Connect with us

Awareness

Is The FDA Trying to Ban Over-The-Counter Homeopathy?

Published

on

This article is from Greenmedinfo.com, printed here with their permission. It was written by Larry Malerba, DO, DHt,  a classical homeopath, osteopathic physician.  For more from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their newsletter here.

advertisement - learn more

Is the FDA acting out of malicious intent or willful ignorance in publishing a new draft guidance on homeopathics which would effectively treat them like pharmaceutical drugs, with similar regulatory requirements? 

FDA’s Regulatory Overreach Reflects Poor Understanding of Homeopathy

When FDA announced a “draft guidance” in December 2017 stating its latest intentions regarding the regulation of homeopathic products, it became clear that the agency had paid little attention to the concerns of the homeopathic community of practitioners, consumers, patients, and manufacturers. It turns out that the FDA’s public hearing held in 2015—during which numerous representatives of homeopathic interests from across the U.S and around the globe gave overwhelmingly positive testimony as to the safety, efficacy, and unique nature of homeopathic medicines—was just a pretense designed to give the appearance that it was taking the public’s concerns into account.

Hiding behind rhetoric emphasizing concerns for the safety of consumers—“FDA is proposing a new, risk-based enforcement approach to homeopathic drug products that have the greatest potential to cause risk to patients”—FDA is intending to launch a two-pronged initiative that exaggerates the risks associated with homeopathic products and denies the existing evidence in support of their safety and effectiveness.

Regarding the Safety of Homeopathic Medicines

FDA has chosen to use a very small number of unsubstantiated accounts of adverse events supposedly associated with homeopathic products in order to justify overregulation of the industry as a whole. Failing to acknowledge that the current regulatory framework, Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 (adopted in 1988), is more than sufficient to accomplish its stated goal of protecting the public from potential harm, FDA appears bent on tearing that policy down in favor of either a new and unnecessarily stringent policy or no replacement policy at all.

No policy at all would likely result in confusion about FDA’s expectations of homeopathic manufacturers and could provide opportunity for FDA to exploit the lack of clear regulatory bounds. Ronald Whitmont, MD, President of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH), echoes this sentiment:

advertisement - learn more

“What is clear is that FDA has ignored the homeopathic community’s requests to update this guidance. By withdrawing CPG 400.400 the FDA is removing the only clear guidelines that have served to help the FDA, the homeopathic manufacturers, and the public to understand the policies surrounding the marketing and labeling of homeopathic products.  

The AIH is very concerned that the withdrawal of this document will create a situation where anything can be labeled “homeopathic” and muddy the waters around what actually is homeopathic. The AIH is also concerned that withdrawal of the guidance would allow the FDA to act capriciously and to interpret the new guidelines more broadly than they should be.

If the FDA is unhappy with the current CPG 400.400 we advise that they amend it to make it a better, more comprehensive guideline, not one with less clear instructions that could result in abuses from both manufacturers and regulators. Only the public will suffer when this happens.”

I have written previously about FDA’s trumped-up scare tactics regarding homeopathic teething tablets. For decades, homeopathic medicines have been subject to unrelenting criticism from mainstream science and conventional medicine. Critics contend that the quantities of ingredients used are too small to have any physiological effects and, all observed effects must, therefore, be written off as placebo effects. In other words, the predominating belief is that homeopathic doses are too small to be of any health concern.

Astonishingly, we are witnessing a suspicious about-face whereby homeopathic medicines have apparently morphed overnight in the minds of FDA officials from useless placebos to dangerous toxins. Although the scientific community is talking out of both sides of its mouth, it can’t have it both ways. Truth be told, any qualified homeopathic doctor will tell you that neither assertion is the case. While homeopathic medicines are clearly not placebos, they are also nothing like conventional pharmaceuticals.

Homeopathic medicines are in a class completely on their own, which is why when homeopathic physician and New York State Senator, Royal Copeland, MD, sponsored legislation creating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, it was abundantly clear to the U.S. Congress that homeopathic products did not pose a risk and did not warrant the type of scrutiny that the modern-day FDA now claims it deserves.

