The question that is appropriate is are we practicing the right kind of health care. Are the AMA, FDA, WHO and most governments actually correct in their assumptions of how to treat the human body. I think the other techniques of healing that are not invasive should be our first lines of defense. Many are valid and gentle and homeopathy is effective, has no side effects and is reasonable in cost.
At this time when we are in such a detailed examination of your system of health we should be asking this question too, for it is obvious that the corporation giants of the pharmaceutical industry have co-opted our system and the cost is unconscionable and its benefits only temporary.
Our future generations will suffer horribly if we continue weakening the human through invading the body with drug and vaccines. Mankind - What once is the most successful pinnacle of universal consciousness realized will have been destroyed.
It pains me to write this.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
FEAR - THE NEW WORLD EPIDEMIC Dr. Bach's understandings
I have used this heading before. It is the strongest ally of the pharmaceuticals in their current arsenal to get the world to take flu vaccines. The WHO (World Health Organization) supports this tactic with news flashes to keep us frightened. FDA, AMA, and government health programs in many countries have opted into this fear and the cost both emotionally and financially is devastating to our health care budgets.
Here below is what Dr. Edward Bach wrote about the subject in 1931. It was sent to me by Flower Essences Services after we had a conversation about Bach's Rescue Remedy. It could have been written yesterday.
Dr. Edward Bach on the fear of disease:
In this age the fear of disease has developed until it has become a great power for harm, because it opens the door to those things we dread and makes it easier for their admission. Such fear is really self-interest, for when we are earnestly absorbed in the welfare of others there is no time to be apprehensive of personal maladies. Fear at the present time is playing a great part in intensifying disease, and modem science has increased the reign of terror by spreading abroad to the general public its discoveries, which as yet are but half-truths.
The knowledge of bacteria and the various germs associated with disease has played havoc in the minds of tens of thousands of people, and by the dread aroused in them has in itself rendered them more susceptible of attack. While lower forms of life, such as bacteria, may play a part in or be associated with physical disease, they constitute by no means the whole truth of the problem, as can be demonstrated scientifically or by everyday occurrences. There is a factor which science is unable to explain on physical grounds, and that is why some people become affected by disease while others escape, although both classes may be open to the same possibility of infection. Materialism forgets that there is a factor above the physical plane which in the ordinary course of life protects or renders susceptible any particular individual with regard to disease, of whatever nature it may be.
Fear, by its depressing effect on our mentality, thus causing disharmony in our physical and magnetic bodies, paves the way for invasion, and if bacteria and such physical means were the sure and only cause of disease, then indeed there might be but little encouragement not to be afraid. But when we realise that in the worst epidemics only a proportion of those exposed to infection are attacked and that, as we have already seen, the real cause of disease lies in our own personality and is within our control, then have we reason to go about without dread and fearless, knowing that the remedy lies with ourselves. We can put all fear of physical means alone as a cause of disease out of our minds, knowing that such anxiety merely renders us susceptible, and that if we are endeavouring to bring harmony into our personality we need anticipate illness no more than we dread being struck by lightning or hit by a fragment of a falling meteor.
Heal Thyself, 1931
Here below is what Dr. Edward Bach wrote about the subject in 1931. It was sent to me by Flower Essences Services after we had a conversation about Bach's Rescue Remedy. It could have been written yesterday.
Dr. Edward Bach on the fear of disease:
In this age the fear of disease has developed until it has become a great power for harm, because it opens the door to those things we dread and makes it easier for their admission. Such fear is really self-interest, for when we are earnestly absorbed in the welfare of others there is no time to be apprehensive of personal maladies. Fear at the present time is playing a great part in intensifying disease, and modem science has increased the reign of terror by spreading abroad to the general public its discoveries, which as yet are but half-truths.
The knowledge of bacteria and the various germs associated with disease has played havoc in the minds of tens of thousands of people, and by the dread aroused in them has in itself rendered them more susceptible of attack. While lower forms of life, such as bacteria, may play a part in or be associated with physical disease, they constitute by no means the whole truth of the problem, as can be demonstrated scientifically or by everyday occurrences. There is a factor which science is unable to explain on physical grounds, and that is why some people become affected by disease while others escape, although both classes may be open to the same possibility of infection. Materialism forgets that there is a factor above the physical plane which in the ordinary course of life protects or renders susceptible any particular individual with regard to disease, of whatever nature it may be.
Fear, by its depressing effect on our mentality, thus causing disharmony in our physical and magnetic bodies, paves the way for invasion, and if bacteria and such physical means were the sure and only cause of disease, then indeed there might be but little encouragement not to be afraid. But when we realise that in the worst epidemics only a proportion of those exposed to infection are attacked and that, as we have already seen, the real cause of disease lies in our own personality and is within our control, then have we reason to go about without dread and fearless, knowing that the remedy lies with ourselves. We can put all fear of physical means alone as a cause of disease out of our minds, knowing that such anxiety merely renders us susceptible, and that if we are endeavouring to bring harmony into our personality we need anticipate illness no more than we dread being struck by lightning or hit by a fragment of a falling meteor.
Heal Thyself, 1931
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Diabetes Case Shows Pitfalls of Treatment Rules NY TImes
I am still learning how to reprint articles and I am sure in future I will improve. The article shows clearly that all people suffering similar symptoms cannot be treated in a single preordained way. Homeopathy recognizes each patient as unique.
It is clear in the article that the Pharmaceutical Industry is being challenged for conflict of interest by sitting on Boards that decide what is good and bad for the public.
It is a scary story for people started to die and the program was or is being withdrawn.
Diabetes Case Shows Pitfalls of Treatment Rules
By BARRY MEIER
It sounds like a simple idea for improving health care: draw up guidelines on how best to treat a particular illness and then pay doctors to follow
them. That strategy, which some insurers and health plans already employ, has been embraced during the health care debate by some lawmakers in Congress who want to extend it more broadly.
