rev Public Health. 1992;13:363-383. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=1599594
Phillips D, Christenfeld N, Glynn L. Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993. Lancet. 1998;351:643-644. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9500322
Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology and medical error. BMJ. 2000;320:774-777. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10720365
Guyer B, Hoyert D, Martin J, Ventura S, MacDorman M, Strobino D. Annual summary of vital statistics 1998. Pediatrics. 1999;104:1229-1246. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10585972
Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH. Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:499-511. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=10491236
Holland E, Degruy F. Drug-Induced Disorders – November 1, 1997 – American Family Physician “…more than 1 million patients are injured while in the hospital and approximately 180,000 die because of these injuries.” http://www.aafp.org/afp/971101ap/holland.html
****************************************************************************
FDA advisers tied to industry
An article by Dennis Cauchon, the USA TODAY Newspaper
Sept. 25, 2000
According to a USA Today study, more than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions. These experts are hired to advise the Food and Drug Administration on which medicines should be approved for sale, what the warning labels should say and how studies of drugs should be designed. The experts are supposed to be independent, but USA TODAY found that 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate. These conflicts include helping a pharmaceutical company develop a medicine, then serving on an FDA advisory committee that judges the drug.–The conflicts typically include stock ownership, consulting fees or research grants. –Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but according to the article, the FDA has waived the restriction more than 800 times since 1998. —These pharmaceutical experts, about 300 on 18 advisory committees, make decisions that affect the health of millions of Americans and billions of dollars in drugs sales. With few exceptions, the FDA follows the committees’ advice. —The FDA reveals when financial conflicts exist, but it has kept details secret since 1992, so it is not possible to determine the amount of money or the drug company involved.
A USA Today analysis of financial conflicts at 159 FDA advisory committee meetings from Jan. 1, 1998, through last June 30 found:
At 92% of the meetings, at least one member had a financial conflict of interest.
At 55% of meetings, half or more of the FDA advisers had conflicts of interest.
Conflicts were most frequent at the 57 meetings when broader issues were discussed: 92% of members had conflicts.
At the 102 meetings dealing with the fate of a specific drug, 33% of the experts had a financial conflict.
“The best experts for the FDA are often the best experts to consult with industry,” says FDA senior associate commissioner Linda Suydam, who is in charge of waiving conflict-of-interest restrictions. But Larry Sasich of Public Citizen, an advocacy group, says, “The industry has more influence on the process than people realize.”
FDA Conflict-of-Interest continued:
In the book Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide to Cancer, they discuss “How Cancer Politics Have Kept You In the Dark” – Chapter 26. They talk about one study that disclosed that almost 50% of high-ranking FDA officials had been employed by major drug companies immediately before joining the FDA and that half of these officials upon leaving the FDA take up executive jobs in pharmaceutical companies. —Another study that they discuss was printed in the Wall Street Journal in 1992. It revealed that 60% of drug advertisements in medical journals actually violated FDA guidelines, yet the FDA did nothing about those violations.Yet, in 1985, the FDA teamed up with the Pharmaceutical Advertising Council to use drug industry funds to combat “quackery” in medicine – alternative medicine. —Note: To get an understanding of why the FDA and other organizations are so opposed to “alternative medicine”, be sure to read chapter 26 of the above named book – Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide to Cancer and other books, including the section of G. Edward Griffin’s book World Without Cancer titled “The Politics of Cancer Therapy—
System to Control Deadly Drug Interaction Failing
This article written by Andrea Knox for Knight Ridder Newspapers appeared on January 7, 2001 in “The Star,” a Ventura County Newspaper.—In the article, it is reported that in the past four years, 10 prescription drugs and a vaccine have been taken off the market after killing and injuring thousands. According to the article, it is estimated that US drug fatalities runs 100,000 a year. There is no way of confirming the numbers because there is no reliable way to track and investigate problems with drugs. Doctors are not even required to report bad drug interactions. –It also doesn’t help that the FDA has cut the time for routine drug approvals, making the real-life test for drugs coming after it has actually been approved. Without a proper monitoring system, it takes longer to discover what drugs could be causing problems.—
Number of physicians in the U.S……………………………………700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year…………….120,000
This information was sent to us indicating that it came from the Benton County News Tribune on the seventeenth of November, 1999
How Common Are Medical Mistakes?