Although the safety profiles of homeopathic medicines are unparalleled, FDA wants you to believe otherwise. A handful of isolated and unproven cases of seizures supposedly caused by homeopathic Belladonna elicited a “warning against the use” of teething tablets and a thorough review of FDA’s oversight of the entire homeopathic industry.

By contrast, here is a list of 200 drugs admittedly known to be able to produce seizures as possible side effects. I don’t see FDA clamoring to warn people against using these drugs. And I certainly don’t see them undertaking an audit of the entire pharmaceutical industry. When the safety of homeopathic products is compared against the track records of almost all conventional pharmaceuticals, FDA’s egregious double standard becomes unavoidably apparent.

If you understand homeopathy and you’ve seen it work, you know that safety is a virtual non-issue. If a remedy is manufactured according to standards of the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS), there is no reason for concern and no need for FDA to think it would need greater oversight. Therefore, the only way a homeopathic medicine can cause harm is if it has been manufactured recklessly in a manner that does not follow proper protocol. A properly made homeopathic dilution, by definition, cannot be toxic because the degree of dilution is too great. For FDA to believe otherwise is unscientific and disingenuous.

Another completely specious contention that FDA makes in its draft guidance is that homeopathic treatment “may cause users to delay or discontinue medical treatments that have been found safe and effective.” This is a classic anti-homeopathy activist talking point, one that makes a number of bogus assumptions, and one that is inherently defamatory of the homeopathic medical profession. It implies that homeopathic treatment is inferior, that it does not constitute safe and effective treatment, and that turning to conventional allopathic drug therapy is always the superior, safe, and effective thing to do.

There is no possible justification for such a statement given that one Johns Hopkins study concluded that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., a number that represents more than 250,000 deaths per year. And FDA wants to ratchet up regulation of homeopathy due to a few uncorroborated case of seizures from one homeopathic product? Something smells very fishy, indeed.

The Homeopathic Industry Agrees That Safety Standards Are Needed

Now, it is true that unscrupulous parties have been known to market so-called homeopathic products that don’t follow proper manufacturing guidelines as set out by the HPUS or don’t adhere to “current good manufacturing practices” (cGMP). If and when that happens, FDA already has the regulatory authority to effectively handle such infractions. As such, there is no need to make any changes in regulatory policies regarding homeopathic products. Nevertheless, FDA appears ready to jump the shark, giving the clear but erroneous impression that homeopathic products have suddenly become a safety concern.

The homeopathic industry does not disagree with FDA regarding the need for safety standards. However, it objects to the need for revised standards that place homeopathic products at risk for overzealous and punitive regulatory actions. Current FDA policy as stated in Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 is both adequate and effective. Eric L. Foxman, R.Ph., Secretary of the American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists, is rightfully concerned, and has this to say about FDA’s proposed actions:

“In its apparent zeal to address problematic products, the FDA has decided to do away with the existing regulatory framework under which the industry and the agency have worked together for over 25 years. This is poorly considered and ill advised. In fact, without some of the aspects of the existing Compliance Policy Guide, many more problematic homeopathic products could conceivably be brought to market. This could lead to the marketing of more adulterated, misbranded or fraudulent products masquerading as homeopathic. That would be an abdication of FDA’s role as a public heath agency, and would be a giant step backwards for homeopathy and, especially, the American consumer.”

Although the homeopathic manufacturing industry has tried to maintain a good faith relationship with FDA, the agency, in my opinion, has not acted in kind. Historically speaking, the two parties once did have a good working relationship, but this has not been the case for decades.

Regarding the Purported Lack of Evidence in Support of Homeopathy

FDA’s announcement and its new draft guidance statement make repeated references to the “unproven” nature of homeopathic medicines. Emboldened by another agency that also has little knowledge of homeopathic medicines, FDA makes reference to FTC’s claim that, “companies must have competent and reliable scientific evidence for health-related claims, including claims that a product can treat specific conditions.”