The goal is to improve treatment and, at the same time, save money. But setting guidelines that are good for every patient, it turns out, can get messy, with some experts warning that a big national plan of this sort poses risks. A recent case involving treatment for diabetes, one of the nation’s most pervasive illnesses, illustrates the difficulties.
Last year, a national guideline-setting group abruptly withdrew a controversial diabetes standard it adopted in 2006 that called for aggressive control of blood sugar, or glucose. The change came after a large federal study indicated that lowering glucose too quickly or too much in some patients could harm or even kill them.
In medical journal articles and elsewhere over the last year, some diabetes experts have lashed out at the group’s initial decision to approve the guideline, saying they warned back in 2006 that it was medically ill-advised for some patients.
“This was a case in which the advocates of a disease got caught up in their disease rather than the interests of patients,” said Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, a diabetes expert at the University of Michigan who had opposed the benchmark.
Critics like Dr. Hayward have also suggested that pharmaceutical companies influenced the guideline so they could sell more glucose-lowering drugs like insulin. The group that set the guideline, a Washington organization called the National Committee for Quality Assurance, received about $3 million, or 10 percent of its revenue, last year from drug and medical device makers. The group’s officials, and several outside experts who advise it, rejected such suggestions of industry influence. Still, some experts question why the group, which sets standards that are widely used by insurers and private health plans, should take even small amounts of drug-industry money.
“There should not be any industry funding of a group that is involved in working on national guidelines,” said Dr. Jerome E. Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard.
To many experts, the diabetes case shows how setting one guideline that works for all patients suffering from the same disease can be tricky. The main problem is that many guidelines are based not on rigorous studies like clinical trials but on weaker types of medical evidence. And critics like Dr. Groopman have argued that the guideline-setting process is often influenced by industry or by medical ideologues looking to advance their personal agendas.
“These guidelines often come out of specialty societies who tend to want to treat rather than not to treat,” said Arthur Levin, the executive director
of the Center for Medical Consumers, a patient advocacy group. Mr. Levin also serves as an adviser to the National Committee for Quality Assurance and took part in the diabetes decision.
The diabetes controversy began after several studies showed that patients with diabetes could significantly benefit from tighter control of their blood sugar. As a result, in 2005, the American Diabetes Association, along with others, began urging the National Committee on Quality Assurance to adopt an aggressive glucose control standard. The group’s guidelines are used by insurers and others to assess the performance of
doctors who work for them and, in some cases, to determine whether they qualify for a bonus.
On its face, the glucose proposal made sense. Excess levels of glucose can cause some of the worst complications of diabetes, including blindness and kidney failure. But lowering glucose too much can also create problems for some patients, particularly older, sicker ones, causing them to black out or to have seizures.
Pointing to such risks, some doctors like Dr. Hayward, who also works for the Veterans Administration, opposed extending the guideline too broadly. They said that one significant group of diabetics, those who also had heart problems or cardiovascular disease, had never been studied during the trials that showed the benefits of aggressive glucose control.
But supporters of the move, like Dr. Richard Kahn, then a top official of the American Diabetes Association, rejected such arguments. Dr. Kahn argued that even if the standard were adopted, doctors would still have plenty of discretion about how to treat their patients. “All of us can no longer sit silently thinking that our discipline is unified toward improving diabetes care,” he wrote in a 2006 e-mail message as the argument unfolded.
In mid-2006, a panel assembled by the National Committee for Quality Assurance that included insurers, major employers, doctors and Mr. Levin, the patient advocate, unanimously approved the new standard. Critics like Dr. Hayward were furious and later said they believed that diabetes experts with drug-industry ties had played a role in guiding the decision.
Both Mr. Levin and another adviser to the quality committee — Dr. Paul Wallace of Kaiser Permanente, the big health care provider — said they saw no evidence of that. Also, officers of the National Committee for Quality Assurance insist that medical products companies, who sponsor some of the group’s activities, do not play a role in setting its treatment standards. The diabetes standard was not in place for long. It was challenged last year when federal researchers abruptly halted a study of glucose control in older diabetics with cardiovascular disease, the group not previously studied.
In that trial, researchers aggressively treated patients with a variety of drugs in an effort to bring their glucose down to the level of a person without diabetes, but patients receiving the treatment started dying at an unexpected rate.
In light of the findings, the National Committee for Quality Assurance withdrew its standard and convened an expert panel that this time included critics like Dr. Hayward. A year ago, the group issued a more nuanced guideline that, among other things, exempted patients over 55 years old with heart or cardiovascular problems.
Those who opposed the initial measure, like Dr. Joseph Selby, a research director at Kaiser Permanente, feel their position has been vindicated. They see a straightforward lesson from the episode: faulty guidelines can pose risks to patients, particularly when linked to doctors’ pay, which is an idea under consideration in Washington.
If such treatment guidelines are created “in the absence of good evidence,” Dr. Selby said, “you risk perversion or even harm.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
Diabetes Case Shows Pitfalls of Treatment Rules - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18diabetes.h...
2 of 2 8/18/09 11:49 AM
It is clear in the article that the Pharmaceutical Industry is being challenged for conflict of interest by sitting on Boards that decide what is good and bad for the public.
It is a scary story for people started to die and the program was or is being withdrawn.
Diabetes Case Shows Pitfalls of Treatment Rules
By BARRY MEIER
It sounds like a simple idea for improving health care: draw up guidelines on how best to treat a particular illness and then pay doctors to follow
them. That strategy, which some insurers and health plans already employ, has been embraced during the health care debate by some lawmakers in Congress who want to extend it more broadly.
The goal is to improve treatment and, at the same time, save money. But setting guidelines that are good for every patient, it turns out, can get messy, with some experts warning that a big national plan of this sort poses risks. A recent case involving treatment for diabetes, one of the nation’s most pervasive illnesses, illustrates the difficulties.
Last year, a national guideline-setting group abruptly withdrew a controversial diabetes standard it adopted in 2006 that called for aggressive control of blood sugar, or glucose. The change came after a large federal study indicated that lowering glucose too quickly or too much in some patients could harm or even kill them.
