Opinion: Why would anyone think a rigorous clinical trial is a bad idea?

http://thepromisefilm.net/

http://thepromisefilm.net/

Evolution of multiple sclerosis in France since the beginning of hepatitis B vaccination

Evolution of multiple sclerosis in France since the beginning of hepatitis B vaccination

Dominique Le Houézec

Abstract

Since the implementation of the mass vaccination campaign against hepatitis B in France, the appearance of multiple sclerosis, sometimes occurring in the aftermath of vaccinations, led to the publication of epidemiological international studies. This was also justified by the sharp increase in the annual incidence of multiple sclerosis reported to the French health insurance in the mid-1990s. Almost 20 years later, a retrospective reflection can be sketched from these official data and also from the national pharmacovigilance agency. Statistical data from these latter sources seem to show a significant correlation between the number of hepatitis B vaccinations performed and the declaration to the pharmacovigilance of multiple sclerosis occurring between 1 and 2 years later. The application of the Hill’s criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis may be causal.

Keywords: Hepatitis B vaccine, Multiple sclerosis, Demyelinating disease, Pharmacovigilance, Vaccine adverse events

Go to:

Introduction

The first doubts regarding vaccines as a possible cause or exacerbation of multiple sclerosis (MS) were formulated by Miller more than half century ago [1]. Hepatitis B (HB) vaccine has been the subject of greatest concern, especially in France where mass HB vaccine administration was performed in a short time. In 1992, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended undertaking a universal HB vaccination of all young infants in order to eradicate the HB virus. WHO explained that the teenagers’ vaccination could also be used in addition to or instead of the vaccination of young children in low-endemic countries. In 1994, the French health authorities launched a national vaccination campaign of all pupils in the first year of secondary school. The following year, HB vaccine was added to the national immunization program for all young babies and preteenagers. This intensive campaign had quickly exceeded its expected targets by also encouraging the adult population to be mass-vaccinated, whereas the vaccination of the infants remained less significant. This resulted in an unprecedented “wave” of immunization in adults, with 20 million French individuals vaccinated against HB, concentrated in 4 years, from 1994 to 1997.

MS cases in some vaccinated adults were rapidly notified to the French national pharmacovigilance system (ANSM), triggering investigation by this agency. This inquiry, started in 1994, was therefore already underway when French media revealed possible occurrence of post-immunization MS in 1998. This year, French health authorities abruptly terminated routine school-based vaccination of preteens, and adult HB vaccination began to be less widespread.

Several epidemiological studies have been evaluating the correlation between HB vaccination and MS in adults for a decade. Most of these publications found the absence of a link [2–6] or a slightly increased risk, but not sufficiently significant on the statistical level [7–9]. However, different opinions have also been formulated. A study aiming at quantifying underreporting in Fourrier’s article [8] was conducted by D. Costagliola on request of the French pharmacovigilance. This unpublished study showed by the “capture–recapture” method that the real number of MS cases linked to HB vaccine was 2–2.5 higher than the officially registered number [10]. This additional calculation makes Fourrier’s publication [8] clearly significant. Another case–control epidemiological study was conducted to evaluate serious post-vaccination adverse events registered in the United States through a spontaneous reporting system in the VAERS database. Adults receiving HB immunization had significantly increased odds ratios (OR) for MS (OR 5.2; CI 1.9–20) in comparison with an age-, sex-, and vaccine year-matched unexposed tetanus-containing vaccine group [11]. A Hernan’s paper, based on a case–control study in the United Kingdom within the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), found an increased risk (OR 3.1; CI 1.5–6.3) of MS within the 3 years following HB immunization [12]. In the same way, a French study on demyelination in childhood [13] showed that Engérix B^® vaccine administration was associated with an increased trend of confirmed MS after 3 years (OR 2.77; CI 1.23–6.24).

On these grounds, we compared temporal HB vaccine dose distribution and MS occurrence in the French population, using the official data collected by the French pharmacovigilance system (ANSM) and the national health insurance (CNAM). The results confirmed, at the global population level, a significant correlation between the number of immunizations and both the number of MS cases declared to the pharmacovigilance system 1–2 years later and an overall increase in identified MS cases in the country.

Go to:

Materials and methods

Databases

We compared data from two independent national databases: the National Health Service database (CNAM) [14] and the French pharmacovigilance system (ANSM) [15].

CNAM

The French general insurance provides each year the number of new cases of MS in which care is fully supported. These data are available online on the Web site of the CNAM [14]. The concerned population represents a very large majority of people covered by the healthcare system (83 % of the French population in 1996).

ANSM

This organization identifies spontaneous adverse event reports emerged in the aftermath of vaccinations since the beginning of the establishment of HB immunization (1981). The most common diseases reported were neurological damages of myelin, known under the generic term of demyelinating diseases. This condition is clinically called MS when at least two attacks of demyelination repeat themselves. When the neurological disorder remains single, without temporal or spatial diffusion, we speak of central nervous system demyelination.

The French pharmacovigilance is based on “spontaneous reporting” of adverse drug reactions. This allows the establishment of a possible relationship as well as the imputability to generate alerts. However, this system underestimates the real frequency of adverse reactions (1–10 % of severe side effects are reported) [16].

On the other hand, from 1997, the notification by REVAHB, the association of victims of HB vaccine, allowed the completion of these spontaneous reports of potential side effects. Since its inception, this association has been able to transmit more than 2,000 files of individuals who have experienced a neurological problem of post-vaccine demyelination. However, about a third of these files are not used by the French pharmacovigilance (classified as “not documented”) when the physician does not answer to the questionnaire which ANSM sends him for confirming the diagnosis. Of course, this rate of not documented files is an obvious factor of underreporting.

Statistical analyses

We used the R statistical software to compute correlations and perform linear regressions.

Go to:

Results

CNAM data analysis

The number of MS was very stable, about 2,500 new cases each year until 1993. The following years, and especially since 1996, a progressive increase in the number of new MS reported to the Health Insurance occurred. This figure increased to about 4,500 cases in 2003 and remains steady since.

The annual incidence was 5.3/10⁵ in 1993 and increased to 8.7/10⁵ insured people a decade later (Fig. 1), which translates into a 65 % increase in incidence over the 10-year period. These figures are consistent with epidemiological data published in this country. Indeed, the incidence of MS in France was estimated at around 4.3/10⁵ inhabitants in the years 1993–1997 from a representative sample of the Burgundy region [17]. It was reassessed by the same team at a rate between 7.6 and 8.8/10⁵ inhabitants for the period 2001–2007, from French CNAM data [18].

Fig. 1

Evolution of annual incidence rate of MS supported by the French health insurance system (CNAM), comparison with annual sales of Hepatitis B (HB) vaccine in France (1990–2009)

Epidemiological studies measuring prevalence of this disease provide an increase in the same magnitude. This figure was 40/10⁵ insured people in 1994, at the beginning of the mass vaccination campaign [19]. It increases rapidly until 95/10⁵ 12 years later [20].

ANSM data analysis

Since the beginning of practicing HB vaccination in France until December 31, 2010, ANSM has registered 1,650 demyelinating diseases including 1,418 MS. These data are available online on the Web site of ANSM in the French national commission for pharmacovigilance of September 27, 2011 [15]. When you draw a distribution curve of MS reported each year to ANSM in the aftermath of a vaccine injection, we see that this distribution is neither linear nor regular, far from it (Fig. 2). There is a huge peak of reported MS culminating in the years 1995 (229 reports) and 1996 (246 reports). This peak of post-vaccine neurological disorders during the period 1994–1998 corresponds, with an interval of one year, to the beginning of the campaign and intense promotion of the HB vaccination in France (culminating in the year 1995 with about 23 million vaccine doses sold).

Fig. 2

Sales of Hepatitis B (HB) vaccine every year in France, comparison with report of post-vaccine MS to the national pharmacovigilance agency (ANSM) (1984–2010)

We studied the correlation between MS data (Y) and vaccinations data (X). This correlation is high and maximum (0.9365863) between the number of vaccines sold at t time (called Xt) and the number of MS occurring the following year, t + 1 (called Yt + 1). There is also a high correlation (0.7350417) between vaccines sold at t time (Xt) and the number of reported MS 2 years later (called Yt + 2).

If we model this relationship in a linear fashion without constant (since in the absence of vaccination there are no MS cases registered by pharmacovigilance), the best model is one where the coefficient of determination adjusted R² is the highest (i.e., = 0.9497).

This model is defined by the relation: Yt + 2 = ß1Xt + ß2Xt + 1 + ß3Xt + 2

The series of sold vaccines at t time (Xt) and 1 year later (Xt + 1) have a significant influence (p = 0.00106 for Xt and 0.02491 for Xt + 1) on the number of reported MS at t + 2 years (Yt + 2), i.e., 2 years later. But we cannot say whether the number of vaccines sold in year t + 2 (Xt + 2) has a significant influence (p = 0.07014). Graphically, this relation is also the model that best fits the peak of reported MS to ANSM.

It is difficult to adjust the MS data after year 2002. There is then a notable difference between the theoretical series (models) and the actual series. This can be explained by the fact that the number of vaccinations mentioned by ANSM became less precise figures, rounded and approximate. In addition, since 1999, the immunization target has been focused on young children. Adult vaccination has become uncommon, reserved only for high-risk groups. Finally, the number of MS reported to pharmacovigilance has arguably become more and more underestimated over the years. The problem of the emergence of post-vaccine MS had been widely publicized in the years 1996–1999. Thereafter, over the years, this problem has been trivialized or forgotten. Since this period, underreporting became more important. People who have been victims of adverse events have not necessarily reminded the physician of the injection of a HB vaccine some weeks or months before.

Go to:

Discussion

Are we able to establish a relation between these results and the Hill’s criteria [21]? Is there a causal relationship between the HB vaccination and the incidence of MS in France? The Hill’s criteria for causation include nine items detailed in Table 1. We will detail now the most important criteria in the text, the other being a simple bibliographic reference mentioned in this table.

Table 1

Study of Hill’s criteria

The current study satisfies the first criterion. The association is highly statistically significant between reported MS (Yt + 2) to pharmacovigilance and the series of HB vaccines that were sold 1 and 2 years before (p < 0.01 for sold vaccines 2 years before (Xt) and p < 0.05 for sold vaccines 1 year before (Xt + 1); adjusted R² = 0.9497). Although it is possible to demonstrate here a statistical relationship between the number of sold vaccines and MS reported to the pharmacovigilance, it is not enough to affirm an absolute causality. This is a strong signal that requires further epidemiological studies.

The positive and statistically significant correlation between HB vaccine exposure and reported MS incidence is consistently observed in different places, circumstances, and times (criterion 2).

First, this result is consistent with the Hernan’s case–control study [12] that found in the British population an increased risk of MS (OR 3.1; CI 1.5–6.3) in the 3 years following HB vaccination. Moreover, in this same study, the risk was greater when the last immunization took place within the second or third years before first symptoms of MS (OR 4.1; CI 1.3–13.6).

The results of the case–control study by Geier [11] in USA are also consistent with the French pharmacovigilance data. There is a very significant change in the risk of developing MS after HB vaccine in adults in the VAERS database (OR 5.2, p < 0.0003; CI 1.9–20).

The Costagiola’s study [10] found underreporting of post-vaccine reported MS during the observation period (1994–1996) of an epidemiological study requested by French pharmacovigilance [9]. The combination of these two studies suggests a real number of cases significantly higher (RR = 1.66) than the expected number of MS during the 3 years of the collection.

Most publications where there is no link between HB vaccination and the onset of MS [2–5] received grants from pharmaceutical industry. Other criticism that can be raised for some of these negative case–control studies is the limited period (2–24 months) of their survey [4, 7–9]. Moreover, the Hernan’s publication [12] shows also a negative result (OR 1.8; CI 0.5–6.3) for a period of 1 year and becomes significant between 2 and 3 years of follow-up after HB immunization.

The case–control study nested in the Nurses’ Health by Asherio [4] presents several biases. The vaccination status was obtained retrospectively like the date of first symptoms of the disease assessed by questionnaires. This process may cause selection bias leading to a downwardly biased OR as the specific (nurses) selected population [26].