They are too common. Although exact estimates are difficult to find, it is not surprising that an industry as stretched, complex, and burdened as the medical industry is fraught with errors. Many errors go unreported and tracking their exact prevalence is difficult. Nevertheless, bearing in mind that about 2.5 million deaths occur annually in the USA, here are some of the statistics and death rate estimates from various reports:
- 42% of people believed they had personally experienced a medical mistake (NPSF survey)
- 44,000 to 98,000 deaths annually from medical errors (Institute of Medicine)
- 225,000 deaths annually from medical errors including 106,000 deaths due to “nonerror adverse events of medications” (Starfield)
- 180,000 deaths annually from medication errors and adverse reactions (Holland)
- 20,000 annually to 88,000 deaths annually from nosocomial infections
- 2.9 to 3.7 percent of hospitalizations leading to adverse medication reactions
- 7,391 deaths resulted from medication errors (Institute of Medicine)
- 2.4 to 3.6 percent of hospital admissions were due to (prescription) medication events (Australian study)
Various studies have been performed about medical errors. A phone survey by the National Patient Safety Foundation found that 42% of people believed they had experienced a medical error personally or to a relative or friend. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports on two studies estimating the hospital deaths due to medical errors at 44,000 to 98,000 annually, which would place medical errors in the top ten causes of death in the USA. Barbara Starfield’s article in JAMA places the estimates even higher, citing a total of 225,000 deaths due to iatrogenic causes, which would place health-caused deaths as the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA. Holland et al (1997) estimates as many as 1 million patients are injured while in the hospital and approximately 180,000 die as a result, with the majority due to medication adverse reactions.
Nosocomial infections caught during a hospital stay are also common, although these are not necessarily due to an identifiable error by medical personnel. On the other hand, many nosocomial infections would be prevented if hospital staff placed greater emphasis on preventive measures such as hand washing and sterilization. Estimates of nosocomial infections are as high as 2 million case annually or about 10% of hospital patients in the USA. Death rate estimates range from 20,000 annually to 88,000 deaths annually. The cost burden may be as high as $4.5 billion annually.—IOM study: deaths from medical errors: An Institute of Medicine (IOM) study in 1999 cited two different studies placing the number of deaths due to medical error in hospitals at 44,000 and 98,000 annually in the USA. For comparison, the CDC reports that in 1999 there were roughly 2.4 million US deaths, which would mean the above estimates represent approximately 1.8% and 4.0% of deaths respectively. The CDC lists the following top ten causes of death in USA for 1999 (see deaths overview for more details):
- 725,192 from heart disease,
- 549,838 from cancer,
- 167,366 from stroke or other cerebrovascular disease,
- 124,181 from chronic lower respiratory disease,
- 97,860 from accidents,
- 68,399 from diabetes,
- 63,730 from influenza and pneumonia,
- 44,536 from Alzheimer’s disease,
- 35,525 from certain types of kidney disease,
- 30,680 from septicemia, and
- 484,092 from other causes.