In medical journal articles and elsewhere over the last year, some diabetes experts have lashed out at the group’s initial decision to approve the guideline, saying they warned back in 2006 that it was medically ill-advised for some patients.
“This was a case in which the advocates of a disease got caught up in their disease rather than the interests of patients,” said Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, a diabetes expert at the University of Michigan who had opposed the benchmark.
Critics like Dr. Hayward have also suggested that pharmaceutical companies influenced the guideline so they could sell more glucose-lowering drugs like insulin. The group that set the guideline, a Washington organization called the National Committee for Quality Assurance, received about $3 million, or 10 percent of its revenue, last year from drug and medical device makers. The group’s officials, and several outside experts who advise it, rejected such suggestions of industry influence. Still, some experts question why the group, which sets standards that are widely used by insurers and private health plans, should take even small amounts of drug-industry money.
“There should not be any industry funding of a group that is involved in working on national guidelines,” said Dr. Jerome E. Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard.
To many experts, the diabetes case shows how setting one guideline that works for all patients suffering from the same disease can be tricky. The main problem is that many guidelines are based not on rigorous studies like clinical trials but on weaker types of medical evidence. And critics like Dr. Groopman have argued that the guideline-setting process is often influenced by industry or by medical ideologues looking to advance their personal agendas.
“These guidelines often come out of specialty societies who tend to want to treat rather than not to treat,” said Arthur Levin, the executive director
of the Center for Medical Consumers, a patient advocacy group. Mr. Levin also serves as an adviser to the National Committee for Quality Assurance and took part in the diabetes decision.
The diabetes controversy began after several studies showed that patients with diabetes could significantly benefit from tighter control of their blood sugar. As a result, in 2005, the American Diabetes Association, along with others, began urging the National Committee on Quality Assurance to adopt an aggressive glucose control standard. The group’s guidelines are used by insurers and others to assess the performance of
doctors who work for them and, in some cases, to determine whether they qualify for a bonus.
On its face, the glucose proposal made sense. Excess levels of glucose can cause some of the worst complications of diabetes, including blindness and kidney failure. But lowering glucose too much can also create problems for some patients, particularly older, sicker ones, causing them to black out or to have seizures.
Pointing to such risks, some doctors like Dr. Hayward, who also works for the Veterans Administration, opposed extending the guideline too broadly. They said that one significant group of diabetics, those who also had heart problems or cardiovascular disease, had never been studied during the trials that showed the benefits of aggressive glucose control.
But supporters of the move, like Dr. Richard Kahn, then a top official of the American Diabetes Association, rejected such arguments. Dr. Kahn argued that even if the standard were adopted, doctors would still have plenty of discretion about how to treat their patients. “All of us can no longer sit silently thinking that our discipline is unified toward improving diabetes care,” he wrote in a 2006 e-mail message as the argument unfolded.
In mid-2006, a panel assembled by the National Committee for Quality Assurance that included insurers, major employers, doctors and Mr. Levin, the patient advocate, unanimously approved the new standard. Critics like Dr. Hayward were furious and later said they believed that diabetes experts with drug-industry ties had played a role in guiding the decision.
Both Mr. Levin and another adviser to the quality committee — Dr. Paul Wallace of Kaiser Permanente, the big health care provider — said they saw no evidence of that. Also, officers of the National Committee for Quality Assurance insist that medical products companies, who sponsor some of the group’s activities, do not play a role in setting its treatment standards. The diabetes standard was not in place for long. It was challenged last year when federal researchers abruptly halted a study of glucose control in older diabetics with cardiovascular disease, the group not previously studied.
In that trial, researchers aggressively treated patients with a variety of drugs in an effort to bring their glucose down to the level of a person without diabetes, but patients receiving the treatment started dying at an unexpected rate.
In light of the findings, the National Committee for Quality Assurance withdrew its standard and convened an expert panel that this time included critics like Dr. Hayward. A year ago, the group issued a more nuanced guideline that, among other things, exempted patients over 55 years old with heart or cardiovascular problems.
Those who opposed the initial measure, like Dr. Joseph Selby, a research director at Kaiser Permanente, feel their position has been vindicated. They see a straightforward lesson from the episode: faulty guidelines can pose risks to patients, particularly when linked to doctors’ pay, which is an idea under consideration in Washington.
If such treatment guidelines are created “in the absence of good evidence,” Dr. Selby said, “you risk perversion or even harm.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
Diabetes Case Shows Pitfalls of Treatment Rules - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18diabetes.h...
2 of 2 8/18/09 11:49 AM
Monday, August 17, 2009
Take a moment and read some wisdom about living.
This letter was written by Samuel Hahnemann in the 1800s and is to his patient, who was a tailor in Gotha and died at the age of ninety-two. It is so filled with advice that must be of benefit to every one in this age of haste - (Monthly Hom. Review, Vol. 31, p. 617. N. E. Med. Gazette, March, 1887.)
"My Dear Mr. X- :
" It is true that I am going to Hamburg, but that need not trouble you. If you do not grudge the few groschen a letter will cost you can still have my advice when I am there. Merely write my name, and Hamburg beneath it, and your letter so addressed will find me.
" For the present I must say that you are on the fair road to health, and the chief sources of your malady cut off. One source still remains, and it is the cause of your last relapse. Man (the delicate human machine) is not constituted for overwork, he cannot overwork his powers or faculties with impunity.
If he does so from ambition, love of gain, or other praiseworthy or blameworthy motive, he sets himself in opposition to the order of nature, and his body suffers injury or destruction.
All the more if his body is already in a weakened condition ; what you cannot accomplish in a week you can do in two weeks. If your customers will not wait they cannot fairly expect that you will for their sakes make yourself ill and work yourself to the grave, leaving your wife a widow and your children orphans.