At last, a meta-analysis [27], based on six epidemiological case–control studies [4–7, 11, 12], did not find significant change in the risk of developing MS after HB vaccine in adults (OR 0.92; CI 0.84–1.004). This paper can also be criticized. Strangely, the statistical computing of this meta-analysis attributes a non-significant value to the Hernan’ study [12], with an OR 1 (CI 0.5–2.1) by using the cases’ date of diagnosis as the index date instead of the date of first symptoms as the author does. But as Hernan wrote [12], “the use of dates that are posterior to the true date of first symptoms may cause a downward bias of the OR for acute exposures such as vaccinations”. In addition, the most significant study by Geier [11] is removed, being regarded as a “source of heterogeneity”. So, withdrawal of a positive study and changing the result of another one more easily allows a negative outcome.

Generally speaking, we know that a low risk of adverse post-vaccination cannot be demonstrated by studies of low statistical power with small numbers of exposed people. Therefore, results in a population of over 20 million vaccinated people should attract attention and require further epidemiologic studies. Moreover, studies with a short period of post-vaccination monitoring are inadequate because they do not take into account the long biopersistence of immunostimulatory vaccine compounds (such as aluminum hydroxide) in the body. In this, vaccines derogate from the rule generally used for side effects of drugs.

The temporal relationship (criterion 4) clearly exists here. The annual incidence of MS recorded by the French insurance was stable about 5.5/10⁵ until 1995. It rose sharply in 1996 to stabilize around 8/10⁵ from 1998. But this sharp increase (65 %) closely follows a major peak in the number of vaccines sold between 1995 and 1997 in France (Fig. 1). The number of MS occurring in the aftermath of a HB vaccination reported to the French pharmacovigilance almost draws the same peak with a delay between 1 and 2 years (Fig. 2). Moreover, some papers report observations of MS relapses triggered by repeated injections of HB vaccine [28, 29].

The official explanations of the increase in this incidence are twofold, first a better screening of MS whose diagnosis has been made easier and faster by using radiological data provided by MRI. This is a dubious explanation. This new radiological technique has begun to develop gradually in French hospitals in 1990 and thus before the obvious increase in the recruitment of MS by French national insurance (1996). Otherwise, if this earlier diagnosis was really so important in the increased incidence of MS, we should have observed in France a decrease in the average age of newly diagnosed cases. And this rejuvenation was not observed [30].

The second factor involves the change in treatment protocol of this period with the introduction of treatment with interferon-beta in 1995, an innovative and very expensive drug that prompted physicians to quickly seek a total care by French health insurance. In 2004, the emergence of a new drug (glatiramer), indicated for the most common form of MS (relapsing–remitting), has not been followed by an increase in cases registered by CNAM that year and the following. The incidence remained the same. This explanation cannot alone explain a so rapid and significant increase (65 % over 4 years) in the incidence of a disease like MS.

A third factor must be considered in such a sudden increase in MS incidence. So the changing of an environmental etiological factor must be taken into account seriously. This therefore appears to be the case for the question of the potential role of HB vaccination carried out in France for a short time and in a massive way, about 20 million people concentrated in 4 years. It is interesting to compare these figures with those countries where routine vaccination has not been recommended. In Norway, the incidence of MS is higher than in France in the early 1990 s (8.7/10⁵ between 1990 and 1995). Then, it decreases slightly in subsequent years (7.2/10⁵ from 1996 to 2000) [31]. In the county of Värmland (Sweden), the incidence of MS has remained similar (6.4/10⁵) during the periods 1991–1995 and 1996–2000 [32].

Specificity (criterion 3) is likely for a very specific population at a specific site and disease. This is not applicable to diseases such as MS. Genetic risk (HLA-DR2) and environmental factors (vitamin D insufficiency) or infectious factors (Epstein–Barr virus, endogenous retroviruses) are clearly involved in the occurrence of MS although its etiology and pathophysiology are not completely understood. These other environmental and genetic factors may have contributed to the raise in MS incidence and should be mentioned.

Biological plausibility (criterion 6): A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful. Are there explanations regarding plausible mechanisms by which vaccines and particularly this vaccine may induce harm? This issue has been extensively studied in recent years. Various aspects of the causal and temporal interactions between vaccines and autoimmune phenomena are known, as well as the possible mechanisms by which different components of vaccines might induce autoimmunity [33]. A first hypothesis could be the similarity between the protein S (used in the vaccine against HB) and some myelin proteins such as PLP (proteolipid proteins) [34]. Another interesting track would be contamination by minor HB virus polymerase proteins. And we know that HB virus polymerase shares significant amino acid similarities with the human MBP (myelin basic protein) [35]. This process is called molecular mimicry: a foreign antigen that shares sequence or structural similarities with self-antigens.

Another runway about biological plausibility is to take into account the metabolism of vaccine adjuvants in the human body. The long-term persistence of aluminum adjuvant at the site of vaccine injection is now well established [36]. Furthermore, transferring of aluminum particles from muscle to brain is demonstrated in animals [37]. A new syndrome entitled ASIA, “Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants”, was recently described, grouping four similar illnesses [38]. These diseases (siliconosis, the Gulf war syndrome, the macrophagic myofasciitis syndrome and post-vaccination phenomena) were linked with previous exposure to an immune adjuvant (silicone, aluminum salts). In another publication, the same authors found common clinical characteristics of the ASIA criteria among 93 patients diagnosed with immune-mediated conditions post-HB vaccination, suggesting a common denominator in these diseases [39].

Go to:

Conclusions

The figures available in France thus show a definite statistical signal in favor of a causal link between the HB vaccine event and the apparition of MS with a maximum correlation in the 2 years following immunization. The impact of other factors (new use of MRI, beginning of interferon-beta) is probably associated. The weakness of this study is its retrospective nature and therefore subject to bias of notoriety. Its strength is that it is based on indisputable official data on large numbers and during about 12 years. The appearance of a spectacular “vaccine wave” in France has remained the only one in its kind. The intensive lobbying carried out in the years 1994–1997 led to concentrate as many vaccinated people as possible in the shortest period of time. This particularity is perhaps the explanation of the emergence of the problem of post-vaccine MS, especially recorded in this country. The low overall frequency of this adverse effect, not measurable in most epidemiological studies, here becomes more obvious because of a kind of involuntary very large scale experiment carried out on a third of the French population. All this is expected to require further epidemiological studies, particularly from the French health insurance data. Indeed, CNAM has information on millions of insured persons for many years that would be usable if we could more easily access it.

Go to:

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Mr. A. Sesboüe (Department of Statistics, Caen University, France) a lot for his statistical interpretation. He also gratefully acknowledges Pr. C. Exley (Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK) and Pr. R. K. Gherardi (Department of Pathology, Creteil University Hospital, France) for their judicious rewriting.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Go to:

Abbreviations

ANSM

Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé in French

CI

Confidence interval

CNAM

Caisse nationale d’assurance maladie in French

GPRD

General Practice Research Database

HB

Hepatitis B

MBP

Myelin basic protein

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

MS

Multiple sclerosis

OR

Odds ratio

p

p value

PLP

Proteolipid proteins

R²

Coefficient of determination R-squared

RR

Relative risk

REVAHB

Réseau vaccin hépatite B in French

VAERS

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System

WHO

World Health Organization

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266455/

Elia V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Nonatelli L, Ramaglia A, Ventimiglia E. New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. Journal Of Thermal Analysis & Calorimetry [serial online]. October 2004;78(1):331-342. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 25, 2015.

North & South and Homeopathy – Truth or Fiction?

Homeopathy » North & South and Homeopathy – Truth or Fiction?

The July 2012 issue of the New Zealand magazine North & South proudly bore the title for its cover story: “Do you believe in magic? The truth about alternative medicine.” The issue included an article which displayed with equal pride the title “Homeopathy – trick or treatment”. The byline to this article stated: “Homeopaths claim their formulas have “energetic powers”. Scientists say the only power in these potions is the placebo effect.”

Clive Stuart, a Tauranga homeopath, complained to the Press Council that the article and accompanying editorial were highly derogatory, inaccurate and misleading. The Press Council upheld the complaint (see www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.php?case_number=2320).

Mr Stuart’s complaint was supported by a detailed critical analysis of a key article, written by Dr David St George, a clinical epidemiologist. The key article was a meta-analysis of 110 homeopathy clinical trials and 110 conventional medical clinical trials, published in the Lancet in 2005. Sceptics often use this article to bolster up their belief that homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo. However, the Lancet article has already been challenged in the international scientific literature. Critics say that it has been subjected to selection bias through the process that the authors used to identify a subset of the clinical trials for more detailed analysis. The article’s conclusions are based on the subset analysis, but the selection bias in their methodology undermines the validity of their conclusions.

The critical analysis which supported Mr Stuart’s complaint doesn’t therefore say anything new. All of it has previously been said in the international scientific literature. What now follows is an edited version of the analysis.

Untruthful statements in “Homeopathy – Trick or Treatment?”

There are two key statements in this article, which are both untrue:

“….homeopathic remedies have failed every randomised, evidence-based scientific study seeking to verify their claims of healing powers.”

“…there is no scientific evidence of homeopathy’s efficacy.”

These statements are absolute claims about the absence of any scientific evidence and, as such, they are factually incorrect. There are indeed published “randomised, evidence-based scientific studies” which demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy, contrary to the article’s claim.

The article’s claims appear to arise from a study published in the Lancet in 2005: “Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy”, by Shang et al. This study is regularly quoted by critics of homeopathy as the definitive scientific answer to the question of whether or not homeopathy is anything more than a placebo effect.

Shang et al set out to prove that there is no scientific evidence of any therapeutic benefit from homeopathy beyond the placebo effect. The conclusion that they reached was that their findings do substantiate their a priori hypothesis of homeopathy being nothing more than a placebo effect. However, critics of Shang et al’s methodology have pointed out that there are inherent biases and limitations in their analysis. A more rigorous analysis of Shang et al’s data shows that their hypothesis cannot be substantiated.

The Shang et al study is important to understand because it sheds light the current debate about scientific evidence and homeopathy. It helps to clarify why absolute claims (such as those outlined in North & South) are being erroneously made about the absence of scientific evidence of efficacy, when in fact such evidence exists. This study therefore warrants a more detailed exploration.

The Shang et al study is a meta-analysis of 110 published placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy, compared with 110 published placebo-controlled trials of conventional medical drug treatment.

The first point to emphasise is that Shang et al’s own conclusions are not as absolute as North & South’s statements. Their interpretation section (in the summary of their published paper) says that their analysis indicated that “there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions.” Note that they did not say there was “no evidence” for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, but only “weak evidence”. North & South’s absolute claim of no evidence (the second statement above), therefore, is not supported by this study.

Secondly, the majority of the 110 homeopathy trials that were included in the study are “randomised, evidence-based scientific studies” (to use North & South’s phrase). Some of them may well be considered to be lower quality studies, but, nevertheless, they still include “randomised, evidence-based scientific studies” which have clearly demonstrated evidence of a therapeutic benefit beyond the placebo effect. North & South’s first statement (above) is therefore factually incorrect and misleading.

Thirdly, the real debate is not about whether or not there are any scientific studies demonstrating homeopathy’s therapeutic benefit, because there are quite a number of such published scientific studies which do show a therapeutic benefit. The debate is somewhat different from this. It is about whether or not the published scientific studies that do clearly demonstrate homeopathy’s therapeutic benefits are of acceptable methodological quality.

What the critics of homeopathy argue is that these scientific studies are methodologically flawed and must therefore be discounted. Indeed, this is what Shang et al tried to prove.

There is a well-known statement which summarises this position: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, then the facts must be wrong.” Homeopathy is considered by many conventional biomedical thinkers to be implausible - it cannot possibly have any therapeutic benefit. Any research which appears to show a therapeutic benefit must therefore be flawed research, which should be discredited. This is an a priori stance, based on theory and belief.

This approach is hinted at in a follow-up letter about the homeopathy article that North & South published. This is from Dr Shaun Holt of Tauranga. In this letter, he said:

“..there has never been a single, reproduced study, of an acceptable standard, showing any effect whatsoever of homeopathy in people, animals or even in a test tube.”

