Connect with us

Awareness

The Tail Wagging the Dog: Death Categorization Drives Healthcare Decisions

Published

on

By World Mercury Project Guest Contributor Joy M. Fritz, posted here with permission.

advertisement - learn more

I work with doctors, coroners and the local county registrars every day to create death records. It’s what I do for a living and I wanted to share my thoughts on the mortality rates being thrown around on mainstream and social media regarding the influenza epidemic. Please note: This information I am sharing is not limited to influenza reporting, but rather, serves as a case study of how the mortality rate recording system (mal)functions at large.

I am sorry to say that death rates are NOT as simple or as valid as every news broadcaster with perfectly-trained vocal delivery makes them sound, and they are absolutely not the infallible pillar of medical history that the CDC purports.

This failed mechanism in the mortality rate ‘generator’, if you will, is the same for the hotly debated adverse vaccine reactions. This is the reason you see horrible adverse vaccine reactions and deaths being claimed by parents on social media, but no line item for them in national statistics.

An Imperfect System

Our current system for capturing mortality rates can and does provide a mostly uninvestigated and inaccurate picture of what causes a death. The process for creating and registering causes of death for public records is a complicated, convoluted, and politicized one. It is completely open to both ignorance and the manipulations of personal, professional, and governmental interests.

I have come to realize how greatly this reality becomes a public health issue during this current flu season when every major media outlet is providing us with live updates on the accruing death toll. Seeing these reports caused me concern for my family. My husband and I discussed what preventive treatment we might consider. I started reading the FDA package inserts for different flu immunization options to get informed on which might be safest for our infant and six-year-old. What I ultimately wanted to investigate was the risk of death. My kids getting sick is just part of life; other people getting sick is just part of life; lowering the risk of death to my family and the people around me is what I cared about when it came specifically to the seasonal flu.

The process for creating and registering causes of death . . . is completely open to both ignorance and the manipulations of personal, professional, and governmental interests.

I started researching mortality rates to find the line item in the CDC reports for “deaths due to influenza” vs. “adverse reaction to influenza medications and immunizations”. I found influenza rates, no problem. Flu medications and shots? No deaths reported. Awesome. What a simple decision to make! But, being in the mortuary industry and curious about how they get these reports, I looked at the last full report for 2014, dug deeper, and eventually found that they simply code and reorganize the data that they receive from death records—the very death records that I am typing up and registering every day.

advertisement - learn more

So my head started to explode. And I felt, and still feel, sick. I realized that without being aware of it, I knew exactly how influenza deaths are recorded, and why there was no line item in the CDC’s mortality rates for adverse reactions to common medical treatments.

Before I continue, please know that I will not be explaining all the ins and outs of my job, nor the incredibly rare reality that medication complications and adverse reactions do get captured (usually in box 112 of the death record, not as the primary underlying cause). Those exceptions are made possible by exceptional, and likely, very principled people, choosing individually to go above and beyond the call of protocol, whether that be the family that is aware of the impact of the legal documentation that occurs after death and stays level-headed and involved mere hours after the death of their loved one, or an insanely humble and honest doctor, in conjunction with the coroner medical-legal officer who trusts and cooperates with the honest doctor and vigilant family to think outside the box of their standard procedures. Almost five years and nearly 5,000 death certificates later, I can say with confidence that that kind of post-death communication concoction is at a statistical percentage point that even the CDC would consider insignificant.

What most people don’t know is that doctors are not allowed to attest to anything that is not a strictly NATURAL cause of death.

Core Considerations

So, in the spirit of very uncomfortable truthfulness, I will share a snapshot of the core issues embedded in the daily procedures of creating the death statistics that we so desperately need to make prudent health decisions for ourselves and our families. I will also include some examples of how these core issues would manifest into faulty statistical analysis at the level of our public health and lead to the miscalculation of the benefits and risks surrounding our individual medical choices.

Core Issue A: Doctors who provide causes have not all been trained the same way, and therefore do not provide standardized responses. This may at first glance seem minor, as it always has to me, but this directly affects the cause that the doctor lists on the death certificate. Some doctors prefer listing the underlying cause of death as the recent complications that occurred in the last days or weeks before death, such as pneumonia or influenza, while leaving out the more chronic illnesses that had led to the decline in health. Other doctors decide they will provide the more long-standing health conditions as the cause of death (for instance, diabetes, asthma or congenital abnormality) while leaving out the more immediate illnesses. Some doctors include both the short-term and long-term diagnoses.