Here, in direct violation of the spirit of an act of Congress that created the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the modern FDA appears to be setting the stage for the possibility of removing the special status of homeopathic medicines. This would give them the same status as conventional drugs, potentially subjecting them to the same regulatory approval process.

This would likely bankrupt the industry, since homeopathic drugs would not be able to command the same outlandish prices that conventional pharmaceuticals have used to gouge the public and to pay for the exorbitant costs of the drug approval process. It amounts to a form of organized governmental crime that only the most obscenely wealthy companies can afford.

(I would like to make clear that this is not the opinion of the homeopathic manufacturers. They do not interpret FDA’s intent in the same conspiratorial way as do I and some others. They are of the opinion that FDA is looking to do its job to protect the public, and not out to undermine homeopathy. It is also important to note that while FDA’s actions could impact the manufacture and marketing of certain homeopathic products, it has no jurisdiction over those who practice homeopathic medicine.)

This brings us to the critically important issue of what it is that actually constitutes scientific evidence. First and foremost, I must state with unequivocal certainty that any claim that there is a lack of research evidence to support homeopathy is an absolute falsehood. Those who make such claims are either deliberately lying, are repeating bogus talking points that they have read or heard elsewhere, or do so out of pure ignorance. There are literally thousands of research trials, many of which shine favorably upon homeopathy. To examine the evidence and then deny its existence is to be deliberately obtuse.

Dr. Samuel Hahnemann developed his system of treatment by similars 200 years ago by studying the effects of his diluted medicines on healthy test subjects. FDA acknowledges this methodology, which Hahnemann called “proving.” It is an inherently safe process that involves using highly diluted medicines that are incapable of producing toxic effects. Diluted medicines are made, they are proven on test subjects, and the resulting information is used as a guide to treat people with symptoms that match the symptom patterns of the remedy provings. There is good reason to believe that it was Hahnemann himself who conducted the very first placebo-controlled, blinded research trials.

In addition to provings and modern research trials, homeopathy also has a vast body of clinical literature that dates back 200 years. Included in the literature, which was written almost exclusively by experienced physicians, are thousands upon thousands of clinical case studies. Physicians painstakingly documented the patients they encountered, the symptomatic presentation of their complaints, the remedies administered to them, and the short and long term outcomes of treatment. This process continues to this day, with countless case histories having been published in numerous international homeopathic journals both new and old.

What happens when we try to evaluate homeopathic products according to conventional pharmaceutical research standards? What all homeopathic practitioners understand—and FDA does not—is that successful homeopathic treatment is critically dependent upon context. It is not possible to get reliable results by choosing a target symptom or two to treat in isolation from all other symptoms of the patient. This type of symptomatic focus is the very thing that defines allopathic medicine. In contrast to a conventional cough suppressant drug, for example, there is no such thing as a homeopathic remedy that can be used to treat coughs in general. Each cough is unique and must be treated accordingly.

For example, Drosera is a well-known remedy for coughs of a specific type. It is especially suited to violent coughing paroxysms that can result in vomiting and even nosebleeds. The attacks are more likely to flare up after midnight. Pulsatilla, on the other hand, suits coughs that are much less aggressive. The cough gets worse when lying down, forcing the person to sit up to get relief. The person who needs Pulsatilla also complains of feeling worse in a warm room, needs fresh air to feel better, and experiences a noticeable decrease in thirst. Spongia is a remedy suited for hoarse, dry coughs. There is often tickling in the throat, which can be quieted by drinking warm drinks.

This is just a small sample of potential homeopathic cough remedies and their unique characteristics. While these types of details have little to no bearing on conventional drug therapy choices, they are crucial factors that determine successful homeopathic prescriptions.

Now imagine what would happen if FDA required a study to “prove” the value of Drosera in treating coughs. Of 100 test subjects, how many do you think would fit the criteria to justify a prescription of this particular homeopathic medicine? Very few, indeed. How long would it take to find 100 test subjects that do have symptom patterns that match Drosera? I suspect it would take years even under the best of circumstances.