Note that this statement is different from North & South’s, in that Dr Holt introduces the qualifier, “an acceptable standard”. There is absolutely no doubt that there are published scientific studies showing efficacy of homeopathy. However, the ones that do show efficacy are considered by Dr Holt (and others like him) to be “of an unacceptable standard”, and must therefore all be rejected. The question is whether Dr Holt and the others who take this stance are justified in doing so, from the perspective of scientific evidence (as opposed to scientific theory or belief).

If you want to locate the published scientific studies which demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy, you only have to read Shang et al’s study in detail, because these studies are contained within it.

Below is Figure 2 from Shang et al’s publication. This compares the 110 homeopathy trials with the 110 conventional medicine trials, using what is called a “funnel plot”. Each trial is a dot on the appropriate graph.

The horizontal axis is the “odds ratio”, which (in simple terms) indicates the degree of benefit arising from the active treatment (whether homeopathy or conventional medicine) when compared with placebo treatment.

• An odds ratio of 1 (indicated by the vertical dotted line) is where the active treatment equals placebo, in terms of the degree of therapeutic benefit.
• An odds ratio to the left of the “1” (i.e., a smaller ratio than 1) indicates a therapeutic benefit from the active treatment which is greater than placebo. The further to the left the trial is positioned, the greater the benefit is from the active treatment.
• An odds ratio to the right of the “1” indicates that placebo treatment confers a greater therapeutic benefit than the active treatment.

The vertical axis (SE) is a proxy indicator of sample size. Larger trials are towards the top of the graph and smaller trials are towards the bottom.

These figures show a very similar picture for the 110 homeopathy trials and 110 conventional medicine trials. The majority of both groups show a beneficial therapeutic effect (i.e., they are to the left of the vertical dotted line). Also, in both groups, smaller trials (in the lower part of the graph) show more beneficial treatment effects than larger trials (towards the top of the graph).

With regard to North & South’s claim of “no scientific evidence of homeopathy’s efficacy” the homeopathy graph demonstrates something different. In this overall analysis, there is scientific evidence of efficacy amongst those studies which are to the left of the vertical dotted line.

However, as I have already said, the real debate is more about whether the large number of homeopathy clinical trials which do show efficacy are of sufficient methodological quality; or whether they can be rejected as being methodologically flawed.

Shang et al therefore went a stage further in their study and attempted to identify a subset of “higher quality” homeopathy and conventional medicine studies from amongst the 220 trials.

They tried to see if restricting their analysis to only “higher quality” trials would confirm their hypothesis that homeopathy is no better than placebo.

They focused on three indicators of research methodology quality: (1) the degree of randomisation and concealment of allocation; (2) the degree of masking (“blinding”) of patients, therapists and outcome assessors as to which group individual patients were in (i.e., active treatment or placebo); and (3) the degree to which the results were analysed by intention to treat (i.e., including all patients who were randomised in the analysis, not just those who were treated and followed up to the end of the study).

Using these criteria, they produced a subset of 30 trials: 21 “higher quality” homeopathy trials and 9 “higher quality” conventional medicine trials. However, they did not publish an analysis of how the two groups compared, in terms of therapeutic benefit. Instead, they restricted their analysis to only “larger” trials amongst the thirty. Using an arbitrary definition of a “larger” trial, they ended up with a subset of only 14 trials: 8 homeopathy trials and 6 allopathic trials.

Comparing the combined results of the 8 homeopathy trials with the combined results of the 6 allopathic trials, they found that the 8 selected homeopathy trials did not demonstrate any overall therapeutic benefit beyond placebo, whereas the 6 allopathic trials did.

The overall conclusion that Shang et al published (i.e., that their findings support the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects) is thus based on this “8 vs 6” comparison, not on the “110 vs 110” comparison (nor on the “21 vs 9” comparison).

At this point, it is important to emphasise that the way that Shang et al undertook the subset selection and analysis did not adequately conform to the scientific method. The study itself is a methodologically flawed study.

The “scientific method” is not just about carrying out appropriately designed experiments and analyses; it is about the entire process that is driven by your intention to prove empirically and conclusively that your scientific hypothesis is correct. Because all of us (including scientists) are prone to biases and self-deception, a scientific investigator has to establish empirical investigations that adequately remove his/her own biases towards proving that the hypothesis under investigation is correct. In other words, as a scientist, you have to be “your own worst critic” in your choice of methodology. You have to demonstrate sceptically and convincingly to others that the results you have obtained are robust, objective and not distorted by your own a priori beliefs. You have to attempt to refute your own scientific hypothesis.

In practical terms, this is done by denying your own scientific hypothesis in your research methodology. Although you start the process with a scientific hypothesis, you then adopt the position opposite from this, which is often called the “null hypothesis”. You then continue your investigation under the assumption that the null hypothesis is correct (i.e., that your scientific hypothesis is wrong) and you adhere to the null hypothesis unless and until you have overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This evidence allows you to reject the null hypothesis and accept the scientific hypothesis with a high degree of confidence.

With regard to Shang et al’s study, the starting point (i.e., the scientific hypothesis) is that homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo. The purpose of their analysis was to explicitly prove this. In Shang et al’s words:

“We assumed that the (positive) effects observed in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy could be explained by a combination of methodological deficiencies and biased reporting. Conversely, we postulated that the same biases could not explain the effects observed in comparable placebo-controlled trials of conventional medicine.”

The authors are quite open about their a priori belief in the implausibility of homeopathic treatment, and their consequent hypothesis that any apparently positive results from placebo-controlled homeopathy trials must be false positive results, arising from flawed methodology and biased reporting.

Shang et al are entitled to adopt this belief as a scientific hypothesis. However, in order to conform to scientific methodology, they should have then taken the opposite stance; i.e., they should have become their own worst critic. They should have adopted the null hypothesis that the therapeutic benefit from homeopathy is more than a placebo.

They should then have rejected this null hypothesis only if they found overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that homeopathy was indeed a placebo. They could only have achieved this through a far more robust and critical analysis.

Putting this in another way, instead of attempting to refute their own scientific hypothesis, Shang et al carried out a subset analysis in order to find the evidence to support it. They found exactly what they were looking for, in the “8 vs 6” comparison, but they made somewhat arbitrary and subjective decisions along the way, in order to get there. Their analysis is thus a long way away from what should be expected from robust scientific research. Indeed, it has already been considered to be an example of “data dredging”; i.e. looking for what you want to find, digging deeper into the data in order to find it, without critically evaluating the validity or robustness of the methodology being used.

What Shang et al should have done (as a minimum) is a standard analytical procedure known as a “sensitivity analysis”. They should have critically tested the sensitivity of their subset selection process, to see if changing the selection criteria and threshold values that they used would have resulted in a different subset of trials with different overall results.

Fortunately, such a sensitivity analysis has been carried out (by others) and published (elsewhere). It was published in 2008 in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology as “The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials”, by Ludtke and Rutten. The authors demonstrated that some of Shang et al’s selection criteria were somewhat arbitrary and subjective. By changing the threshold of the selection criteria, different results could be obtained, in terms of the overall therapeutic benefit of homeopathy. The authors said:

“Shang et al in their article arbitrarily defined one subset of eight trials which provided an overall negative result for homeopathy. Our article shows that the choice of other meaningful subsets could lead to the opposite conclusion.”

For example, Ludtke and Rutten found that if they changed the arbitrary criterion for a “larger” trial used by Shang et al (i.e., the largest quartile of the subset, based on a sample size N=98 or larger) to the median sample size of all homeopathy trials (i.e., N=66 or larger), the subset of homeopathy trials selected by this latter criterion showed a significant therapeutic effect in favour of homeopathy. There is no objective or meaningful a priori reason for choosing Shang et al’s definition of a “larger” trial over any other definition, and therefore no objective or meaningful reason for concluding that the “8 vs 6” comparison is the one subset to be used use in order to carry out the “definitive” comparison between homeopathy and conventional medicine.

However, just as interesting is the fact that they did not publish the comparison of the subset of “higher quality” trials that they first selected, as mentioned above (i.e., the 21 homeopathy trials versus 9 conventional medicine trials). This analysis, as demonstrated by Ludtke and Rutten, showed a statistically significant therapeutic benefit for homeopathy. It is not self- evident that Shang et al had to skip over this analysis and restrict the “definitive” analysis even further, to “larger” trials only. Other things being equal, a medium-sized study with statistically significant results cannot be rejected out of hand just because of its sample size. The statistical analysis would have taken into account the sample size.

Choosing only larger studies can also introduce other biases. For example, larger homeopathy trials tend to be based on a very different homeopathic approach from smaller homeopathic trials; e.g., using a conventional medical diagnosis to define the subjects and using the same single remedy for all subjects in the larger trials. This is an approach which classical homeopaths claim dramatically reduces the effectiveness of their treatment.

Shang et al thus appear to have adopted the “data dredging” approach (i.e., pursuing analyses until they found the answer they were looking for), rather than a truly scientific approach (i.e., attempting to refute their own hypothesis). Reaching the author’s conclusion required a subjective and somewhat arbitrary choice of subset selection criteria. A different choice would have led the authors to the opposite conclusion. Shang et al’s study does not therefore provide robust scientific evidence that homeopathy is no more than placebo.

We are therefore left with the status quo with regard to scientific evidence and homeopathy; namely that there is a large group of published placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy which demonstrate therapeutic benefit for homeopathy. The quality of these trials is just as variable as the quality of conventional medicine trials.

Those who currently reject the positive homeopathy trials as being of an unacceptable methodological standard are thus doing so more because of their a priori belief that homeopathy can be nothing more than placebo, rather than from the basis of an objective, unbiased, rigorous analysis of scientific evidence.

In conclusion, this analysis supports the opinion that the article is one-sided; is based on a factually incorrect and misleading understanding of the nature of the scientific evidence concerning homeopathy’s efficacy; and is thus inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced in its treatment of homeopathy.

Debate about Homeopathy: Mere Placebo or Great Medicine?

Published on 5 Dec 2012

This question has been harshly argued for more than 200 years. And for more than 200 years, the two positions in this conflict have remained in a complete deadlock. It is astonishing to note that arguments on either side have essentially not changed much over this long period of time. On one side, skeptics are claiming from a purely theoretical point of the view, "homeopathy is implausible. Therefore it can't work," and any evidence in its favor must logically be flawed. On the other hand, we have generations after generations of homeopaths claiming from a purely factual point of view and with loads of evidence, "And yet, it works!"

Dr. André Saine, Dean of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy, and Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Director of McGill Office for Science and Society, will face each other to debate this important question.

Post-Debate Questions & Answers: After the debate, Drs. André Saine and Joe Schwarcz mutually accepted to answer questions from the public by writing. Dr. Schwarcz also sent 18 questions to Dr. Saine. In return, Dr. Saine sent 27 questions to Dr. Schwarcz. They both agreed to post all four series of Q&A on their respective website. These Q&A can now be accessed here: http://homeopathy.ca/debates_2012-11-... http://homeopathy.ca/debates_2012-11-... http://homeopathy.ca/debates_2012-11-... http://homeopathy.ca/debates_2012-11-...

These Q&A should also be available at: http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2012/12/20...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2uBBU4XT7Y

Why do people bully?

 

Dr. Toni Bark, M.D. – Do Not Remove Vaccine Exemptions – Some Children Die from Vaccines - See more at: http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/dr-toni-bark-m-d-do-not-remove-vaccine-exemptions-some-children-die-from-vaccines/#sthash.oGJzwTfZ.dpuf Letter sent to Oregon Senator Ferrioli

Letter sent to Oregon Senator Ferrioli

by Dr. Toni Bark Facebook Page

I trained as a pediatric intern at Bellevue NYU and then in Rehab medicine. I quickly was offered the directorship of the pediatric emergency room at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago.

While I had initially been furious if parents came in and were not up to date on their children’s vaccines, this attitude changed. And changed drastically.

I began to see patterns. Children who were seen in the vaccine clinic would then come to our ER with seizures, respiratory arrest and asthma attacks. I began to realize, not all children respond well to vaccination and in fact, some die.

