I Believe the Words You're Looking for are "Thank You"

I Believe the Words You’re Looking for Are “Thank You”

(In another departure, we are reposting this blog by Julie Bailey Obradovic, that originally ran on her personal blog on January 29, 2015.  We thought it was an important and eloquent expression of something that many, many parents have in common. )

On November 15, 2002, we went out to celebrate my husband’s birthday. My aunt had kindly offered to watch our two children for us while we celebrated. It was generous of her to do so, and we gratefully took her up on it. We had a wonderful evening . . . until we returned.

She was standing in the hallway just coming down from the stairs of our split-level home as we entered around 1 a.m. Even though it was dark, her face was clear as day, and it was not displaying a good expression. If anything, she looked as if she had just witnessed a horrible tragedy.

Immediately, without asking us about our evening, she urged us to go upstairs and check on our daughter. According to her, our baby had let out a scream unlike she had ever heard only moments before. She truly thought someone had entered the house and had stabbed her, and she was just about to call 9-1-1.

After racing upstairs, she scooped her up out of the crib still mid-scream. The way she described it, Eve was screaming so hard that she couldn’t breathe, her face red with excruciating pain, arching her back as if to fall back into the crib the whole time. Eventually, she stopped, but not in a normal way. She collapsed in my aunt’s arms, as if to pass out. Although still breathing, she wouldn’t wake. My aunt feared she was dying.

Right then, we got home.

Because I didn’t hear the scream, something I have only heard in my dreams since, I couldn’t gauge the seriousness of what had happened accurately. I knew my aunt was the last person to overreact, and given her panic, I realized something was very wrong. We ran upstairs to find Eve just as she had left her, appearing to be sleeping peacefully in her crib.

I called her pediatrician immediately. Eve had been suffering from repeated and chronic ear infections for over 14 months at that time, at least 11 at our last count, and had been on at least that many rounds of antibiotics, each one a stronger, harsher version than the next, none of which ever did anything to alleviate them. In fact, her gums, her lips, her vagina, and her butt were covered in yeast as a result, and patches of eczema were popping up on her elbow and knee creases as well (something that finally cleared with an antifungal).

I suspected she had another ear infection, which often made her scream at night, and tried not to worry too much. I also tried to calm my aunt who said she knew what a baby crying from ear pain sounded like, and this was not it. She was adamant we go to the hospital.

When the doctor finally called back, he believed it was likely ear pain too given her history, told us to give her some pain reliever, and to bring her to the office in the morning. If anything else happened, we were to go to the emergency room, but he didn’t believe it was worthy of a trip right then.

Because over a year’s worth of my instinct that something was seriously wrong with Eve had been disregarded by my pediatricians, and twice, had been criticized for it, I chose to obey the doctor’s orders. I was tired of being made to feel like I was a bad mom by wanting to do other than what they said.

My aunt was upset. She offered to stay overnight with our son if we would just go. She offered to go with me if Matt wanted to stay home. She pleaded. She begged. And when I finally promised to take Eve in the morning first thing, she reluctantly got her coat and said in a way she had never spoken to me, “I have been a mother for 30 years. I was an aunt to you and all of your cousins. I have been around children and babies my whole life. I am telling you, Julie Ann, I have never heard a baby scream like that. Ever. Something is wrong.”

The next day she was not diagnosed with another ear infection. She didn’t have one, but in an effort to try to prevent them, they scheduled her for ear tube surgery. She would have it December 16th, which she did. It did not stop the ear infections that continued for the next two years, and no explanation for the high-pitched, back-arching screaming fit was ever given. It was as if it never happened.

On December 21st, I gave Eve a bath, careful not to get any water in her ears. I was so hopeful that the surgery would put behind the nightmare of illnesses and strange symptoms that had started with an undiagnosed, hot burning rash on her face at one month old, continued with a large, hot, lump on her leg where she received several shots at 4 months old and never went away for weeks, and then finally manifested as one long ear infection beginning at 5 months until now.

Between the constipation interspersed with yellow diarrhea, the eczema, her hair starting to fall out, the gait she was walking with, the incessant drooling around 12 months, and the hypotonia that had developed around 10 months, I had had enough.

Finally, finally, finally, I thought, this would be behind us. Finally, my baby girl would be healthy. No more antibiotics and their side effects. No more nebulizers for respiratory infections. No more covering her ears at the sound of the vacuum or singing. No more prescription creams for skin rashes. No more sleepless nights. No more.

I wrapped Eve in a towel and called Matt to grab the camera. In my newfound sense of relief and hope, I wanted to capture the beginning of a new chapter for her. He met me in her bedroom and together we tried our hardest to make her laugh and smile to get a great photo. (These were the days before digital cameras, and film was not something you wasted.)

julie and daughter

Within a few minutes, I realized something I hadn’t until then. Eve had stopped smiling. No matter what we did, no matter how hard we tried, there was nothing, just a vacant, expressionless, unengaged face of angel looking in our direction but not really at us.

Worse, I simultaneously realized, she hadn’t spoken in weeks either. She didn’t have a lot of words that year, but she had words. She pointed, she repeated, and she tried. On the floor of her bedroom that night, actually ever since Matt’s birthday I could prove with video, they were gone.

I quietly asked Matt to put the camera away and got her ready for bed. Without saying a word, I went to my room, turned off the light and lay in the dark on my bed towards the direction of her nursery. Still in my clothes, I stared wide-eyed into the dark, filled with an anxiety that has not left me since.

I knew in that moment . . . I knew in a way that only a mother can know . . . my life, her life, and our baby girl was forever changed, even though I would spend the next two years believing that because a doctor didn’t confirm it, I must be wrong.

A few weeks before Matt’s birthday, Eve received her fourth DT DTP vaccine, her fourth Prevnar vaccine, her third polio vaccine, and her first MMR at the same time. This occurred within days of ending another round of antibiotics. Although we can never prove it because we didn’t go to the hospital that night, nor were the proper tests done the following day, the description of what Eve experienced that night is identical with a condition called “encephalopathy”. That’s a fancy word for brain inflammation and swelling. A high-pitched scream, an arched back, and neurological damage afterwards are a textbook description of the condition.

Here are the symptoms and causes per Medical News Today:

Encephalitis can develop as a result of a direct infection to the brain by a virus, bacterium or fungus (infectious encephalitis, or primary encephalitis), or when the immune system responds to a previous infection; the immune system mistakenly attacks brain tissue (secondary encephalitis, or post-infectious encephalitis).

Primary (infectious) encephalitis: according to the NHS (UK), there are three main categories of viruses: 1. Common viruses, such as HSV (herpes simplex virus) or EBV (Epstein Barr virus). 2. Childhood viruses, such as measles and mumps. 3. Arboviruses, which are spread by mosquitoes, ticks and other insects, and include Japanese encephalitis, West Nile encephalitis and tick-borne encephalitis.

Secondary (post-infectious) encephalitis: could be caused by a complication of a viral infection. Symptoms start to appear days and even weeks after the initial infection. The patient’s immune system treats healthy brain cells as foreign organisms that need to be destroyed, and attacks them. We don’t know why the immune system goes wrong and does this.

Encephalitis is more likely to affect children, elderly people, individuals with weakened immune systems, and people who live in areas where mosquitoes and ticks that spread specific viruses are common.

The package insert of the MMR vaccine lists encephalopathy as a potential, albeit rare, vaccine reaction. So does the DTP. The United States Federal Claims Court for vaccine injuries has also awarded numerous families compensation for children who have suffered encephalopathy following the DTP and MMR, including dozens of children since who have actually been compensated for death caused by the MMR. Yes, per our federal government, more children have been killed by the MMR in the last 10 years than have died from the measles. The threshold of risk-reward benefit appears to have been reached.

Within a year of this episode, I began to research what could possibly be wrong with my daughter and why. Until then, I had implicitly trusted the medical establishment with both of my children’s lives, and my third that was on the way. Even when I doubted their choices, I always did what they told. Always. And when they told me that my daughter was likely not talking because of her brother, and that not all kids crawl, and that it’s normal for kids to shake their heads back and forth, and it’s normal to have constipation for a year, and on and on and on . . . I believed them.

It wasn’t until I had heard about the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the secret “Lilly Rider” that had been anonymously sneaked in at the 11th hour to protect Eli Lilly and their vaccine preservative Thimerosal from liability (later credited to Dick Armey – R), that I ever, ever, ever questioned vaccines or anything about them. As many people currently believe, I also believed vaccination was a miraculous duty in the modern world. If I needed to get my child a shot at two months old, I was there on that day, no questions asked.

There was no Jenny McCarthy in 2004 when that happened for me. I had no clue who Dr. Wakefield was, what he had published, or how or if that was remotely relevant if at all to my life. There was no Generation Rescue, no Autism Speaks, no Facebook, no Twitter, and very little social media available. At best, you found Yahoo groups where you could gather ideas for research and keep up with the politics. I, like thousands and thousands of other parents across the globe, had to do the research my self.

When my third child was born that year, there were far more questions than answers regarding to what had happened to Eve and why. But within a few months, I learned some frightening things . . . that my brother had had a horrible reaction to the MMR  . . . and that my mother, in spite of repeatedly being given it, had never developed immunity . . . and that the measles virus could take up to 30 days to enter the brain upon exposure.

I learned that the symptoms of everything wrong with my daughter were the symptoms of mercury poisoning . . . that mercury had the power to open the blood-brain barrier and allow viruses, bacteria, and other toxins in that should never be there . . . that she had been injected with mercury on the first day of her life . . . that the CDC had studied children who received no mercury in the first month of life and compared them to children who had received 25 mcg or more and discovered there was a 7.7 relative risk of developing autism (and an 8.35 RR of ADHD), and then redid the study four more times over the next four years to get that risk down to 1.52 . . . and then destroyed, lost, or sent the original data sets offshore so they could never be independently analyzed . . . But only after meeting at Simpsonwood, Georgia to figure out how to protect themselves from lawsuits. I learned how they hired the IOM to exonerate them, and how they lied under oath to Congress on July 18, 2000, pretending to know nothing about that which had just been revealed at Simpsonwood . . . which happens to be my anniversary, and the day I confirmed I was pregnant with Eve.

You can read the whole story and download all of the emails and studies and verify everything for yourself here at www.putchildrenfirst.org or by simply reading David Kirby’s award-winning book about the whole debacle, Evidence of Harm, or Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill’s meticulous account of the history of mercury in medicine in their book, Age of Autism. Or you can even save yourself all of that time and watch the new documentary “Trace Amounts” www.traceamounts.com somewhere near you in the next few months.

Many journalists and bloggers and doctors have decided the behavior of the CDC is and has been perfectly normal, that it’s perfectly fine for them to investigate themselves and find themselves not guilty, and that the fact that the explosion of neurological disorders in the generation since (all which are symptoms of mercury poisoning . . . ADHD, autism, speech delay, tics) is nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence. That is actually what a doctor said it was to David Kirby on Meet the Press in 2005 . . . “An unfortunate coincidence.”

And so I had a choice that year as my newborn baby came into the world in 2004. Do the same thing I had with Eve and expect a different result? Or take a step back, really investigate what was happening, read all of the science for myself, and wait. Hold off until I knew more?

Crazily, for 6 months, I did the same I had with Eve. I was too afraid to challenge my doctors. Too afraid to leave my baby unprotected. Too afraid to even bring up the corruption being unearthed at the CDC. I vaccinated my baby on time, every time.