It is not only the greater bodily exertion that injures you, it is even more the attendant strain on the mind, and the overwrought mind in its turn affects the body injuriously. If you do not assume an attitude of cool indifference, adopting the principle of living first for yourself and only secondly for others, then there is small chance of your recovery.
Men you are in your grave men will still be clothed, perhaps not as tastefully, but still tolerably well.
" If you are a philosopher you may become healthy, you may attain to old age. If anything annoys you give no heed to it ; if anything is too much for you have nothing to do with it ; if any one seeks to drive you go slowly and laugh at the fools who wish to make you unhappy. What you can do comfortably that do ; what von cannot do don't bother yourself about.
"Our temporal circumstances are not improved by overpressure at work. You must spend proportionately more in your domestic affairs, and so nothing is gained. Economy, limitation of superfluities (of which the hard worker has often very few) place us in a position to live with greater comfort- that is to say, more rationally, more intelligently, more in accordance with nature, more cheerfully, more quietly, more healthily.
Thus we shall act more commendably, more wisely, more prudently, than by working in breathless hurry, with our nerves, constantly overstrung, to the destruction of the most precious treasure of life, calmly happy spirits and good health.
"Be you more prudent, consider yourself first, let everything else be of only secondary importance for you. And should they venture to assert that you are in honor bound to do more than is good for your mental and physical powers, even then do not, for God's sake, allow yourself to be driven to do what is contrary to your own welfare.
Remain deaf to the bribery of praise, remain cold and pursue your own course slowly and quietly like a wise and sensible man. To enjoy with tranquil mind and body, that is what man is in the world for, and only to do as much work as will procure him the means of enjoyment --- certainly not to excoriate and wear himself out with work.
" The everlasting pushing : and striving of blinded mortals in order to gain so and so much, to secure some honor or other, to do a service to this or that great personage - this is generally fatal to our welfare, this is a common cause of young people ageing and dying before their time.
" The calm, cold-blooded man, who lets things softly glide, attains his object also, lives more tranquilly and healthily, and attains a good old age.
And this leisurely man sometimes lights upon a lucky idea, the fruit of serious original thought, which shall give a much more profitable impetus to his temporal affairs than can ever be gained by the overwrought man who can never find time to collect his thoughts. –
" In order to win the race, quickness is not all that is required. Strive to obtain a little indifference, coolness and calmness, then you will be what I wish you to be.
Then you will see marvellous things ; you will see how healthy you will become by following my advice. Then shall your blood course through your blood vessels calmly and sedately, without effort and without heat. No horrible dreams disturb the sleep. of him who lies down to rest without highly strung nerves.
The man who is free from care wakes in the morning without anxiety about the multifarious occupations of the day. What does he care ?
The happiness of life concerns him more than anything else. With fresh vigor he sets about his moderate work, and at his meals nothing, no ebullitions of blood, no cares, no solicitude of mind hinders him from relishing what the beneficent Preserver of Life sets before him.
And so one day follows another in quiet succession, until the final day of advanced age brings him to the termination of a well spent life, and he serenely reposes in an other world as he has calmly lived in this one.
"Is not that more rational, more sensible ? Let restless, self destroying men act as irrationally, as injuriously towards themselves as they please ; let them be fools. But be you wiser !
Do not let me preach this wisdom of life in vain. I mean well to you.
" Farewell, follow my advice, and when all goes well with you, remember.
"DR. S. Hahnemann
"P. S.- Should you be reduced to your last sixpence, be still cheerful and happy.
Providence watches over us, and a lucky chance makes all right again.
How much do we need in order to live, to restore our powers by food and drink, to shield ourselves from cold and heat ?
Little more than good courage ; when we have that the minor essentials we can find without much trouble. The wise man needs but little. Strength that is husbanded needs not to be renovated by medicine."
Hahnemann-
Born: 10 April 1755
Died: 2 July 1843
Nationality: German
Fields: Homoeopathy
"My Dear Mr. X- :
" It is true that I am going to Hamburg, but that need not trouble you. If you do not grudge the few groschen a letter will cost you can still have my advice when I am there. Merely write my name, and Hamburg beneath it, and your letter so addressed will find me.
" For the present I must say that you are on the fair road to health, and the chief sources of your malady cut off. One source still remains, and it is the cause of your last relapse. Man (the delicate human machine) is not constituted for overwork, he cannot overwork his powers or faculties with impunity.
If he does so from ambition, love of gain, or other praiseworthy or blameworthy motive, he sets himself in opposition to the order of nature, and his body suffers injury or destruction.
All the more if his body is already in a weakened condition ; what you cannot accomplish in a week you can do in two weeks. If your customers will not wait they cannot fairly expect that you will for their sakes make yourself ill and work yourself to the grave, leaving your wife a widow and your children orphans.
It is not only the greater bodily exertion that injures you, it is even more the attendant strain on the mind, and the overwrought mind in its turn affects the body injuriously. If you do not assume an attitude of cool indifference, adopting the principle of living first for yourself and only secondly for others, then there is small chance of your recovery.
Men you are in your grave men will still be clothed, perhaps not as tastefully, but still tolerably well.
" If you are a philosopher you may become healthy, you may attain to old age. If anything annoys you give no heed to it ; if anything is too much for you have nothing to do with it ; if any one seeks to drive you go slowly and laugh at the fools who wish to make you unhappy. What you can do comfortably that do ; what von cannot do don't bother yourself about.
"Our temporal circumstances are not improved by overpressure at work. You must spend proportionately more in your domestic affairs, and so nothing is gained. Economy, limitation of superfluities (of which the hard worker has often very few) place us in a position to live with greater comfort- that is to say, more rationally, more intelligently, more in accordance with nature, more cheerfully, more quietly, more healthily.
Thus we shall act more commendably, more wisely, more prudently, than by working in breathless hurry, with our nerves, constantly overstrung, to the destruction of the most precious treasure of life, calmly happy spirits and good health.