Many factors play a role in which approach doctors choose. These include in what capacity the doctor saw the patient (hospital vs. hospice care for example) or the immediate availability of the complete medical record within the time frame being impressed by the mortuary due to upcoming funeral or cremation services, or simply the way the doctor personally prioritizes information. Furthermore, doctors feel limited as to what they can provide for a cause by the professional context in which they saw the patient, as determined by their specialty. For example, a primary care physician might provide a cause of death as “coronary artery disease” since that was what he/she was prescribing medication to the patient for, whereas the patient could simultaneously be being treated for stage four chronic kidney disease and be on dialysis. In this case, rather than the objectively more serious health condition being listed on the death certificate, the health condition that the doctor is most comfortable attesting to is listed. Again, way too many factors to go into in this piece, but the basic issue of the lack of standardization in cause of death diagnosis and reporting remains.

In the case of a patient who dies after contracting influenza, this patient could have all of the above-mentioned conditions on his/her medical record simultaneously, from influenza to asthma, pneumonia, congenital abnormality, coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease. Any ONE of those conditions listed is correct and valid, and could be entered as a stand-alone cause which would then be registered by me and the local and state registrar’s offices without a query. It’s the doctor’s preference and his medical opinion—yet the national attention given, medical research dollars, and yearly health choices we all make are swayed by whichever cause this particular doctor, with his/her own particular training and personality, decides to jot down on the worksheet and send back to me to enter into the official record.

CORE ISSUE B) What most people don’t know is that doctors are not allowed to attest to anything that is not a strictly NATURAL cause of death. Falls, medication complications or overdoses, causes with the word “injury” in it, anything that is considered an unnatural or external cause is outside the realm of their jurisdiction as far as the death record is concerned. The coroner would need to be contacted and agree to certify or co-certify a death record that has an unnatural or external cause listed. This is a whole other, very complicated reporting issue that I will not get into in this post. I will say, however, from the perspective of a mortuary representative, that everyone involved (doctor, coroner, registrar and myself) understands that the delay caused by any coroner involvement is highly dreaded and avoided if at all possible due to the amplified grief it can cause the family if they do not want an autopsy or investigation done or have to suffer a delay in services and/or an upset in their own personal closure process.

However, the majority of doctors are aware of their own limitation to certify only natural causes of death. And usually in the interest of serving the grieving family, they will provide the simplest natural cause that they know will quickly pass the approval of the local registrar’s office, fulfill their duty as a signing physician, and enable the grieving family to move forward with their scheduled burial or cremation services. It should be noted here that doctors are under an additional pressure since they have a limited time set out by their State Health and Safety Codes to provide causes of death to a funeral home. In California, it is within 15 hours of death, although that is rarely achieved. Delays of more than a few days after death would risk them getting their license reported to the state medical board for lack of compliance.

What Works About This System?

The system is created in such a way that naturally occurring infectious disease (such as influenza) can be and is being reported and recorded in national mortality rates. However, the lack of standardization in the way doctors report it creates an unreliable number to set as the threshold for what constitutes an epidemic.

What Does NOT Work About This system?

It does not report on the true consequential timeline of the patient’s medical treatment, including unnatural and external complications and errors in their medical care and is therefore woefully inadequate as the basis for ANY medical claims or recommendations.

The first example to illustrate the impact of this issue is as follows:

I read a post from a nurse the other day that shared her story of being hospitalized due to complications of the flu. Even though she had gotten the flu shot every year, she had only gotten influenza this year. Five days after experiencing flu symptoms, she went to her medical provider and was prescribed Tamiflu. She went through her course of medication. Her flu symptoms eased but she started getting a tightness in the chest, which further worsened until she needed to be hospitalized for pneumonia and a close call with sepsis. The conclusion of her post—and her medical opinion as a nurse—was that this year’s flu was very dangerous and anyone less healthy than she could have easily died with her symptoms, so she urged everyone to please get the flu shot to prevent the flu from spreading.