And then she got an ear infection, at the exact month as Eve had first gotten hers. I fell to my knees and begged God . . . begged Him . . . that if he would just spare me this daughter . . . that I would do anything in my power to help kids like Eve and to get to the bottom of what had happened. We stopped vaccinating right then and there.

In my worst moments, I wish every condescending, know-it-all parent, journalist, blogger, and citizen who never had to live through what we did . . . never had to make the decisions I had to make . . . never had to learn of the betrayal of their government and medical community on the back of their child like we did . . . never read a study, or the minutes of Simpsonwood . . . never heard of Brick Township, Frederick Wellman, William Miller, Dr. Elizabeth Peabody Trevett, Poul Thorsen, or Willian Thompson and have no idea why they matter . . . the pain of a medically brain injured child.

I wish all of those people the bullying, the vitriol, the isolation, and the hatred of being a parent in my position.

I wish them the suffering of the loss of a child that is still alive. March 27, 2001, I brought a healthy, beautiful, vibrant baby into this world. Over the next 18 months she got sicker and sicker, all the while no one doing anything to make her better, and on November 15, 2002, the daughter I once had . . . the child she was meant to be, basically died. The baby girl I had given birth to was gone, but not.

I wish them a lifetime of regret. A lifetime of never having closure. A lifetime of anxiety and panic and worry. A lifetime of loss and an indescribable, never-ending soul-wrenching heartache that taints every moment of every day for you, no matter how hard you try it not to.

I wish them the pain of going it alone. Of knowing that because your doctors didn’t do the right tests and file the right reports, you will never see a dime.

I wish them a lifetime of watching drug commercials with side effects taking up half the time and then being told the side effects of vaccines don’t exist . . . and that even if they do . . . even IF they do, they condescendingly say . . . it doesn’t matter. Your child was an acceptable loss to society. Some kids gotta die so more may live. Guess you guys pulled the bad straw.

I wish them seeing commercials of lawyers offering to compensate you on that same drug five years later because you can actually sue drug makers for their shoddy work with those drugs. I wish them knowing what it feels like to know they have no such recourse for their child.

I wish them being told they are liars, and dangerous, and public menaces, even though there is not a shred of evidence of that being true in any capacity of their lives.

I wish them the pain of someone they love and trust and care about, someone they think has their back and believes in them, post a factually incorrect, not-even-kind-of-based-in-truth article or graphic on a controversy they have spent 5 minutes reading about but you have spent every day of every year for 10 years immersed in, and realizing all this time you were wrong. They think you’re a misguided lunatic, and it was easier for them to tell you this in a passive-aggressive way on Facebook than to your face.

I wish them sleepless nights and night terrors where you wake drenched in sweat, certain you are being buried alive or doing everything you can to save your child from a fire but can’t kick the door down.

I wish them at least one suicidal thought because the guilt of what happened on your watch and the anger of why and how and the level of betrayal you feel is so deep you see no other way out of the pain for the rest of your life.

I wish them a lifetime of wondering what their child would have been like. Of never being able to attend a school function, a parent teacher conference, or sporting event and not wondering, what if? Of having children the same age in their families and neighborhoods that went unscathed and wondering, why her? Why you? Why not them? Of every milestone of your healthy children being a reminder of your unhealthy child’s plight. Of never having a single moment of joy for one child without instantaneously feeling sadness at the loss of it for the other.

I wish them hoping, begging, pleading that there really is a heaven so that when they die, they finally get to meet that child.

I wish them being told they are a horrible person for even thinking that.

I wish them this and so much more. In my worst moments, there is so much more.

And then I think, no. I don’t wish that. I actually don’t wish this on anyone. I live in the Twillight Zone, one where my reality is not real according to the authorities. Where my pain, my child, her life, and our loss not only didn’t happen, but that it doesn’t matter if it did. No one, not even the people who hate me for simply not wanting to lose another child in the same way and to protect other parents from the same fate, deserve this.

And so then I wish for two more things. Forgiveness and faith. I pray for forgiveness for my evil thoughts. I pray for forgiveness of myself and the people, policies, and programs put in place that led to this disaster.

I pray for the faith that somehow, some way, this will all get worked out and we can do what every single person on either side of the controversy ultimately wants: to protect kids. To RESPONSIBLY and CAUTIOUSLY prevent infectious AND chronic disease.

I pray for the faith that someday my child’s sacrifice in the war on infectious disease will be honored. Just as we honor those that fall at the disease, I pray someday we will acknowledge, honor, and care for those who fell at the hands of friendly fire. They are just as precious.

I pray for the faith that those responsible for this disaster will someday see justice for what they have done, and even more so, for masterfully taking the blame off themselves and pointing it at the families of the victims. Evil genius, I say.

I pray for faith that there is a reason, even if I never get to know what it is, that this had to happen . . . to Eve and to us.

Meanwhile, I kindly ask that if you believe that Matt and I are a menace to society, bad parents, liars, misguided, delusional, desperate, or any such negative connotation, to have the decency to simply unfriend us, and not just on Facebook, but in all areas of our lives.

If you believe we would truly try to hurt a child, allow the world to explode in infectious disease, or follow quackery, unfriend us.

If you have failed to do your research and do not know that there is a whistleblower lawsuit against Merck right now, by two of their own virologists who claim they were asked to lie about the true efficacy of the MMR vaccine (basically, it’s not working well anymore), unfriend us.

If you believe that we owe you or society the potential loss of the quality of our youngest daughter’s life by exposing her to the same medical procedures that resulted in the actual loss of the quality of our eldest’s, unfriend us.

If you think that didn’t happen to Eve, unfriend us.

If you think you know more about what happened to our daughter than we do because you watched an Upworthy or Penn and Teller video, unfriend us. (Funny, we’re not supposed to listen to celebrities in this issue unless they hold a certain position I guess.)

If you think continuing to inject a pregnant woman, infant, child, or anyone for that matter with a neurotoxin made by Eli Lilly, that has never . . . not even to this day . . . been tested for safety, not to mention was deemed too toxic for dog vaccines way back in 1935 . . .  is an inconsequential responsible health policy, unfriend us.

“We have obtained marked local reaction in about 50% of the dogs injected with serum containing dilutions of Merthiolate (Thimerosal). Merthioiate is unsatisfactory as a preservative for serum intended for use on dogs.”(Director of Biological Services, Pittman-Moore Company, letter to Dr. Jamieson of Eli Lilly Company dated 1935. U.S. Congressional Record, May 21, 2003, E1018, page 9).

If you think the Bush Administration and the CDC could/can be trusted where autism is concerned and have behaved ethically and reliably, and that parents of sick kids, the ones who did exactly as they were told and have no other agenda than to help you protect your own children are the real enemies, unfriend us.

If you think you have the right to judge my family members, siblings, best friends, neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances who were eyewitnesses to the loss of our child, to our heartache, and will testify to our character and have chosen to take a different path to protect their own children as a result, unfriend us.

And finally, if you think that it’s okay for some children to die so that more may live, I kindly ask that instead of shaming parents who have already given society a child and have decided, “You know what? I’m not giving you another one, and I’m not even going to take a chance on that,” that you reach out them.

I believe the words you are actually looking for for these parents, instead of “stupid,” “misguided,” “maniacs,” “public menaces,” “criminal” and more hateful choices, are “thank you.”

Thank you, for giving your child to the war on infectious disease. Thank you, for taking one for the team. Thank you, for dealing with an insensitive society who has never acknowledged your sacrifice, let alone offered to help you care for your child.

Thank you.

And most important, thank you to the child who gave her life to the effort. Thank her.

Those are the words you should be using. But be prepared. They probably won’t be returned with, “You’re welcome.”

I know I wouldn’t say it. Neither would my daughter. I’m positive she would have preferred her life to have been preserved, as she often now asks me, “Why I am different? Why is it so hard for me to fit in?”

No, I would have never, ever, ever given you or any other person on the planet my child had I been asked. Never. I vaccinated my child to protect her, not you or anybody else.

And deep down inside, as condescending and self-righteous and self-assured as you may be about what you think you know and why you know it and why I’m wrong, you know you are the same.

You know that you would never offer up your child to the greater good either if they asked for her, and you know you wouldn’t dare take that chance with another one of your children if you were in my shoes.

You just have the luxury of never having had to make that choice or live this life.

You should say, “Thank you” for that too.

~ Julie Bailey Obradovic

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/believe-words-youre-looking-thank/

Influence of pediatric vaccines on social behavior in the rhesus monkey

NBTS P02

Influence of pediatric vaccines on social behavior in the rhesus monkey

doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2014.04.047

Pediatric vaccines have been considered controversial due to potential negative effects on development, particularly impaired social interaction and communication, hyperactivity, and repetitive stereotyped behaviors that are characteristic of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Some reports suggest that exposure to ethyl mercury (EtHg), in the form of thimerosal, in pediatric vaccines may play a causative role in such negative effects. Male infant rhesus macaques (n = 79) were assigned at birth to one of six study groups (12–16 subjects/group) as follows: (1) the pediatric vaccination schedule from the 1990s including thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs), (2) the same 1990s schedule but accelerated to accommodate the developmental trajectory of the infant rhesus macaque, (3) TCVs only (saline placebo for Mumps–Measles–Rubella [MMR]), (4) MMR only (other injections replaced with saline placebo), (5) the expanded vaccine regimen from 2008 (where fewer vaccines contained thimerosal), or (6) a control group following the 1990s schedule with all vaccines replaced with saline placebo. Subjects began socializing at approximately 25 days of age and were socialized 5 days per week in a 4-monkey peer group. Social behavior data, collected between 15 and 18 months of age using a computer system capturing a variety of social and non-social behaviors, were included in this analysis. Data were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVAs with Dunnett's test post-hoc procedures following significant experimental group or group × age interactions. No significant differences in non-social or social behavior were found when comparing the animals in the vaccine groups to controls. The data do not provide any evidence of abnormal social behavior in rhesus macaques exposed to low-dose thimerosal and should provide reassurance that TCVs do not contribute to the negative effects associated with ASD. Support from the Johnson Family, the Ted Lindsay Foundation, and SafeMinds is gratefully acknowledged.

#59 – Human Retrovirus, Chronic Illness, and Scientific Prejudice ** January 14, 2015 Guest // Judy Mikovits, PhD ** Host // Sayer Ji Listen to Fearless Parent Radio online on PRN.fm at 7pm ET or on your phone by dialing (401) 347-0456. Once the show has aired, listen via our Archived Shows page, iTunes, or Podbean.

#59 – Human Retrovirus, Chronic Illness, and Scientific Prejudice ** January 14, 2015Guest // Judy Mikovits, PhD ** Host // Sayer Ji

Listen to Fearless Parent Radio online on PRN.fm at 7pm ET or on your phone by dialing (401) 347-0456. Once the show has aired, listen via our Archived Shows page, iTunes, or Podbean.

http://fearlessparent.org/radio-blog-human-retrovirus-chronic-illness-scientific-prejudice-episode-59/

Plague jacket cover

On July 22, 2009, a special meeting was held with 24 leading scientists at the National Institutes of Health to discuss early findings that a newly discovered retrovirus was linked to chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), prostate cancer, lymphoma, and eventually neurodevelopmental disorders in children.

When Judy Mikovits, PhD finished her presentation, the room was silent for a moment, then one of the scientists said, “Oh my God!” The resulting investigation would be like no other in science.