"Be you more prudent, consider yourself first, let everything else be of only secondary importance for you. And should they venture to assert that you are in honor bound to do more than is good for your mental and physical powers, even then do not, for God's sake, allow yourself to be driven to do what is contrary to your own welfare.
Remain deaf to the bribery of praise, remain cold and pursue your own course slowly and quietly like a wise and sensible man. To enjoy with tranquil mind and body, that is what man is in the world for, and only to do as much work as will procure him the means of enjoyment --- certainly not to excoriate and wear himself out with work.
" The everlasting pushing : and striving of blinded mortals in order to gain so and so much, to secure some honor or other, to do a service to this or that great personage - this is generally fatal to our welfare, this is a common cause of young people ageing and dying before their time.
" The calm, cold-blooded man, who lets things softly glide, attains his object also, lives more tranquilly and healthily, and attains a good old age.
And this leisurely man sometimes lights upon a lucky idea, the fruit of serious original thought, which shall give a much more profitable impetus to his temporal affairs than can ever be gained by the overwrought man who can never find time to collect his thoughts. –
" In order to win the race, quickness is not all that is required. Strive to obtain a little indifference, coolness and calmness, then you will be what I wish you to be.
Then you will see marvellous things ; you will see how healthy you will become by following my advice. Then shall your blood course through your blood vessels calmly and sedately, without effort and without heat. No horrible dreams disturb the sleep. of him who lies down to rest without highly strung nerves.
The man who is free from care wakes in the morning without anxiety about the multifarious occupations of the day. What does he care ?
The happiness of life concerns him more than anything else. With fresh vigor he sets about his moderate work, and at his meals nothing, no ebullitions of blood, no cares, no solicitude of mind hinders him from relishing what the beneficent Preserver of Life sets before him.
And so one day follows another in quiet succession, until the final day of advanced age brings him to the termination of a well spent life, and he serenely reposes in an other world as he has calmly lived in this one.
"Is not that more rational, more sensible ? Let restless, self destroying men act as irrationally, as injuriously towards themselves as they please ; let them be fools. But be you wiser !
Do not let me preach this wisdom of life in vain. I mean well to you.
" Farewell, follow my advice, and when all goes well with you, remember.
"DR. S. Hahnemann
"P. S.- Should you be reduced to your last sixpence, be still cheerful and happy.
Providence watches over us, and a lucky chance makes all right again.
How much do we need in order to live, to restore our powers by food and drink, to shield ourselves from cold and heat ?
Little more than good courage ; when we have that the minor essentials we can find without much trouble. The wise man needs but little. Strength that is husbanded needs not to be renovated by medicine."
Hahnemann-
Born: 10 April 1755
Died: 2 July 1843
Nationality: German
Fields: Homoeopathy
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
History is on no ones side it depends on what we do.
Immanuel Wallerstein wrote this and it is quoted on Page 260 of The Age of the Unthinkable by Joshua Cooper Ramo. It is near the end of the book when he exhorts us all to realize that we are all a part of history, in history so to speak,and we all can act or not. Our world thinking right now is guided by one mindedness of purpose whether its save the banks, fight the Taliban or vaccines will save us from a flu epidemic. These things are not done with anything other than the simple object in mind and the world has become reactionary to this. I rise in opposition to this and the the one minded answer the Pharmaceuticals have toward the flu and how they have co-opted us all to follow like sheep to their single answer will not win the battle. The pharmaceuticals are never going to defeat an enemy that mutates and strikes where and when it will and so we are left having our pockets stripped of our money and our immune systems stripped of their natural strength. The approach is a wrong as the 2nd world war bombing of German cities that was meant to demoralize the Germans or the failures of Vietnam and now Iraq. We have opted at this time to follow our leaders who are out of step with history. Neither will we win in Afghanistan if we follow our instincts to destroy the enemy and not support the people who have to live in the space of our destruction. Homeopathy leaves the enemy and deals with the symptoms of our discomfort which strengthens us to do our own work through our immune system.
Lessons are many in this book which I recommend all to read. It is a call to arms for all of us to be innovative and active in our quest for a safer world.
I answer that call and urge you to join in protecting yourselves gently and with the care of Homeopathy and not with the pharmaceuticals so laced with poisonous side effects.
Lessons are many in this book which I recommend all to read. It is a call to arms for all of us to be innovative and active in our quest for a safer world.
I answer that call and urge you to join in protecting yourselves gently and with the care of Homeopathy and not with the pharmaceuticals so laced with poisonous side effects.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Cars, water, gas and Murray
Summer was special for me when I was growing up. We had a cottage at Cedar Springs about 18 miles from Hamilton Ontario. Out in the country where the Credit river runs through a valley of cedars. There were 80 wooden cottages spread around a one mile ring road in amongst the cedars. It was pure fun. We had a 9 hole golf course, two tennis courts, a barn that was a community hall and the river was dammed up so we could swim. Tons of kids. 1946 or 47 is when Murray Schwenger got a nice old 1925 or 30 sedan. What a ball. Dust roads and tooling about.
Murray knew all about cars and would tinker with it all the time. Once he added a device he made to drip water into the carburetor to see if the car would still run and if he could save gas. He tried it several times and if we were going fast enough he could add water and we could still drive but when he accelerated to go up a hill it would be slower and sometimes the engine would conk out. He did save gas but the care did not run as efficiently.
I was thinking about that today when I was trying to explain what I feel is wrong with most pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines in the human body. They do give you more life but you do not operate at your best capability. Unlike the water in the gas idea we humans can’t turn off the drug tap so easily and often can’t get rid of the effects and side effects of the drugs. Often they just stay with us and so we end up not running very well. Our quality of life is sometimes compromised forever and we never know when the hill will come along and we will conk out so to speak.
The body is a marvellous creation and meant to run as it was made. We have inside ourselves all the tools necessary to keep it going and healthy. If we do get sick there are ways to heal that will not leave us compromised. Rest, exercise, and proper diet have to be a given but if help is needed then Homeopathic remedies and/or Bach Flower remedies will help us get back on track safely. They have no side effects unlike most pharmaceuticals and leave nothing behind to compromise our systems. Think about it.