By either estimate, the results would place deaths from medical errors clearly into the top ten causes of death at either position 5 or position 9. Furthermore, since these reports were based only on hospital admissions, the real number of deaths from medical errors in a doctor’s office, such as misdiagnosis or delayed treatment, may be much higher.—The above reports were based on estimates of the rates of hospital admission that results in death from adverse events. The reports found rates of adverse events at 2.9 and 3.7 percent of hospitalizations respectively, and these were extrapolated to the annual rate of hospitalizations in the USA of 33.6 million admissions in the USA 1997. About half of these adverse events were due to errors: 58% and 53% respectively.—-How common are medication errors? The IOM report gives much detailed information about deaths and adverse events due to errors in medication. The report estimates that 7,391 deaths resulted from medication errors in 1993. The IOM report cites one study finding that about 2% of hospital admissions experienced a preventable adverse drug event, although the majority were not fatal. Medication error was cited as the cause of death for 1 in 131 outpatient deaths and 1 in 854 inpatient deaths. Errors in prescription and dispensing are known but difficult to quantify. For example, the IOM report cites an Australian study for 1988-1996 finding that 2.4 to 3.6 percent of hospital admissions were due to medication events, of which 32 to 69% were preventable. For more details, see medication errors.—Surgical errors: Death rates from anesthesia in surgery have declines massively to about 1 per 200,000-300,000 cases compared to 2 per 10,000 in the early 1980s–Starfield JAMA article: Barbara Starfield’s JAMA article (Volume 284, No. 4, 2000), gives very large estimates of death due to medical treatment. A total of 225,000 deaths are attributed to various iatrogenic causes. This figure puts them at the 3rd highest cause of death, only after heart disease and cancer. With roughly 2.4 million US deaths in 1999, these estimates would put iatrogenic causes at approximately 9.3% of deaths.—However, not all of these deaths are necessarily from “mistakes” with 106,000 deaths due to “nonerror adverse events of medications”. In other words, people had adverse reactions to a medication but it was not an error because they had no previous indication of a risk factor. Another 80,000 deaths are attributed to nosocomial infections, which are also not necessarily due to a particular “error” since there is always a risk of infection in hospitals. Her report also cites 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgery, 7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals, and 20,000 deaths in hospitals from causes other than medication errors.—National Patient Safety Foundation Survey: The National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) commissioned a phone survey in 1997 to review patient opinions about medical mistakes. The findings showed that 42% of people believed they had personally experienced a medical mistake. In these cases, the error affected them personally (33%), a relative (48%), or a friend (19%)
References
- National Patient Safety Foundation at the AMA: Public Opinion of Patient Safety Issues, Louis Harris & Associates, September 1997.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (National Center for Health Statistics), Deaths: Final Data for 1997. National Vital Statistics Reports: Deaths: Leading Causes for 1999. Volume 49, Number 11, October 12, 2001
- Institute of Medicine (IOM), “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System”, 2000, online.
- Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, Is US Health Really the Best in the World?, JAMA, Volume 284, No. 4, July 26, 2000, html, PDF
- Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5, html, PDF
- JAMA / volume:279 (page: 1216) Drugs and Adverse Drug Reactions: How Worried Should We Be? David W. Bates, MD, MSc April 15, 1998 html, PDF
- EILEEN G. HOLLAND, PHARM.D., and FRANK V. DEGRUY, M.D. Drug-Induced Disorders, Volume 15, No. 7, November 1, 1997, html
- Phillips DP, Christenfeld N, Glynn LM. Lancet 1998 Feb 28;351(9103):643-4 Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993. medline
- National Academies, “Preventing Death and Injury From Medical Errors Requires Dramatic, System-Wide Changes” November 29, 1999, (press release)
- Richard J. Bonnie, Carolyn E. Fulco, Catharyn T. Liverman, Editors; Committee on Injury Prevention and Control, Institute of Medicine, Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment, online
- Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76:517-563. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9879302
***********************************************************************************************************
What You Eat After Exercise Matters
Studies show that differences in what you eat after exercise produce different effects on the body’s metabolism
ScienceDaily (Jan. 29, 2010) — Many of the health benefits of aerobic exercise are due to the most recent exercise session (rather than weeks, months and even years of exercise training), and the nature of these benefits can be greatly affected by the food we eat afterwards, according to a study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology.”Differences in what you eat after exercise produce different effects on the body’s metabolism,” said the study’s senior author, Jeffrey F. Horowitz of the University of Michigan. This study follows up on several previous studies that demonstrate that many health benefits of exercise are transient: one exercise session produces benefits to the body that taper off, generally within hours or a few days.—“Many of the improvements in metabolic health associated with exercise stem largely from the most recent session of exercise, rather than from an increase in ‘fitness’ per se,” Dr. Horowitz said. “But exercise doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and it is very important to look at both the effects of exercise and what you’re eating after exercise.”—Specifically, the study found that exercise enhanced insulin sensitivity, particularly when meals eaten after the exercise session contained relatively low carbohydrate content. Enhanced insulin sensitivity means that it is easier for the body to take up sugar from the blood stream into tissues like muscles, where it can be stored or used as fuel. Impaired insulin sensitivity (i.e., “insulin resistance”) is a hallmark of Type II diabetes, as well as being a major risk factor for other chronic diseases, such as heart disease.–Interestingly, when the research subjects in this study ate relatively low-calorie meals after exercise, this did not improve insulin sensitivity any more than when they ate enough calories to match what they expended during exercise. This suggests that you don’t have to starve yourself after exercise to still reap some of the important health benefits.—The paper, “Energy deficit after exercise augments lipid mobilization but does not contribute to the exercise-induced increase in insulin sensitivity,” appears in the online edition of the journal. The authors are Sean A. Newsom, Simon Schenk, Kristin M. Thomas, Matthew P. Harber, Nicolas D. Knuth, Haila Goldenberg and Dr. Horowitz. All are at the University of Michigan. The American Physiological Society (APS: http://www.the-aps.org) published the research.