Host Sayer Ji will give us the down low on what happened, how this relates to scientific prejudice, and what it all means.

  • Why is Judy’s new book called Plague?
  • What’s a human retrovirus and how does transmission occur? What’s the amount of retrovirus found in the normal population?
  • What do we know about retroviruses and chronic disease?
  • How do environmental toxins add to the problem?
  • Why do the CDC and NIH view Judy’s research as a threat? Is it related to author Hillary Johnson‘s foreword: A Disease Able to Affect the Economies of Nations?
  • What kind of research is urgently needed? What advice would you give regarding the best way to structure and fund these studies?
  • What are things we can do to protect our families?

judy mikovits headshotJudy Mikovits, PhD earned her BA from University of Virginia and PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology from George Washington University. In her 35 year quest to understand and treat chronic diseases, she has studied immunology, natural products chemistry, epigenetics, virology, and drug development. In 20 years, she rose from lab tech to director of the lab of Antiviral Drug Mechanisms at the National Cancer Institute before leaving to direct the Cancer Biology program at EpiGenX Pharmaceuticals in Santa Barbara, CA. She became attracted to the plight of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and autism and is primarily responsible for demonstrating the relationship between immune based inflammation and these diseases. She has published over 50 scientific papers. View the book trailer and listen to a short conversation with the authors of Plague.

sayer_final2Sayer Ji is a Strategic Advisor for Fearless Parent™, our business partner, and dad of two. He founded GreenMedInfo in 2008 to provide an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is one of the top five natural health sites in the world (Alexa ranked), internationally recognized as the largest, most widely referenced health resource of its kind, with over one million visitors a month. Sayer is on the steering committee of the Global GMO Free Coalition and an advisory board member of the National Health Federation.

http://fearlessparent.org/radio-blog-human-retrovirus-chronic-illness-scientific-prejudice-episode-59/

Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power and fascism

doi:10.1111/j.1479-6988.2006.00041.x Int J Evid Based Healthc 2006; 4: 180–186 SCHOLARLY ARTICLE

Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power and fascism

Dave Holmes RN PhD,1 Stuart J Murray PhD,2 Amélie Perron RN PhD(cand)1 and Geneviève Rail PhD1

1Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, and 2Department of English, Ryerson University Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Background Drawing on the work of the late French philosophers Deleuze and Guattari, the objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the evidence-based movement in the health sciences is outrageously exclusionary and dangerously normative with regards to scientific knowledge. As such, we assert that the evidence-based movement in health sciences constitutes a good example of microfascism at play in the contemporary scientific arena.

Objective The philosophical work of Deleuze and Guattari proves to be useful in showing how health sciences are colonised (territorialised) by an all-encompassing scientific research paradigm – that of post-positivism – but also and foremost in showing the process by which a dominant ideology comes to exclude alternative forms of knowledge, therefore acting as a fascist structure.

Conclusion The Cochrane Group, among others, has created a hierarchy that has been endorsed by many academic institutions, and that serves to (re)produce the exclusion of certain forms of research. Because ‘regimes of truth’ such as the evidence-based movement currently enjoy a privileged status, scholars have not only a scientific duty, but also an ethical obligation to deconstruct these regimes of power.

Key words: critique, deconstruction, evidence-based, fascism, health sciences, power.

Correspondence: Associate Professor Dave Holmes, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, KIH OM5, Canada. Email: dholmes@uottawa.ca

Introduction

We can already hear the objections. The term fascism repre- sents an emotionally charged concept in both the political and religious arenas; it is the ugliest expression of life in the 20th century. Although it is associated with specific political

© 2006 The Authors Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

systems, this fascism of the masses, as was practised by Hitler and Mussolini, has today been replaced by a system of microfascisms – polymorphous intolerances that are revealed in more subtle ways. Consequently, although the majority of the current manifestations of fascism are less brutal, they are nevertheless more pernicious. We believe

that fascism is a concept that is not associated with any particular person or location. Therefore, we will use this term as defined by Deleuze and Guattari,1 and now used by a number of contemporary authors.

Within the healthcare disciplines, a powerful evidence- based discourse has produced a plethora of correlates, such as specialised journals and best practice guidelines. Obedi- ently following this trend, many health sciences scholars have leapt onto the bandwagon, mimicking their medical colleagues by saturating health sciences discourses with concepts informed by this evidence-based movement.2 In the words of Michel Foucault, these discourses represent an awesome, but oftentimes cryptic, political power that ‘work[s] to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it’ (p. 136).3 Unmasking the hid- den politics of evidence-based discourse is paramount, and it is this task that forms the basis of our critique.

Drawing in part on the work of the late French philoso- phers Deleuze and Guattari,1,4 the objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the evidence-based movement in the health sciences is outrageously exclusionary and danger- ously normative with regards to scientific knowledge. As such, we assert that the evidence-based movement in health sciences constitutes a good example of microfascism at play in the contemporary scientific arena. The philosoph- ical work of Deleuze and Guattari1 proves to be useful in showing how health sciences are colonised (territorialised) by an all-encompassing scientific research paradigm – that of post-positivism – but also and foremost in showing the process by which a dominant ideology comes to exclude alternative forms of knowledge, therefore acting as a fascist structure.

Evidence-based health sciences: definition and deconstruction

As a global term, EBHS (evidence-based health sciences) reflects clinical practice based on scientific inquiry. The premise is that if healthcare professionals perform an action, there should be evidence that the action will produce the desired outcomes. These outcomes are desirable because they are believed to be beneficial to patients.5 Evidence- based practice derives from the work of Archie Cochrane, who argued for randomised controlled trials (RCTs being the highest level of evidences) as a means of ensuring healthcare cost containment, among other reasons.6 In 1993, the Cochrane Collaboration, serving as an international research review board, was founded to provide clinicians with a resource aimed at increasing clinician–patient interaction

time by facilitating clinicians’ access to valid research.2 The Cochrane database was established to provide this resource, and it comprises a collection of articles that have been selected according to specific criteria.7 For example, one of the requirements of the Cochrane database is that accept- able research must be based on the RCT design; all other research, which constitutes 98% of the literature, is deemed scientifically imperfect.6

At first glance, EBHS seems beneficial for positive patient outcomes, which is a primary healthcare objective.8 As a consequence, it is easy for healthcare researchers and clini- cians to assume that EBHS is the method to assure that patients receive optimal care.9 While EBHS does acknowl- edge that healthcare professionals possess discrete bodies of knowledge, EBHS advocates defend its rigid approach by rationalising that the process is not self-serving because improved healthcare and increased healthcare funding will improve patient outcomes.2,7,10

Consequently, EBHS comes to be widely considered as the truth. 9 When only one method of knowledge production is promoted and validated, the implication is that health sci- ences are gradually reduced to EBHS. Indeed, the legitimacy of health sciences knowledge that is not based on specific research designs comes to be questioned, if not dismissed altogether. In the starkest terms, we are currently witnessing the health sciences engaged in a strange process of elimi- nating some ways of knowing. EBHS becomes a ‘regime of truth’, as Foucault would say – a regimented and institution- alised version of ‘truth’.

The health sciences take their lead from institutional medicine, whose authority is rarely challenged or tested probably because it alone controls the terms by which any challenge or test would proceed. Once it was adopted by medicine, the health sciences accepted RCTs as the gold standard of evidence-based knowledge. It is deeply questionable whether EBHS, as a reflection of strat- ification and segmentation, promotes the multiple ways of knowing deemed important within most health disci- plines. Moreover, we must ask whether EBHS serves a state or governmental function, where ready-made and convenient ‘goals-and-targets’ can be used to justify cuts to healthcare funding.6 We believe that health sciences ought to promote pluralism – the acceptance of multiple points of view.2 However, EBHS does not allow pluralism, unless that pluralism is engineered by the Cochrane hierarchy itself.7 Such a hegemony makes inevitable the further ‘segmentation’ of knowledge (i.e. disallowing mul- tiple epistemologies), and further marginalise many forms of knowing/knowledge. Importantly, the evidence-based

© 2006 The Authors Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse 181

182 D Holmes et al.

movement is neither ‘progressive’ nor a ‘natural’ develop- ment in health sciences: it is a trend that is engineered. As a response to this, a vigilant resistance must arise from within the health disciplines themselves, and one way of deploying such resistance is by using a tool called ‘decon- struction’.

Drawing on the work of the late French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, deconstruction is notoriously difficult to define because it is a practice, and not a fixed concept based on abstract ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’. For our purposes, we might say that it is the critical practice of exposing the foundations that underpin the apparent truth-value of a certain concept or idea, challenging the way that it appears to us as self-evidently or ‘naturally’ so. In the words of one of Derrida’s early translators, the task of deconstruction is ‘to locate and “take apart” those con- cepts which serve as axioms or rules for a period of thought’.11 More precisely, deconstruction works to dem- onstrate how concepts or ideas are contingent upon his- torical, linguistic, social and political discourses, to name but a few. We deconstruct our taken-for-granted ‘truths’ by attending to how they came to be constructed in the first place. One method is to critically analyse the sets of binary oppositions that have informed the history of West- ern thought, for example, mind versus body. While each term is implicit in the definition of the other (suggesting they are not utterly discrete), Derrida argues that within such binaries, one term is always privileged at the expense of the other. Here, we might think of mind over body (matter), but to these we might add sets of correlative terms – essentially hierarchies – such as reason over emo- tion, male over female, logic over myth or even quantita- tive measure over qualitative measure. In the name of a justice-to-come, deconstruction looks towards the future by interrogating the hierarchical power that operates at the heart of these binaries.

Thus, implicit in deconstruction is a suspicion of the essen- tialist and hierarchical nature of institutional knowledge. In a deconstructive vein, we must ask not only, ‘What consti- tutes evidence?’ but also, what is the ‘regime of truth’ (Kuhn would call this a ‘paradigm’ and Foucault an ‘épistèmé’) that dictates when or how one piece of evidence shall count as evidence, while another is denigrated or excluded alto- gether? In other words, what makes one piece of evidence so ‘self-evidently’ meaningful for us at this precise historical moment, while another appears so ‘self-evidently’ meaning- less or nonsensical? Attending to this internal logic of exclu- sion is both democratising and, arguably, it is just better science! It is not insignificant that the word ‘evidence’ con-

© 2006 The Authors Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

tains the Latin root videre, which means ‘to see’. The ety- mology of the term itself suggests a visual bias that still holds sway in the ‘enlightened’ empirical sciences today.12,13 But we might ask: what is the fate of that evidence that is invisible to us – invisible, and yet still marginally felt and attested to?

Unmapping health sciences

It is becoming increasingly evident that an unvarying, uni- form language – an ossifying discourse – is being mandated in a number of faculties of health sciences where the dom- inant paradigm of EBHS has achieved hegemony.14 This makes it difficult for scholars to express new and different ideas in an intellectual circle where normalisation and stan- dardisation are privileged in the development of knowledge. The critical individual must then resort to resistance strate- gies in front of such hegemonic discourses within which there is little freedom for expressing unconventional thoughts.

Rather than risk being alienated from their colleagues, many scientists find themselves interpellated by hegemonic discourses and come to disregard all others. Unfortunately, privileging a single discourse (evidence-based medicine (EBM)) situated within a single scientific paradigm (post- positivism) confines the researcher to a yoke of exactly reproducing the established order. To a large degree, the dominant discourse represents the ladder of success in aca- demic and research milieus where it establishes itself as a weapon used against those who praise the freedom of sci- entific inquiry and the free debate of ideas. When only one discursive formation (EBM) finds itself on the discursive ter- rain (health sciences), academics and researchers constitute a united community whose ways of speaking and thinking thwart both creativity and plurality in the name of efficiency and effectiveness.