Murray knew all about cars and would tinker with it all the time. Once he added a device he made to drip water into the carburetor to see if the car would still run and if he could save gas. He tried it several times and if we were going fast enough he could add water and we could still drive but when he accelerated to go up a hill it would be slower and sometimes the engine would conk out. He did save gas but the care did not run as efficiently.
I was thinking about that today when I was trying to explain what I feel is wrong with most pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines in the human body. They do give you more life but you do not operate at your best capability. Unlike the water in the gas idea we humans can’t turn off the drug tap so easily and often can’t get rid of the effects and side effects of the drugs. Often they just stay with us and so we end up not running very well. Our quality of life is sometimes compromised forever and we never know when the hill will come along and we will conk out so to speak.
The body is a marvellous creation and meant to run as it was made. We have inside ourselves all the tools necessary to keep it going and healthy. If we do get sick there are ways to heal that will not leave us compromised. Rest, exercise, and proper diet have to be a given but if help is needed then Homeopathic remedies and/or Bach Flower remedies will help us get back on track safely. They have no side effects unlike most pharmaceuticals and leave nothing behind to compromise our systems. Think about it.
Friday, August 7, 2009
How I will treat this years flu.
The symptoms of the flu are many including nausea, achy feeling, runny nose, chills, tiredness and on and on. I find people know when they are getting the flu usually and will say just that "I think I'm getting the flu." This to me means they feel lousy. Take a flu remedy on that first feeling knowing that if it is not right it just passes through you without effect at all. Remember that homeopathic remedies have no side effects.
Boiron has two remedies for the flu right now Boiron - Influenzinum 30c, 80 pellets This is for this years flu and the tube should say 2009 on it and may say 2009-2010 and that would mean the swine flu. The bottle will cost about 7.00 and although it says take 3 or 4 pellets just take one at a time as one is the same as two or three or four. If you get some relief from your symptoms then don't take more although you could take one 3 or 4 hours later just to be sure you got it beaten. If you get a bit better and then not so good take another pellet. You be the doctor. If nothing happens in 20 minutes or so take another pellet and wait again to see if you are leveling off in ill feeling but if you do not have some movement forward in 3 doses over about 1 1/2 hours I would think it is not about to help. I also drink fresh orange juice lots and usually buy Grove Stand which is good. I also think rest is smart. Pamper yourself.
In my large Hollywood Survival Kit I have anas barbariae 200C which is for bird flu and to my thinking the same symptoms exist as in the swine flu. You can read about it on my site #3 remedy.
Boiron make a product called Oscilloccocinum http://www.boironusahcp.com/products/oscillo_info.aspx this is their official page on this remedy. It is Anas Barbariae 200C the same remedy that is in my kit. Their remedy comes in a pencil shaped tube about 1 1/2 inches long and you take off the cap and it is full of pin head size pellets and the suggested dose is all of them. If you understand the principals of Homeopathy you will know that one pellet has the same value as the whole tube if taken at one time. If you get oscillo then the little inner cap has an indent in it so just carefully pour two or three of the tiny pellets into the lid and take that and the tube which has about 150 pellets in it will last a long time. Take the same way as you would the other remedy suggested. I would buy both and if one does not work go to the other. I am including a site that has a bit of history and many remedies that are used for flu. I don't suggest you get all these remedies but if you wonder about symptoms of flu this will tell you them and the remedy for each. It is worth looking at to identify the question of what are flu symptoms. http://www.hpathy.com//Swine-flu-symptoms-treatment.asp
This is a long and detailed article and will give you a ton of information. Enjoy the learning curve.
Most important I would get Bach Rescue Remedy and put 3 drops in a bottle of water and drink one bottle a day especially if you are worried about getting the flu. It will help you balance your perspective on all this and calm you down. It is not addictive although preserved in alcohol (good brandy). If allergic to alcohol just heat the water to evaporate the alcohol. The number 1 remedy in all my kits is based on this famous remedy. It is magic to calm and center one in every situation. You can read about it on my site under the remedies, #1. www.hollywoodsurvivalkit.com
Boiron has two remedies for the flu right now Boiron - Influenzinum 30c, 80 pellets This is for this years flu and the tube should say 2009 on it and may say 2009-2010 and that would mean the swine flu. The bottle will cost about 7.00 and although it says take 3 or 4 pellets just take one at a time as one is the same as two or three or four. If you get some relief from your symptoms then don't take more although you could take one 3 or 4 hours later just to be sure you got it beaten. If you get a bit better and then not so good take another pellet. You be the doctor. If nothing happens in 20 minutes or so take another pellet and wait again to see if you are leveling off in ill feeling but if you do not have some movement forward in 3 doses over about 1 1/2 hours I would think it is not about to help. I also drink fresh orange juice lots and usually buy Grove Stand which is good. I also think rest is smart. Pamper yourself.
In my large Hollywood Survival Kit I have anas barbariae 200C which is for bird flu and to my thinking the same symptoms exist as in the swine flu. You can read about it on my site #3 remedy.
Boiron make a product called Oscilloccocinum http://www.boironusahcp.com/products/oscillo_info.aspx this is their official page on this remedy. It is Anas Barbariae 200C the same remedy that is in my kit. Their remedy comes in a pencil shaped tube about 1 1/2 inches long and you take off the cap and it is full of pin head size pellets and the suggested dose is all of them. If you understand the principals of Homeopathy you will know that one pellet has the same value as the whole tube if taken at one time. If you get oscillo then the little inner cap has an indent in it so just carefully pour two or three of the tiny pellets into the lid and take that and the tube which has about 150 pellets in it will last a long time. Take the same way as you would the other remedy suggested. I would buy both and if one does not work go to the other. I am including a site that has a bit of history and many remedies that are used for flu. I don't suggest you get all these remedies but if you wonder about symptoms of flu this will tell you them and the remedy for each. It is worth looking at to identify the question of what are flu symptoms. http://www.hpathy.com//Swine-flu-symptoms-treatment.asp
This is a long and detailed article and will give you a ton of information. Enjoy the learning curve.