Furthermore, although Pulsatilla is well-indicated for certain types of coughs, it can also be used it to successfully treat a wide spectrum of health problems, including hot flashesear infectionsgallbladder attackseczemadepression, and many more. Unlike most pharmaceutical drugs, homeopathic medicines do not have single indications. They have many uses. This basic truth adds even further confusion to FDA’s already poor understanding of homeopathic products.

So when FDA demands proof of homeopathic effectiveness according to conventional medical standards, the deck is already stacked against any prospect of success. Conventional drug trials are very poorly suited to understanding the benefits of homeopathic medicines. Each homeopathic medicine has many potential therapeutic indications, and there are many potential homeopathic remedies that can help the various individuals diagnosed with the same illness.

The irony here is that FDA requires a homeopathic label to include a specific indication for its use, and then asks for proof that it can help that condition. FDA is under the false impression that it can treat homeopathic products as if they are no different from allopathic drugs. Furthermore, FDA’s latest draft guidance states the following:

Generally, a drug, including a homeopathic drug, is considered a “new drug” if it is not generally recognized as safe and effective (GRAS/E) by qualified experts for use under the conditions prescribed.

Although this guidance clearly implies that FDA should consult qualified experts when making judgments regarding homeopathic medicines and their uses, there are no such experts on FDA’s staff. Neither does FDA have any ongoing official working relationships with outside experts in spite of requests from the homeopathic community that FDA fulfill this obligation. FDA lives in an allopathic bubble with no conception of the true nature of homeopathic products, how they work, or how they should be regarded. It is clear that FDA just doesn’t get it; it has little understanding of how homeopathy works or how it should be evaluated.

There are only two plausible explanations for FDA’s misguided attitude toward homeopathy. One is that it is acting with malicious intent to undermine the homeopathic industry, and to subvert an act of Congress, in which case it would not be far-fetched to assume that they are being encouraged to do so by Big Pharma, which is the one party that stands the most to gain from this fiasco. Given FDA’s multiple references to the recent growth of the homeopathic market, this is not an unreasonable conclusion.

The other explanation is that FDA is acting out of willful ignorance. They act like they are listening but their minds are closed. Notwithstanding the possibility of good intentions to guard the public safety, FDA’s actions reveal that it has a very poor grasp of homeopathy, and it does not seem interested in learning from true homeopathic experts.

So what is the best way to study the effects of homeopathic medicines? In terms of conventional research methodology, the protocol most suited to studying homeopathy is one that treats each individual according to his or her unique symptom pattern. It would involve treating a particular disease category, such as ear infections for example, with as many different remedies as are needed to treat the various individuals involved in the study. Each case of ear infection would receive the single remedy that best matches its symptomatic expression. It might require 10, 15, 20 or more different remedies in order to properly treat all of of kids in the study. Of course, this does not satisfy FDA’s conception of a properly conducted research trial. Nevertheless, it is the only way to give homeopathy a fair shake.

As far as homeopaths are concerned, the types of evidence best suited to homeopathy are provings and case studies as previously described. Ironically, and perhaps conveniently for disbelievers, this is the type of evidence that modern medicine now derisively calls “anecdotal.” Medical science has devolved to a point where it trusts the statistical trickery of research trials that evaluate only a few limited parameters (such as the ability to suppress a cough) more than it trusts the first-hand experiences of patients and their doctors (case studies).

Modern standards of medical evidence are badly out of kilter. The first step in rectifying the imbalance will be for medicine to acknowledge the truth of the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy and the many lessons that it has to teach about health and healing.

We Must Continue to Stand for Freedom of Medical Choice

Here’s what you can do…

1. One way to help right now is to submit positive comments (not criticisms of FDA) to FDA in support of homeopathy. Tell FDA that its current regulatory guidelines (Compliance Policy Guide 400.400) for homeopathic products are more than adequate and that any further changes place your right to choose in jeopardy. The period for public comment before FDA makes its final decisions about this critically important policy closes on March 20, 2018. (Comment here)

2. The Homeopathic Pharmacists of the United States also urge those who live in certain states (CO, NM, PA, TN, WA, UT) to urge their legislators to tell FDA not to scrap the current guidelines regarding the regulation of homeopathic products. All you have to do is sign your name to the letter. Even better if you add your own personal story of homeopathic success. (Take Action Here)