It wasn’t until my masters program in disaster management at BU, which I began in 2010 and finished in 2012, did I begin to see the fraudulent nature of how vaccines are being marketed and the corruption in the advisory committees.

I had not even been made aware of the federal vaccine court. I had no idea vaccine recipients who were damaged or killed from vaccines had zero recourse with the manufacturer or physician.

Vaccine manufacturers enjoy full immunity from law suits of any kind, including defective design (as opined by Scalia in Feb 2011) as they are legally listed as “unavoidably unsafe”.

The vaccine court is almost a secret. They have paid out 3 billion dollars since it’s inception in 1986. The vaccine adverse events reporting system is also not well advertised and the government admits it probably only receives 10 percent of the adverse events which occur.

We mandate more vaccines than any other country. We also have the worst infant mortality rate of any first, second, and even some third world countries.

I am 55, so I only received a handful of vaccines. Today, infants receive 14 different vaccines by age of 1 and by age 18, that number is 58 and in some states with flu vaccine mandates, that number is much higher.

A note on the flu vaccine mandates. New Jersey and Connecticut were the first states to mandate flu vaccine for all preschoolers and school age children, annually. This has done nothing to reduce flu cases in their states.In fact, both states are in the highest grouping for flu every year.

While most people do just fine with vaccination, a small percentage do not. And I mean, really do not. Vaccination product inserts describe encephalitis as a possible outcome along with guillan barre paralysis.

Most parents or doctors (for that matter) do not start out “anti-vaccine”, their stance is changed once they have a child who is permanently and profoundly damaged by a vaccine. They then decide no more for that child and no more for their next children.

And they are correct in making that decision.

Genetics, epigenetics and timing can have a great influence on vaccine adverse events. No one drug at one dose is right for everyone and to assume it is, is foolishness.

It is evident from numerous federal cases against many pharmaceutical companies, drug study data is hidden, manipulated and even manufactured. Why is this hard to believe when it comes to vaccine studies?

While I wrote for my masters, I uncovered serious issues with vaccine trials, safety, being one of them. All vaccine safety studies are using false placebos to compare adverse events. The HPV vaccine (which is no longer governmentally recommended in Japan, France and Israel due to serious reactions including deaths) used the new aluminum adjuvant as the placebo. The Prevner safety study, used an experimental meningitis C vaccine.

All the independent Cochrane meta-analysis on vaccine studies end the same way: safety studies are needed in order to assess risk/benefit ratios. There are over 200 new vaccines in the pipeline and as those before them, they will all be approved and recommended which will turn to mandates. When is enough, enough?

After Nazi Germany, the Nuremberg laws were changed to forbid forced medical procedures. The Helsinki accord is very clear; all patients have the right to informed consent prior to medical procedures.

There is no informed consent for vaccination as it is, we really should not be moving backwards.

I am more than willing to send you any studies, to speak to you, or even to fly out and give a presentation.

Watch the Movie Bought for FREE for a limited time.

About Dr. Toni Bark

Dr. Bark received her Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from The University of Illinois in 1981 and her medical degree from Rush Medical School in 1986.

Dr. Bark completed her Pediatric Residency training at the University of Illinois, Chicago, in 1991, and trained at New York University in Pediatrics from 1986 through 1987 and Rehabilitation Medicine from 1987 through 1988. Immediately post-residency, Dr. Bark worked as attending staff in the Neo-Natal Intensive Care Unit at Michael Reese Hospital. She then took a position as the Director of the Pediatric Emergency Room at Michael Reese Hospital until 1993 when her commitment to natural remedies led her to begin her study of Holistic Medicine.

She has maintained a private practice in Homeopathy for more than fifteen years and was the Medical Director for the integrative Medicine department of Advocate Health Care Systems at Good Shepherd Hospital from June of 2000 until July of 2003.

In 2012 Dr. Bark was bestowed the honor of becoming the 2nd Vice President of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH). She also received her Masters in Healthcare Emergency Management (MHEM) from Boston University Medical School that same year.

- See more at: http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/dr-toni-bark-m-d-do-not-remove-vaccine-exemptions-some-children-die-from-vaccines/#sthash.oGJzwTfZ.dpuf

http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/dr-toni-bark-m-d-do-not-remove-vaccine-exemptions-some-children-die-from-vaccines/

A brief history of anti-vaccination in Toronto Posted by Chris Bateman / February 22, 2015

On November 13, 1919, a couple of hundred protesters gathered on the steps of City Hall to air their discontent with the city's compulsory vaccination program. Since 1914, Toronto had been allowed by the province to vaccinate school children against smallpox in the event of an outbreak, with or without the permission of parents. The organizers of the rally, the Toronto branch of the Anti-Vaccination League, had been active for at least 20 years prior to the event. Their notices first appeared in the classified sections of newspapers alongside ads for "pretty, wealthy Canadian girls" looking for husbands and gypsy astrologists.

Some notices advocated for homeopathic vaccinations. "Homeopathic practice is admitted to be very efficient in curing every form of disease, while their medicines are the antithesis of the crude drugs used by [then-Toronto Medical Officer of Health] Dr. Sheard and co.," a reader wrote to the editor of the Toronto Daily Star in October, 1901.

The smallpox vaccine was first developed in the late 16th century by English doctor Edward Jenner. In 1796, the rural physician tested reports that dairy workers had become immune to smallpox after suffering from cowpox, a similar but considerably less lethal disease. By injecting humans with live cowpox, Jenner was able to trigger an immune response that protected the patient against smallpox, one of the great killers of the time.

Jenner also coined the term vaccine from the Latin word "vacca" for cow.

In the early 1900s, the Anti-Vaccination League stoked fear of immunization by conjuring images of unsanitary animals and horrific side effects. One mother claimed her blind son, who was told by doctors he might recover, had had his hopes dashed following immunization.

In 1919, shortly after the end of the first world war, the anti-vaccination movement returned to the scene following an epidemic of smallpox that resulted in 2,800 infections. As a result, Dr. Charles Sheard, Toronto's Medical Officer of Health that year, ordered children receive compulsory shots, much to the League's disgust.

"Vaccination is simply the old scientific absurdity of using disease to fight disease," J. W. Nimmo from the League told a meeting in Earlscourt. Dr. Henry Becker, a prominent homeopathic doctor, claimed vaccines were "made from the grease taken from the heels of horses, from swine pox, and even from dead bodies." This was untrue,Toronto's vaccines were produced at Connaught Laboratories near Steeles and Dufferin from specially kept cows.

Among the most prominent opponents to compulsory vaccination were Mayor Thomas Church and Controller Sam McBride. After being told a similar immunization policy in Germany had still resulted in thousands of smallpox deaths, McBride said it was "a pity they weren't all vaccinated. We should have fought them with vaccine points instead of bayonets."

Dr. Sheard said opposition to compulsory vaccination was "absurd" and "puerile."

Nevertheless, the protestors on the steps of City Hall that November urged aldermen to "stop the slaughter of innocents."

The city eventually acquiesced and ended compulsory vaccination, but not before the 1919 outbreak had been largely contained.

Today, parents are still allowed to opt out of vaccinations.

Chris Bateman is a staff writer at blogTO. Follow him on Twitter at @chrisbateman.

Images: City of Toronto Archives

http://www.blogto.com/city/2015/02/a_brief_history_of_anti-vaccination_in_toronto/

Just Some History to Consider

February 20, 2015 ~ randommommalama

Some information that I found interesting. Some things may seem relevant, some random. Take your pick.

Biology (Polio, Lipids, Myelin Sheath, and Meninges)

Poliomyelitis was the term used by doctors to describe the condition in which the gray (polios) anterior matter of the spinal chord (myelos) was inflamed (-itis). 90-95% of reported Polio infections cause no symptoms and leave the host with a life time immunity.

At its peak, Polio was most prevalent in school aged children. Between 5 and 10% of those infected with Poliomyelitis do experience symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, stiffness or pain in the arms or legs. 95% of children who experience symptoms are usually back to normal within 3-4 days or up to two weeks when muscle weakness is experienced. However, up to 5% of cases in which children do experience symptoms, result in death. The death rate in adults experiencing symptoms is higher, between 15 and 30%.  (1)

Normally, the Poliovirus enters the body, goes to the gut, and begins reproducing. 90-95% of the time this viral infection is short lived because the immune system is designed  to send antibodies to fight the virus, just as it would with a common cold.

But, in rare cases, the virus penetrates the central nervous system, causing meningitis. Contrary to the popular understanding, meningitis is not a virus. Meningitis is an event defined by any virus or bacteria penetrating the protective layer of the Central Nervous System and creating inflammation. The CNS is normally protected by 3 durable membranes called the meninges. The Poliovirus only breaches this membrane in approximately 1% of cases. When this happens the patient develops nonparalytic aseptic meningitis, with symptoms of headache, neck, back, abdominal and extremity pain, fever, vomiting, lethargy, and irritability. Similarly, Polio related paralysis occurs only if the virus penetrates the myelin sheath which protects the nerve cells. (32)

The Myelin Sheath and the Meninges are protected and strengthened by phospholipids. Lipids account for 40% of the organic matter in a healthy human body. Phospholipids are abundant in breastmilk, Grass-fed dairy, grass-fed beef, bovine liver, and free range eggs.

“Phospholipids serve as barriers for your cells and have a role in other specialized functions as well. Dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine is the phospholipid responsible for helping your lungs expand during breathing. Cephalin is a phospholipid in your brain’s white matter, neural tissue, nerves and spinal cord. Sphingomyelin, another phospholipid, is a source of ceramide, one of the substances your body needs to kill defective cells. Lecithin is one of the components of bile, a substance your liver produces to help with digestion.” (53)

Phospholipids play a vital role in the myelinization of the central nervous system. Infants who lack phospholipids (abundantly available in breast milk but not in formula or pasturized cows milk) in their diet have abnormally unstable myelin and a higher propensity to breakdown of the myelin in early adulthood. Adults who lack nutrition high in phospholipids are at increased risk of myelin sheath deterioration.(25)

HISTORY

1870 * “During the rapid urbanization and industrial development, high rates of female employment in poorly paid and casual work, domestic over-crowding, adulterated and contaminated milk all posed enormous threats to the survival of the newborn in the nineteenth century… While physicians, philanthropists, politicians and public health professionals were unanimous in their support of breastfeeding, they were forced to search for substitutes for mothers’ milk, to save those infants whose mothers would not or could not nurse them… The application of chemistry and microscopy to an understanding of the composition of milk laid the foundations for the development of artificial feeds, and food technology, and nutritional science began to inform the theory and practice of infant feeding. By the end of the century simple infant milk formulas were becoming available, and wet nursing was undermined by dry nursing.” (43)

1880 * Canned foods first became available for the public to purchase. (45)

1884 * Evaporated Milk is patented. (49)

1885 * Dr.Pepper was created in Waco, Texas. (49)

1886 * CocaCola was created. (49)

1890 * Increasing numbers of cattle farmers were moving to feed lot style ranches necessitating that cattle be fed increasingly grain-based diets rather than free range grass-based diets. (46) * The outcome was that the resulting beef and dairy products contained far less of the omega-3 and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) necessary for healthy myelin sheath production. (47)

1893  * The Panic of 1893 was, at the time, the worst economic depression the United States had ever experienced. Many women and children were abandoned by husbands who had lost jobs, wealth, and hope. As a result, many turned to bottle feeding their infants so that they could share child care and look for work. Good nutrition was rare so that even breastfed infants were not likely to get needed fats (lipids) for adequate myelin production.  (44)

1894 First US recorded cases of Polio. 132 cases in Vermont. (2)

1906  * It began to gain public attention that foods and medicines had become much more processed and deceptive in the last 50 years. Chemical additives were used to add color, heighten flavor, delay spoilage, soften breads, and more. People who thought they were purchasing strawberry jam found themselves eating strawberry flavored apple scraps, glucose, coal-tar dye, and timothy seed compound that looked and tasted similar to strawberry jam. Questionable producers had begun using adulterated fertilizers, chemicals to cover rancid meat, deodorizer to hide rotten eggs, and substituted less expensive glucose for honey. This concern grew to such a degree that the 1906 Food and Drug Act was passed calling for some degree of government regulation on the labeling of food and medicine.