The saddest part about reading her story was discovering that she must not have read the Tamiflu manufacturer’s insert, which states that “No influenza vaccine interaction study has been conducted” and “Efficacy of TAMIFLU in patients who begin treatment after 40 hours of symptoms has not been established” and furthermore, “Events reported more frequently in subjects receiving TAMIFLU compared to subjects receiving placebo in prophylaxis studies, and more commonly than in treatment studies, were aches and pains, rhinorrhea, dyspepsia and upper respiratory tract infections.” (emphasis added)

This would lead to an alternate, very feasible medical conclusion that her hospitalization and pneumonia was the result of using a medication that has not been tested on a population of her vaccination status and symptoms duration, which also has the adverse reaction of a URTI.

…the likelihood of influenza causing the death is greater than the medication causing the death because of mortality rates—but they are the ones creating the mortality rates…

But what if someone less healthy than herself with her exact symptoms and medication course HAD died? Her medical opinion, and many other medical care providers’ opinions would have been that it was influenza that had caused the death, instead of the complications of the medication. In the medical provider’s mind, the likelihood of influenza causing the death is greater than the medication causing the death because of mortality rates—but they are the ones creating the mortality rates—so what is considered reasonable likelihood is being created in a closed loop, a regurgitating cycle.

So, whether the attending physician at the hospital was aware of this medical misstep by the other medical provider or not, in this case the hospital physician could simply put “Influenza” on the causes of death worksheet and send it back to me. Influenza would be entered in the death record and be reported in the state and then national database as such with no question from me or the government registrars.

A Public Health Reporting Conundrum

What this has created, then, is a serious public health reporting conundrum. Death due to complications of improperly prescribed medications are NOT being calculated into the national reporting agencies in a real-time setting. Neither would they be communicated in real-time to the public. Instead, people would simply hear of the rising influenza death toll and run for more medication (and likely not be reading the manufacturer’s insert either to verify if they truly are good candidates for that medication).

I have many friends and family in the medical industry and it is easily admitted that legal and personal liability is a factor in the considerations of proper reporting.

In this medication example, as you can imagine, even IF the recorders realize that the medication was prescribed erroneously, it would not be in the professional best interest of the medical provider or medical facility to report this prescription error and its possibly fatal complications to the family or public health officials. I have many friends and family in the medical industry and it is easily admitted that legal and personal liability is a factor in the considerations of proper reporting. However, if and when this possibly fatal prescription misstep was ever reported, it would be in some very passive EMR analysis many months or years later, with no urgency or real-time public health warning. The ability for government to cross-check and minutely examine nearly three million decedent medical records of varying electronic availability—annually—is just not there.

This failed mechanism in the mortality rate “generator”, if you will, is the same for the hotly debated adverse vaccine reactions. This is the reason you see horrible adverse vaccine reactions and deaths being claimed by parents on social media, but no line item for them in national statistics. It is not because they don’t exist or don’t happen. The real-time data reporting system of death recording is not set up to calculate these deaths. The families that become aware of the adverse reactions in time to request investigation (<24 hours after death), and are able to request any relevant pathological specimens to be procured before the burial or cremation of their loved one, would then need to have the time and resources to go through the lengthy reporting and court procedures through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the National Vacine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). A very few families do, and if they can establish enough scientific evidence (like pathology reports) and find and produce enough experts and professional support, they MIGHT eventually get the causes of death amended and compensation for their loss paid out by the allotted government fund. And after five, 10, 15 or 20 years, this passive data capture system might accrue enough statistical information to be reported back to the medical community so that they adjust their recommendations. However, with the HHS claim that only around 1% of vaccine injuries are reported to VAERS, even this may not be realistic.

So, just like in the medication example, any death due to an adverse reaction to the flu shot or for ANY regularly scheduled wellness immunization, would similarly not be captured in the standard process of death recording. As before, the doctor can still provide either influenza or any other natural-occurring immune response as the only cause of death. He would send it to me and I would enter it in, get the state to approve it, and “Voila!”—a thoroughly inaccurate mortality rate reporting. 

Impacting Informed Consent

One of the most difficult realities for me to recognize in examining the mortality rate reporting system that I am a part of, is that the medical community itself is suffering from the ignorance that this kind of circular mortality rate generating system creates. Doctors and coroners are limited by the already existing mortality rates to gauge the likelihood of what caused death. That kind of system can only regurgitate the same causes of death over and over again by forcing its reporters to use the same types of “acceptable” death diagnoses that already exist.