About the author:

Larry Malerba, DO, DHt is a classical homeopath, osteopathic physician, and educator whose mission is to build bridges between holistic healing, conventional medicine, and spirituality. He is the author of Green Medicine and Metaphysics & Medicine. His new book, Dynamic Medicine: The World According to Homeopathy, offers an insightful introduction to the best kept secret in the holistic health world. Dr. Malerba is board certified in Homeotherapeutics and past president of the Homeopathic Medical Society of the State of New York.
www.DrMHomeopathy.com
DocMalerba Twitter
DocMalerba Facebook

Free Docu-Series Starts Now - Supplements Revealed

Over the past year, Revealed Films has been filming researchers, medical professionals, scientists, athletes, executives, moms, advocates, and many more to clear the air on all things supplements. The global viewing event for Supplements Revealed is finally here and we want you to see it starting today to February 28.

Click To Watch For Free

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Meditation Changes The “Structure & Function of the Brain” In A Positive Way

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recent study has found found that different types of meditation can actually effect different areas of the brain.

  • Reflect On:

    Should meditation be included in the school curriculum, and used to treat certain mental ailments?

If you look at most ‘masters’ in the field of meditation, a common theme that currently exists is a big misconception about meditation, that it has to be done a certain way, that you have to sit a specific way or do something in particular in order to reap the benefits. These masters will be the first to tell you that it doesn’t have to be one specific way.

That being said, many spiritual groups, like certain monks for example, are taught different types of meditation in several different ways, so really, there’s no correct way to meditate, and the process of connecting with one’s higher self and quieting the mind can be done in multiple ways and practiced at various levels.

When meditating, one shouldn’t try to “empty” their mind, but instead, try to let ones thoughts, feelings, and whatever emotions end up ‘popping’ in there, pop in there. There should be no resistance to thoughts, no judgement of them. Simply let them be, don’t attach to them and just be at peace with it. You’re not doing anything wrong, just focus on your breath.

Personally, I believe that meditation is a state of being more than anything else.  Throughout the day, one can resist judging their thoughts, letting them flow until they are no more, or just be in a constant state of peace and self awareness. Contrary to popular belief, you can meditate anywhere, it can be done before bed, in the shower, while you are going for a walk, or even while washing the dishes.

That being said, I do also believe, speaking from my experience, that sitting down and doing the proper breath work and being present is a slightly different method and can sometimes create a more powerful experience, but there seems to be different variations of the exact same thing.

What’s interesting about meditation is the fact that it’s been practiced for thousands of years, and several ancient cultures were well aware of not only the non-physical benefits but its physical benefits as well, something modern day science is just starting to discover.

advertisement - learn more

One of the most recent studies has found that different types of meditation can actually effect different areas of the brain.

As Alice G. Walton, a writer for Forbes points out,

“Meditation and mindfulness training have accumulated some impressive evidence, suggesting that the practices can change not only the structure and function of the brain, but also our behaviour and moment-to-moment experience.”

She is correct, probably even more so than she knows. The evidence showing just how strong the mind-body connection is can actually be overwhelming. In fact, studies in the field of parapsychology have just as much, if not more, statistical significance via peer-reviewed research than the science which has been published to approve several different drugs, like antiplatelets, or the science that shows a daily dose of aspirin can help prevent a heart attack. It was published in 1999, by a statistics professor at UC Irvine.

This new study, which was recently published by the Max Planck Institute found that three different types of meditation are associated to changes in corresponding brain regions.

Watson goes on to explain,

“Participants, who were between 20 and 55 years of age, engaged in three different types of training for three months each, totalling a nine-month study period. The first training was dubbed the “Presence” module, and was very similar to focused awareness meditation, an ancient practice that’s been studied a lot in recent years. In this study, participants learned to focus their attention, brining it back when it wandered, and to attend to the breath and to their internal body sensations.” 