Most important I would get Bach Rescue Remedy and put 3 drops in a bottle of water and drink one bottle a day especially if you are worried about getting the flu. It will help you balance your perspective on all this and calm you down. It is not addictive although preserved in alcohol (good brandy). If allergic to alcohol just heat the water to evaporate the alcohol. The number 1 remedy in all my kits is based on this famous remedy. It is magic to calm and center one in every situation. You can read about it on my site under the remedies, #1. www.hollywoodsurvivalkit.com
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Thiomerosal - in our vaccines Not Good!!!
The WHO says the swine vaccine we will get has Thiomerosal in it and that it is safe. Others say it is not. I thought I would go to Wikipedia and read what they say. This is what they say. Does not sound safe to me on reading this.
Thiomersal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Thimerosal)
Thiomersal
IUPAC name
Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S)
mercurate(1-) sodium
Other names Mercury((o-carboxyphenyl)thio)ethyl sodium salt
Thiomersal (INN) (C9H9HgNaO2S), or sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate, commonly known in the United States as thimerosal, is an organomercury compound (approximately 49% mercury by weight) used as an antiseptic and antifungal agent.
It was invented and patented by Morris Kharasch. The pharmaceutical corporation Eli Lilly and Company gave it the trade name Merthiolate and it has been used as a preservative in vaccines, immunoglobulin preparations, skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and nasal products, and tattoo inks. The compound is being phased out from routine childhood vaccines in the United States, the European Union, and a few other countries.
Use
Thiomersal's main use is as an antiseptic and antifungal agent. In multidose injectable drug delivery systems, it prevents serious adverse effects such as the Staphylococcus infection that, in one 1928 incident, killed 12 of 21 children inoculated with a diphtheria vaccine that lacked a preservative. Unlike other vaccine preservatives used at the time, thiomersal does not reduce the potency of the vaccines that it protects.[3] Bacteriostatics like thiomersal are not needed in more-expensive single-dose injectables.
In the United States, countries in the European Union and a few other affluent countries, thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in routine childhood vaccination schedules. In the U.S., the only exceptions among vaccines routinely recommended for children are some formulations of the inactivated influenza vaccine for children older than two years. Several vaccines that are not routinely recommended for young children do contain thiomersal, including DT (diphtheria and tetanus), Td (tetanus and diphtheria), and TT (tetanus toxoid); other vaccines may contain a trace of thiomersal from steps in manufacture. Also, four rarely used treatments for pit viper, coral snake, and black widow venom still contain thiomersal. Outside North America and Europe, many vaccines contain thiomersal; the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration.
Toxicology
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N). In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown. Fecal excretion accounts for most of the elimination from the body. Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-time of about 18 days, and from the brain in about 14 days. Inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer clearance, at least 120 days; it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood.
Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury.[9] Methylmercury and ethylmercury distributes to all body tissues, crossing the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier, and ethylmercury also moves freely throughout the body. Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is cleared from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative. A 2008 study found that the half-life of blood mercury after vaccination averages 3.7 days for newborns and infants, much shorter than the 44 days for methylmercury.
Allergies
Thiomersal is used in patch testing for people who have dermatitis, conjunctivitis, and other potentially allergic reactions. A 2007 study in Norway found that 1.9% of adults had a positive patch test reaction to thiomersal; a higher prevalence of contact allergy (up to 6.6%) was observed in German populations. Thiomersal-sensitive individuals can receive intramuscular rather than subcutaneous immunization,[ so contact allergy is usually clinically irrelevant.[13] Thiomersal allergy has decreased in Denmark, probably because of its exclusion from vaccines there.
It was voted Allergen of the Year in 2002 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.
Autism
Main article: Thiomersal controversy
Although there is no convincing evidence that thiomersal is a factor in the onset of autism, many parents, and some scientists and doctors, believe there is a connection. Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and parental concern about vaccines has led to a decreasing uptake of childhood immunizations and an increasing likelihood of measles outbreaks. More than 5,000 U.S. families have filed claims in a federal vaccine court alleging autism was caused by vaccines, most implicating thiomersal; the majority of these claims are still being adjudicated. The U.S. federal government agreed to award damages in one case, to a girl with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency who developed autistic-like symptoms after receiving a series of vaccines, some of which contained thiomersal. Many parents view this ruling as confirming that vaccines cause regressive autism;[20] however, most children with autism do not seem to have mitochondrial disorders, and the case was conceded without proof of causation.
History
Morris Kharasch, a chemist at the University of Maryland, filed a patent application for thiomersal in 1927;[22] Eli Lilly later marketed the compound under the trade name Merthiolate.[3] In vitro tests conducted by Lilly investigators H.M. Powell and W.A. Jamieson found that it was forty to fifty times as effective as phenol against Staphylococcus aureus.[3] It was used to kill bacteria and prevent contamination in antiseptic ointments, creams, jellies, and sprays used by consumers and in hospitals, including nasal sprays, eye drops, contact lens solutions, immunoglobulins, and vaccines. Thiomersal was used as a preservative (bactericide) so that multidose vials of vaccines could be used instead of single-dose vials, which are more expensive. By 1938, Lilly's assistant director of research listed thiomersal as one of the five most important drugs ever developed by the company.