1909 * Nearly 400 Coca-Cola bottling plants were operating. Some were open only during hot-weather months when demand was high. (68) * The average American consumed 65 pounds of sugar annually. (70)

1910  * Bruce Kraig, professor of history at Roosevelt University and president of the Culinary Historians of Chicago, said “the 1910s saw the beginning of the proliferation of processed foods. In a scant 10 years, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, Oreo cookies, Crisco, Quaker Puffed Wheat and Puffed Rice, Marshmallow Fluff and Nathan’s hot dogs took a bow. Aunt Jemima’s smile was already imprinted upon the American culinary psyche, as were the Kellogg’s and C.W. Post’s brand names.” (70)

1913  * Mississippi was the last state to enact compulsory school attendance laws which had begun in some states as early as 1852. (59)

1914 * The average family spent 60% of their income on food. (45) * Margarine made with vegetable oils and animal fats began to replace butter, greatly reducing the average person’s intake of Vit K2, CLA, Butyrate, and Omega3 (which help prevent cancer, lower body fat, fight inflammation, and strengthen the Myelin sheath). (48)

1916 Reported: 27,000 cases of Polio in the US. (3) * New York City experienced the first large epidemic of polio with over 9,000 reported cases, resulting in 2,343 deaths, out of a population of more than 5 million. This meant that, in New York City, 1 in 550 people contracted Polio and 1 in 2,134 died. (3) * Nationwide there were 27,000 total reported cases and 6,000 deaths out of a US population of 102 million. Or 1 in 3778 contracting polio with 1 in 17,000 resulting in death. (3) * The most serious cases were commonly found in areas with poor nutrition and sanitation such as the densely packed New York City.

1917 * During WWI, women entered the workforce like never before. On the home front, women were employed in factories, stores, and within the government leaving infants and young children in the care of family and friends, thus necessitating a significant rise in the number of bottle fed infants.

1919  * Nutritional foods were in short supply and the government was encouraging  Meatless-Mondays, Wheatless Wednesdays, etc.

1920  * Coca-Cola was operating more than 1,000 bottling companies and the drink was found in all but six soda fountains in the US. Some attributed the increased sales to the fact that prohibition had shut down bars. (66, 68)

1922  * Due to contamination of milk supplies, pasteurization became widespread in the United States. Pasteurization destroys Lipase, an enzyme found in milk which is essential to the digestion of fats (lipids). (65)

1923 * Milky Way bar was created. (45)

1929 * The Great Depression cause families to find ways to stretch every bit of food, many spending their days in soup lines when the groceries didn’t go far enough. Even low-lipid grain-fed beef consumption was cut back greatly. (70)

1930 Reported: 9,000 cases. (29) * Snickers bar was created. (45)

1931 Reported: 17,000 cases. (29)

1932 Reported: 3,000 cases. (29) * Mars Bar was created. (45)

1933 Reported: 5,000 cases. (29) * Arthur Kallet and F.J. Schlink authored the national bestseller “100,000,000 Guinea Pigs: Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs, and Cosmetics”. They asserted that the American population is being used as guinea pigs in a giant experiment undertaken by the American producers of food stuffs and medicines. Kallet and Schlink premise the book as being “written in the interest of the consumer, who does not yet realize that he is being used as a guinea pig…” (35)

1934 Reported: 7,000 cases. (29)

1935 Reported: 10,000 cases. (29) * KitKat bar was created. (45)

1936 Reported: 4,000 cases. (29) * Spam was invented. (45) * Doctors noted that paralytic poliomyelitis often started at the site of another type of injection. The phenomenon later became known as Provocation Polio. (37)

1937 Reported: 9,000 cases. (29) * Families were spending only 35% of their income on food. (45) * Rolo’s were invented. (45)

1938  Reported: 1,000 cases. (29) * The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis was created by President Roosevelt and his law partner, Basil O’Connor. (27)

1939 Reported: 7000 cases. (29)

1940 Reported: 10,000 cases. (29)

1941 Reported: 9000 cases. (29) * Drs. Francis and Mack isolated the Mahoney poliovirus “from the pooled feces of three healthy children in Cleveland.” (22)

1942 Reported: 4,000 cases. (29) * Diphtheria and pertussis vaccines were first introduced and cases of paralytic poliomyelitis tripled. (34)

* With the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the US entered into WWII. The government rationed meat, butter, milk, cheese, and eggs (all of the most prominent sources of phospholipids). As a result of these limits, sales of convenience and prepared foods shot up. Margarine became the standard household butter replacement. (70)

1943 Reported: 12,000 cases. (29)

1944 Reported: 19,000 cases. (29) * July 12, Coca-Cola manufactured their one-billionth gallon of Coca-Cola syrup.

1945 Reported: 13,000 cases. (29) * Families were encouraged to plant “Victory Gardens” to fill out the dinner table with vegetables. However, DDT (chlorophenoethane, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) was a top recommended pesticide recently released in the United States (against the advice of investigators who had studied the pharmacology of the compound and found it dangerous for all forms of life).   (71) It would later be classified as a neurotoxin and banned for agricultural use both in the US and worldwide. * Margarine had evolved to a formula completely composed of vegetable oils due to shortages on animal products. (52) * WWII ended. Over 400,000 fathers, sons, and brothers would not be returning from the war. (54) * Spam become a large part of the U.S. soldier’s meat consumption as well as a common household meat on the homefront. Military personnel referred to as “ham that didn’t pass its physical,” or “meatloaf without basic training”. (55)

1946 Reported: 25,000 cases. (29)

1947 Reported: 11,000 cases. (29)

1948 Reported: 26,000 cases. (29) * Jonas Salk, funded by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, set out to determine the number of different types of polio virus. Salk and his team saw this as an opportunity to research the possibility of a vaccine. (19)

1949 Reported: 42,000 cases. (29) * Research showed that Polio struck the hardest in summer months. Dr. Benjamin Sandler, a nutritional expert at the Oteen Hospital, theorized that there could be a connection between the increase of Polio cases and greater amounts of ice cream, soft drinks, and artificial sweeteners consumed during the summer. He used local media to advise North Carolina residents to decrease their consumption of such products. The people listened and the North Carolina State Health Department reported 2,498 cases of polio in 1948, and only 229 cases in 1949 in spite of a national rise of almost 40%! One company reported ice cream sales in NC to be down by 1 million gallons during the first week following Dr. Sandler’s publishing of the anti-polio diet. This inspired the Rockefeller Milk Trust, which sold frozen products to the area, to work with the soft drink business leaders (who also took a significant hit) to convince the people that Dr. Sandler’s findings were contrived and the Polio drop was a coincidence. The next summer ice cream and soda sales, as well as Polio rates were back to normal. (36)

1950 Reported: 32,000 cases. (29)

1951 Reported: 27,000 cases. (29)

1952 Reported: 57,628 cases (The peak year for Polio). *This was 58 years after first reports in the US. (4,5)

1953 Reported: 35,592 cases (3) * A significant drop of 22,000 fewer cases and no vaccine was yet available.

1954, Reported: 38,476 cases.  (Up 3,000) (3) * In June of 1954, the first small scale trials with Salk’s vaccine began (2) . The Salk’s Polio strain had been inactivated with formaldehyde (21) and required 4-5 weeks to trigger immunity in the average person. * Six months before Salk’s vaccine test for safety and effectiveness would be reviewed the Polio Fund in the U.S. had already contracted to purchase enough of the Salk vaccine to immunize 9,000,000 children and pregnant women the following year. (15) * Reports claim that Salk’s vaccine was tested for safety and efficiency on 1.8 million children. However, only 443,000 received one or more injections of Salk’s vaccine. 201,229 children received a placebo and 1.2 million children received no vaccination at all and served as a control group. (7, 30) * Despite objections and published concerns by numerous scientist, Harry Weaver, the NFIP’s director of research, wrote: “The practice of medicine is based on calculated risk …. If [we wait until more] research is carried out, large numbers of human beings will develop poliomyelitis who might have been prevented from doing so.” (28) * It turned out that Salk’s “killed-virus” was not as attenuated as he had hoped. Hundreds contracted polio from Salk’s vaccine and many died. (38)

1955, Reported: 28,985 cases. (3) (Down 10,000) * Less than a year later, on April 12th 1955, Salk’s vaccine was declared safe and effective with the field trial results showing that 1 in 1,907 un-vaccinated children contracted Polio while only 1 in 3,964 vaccinated children contracted Polio. In the observed control trials, 1 in 12,333 vaccinated children contracted non-paralytic Polio while 1 in 11,788 unvaccinated children contracted non-paralytic Polio. (30) * Prior to 1955, Polio, Coxsackie virus, and Meningitis (caused by any virus or bacteria) were all diagnosed and reported as Polio based on symptoms. After the field test of Salk’s virus they were redefined as three separate illnesses with specific diagnostic parameters and began to be reported as such. (17) * The first commercial inactive polio vaccines (IPV’s) were being produced by 5 different labs. An American virologist and epidemiologist named Bernice Eddy and her team were assigned to test the vaccines from each company. She discovered that the inactivated vaccine manufactured by Cutter Laboratories contained residual live poliovirus, resulting in the test monkeys showing polio-like symptoms and paralysis. Eddy reported her findings to William Workman, head of the Laboratory of Biologics Control, but her findings were never given to the vaccine licensing advisory committee. (9) The vaccine rolled out anyway. * A few weeks after the press conference announcing success of the vaccine trials, an Idaho doctor reported a case of paralytic polio in a recently vaccinated girl. In the following weeks, more reports came in to local health authorities. All involved a disturbing detail: paralysis began in the vaccinated arm, rather than in the legs as was more common. It was traced back to the Cutter Laboratory batches of the vaccine. (6) * Children who contracted Polio from the Cutter batches were more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, require breathing assistance from and Iron Lung, and more likely to die than children affected with natural polio. (13)

1956 Reported: 15,110 cases. (3) (Down by 14,000 cases)

1957 Reported: 5,185 cases. (3) (Down by 10,000) * At this point more than 100 million doses of Salk’s vaccine had been distributed throughout the United States. (11) * After reports of Polio being contracted from the vaccine and Polio cases contracted by multiple associates of those who had received the vaccine became so numerous that they could no longer be ignored, it came out that the batches issued in 1955 differed from those used in Salk’s trials in that Salk’s original field tested vaccine had included Methiolate and the ones being dispensed to the public did not. (31) * While Salk’s vaccine was inactivated, Dr. Albert Sabin, an American physician and microbiologist, was working to create a live attenuated vaccine because the immunity of Salk’s vaccine was showing evidence of waning and live virus would produce a more natural immunity. However it was also more dangerous to inject people with a live vaccine. To achieve the optimal virulence, he had to isolate the 3 poliovirus strains and then pass them through a myriad of host cells.  Sabin’s oral polio vaccine (OPV) is composed of 3 strains. Type 1 evolved from Drs. Francis and Mack’s Mahoney poliovirus from 1941 and had been passaged through no less than 69 monkey cultures, mostly testicular and kidney. (20) * “The resulting material was called Sabin Original Merck (SOM) and was provided to Lederle in 1960 as the seed material to manufacture its polio vaccine. Types II and III were created in a similar fashion.” (22) * He hoped to stimulate a true immune response using a weakened, or attenuated, live virus. He eventually encountered a strain of the polio virus which would infect the intestinal tract but appeared to be to weak to penetrate the myelin sheath of the central nervous system. He had experimented on thousands of monkeys to find the virus but the initial human trials would be carried out in foreign countries. (38, 39)

1958 Reported: 5,787 cases (3) (Up by 600) I * Sabin’s vaccine was given permission for trials in the United States but it was found that people who received Sabin’s oral polio vaccine (OPV) shed weakened virus in their fecal waste for up to 6 weeks, infecting family memebers. (38, 39)