The second phase of training was called “Affect,” and its purpose was to increase compassion and empathy for others. The participants learned about a specific meditation dealing with “loving-kindness,” and again, the sole intention here was to enhance one’s compassion and empathy.

The last one was called the “Perspective” module, where the focus was simply to observe one’s own thoughts without judgement, while enhancing their understanding towards the perspectives of other people.

The researchers hypothesized that these methods would lead to volume increases in corresponding parts of the brain.  Numerous studies have proven the many physiological benefits of meditation, and the latest one comes from Harvard University of a study conducted by Harvard researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)  who determined that meditation literally rebuilds the brain’s grey matter in just eight weeks. It’s the very first study to document that meditation produces changes in grey matter over time.

This recent study found the same thing, and they discovered that when they scanned the participants’ brains at the end of each module and then compared the groups against one another:

“Training in Presence was linked to enhanced thickness in the anterior prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which are known to be strongly involved in attention. Affect training was linked to increased thickness in regions known to be involved in socially driven emotions like empathy: and Perspective training associated with changes in areas involved in understanding the mental states of others, and, interestingly, inhibiting the perspective of oneself.” 

These results further elaborate on a wealth of previous studies showing what meditation can do to the brain.

Walton goes on to emphasize,

“Lots of research has found that experienced meditators have significantly altered brain structure and function, but a growing number of studies has also found that relatively brief meditation training in novices (for instance, the well-known eight-week MBSR program) can also shift brain function, improve well-being, and reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety.” 

The authors of the study mention:

“With growing globalization, interconnectedness, and complexity of our societies, ‘soft skills’ have become increasingly important…Social competences, such as empathy, compassion, and taking the perspective of another person, allow for a better understanding of others’ feelings and different beliefs and are crucial for successful cooperation.” 

Why This Is Relevant & Important

Imagine if this type of practice became a requirement of multiple school boards, what do you think would happen? For most of us, since the day we are born we’re all encouraged to follow the same path, and one of those paths is spending a large portion of our lives, for many years, for the entire day, at school. Then, as we age into adults, we do the same thing with ‘work.’ This type of human experience is far from natural, which is why I believe it to be one of the reasons (out of many) that stress, diseases, and mental health issues, among other rates, continue to rise exponentially.

While going through this process, we’re never really taught how to question the experience, we simply comply and are never really taught any sort of emotional education, at all. We don’t learn to deal with our emotions, we don’t learn about empathy, compassion, and stepping into another persons shoes… We’re not really taught what we are naturally gifted with from birth. It’s our empathy and compassion, our concern for others that makes human beings so special, but growing up, we don’t really talk about these things.

The world is changing in many different ways, and awareness about this kind of practice is spreading around like it never has before. Multiple schools are incorporating mindfulness education into their programs, and many parents from my generation are also incorporating these important concepts into their child’s development.

This is great to see, and as time unfolds, the more we tap into non-physical science and its tremendous benefits, the more we will speed up the changes that are so desperately needed on our planet right now.


Related CE Articles:

Scientists Demonstrate What Meditation Does To Your Gut & Your Brain

Mind-Body Connection During Meditation Can Now Be Measured – Thanks To Science

Study Outlines What Prayer, Meditation & Yoga Can Do To The Human Body

Physicists Examine Consciousness & Conclude The Universe Is Spiritual, Immaterial & Mental

Physicists Say Consciousness Should Be Considered A State of Matter – The Non-Physical Is Real

This is How Powerful The Mind/Body Connection Really Is

Nepals Military Set To Use Transcendental Meditation To Relieve Global Collective Stress To Stop War

“I Was Sort of a Jackass Before Meditation” – This Is How We Can Change Police Brutality

Tibetan Buddhist Master Monk Explains How Meditation Is Not What Most People Think It Is

How To Meditate: 6 Method That Can Get Anyone Meditating

Free Docu-Series Starts Now - Supplements Revealed

Over the past year, Revealed Films has been filming researchers, medical professionals, scientists, athletes, executives, moms, advocates, and many more to clear the air on all things supplements. The global viewing event for Supplements Revealed is finally here and we want you to see it starting today to February 28.