Study Design
The study included nine healthy sedentary men, all around 28-30 years old. They spent four separate sessions in the Michigan Clinical Research Unit in the University of Michigan Hospital. Each session lasted for approximately 29 hours. They fasted overnight before attending each session, which began in the morning.The four hospital visits differed primarily by the meals eaten after exercise. The following describes the four different visits:
- They did not exercise and ate meals to match their daily calorie expenditure. This was the control trial.
- They exercised for approximately 90 min at moderate intensity, and then ate meals that matched their caloric expenditure. The carbohydrate, fat, and protein content of these meals were also appropriately balanced to match their expenditure.
- They exercised for approximately 90 min at moderate intensity and then ate meals with relatively low carbohydrate content, but they ate enough total calories to match their calorie expenditure. This reduced-carbohydrate meal contained about 200 grams of carbohydrate, less than half the carbohydrate content of the balanced meal.
- They exercised for approximately 90 min at moderate intensity and then ate relatively low-calorie meals, that is, meals that provided less energy than was expended (about one-third fewer calories than the meals in the other two exercise trials). These meals contained a relatively high carbohydrate content to replace the carbohydrate “burned” during exercise.
The exercise was performed on a stationary bicycle and a treadmill. The order in which the participants did the trials was randomized.—In the three exercise trials, there was a trend for an increase in insulin sensitivity. However, when participants ate less carbohydrate after exercise, this enhanced insulin sensitivity significantly more. Although weight loss is important for improving metabolic health in overweight and obese people, these results suggests that people can still reap some important health benefits from exercise without undereating or losing weight, Dr. Horowitz said. —The study also reinforces the growing body of evidence that each exercise session can affect the body’s physiology and also that differences in what you eat after exercise can produce different physiological changes.
Next Steps
The research team is now performing experiments with obese people, aimed at better identifying the minimum amount of exercise that will still improve insulin sensitivity at least into the next day.—Story Source:Adapted from materials provided by American Physiological Society, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS
RECIPE—-Protein Bars
Cocoa, Almond, Sesame Seed, Whey, Bioflavonoids ( orange and lemon ) Essential Oil of Nutmeg & Orange ( 1 drop ) Berry/Almaretto, Pineapple & Papaya (dried ) Coconut oil, Cinnamon, Cardamon, Nutmeg, and Clove powder, Gelatin—-What you do is measure off the amounts mentioned of the seeds —put in blender and pulverize to a powder—Sift the coarse particles and allow the powder seeds in a bowl—then add the powdered bioflavonoids in the blender and pur in your honey and add the tablespoon of amaretto—allow this to blend and as it blends it will soften the honey and make it more liquid add your powdered spices about ½ tsp of each—add your dried fruit powders 1 tsp of each –add your whey at about 80 grams ( Approximately 2 ½ ounces ) blend til it all absorbed and smooth make sure you add your gelatin ( you can let sit in water or the amaretto and when it is dissolved add it in—when down pour in bowl and allow to settle ( cool down) when it is almost at a taffy stage—lubricate your wax paper ( notice not plasti wrap but waxed paper) with coconut oil —portion out what you want—shape it –refrigerate —consume as you like—will make approximately 3 protein bars
ØAlmond and Sesame Seed …..50grams of each omega 6 oils and protein and minerals with rich source of B15 and small levels of Laetrille
ØWhey..Protein and antioxidant support…. 80 grams total
ØBioflvanoids,…. Rich antioxidants that support veins, heart, and resist specific cancer causing elements, intestinal support
ØEssential Oil of Nutmeg& Orange…1 drop, enriched with antioxidant and has anti tumour support as well as brain lift
ØBerry/Amaretto …..2 tablespoons of the berry mix and ½ teaspoon of the Amaretto …high levels of antioxidants as well as laetrile, used to soften honey during process
ØPineapple & Papaya digestive assistance as well as circulatory health…. 15 grams of each
ØCoconut Oil….Anti Viral Properties and AntiBacterial….saturated fat for Brain support and energy….. 1 tsp