And these are the statistics the medical community uses to educate themselves and provide informed consent to the patient on what the most prudent option is for medical care to safeguard health and prevent death.

And, yes, I will take the opportunity here to say that we can logically apply this critical analysis of the lack of proper data capture to those reluctant to vaccinate or use medications. There is no current national data capture system that records the morbidity or mortality rates of those who choose less medical intervention or choose to not vaccinate themselves or their kids. We don’t know what their life expectancy, quality of life or mortality rate is in our modern day, with the advancements in hygiene, technology and post-disease-diagnosis medical care availability being considered. It could absolutely be worse, statistically, but we wouldn’t know.

For nationally reported statistics, we are left then with bad data on one side, and no control group data on the other. Hardly the recipe for safe or settled scientifically guided medical care.

Now where does that leave you and me? Our highly subjective—yet somehow infallible—weaponry of mortality rates, whether from national statistics or the social media horror stories, has us and all our friends and family swinging the manic flag of “People are dying!”

This flu season, for example, some of our friends are saying, “People are dying from flu! Get vaccinated! Take medication!” while other friends are saying, “People are dying from adverse reactions to medications and shots! Don’t get vaccinated! Drink elderberry!” And we are all running for the nearest remedies that we are sure will help us because of statistics—OR because we don’t see statistics reflecting our lived reality, so we do the best we can to discern our health without statistics.

But I’m the one creating these statistics and I offer you this: If you take one thing away from this, take away a healthier skepticism about even the most accepted mainstream, nationally reported, CDC or other “scientific” statistics. Humans who had no concept of their widespread impact made them. The numbers are not hard—they are very, very fluid. And conversely, have a healthier skepticism about all the alternative remedies we welcome as hopeful scientific-ish options. There is no unbiased, century-long, data capture system set up for these choices either.

As a parent, the most painful part of taking a step back and looking at all this, is having to humbly admit—I don’t know what the right thing to do is.

I don’t have the unbiased data I need to make the safest decision for my children.

I don’t know what the right thing to do is for myself, or for my husband.

I don’t know what side of the fence to stand on in the vaccination and mainstream medicine battlefield, and I don’t want to stand on a side: I just want the unbiased, uncorrupted and standardized data needed to accurately assess the benefits vs. the ultimate risks for my family’s health.

For nationally reported statistics, we are left then with bad data on one side, and no control group data on the other. Hardly the recipe for safe or settled scientifically guided medical care.

A Self-Reporting System

In the face of this fallible data capture system, my own resolution that I am willing to publicly recommend—no matter what medical choices you decide are best—would be:

  • Become self-reporters. Keep a health journal for each family member complete with dates and times and severity of symptoms of illness, and track dates and dosages of any medical treatment administered. Track degree of fevers, severity of migraines, frequency of ear infections, changes of behavior, hospitalizations, medication dosages and immunization combinations, etc.
  • Think critically and ask questions when you see inconsistencies in any health recommendations offered to you or your family. Request and encourage a satisfactory discussion of benefits and risks with your medical provider.
  • Download and thoroughly read the manufacturer’s insert provided on the FDA’s website for any medication or immunization you are considering, and verify that you are a good candidate for that medication. If you decide to use that medical treatment, record any minor reactions in the health journal, immediately report any somewhat severe reactions to your medical provider, and ask for that information to be added to your electronic medical record so that it might inform any future medical provider on your individual contraindications you may have in other medication courses. Remember that each of us is liable for our own health choices; you cannot expect a medical provider to be a perfect assessor of what’s best for you.
  • Follow up and make sure proper reporting was done on the medical provider’s part to the appropriate national databases, or report it yourself:  MedWatch reports for medications and VAERS reports for vaccines. This recommendation is less for you and more for others and for the sake of having the appropriate authorities informed so they can eventually take medical treatments off the market and create the demand for safer ones. Those kind of databases can only function well for the populations they serve if they are being used by everyone.

Yes, people are dying. Each and every day. I do their death records every flu season or surfing season. And try as hard as we do—and no matter how absolutely shredded inside I am, especially when I do an infant or child’s death certificate—we will never eradicate death. We CAN work to slowly eradicate and reform bad systems and misinformation. And even though there is no immediate gratification in it, we will probably save more lives when we work intelligently, truthfully and ethically towards a better future. That usually starts with a lot of humility and admitting that change is needed.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Research Reveals How Sugar CAUSES Cancer

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com where it first originally appeared. Posted here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    The average American consumes their body weight annually in this cancer-causing substance, and yet hospitals freely feed it to their cancer patients, seemingly oblivious to the harm it does.