Click To Watch For Free

Continue Reading

Awareness

Dr. Lawrence Palevsky Testimony: Unvaccinated Children Are “The Healthiest Children I’ve Ever Seen”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a NY licensed paediatrician, speaks at a forum on vaccines in Connecticut, discussing the repeal of the religious exemption for childhood vaccines.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is vaccine hesitancy on the rise?

It’s always worrisome publishing an article about vaccine safety and posting it on Facebook. But why is that? One would think that discussions and concerns about vaccine safety would be encouraged. However, the opposite is true–Facebook has been cracking down on any information that they deem as “anti-vaccine.”

Does this mean that reporting on a study addressing the concerns of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, for example, will be prevented from spreading and possibly even labelled as “fake news,” despite the fact that it’s been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal?

Does this mean that a paediatrician, like the one below, will also be censored for sharing his opinion based on his research and experience?

Dr. Heidi Larson’s Comments at WHO Summit

I’d like to point out that many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety Summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project, emphasized that doctors and professionals should forego name-calling with ‘hostile language’ such as “anti-vax”.

She recommended encouraging people to ask questions about vaccine safety. After all, it makes sense–in order to make our vaccines safer and more effective, you would think everybody would be on board with constant questioning and examination. After all, that’s just good science, and it’s in everyone’s best interest. She also brought up the issue of confidence in vaccines:

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen–and we’re constantly looking on any studies in this space–still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider. And if we lose that, we’re in trouble.

advertisement - learn more

You can read more about the concerns brought up by scientists at that conference, in detail, here.

Dr. Lawrence Palevsky

One of those doctors who is losing confidence in vaccines is Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a practicing paediatrician trained at the NYU School of Medicine who did his residency at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. He spent the first nine years of his career working in emergency rooms running a neonatal intensive care unit. He recently spoke at a forum on vaccines in Connecticut, discussing the repeal of the religious exemption for childhood vaccines. In the video below, he provides a great summary as to why so many parents and physicians continue to become concerned about vaccine safety.

The parents that I work with in New York, that I see around the country are very concerned that their rights are being taken away, that their knowledge about the science is being pushed away by an agenda that only says, unvaccinated children are a problem.

No study has every been done in this country, appropriately, to address the health outcomes of children who are vaccinated versus the children who are unvaccinated. I have been seeing families in my practice for over 20 years, that have opted out of vaccination, they are the healthiest children I’ve ever seen.

Vaccine hesitancy among among health professionals is no longer a secret. A study published in the journal EbioMedicine outlines this point:

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

The Takeaway

The scientific community should never stop questioning, especially when it comes to medication. Based on the information that’s come out at the conference mentioned in this article, and the testimony shown above, it’s quite clear that there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to the development of vaccines and vaccine safety overall. Discussion is always encouraging, as long as it’s peaceful and facts are presented in a proper manner.

It’s better to understand the reasons why a lot of people, parents, scientists and physicians are hesitant about vaccination and appropriately respond, instead of simply using ridicule and hatred, because that’s never effective and both parties cannot move forward that way. At the end of the day, scientists should never cease to question.

Free Docu-Series Starts Now - Supplements Revealed

Over the past year, Revealed Films has been filming researchers, medical professionals, scientists, athletes, executives, moms, advocates, and many more to clear the air on all things supplements. The global viewing event for Supplements Revealed is finally here and we want you to see it starting today to February 28.

Click To Watch For Free

Continue Reading

Awareness

A Potential Solution To Reduce Snoring & Sleep Apnea

Published

on

I’d like to share with you a convenient alternative remedy that has helped all of my clients to reduce snoring and sleep apnea, and that is by wearing a tape to keep your mouth closed during sleep. A new study published this year also showed the efficacy of this treatment.

Snoring and sleep apnea not only represent a holistic health risk to an individual, the irritating noise at night can often create conflict in a couple’s relationship. I’d like to share with you a convenient alternative remedy that has helped all of my clients to reduce snoring and sleep apnea, and that is by wearing a tape to keep your mouth closed during sleep. A new study published this year also showed the efficacy of this treatment.