We believe that EBM, which saturates health sciences dis- courses, constitutes an ossified language that maps the land- scape of the professional disciplines as a whole. Accordingly, we believe that a postmodernist critique of this prevailing mode of thinking is indispensable. Those who are wedded to the idea of ‘evidence’ in the health sciences maintain what is essentially a Newtonian, mechanistic world view: they tend to believe that reality is objective, which is to say that it exists, ‘out there’, absolutely independent of the human observer, and of the observer’s intentions and obser- vations. They fondly point to ‘facts’, while they are forced to dismiss ‘values’ as somehow unscientific. For them, this reality (an ensemble of facts) corresponds to an objectively

real and mechanical world. But this form of empiricism, we would argue, fetishises the object at the expense of the human subject, for whom this world has a vital significance and meaning in the first place. An evidence-based, empirical world view is dangerously reductive insofar as it negates the personal and interpersonal significance and meaning of a world that is first and foremost a relational world, and not a fixed set of objects, partes extra partes.

Of course, we do not wish to deny the material and objective existence of the world, but would suggest, rather, that our relation to the world and to others is always medi- ated, never direct or wholly transparent. Indeed, the socio- cultural forms of this mediation would play a large part in the way the world appears as full of significance. Empirical facts alone are quantities that eclipse our qualitative and vital being-in-the-world. For example, how should a woman assign meaning to the diagnosis she just received that, genetically, she has a 40% probability of developing breast cancer in her lifetime? What will this number mean in real terms, when she is asked to evaluate the meaning of such personal risk in the context of her entire life, a life whose value and duration are themselves impossible factors in the equation?15–18

From a variety of perspectives, those we label as ‘post- modern authors’ offer a robust critique of evidence-based health sciences and their objectivist world view. The French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard sees postmodernism as the end of universal or ‘meta-narratives [grands récits]’ that characterise the totalising Reason of Modernity.19 In broad strokes, postmodern authors provide a critique of the knowing subject, who is alleged to be a contextless, abstract and autonomous ego, implicitly male, white, West- ern and heterosexual. The clinician can often be considered such an institutional subject who is presumed both to know the truth of disease and to have the moral and intellectual authority to prescribe treatment. Foucault, for one, is criti- cal of this power, which he describes with the metaphor of the ‘clinical gaze’ – a panoptic kind of ‘expert seeing’ that both determines in advance what will appear, and, more ominously, what will be silently internalised by the patient, and will govern his or her own inner experience and signif- icant values. ‘That which is not on the scale of the gaze’, Foucault writes, ‘falls outside the domain of possible knowl- edge’ (p. 166).12 Thus, the authority of the clinician must be understood as a discursive power that shapes the realm of the possible and, in doing so, often ignores certain symptoms that would allow a more appropriate diagnosis. At the same time, the absolute authority of the gaze becomes the manner in which the patient will see him- or

herself. Obvious examples here are the hysterisation of the female body and the pathologisation of homosexuality within medical discourse. In the face of such phenomena being now widely regarded as social/medical constructions, we might have hoped that health sciences would become more critical of its authority and the process through which it re/produces modern binaries (e.g. normal/pathological, male/female).

A starting point for health sciences would be to promote the multiplicity of what Foucault describes as subjugated forms of knowledge (savoirs assujettis): these forms of knowl- edge are ways of understanding the world that are ‘disqual- ified as non-conceptual knowledges, as insufficiently elaborated knowledges: naïve knowledges, hierarchically inferior knowledges, [and] knowledges that are below the required level of erudition or scientificity’ (p. 7).20 These forms of knowledge arise from below, as it were, in contra- distinction to the top-down approach that characterises the hegemonic thrust of EBHS. For Foucault, a subjugated knowledge is not the same thing as ‘common sense’. Instead, it is ‘a particular knowledge, a knowledge that is local, regional, or differential’ (pp. 7–8).20

In our view, this positive process begins with a critique of EBHS and its hegemonic norms. As we have argued, accord- ing to postmodern authors, these norms institute a hidden political agenda through the very language and technolo- gies deployed in the name of ‘truth’. Again, Foucault sums up this position in his critique of modern medicine: ‘Medi- cine, as a general technique of health even more than as a service to the sick or an art of cures, assumes an increasingly important place in the administrative system and the machinery of power’ (p. 176).21 Here, in such an ‘adminis- trative system’ and a ‘machinery of power’, we find a classic allusion to what Hannah Arendt defines as totalitarianism or fascism, as we defined it earlier. For her, somewhat optimis- tically, totalitarian regimes are not the simple result of an innate evil in humankind; rather, totalitarianism is a political phenomenon that emerges from a confluence of socio-his- torical forces. She writes that 20th century totalitarianism is essentially an ideology that arose to fill a political vacuum in post-World War I Europe, when positive laws increasingly came to be replaced by terror.22

Arendt herself draws the link between totalitarian ideology and the modern sciences, and so we are justified to turn to her, among others, to find a trenchant critique of EBHS. The ‘regime of truth’ that has emerged from the EBM is an ideology that is supported by a number of contingent fac- tors – contingencies that EBHS would mistakenly classify as ‘truths’. An ideology is monolithic: those who adhere to

© 2006 The Authors Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse 183

184 D Holmes et al.

the ideology believe it ‘can explain everything and every occurence [sic] by deducing it from a single premise’ (p. 468).22 She warns that totalitarianism ‘is quite prepared to sacrifice everybody’s vital immediate interests to the exe- cution of what it assume[s] to be the law of History or the law of Nature’ (pp. 461–462).22 But, as we have remarked, History and Nature are made; these forms therefore call for an ever-renewed critique.

Fascism and the fall of thought

The ossifying discourse that supports EBM is the result of an ideology that has been promoted to the rank of an immu- table truth and is considered, in learned circles, as essential to real science. We could add here that its ossified language is a method of communicating in coded form, in stereo- typed and dogmatic phraseology – an ideological message that will not be contradicted or challenged by its authors, but will always be understood by initiates.23 In this way, in its capacity as an ossifying discourse, the term ‘evidence- based movement’ (including concepts associated with it) sustains itself with its lexicon of acceptable ideas and forms.

In his famous novel 1984, George Orwell coined the term Newspeak to describe a revised language purged from any affective tone. Newspeak, the ‘official language’ of the fic- tional Oceania, is extraordinary in that its lexicon decreases every year – ostensibly in the name of efficiency and effec- tiveness. As the character Syme puts it:

Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. . . . If you have a word like ‘good’, what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well. . . . Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good’, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning, or ‘double- plusgood’ if you want something stronger still. . . . In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. (pp. 45–46)24

Newspeak may be efficient, but in the ‘destruction of words’ it also operates to radically restrict the ways in which humans are mediated with their world and with others. The totalitarian regime governing Oceania understands that complex – or pluralistic – languages would pose a threat to its security, and so the true goal of Newspeak is to take away the ability to conceptualise revolution adequately, or even to conceive of the terms by which such a resistance might emerge. According to Oceania’s state manual, available only to elite Party members and entitled ‘The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism’:

The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they

© 2006 The Authors Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

are not permitted to have standards of comparison they never even become aware that they are oppressed. (p. 171)24

We argued above in terms that resonate immediately with Orwell’s totalitarian vision: The EBHS seldom question the authority of their own discourses, but deploy them unknow- ingly – they risk becoming the servo-mechanism of their own technology, unable to conceptualise the terms that would lead them to think outside this narrow world view. And indeed, why should they, when they can enjoy institu- tional promotions and accolades, public recognition and state contracts of all kinds? EBM and its related concepts are highly promoted in academic spheres, so much so that a research article free from these taken-for-granted concepts risks being labelled as scientifically unsound. Applying the work of Orwell in a critique of EBM in health sciences might surprise the reader; however, after an in-depth reading of 1984, we feel that Orwell’s vision is gradually becoming a reality. Currently, a large number of scholars in the health sciences follow their colleagues in medicine down a narrow path leading to uniformity and intolerance. There is there- fore in our opinion, the creation and advancement of a new ‘language’ that is supplanting all others, attempting to dis- credit or to eliminate them from the discursive terrain of health. This is scientific Newspeak. It is a highly normative and recalcitrant scientific language that stands in opposition to that sense of hope that sustains every freedom-loving individual.

The mastery of scientific Newspeak is, for the most part, a regurgitation of prefabricated formulas (buzz words or catch words) that is informed by a single, powerful lexicon. This new guide book of scientific vocabulary, including terms connected with EBM (e.g. systematic literature review, knowledge transfer, best practices, champions, etc.), is taken seriously in the realm of health sciences, so much so that it is considered vital as a reflection of ‘real science’. The clas- sification of scientific evidence as proposed by the Cochrane Group thus constitutes not only a powerful mechanism of exclusion for some types of knowledge, it also acts as an organising structure for knowledge and a mechanism of ideological reinforcement for the dominant scientific para- digm. In that sense, it obeys a fascist logic.

Along with Deleuze and Guattari,1 we understand such fascist logic as a desire to order, hierarchise, control, repress, direct and impose limits. Fascism is one of the many faces of totalitarianism – the total subjection of humanity to the political imperatives of systems whose concerns are of their own production.25 In light of our argument, fascism is not too strong a word because the exclusion of knowledge ensembles relies on a process that is saturated by ideology

and intolerance regarding other ways of knowing. The pro- cess at play here is one that operates hand-in-hand with powerful political or ‘power’ structures and that gears and sustains scientific assertions in the same direction: that of the dominant ideology. Unfortunately, the nature of this scientific fascism makes it attractive to all of us – the sub- jected. In Foucault’s words:

the major enemy, the strategic adversary is fascism. . . . And not only historical fascism, the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini – which was able to mobilize and use the desire of the masses so effec- tively – but also the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us. (p. xiii)1

Fascism does not originate solely from the outside; it is a will within us to desire, although often unwittingly, a life of domination.1 Such a ‘lovable’ fascism requires little more than the promise of success (grants, publications, awards, recognition, etc.) within its system to get us to participate wholeheartedly.25 Perhaps it is time to think about governing structures that impose their imperatives (academic, scien- tific, political, economic) on academics and researchers, and to ask ourselves what drives us to love fascist and exclusion- ary structures.

The Cochrane Group has created a hierarchy that has been endorsed by many academic institutions, and that serves to (re)produce the exclusion of certain forms of knowledge production. Because EBM, as a ‘regime of truth’, currently enjoys a privileged status, there exists a scientific and ethical obligation to deconstruct such regime. Given the privileged relation to knowledge defining the intellectual mission, intellectuals are well located to deconstruct the ‘truth’ and to ‘speak truth to power’, to use Foucault’s expression. Unfortunately, most would prefer not to hear alternative, marginalised discourses because the latter tend to expose the very power relations that create our current situation and prop up those academics/scientists with a vested interest in the status quo.26 However, we believe that one of the roles of the intellectual is to decolonise, to de- territorialise the vast field of health sciences as it is currently mapped out by the EBM.

Final remarks

Critical intellectuals should work towards the creation of a space of freedom (of thought), and as such, they constitute a concrete threat to the current scientific order in EBHS and the health sciences as a whole. It is fair to assert that the critical intellectuals are at ‘war’ with those who have no regards other than for an evidence-based logic. The war metaphor speaks to the ‘critical and theoretical revolt’ that

is needed to disrupt and resist the fascist order of scientific knowledge development.