Hospitals feed cancer patients sugar and high carbohydrate diets for a simple reason: they are abysmally ignorant of the role of nutrition in health and disease — hence their burgeoning growth, packed rooms, and ‘return customers.’

Even though the science itself shows – at least since the mid-20’s with Otto Warburg’s cancer hypothesis — that tumors prefer to utilize sugar fermentation to produce energy rather than the much more efficient oxygen-based phosphorylation* – hospitals have actually invited corporations like McDonald’s to move into their facilities  to ‘enhance’ their patient’s gustatory experience, presumably to provide comfort and take the edge off of the painful surgery, radiation and chemo treatments erroneously proffered to them as the only reasonable ‘standard of care.’

But the times are changing, with new research requiring these medical institutions to reform their dietary strategies, at least if they wish to claim that their interventions are in fact ‘evidence-based,’ as they so often claim.

Study Reveals Sugar Doesn’t Just Feed But Causes Cancer

A groundbreaking study, uncovered by one of our volunteer researchers at Greenmedinfo, is the first of its kind to identify sugar, not only as fuel source for an already existing cancer, but as a primary driver in oncogenesis – i.e. the initiation of cancerous characteristics (phenotype) within previously healthy cells.

Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and titled, Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways, researchers addressed a common perception (or misperception) in the cancer research community regarding sugar’s relationship to cancer: namely, “increased glycolysis [sugar based metabolism] is frequently viewed as a consequence of oncogenic events that drive malignant cell growth and survival.”

advertisement - learn more

Contrary to this conventional view, the new study “provide[s] evidence that increased glycolytic activation itself can be an oncogenic event.”  That is to say, the activation of sugar-based metabolism in a cell – driven by both the presence of increased quantities of glucose and the increase glucose receptors on the cell membrane surface (i.e. “overexpression of a glucose transporter”) – drives cancer initiation.

Moreover, the study found that “Conversely, forced reduction of glucose uptake by breast cancer cells led to phenotypic reversion.” In other words, interfering with sugar availability and uptake to the cell causes the cancer cell to REGRESS towards its pre-cancer structure-function (phenotype).

What Are The Implications of This Research to the Diet?

What this new research indicates is that sugar – of which Americans consume an astounding 160 lbs annually (imagine: 31 five-pound bags for each of us!) – is one of the primary causes of metabolic cell changes in the body consistent with the initiation and promotion of cancer. And, the research indicates that removing it from the diet, and depriving the cells of it, could REVERSE cancer. Why is this so surprising? It’s because Americans have been lead like lambs to the slaughter to think of “prevention” as “early detection,” focusing not on identifying and removing the well known nutritional and environmental causes of cancer, rather, to spend their time, energy, and money on cause-marketing campaigns focused on “finding a cure” — as if one didn’t already exist right in front of our noses, or more aptly, on the end of our forks.

Hidden Sugar, Crouching Cancer

It has been estimated by the USDA that the average American consumes 200 lbs of grain products annually. Why is this relevant to the question of sugar in the diet? Because refined carbohydrate products – e.g. crackers, bread, pasta, cereal – are actually ‘hidden’ forms of sugar. In fact, puffed rice causes your blood to become sweeter (and presumably feeds more cancer cells sugar) than white sugar, as it is higher on the glycemic index. Adding the two figures together – annual per capita consumption of sugar and grain-based products – we get a jaw dropping 360 lbs of sugar (both overt (table sugar/high fructose corn syrup) and covert (grain carbs) annually – all of which may contribute to promoting the ideal metabolic situation of cancer cells: aerobic glycolysis.

This is one reason why the ketogenic diet – that is, a fat- and protein-focused diet devoid of carbohydrate, both in simple (sugar) and complex (grain product) form – has been found so useful in the most aggressive of cancers: including brain cancer. Once you ‘pull the rug out’ from under the sugar/carb-craving cancer cells, they are forced to either undergo programmed cell death (apoptosis) or re-differentiate back into non-cancerous phenotypes.

If It’s So Bad For Us, Why Do We Eat So Much?