Thiomersal's safety for its intended uses first came under question in the 1970s, when case reports demonstrated potential for neurotoxicity when given in large volumes as a topical antiseptic. At the time, the DPT vaccine was the only childhood vaccine that contained it; a 1976 United States Food and Drug Administration review concluded that this use of thiomersal was not dangerous. Concerns about mercury arising from Minamata disease and other cases of methylmercury poisoning led U.S. authorities to lower reference doses for methylmercury in the 1990s, about the same time that autism diagnoses began rising sharply. In 1999, a new FDA analysis concluded that infants could receive as much as 187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury during the first six months; lacking any standard for ethylmercury, it used methylmercury-based standards to recommend that thiomersal be removed from routine infant vaccines in the U.S., which was largely complete by summer 2001. Some parents of autistic children adopted thiomersal as an explanation for the increase in reported autism cases and sued vaccine makers; the mercury-autism hypothesis is accepted widely among parents of autistic children, despite scientific studies rejecting it.
Thiomersal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Thimerosal)
Thiomersal
IUPAC name
Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S)
mercurate(1-) sodium
Other names Mercury((o-carboxyphenyl)thio)ethyl sodium salt
Thiomersal (INN) (C9H9HgNaO2S), or sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate, commonly known in the United States as thimerosal, is an organomercury compound (approximately 49% mercury by weight) used as an antiseptic and antifungal agent.
It was invented and patented by Morris Kharasch. The pharmaceutical corporation Eli Lilly and Company gave it the trade name Merthiolate and it has been used as a preservative in vaccines, immunoglobulin preparations, skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and nasal products, and tattoo inks. The compound is being phased out from routine childhood vaccines in the United States, the European Union, and a few other countries.
Use
Thiomersal's main use is as an antiseptic and antifungal agent. In multidose injectable drug delivery systems, it prevents serious adverse effects such as the Staphylococcus infection that, in one 1928 incident, killed 12 of 21 children inoculated with a diphtheria vaccine that lacked a preservative. Unlike other vaccine preservatives used at the time, thiomersal does not reduce the potency of the vaccines that it protects.[3] Bacteriostatics like thiomersal are not needed in more-expensive single-dose injectables.
In the United States, countries in the European Union and a few other affluent countries, thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in routine childhood vaccination schedules. In the U.S., the only exceptions among vaccines routinely recommended for children are some formulations of the inactivated influenza vaccine for children older than two years. Several vaccines that are not routinely recommended for young children do contain thiomersal, including DT (diphtheria and tetanus), Td (tetanus and diphtheria), and TT (tetanus toxoid); other vaccines may contain a trace of thiomersal from steps in manufacture. Also, four rarely used treatments for pit viper, coral snake, and black widow venom still contain thiomersal. Outside North America and Europe, many vaccines contain thiomersal; the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration.
Toxicology
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N). In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown. Fecal excretion accounts for most of the elimination from the body. Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-time of about 18 days, and from the brain in about 14 days. Inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer clearance, at least 120 days; it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood.
Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury.[9] Methylmercury and ethylmercury distributes to all body tissues, crossing the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier, and ethylmercury also moves freely throughout the body. Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is cleared from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative. A 2008 study found that the half-life of blood mercury after vaccination averages 3.7 days for newborns and infants, much shorter than the 44 days for methylmercury.
Allergies
Thiomersal is used in patch testing for people who have dermatitis, conjunctivitis, and other potentially allergic reactions. A 2007 study in Norway found that 1.9% of adults had a positive patch test reaction to thiomersal; a higher prevalence of contact allergy (up to 6.6%) was observed in German populations. Thiomersal-sensitive individuals can receive intramuscular rather than subcutaneous immunization,[ so contact allergy is usually clinically irrelevant.[13] Thiomersal allergy has decreased in Denmark, probably because of its exclusion from vaccines there.
It was voted Allergen of the Year in 2002 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.
Autism
Main article: Thiomersal controversy
Although there is no convincing evidence that thiomersal is a factor in the onset of autism, many parents, and some scientists and doctors, believe there is a connection. Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and parental concern about vaccines has led to a decreasing uptake of childhood immunizations and an increasing likelihood of measles outbreaks. More than 5,000 U.S. families have filed claims in a federal vaccine court alleging autism was caused by vaccines, most implicating thiomersal; the majority of these claims are still being adjudicated. The U.S. federal government agreed to award damages in one case, to a girl with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency who developed autistic-like symptoms after receiving a series of vaccines, some of which contained thiomersal. Many parents view this ruling as confirming that vaccines cause regressive autism;[20] however, most children with autism do not seem to have mitochondrial disorders, and the case was conceded without proof of causation.
History
Morris Kharasch, a chemist at the University of Maryland, filed a patent application for thiomersal in 1927;[22] Eli Lilly later marketed the compound under the trade name Merthiolate.[3] In vitro tests conducted by Lilly investigators H.M. Powell and W.A. Jamieson found that it was forty to fifty times as effective as phenol against Staphylococcus aureus.[3] It was used to kill bacteria and prevent contamination in antiseptic ointments, creams, jellies, and sprays used by consumers and in hospitals, including nasal sprays, eye drops, contact lens solutions, immunoglobulins, and vaccines. Thiomersal was used as a preservative (bactericide) so that multidose vials of vaccines could be used instead of single-dose vials, which are more expensive. By 1938, Lilly's assistant director of research listed thiomersal as one of the five most important drugs ever developed by the company.
Thiomersal's safety for its intended uses first came under question in the 1970s, when case reports demonstrated potential for neurotoxicity when given in large volumes as a topical antiseptic. At the time, the DPT vaccine was the only childhood vaccine that contained it; a 1976 United States Food and Drug Administration review concluded that this use of thiomersal was not dangerous. Concerns about mercury arising from Minamata disease and other cases of methylmercury poisoning led U.S. authorities to lower reference doses for methylmercury in the 1990s, about the same time that autism diagnoses began rising sharply. In 1999, a new FDA analysis concluded that infants could receive as much as 187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury during the first six months; lacking any standard for ethylmercury, it used methylmercury-based standards to recommend that thiomersal be removed from routine infant vaccines in the U.S., which was largely complete by summer 2001. Some parents of autistic children adopted thiomersal as an explanation for the increase in reported autism cases and sued vaccine makers; the mercury-autism hypothesis is accepted widely among parents of autistic children, despite scientific studies rejecting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