The evidence-based enterprise invented by the Cochrane Group has captivated our thinking for too long, creating for itself an enchanting image that reaches out to researchers and scholars. However, in the name of efficiency, effective- ness and convenience, it simplistically supplants all hetero- geneous thinking with a singular and totalising ideology. The all-embracing economy of such ideology lends the Cochrane Group’s disciples a profound sense of entitlement, what they take as a universal right to control the scientific agenda. By a so-called scientific consensus, this ‘regime of truth’ ostracises those with ‘deviant’ forms of knowledge, labelling them as rebels and rejecting their work as scientif- ically unsound. This reminds us of a famous statement by President George W Bush in light of the September 11 events: ‘Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists’. In the context of the EBM, this absolutely polarising world view resonates vividly: embrace the EBHS or else be con- demned as recklessly non-scientific.

In conclusion, in The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt points to one way to combat totalitarianism. For Arendt, the opposite of totalitarianism is politics, by which she means, politics guided by free speech and a plurality of views:

speech is what makes man a political being. If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present status of scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of life in which speech is no longer meaningful. (pp. 3–4)27

When the pluralism of free speech is extinguished, speech as such is no longer meaningful; what follows is terror, a totalitarian violence. We must resist the totalitarian program – a program that collapses words and things, a program that thwarts all invention, a program that robs us of justice, of our meaningful place in the world, and of the future that is ours to forge together. Paradoxically, perhaps, an honest plurality of voices will open up a space of freedom for the radical singularity of individual and disparate knowledge(s). The endeavour is always a risk, but such a risk is part of the human condition, and it is that without which there could be no human action and no science worthy of the name.

Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live. (p. 8)27

Acknowledgements

Dave Holmes and Amélie Perron would like to thank the Canadian Institutes of Health Research – Institute of Gender and Health for funding. Stuart Murray and Geneviève Rail

© 2006 The Authors Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse 185

186 D Holmes et al. would like to thank the Social Science and Humanities

Research Council of Canada for funding.

References

  1. Deleuze G, Guattari F. Anti-oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophre- nia. Preface by Michel Foucault. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1980.
  2. Holmes D, Perron A, O’Byrne P. Necrospective: evidence, viru- lence, and the disappearance of nursing knowledge. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nurs 2006 (in press).
  3. Foucault M. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Random House; 1978.
  4. Deleuze G, Guattari F. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Press, 1987.
  5. Sackett D. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
  6. Traynor M. The oil crisis, risk and evidence-based practice. Nurs Inq 2002; 9: 162–9.
  7. Winch S, Creedy D, Chaboyer W. Governing nursing conduct: the rise of evidence-based practice. Nurs Inq 2002; 9: 156–61.
  8. Barrett EAM. What is nursing science? Nurs Sci Q 2002; 15: 51–

    60.

  9. Walker K. Why evidence-based practice now?: a polemic. Nurs

    Inq 2003; 10: 145–55.

  10. Bonell C. Evidence-based nursing: a stereotyped view of

    quantitative and experimental research could work against professional autonomy and authority. J Adv Nurs 1999; 30: 18– 23.

  11. Derrida J. Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1973.

12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24. 25.

26. 27.

Foucault M. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. New York: Random House, 1973. Jay M. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth- Century French Thought. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993.

Holmes D, Gastaldo D. Rhizomatic thought in nursing: an alter- native path for the development of the discipline. Nurs Philos 2004; 5: 1–10. Lupton D. Risk. London: Routledge, 1999.

Robertson A. Embodying risk, embodying political rationality: women’s accounts of risk for breast cancer. Health Risk Soc 2000; 2: 219–35. Robertson A. Biotechnology, political rationality and discourses on health risk. Health 2001; 5: 293–309.

Rose N. The politics of life itself. Theor Cult Soc 2001; 18: 1– 30. Lyotard J-F. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Foucault M. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. New York: Picador, 2003.

Foucault M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon, 1980. Arendt H. The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1st edn. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt, 1976.

Antoine G. De la langue de bois au politiquement correct. 1997. Accessed February 2006. Available from: http://www.asmp.fr Orwell G. 1984. New York: Signet Classic, 1950. Pronger B. Body Fascism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.

Foucault M. Fearless Speech. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e), 2001. Arendt H. The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Studies Show Measles Vax Spreads Virus; Should the Recently Vaccinated be Quarantined to Prevent Outbreaks?

Should the Recently Vaccinated be Quarantined to Prevent Outbreaks?

Health officials are blaming unvaccinated children for the recent measles outbreak that started at Disneyland. However, with no known status for over 90% of the cases, one blood test showing the patient’s measles was actually a reaction to the MMR vaccine, and only 9 cases confirmed as wild genotype B3 measlesanother likely source of the outbreak is a recently vaccinated individual, according to published science.20

Scientific evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza can shed the virus for many weeks or months afterwards and infect the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.1,2 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,19

Furthermore, vaccine recipients can carry diseases in the back of their throat and infect others while displaying no symptoms of disease.11,12,13

“Numerous scientific studies indicate that children who receive a live virus vaccination can shed the disease and infect others for weeks or even months afterwards. Thus, parents who vaccinate their children put others at risk,” explains Leslie Manookian, documentary filmmaker and activist. Manookian’s award winning documentary, The Greater Good, aims to open a dialog about vaccine safety.

Both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals are at risk from exposure to those recently vaccinated.Vaccine failure is widespread; vaccine-induced immunity is not permanent and recent outbreaks of diseases such as whooping cough, mumps and measles have occurred in fully vaccinated populations.14,15 Flu vaccine recipients become more susceptible to future infection after repeated vaccination.16, 19

“Health officials should require a two-week quarantine of all children and adults who receive vaccinations,” says Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation. “This is the minimum amount of time required to prevent transmission of infectious diseases to the rest of the population, including individuals who have been previously vaccinated.”

care of immunocompromised patient

“Vaccine failure and failure to acknowledge that live virus vaccines can spread disease have resulted in an increase in outbreaks of infectious disease in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals,” says Manookian, “CDC should instruct physicians who administer vaccinations to inform their patients about the risks to others posed by those who’ve been recently vaccinated.”

According to the Weston A. Price Foundation, the best protection against infectious disease is a healthy immune system, supported by adequate vitamin A and vitamin C. Well-nourished children easily recover from infectious disease and rarely suffer complications.

The number of measles deaths declined from 7575 in 1920 (10,000 per year in many years in the 1910s) to an average of 432 each year from 1958-1962.17 The vaccine was introduced in 1963. Between 2005 and 2014, there have been no deaths from measles in the U.S. and 108 deaths from the MMR vaccine.18

The Weston A. Price Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nutrition education foundation with the mission of disseminating accurate, science-based information on diet and health. Named after nutrition pioneer Weston A. Price, DDS, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, the Washington, DC-based Foundation publishes a quarterly journal for its 15,000 members, supports 600 local chapters worldwide and hosts a yearly international conference. The Foundation phone number is (202) 363-4394, www.westonaprice.org, info@westonaprice.org

References

1.        Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011  http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/27/cid.ciu105

2.        Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7494055

3.        Comparison of the Safety, Vaccine Virus Shedding and Immunogenicity of Influenza Virus Vaccine, Trivalent, Types A and B, Live Cold-Adapted, Administered to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Infected and Non-HIV Infected Adultshttp://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/181/2/725.full

4.        Sibling Transmission of Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus (RotaTeq) Associated with Rotavirus Gastroenteritishttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/2/e438

5.        Polio vaccination may continue after wild virus fades http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2008/10/polio-vaccination-may-continue-after-wild-virus-fades

6.        Engineering attenuated virus vaccines by controlling replication fidelity http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v14/n2/abs/nm1726.html

7.        CASE OF VACCINE-ASSOCIATED MEASLES FIVE WEEKS POST-IMMUNISATION, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, OCTOBER 2013http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20649

8.        The Safety Profile of Varicella Vaccine: A 10-Year Review http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/Supplement_2/S165.full

9.        Comparison of Shedding Characteristics of Seasonal Influenza Virus (Sub)Types and Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09; Germany, 2007-2011  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051653

10.     Epigenetics of Host-Pathogen Interactions: The Road Ahead and the Road Behind  http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003007

11.     Animal Models for Influenza Virus Pathogenesis and Transmission http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063653/

12.     Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate mode http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063653/

13.     Study Finds Parents Can Pass Whooping Cough to Babies http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/health/03coug.html?_r=0

14.     Immunized People Getting Whooping Cough  http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/jun/12/immunized-people-getting-whooping-cough/

15.     Vaccine Failure — Over 1000 Got Mumps in NY in Last Six Months http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/06/vaccine-failure–over-1000-get-mumps-in-ny-in-last-six-months.aspx

16.     Impact of Repeated Vaccination on Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A(H3N2) and B During 8 Seasons  http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/29/cid.ciu680.full

17.     http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm

18.   http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/zero-u-s-measles-deaths-in-10-years-but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/

19.  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/18/flu-shot-increases-flu-illness.aspx

20.  http://www.inquisitr.com/1801210/genotype-baltimore-mmr/

- See more at: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/studies-show-measles-vaccine-spreads-virus/#sthash.98VYXKA2.dpuf

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/studies-show-measles-vaccine-spreads-virus/

MYTHs about Homeopathy - A Series. Second episode.

“There isn’t a single good quality clinical trial showing homeopathy works”

Examples of high quality randomised controlled trials showing homeopathy works

Many people believe that all high quality randomised controlled trials (RCT) testing homeopathy have been negative. This is untrue. Below are examples of positive high quality RCTs and systematic reviews/meta-analyses testing various types of homeopathy:

  • Individualised homeopathic treatment for diarrhoea in children. A meta-analysis of three placebo-controlled randomised trials by Jacobs et al. 2003 showed that homeopathic treatment reduced the duration of diarrhea (p=0.008).1
  • Individualised homeopathic treatment for ear infections (otitis media) in children 2,3
  • The homeopathic medicine Galphimia glauca for hay fever (allergic rhinitis)4
  • The isopathic medicine Pollen 30c for hay fever5
  • The homeopathic medicine Oscillococcinum for the treatment of influenza6. This study showed that Oscillococcinum was effective at treating influenza, but ineffective for preventing it.
  • The complex homeopathic medicine Vertigoheel for vertigo.7

More research is needed to confirm the findings of these promising studies, particularly large-scale repetitions by other research teams.

To find out more about promising areas of clinical research, see ‘Homeopathy on trial – The need for targeted research’ by Tournier & Roberts, 2013.

The issue of ‘cherry picking’

An argument often heard when such studies are presented is that selecting the evidence in this way amounts to ‘cherry picking’ i.e. selecting only positive trials when negative trials also exist. This is an important issue when interpreting evidence, which is why there has been a recent focus on forcing research institutions and drug companies to disclose all trial results – both positive and negative – so that the balance of evidence can be considered in it’s entirety.

To our knowledge, there are no other repetitions of the above trials (either positive or negative), so here we are presenting the entire available evidence at this time on these treatments.

As research in homeopathy is a relatively new field and there is very limited funding to support new trials, few high quality studies have been carried out, let alone repeated – something HRI is keen to change.

As and when more studies become available testing these same homeopathic treatments further, the evidence base will be updated as these findings are either confirmed, or invalidated, by new results.