ØCinnamon, Cardamon, Nutmeg. Clove…High Antioxidant, Anti Yeast, Antifungal, AntiBacterial, AntiViral
ØHoney ..Rich in minerals and antioxidants, energizer and stabilizer
An Unwelcome Third Wheel: Patient Vaccination Without Doctor Authorization
- Humphries, MD [medical doctor]
January 22, 2010
H1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccines are now being given to sick hospital patients with or without their doctor’s consent. This is being done despite there being no data on the safety of doing so. —I am a licensed, board-certified nephrologist, otherwise known as a kidney specialist, working in a large, city-based hospital. Because I rarely admit patients to the hospital other than for specific procedures, such as a kidney biopsy, I only recently became aware of my hospital’s policy regarding flu shots for sick people. Waking up to this new rule made me realize that Big Pharma is getting closer and closer to bypassing doctors completely to deliver direct patient “care”. —We have an elaborate electronic charting system at our hospital. All of the medications and procedure orders are placed into the patient’s record by doctors and nurses so that every person has access to all that is happening with the patient. A few weeks ago, I arrived to see my first patient of the day, a patient with a kidney ailment that leaks protein and usually progresses to complete kidney shutdown. When I opened her electronic chart, I expected my section to be empty. Instead, I saw an order for an influenza vaccine with my name on it. Even more shocking was that the order was highlighted bright blue, meaning, the shot had already been given. I thought perhaps I had opened the wrong chart or some sort of mistake had been made. But it was the right file; her name in the upper left hand corner. And my electronic signature was on the page after the order. My patient, with kidney failure and an autoimmune disorder had been given a flu shot without my consent.—-I was informed that according to a hospital policy that had been in effect since 2007, a pharmacist is permitted to visit a patient and offer them a flu vaccine. If the patient agrees, the RN is instructed to administer the shot and document the event in the chart. The attending physician’s signature stamp is used to complete the order. No one called to ask, “By the way, your patient wants a flu shot; can we give her one?” I’m not sure what was said to her, but she obviously agreed, and I didn’t need to be involved. The pharmacist had written an order for an injectable substance that I considered toxic and inappropriate for my patient, and it was administered by the RN before I even got to the floor. —My dissatisfaction eventually made it to the Chief of Internal Medicine who challenged me to produce peer-reviewed journal articles in support of my objection. There were dozens of case reports of kidney disease or small blood vessel inflammation following influenza vaccination. In fact, one paper cited 16 patients in its written report(1). Under-reporting of adverse vaccine reactions is a known phenomenon. The National Vaccine Information Center estimates that only about two percent of adverse vaccine reactions ever get reported. It would follow that written and published case reports found in medical journals represent a miniscule sampling of the totality of vaccine injury cases. These implications should evoke at least some curiosity on the part of doctors and health care advocates. —The peer-reviewed literature was delivered to the department head. His initial response was to suggest that future vaccination orders be signed off by another physician so I didn’t have to be involved with the process of a nurse giving a “routine” flu shot. But the point had been missed; flu shots should not be given to sick patients. — I was challenging “routine orders” that had been in place since 2007. The defense for supporting the policy was that no side effects had been reported since the standing order had been instituted. I wondered to myself and then later inquired: How do you know that is true? Is it because nobody filed a formal report? If a patient became more ill after the shot, did you consider his condition to be a side effect of the vaccine, or was it simply called an unfortunate complication to the patient’s current illness? What if the patient was discharged from the hospital but readmitted several weeks later. Was the reason logged simply as a progression of his existing disease…or was the cause an overlooked, delayed side effect