One of the primary reasons why we eat sugar and carbohydrate rich diets is because they are addictive. Within minutes of consuming sugar/carbs our body goes through a neuroendocrine roller coaster. Your brain can not survive very long without glucose, the fundamental energy unit of the cell, and will ‘freak out’ if deprived of a steady stream of this ‘nutrient’ within only 2-3 minutes. The endocrine system, on the other hand, perceives the danger of high sugar – namely, glycation associated damage to protein and lipid structures within the cells of our body; think: blood caramelizing, getting sticky, and gumming up the finely tuned works – and will release hormones such as insulin, adrenaline and cortisol, in order to try to get the elevated sugar in the blood and tissues under control. Insulin forces the sugar into storage within the cell, both as glycogen and as fat, but often does its job too well, causing available glucose levels in the brain to be depleted – setting off a vicious cycle of ’emergency signals’ telling the body to release more cortisol and adrenaline to increase the levels of glucose in the blood. This, of course, will result in additional insulin production and release, causing the same cycle to be repeated over and over again.

This seemingly endless vicious cycle is responsible for the insatiable cravings a high carb/sugar diet generates – not to mention the fructose-based hedonic effects generated in the brain that modulate both opioid and dopamine receptors in the nervous system (not unlike alcohol), and the pharmacologically active peptides in many gluten-containing grains, which also drive addictive behaviors and an almost psychotic fixation on getting carbs at each meal.

No wonder we have an epidemic of cancer in a world where the Westernized diet prevails. Certainly, we do not mean to indicate that a sugar/carb-rich diet is the only cause of cancer. There are many other factors that contribute to cancer initiation and promotion, such as:

  • Chemical exposure
  • Radiation exposure
  • Chronic stress that suppresses the immune system
  • Vaccines containing hidden retroviruses and cancer causing viruses
  • Natural infection with bacteria and viruses that are cancer causing
  • Lack of sleep
  • Insufficient nutrients (lack of methyl donors such as B12, folate, and B6 will prevent the body from ‘turning off’ (methylating) cancer-promoting genes

Even though cancer is a complex, multi-factorial phenomena, with variables we can not always control, one thing we can do is control what goes into our mouth. Sugar, for instance, does not belong there if we truly want to prevent and/or treat cancer.  And don’t forget, carbohydrates that don’t taste sweet on the front end – bread, crackers, cereal – certainly convert to sugar in the body within minutes post-consumption.

In a nutshell, if you are concerned about cancer, have cancer, or would like to prevent recurrence, removing sugar and excess carbohydrates is a must. Not only is it common sense, but it is now validated by experimental research.

Additional Research

Note: another recent study found that Candida albicans (yeast) also contributes to cancer initiation and promotion. C. albicans thrives on sugar, lending additional support to the notion that sugar (consumed excessively) may be a primary driver of the cancer epidemic in those consuming the modern Western diet. For information on sugar alternatives that are not synthetic toxicants like Splenda (sucralose), read my latest article on the topic:  4 Sugar Alternatives That Won’t Poison You.


 *Note: Cancer cells prefer to ferment sugar as a form of energy even when there is sufficient oxygen available to the cells to do so; hence Warburg’s description of cancer metabolism as ‘aerobic glycolysis’ or the so-called ‘Warburg effect’

Originally published: 2017-12-04

Article udpated: 2019-07-19


Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.


Link to the original article

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play

Published

on

[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.

Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.

An exclusive and dependent relationship

Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicinedrugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.

In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.

Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.

advertisement - learn more

In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:

  • Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
  • Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
  • Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
  • Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.

Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”

… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.

Industry-funded bias

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”

In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:

[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.

In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.

The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.

Debased and biased results

The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”

Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”

… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.

Trusted evidence?

In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.

In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.

In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”

In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.

The censorship tsunami

Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:

  • The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
  • The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
  • Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.

Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Awareness

60% of Kale Samples Contaminated With Cancer Causing Pesticide – Organic Is Key!

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found a high level of Dacthal in non-organic Kale.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do we justify the spraying of poison on our food? How does this make any sense? These substances have been linked to several diseases, how are they approved and marketed as safe in many countries? Why are they banned in so many others?