References

Why All the Anger? by Dr. Jack Wolfson Special to Health Impact News

Why All the Anger?

by Dr. Jack Wolfson Special to Health Impact News

I recently did an interview which was aired on NBC Phoenix. I was asked my opinion on vaccinations in response to the current measles outbreaks that have occurred at Disneyland in California. My reply has generated quite a bit of anger in thousands of people.

There has also been a tremendous amount of support to my comments and opinions. In short, The Society Against Injecting Our Kids With Chemicals (TSAIOKWC for short) has a lot of followers.

I want to address all this misguided anger and see if we can re-direct it where it belongs.

  1. Be angry at food companies. Sugar cereals, donuts, cookies, and cupcakes lead to millions of deaths per year. At its worst, chicken pox killed 100 people per year. If those chicken pox people didn’t eat cereal and donuts, they may still be alive. Call up Nabisco and Kellogg’s and complain. Protest their products. Send THEM hate-mail.
  2. Be angry at fast food restaurants. Tortured meat burgers, pesticide fries, and hormone milkshakes are the problem. The problem is not Hepatitis B which is a virus contracted by drug users and those who sleep with prostitutes. And you want to inject that vaccine into your newborn?
  3. Be angry at the companies who make your toxic laundry detergent, fabric softener, and dryer sheets. You and your children are wearing and breathing known carcinogens (they cause cancer). Call Bounce and Downy and let them know. These products kill more people than mumps, a virus which actually doesn’t cause anyone to die. Same with hepatitis A, a watery diarrhea.
  4. Be angry at all the companies spewing pollution into our environment. These chemicals and heavy metals are known to cause autism, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune disease and every other health problem. Worldwide, these lead to 10’s of millions of deaths every year. Measles deaths are a tiny fraction compared to pollution.
  5. Be angry at your parents for not breastfeeding you, co-sleeping with you, and stuffing your face with Domino’s so they can buy more Tide and finish the laundry. Breastfeeding protects your children from many infectious diseases.
  6. Be angry with your doctor for being close-minded and not disclosing the ingredients in vaccines (not that they read the package insert anyway). They should tell you about the aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue, animal proteins, polysorbate 80, antibiotics, and other chemicals in the shots. According to the Environmental Working Group, newborns contain over 200 chemicals as detected by cord blood. Maybe your doctor feels a few more chemicals injected into your child won’t be a big deal.
  7. Be angry with the cable companies and TV manufacturers for making you and your children fat and lazy, not wanting to exercise or play outside. Lack of exercise kills millions more than polio. Where are all those 80 year olds crippled by polio? I can’t seem to find many.
  8. In fact, be angry with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for creating computers so you can sit around all day blasted with electromagnetic radiation reading posts like this.
  9. Be angry with pharmaceutical companies for allowing us to believe living the above life can be treated with drugs. Correctly prescribed drugs kill thousands of people per year. The flu kills just about no one. The vaccine never works.

Finally, be angry with yourself for not opening your eyes to the snow job and brainwashing which have taken over your mind. You NEVER asked the doctor any questions. You NEVER asked what is in the vaccines. You NEVER learned about these benign infections.

Let’s face it, you don’t really give a crap what your children eat. You don’t care about chemicals in their life. You don’t care if they sit around all day watching the TV or playing video games.

All you care about is drinking your Starbuck’s, your next plastic surgery, your next cocktail, your next affair, and your next sugar fix!

This post was created with love and with the idea of creating a better world for our children and future generations. Anger increases your risk of suffering a heart attack. Be careful.

Read this article and comment on it at VaccineImpact.com.

About the Author

Dr. Jack Wolfson is a board certified cardiologist in Phoenix. He is known as The Paleo Cardiologist and The Natural Cardiologist. Check out his website TheDrsWolfson.com and follow him on Facebook at The Drs. Wolfson

- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/arizona-cardiologist-responds-to-critics-regarding-measles-and-vaccines/#sthash.K6OQaBya.dpuf

CDC's Own Data: Vaccine-Infant Death Link

The CDC's own research has found that the long denied vaccine-SIDS link is real. If you believe the official pronouncements of top governmental health agencies like the CDC and FDA, all the vaccines in the present day schedule are a priori safe and effective.

Not only are you told that they can't harm you, but that not taking them can kill you.

Parents are under even more pressure. They are told that refraining from vaccinating their infants or children will greatly increase their risk of dying or being disabled. Worse, they are increasingly labeled as 'crazy' and 'irresponsible' anti-vaccine zealots who are putting the lives of others in danger.

But what happens when the actual evidence from the scientific and clinical literature produced by these very agencies contradicts their own vaccine policies?

This is exactly what has happened with the publication of a new study in the Journal of Pediatrics titled ,"Adverse Events following Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event ReportingSystem, 1990-2013," wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine.

The CDC has boldly denied that there is any evidence supporting a causal link between vaccines and infant death, despite the fact that their own webpage on the topic acknowledges that "From 2 to 4 months old, babies begin their primary course of vaccinations. This is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." Written off as coincidence, the CDC suggests that stomach sleeping is the primary modifiable risk factor.

Because SIDS is the 3rd leading cause of death in infants, and because the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world, one would think that more progress would have been made toward understanding its causes. Perhaps, as explored in this past article, the signal of harm is being ignored. Neglect and suppression of available data has recently been exposed with the confession of a top CDC vaccine scientist who was compelled to covered up data revealing an autism-MMR link in African-American boys.

In the new study, the CDC and FDA researchers themselves acknowledge "the scarcity" of postlicensure safety data on HiB vaccines in today's vaccination schedule. They evaluated reports involving the currently licensed Hib vaccines received from January 1, 1990, through December 1, 2013 available on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Presently, the CDC recommends 4 doses of the HiB vaccine at the following ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months through 15 months.

The HiB vaccine is described on the CDC website as "very safe" and "effective" at preventing HiB disease, which it states can be deadly. They list "most common side effects as usually mild and last 2 or 3 days," including "redness, swelling, and warmth where the child got the shot" and "fever". Nowhere is there listed death or disability as a possible side effect.

In stark contrast to these statements the study uncovered the following highly concerning results: CDC's Own Data: Vaccine-Infant Death Link

VAERS received 29,747 reports after Hib vaccines; 5179 (17%) were serious, including 896 reports of deaths. Median age was 6 months (range 0-10.22 months). Sudden infant death syndrome was the stated cause of death in 384 (51%) of 749 death reports with autopsy/death certificate records. The most common nondeath serious AE categories were neurologic (80; 37%), other noninfectious (46; 22%) (comprising mainly constitutional signs and symptoms); and gastrointestinal (39; 18%) conditions. No new safety concerns were identified after clinical review of reports of AEs that exceeded the data mining statistical threshold.

Consider also that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which suffers from profound underreporting. According to the VAERS site's own disclaimer:

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report.

According to Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccination Information Center, underreporting may result in overlooking 99% or higher of all vaccine associated injuries:

"Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in a 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that fewer than 1 percent of all doctors report injuries and deaths following the administration of prescription drugs. This estimate may be even lower for vaccines. In one survey that our organization conducted in New York in 1994, only 1 doctor in 40 reported to VAERS."

Considering the influence of underreporting, these deaths represent only the tip of the iceberg of vaccine-induced infant morbidity and mortality caused by HiB vaccines. The study also mentioned an earlier analysis which found that infant death is the most common cause of death reported by all vaccine linked reports on VAERS, "accounting for almost one-half of all deaths reported."

Obviously, this is an appalling study. The death of even 1 child for a potentially ineffective medical intervention designed to prevent a rarely fatal illness is a tragedy. Nor can any single vaccine be proven to have prevented any single case of disease because the clinical outcome (end point) is a non-event. This is not the case, however, for vaccine side effects which can be linked directly to the vaccination event with plausible scientific mechanisms.

What is perhaps most astounding is the researcher's conclusion:

"Review of VAERS reports did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns for Hib vaccines."

This callous disregard for the evidence -- evidence that clearly shows the CDC misrepresents the safety of the HiB vaccine -- speaks to the blind investment in vaccine policy decisions over human wellbeing. Millions of parents have listened to the CDC and FDA and believed that these vaccines not only work but are safe. Informed consent requires those undergoing a quasi-mandatory medical intervention like vaccination to know the true risks associated with it. Failing to do so is clearly a violation of this medical ethical protection against being abused, and in some cases disabled and even killed.

Sayer Ji is the founder of GreenMedInfo.com, an author, educator, Steering Committee Member of the Global GMO Free Coalition (GGFC), and an advisory board member of the National Health Federation.

He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is widely recognized as the most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Google Plus Profile. Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cdcs-own-data-vaccine-infant-death-link?page=2

GlaxoSmithKline documents show autism from vaccines

GlaxoSmithKline documents show autism from vaccines Revealed in Italian lawsuit, impossible in US

An Italian court recently awarded damages to a boy who developed autism as an injury from the GlaxoSmithKline's Infanrix Hexa vaccine, a combined vaccine for polio, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, pertussis and Haemophilus influenza type B. A key component of the trial was internal GlaxoSmithKline documents that revealed at least five acknowledged cases of autism resulting from Infanrix Hexa among the children enrolled in the trials for the shot. These documents were revealed during the trial through the discovery process, a basic legal right in civil suits in which the plaintiff and defendant can compell the other side to produce relevant documents. This is possible in the US in product liability trials for every product EXCEPT vaccines. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act provides vaccine manufacturers with complete liability immunity and it takes away the right to discovery by anyone injured by a vaccine. There is no chance that these documents would have ever been revealed in the US.

Please read this article about the Italian trial by Mary Holand that was published on the Age of Autism.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/01/recent-italian-court-decisions-on-vaccines-and-autism.html Confidential GSK Report p33-47 chartPlease share this message with family and friends and please share on social networks.

Scientific Proof That Being Thankful Improves Your Health

During Thanksgiving week, people around the United States express gratitude for the bounty of their lives, but many may not realize that in doing so, they’re also improving the quality of their health and increasing their life expectancies. The scientific evidence is conclusive when it comes to mood, outlook, and health. Happy people live up to 10 years longer than unhappy people, and optimists have a 77% lower risk of heart disease than pessimists.

But how can YOU become happier and more optimistic in your world view?

The How Of Happiness

In Sonja Lyubomirsky’s The How Of Happiness, she teaches us how 50% of our propensity for happiness is based on a genetic set point, something we can’t influence very much, 10% is based on life circumstances (such as getting the promotion, finding The One, or achieving the creative dream), and 40% is “intentional activity” that we can influence with our behavior.

That means we can be up to 40% happier in our lives without changing our circumstances one bit, and one of the key intentional activities is the practice of gratitude.

Research shows that consistently grateful people are happier, more energetic, more hopeful, more helpful, more empathic, more spiritual, more forgiving, and less materialistic. They’re also less likely to be depressed, anxious, lonely, envious, neurotic, or sick.

The Evidence

In one study, one group of participants were asked to name five things they’re grateful for every day, while another group was asked to list five hassles. Those expressing gratitude were not only happier and more optimistic, they reported fewer physical symptoms (such as headache, cough, nausea, or acne). Other gratitude studies have shown that those with chronic illnesses demonstrate clinical improvement when practicing regular gratitude.

Severely depressed people instructed to list grateful thoughts on a website daily were found to be significantly less depressed by the end of the study when compared to depressed people who weren’t asked to express gratitude. And we know that depression is a significant risk factor for disease.