1959 Reported: 8,425 cases. (3) (Up by 2,500) * The US used 79 million pounds of DDT in one year. (72)

1960 Reported: 3,190 cases (3) (Down by 5000) * Ben Sweet and Maurice Hilleman published results showing cancerous growths in the offspring of rodents injected with Salk’s original polio vaccine but no one listened. (h) * “In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in paralytic polio in the United States. The proceedings were reprinted in the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed.” (16) * “In the 1950’s, the sophisticated virological techniques of today did not exist. And the technology that existed was rarely available to practicing physicians. Therefore, most diagnoses were based upon clinical observation, not sophisticated virological studies. Since polio was epidemic, most physicians were cavalier in making a diagnosis of “non-paralytic poliomyelitis” in children presenting with vague symptoms of muscle aches, malaise, and fever. Since polio was “going around”, such children must have had polio. . . . Interestingly, as the number of polio cases decreased, the number of meningitis cases increased.” (17)

1961 Reported: 1,312 cases (3) (Down by 2000) * Scientist learned that children exposed to the virus during the first year or two of life still carried some antibodies from the womb and nursing causing them to experience a quick and symptom free bout with the Poliovirus conferring lifetime immunity. Modern sanitation practices had eliminated the potential for early exposure meaning that more children were having their first bouts with the virus without the antibodies that were present in the first year of life.  (51)

1962 Reported: 886 cases (3) * Virologist Bernice Eddy described the SV40 (vacuolating virus) oncogenic function in inducing sarcoma and tumors in the central nervous system of hamsters inoculated with monkeys cells infected with SV40. (12) Again, it was published and dismissed. * In July, scientist collect lung tissue from an aborted female which were used as a host to produce the WI-38 cell line used in the MMR vaccine development. (61) * Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert and chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association, testified at a panel discussion used as evidence for the congressional hearings on the Salk’s vaccine. During these hearings he highlighted many problems associated with polio statistics. He pointed out that the recent decline in reported Polio cases were likely the result of changes in the diagnostic requirements for Polio, “Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: ‘Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.’ Note that ‘two examinations at least 24 hours apart’ was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset…. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.” (16) *The same year Salk’s inactivated vaccine began to be replaced by Sabin’s live vaccine (11) reportedly because it was easier to administer and less expensive to manufacture.

1963 * Subsequent studies demonstrated that SV40, which was used in Salk’s vaccine, caused brain tumors in animals (24) and that SV40 could transform or turn cancerous normal human tissue in vitro. * Sabin’s oral “sugar-cube” vaccine became available for general use in spite of the knowledge that the vaccinated individuals would shed a live but weakened Poliovirus for 6 weeks after inoculation. (38, 39)

1964 Reported: 121 cases. (50)

1965 Reported: 61 cases. (50)

 1966 * A male fetus was aborted for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old woman. Fetal lung tissue was removed for the purpose of culturing the origins of the MCR-5 cell line. (14) This cell line would later be used in the DTaP, IPV (Pentacel) as well as 5 other vaccines.

1971 * The USDA moved to ban sodium nitrite because of studies showed connections to pancreatic and bowel cancer, diabetes, and red blood cell damage, but the meat industry insisted that the chemical was safe and publicly accused the USDA of trying to “ban bacon.” (56)

1972 * DDT is banned for agricultural use in the US. (57) * This was be followed by a worldwide ban in the Stockholm Convention in 2001. (58) * The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry lists developmental processes, endocrine glands and hormones, liver function, the central nervous system, and reproductive systems as areas that are adversely affected by DDT. (72)

1978 * Enhanced Potency IPV produced in human diploid cells was created with the goal of decreasing the number of vaccinations required for lifetime immunity from 4 down to 2 or 3.

1979 * The last recorded case of “wild Polio” in US. All further reports have been vaccine shed strains. (2) * Between 1980 and 1999 there would be 162 confirmed cases of Vaccine induced (or shed) Paralytic Polio in the United States.

1980 * 54% of American women were nursing. (26)

1983 * The CDC recommends 23 doses of 7 vaccines (DPT, MMR, polio) between two months and age six. (63)

1986 * The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed by Congress to reduce the potential financial liability of vaccine makers due to vaccine injury claims.  There had been an recent upturn in adverse reactions to the DTaP vaccine. The company producing the vaccine was losing money so they cut back production. Concerned that reduced production would mean reduced availability of the vaccine, the government created a special Court specifically for dealing with adverse reactions to vaccines. The National Injury Compensation Program was created to provide a no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death. Vaccine companies could no longer be held at fault for vaccine related injuries. (60)

1987 * Enhanced potency IPV was released in the US. (18) * The CDC states: “The effect of enhanced-potency IPV on the circulation of poliovirus in a community has not yet been determined, but it is likely to be at least as good as that seen with conventional IPV.” (62)

1992 * A study in Sweden found a 2.5-fold increase in the incidence of meningitis between 1970 and 1980. A case-control study of risk factors for Meningitis conducted in the same area found breastfeeding to be a strong protective factor against Meningitis. (33)

2000 * Due to the fact that Sabin’s OPV could not be given to people with compromised immune systems, it’s ability to cause polio in some recipients, and it’s viral shedding tendency (whereby people exposed to recently vaccinated individuals occasionally contract Polio) the CDC reverted back to recommending that children only be given the Salk’s killed-virus vaccine (IPV) based on previous saftey and efficiency test. Only it wasn’t the same vaccine. The IPV in production was based on Salk’s vaccine but it was in fact the Inhanced Potency IPV released in 87. The CDC recommends 4 doses. (40, 41, 42)

2005 * Inflammation of the Meninges (by any virus including the Poliovirus) is considered Non-Paralytic-Aseptic-Meningitis. (23)

2008 * 70% of women choose to breastfeed. (26) * Studies show evidence that exposure to DDT may be associated with breast cancer, diabetes, decreased semen quality, spontaneous abortion, and impaired neurodevelopment in children. (73)

2014 * The CDC now recommends 49 doses of 14 vaccines before the age of 3 years, more than double what was recommended in 1983. * The CDC recommend 69 doses of 16 vaccines by the age of 18. (63, 64)

Other interesting reads:

National Vaccine Information Center

http://www.nvic.org/

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/dont-vaccinate-protect-cancer-kid/

“A calculated Risk”: the Salk Polio vaccine field trials of 1954 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114166/

Provocation Polio

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/polio-provocation-the-health-debate-that-refused-to-go-away

Polio, HIV, and Cancer

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/04/the-polio-vaccine-part-3-2/

Vaccines, Abortion & Fetal Tissue

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html

Human Fetal Cell Lines http://www.ms.academicjournals.org/article/article1409245960_Deisher%20et%20al.pdf

Which Vaccines contain Human Protien and DNA?

http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/human

The benifits of Phospholipid high foods

http://metabolichealing.com/phospholipids-for-tissue-repair-regeneration/

The Polio Vaccine Myth

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/polio.html

Benefits of butter vs. Margarine

http://authoritynutrition.com/butter-vs-margarine/

http://vaccines.procon.org/

1. Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIntyre L, Wolfe S (eds.) (2009). “Poliomyelitis”. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (The Pink Book) (PDF) (11th ed.). Washington DC: Public Health Foundation. pp. 231–44.

2. http://amhistory.si.edu/polio/timeline/

3.The Historical Medical Library of The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Poliomyelitis. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service. Health Information Series, No. 8. Public Health Service Publication No. 4. Rev. 1963.

4. Zamula, Evelyn (1991). “A New Challenge for Former Polio Patients”. FDA Consumer 25 (5). Retrieved2010-02-07.

5.“History of Vaccines Website – Polio cases Surge”.College of Physicians of Philadelphia. 3 November 2010. Retrieved 3 November 2010.

6. April 30, 1955 Press Release regarding the investigation into Poliomyelitis Vaccine produced from Cutter Laboratories. Eisenhower Presidential Library.

7. “Competition to develop an oral vaccine”. Conquering Polio. Sanofi PasteurSA. 2007-02-02. Archived from the original on 2007-10-16.

8. Sweet BH, Hilleman MR (November 1960). “The vacuolating virus, S.V. 40″. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med.105: 420–427. PMID 13774265.

9. Offit, Paul A. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis. Yale University Press, 2007. pp. 62-63.

10. Eddy BE, Borman GS, Berkely WH, Young RD (May 1961). “Tumors induced in hamsters by injection of rhesus monkey cell extracts”. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 107: 191–197.doi:10.3181/00379727-107-26576. PMID 13725644.

11. “World Polio Cut by Salk Vaccine: Safety and Effectiveness of Preventive Confirmed at Geneva Conference”, The New York Times, July 10, 1957

12. Eddy, BE, Borman, GS, Grubbs, GE, Young, RD (May 1962). “Identification of the oncogenic substance in rhesus monkey kidney cell culture as simian virus 40″. Virology17: 65–75. doi:10.1016/0042-6822(62)90082-x.PMID 13889129.

13. Wilson, Daniel J. “The Polio Vaccines of Salk and Sabin”. pg 119

14. J.P. Jacobs et al., “Characteristics of a Human Diploid Cell Designated MRC-5,” Nature 227 (1970): 168.

15. “Polio Fund Buying Salk Vaccine For 9,000,000 Children, Women”, The New York Times, October 19, 1954

16. J.I. Rodale: The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases, Rodale Books Inc., Emmaus Pennsylvania (1962).

17. Congressional Hearings, May 1962; and National Morbidity Reports taken from U.S. Public Health surveillance reports.

18. Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIntyre L, Wolfe S, eds. (2008). Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (The Pink Book) (PDF) (10th ed. (2nd printing) ed.). Washington, D.C.: Public Health Foundation. Archived from the original on 2008-09-24. Retrieved 2008-11-29.

19. Rose DR (2004). “Fact Sheet—Polio Vaccine Field Trial of 1954.” March of Dimes Archives. 2004 02 11.

20. A.B. Sabin, A.B. & L. Boulger, History of Sabin Attenuated Poliovirus Oral Live Vaccine Strains. 1 J. Biol. Stand. 115, 115–18 (1973). The Mahoney virus was isolated in 1941 by Drs. Fancis and Mack.

21. Passaging is defined as successive transfer of an infection through experimental animals or tissue culture. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1240 (27th ed. 1988).

22. Edward Hooper, The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS 200 (1999).

23. Chamberlin SL, Narins B (eds.) (2005). The Gale Encyclopedia of Neurological Disorders. Detroit: Thomson Gale. pp. 1859–70. ISBN 0-7876-9150-X.

24. Ruth L. Kirschstein & Paul Gerber, Ependymomas Produced After Intracerebral Inoculation of SV40 into New-Born Hamsters, Nature, July 21, 1962, at 299–300.

25. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/797220

26. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28froelich-t.html?_r=0

27. Minutes of the Committee on Immunization, Hershey, Pennsylvania, January 23, 1953. Jonas Salk Papers, Mandeville Special Collections, University of California San Diego, Box 254, Folder 2, page 157.

28.  Benison S. Tom Rivers: reflections on a life in medicine and science (an oral history memoir). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1967.

29. Paul Meier. “Safety of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine.” Science 125 (1957) 1067-1071.

30. Thomas Francis, Robert Korn, et al. “An Evaluation of the the 1954 Poliomyelitis Vaccine Trials.” American Journal of Public Health 45 (1955)

31.  K.A. Brownleb. University of Chicago. Journal of the American Statistical Assosiation. “Statistics of the 1954 Polio Vaccine Trails”. (1955).

32. Chamberlin SL, Narins B (eds.) (2005). The Gale Encyclopedia of Neurological Disorders. Detroit: Thomson Gale. pp. 1859–70. ISBN 0-7876-9150-X.

33. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10195681

34.  Lindsay KW, et al. Neurology and Neurosurgery Illustrated. Edinburgh/London/New York: Churchill Livingston, 1986:100. Figure 15.2. Polio incidence rates obtained from National Morbidity Reports.

35. Jackson, J. “The Ergot Controversy: Prologue to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” J Hist Med Allied Sci1968; XXIII: 248-257

36. data taken from North Carolina State Health Department figures. [26:146;29].