of the vaccination? If vaccine reactions are not considered as part of a patient’s differential diagnosis, how do you know? Without taking a vaccine history when considering a timeline of events, how could anybody possibly make the connection between a vaccine and a subsequent illness? How does anyone else know for that matter – that there were no side effects from the “routine” administration of flu shots, ordered by a pharmacist and given by a nurse, without doctor consent? The truth is, there is no real tracking and reporting system in place. And nobody is enthused about trying to start one. What has essentially happened is that the guards have all been told to go home and nobody is thinking to even look for the wolf. I am sure there are thousands of unreported cases of kidney failure – and a wide range of other serious health conditions – because doctors fail to ask a very simple question as part of the admission evaluation: “When was your last vaccine?” And few doctors suspect any connection because the party line screams, “Vaccines are safe, effective and harmless. They keep people healthy and prevent infection.” If nobody looks, vaccine-related side effects and complications won’t be found. There was a law passed in 1986, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, that made vaccine manufacturers and administering physicians immune from legal recourse in the event of a vaccine injury. This has given manufacturers a dangerously long leash and has enabled them to push vaccines through FDA approval with little need to create a safe product. Now drug companies have extended their reach into the hospital right past doctors, and put the power to vaccinate in the hands of pharmacists and executive committees, allowing them to make decisions about what is best for a patient. For years, I have suspected that vaccines affect the immune system in an unnatural way. Those who are trained in the sciences should know this has to be true. For starters, the partial and temporary effect of a vaccination is significantly different than the precise and long-lasting cellular responses that come from a natural infection. Vaccines contain more viral and bacterial particles than what we are told; there are known allowable contaminants in vaccine cultures and in vaccine vials(2). The solutions also contain heavy metals, carcinogenic chemicals and toxic preservatives. Vaccine-induced antibodies can become “confused”. They can then adhere or deposit in small blood vessels and the kidney filters called glomeruli, causing inflammation and degeneration, known as an “autoimmune response”; the person’s own antibodies attack and destroy the body. The incidence of autoimmune disease has sharply increased in recent years, and I believe that vaccines have played a role. That is why it has never made sense to me to vaccinate anyone, let alone someone who is sick— but especially someone already sick with an autoimmune disease. While patients who are immunocompromised may be at a disadvantage when faced with infectious pathogens, giving them a flu shot with toxic chemicals cannot, in my estimation, possibly protect them. Moreover, it is known that elderly patients and those who are losing protein in the urine don’t necessarily mount a strong or protective response to flu vaccine injections. Despite these facts, the CDC and various medical organizations still recommend injecting sick, elderly patients with flu vaccines. —
References:
- Kelsall, John T. et. al.Microscopic Polyangiitis After Influenza Vaccination, Journal of Rheumatology. Vol.24:6, pp1198-1202.
- Tenpenny, Dr Sherri J,FOWL! Bird Flu: It’s not what you think, 2006, pg. 74.
- Yanai-Barar, et al.,Influenza vaccination induced leukocytoclastic vasculitis and pauci-immune crescentic glomerulonephritis. Clinical Nephrology, vol 58. No. 3/2002
- Damjanov, Ivan,Progression of Renal Disease in Henoch-Schonlein Purpura After Influenza Vaccination, JAMA 1979, vol. 242, No.23. p2555-2556.
- Ulm, S et. al.,Leukocytoclastic vasculitis and acute renal failure after influenza vaccination in an elderly patient with myelodysplastic syndrome., Onkoligie, 2006, vol. 29, No. 10, 470-2.
- Tavadia, S,Leukocytoclastic vasculitis and influenza vaccination. Clin Exp Dermatol., 2003, vol 28, No 2, 154-6.
- Kielstein, JT,Minimal Change nephrotic syndrome in a 65-year-old patient following influenza vaccination.,Clin Nephrol, 2000, vol 54, no 3, 246-8.
- Narendran, M,Systemic Vasculitis following influenza vaccination—report of 3 cases and literature review., J Rheumatol, 1993, vol 20, no 8, 1429-31.