For more surprising scientific proof about how to be ultimately healthy, read Mind Over Medicine or watch my public television special Heal Yourself: Mind Over Medicine (check listings here). (Hint: Being generous and radical self care are good for your health, so try giving generously of your time and love this holiday season while also focusing on your own self care!)

How Does Gratitude Boost Happiness?

According to Dr. Lyubomirsky, gratitude:

Promotes savoring of positive life experiences Bolsters self-worth and self-esteem Helps people cope with stress and trauma Encourages caring acts and moral behavior Helps build social bonds, strengthen existing relationships, and nurture new relationships (and we know lonely people have twice the rate of heart disease as those with strong social connections) Inhibits harmful comparisons Diminishes or deters negative feelings such as anger, bitterness, and greed Thwarts hedonistic adaptation (the ability to adjust your set point to positive new circumstances so that we don’t appreciate the new circumstance and it has little affect on our overall health or happiness) How to practice gratitude

You don’t have to wait for Thanksgiving to enjoy the benefits to your health and happiness that accompany gratitude.

1. Keep a gratitude journal.

Ponder 3 to 5 things you’re currently grateful for (it’s okay if these are mundane things!) and write them down. Data suggests that doing this once per week may be most beneficial, but if you find that doing it daily works best for you, go for it!

2. Cultivate an attitude of gratitude.

Journaling may not be your cup of tea, so you might be better off just training yourself to think grateful thoughts. Try noticing one ungrateful thought you have each day and switching it around to something you can be grateful for.

3. Vary your gratitude practice.

Try journaling, thinking grateful thoughts, speaking what you’re grateful for at dinner time, making art about what you’re grateful for, but shake it up! We tend to get bored easily, so the practice of gratitude works better when we change how we’re grateful.

4. Express gratitude directly to others.

Call a friend, write a letter, share your grateful thoughts with family members, or speak to a colleague at work about what you’re grateful for.

What are you thankful for? Share your gratitude here in the comments. And thank you for caring what I write about. I’m super grateful for you!

Source:- http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-11819/scientific-proof-that-being-thankful-improves-your-health.html http://greenyatrablog.com/scientific-proof-that-being-thankful-improves-your-health/

Binoy Kampmark: Crusades against Vaccination Monday, 5 January 2015, 9:56 am Opinion: Binoy Kampmark

Binoy Kampmark: Crusades against Vaccination Monday, 5 January 2015, 9:56 am Opinion: Binoy Kampmark

Crusades against Vaccination: Tenpenny Heads to Oz By Dr Binoy Kampmark

It would be a cardinal sin to presume that all science, cold and hard as it can be, is the stuff of fluffy paradigms, knowledge constellations that are pure speculation and subject of postmodern dismissal. It is all fine and good to question gravity as a relative, imagined concept till you step outside the window of the fifth floor to test the theorem.

That all said, science is not immune to trenchant lobbies of interpretation that resist revision, opponents and revisionists. The dogmatic high priests of the beaker and test tube tend to be furrowing away, and will make a point of keeping things as they are. No alternatives are allowed.

When people get hold of science, the superstitions are not necessarily far away. The medical profession has famously killed a good number of human beings, largely based on the assumption that it knew the healing truth and treated its subjects accordingly. The old argument, suggested through time, is that a doctor is as capable a killer as any well armed general.

It is that context we find ourselves in, a battle of certain, dogmatic quacks in a continuum of maladjusted quackery. There are those doctors who feel that any form of treatment that avoids manufactured drugs is fundamentally wrong, a problem that often finds itself in the uncomfortable realm of pharmaceutical sponsorship. If you are ill, a chemical rebalancing is required, with the blessings of big Pharma. The homeopathic retort to this resorts to other forms of cure, some of them equally quack-adjusted.

Everything that Ohio-based Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has been involved it suggests how medical science, and the way it is subsequently deployed in broader public debates, can become political fanfare and militant insurgency. The veteran osteopath has busied herself with one campaign for years: that against vaccination programs. The bulk of her views can be found in Saying No to Vaccines.

While her views are those of a concerned quack, she is finding other quacks insisting that she is a vile imposter, an individual who is determined to deny science in the name of killing people, notably helpless children. This has come to the fore with a promise by Tenpenny to deliver a series of seminars in Australia urging parents not to vaccinate their children.

Tenpenny is hardly one of those who is willing to add to the inventory of the morgue, but because she doesn’t tend to conform to the standard high priest code of medical science, she is bound to be a pariah in chief.

A glance at her various opinion pieces over time suggest an understandable concern about the way the vaccine industry is manipulated. Where corporations meet vaccine production, gaming is bound to happen. There have been concerns, for instance, about the use of injected animal cells. “No matter how careful manufacturers try to be, animal cells, animal DNA and culture contamination viruses end up in the final vials,” wrote Tenpenny for The Huffington Post (Mar 18) in 2010. The concerns there were directly connected with arrangements made between Novartis and US authorities.

Much of Tenpenny’s insistence is on choice, or at the very least, the battle over choice. Her detractors, ignoring the problems in some vaccination programs, have already made the choice for the prospective patient: vaccination is required and good, and all, therefore, need it. All those who resist are heretical at the least, murderous at the worst. There is, in other words, no room for contest.

The language from Australian critics of Tenpenny, who have begun something of a school ground spat against the entry of an individual into Australia to speak about a topic they disagree upon, suggests how barrel scraping the exercise has become. Their assumption is childish at best: a person is suggesting a contrary view on vaccination, and for that reason, ought to be canned, bagged and prevented from having a say on the blessed island continent. For that reason, she is a co-commander of the league of death, spreading woe among the community.

“A dangerous person is coming to Australia,” came the shrill pronouncement from Amy Stockwell on the site Mamamia (Jan 4). On getting to Australia, “She will spread a dangerous message.” On sounding like the defenders of the ultimate censorship regime, the author actually adds jest to the Tenpenny argument, showing how such dogmatism is precisely what we do not need in the medical debate.

In a fashionable Stalinistic refrain, she suggests that “the new Immigration Minister (and former Health Minister), Peter Dutton has an opportunity to take a stand against deadly misinformation and the people that peddle it.” To that end, the minister is urged in the language of maternal tribalism, “to reject Sherri Tenpenny’s application for a visa to travel to Australia and ensure that her misinformation and lies do not threat the lives of children in this country.”

The language is almost cartoonish in its gangsterish venom, and finds form in Australian responses that assume that government knows best, and ministers know better. This is paternalism at its worst. NSW Health Minister Julia Skinner, to take one example, comes up with the hellish idea that, “There is nothing to fear from vaccination but much to fear from the devastating consequences of leaving children unprotected against potentially fatal diseases.”

Naturally, the other side of the campaign against the likes of those who feel that there are problems with centrally administered vaccination programs lies in attacking the homeopathic industry, which does offer an alternative, however kooky it seems to those in big pharma or the medical orthodoxy.

Jeremy McAnulty, Acting NSW Chief Health Officer, is clear that, “Homeopathic medicines do not provide protection against diseases such as whooping cough, measles, diphtheria, and meningitis. People who receive a homeopathic vaccine should not be lulled into a false sense of security that their children are protected” (Daily Telegraph, Jan 4).

The continuum of quackery and the hysteric reflex coming out of those who refuse to allow a medical practitioner to give seminars in a distant country says much of the featherweight types who see rules of visitation as rules of exclusion. Down with the quacks, it seems and up with the others!

*****

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was as Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1501/S00015/binoy-kampmark-crusades-against-vaccination.htm

Homeopathy for ADHD: Hocus Pocus or Science? By Deborah Mitchell

Parents of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) face daily challenges and questions concerning how to best cope with, manage, and help their kids. Moms and dads who are not satisfied with a purely conventional medicine approach, typically because of questionable safety and effectiveness of medications, often turn to other options. Should parents consider homeopathy for ADHD? Some practitioners and researchers vote yes, and they point to the success they have witnessed in their practice and their studies. Many others, however, are not convinced about the value of homeopathy in general nor its use for this neurodevelopmental condition in particular.

Recently I interviewed Beth Landau-Halpern, a Toronto-based, classically trained homeopath who uses a wide range of natural approaches to treat ADHD, including nutritional medicine, relaxation techniques, and natural supplements along with homeopathy. Many but not all of her patients are already taking medications. Her natural therapies can both complement and enhance a child’s treatment program.

Homeopathy and ADHD: Two Studies

Landau-Halpern talked about her involvement in two studies of homeopathy and ADHD as well as about her experiences with her treatment approach overall. The two studies—one pilot study already completed and a new study currently underway that was initiated based on the findings of the first—involved evaluation of the impact of homeopathic remedies on children with ADHD.

The particulars of the first study were explained to me by one of Landau-Halpern’s colleagues, David Brulé, a research associate at the University of Toronto and owner of Riverdale Homeopathic Clinic.A total of 35 children were enrolled in the study, which involved an initial consultation with one of two homeopaths and then nine follow-up consultations.

Eighty percent of the participants completed all 10 consultations over an average of 12.1 months. During that time, a mean of three homeopathic remedies were prescribed for the children from a selection of more than three dozen options. The two found to be the most effective were phosphorus and tuberculinum. Parents were questioned about their child’s diet, but while Brulé said “diet works” for kids with ADHD, this factor was not emphasized in the study.

Overall the findings were positive: 63 percent achieved significant improvement in behavioral symptoms, and the benefits were generally observed at the seventh to eighth consultation. All of this good news prompted the researchers to plan another, larger study, which is now underway.

Based on her observations of participants in this study, Landau-Halpern explained that “most of the clients responded well to the homeopathic remedies, although it sometimes took a few months to find the most beneficial remedy.” This caveat was especially true, she said, among kids who were taking medication since “many of their ‘symptoms’ were masked” by the drugs. Overall, she believed the children’s behavioral symptoms were the most affected by the remedies, “those that the stimulant drugs don’t really affect in any case.”

What about the effect of diet and natural supplements on these patients who were taking homeopathic remedies? Landau-Halpern pointed out that many of the parents were finding it difficult to deal with the challenges of ADHD, so she did not normally introduce dietary suggestions. At the same time, she emphasized that “an optimized diet is obviously important” as are supplements, although she did not stress them in the study.

The new study, which currently is recruiting participants, will follow 180 children with ADHD. Unlike the earlier study, parents will be asked if they are using therapeutic dietary changes. (Download the announcement for recruitment into the new study.)

In her private practice, Landau-Halpern often recommends supplements for children with ADHD, especially omega-3 fatty acids. In addition she suggests B vitamins, iron, magnesium, vitamin D, zinc, and multivitamins, depending on the individual child. She also addresses diet.

When looking at the diet of a child who has ADHD, Landau-Halpern pointed out that while every child responds to preservatives, artificial colors, and artificial flavors differently, “in general, they have absolutely no place in any child’s diet—ADHD or not.” She also emphasized that eliminating these substances “can bring about huge improvements in all sorts of pathological behaviors and physical symptoms.”

In fact, cutting out foods that contain preservatives and artificial additives is the first advice she offers parents of kids with ADHD. Why? Because it works. “For some children, simply removing foods that impair their neurological function can make an enormous difference,” and that includes refined, processed foods containing artificial ingredients and preservatives as well as those to which children have a hypersensitivity.

A review in Current Psychiatry Reports that evaluated evidence for dietary and nutritional treatments, as well as homeopathy, for ADHD noted that “Controlled studies support the elimination of artificial food dyes to reduce ADHD symptoms, and that multivitamin/mineral supplements and especially essential fatty acids are suggested. Evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy for ADHD, however, was reported to be minimal.