37. Lambert SM. A yaws campaign and an epidemic of poliomyelitis in Western Samoa. J Trop Med Hyg 1936; 39:41–6.

38. Okonek BM, et al. Development of polio vaccines. Access Excellence Classic Collection, February 16, 2001:1. http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC /CC/polio.html

39. A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries. Salk produces  polio  vaccine.www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm52sa.html

40. Shaw D. Unintended casualties in war on polio. Philadelphia Inquirer June 6, 1993:A1.

41. Gorman C. When the vaccine causes the polio. Time October 30, 1995:83

42. Reuters Medical News. CDC publishes Updated Poliomyelitis prevention recommendations for the  U.S.,  May 22, 2000.

43. http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/feeding-babies-in-the-21st-century-breast-is-still-best-but-for-new-reasons

44. Timberlake, Jr., Richard H. (1997). “Panic of 1893″. In Glasner, David; Cooley, Thomas F., eds. Business Cycles and Depressions: an Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing. pp. 516–18.

45. http://www.localhistories.org/food.html

46. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/aucrw

47. https://www.bulletproofexec.com/grass-fed-meat-part-1/

48. http://authoritynutrition.com/butter-vs-margarine/

49. http://www.localhistories.org/drinktime.html

50. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm

51. Jane Smith, Patenting the Sun: Polio and the Salk Vaccine (New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc, 1990), p. 34.

52. Clark, Paul (6 May 1983). “The marketing of margarine”. Paper presented to a seminar on Marketing and Advertising in the 20th Century at Central London Polytechnic. Emeral Backfiles. p. 54. Retrieved 2009-11-10.

53. http://www.livestrong.com/article/446527-what-are-phospholipids-in-the-diet/

54. Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts – A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500–2000. 2nd ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6 pp. 584–591

55. Martin, Andrew (November 15, 2008). “Spam Turns Serious and Hormel Turns Out More”. The New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2010.

56. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19771018&id=Y99NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BIsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1754,2504359

57. Linda Lear (1 April 2009). Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-547-23823-4.

58. Larson, Kim (December 1, 2007). “Bad Blood”. On Earth (Winter 2008). Retrieved June 5, 2008

59. Katz, Michael S. “A History of Compulsory Education Laws”. ERIC – Institute of Education Sciences. ERIC. Retrieved 19 December 2014.

60. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34)

61. http://www.nature.com/news/medical-research-cell-division-1.13273

62. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00025216.htm

63. http://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/pdf/49-Doses-PosterB.pdf

64. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-pocket-pr.pdf

65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9602205

66. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring08/Cantwell/20thcent/20-40.html

67. “Coke Can History”. Archived from the original on January 18, 2010.

68. http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/history-of-bottling

70. http://leitesculinaria.com/10348/writings-dining-through-the-decades-american-food-history.html

71. http://jee.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/2/197 (“DDT to Control Corn Flea Beetle” April 1, 1945)

72 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=20

73. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737010/

From BC Centre for Disease Control Measles outbreak: Measles Epidemiological Summary British Columbia : January 1 to July 19 , 2014;

 The outbreak had 431 cases with the first onset in week 8, 98% having onset in weeks 10 through 16, and the last two reported cases in week 24.A minority of cases were laboratory confirmed: 29 by

PCR and 4 by IgM serology. The remainder was cases with measles - compatible illness and an epidemiologic link to either one or more

laboratory confirmed case, the two outbreak schools or to cases defined by these associations. Most cases (290, 67%) were school age (5 to 19 years), 10 cases (2%) were less than one year old, 70 cases (16%) were 1 to 4 years old, and 61 cases (14%) were 20 years or older. There were 219 (51%) male cases and 212 female cases. Most cases (372, 86%) were completely unvaccinated against measles, 3 cases had received one dose of MMR vaccine, 1 case had received two doses, and 55 cases (13%) had unknown immunization history. Four cases were hospitalized, one with encephalitis. None had a fatal outcome.

The outbreak was almost exclusively contained to the Netherlands Reformed community with only5 cases recognized among non-members. The true number of cases is likely higher

due to under reporting; the index case in the outbreak had no

history of travel but community members had returned from travel to the Netherlands in the period leading up to the outbreak.

Genotype was determined for 26 of the 29 PCR confirmed cases. All were D8 and 25 of 26 were at least 99.8% identical to the MVs/Taunton.GBR/27.12 sequence-variant. This is the same strain imported toCanada from the Netherlands multiple times during 2013while a large outbreak occurred in that country,leading also to the importation that sparked an outbreak in southern Alberta in the fall of 2013and a family cluster in Fraser East that did not result in further transmission. For one D8 case the similarity to the Netherlands strain is not known.

Vancouver Coastal: In January through June, low level measles transmission has been apparent in this region, most likely

associated with episodic importation from the Philippines.

In January, 3 laboratory confirmed cases with onset of rash in week 4

were reported. One case had travel history compatible with acquisition in the Philippines. The other cases had no recent travel or

known exposure to measles, and no links between these cases were identified. All 3 cases were genotype B3 and identical to the MVi/Harare.ZWE/38.09 strain detected in cases imported from the

Philippines. One case was reported in March with rash onset in week 13 and travel history to Alberta during the exposure period. This case was genotype B3 MVi/Harare.ZWE/38.09, the strain detected in recent cases imported from the Philippines.

In May and June, 9 cases were reported among residents of VCH in weeks 21 to 26. Only two of these cases were known to be linked, with medical clinic attendance compatible with transmission from one

to the other, and this was the only one of the 9 cases to have a known source of infection. All 9 of these cases were genotype B3 MVi/Harare.ZWE/38.09. One case had a history of travel to Washington State during their exposure period but genotyping was compatible with acquisition of infection in BC.

Fraser:

In February, there was one IgM confirmed case with rash onset in week 6 and travel history consistent with acquisition in the Philippines.

Vancouver Island:

In April, one case was reported in the Vancouver Island Health Authority area with rash onset in week 14. The case had travelled to the United States during the exposure period although measles had not been reported in locations visited during travel. This case was genotype D8 and identical to the MVs/Taunton.GBR/27.12 sequence-variant detected in the Fraser Health Authority outbreak.

Age distribution of these 15 cases unassociated with the FHE outbreak was as follows: 2 were infants, one was 1 to 4 years old,

two were 5 to 9 years old, and ten were 20 years or older.

Thirteen cases were male. Six (40%) cases were unvaccinated against measles, 4 (27%) cases reported undocumented vaccination against measles, and 5 (33%) cases had unknown immunization history. Five cases were hospitalized: two infants and three adults. There were no fatal outcomes.

http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/B9B9C05C-4D80-4DD2-B2C2-B64CA41068C8/0/MeaslesBCupdatetoweek292014final.pdf

~Sometimes reality is not what it seems

Remember being a really pissed off angsty teenager? I do! That is how I feel these days! When realizing (yet again) that like my parents told me back then when I yelled 'It isn't fair' and they retorted 'Life isn't fair', I am yet again being proven how true this is... ~Heavy sigh...

Blaming Homeopaths for people choosing to not vaccinate is like blaming people who sell rubber boots for rain.

Blaming Homeopaths for people choosing to not vaccinate is like blaming people who sell rubber boots for rain.

Title; My book on my unexpected life as a Homeopath

Guess what it is called?! 'Too good to be true'

and that might be the essence of it. ...

but wait...

The 'Biology of Belief' (by Bruce Lipton) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MUsg23WDBY says it is so true and 'scientifically so'...

if 'Science Says'...

then...

???

... to be continued (yes like a bad soap opera) ha ;)

Show me the research ©2015 Elena Cecchetto

Homeopathy has a long history of popular use (hundreds of years). It also has a history of being criticized in North America where the medical industry is dominated by the pharmaceutical industry. Homeopathy is second only to Jesus as the two most controversial topics according to Wikipedia.¹  

Considering my previous career in political advocacy focusing on environmental and conservation issues, I sometimes ask myself; Is that what attracted me to homeopathy? No! It was the fact that once I gave it a try for my lifetime struggle with de-habilitating eczema, it did something that nothing else could do for me and so I was ecstatic.² That success indeed was what made me passionate about ensuring that people know about homeopathy as an option if they so choose.

Unfortunately, that passion has led me here – writing to justify the amazing healing that I am now able to do for many others, now that I’ve spent over ten years continuing to study all aspects of homeopathy above and beyond my four year diploma requirement in order to call myself a homeopathic practitioner.³ Luckily I now have access to University level databases of research publications without having to pay the download fees. You, reading this are lucky too, because I am writing to share this with you.

I have been reticent to spend the time to put this type of information out there before now because I realize that there is no way that this article written by a homeopath will ever change the minds of anyone who is bothering to put all their wasted energy in trying to discredit homeopathy. If you are one of those people on a mission to defame individual homeopathic practitioners who are just trying to use their education driven refined skills to help do some good in this world, I have only two requests for you as follows:

1. I would ask only that you just don’t bother choosing homeopathy for yourself.
2. I suggest that you allow those who might have a health concern that they themselves might choose to address with something other than the conventional medical industry, to have the option available to them to do so.

SIMPLE right?

Right!

For any others who are going to read further into this bibliography of research on homeopathy, I suggest that if you are not professionally educated in research, research methods, homeopathy or any other health field that you have someone who is to look through these papers for you. I think my reasons should be obvious to you however I will say it outright – if you are not trained and/or highly experienced in homeopathy – you cannot speak as if you are the expert to those who actually are the experts.

In the meanwhile, here are some current research on homeopathic remedies in general.

This literature review was conducted using the EBSCO database including the Academic Search Complete thanks to the University of Central Lancashire. The databases specifically chosen were Academic Search Complete, Medline, Medline with full text, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medical Database, CINAHL Complete, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Social Sciences ABSTRACTS (H.W. Wilson), and SocINDEX with full text. The search method used was the Advanced Search with subject words Homeopathy and Homeopathic Remedies. Unfortunately this search presented 984 items in the search results so the following edits were made. Any publications older than five years were not included. This resulted in 313 publications. While searching through each and every title of this search, I did not include in this bibliography any of the editorials, opinion pieces or individual case studies that showed up in this search which eliminated 18 of them within the first 100 that I looked through so far.

Adler, U. C., Krüger, S., Teut, M., Lüdtke, R., Bartsch, I., Schützler, L., & ... Witt, C. M. (2011). Homeopathy for Depression - DEP-HOM: study protocol for a randomized, partially double-blind, placebo controlled, four armed study. Trials, 12(1), 43-49. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-43

Adler, U. C., Krüger, S., Teut, M., Lüdtke, R., Schützler, L., Martins, F., & ... Witt, C. M. (2013). Homeopathy for Depression: A Randomized, Partially Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Four-Armed Study (DEP-HOM). Plos ONE, 8(9), 1-9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074537

Ainsworth, S. (2012). Time to consign homeopathy to the history books?. Practice Nurse, 42(10), 34-35.

Akaeva, T. V., & Mkhitaryan, K. N. (2014). Foundation of concept of constitutional homeopathic remedy by using electropuncture methods. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch, 13(47), 132-133.

Almirantis, Y. (2013). Homeopathy – between tradition and modern science: remedies as carriers of significance. Homeopathy, 102(2), 114-122. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2013.01.003

Amalcaburio, R., Filho, L. M., Honorato, L. A., & Menezes, N. A. (2009). Homeopathic remedies in a semi-intensive alternative system of broiler production. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch, 8(26), 33-39.

Arlt, S., Padberg, W., Drillich, M., & Heuwieser, W. (2009). Efficacy of homeopathic remedies as prophylaxis of bovine endometritis. Journal Of Dairy Science, 92(10), 4945-4953. doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2142

Arora, S., Aggarwal, A., Singla, P., Jyoti, S., & Tandon, S. (2013). Anti-proliferative effects of homeopathic medicines on human kidney, colon and breast cancer cells. Homeopathy: The Journal Of The Faculty Of Homeopathy, 102(4), 274-282. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2013.06.001

Banerjee, A., Chakrabarty, S. B., Karmakar, S. R., Chakrabarty, A., Biswas, S. J., Haque, S., & ... Khuda-Bukhsh, A. R. (2010). Can Homeopathy Bring Additional Benefits to Thalassemic Patients on Hydroxyurea Therapy? Encouraging Results of a Preliminary Study. Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (Ecam), 7(1), 129-136. doi:10.1093/ecam/nem161

Banerjee, A., Chakrabarty, S., Karmakar, S., Chakrabarty, A., Biswas, S., Haque, S., & ... Khuda-Bukhsh, A. (2009). Can homeopathy bring additional benefits to thalassemic patients on hydroxyurea therapy? Encouraging results of a preliminary study. Homoeopathic Heritage, 34(4), 33-40.