Major Cause of Snoring & Sleep Apnea

One major cause of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea is mouth breathing during sleep, especially when you sleep in the supine position. When you sleep in the supine position with an open mouth, gravity pulls down your jaw and tongue, which then compresses your throat. As a result, your airway gets suppressed and narrowed, leaving less space for the air to pass through.

Mouth breathing also introduces stronger air flow as you inhale and exhale, which exacerbates the airway soft tissue vibration, causing the loud snoring noise. Strong air flow during mouth breathing also induces strong negative pressure that sucks in the soft tissues around the throat area, further narrowing your airway and eventually causing it to collapse, resulting in obstructive sleep apnea.

The Quick Fix? Wear Tape To Keep Your Mouth Closed

As I mentioned earlier, one of the main causes of snoring and sleep apnea is mouth breathing. A quick fix to keep your mouth closed during the night is to apply a small piece of tape over it. When your mouth is closed and lips are together, it is harder for you jaw to fall back even when lying in a supine position. Keeping your mouth closed also forces you to breathe through your nose, which not only helps to regulate the airflow to reduce the negative pressure inside your airway, but also reduces soft tissue vibration

An otoralyngology study published this year in the American Academy of Otolaryngology Journal demonstrated the effectiveness of this technique, showing significant reduction in median AHI (Apnea-Hypopnea Index) score and snoring index [1].

advertisement - learn more

In the past few years, ENT specialist Dr. Hung Cheng Tseng and I have recommended wearing tape for all of our clients as part of our AirwayFit training program, and the feedback has been great. For some CPAP users, wearing tape on their mouth can help to eliminate the air leakage issue. In addition, if you often find yourself waking up with a dried mouth and throat, this method will also help you keep your mouth and throat moisturized throughout the night.

How To Apply?

In practice, wearing tape to sleep is actually a lot less daunting than it sounds.

Visit any drug store near you and pick up a small roll of medical grade paper tape. It should cost you no more than $10. I recommend ones that are hypoallergenic, porous, and non-waterproof. When you wear the tape, you want to roll your lips slightly inward so you don’t apply it directly onto your lips. Otherwise, your lips can really hurt when you remove it in the morning. Some people apply some lip balm or vaseline onto their lips first as a layer of protection.

You don’t have to wear the tape over your entire mouth. You can start by wearing it vertically, in the center, right beneath your nose, and that should suffice; as long as the tape keeps your jaw up, you should be fine. I also recommend you to pre-fold one of the corners of the tape, just so that there’s a corner you can grab onto easily in the morning to tear it off.  If you have sensitive skin and you find removing the tape hurts, you can wet it with water before you remove it in the morning. You could also reduce the stickiness of the tape prior to use by sticking it onto your forearm a couple of times before applying to your lips.

If you really are panicked by this idea, then as I mentioned before, you can try wearing it only at the center portion of your mouth. This will leave gaps on the two sides of your mouth but still keep your jaw in the upright position during sleep. Also, if it’s your first night trying this method, wearing the tape 30 minutes before you go to bed can help you adjust to the feeling.

Most people who have tried the tape method to keep their mouth closed find it convenient and more comfortable and cheaper than the alternative methods. However, I would caution against wearing tape to keep your mouth closed if you experience the following: nausea or epilepsy, or if you have consumed alcohol or any pill or medicine prior to sleep. Otherwise, give it a try today and you will find yourself waking up feeling much more energized and hydrated the next morning!

To learn more about your sleep trouble, visit www.AirwayFit.com

Source:

[1]    Huang TW., Young TH., “Novel Porous Oral Patches for Patients with Mild Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Mouth Breathing: A Pilot Study” American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 152.2 (2015): 369-373. Print.

Free Docu-Series Starts Now - Supplements Revealed

Over the past year, Revealed Films has been filming researchers, medical professionals, scientists, athletes, executives, moms, advocates, and many more to clear the air on all things supplements. The global viewing event for Supplements Revealed is finally here and we want you to see it starting today to February 28.

Click To Watch For Free

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!