Read more about kids and artificial colors

That could be changing, however, as researchers continue to conduct more comprehensive studies. Therefore, for parents of children with ADHD, alternative and complementary options such as homeopathy and nutritional medicine, including the elimination of artificial dyes and flavors and preservatives, should be considered and discussed with the appropriate healthcare professionals.

http://naturallysavvy.com/nest/homeopathy-for-adhd-hocus-pocus-or-science

Complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients: results of the EPAAC survey on integrative oncology centres in Europe. Rossi E1, Vita A, Baccetti S, Di Stefano M, Voller F, Zanobini A.

AbstractBACKGROUND:

The Region of Tuscany Health Department was included as an associated member in WP7 "Healthcare" of the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), initiated by the EU Commission in 2009. AIMS:

The principal aim was to map centres across Europe prioritizing those that provide public health services and operating within the national health system in integrative oncology (IO). METHODS:

A cross-sectional descriptive survey design was used to collect data. A questionnaire was elaborated concerning integrative oncology therapies to be administered to all the national health system oncology centres or hospitals in each European country. These institutes were identified by convenience sampling, searching on oncology websites and forums. The official websites of these structures were analysed to obtain more information about their activities and contacts. RESULTS:

Information was received from 123 (52.1 %) out of the 236 centres contacted until 31 December 2013. Forty-seven out of 99 responding centres meeting inclusion criteria (47.5 %) provided integrative oncology treatments, 24 from Italy and 23 from other European countries. The number of patients seen per year was on average 301.2 ± 337. Among the centres providing these kinds of therapies, 33 (70.2 %) use fixed protocols and 35 (74.5 %) use systems for the evaluation of results. Thirty-two centres (68.1 %) had research in progress or carried out until the deadline of the survey. The complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) more frequently provided to cancer patients were acupuncture 26 (55.3 %), homeopathy 19 (40.4 %), herbal medicine 18 (38.3 %) and traditional Chinese medicine 17 (36.2 %); anthroposophic medicine 10 (21.3 %); homotoxicology 6 (12.8 %); and other therapies 30 (63.8 %). Treatments are mainly directed to reduce adverse reactions to chemo-radiotherapy (23.9 %), in particular nausea and vomiting (13.4 %) and leucopenia (5 %). The CAMs were also used to reduce pain and fatigue (10.9 %), to reduce side effects of iatrogenic menopause (8.8 %) and to improve anxiety and depression (5.9 %), gastrointestinal disorders (5 %), sleep disturbances and neuropathy (3.8 %). CONCLUSIONS:

Mapping of the centres across Europe is an essential step in the process of creating a European network of centres, experts and professionals constantly engaged in the field of integrative oncology, in order to increase, share and disseminate the knowledge in this field and provide evidence-based practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25471177

Epilepsy in dogs and cats; Homeopathy has a major role to play, writes John Saxton

http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/bha-charity/how-we-can-help/articles/epilepsy-in-dogs-and-cats/

Epilepsy in dogs and cats

Homeopathy has a major role to play, writes John Saxton

The first problem to overcome in treating epilepsy is the fact that we are dealing with a condition that, in most cases, has very violent symptoms. The salivation, muscular spasms, sometimes involuntary howling that can occur, together with the incoordination of the recovery period, produce an understandable state of revulsion in many owners, compounded by a feeling of helplessness, especially when they witness it for the first time.

This has two consequences with regard to treatment. The first is that there can be an undue concentration on the presenting symptom rather than on the whole picture, and an undue emphasis in treatment on preventing further fits at any price. Hahnemann laid great stress on the fact that disease can only be cured “if the physician clearly perceives what has to be cured… in each individual case of disease”, and this applies to epilepsy just as much as to any other condition. True epilepsy is not an acute condition but is part of a chronic disease pattern, in many instances what Hahnemann referred to as a “one-sided disease”. The really successful approach to its treatment is constitutional.

The second consequence is that accurate observation and reporting of the exact symptoms of a fit can be difficult. In one sense this is not as important as it may seem, as many of the features are local or common symptoms, but useful information can be obtained from this area of the picture.

Another factor affecting the disease picture is that many cases that present for homeopathic treatment are already receiving conventional anticonvulsant drugs. These may be failing to control the situation adequately and/or there may be concerns over the side effects of their long-term use. One of the commonest drugs used is phenobarbitone and one of the other standard medications, Mysoline, is broken down in the body into barbiturate. Long-term use of these agents can pose a strain on the liver. In addition, from the homeopathic point of view, this approach represents a degree of suppression of the case, with all the problems that that implies. However, in spite of this it cannot be stressed too strongly that such treatments must not be withdrawn suddenly, and any changes must take place under veterinary supervision. However homeopathy right from the start gives the best chance of a cure.

More cases of epilepsy are seen in dogs than in cats. Cats, unlike dogs, are a species that cannot synthesis the amino acid Taurine and hence care is taken to add it to their diet. One of the effects of Taurine in the body is as a controller of nervous impulses, and supplementing the diet of dogs to give higher levels can raise the threshold at which fits are triggered. Although not homeopathic, its use can be beneficial in the overall management of a case. Other ways of reducing the susceptibility to fits involves the use of herbal preparations, which can be helpful on occasions.

In some ways the cases where there is complete control of the fits by conventional medication are the most difficult. The picture is distorted and also the assessment of progress following a remedy is extremely difficult. Other changes in the body, usually behavioural, may give an indication of some action by the remedy, but a reduction of the medication is often the only way of ascertaining any beneficial effect. In contrast those cases where there are still some fits occurring do offer a yardstick by which to judge progress.

Because we are dealing with a chronic disease, often treatment will throw up symptoms in other areas as the whole case is revealed. The major systems that are associated are the skin and the bowels, and there may be a “see-saw” between the symptoms.

The question of potency is an important consideration when prescribing the constitutional remedy. This is one of those conditions where the last thing we want is an aggravation! Hence caution is advisable and more moderate potencies are often initially employed, even in those cases where the indications for a particular remedy are strong. Of course in any acute episode where a remedy is being used to control a fit then high potencies are very useful, as there is a high-energy output from the condition at that time.

The causes of epilepsy are many and it would not be appropriate here to consider all the factors that can possibly be linked, but one in particular is worthy of mention. That is vaccination. It is well documented that vaccinations, both primary and boosters, can on occasion produce convulsions. No animal with a history of convulsions, from whatever cause, should be given a vaccination without very good reason. Silica, having both convulsions and “ailments from vaccination” in its picture is extremely useful here.

Homeopathic treatment falls into two types. One is the full constitutional approach, aimed at obtaining a complete cure as this offers the best hope of success. Sometimes an “acute” remedy is used in addition. The other involves a compromise with the use of both homeopathic and conventional medications. The aim here is to use homeopathy to reduce the dependence on heavy medication, thereby increasing the safety margins and improving the quality of life for the patient.

Case histories Coco was a four-year-old golden retriever. She had had several fits over the previous three years, but these had been fairly mild and “very occasional”, with a quick recovery. No conventional treatment had been given as the fits were mild and infrequent. However, the latest two fits had been more severe and frequent, and although apparently recovered she now appeared “not quite her usual self”.

The fits had lasted about five minutes. There was no incontinence or howling, just a general spasm of the whole body with the head thrown back over the right shoulder. She had been vaccinated regularly with no apparent ill effects and there were no other health problems, only a behavioural inconvenience. Coco had lived with three other neutered bitches all her life and was friendly towards them. However, she would frequently mount any one of them, and if they protested run off and hide.

Originally her owner had planned to breed with her and so she was not neutered as a puppy. Her seasons had been regular but abnormally mild. Neutered at around 21/2 years of age did nothing to change the sexual behaviour. She was wary of other dogs and if approached would initially “freeze” and escape at the first opportunity. If she finally got to know another dog she was friendly and playful. Her appetite was steady, preferring dry food, and not drinking as much as her companions. She liked cuddles from the owner. She was tolerant of heat but was happy to let others be near the fire.

She was given Pulsatilla 200c for three days, with Cicuta virosa M in case of an attack. She was re-presented two months later having had a mild fit. The Cicuta had not been given. The owner reported she was “more like her old self”. Pulsatilla 200c was repeated. She has had no more fits and is now more confident with other dogs.

Zeberdee was a seven-year­old sheltie, an epileptic for three years. There was no known family history of epilepsy. The first fit had occurred within 24 hours of a booster vaccination. His only other health problem was chronic eczema and he had had kennel cough. He was on a high dose of phenobarbitone four times daily but the fits still occurred every three weeks. During them he would hyperventilate, be on his side with legs thrashing about in an incoordinated manner, salivate profusely, and pass urine. There was usually one scream before the fit. All but the last fit had occurred at night. He recovered in about an hour and was then ravenously hungry, being very sensitive to noise during that time. His owner had given Bufo 30c on two occasions and this had increased the intervals to five and eight weeks respectively, but he had now reverted to his three weekly pattern.

He was described as friendly to dogs and ladies but wary of men. He liked to play but disliked being cuddled. He was frightened of thunder, fireworks, and very wary in a crowd. He disliked the fire and preferred to be outside in all weathers, but would lie in the sun. His appetite was always good, his thirst normal, and he did not suffer from flatulence. Treatment was started with a combined vaccine nosode 30c, for four days. This was followed by Lycopodium 200c for two days. There were then two mild fits, each lasting about one minute, and each six weeks apart. He was reported as being more confident with men but otherwise unchanged. Lycopodium 200 was repeated. There were no more fits for five months, then one violent one daily for three days. Hyoscyamus 30c stopped the sequence and Lycopodium M was given for one day. There have now been no fits for over a year and his medication has been withdrawn. His eczema has also improved.

Some of the most useful remedies in the epileptic situation

Aconite Useful for both attendant and patient! The sudden onset fits the picture, and fear is sometimes seen just prior to the fit.

Belladonna Another remedy where suddenness is a feature, together with the violence of the convulsions. There is great sensitivity during the fit, and the slightest external stimulus will keep it going. The attack usually involves a single fit rather than a cluster. As the acute of Calc carb, it is often of use where that is the indicated constitutional remedy.

Bufo This has the reputation of the keynote of fits occurring during sleep. In actual fact the link is to night and sleep combined. The other feature is worse in a warm room. There is often a howl at the start of the fit.

Cicuta virosa A distinctive feature here is that during the spasms the head is thrown back and to the side, so that the muzzle rests on the shoulder blade facing towards the tail.

Cocculus A very useful remedy, its connection with vertigo gives it its place in this context.

Hyoscyamus Related to Belladonna and Stramonium, this is also an excellent “local” remedy. Its picture is characterised by excessive movements of the face, both prior to a fit and at other times.

Kali brom As Potassium bromide this is used as a conventional anti-convulsant, and it is also employed as a homeopathic remedy. The timing of the fits is often linked to oestrus, and there is marked excitement before they start.

Nux vom Together with Ignatia the main ingredient is strychnine. These two, together with the remedy Strychninum have a role to play.

John Saxton BVetMed MRCVS VetFFHom qualified in 1964 and five years later started his own practice in Leeds, concentrating on the small animal side. He became interested in homeopathy in the late 1970s and was awarded his Fellowship in 1996. He teaches regularly in the UK and examines in veterinary homeopathy for the Faculty of Homeopathy.