Beeraka, P. (2009). The pharmacological action of homeopathic remedies. Simillimum, 22(3), 66.

Bell, I. R. (2012). Homeopathy as Systemic Adaptational Nanomedicine: The Nanoparticle-Cross-Adaptation-Sensitization Model. American Journal Of Homeopathic Medicine, 105(3), 116-130.

Bell, I., Brooks, A., Howerter, A., Jackson, N., & Schwartz, G. (2013). Acute Electroencephalographic Effects From Repeated Olfactory Administration of Homeopathic Remedies in Individuals With Self-reported Chemical Sensitivity. Alternative Therapies In Health & Medicine, 19(1), 46-57.

Bell, I. R., Howerter, A., Jackson, N., Aickin, M., Bootzin, R. R., & Brooks, A. J. (2012). Nonlinear dynamical systems effects of homeopathic remedies on multiscale entropy and correlation dimension of slow wave sleep EEG in young adults with histories of coffee-induced insomnia. Homeopathy, 101(3), 182-192. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2012.05.007

Bell, I. R., Howerter, A., Jackson, N., Brooks, A. J., & Schwartz, G. E. (2012). Multiweek Resting EEG Cordance Change Patterns from Repeated Olfactory Activation with Two Constitutionally Salient Homeopathic Remedies in Healthy Young Adults. Journal Of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 18(5), 445-453. doi:10.1089/acm.2011.0931

Bell, I., Koithan, M., & Brooks, A. (2013). Testing the nanoparticle-allostatic cross-adaptation-sensitization model for homeopathic remedy effects. Homeopathy, 102(1), 66.

Bell, I. R., & Schwartz, G. E. (2013). Adaptive network nanomedicine: an integrated model for homeopathic medicine. Frontiers In Bioscience (Scholar Edition), 5685-708.

Bellavite, P., Magnani, P., Marzotto, M., & Conforti, A. (2009). Assays of homeopathic remedies in rodent behavioural and psychopathological models. Homeopathy: The Journal Of The Faculty Of Homeopathy, 98(4), 208-227. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2009.09.005

Bellavite, P., Marzotto, M., Olioso, D., Moratti, E., & Conforti, A. (2014). High-dilution effects revisited. 2. Pharmacodynamic mechanisms. Homeopathy: The Journal Of The Faculty Of Homeopathy, 103(1), 22-43. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2013.08.002

Carter, J., & Aston, G. (2012). Use of homeopathic Arnica among childbearing women: A survey. British Journal Of Midwifery, 20(4), 254-261.

Chatfield, K., Mathie, R., & Fisher, P. (2011). Comment 2 on: Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: A randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology (Oxford), 50(8), 1529.

Clayton, L. (2012). Top ten: homeopathic remedies for pregnancy and birth. Essentially MIDIRS, 3(5), 27-31.

Copeland, A. (2011). A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOMEOPATHIC WEIGHT LOSS REMEDIES: HCG NON-HCG ~vs~ NON-HCG. Original Internist, 18(3), 107-116.

Csupor, D., Boros, K., & Hohmann, J. (2013). Low Potency Homeopathic Remedies and Allopathic Herbal Medicines: Is There an Overlap?. Plos ONE, 8(9), 1-5. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074181

Drozdov, V. V. (2014). Optimization of coprological studies in animals with the use of homeopathic Nux vomica 6CH. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch, 13(47), 139.

Frei, H. (2014). H1N1 Influenza: A Prospective Outcome Study with Homeopathy and Polarity Analysis. American Journal Of Homeopathic Medicine, 107(3), 114-122.

Frenkel, M. (2010). Homeopathy in cancer care. Alternative Therapies In Health & Medicine, 16(3), 12-16.

Hechavarria Torres, M., Benítez Rodríguez, G., & Pérez Reyes, L. (2014). Efectividad del tratamiento homeopático en pacientes con síndrome depresivo. (Spanish). Medisan, 18(2), 302-308.

Hellhammer, J., & Schubert, M. (2013). Effects of a Homeopathic Combination Remedy on the Acute Stress Response, Well-Being, and Sleep: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal Of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 19(2), 161-169. doi:10.1089/acm.2010.0636

Hostanska K, Rostock M, Baumgartner S, Saller R. Effect of two homeopathic remedies at different degrees of dilutions on the wound closure of 3T3 fibroblasts in in vitro scratch assay. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch [serial online]. July 2012;11(40):164-165. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed January 9, 2015.

Jha, C. K., & Madison, J. (2013). Strategies for reinventing and reinforcing the disrupted biography of people with HIV in Nepal. Health Sociology Review, 22(2), 221-232. doi:10.5172/hesr.2013.22.2.221

Kawakami, A. P., Osugui, L., César, A. T., Priven, S. W., de Carvalho, V. M., & Bonamin, L. V. (2009). In vitro growth of uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from a snow leopard treated with homeopathic and isopathic remedies: a pilot study. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch, 8(27), 41-44.

Kay, P. H., Rashid, S., & Panchal, N. (2014). Advances in Homeopathy: Targeting of Health Promoting Genes Using Sequence Specific Homeopathic DNA Remedies. Homoeopathic Heritage, 40(7), 22-24.

Lenger, K., Bajpai, R. P., & Spielmann, M. (2014). Identification of unknown homeopathic remedies by delayed luminescence. Cell Biochemistry And Biophysics, 68(2), 321-334. doi:10.1007/s12013-013-9712-7

Majewsky, V., Scherr, C., Arlt, S. P., Klocke, P., & Baumgartner, S. (2012). Reproducibility of effects of the homeopathic dilutions 14x - 30x of gibberellic acid on growth of Lemna gibba L. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch, 11(40), 196-197.

Majewsky, V., Scherr, C., Arlt, S. P., Kiener, J., Frrokaj, K., Schindler, T., & ... Baumgartner, S. (2014). Reproducibility of effects of homeopathically potentised gibberellic acid on the growth of Lemna gibba L. in a randomised and blinded bioassay. Homeopathy, 103(2), 113-126. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2013.12.004

Malhi, L., & Saini, R. S. (2012). Homeopathy as an Adjunct to Allopathic Therapy. UBC Medical Journal, 3(2), 32-34.

Marino, F. V. (2012). Homeopathy and Celiac Disease: A Contribution toward Healing. American Journal Of Homeopathic Medicine, 105(1), 4-15.

Medhurst, R. (2013). Homoeopathy for Eczema. Journal Of The Australian Traditional-Medicine Society, 19(2), 104-106.

Mollinger, H., Schneider, R., & Walach, H. (2009). Homeopathic pathogenetic trials produce specific symptoms different from placebo. Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 16(2), 105.

Molski, M. (2010). Quasi-quantum phenomena: the key to understanding homeopathy. Homeopathy, 99(2), 104-112. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2009.11.009

Novosadyuk, T. (2013). Effect of dinamization as a characteristic of potentiation of homeopathic remedies. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch, 12(44), 86-87.

Peckham, E. J., Nelson, E. A., Greenhalgh, J., Cooper, K., Roberts, E. R., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. The Cochrane Database Of Systematic Reviews, 11CD009710. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009710.pub2

Piraneo, S., Maier, J., Nervetti, G., Duca, P., Valli, C., Milanesi, A., & ... Nascimbene, C. (2012). A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the outcomes of homeopathic-phytotherapeutic and conventionai therapy of whiplash in an emergency department. Homoeopathic Links, 25(1), 50.

Posadzki, P., Alotaibi, A., & Ernst, E. (2012). Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series. International Journal Of Clinical Practice, 66(12), 1178-1188. doi:10.1111/ijcp.12026

Quak, T., Rudofsky, L., & Dugue, R. (2011). Asthma bronchiale - Verschreibung von Ambra grisea aufgrund eines auffallenden Lokalsymptoms. Allgem Homoopath Zeit, 256(5), 8

Rattan, S. S., & Deva, T. (2010). Testing the hormetic nature of homeopathic interventions through stress response pathways. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 29(7), 551-554. doi:10.1177/0960327110369858

Saeed-ul-Hassan, S., Tariq, I., Khalid, A., & Karim, S. (2013). Comparative Clinical Study on the Effectiveness of Homeopathic Combination Remedy with Standard Maintenance Therapy for Dengue Fever. Tropical Journal Of Pharmaceutical Research, 12(5), 767-770. doi:10.4314/tjpr.v12i5.16

Saha, S. K., Roy, S., & Khuda-Bukhsh, A. R. (2013). Evidence in support of gene regulatory hypothesis: Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy effect as more than placebo. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch, 12(45), 162-167.

Sampath, S., Narasimhan, A., Chinta, R., Nair, K. J., Khurana, A., Nayak, D., & ... Karundevi, B. (2013). Effect of homeopathic preparations of Syzygium jambolanum and Cephalandra indica on gastrocnemius muscle of high fat and high fructose-induced type-2 diabetic rats. Homeopathy: The Journal Of The Faculty Of Homeopathy, 102(3), 160-171. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2013.05.002

Siebenwirth, J., Ludtke, R., Remy, W., Rakoski, J., Borelli, S., & Ring, J. (2009). Effectiveness of a classical homeopathic treatment in atopic eczema. A randomised placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial. Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 16(5), 315.

Stevenson, H. (2010). Breast cancer study: The cytotoxic effects of homeopathic remedies on breast cancer cells. Homeopath Pract, 46.

Teixeira, M. Z. (2011). Scientific evidence of the homeopathic epistemological model. International Journal Of High Dilution Resarch, 10(34), 46-64.

Teixeira, M. Z. (2014). 'Paradoxical pharmacology': therapeutic strategy used by the 'homeopathic pharmacology' for more than two centuries. International Journal Of High Dilution Research, 13(49), 207-226.

Teut, M. (2010). Homeopathic treatment of patients with dementia. Am J Homeopath Med, 103(3), 120.

Thompson, E., Shaw, A., Nichol, J., Hollinghurst, S., Henderson, A., Thompson, T., & Sharp, D. (2011). The feasibility of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare usual care with usual care plus individualised homeopathy, in children requiring secondary care for asthma. Homeopathy, 100(3), 122-130. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2011.05.001

Treuherz, F. (2013). School suffers salmonella outbreak - how one homeopath helped 100 students. Homoeopath, 32(3), 8.

von Hagens, C., Schiller, P., Godbillon, B., Osburg, J., Klose, C., Limprecht, R., & Strowitzki, T. (2012). Treating menopausal symptoms with a complex remedy or placebo: a randomized controlled trial. Climacteric, 15(4), 358-367. doi:10.3109/13697137.2011.597895

Zaidan, S. (2012). Belladonna, Hyoscyamus and Stramonium pharmaceutical drugs or homeopathic remedies. The effect of these plants in treating mental illnesses: A comparative study. Homeopath Int, 2012(2), 12.

Zuzak, T. J., Rauber-Lüthy, C., & Simões-Wüst, A. P. (2010). Accidental intakes of remedies from complementary and alternative medicine in children—analysis of data from the Swiss Toxicological Information Centre. European Journal Of Pediatrics, 169(6), 681-688. doi:10.1007/s00431-009-1087-9

While reading these research publications, you might remind yourself of the reason that I continue to follow my attempt to offer homeopathy despite the odds. That NOT doing so feels like an abandonment of the primary code of conduct as a health practitioner ‘do no harm’ and against following the code ethics within the principles of beneficence and non-maleolence.⁴ If I don’t offer something that I know can benefit someone’s condition of health; then I feel that I am not acting as the compassionate human being that I know I am. If you would like to find out more, please contact me. I will be happy to conduct further inquiries. My fees are generally at $150.00 per hour for these services but are also listed on my website at www.accessnaturalhealing.com.

REFERENCES:

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226.html last accessed January 9, 15.
2. Medhurst, R. (2013). Homoeopathy for Eczema. Journal Of The Australian Traditional-Medicine Society, 19(2), 104-106.
3. https://homeopathiccures.wordpress.com/about/ last accessed January 9, 15.
4. http://www.studydroid.com/index.php?page=viewPack&packId=545924 last accessed January 9, 15.