Do you still think organic is not necessary? A recent study published in the journal Environmental Research examined four families who eat conventional diets. Pesticide levels were measured via urine before switching to an organic diet for 6 days. A dramatic drop in pesticide levels was found. Another study conducted by researchers from RMIT University, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that eating an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide (commonly used in conventional food production) exposure in adults. This study found a dramatic 90 percent drop in pesticide levels. Both studies used urine samples to measure pesticide accumulation. You can access those studies and read more about them here and here.

A lot of these agents were initially developed as nerve gases for chemical warfare, so we do know that they have toxic effects on the nervous system at high doses. Conventional food production commonly uses organophosphate pesticides, among many others, which are neurotoxins that act on the nervous systems of humans by blocking an important enzyme. Recent studies have raised concerns for health effects of these chemicals even at relatively low levels.

There is no question or doubt about it, organic food not sprayed with pesticides is much better for our health, and eating organic is a great way to prevent multiple diseases, including cancer. Despite all of the publications and research on this subject, it’s confusing how cancer awareness initiatives continue to focus on raising money without ever addressing the root causes of the disease, one of which is clearly exposure to herbicides and pesticides.

This is why the Environmental Working Group (EWG) advocates buying organic products. Since its inception in 1993, EWG has fought for consumers’ rights to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. EWG’s very first report in 1993, “Pesticides in Children’s Foods,” played a pivotal role in Congress passing the Food Quality Protection Act two years later. They are a well known group of scientists and activists doing great work.

Recently, they discovered that approximately 60 percent of kale samples sold in the United States were contaminated with another carcinogenic pesticide, according to the  EWG’s analysis of the 2017 Department of Agriculture’s test data.

The pesticide is called DCPA, often marketed as Dacthal,  and it’s a substance that the EPA classified as a possible carcinogen in 1995. In 2005, its major manufacturer voluntarily terminated its registration for use on several U.S. crops, including artichokes, beans and cucumbers, after studies found that its breakdown products were highly persistent in the environment and could contaminate drinking water sources. This is why in 2009, the European Union prohibited all uses of Dacthal, enforcing a complete ban on it. With all this being said, the fact remains that it is still used in the U.S. on crops including kale, broccoli, sweet potatoes, eggplant, turnips, and who knows what else.

advertisement - learn more

Even as kale’s popularity as a health food rich in vitamins and antioxidants has soared in recent years, the level and type of pesticide residues on kale has expanded significantly. EWG’s new analysis places it third on the 2019 Dirty Dozen™, our annual ranking of the fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide residues. Recent EWG-commissioned tests of kale from grocery stores found that on two of eight samples, Dacthal residues were comparable to the average level reported by the USDA.

The USDA has not tested kale for pesticides since 2009, when it ranked eighth on the Dirty Dozen. Between 2007 and 2012, the acres of kale harvested in the U.S. grew by more than 56 percent, with more than 2.5 times as many commercial farms growing it.

Conventional kale farming relies heavily on the use of several synthetic pesticides, including Dacthal. The EPA’s 1995 classification of it as a possible carcinogen noted increases in liver and thyroid tumors. Dacthal can also cause other kinds of harm to the lungs, liver, kidney and thyroid.

According to U.S. Geological Survey data from 2016, about 500,000 pounds of Dacthal was sprayed in the U.S., mostly in California and Washington state. In California, the only state where all pesticide use must be reported, nearly 200,000 pounds were sprayed in 2016.

In states with high Dacthal use, concerns have grown about the capacity of its breakdown products to contaminate surface and groundwater. Not only can Dacthal contaminate areas near its use, but studies indicate it can also travel long distances in the atmosphere as well. (EWG)

You can read more from EWG on the subject here.

The Takeaway

Again, multiple agents can be found on non-organic produce, but this article just outlines one. At the end of the day, the choice is up to you whether or not you buy your fruits and vegetables organic. If you can afford conventional produce, you can afford organically grown produce as well. One helpful tip is to cut out junk food from your purchases if you have any, and that can make room for organic produce. Another way to look at it is spending the extra few bucks to invest in your health.

It’s unfortunate that organic food is more expensive, especially when organic food in general could be provided to the entire world if we actually utilized our fullest potential. It’s actually cheaper to produces, it’s just that governments subsidize convention farmers, not organic ones. At the end of the day, kale is extremely nutritious. It’s high in vitamins A, K and iron, and consumption of leafy greens is associated with reduced risk of various diseases. It’s best if we keep it that way by only growing organic kale.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod