Dr. Christopher Lepisto explains the causes and symptoms of the yeast infection Candida and how natural treatments can be better than prescription drugs. An educational video exclusive on iHealthTube.
Showing posts with label Advice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Advice. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2008
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Rheumatoid Arthritis Boosts Heart Disease Threat
(HealthDay News) -- People diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis run a greater risk of developing heart disease.But that risk can be spotted and hopefully modified by using the same criteria used to identify heart-disease risk in the general population, a new study suggests.
Those screening checks include high blood pressure, high cholesterol, older age, and family history of cardiovascular illness. And people diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should be screened using those risk factors as soon as possible following their diagnosis of RA, the study authors said.
"The bottom-line is that RA patients are at increased risk of heart disease," said lead researcher Dr. Hilal Maradit Kremers, a research associate with the Mayo Clinic Department of Health Sciences Research in Rochester, Minn.
"But we need to know how can we predict which RA patients are at a higher risk than others, so that we can then put more effort in the prevention of heart disease in these people," she added. "And so, here we attempted to do just that, by using a typical cardiovascular risk profile to predict heart disease among these patients."
Kremers and her colleagues presented their findings this week at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting, in Boston.
The study findings follow a 2005 Mayo Clinic report that suggested that the increase in heart disease risk among RA patients may be due to the systemic inflammation brought on by the disease, which, in turn, prompts arterial plaque to form blood clots. The new findings also come on the heels of a Mayo Clinic study released last month that said RA patients are more than twice as likely to develop heart failure over a 15-year period than people who don't have the disease.
According to the Arthritis Foundation, rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic and often disabling disease with no known cause or cure that affects just over 2 million Americans. It's characterized by inflammation of the lining of the joints and, over time, can lead to joint damage, severe pain, and immobility.
Treatments -- such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, analgesics and physical therapy -- focus primarily on controlling pain and limiting inflammation and joint destruction.
For the new study, Kremers and her colleagues set out to predict the onset of heart disease over the course of a 10-year period among more than 1,100 people, approximately half of whom had just been diagnosed with RA. The patients were 57 years old, on average, and nearly three-quarters were women.
The patients were evaluated on standard indicators for heart disease risk, as detailed by the American Heart Association. The indicators included: gender; having a family history of heart disease; having diabetes; and/or being black. Patients were also examined for other risk factors, such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure. Risky lifestyle habits -- including smoking, lack of exercise, and being overweight -- were also considered, the researchers said.
Based on the risk-assessment scores, the researchers assigned the patients to one of five different risk categories for heart disease -- ranging from very low to very high risk. Then the patients were tracked for an average of 12 to 14 years, during which time all incidences of heart attack, heart failure, heart surgeries, and cardiovascular-related deaths were noted.
The researchers found that while 85 percent of the RA patients between the ages of 50 and 59 had an intermediate or high risk for developing heart disease within 10 years of diagnosis, just 27 percent of comparable non-RA patients did. Among patients between the ages of 60 and 69 at the start of the study, 100 percent of the RA patients had an intermediate or high risk for heart disease, compared with 79 percent of non-RA patients.
When looking at just "high risk" among the 60 to 69 age group, the difference was even more dramatic: 85 percent for RA patients, compared to just 40 percent for non-RA patients.
The researchers concluded that more than half of RA patients 50 to 59, and all RA patients over the age of 60, had a 10 percent or greater risk of developing heart disease within 10 years of an RA diagnosis.
In light of the findings, the Mayo researchers are encouraging doctors to conduct heart-disease assessment screenings similar to the ones used in the study for each of their RA patients. These screenings should be done as soon as possible following an RA diagnosis and prevention strategies put into place, the researchers said.
"By simply doing the things that we already know, such as measuring blood pressure, blood sugars, and cholesterol -- all the standard things that we look at for the general population -- we can help identify the risk for a major cardiovascular event among the RA population," Kremers said.
Dr. Hayes Wilson, chief of rheumatology at Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta, said he endorsed the Mayo researchers' work.
"Anything that helps us characterize and categorize risk factors helps us in the treatment of the disease," he said. "And, until we can figure out what the smoking gun is, hopefully this advice will help us prevent cardiovascular disease or related diseases by helping RA patients better appreciate the risks they face."
More information
To learn more about rheumatoid arthritis, visit the Arthritis Foundation.
more discussion: Forum
· Addiction Forum · Ask the Doctors Forum · Ayurveda Forum · Ayurvedic & Thai Herbs Forum · Colon Cleansing Forum · Dental Forum · Diabetes Forum · Diet Forum · General Cleansing Forum · Hepatitis A, B. C Forum · Integrated Medicine Forum · Live Blood Analysis Forum · Ozone-Oxygen-Forum · pH - Alkaline - Acidity Forum · Weight Loss Forum
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Take Care of Your Heart Before and After Problems
(HealthDay News) -- People need to take care of their heart both before and after heart trouble starts, two new studies suggest.
In the first study, researchers said that to avoid heart failure when you're 70 or 80, you must begin by keeping your blood pressure and weight under control when you're 50.
"We tested the hypothesis that higher levels of blood pressure and body mass index (BMI) in midlife would be powerful determinants of heart failure risk in later life, and that the risk posed by preceding measurements would remain even after accounting for these risk factors measured later in life," said lead researcher Dr. Ramachandran S. Vasan.
"This is exactly what we found," added Vasan, a senior investigator with the Framingham Heart Study and a professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine.
An increase of about 20 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure at age 50 was associated with a 36 percent higher risk of heart failure up to 20 years later. Every 2.2 pound increase in BMI (a ratio of weight to height) at age 50 was associated with a 6 percent increase in the risk of heart failure, Vasan said.
"The study highlights the importance of maintaining an ideal BMI and blood pressure over the life course of individuals," Vasan said.
For the study, Vasan's team collected data on 3,362 people who were part of the Framingham Heart Study who had routine examinations between 1969 and 1994. During follow-up, 518 people developed heart failure.
"The prevention of heart failure should begin early in life and should include screening for elevated blood pressure and BMI," Vasan said. "Failure to identify or treat such modifiable risk factors in early and mid-adulthood may result in the loss of opportunities to reduce the incidence of heart failure in later life."
The findings are published in the November issue of the journal Hypertension.
Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he agrees that keeping both your weight and blood pressure down will help you avoid the ravages of heart failure.
"The lifetime risk for developing heart failure in both men and women is one in five," said Fonarow. "However, heart failure can be prevented, and there are a number of modifiable risk factors for heart failure, including hypertension, obesity, and diabetes.
"Maintaining a healthy blood pressure and body weight is essential to reduce the risk of heart failure," he said.
The second study found that fewer than 20 percent of patients seek cardiac rehabilitation after a heart attack or coronary bypass surgery.
"It has been shown by many trials that cardiac rehabilitation reduced the risk for new coronary events, re-hospitalization and mortality. The main advantage of cardiac rehabilitation is to reduce mortality," said study leader Dr. Jose A. Suaya, a lecturer and scientist at the Brandeis University Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School, in Waltham, Mass.
Cardiac rehabilitation also improves functional capacity, Suaya said. "Patients can walk more without pain and improve their quality of life," he said.
For the study, Suaya's group collected data on 267,427 men and women, 65 and older, who had survived a heart attack or bypass surgery. The data were drawn from 1997 Medicare claims records.
In the year after hospital discharge, only 18.7 percent of the patients had at least one session of cardiac rehabilitation. Patients who underwent bypass surgery were more likely to seek rehabilitation -- 31 percent -- compared with heart attack patients -- 13.9 percent.
More men had cardiac rehabilitation (22.1 percent) than women (14.3 percent). Age also played a role -- patients 75 to 85 were less likely to go for rehabilitation, the researchers found.
In addition, patients with other medical conditions, such as diabetes, a previous stroke, congestive heart failure or cancer, were significantly less likely to seek cardiac rehabilitation, Suaya's group found.
The study results are published in the Oct. 9 issue of the journal Circulation.
There are many reasons why patients don't seek rehabilitation, the researchers said.
"Many doctors may be reluctant to refer patients to cardiac rehabilitation," said study co-author Donald S. Shepard, a research professor at Brandeis' Heller School. "In addition, patients may not know or ask about it."
Shepard also noted that many medical institutions don't promote the service, which typically includes exercise and advice on diet. "It's not glamorous and, from the data we have, it is not very profitable," he said.
It may also be difficult for people to get to rehabilitation centers, Shepard said. "One of the findings in the study was that the closer you are, the more likely you are to use the service," he said. "Travel time and travel expense are things that reduce the use of the service."
Fonarow said "more needs to be done to ensure that eligible patients are effectively enrolled in supervised cardiac rehabilitation. The American Heart Association's 'Get With The Guidelines Program' is one example of a highly successful initiative to improve referral to cardiac rehabilitation after hospitalization for cardiovascular event or surgery."
More information
For more on heart health, visit the American Heart Association.
In the first study, researchers said that to avoid heart failure when you're 70 or 80, you must begin by keeping your blood pressure and weight under control when you're 50.
"We tested the hypothesis that higher levels of blood pressure and body mass index (BMI) in midlife would be powerful determinants of heart failure risk in later life, and that the risk posed by preceding measurements would remain even after accounting for these risk factors measured later in life," said lead researcher Dr. Ramachandran S. Vasan.
"This is exactly what we found," added Vasan, a senior investigator with the Framingham Heart Study and a professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine.
An increase of about 20 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure at age 50 was associated with a 36 percent higher risk of heart failure up to 20 years later. Every 2.2 pound increase in BMI (a ratio of weight to height) at age 50 was associated with a 6 percent increase in the risk of heart failure, Vasan said.
"The study highlights the importance of maintaining an ideal BMI and blood pressure over the life course of individuals," Vasan said.
For the study, Vasan's team collected data on 3,362 people who were part of the Framingham Heart Study who had routine examinations between 1969 and 1994. During follow-up, 518 people developed heart failure.
"The prevention of heart failure should begin early in life and should include screening for elevated blood pressure and BMI," Vasan said. "Failure to identify or treat such modifiable risk factors in early and mid-adulthood may result in the loss of opportunities to reduce the incidence of heart failure in later life."
The findings are published in the November issue of the journal Hypertension.
Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he agrees that keeping both your weight and blood pressure down will help you avoid the ravages of heart failure.
"The lifetime risk for developing heart failure in both men and women is one in five," said Fonarow. "However, heart failure can be prevented, and there are a number of modifiable risk factors for heart failure, including hypertension, obesity, and diabetes.
"Maintaining a healthy blood pressure and body weight is essential to reduce the risk of heart failure," he said.
The second study found that fewer than 20 percent of patients seek cardiac rehabilitation after a heart attack or coronary bypass surgery.
"It has been shown by many trials that cardiac rehabilitation reduced the risk for new coronary events, re-hospitalization and mortality. The main advantage of cardiac rehabilitation is to reduce mortality," said study leader Dr. Jose A. Suaya, a lecturer and scientist at the Brandeis University Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School, in Waltham, Mass.
Cardiac rehabilitation also improves functional capacity, Suaya said. "Patients can walk more without pain and improve their quality of life," he said.
For the study, Suaya's group collected data on 267,427 men and women, 65 and older, who had survived a heart attack or bypass surgery. The data were drawn from 1997 Medicare claims records.
In the year after hospital discharge, only 18.7 percent of the patients had at least one session of cardiac rehabilitation. Patients who underwent bypass surgery were more likely to seek rehabilitation -- 31 percent -- compared with heart attack patients -- 13.9 percent.
More men had cardiac rehabilitation (22.1 percent) than women (14.3 percent). Age also played a role -- patients 75 to 85 were less likely to go for rehabilitation, the researchers found.
In addition, patients with other medical conditions, such as diabetes, a previous stroke, congestive heart failure or cancer, were significantly less likely to seek cardiac rehabilitation, Suaya's group found.
The study results are published in the Oct. 9 issue of the journal Circulation.
There are many reasons why patients don't seek rehabilitation, the researchers said.
"Many doctors may be reluctant to refer patients to cardiac rehabilitation," said study co-author Donald S. Shepard, a research professor at Brandeis' Heller School. "In addition, patients may not know or ask about it."
Shepard also noted that many medical institutions don't promote the service, which typically includes exercise and advice on diet. "It's not glamorous and, from the data we have, it is not very profitable," he said.
It may also be difficult for people to get to rehabilitation centers, Shepard said. "One of the findings in the study was that the closer you are, the more likely you are to use the service," he said. "Travel time and travel expense are things that reduce the use of the service."
Fonarow said "more needs to be done to ensure that eligible patients are effectively enrolled in supervised cardiac rehabilitation. The American Heart Association's 'Get With The Guidelines Program' is one example of a highly successful initiative to improve referral to cardiac rehabilitation after hospitalization for cardiovascular event or surgery."
More information
For more on heart health, visit the American Heart Association.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Stirrups-Free Pap Smear May Be a Welcome Option
(HealthDay News) -- Women who know they should get regular Pap smears but dread the stirrups that go along with the test may finally get a reprieve.
New research shows that Pap results are just as accurate when the screen is performed with the patient keeping her feet on the examining table.
There was a real bonus in terms of comfort, too.
"There's about a 50 percent reduction in physical discomfort if women did not use the stirrups," said lead researcher Dr. Dean Seehusen, a family physician at the Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, in Augusta, Ga. Women also said they felt psychologically less vulnerable, he said.
Seehusen, who published his findings recently in the British Medical Journal, remains hopeful that the practice of giving women a choice -- stirrups or no stirrups -- will catch on.
It could even boost women's health by inspiring them to have the exam more regularly, he added.
Seehusen said he had long suspected that one reason some women avoid potentially lifesaving Pap smears, and the accompanying pelvic exam, is due to the anxiety and discomfort of the stirrups position.
It can raise real anxiety in some women, he said, because "when your feet are in the stirrups you cannot easily get out." Women with mobility problems can also have an especially difficult time, he said. On top of those issues, many stirrups are cold to the touch, as well.
The study involved 197 women, ages 18 and up, who had come to the medical clinic for their annual pelvic exams. They were assigned to undergo the Pap test either in the stirrups or not.
After the tests, the women answered questions about their physical comfort, as well as their psychological sense of vulnerability and loss of control.
The result: The quality and accuracy of the Pap smears were similar, regardless of whether stirrups were used or not.
Seehusen's advice: "If a woman thinks she wants to try this method, she should ask her provider," he said.
Another women's health expert agreed.
"If a doctor can do without using the stirrups and you are more comfortable, by all means ask," said Dr. Celeste Robb-Nicholson, editor-in-chief of the Harvard Women's Health Watch and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
"If this alternative is offered," she said, "it could result in higher screening rates" for pap smears.
But your doctor may still prefer to do some exams with the stirrups, for better stability, she cautioned. While a simple Pap test may be no problem to perform when a woman's legs are not in the stirrups, more complicated procedures -- such as getting an endometrial biopsy -- might be better conducted with a woman's legs stabilized by the stirrups, Robb-Nicholson explained.
And some doctors may still prefer to do the Pap smear while a woman's feet are in stirrups.
But for those women who are uncomfortable in the stirrups, "It is reasonable to ask" to skip them, Robb-Nicholson said.
More information
There's more on the Pap smear at the National Women's Health Information Center.
New research shows that Pap results are just as accurate when the screen is performed with the patient keeping her feet on the examining table.
There was a real bonus in terms of comfort, too.
"There's about a 50 percent reduction in physical discomfort if women did not use the stirrups," said lead researcher Dr. Dean Seehusen, a family physician at the Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, in Augusta, Ga. Women also said they felt psychologically less vulnerable, he said.
Seehusen, who published his findings recently in the British Medical Journal, remains hopeful that the practice of giving women a choice -- stirrups or no stirrups -- will catch on.
It could even boost women's health by inspiring them to have the exam more regularly, he added.
Seehusen said he had long suspected that one reason some women avoid potentially lifesaving Pap smears, and the accompanying pelvic exam, is due to the anxiety and discomfort of the stirrups position.
It can raise real anxiety in some women, he said, because "when your feet are in the stirrups you cannot easily get out." Women with mobility problems can also have an especially difficult time, he said. On top of those issues, many stirrups are cold to the touch, as well.
The study involved 197 women, ages 18 and up, who had come to the medical clinic for their annual pelvic exams. They were assigned to undergo the Pap test either in the stirrups or not.
After the tests, the women answered questions about their physical comfort, as well as their psychological sense of vulnerability and loss of control.
The result: The quality and accuracy of the Pap smears were similar, regardless of whether stirrups were used or not.
Seehusen's advice: "If a woman thinks she wants to try this method, she should ask her provider," he said.
Another women's health expert agreed.
"If a doctor can do without using the stirrups and you are more comfortable, by all means ask," said Dr. Celeste Robb-Nicholson, editor-in-chief of the Harvard Women's Health Watch and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
"If this alternative is offered," she said, "it could result in higher screening rates" for pap smears.
But your doctor may still prefer to do some exams with the stirrups, for better stability, she cautioned. While a simple Pap test may be no problem to perform when a woman's legs are not in the stirrups, more complicated procedures -- such as getting an endometrial biopsy -- might be better conducted with a woman's legs stabilized by the stirrups, Robb-Nicholson explained.
And some doctors may still prefer to do the Pap smear while a woman's feet are in stirrups.
But for those women who are uncomfortable in the stirrups, "It is reasonable to ask" to skip them, Robb-Nicholson said.
More information
There's more on the Pap smear at the National Women's Health Information Center.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Community Doctors Can Perform Carotid Stenting
(HealthDay News) -- Carotid stenting -- inserting a tube to keep the main artery to the brain open to prevent a stroke -- can be done by community physicians as well as specialists, a study shows.
The study was done "to see whether the technology can be transferred, and that involves appropriate operator selection and training," said study lead author Dr. William A. Gray, director of endovascular services at Columbia University.
The answer was "yes," Gray said. The study included 3,500 patients treated by 353 doctors at 144 hospitals across the United States. The incidence of death, stroke or heart attack was virtually the same for community physicians as for specialists, the report found.
The combined rates of death, heart attack and stroke were 5.3 percent among the most experienced physicians, 6.0 percent for those with a moderate amount of experience, and 7.4 percent for those with little previous experience, differences that were not statistically significant.
The study findings are published in the January issue of the journal Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions.
Carotid stenting is relatively rare, compared to the implantation of stents in coronary arteries, Gray noted. Some 25,000 carotid artery stents were implanted in the United States last year, compared to hundreds of thousands of coronary stents. The carotid procedure is reserved for people at high risk of stroke because of plaque buildup in the carotid artery but who can't undergo surgery because of their medical complications.
The device used in the study was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2004. The study was done to assess the effectiveness of a training program tailored to the experience level of physicians interested in performing the procedure.
Previously inexperienced physicians were given a rigorous two-day course, covering such issues as the anatomy of the carotid artery and selection of patients for whom carotid stenting was appropriate, Gray said.
"One way of assessing this trial is measuring the outcome of the trial and comparing it to that of other trials," he said. "The results are very comparable, at least as good or better."
Dr. Christopher J. White, editor in chief of the journal and chief of cardiology at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans, said in a statement: "Because independent observers measured the outcomes of the procedure, we can have confidence that the data are robust, meaningful and applicable in community practices."
For patients told that a carotid artery procedure is needed to reduce the risk of stroke and who want to consider stenting, White's advice is simple: "You should ask your physician."
It won't be necessary to ask about drug-coated vs. bare-metal stents, White added. Drug-coated stents are used to reduce the risk that the artery might close up again, and, for some unknown reason, the rate of such restenosis for carotid arteries is very low, he said.
More information
For more about carotid artery stenosis, visit the American Heart Association.
The study was done "to see whether the technology can be transferred, and that involves appropriate operator selection and training," said study lead author Dr. William A. Gray, director of endovascular services at Columbia University.
The answer was "yes," Gray said. The study included 3,500 patients treated by 353 doctors at 144 hospitals across the United States. The incidence of death, stroke or heart attack was virtually the same for community physicians as for specialists, the report found.
The combined rates of death, heart attack and stroke were 5.3 percent among the most experienced physicians, 6.0 percent for those with a moderate amount of experience, and 7.4 percent for those with little previous experience, differences that were not statistically significant.
The study findings are published in the January issue of the journal Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions.
Carotid stenting is relatively rare, compared to the implantation of stents in coronary arteries, Gray noted. Some 25,000 carotid artery stents were implanted in the United States last year, compared to hundreds of thousands of coronary stents. The carotid procedure is reserved for people at high risk of stroke because of plaque buildup in the carotid artery but who can't undergo surgery because of their medical complications.
The device used in the study was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2004. The study was done to assess the effectiveness of a training program tailored to the experience level of physicians interested in performing the procedure.
Previously inexperienced physicians were given a rigorous two-day course, covering such issues as the anatomy of the carotid artery and selection of patients for whom carotid stenting was appropriate, Gray said.
"One way of assessing this trial is measuring the outcome of the trial and comparing it to that of other trials," he said. "The results are very comparable, at least as good or better."
Dr. Christopher J. White, editor in chief of the journal and chief of cardiology at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans, said in a statement: "Because independent observers measured the outcomes of the procedure, we can have confidence that the data are robust, meaningful and applicable in community practices."
For patients told that a carotid artery procedure is needed to reduce the risk of stroke and who want to consider stenting, White's advice is simple: "You should ask your physician."
It won't be necessary to ask about drug-coated vs. bare-metal stents, White added. Drug-coated stents are used to reduce the risk that the artery might close up again, and, for some unknown reason, the rate of such restenosis for carotid arteries is very low, he said.
More information
For more about carotid artery stenosis, visit the American Heart Association.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Don't Blame Racket for Tennis Elbow
(HealthDay News) -- Your swing, not your racket, may be the culprit when it comes to developing tennis elbow (tendonitis), experts report.
An improperly-sized -- either too small or too large -- tennis racket grip does not cause the common malady, according to a study in the December issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine.
"An optimal grip size may influence the force with which a player hits the ball, but variations in grip size are unlikely to be contributing factors in overuse injuries such as tennis elbow," researcher Dr. George F. Hatch III, of the department of orthopedic surgery at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles, said in a prepared statement.
The finding goes against traditional advice from doctors, he added.
"Clinicians who treat patients with tennis elbow often tell them to try a different size grip in order to alleviate muscle fatigue. Our study demonstrates that those recommendations have no scientific basis. Therefore, it is reasonable to recommend whatever grip size feels most comfortable for them," Hatch said.
He and his colleagues studied 16 NCAA Division I and II tennis players (10 men, 6 women) with no prior history of elbow problems. The players were told to do single-handed backhand strokes using identical tennis rackets with three different grip sizes. While the players used the rackets, the researchers measured the firing patterns of muscles in the players' forearms.
The different grip sizes did not affect the firing patterns of the muscles.
"Based on our data, we recommend recreational tennis players use the currently accepted grip size measurement technique as a starting point when picking a grip size. However, the player should feel free to increase or decrease the size of the grip based upon what feels most comfortable," Hatch said.
Instead, players should look to changing their technique to help ease tennis elbow, he said, since "previous studies have shown that improper form is one of the biggest risk factors for the development of tendonitis."
More information
The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has more about tennis elbow.
An improperly-sized -- either too small or too large -- tennis racket grip does not cause the common malady, according to a study in the December issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine.
"An optimal grip size may influence the force with which a player hits the ball, but variations in grip size are unlikely to be contributing factors in overuse injuries such as tennis elbow," researcher Dr. George F. Hatch III, of the department of orthopedic surgery at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles, said in a prepared statement.
The finding goes against traditional advice from doctors, he added.
"Clinicians who treat patients with tennis elbow often tell them to try a different size grip in order to alleviate muscle fatigue. Our study demonstrates that those recommendations have no scientific basis. Therefore, it is reasonable to recommend whatever grip size feels most comfortable for them," Hatch said.
He and his colleagues studied 16 NCAA Division I and II tennis players (10 men, 6 women) with no prior history of elbow problems. The players were told to do single-handed backhand strokes using identical tennis rackets with three different grip sizes. While the players used the rackets, the researchers measured the firing patterns of muscles in the players' forearms.
The different grip sizes did not affect the firing patterns of the muscles.
"Based on our data, we recommend recreational tennis players use the currently accepted grip size measurement technique as a starting point when picking a grip size. However, the player should feel free to increase or decrease the size of the grip based upon what feels most comfortable," Hatch said.
Instead, players should look to changing their technique to help ease tennis elbow, he said, since "previous studies have shown that improper form is one of the biggest risk factors for the development of tendonitis."
More information
The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has more about tennis elbow.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Newly Released Data Stirs Naproxen Debate
(HealthDay News) -- Just-released data from a trial that was stopped early in 2004 for safety reasons is re-igniting debate on the safety of two popular painkillers.
The trial suggested the over-the-counter painkiller Aleve boosted heart risks, while another controversial prescription painkiller known as Celebrex did not.
Now, the data from that trial has finally been made available. But that has not silenced one critic, who says this early data is unreliable and questions the reasons the trial was stopped prematurely.
"The trial was improperly stopped by what appears to be political considerations. When you do that, you generate data which we know is unreliable," said Dr. Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
Nissen is author of an accompanying commentary in the Nov. 17 online edition of PLoS Clinical Trials, which has published the data from the Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial (ADAPT).
Specifically, Nissen charges that ADAPT was cut short not on the advice of its safety-review board but by nervous officials at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which had funded the trial. Those officials were worried about the media furor over the safety of now-withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, Nissen claims.
The medications in question all fall into the class of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which include aspirin, naproxen, ibuprofen and cox-2 inhibitor medications such as Celebrex and the now-withdrawn Bextra and Vioxx.
Beginning in late 2004, major studies began to show that heart risks to users rose with long-term use of cox-2s. This led to the eventual withdrawal from the market of Vioxx and Bextra, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration slapping a "black box" cardiovascular warning on the remaining cox-2, Celebrex.
In December of 2004, officials at the NIH announced the premature termination of the ADAPT trial, which had been set up to look at the possible usefulness of NSAIDs in preventing Alzheimer's disease.
Early results from that trial came as a surprise to many, because they suggested that long-term use of Celebrex did not significantly boost heart risks, while the use of an over-the-counter rival, naproxen (Aleve), did.
"We ended up stopping the trial early, when another trial brought up some safety concerns about these drugs," said study author Barbara Martin, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"We found a small but not statistically significant risk with celecoxib, and a larger and statistically significant increased risk with naproxen," Martin said.
But the actual data from the trial was not released at the time, adding to the confusion. It has now been published.
The 2,500 elderly participants in the ADAPT trial took either celecoxib, naproxen or placebo for up to 3.5 years.
Compared to those taking placebo, people taking celecoxib had a 10 percent increased risk of heart attack and stroke, while those taking naproxen had a 63 percent increase risk, the researchers found.
Martin said she wasn't sure why these drugs might have different risk profiles. Other trials have suggested that naproxen was actually cardioprotective, but these results indicated that it is not, she said.
Martin believes that the ADAPT results would also apply to people who take the painkillers over the long-term to help relieve arthritis.
"As yet, the specifics of the risks aren't really well-defined, but the clinical benefits of the drug are established," Martin said. "What is most clear is that when you take NSAIDs for a long period of time, there is a risk associated with them. What exactly it is, how big it is, is still not clear, but there is no completely safe NSAID."
There did not seem to be any protective effect from the drugs in terms of warding off Alzheimer's, she added. "Part of the reason we stopped was that there was some evidence of risk, and there wasn't any overwhelming evidence of benefit to counter that," Martin said.
But Nissen strongly disagreed with the findings, noting that they run counter to the results of other large trials.
"The published results of the ADAPT trial with regard to cardiovascular risk are completely unreliable," said Nissen. In his editorial, he explained that because the trial was stopped early, the data lacks the statistical power to deliver any clear verdict on either Celebrex or naproxen.
"These results cannot be used in any way to assess the relative risks of naproxen," Nissen said.
He added that he is not surprised that the premature termination of the trial in late 2004 -- coming at the height of the Vioxx debacle -- caused such a media uproar. Newspapers at the time trumpeted headlines such as "Heart Risk Seen in Naproxen" (Wall Street Journal) and "Patients, Doctors Agonize Over Risks of Painkillers", (Los Angeles Times).
"A warning was issued to the public that we now know was wrong," he said.
But Martin said she blames the media for creating a false impression of why the trial was stopped. "All of the publicity when the trial was stopped -- it was not what we intended," she said. "It's difficult in a political maelstrom of events to have the true rationale come through."
According to Martin, the trial was stopped because of data from another major trial was raising questions about the safety of Celebrex, triggering the premature closure of that arm of the ADAPT trial. When that happened, the researchers decided against continuing with the naproxen arm alone.
"We weren't seeing a risk with celecoxib (Celebrex), so it put us in a very uncomfortable position. We were imagining three years later if the adverse effects with naproxen were really real getting roundly criticized for not having stopped it earlier," she said.
Martin agreed, then, that there were political as well as safety concerns in stopping the trial.
"There was this domino effect and we felt that even though the results in and of themselves would not have led us to stop the trial, this domino effect made it necessary," she said.
Despite all the controversy, Martin feels that the trial data remains valid. She also believes it was right to have stopped the trial early. As to the safety of naproxen, Martin said there's not yet enough data to answer that question.
But Nissen said the accumulated evidence on NSAIDS supports the notion that the drug is, on the whole, safe.
"There is overwhelming evidence that of all the drugs in the class, the safest drug is naproxen," he said. "Analyses involving millions of patients have shown, consistently, that it is probably the safest drug."
Nissen doesn't believe naproxen actually protects against heart attack, however. "It's neutral," he said.
More information
There's more on NSAIDs at the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
The trial suggested the over-the-counter painkiller Aleve boosted heart risks, while another controversial prescription painkiller known as Celebrex did not.
Now, the data from that trial has finally been made available. But that has not silenced one critic, who says this early data is unreliable and questions the reasons the trial was stopped prematurely.
"The trial was improperly stopped by what appears to be political considerations. When you do that, you generate data which we know is unreliable," said Dr. Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
Nissen is author of an accompanying commentary in the Nov. 17 online edition of PLoS Clinical Trials, which has published the data from the Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial (ADAPT).
Specifically, Nissen charges that ADAPT was cut short not on the advice of its safety-review board but by nervous officials at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which had funded the trial. Those officials were worried about the media furor over the safety of now-withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, Nissen claims.
The medications in question all fall into the class of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which include aspirin, naproxen, ibuprofen and cox-2 inhibitor medications such as Celebrex and the now-withdrawn Bextra and Vioxx.
Beginning in late 2004, major studies began to show that heart risks to users rose with long-term use of cox-2s. This led to the eventual withdrawal from the market of Vioxx and Bextra, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration slapping a "black box" cardiovascular warning on the remaining cox-2, Celebrex.
In December of 2004, officials at the NIH announced the premature termination of the ADAPT trial, which had been set up to look at the possible usefulness of NSAIDs in preventing Alzheimer's disease.
Early results from that trial came as a surprise to many, because they suggested that long-term use of Celebrex did not significantly boost heart risks, while the use of an over-the-counter rival, naproxen (Aleve), did.
"We ended up stopping the trial early, when another trial brought up some safety concerns about these drugs," said study author Barbara Martin, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"We found a small but not statistically significant risk with celecoxib, and a larger and statistically significant increased risk with naproxen," Martin said.
But the actual data from the trial was not released at the time, adding to the confusion. It has now been published.
The 2,500 elderly participants in the ADAPT trial took either celecoxib, naproxen or placebo for up to 3.5 years.
Compared to those taking placebo, people taking celecoxib had a 10 percent increased risk of heart attack and stroke, while those taking naproxen had a 63 percent increase risk, the researchers found.
Martin said she wasn't sure why these drugs might have different risk profiles. Other trials have suggested that naproxen was actually cardioprotective, but these results indicated that it is not, she said.
Martin believes that the ADAPT results would also apply to people who take the painkillers over the long-term to help relieve arthritis.
"As yet, the specifics of the risks aren't really well-defined, but the clinical benefits of the drug are established," Martin said. "What is most clear is that when you take NSAIDs for a long period of time, there is a risk associated with them. What exactly it is, how big it is, is still not clear, but there is no completely safe NSAID."
There did not seem to be any protective effect from the drugs in terms of warding off Alzheimer's, she added. "Part of the reason we stopped was that there was some evidence of risk, and there wasn't any overwhelming evidence of benefit to counter that," Martin said.
But Nissen strongly disagreed with the findings, noting that they run counter to the results of other large trials.
"The published results of the ADAPT trial with regard to cardiovascular risk are completely unreliable," said Nissen. In his editorial, he explained that because the trial was stopped early, the data lacks the statistical power to deliver any clear verdict on either Celebrex or naproxen.
"These results cannot be used in any way to assess the relative risks of naproxen," Nissen said.
He added that he is not surprised that the premature termination of the trial in late 2004 -- coming at the height of the Vioxx debacle -- caused such a media uproar. Newspapers at the time trumpeted headlines such as "Heart Risk Seen in Naproxen" (Wall Street Journal) and "Patients, Doctors Agonize Over Risks of Painkillers", (Los Angeles Times).
"A warning was issued to the public that we now know was wrong," he said.
But Martin said she blames the media for creating a false impression of why the trial was stopped. "All of the publicity when the trial was stopped -- it was not what we intended," she said. "It's difficult in a political maelstrom of events to have the true rationale come through."
According to Martin, the trial was stopped because of data from another major trial was raising questions about the safety of Celebrex, triggering the premature closure of that arm of the ADAPT trial. When that happened, the researchers decided against continuing with the naproxen arm alone.
"We weren't seeing a risk with celecoxib (Celebrex), so it put us in a very uncomfortable position. We were imagining three years later if the adverse effects with naproxen were really real getting roundly criticized for not having stopped it earlier," she said.
Martin agreed, then, that there were political as well as safety concerns in stopping the trial.
"There was this domino effect and we felt that even though the results in and of themselves would not have led us to stop the trial, this domino effect made it necessary," she said.
Despite all the controversy, Martin feels that the trial data remains valid. She also believes it was right to have stopped the trial early. As to the safety of naproxen, Martin said there's not yet enough data to answer that question.
But Nissen said the accumulated evidence on NSAIDS supports the notion that the drug is, on the whole, safe.
"There is overwhelming evidence that of all the drugs in the class, the safest drug is naproxen," he said. "Analyses involving millions of patients have shown, consistently, that it is probably the safest drug."
Nissen doesn't believe naproxen actually protects against heart attack, however. "It's neutral," he said.
More information
There's more on NSAIDs at the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
A pH Miracle
When you change your life you have the opportunity to change the lives of others. Please read Heathers story below...
About 2 years ago I lost a niece to suicide, after this tremendous shock I began to experience depression like I had never experienced before and over a period of time got to the point where not only did I not have any energy what so ever but I had no drive.
I would sleep for up to 12 hours some days and feel like I was coming out of a general anaesthetic for hours after waking up.
I also got to the point where I had to have an afternoon sleep to feel that I could cope with the 2nd shift of the day (the kids), after school.
I also was finding I had little if any patience left for my husband and kids. Around this same period of time I began to experience quite severe attacks of acid just below the sternum.
I went to the doctors reluctantly as I am not a big fan of allopathic medicine.
I had a scan done to see if I had gallstones etc and the deluxe blood test of them all. The scan came back clear, and the tests came back looking really good. I was told there was nothing wrong with me.
I had great health according to the tests.At this point I realised that I needed to look elsewhere but to be honest I had tried lots of alternatives prior to the doctor, which was the last resort at that point.
I then listened to a CD of Tony Robbins about a green drink and how he regained his energy through drinking this 'green stuff'. That was the beginning of my journey back to the house of health and things began to really improve for me on all levels.
I bought Dr. Young's book Sick & Tired? and for the first time ever found amazing common sense within the pages.
I could not believe in all the study of natural medicine etc that I had done I had never heard of any of this before. Within about 3 weeks of drinking the greens I began to regain my strength and for the first time in 2 years felt there really was a light at the end of the tunnel.
I no longer needed to have that afternoon nap I had needed before, I found my patience levels increased dramatically which means so much to me as I was able to enjoy my kids again. As my energy increased more and more and the terrible acid pain left me once and for all I realised that more people needed to know about this approach.
I enquired about having the blood tests done over here in Australia and discovered there was no one here trained to do Dr.Young's work. My husband is a Chiropractor and we own a Wellness Practice in Tasmania so I decided to go to the States and do the Microscopy course to bring it to people over here.
I could think of so many of our patients who could benefit so much from this work.
I remember the first time I saw my blood and tested my pH; I realized that if I never made one cent from the course it was worth 1000 times the cost of the course to make the realization and connection that I really had created all of this. We would tell patients this all the time, ' You are responsible for your own health' but for some reason it took this experience for the penny to really drop for me.
I had, whether knowingly or unknowingly, been abusing my body for the past 39 years and it was time to 'grow up and take responsibility' for what I had created. I remember going back to the hotel room and in almost tears apologising to my body for not supporting it and treasuring it like I should have. Where I had been told there was nothing to worry about I was to discover once I had my blood analysis done that I had plenty to worry about.
I had Hypercalcemia, Systemic Candida, Parasites, Hyperadrenia, Bowel Toxicity, High sugar intolerance, extensive degeneration, and much more.Since that time I have turned my life around in so many ways and have found the most rewarding work I have ever done in all my life, apart from helping animals.
I see people everyday walk in and they all write down on their intake form that they're exhausted, have aches and pains and of course some are a lot worse than this. Some are very sceptical when we first begin as they have heard so many theories, tried so many things, trusted so many practitioners, wasted so much money and for several they have said this was the last thing they were going to try.
By the time they walk out they are excited, they all say this stuff makes so much sense, why has no one told me this before? They all have new hope.
I love the fact that I know this really works. I explain that the more that they change the more they will improve but it really is down to them. For some it takes a process that they need to go through, a few had not been ready to take responsibility and still wanted to blame someone else for their problems but the seeds are planted and usually after a few weeks they come around and begin the program.
I personally think that systemic yeast, parasites and Hyperadrenia are seriously overlooked in the allopathic world, but I guess there's too much money to loose.
Since I have brought this into our clinic, our business has grown in so many ways, the type of client who walks through our doors has changed and we have got more out of the course than we could have ever dreamed possible.
I had paid back the cost of this course (including the travel and accommodation expenses) in less than 4 months, but more importantly we, as a family, 'practice what we preach'.
My husband always says to his patients 'look at the health of the person giving you your health advice, this will give you a gauge as to whether it works or not'. As a family we look and feel fantastic.
Word of mouth is the best form of advertising and this is why our business has grown so much in the past 8 months. So many of our clients have finally found what they had been looking for; a program that really works!I will never be able to thank Dr.Young and Shelley enough for what they have given me and my family and many here in Tasmania, Australia.
I can't wait to do the advanced course, David; my husband wants to do the courses one day also.
Love and LightHeather
PS. If you have a passion for natural living, the Alkalarian(tm)lifestyle and enjoy helping others by sharing these life changingdistinctions, consider becoming a Dr Young trained Nutritional Microscopist.
Whether you have been thinking of supplementing your current income or you are interested in a career path change, we look forward to speaking with you.
For more information on this opportunity go here:
http://www.phmiracleliving.com/microscopy_pre.htm
ph Miracle Center
About 2 years ago I lost a niece to suicide, after this tremendous shock I began to experience depression like I had never experienced before and over a period of time got to the point where not only did I not have any energy what so ever but I had no drive.
I would sleep for up to 12 hours some days and feel like I was coming out of a general anaesthetic for hours after waking up.
I also got to the point where I had to have an afternoon sleep to feel that I could cope with the 2nd shift of the day (the kids), after school.
I also was finding I had little if any patience left for my husband and kids. Around this same period of time I began to experience quite severe attacks of acid just below the sternum.
I went to the doctors reluctantly as I am not a big fan of allopathic medicine.
I had a scan done to see if I had gallstones etc and the deluxe blood test of them all. The scan came back clear, and the tests came back looking really good. I was told there was nothing wrong with me.
I had great health according to the tests.At this point I realised that I needed to look elsewhere but to be honest I had tried lots of alternatives prior to the doctor, which was the last resort at that point.
I then listened to a CD of Tony Robbins about a green drink and how he regained his energy through drinking this 'green stuff'. That was the beginning of my journey back to the house of health and things began to really improve for me on all levels.
I bought Dr. Young's book Sick & Tired? and for the first time ever found amazing common sense within the pages.
I could not believe in all the study of natural medicine etc that I had done I had never heard of any of this before. Within about 3 weeks of drinking the greens I began to regain my strength and for the first time in 2 years felt there really was a light at the end of the tunnel.
I no longer needed to have that afternoon nap I had needed before, I found my patience levels increased dramatically which means so much to me as I was able to enjoy my kids again. As my energy increased more and more and the terrible acid pain left me once and for all I realised that more people needed to know about this approach.
I enquired about having the blood tests done over here in Australia and discovered there was no one here trained to do Dr.Young's work. My husband is a Chiropractor and we own a Wellness Practice in Tasmania so I decided to go to the States and do the Microscopy course to bring it to people over here.
I could think of so many of our patients who could benefit so much from this work.
I remember the first time I saw my blood and tested my pH; I realized that if I never made one cent from the course it was worth 1000 times the cost of the course to make the realization and connection that I really had created all of this. We would tell patients this all the time, ' You are responsible for your own health' but for some reason it took this experience for the penny to really drop for me.
I had, whether knowingly or unknowingly, been abusing my body for the past 39 years and it was time to 'grow up and take responsibility' for what I had created. I remember going back to the hotel room and in almost tears apologising to my body for not supporting it and treasuring it like I should have. Where I had been told there was nothing to worry about I was to discover once I had my blood analysis done that I had plenty to worry about.
I had Hypercalcemia, Systemic Candida, Parasites, Hyperadrenia, Bowel Toxicity, High sugar intolerance, extensive degeneration, and much more.Since that time I have turned my life around in so many ways and have found the most rewarding work I have ever done in all my life, apart from helping animals.
I see people everyday walk in and they all write down on their intake form that they're exhausted, have aches and pains and of course some are a lot worse than this. Some are very sceptical when we first begin as they have heard so many theories, tried so many things, trusted so many practitioners, wasted so much money and for several they have said this was the last thing they were going to try.
By the time they walk out they are excited, they all say this stuff makes so much sense, why has no one told me this before? They all have new hope.
I love the fact that I know this really works. I explain that the more that they change the more they will improve but it really is down to them. For some it takes a process that they need to go through, a few had not been ready to take responsibility and still wanted to blame someone else for their problems but the seeds are planted and usually after a few weeks they come around and begin the program.
I personally think that systemic yeast, parasites and Hyperadrenia are seriously overlooked in the allopathic world, but I guess there's too much money to loose.
Since I have brought this into our clinic, our business has grown in so many ways, the type of client who walks through our doors has changed and we have got more out of the course than we could have ever dreamed possible.
I had paid back the cost of this course (including the travel and accommodation expenses) in less than 4 months, but more importantly we, as a family, 'practice what we preach'.
My husband always says to his patients 'look at the health of the person giving you your health advice, this will give you a gauge as to whether it works or not'. As a family we look and feel fantastic.
Word of mouth is the best form of advertising and this is why our business has grown so much in the past 8 months. So many of our clients have finally found what they had been looking for; a program that really works!I will never be able to thank Dr.Young and Shelley enough for what they have given me and my family and many here in Tasmania, Australia.
I can't wait to do the advanced course, David; my husband wants to do the courses one day also.
Love and LightHeather
PS. If you have a passion for natural living, the Alkalarian(tm)lifestyle and enjoy helping others by sharing these life changingdistinctions, consider becoming a Dr Young trained Nutritional Microscopist.
Whether you have been thinking of supplementing your current income or you are interested in a career path change, we look forward to speaking with you.
For more information on this opportunity go here:
http://www.phmiracleliving.com/microscopy_pre.htm
ph Miracle Center
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Fever and the Mystery Disease SARS
A Bio-terror Weapon Spreads Around the World
(Edited slightly for accuracy in blue and my emphasis added in red)
The "mystery" disease SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, is being used as a “bio-terror campaign” by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control. They have used normal diseases with strange new names to terrorize people many times in the last 30 years. SARS is clearly a new variation of an old Influenza. So what makes SARS so dangerous?
Most flu comes from China, as in Asian Flu, Hong Kong Flu or Swine Flu, since it is mostly caused by rare avian or bird viruses crossing species with pig viruses. Many rural Chinese farmers raise flocks of geese side-by-side with herds of swine or pigs. Geese and pigs are a traditional Chinese food source. Humans have no natural immunity to avian bird viruses, and are able to "catch" pig or porcine viruses because of the similarity of human and porcine lung and organ tissue.
If a pig is ill with porcine flu and then eats droppings from an avian-virus-infected goose the result is a new cross-species flu virus, with the outer lining of a pig and the inner viral core of a goose, which spreads from central China around the world and usually kills about 100,000 or more each year in the U.S. Several new variations of goose-pig generated influenza occur each year coming mostly from China. Skip all the CDC recommended flu shots. They are much more dangerous killers than any Influenza. Here’s why.
Love a fever!
The problem is the method of treatment. The viral core molecule of RNA cannot reproduce if the body temperature is above 101 degrees. Humans have genetically developed a natural method to defeat viral infections called a fever. With a mild fever of 101 degrees the telomers on the ends of the RNA molecule cannot attach and the virus cannot reproduce itself, and the body's white blood cells quickly destroy the invading virus. But the modern “regular” treatment for a fever from a cold or flu is to reduce the fever to ease the discomfort. This is wrong.
By lowering the fever below 100 degrees, the invading virus is allowed to reproduce and spread massively throughout the body. If the multitude of viruses finally cross the blood/brain barrier the result is a fever of 104 or more, causing brain damage or death. This is often called Reyes Syndrome or Viral Encephalitis and is not a disease but the result of improper treatment with aspirin or other NSAIDs to lower the natural viral infection fever.
In the last 50 years a whole new large section in your local drug store has arisen called “Cold and Flu” medications. There seems to be a vast variety of various types to choose from, but really there are only two “flavors”: those containing Ibuprofen and those with Acetaminophen. These are commonly known as Advil and Tylenol. There are many other similar NSAIDs, but in cold medications those are the two most commonly found.
They are about the same, which is why they both remain side-by-side on the store shelves. These are both NSAIDs (NonSteroidial Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) or synthetic forms of aspirin. Since aspirin is an old Native-American Indian traditional medication, made from Aspen Tree bark hence the name Aspirin, its patent ran out over a century ago. But the newer synthetic forms are still patent medicines; and thus the reason for the multi-million dollar ad campaigns each year to get you to buy the higher cost synthetics whenever you get a cough or cold. Don’t buy them.
If you become infected with even a single cold or flu virus, it quickly within minutes will enter one of your nose or lung cells, make many copies of itself and then the copies burst out of the damaged cell carrying with them a covering made from the old cell wall material. This covering is to protect the virus from attack since your body will attack and destroy all “foreign” invaders. But since the new viruses are covered with cell wall material made from your own body the white blood cells of your immune system can’t see them. These many new viruses also within minutes invade other nearby healthy cells and repeat the process.
[However, and the author of this article was unaware of this, if the body tissues and fluids are sufficiently flooded with active oxygen, than how can the anaerobic viruses continue to exist or invade other cells?]
Without anything to stop it, within several hours that one single virus will have copied itself many millions of times quickly overwhelming your body.
But that very first infected cell, when it became destroyed by the infecting virus sent out a hormonal signal created by bursting the cell wall which causes two things to occur. First, the white blood cells stored in your lymph nodes [that manufacture virus destroying natural oxygen therapy hydrogen peroxide in their ‘peroxisome’ areas] are sent out to seek and find the cause of the damaged cell. Second, a fever is induced.
In order to raise your body temperature to create a fever the heat losses through your extremities, such as the hands, feet and skin are reduced by slowing down and constricting the peripheral blood flow. This causes your hands, feet and skin to feel cold. You may even shiver. This occurs within several minutes of the first viral damage. This is called “catching a cold” and the cold feeling is the first step to raising your core body temperature to above 101 degrees to stop any further viral reproduction and infection. At this point you may feel achy and uncomfortable, with a chilled sensation and even a mild fever. You may even have sneezed a few times, caused by the nasal irritation of the invading virus.
The term “catching a cold” is generic and refers to the chilled feeling you get, caused by either a “cold” which is due to a rhino virus or infection of the mucus lining of the nasal passages, or to an influenza or flu virus which only infects the lining of the lungs. The two are separate types of viruses. Whether you have a rhino or flu virus determines whether you begin to sneeze, with a runny nose from a cold, or begin to cough with lung congestion from a flu. But that usually occurs an hour or so later after the initial infection. If your immune system is not in good shape you may end up with both.
The medical term “rhino virus” is from the Greek word “rhino” meaning the “nose” and refers to a viral infection of the nasal membranes which we normally call a cold. The medical term “influenza” comes from the Spanish word “influence.” This comes from the times of the Crusades in the middle ages when armies of knights from western Europe, mostly England, France, Spain and Germany, first came into contact in the Middle Eastern Holy Land with merchant camel caravans from far Asia, carrying with them not only trade goods but many cases of pig-goose viral infections from China. The viral infections were probably in dried form on the Asian cloth and trade goods, which only needed to be moistened to become re-activated.
The Europeans had no clue where the deadly disease causing viral pneumonia and swift death was coming from. It was named and identified by the medieval Spanish doctors as the “Influenza de Diablo” or Influence of the Devil. Today we simply call it the flu. What this shows is that the Spanish did not know how to cure coughs and colds by allowing fevers, and that the Chinese farming technique of raising pigs and geese, creating new influenza viruses has been going on for thousands of years. But in those days it took over a year for new diseases to travel from Asia to Europe by camel train. Today by jet a new pig-goose flu virus can travel from central China to New York City in less than 24 hours.
If, when you get the first hint of a cold or flu, you do as you should, and go to bed and stay warm overnight with a mild fever, then the white blood cells can quickly surround and destroy the infected cells [by squirting hydrogen peroxide and ozone (Scripps Institute) on them], and no new viruses can reproduce to infect other cells because of the fever. These special type of immune system white blood cells are called macrophages, which is from a Greek word meaning “big eaters.” The macrophages are very large or “macro” white blood cells and their job is to ingest or eat, or “phageo,” the damaged body cells.
By surrounding and swallowing up the infected cells and using chemicals to “eat” or break apart all the material inside, the big macrophages effectively destroy the virus and stop the viral reproduction and infection. [The reason we need to help our immune systems out and safely and effectively - according to known protocols while working with our doctors - flood our bodies with active oxygen is because…] No macrophages nor any part of the immune system [except active oxygen in fluids] can actually seek out and destroy viruses directly. The macrophages can only find and destroy virus-infected cells, which are found since they have a different outer cell wall structure once the virus enters the cell.
[This is exactly why oxygen therapies are so necessary and so safe and effective. The healthy uninfected cells produce anti-oxidant coatings so active oxygen forms do not react with or ‘see’ them. Infected cells full of virus invaders have been forced into slavery by the viruses and are spending all their energy making new viruses, so they cannot create an anti-oxidant cellular coating to protect themselves from being burned up by active oxygen! Oxygen used correctly only attacks infected cells! ]
So it is a two-step process, but it actually works. And usually within 6 to 8 hours after the chills and fever begin, the virus infection is completely stopped and destroyed.
But, if instead of doing as you should and go to bed and stay warm, you also take a cough or cold medication to reduce the discomfort of the fever, you then actually allow the viruses to reproduce. They start to spread throughout your body. And with the reduced fever you feel well enough to go to work. You cough and sneeze invisible micro-droplets of mucus containing viruses and infect your family, friends and co-workers, and even the people you pass on the street. You become the source of a spreading epidemic. For a week you feel miserable but continue going to work until your fever starts to rise up to about 104. Then you go to the doctor or clinic [and pass it on to them unless the doctor’s office or hospital room is full of strong but safe levels of nature’s ozone gas].
[SARS type diseases - spread by droplet transmission - are the quintessential proof of the argument as to WHY we immediately need ozone active oxygen air and water purification surrounding us in our homes and clinics and offices and hospitals and schools and cars and buildings and subways, and movie theaters and planes and taxis.]
But by then it is too late. X-rays show that your lungs are congested with fluid. That fluid is the huge number of puss-like lymph node macrophage white blood cells trying to cope with the vast array of virus-infected damaged lung cells. At this point it is often a losing proposition. You are diagnosed with viral pneumonia, and it’s about 50-50 whether you will survive. If you are young and in good health with an effective immune system [and because the invaders are anaerobic, if you are already stuffed full of, or quickly stuffing yourself full of, active oxygen supplementation or having your healer inject safe levels of medical ozone/oxygen into your blood stream] you may survive. If you are older or with a damaged or aging immune system, [and therefore only have average American smog and toxin compromised low oxygen blood and tissue oxygen levels] viral pneumonia death is almost a certainty. There is no cure or treatment for viral pneumonia. [Except possibly what we are explaining] All caused because you were mis-informed and took a cough or cold medication to reduce an uncomfortable fever. Your body would have prevented and quickly cured the viral infection, if you had allowed a fever to do its job and stop the viruses from reproducing.
Even the North American Indian “doctors” who first developed the Aspen Tree bark, aspirin precursor, medical treatment did not use it for viral infections. They used it only for bacterial infections. The bacterial infections are usually caused by cuts, gashes or damage to the skin or underlying tissue which produce swelling and pain, caused by bacteria entering the wound. A poultice of tree bark was applied to the skin to reduce the swelling and pain caused by a different type of macrophage which directly attacks and “eats” invading bacteria. Aspirin is still used effectively today as a mild pain reliever for injury induced swelling and pain. But the very same Indian “doctors” had a much better way to cure the cough and colds of viral infections. They induced a fever.
When European immigrants began to settle in the New World in the 17th and 18th centuries, they discovered that many native American tribes were treating their “patients” who had coughs, colds, chills and fever with something called a “sweat lodge.” The infected ill “patient” was isolated in a small quickly made thatched hut with a small hole dug in the center of the floor filled with water. Hot rocks from a nearby fire were put into the water until it boiled and produced steam. The “feverish patient” slept overnight in the steamy sweat lodge and the next morning took a quick brisk dip in a nearby cold stream and was completely cured.
The dip in the cold water was not actually part of the anti-viral treatment, but was really a morning kick-start for the circadian rhythm system to remove the logy “jet-lag” symptoms from having just had a high fever. Thus the “patient” is now invigorated and cured with a sense of health and well-being. No, the Indians did not know about viruses, bacteria or circadian rhythms. They only knew what worked best after thousands of years of medical trial and error. Sometimes grandma’s old folk remedy does work best. In this case it does.
The North American Indians were not the only ones to use the “sweat lodge.” It was well known and used worldwide in ancient times. It is the source of the healthful Scandinavian “Sauna Bath.” Even 2,000 years ago when the ancient Romans invaded Britain, they found that the locals were curing coughs and colds by placing the patients in small huts near a bubbling geothermal pool which produced natural steam. That natural steam pool was located at a village called Bath, England.
The ancient village of Bath is the source of the English name “steam bath.” The Romans built a large temple over that geothermal pool and spread the concept of the health-inducing Bath House throughout the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, the Romans lost the original medical reason for the therapeutic fever-inducing steam hut, and the Bath House became merely a popular “health spa” location for social interchange, which still remains today.
Even in modern day America and Europe until the 1930's and ‘40s a common home remedy for treating the onset of the chills and fever from viral infections was for the “patient” to sit with feet in a basin of warm water, body wrapped in warm towels and the head draped with a large towel while breathing steam from a boiling tea kettle. The treatment usually didn’t work, since it did not last all night or long enough to work, but was clearly based on an attempt to duplicate the old Indian steamy “sweat lodge” therapy. In this case, grandma’s old folk remedy didn’t work. But at least, grandma’s loving TLC along with some warm chicken noodle soup, didn’t hurt.
Thus the traditional knowledge of how to quickly and effectively cure a common cold or flu infection due to viruses has been known worldwide since ancient times. But you are not supposed to know that. You are not supposed to know that you can quickly cure a viral infection overnight by yourself and at no cost to you. You are supposed to believe that you need costly medications and medical treatments to cure new life-threatening diseases. That’s the job of the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. That job is nothing short of medical bio-terrorism.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia is not what you might think it is. First note that the first word in the name is not “Center” but is “Centers.” There is no Center in Atlanta that does medical research or cures diseases. What is in Atlanta is merely a government administrative building which administers the many “Centers” throughout the United States. The Atlanta office is funded and operated by the Federal Government. The many different Centers are mostly funded with private grant money from pharmaceutical companies who deal in drugs relating to the specialty of each of the many Centers.
If a Center in Montana, specializing in rare tropical reptilian viruses accidently discovers a new Framawitz Disease and finds that a drug called Gillibrulin will cure it, then the disease and the drug are owned by the pharmaceutical company which privately funded the medical research. The company then has the right to develop and exploit the drug to make billions in profit. Thus the reason for the strange separation between the Federal government office in Atlanta and the many separate privately-granted research Centers around the United States. And the reason for the name “Centers” for Disease Control.
The purpose of the main office in Atlanta is to be a promotional agent and salesman for the pharmaceutical companies who “discover fictitious disorders” at the various “Centers” and then convince you that to prevent Framawitz Disease you need to be on a lifetime dose of Gillibrulin, which you need as much as you need a horseshoe kick in the pants. But the CDC has convinced many people and their governments to pay billions of dollars per year around the world to the drug companies to prevent diseases by just that method. I call it bio-terrorism.
In the last 20 years, in my research, articles and media interviews I have identified 12 fictitious medical problems which have resulted in massive billion dollar profits to a few pharmaceutical houses. All of the medical problems were either man-made or don’t exist, and were hyped and promoted by the CDC. All of them are characterized by including the words Disorder or Syndrome in their names. That’s because they are not legitimate diseases. I am sure you can think of a few of the big ones. I won’t mention them here, since that would take us off topic. Here we are only focusing on the latest hype, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS, a classic case of CDC bio-terrorism.
According to an AP wire story from March 29, 2003, “On Saturday, the first doctor to realize the world was dealing with an unfamiliar disease died of the illness in Thailand. Dr. Carlo Urbani, 46, of Italy, a World Health Organization expert on communicable diseases, became infected while working in Vietnam, where he diagnosed a U.S. businessman hospitalized in Hanoi, the U.N. agency said. The businessman later died.”
What can I say? At age 46, Dr. Urbani was getting old enough for having an age-reduced immune system. If he had followed the normal CDC-WHO advice he would have treated the symptom of flu, the fever, and not the cause, the viral infection. He would have tried to treat and reduce the fever by using cough medications containing NSAIDs, which is the equivalent of signing his own and his older patient’s death warrants.
In the same article, the head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding said that no successful drugs or treatments had yet been found. Of course not, there is no and never has been any successful drug treatment for viral pneumonia. Especially when it gets to be a hospital case with a fever of 104 degrees. If the problem is a bacterial lung infection, then there are antibiotics like penicillin which can kill the bacteria. But antibiotics have no effect on viral pneumonia. The only known successful treatment for viral infections is a fever [and its helper active oxygen] which completely stops the viral reproduction. Its been known for thousands of years.
The article continues, “U.S. health officials said Saturday that none of the antiviral drugs and other treatment they have tested are effective against a flu-like disease that has killed at least 54 people and sickened nearly 1,500 others around the world.” What can I say? Is this the blind leading the blind, or what? What we do learn is that SARS is “flu-like” and it has sickened 1,500 worldwide and has killed 54. But compare that to the normal annual flu season which sickens several hundred millions each year with a normal death rate of about one million annually worldwide, and about 100,000 dying of influenza-induced viral pneumonia each year in the U.S. alone.
SARS is not even a statistical drop in the medical bucket. And there is no indication that SARS is any different from any other form of cold or flu from a viral infection. So how does the CDC get to scare or terrorize you into believing that SARS is any worse or more dangerous than any other annual flu? Mostly its done with the assistance of an uninformed press and media which simply publishes the CDC handouts without any knowledge of what it means. This has been going on for about 25 years. I squarely target the news media as the primary cause of such medical nonsense for publishing without investigating the facts.
What is different and unique about SARS is simply the fact that the CDC has for the first time put a name on a flu variant while there are still so few cases. Normally each year the CDC identifies the many dozens of newly discovered flu forms with odd names like Asian type dcp-9w37 or some such gibberish that even your own doctor has no idea what it means. That information is only useful to CDC forensic technicians to make up a new flu-shot cocktail each year, based on finding out what pig-goose flu variants were discovered floating around Asia last year. And you thought you had to be a doctor to figure this stuff out.
Do the Chinese know that their farmers raising pigs and geese together are the source of most influenza in the world? Yes, its been discussed in the medical journals for the last 25 years. Do the Chinese do anything about it? No. Nobody knows why. Maybe its a Chinese form of population control to weed out the wheat from the chaff among their vast multitude of six billion Chinese. Who knows? The Chinese medical profession does not even collect data on the number of pig-goose influenza cases which occur each year and in what province, region or district they came from.
For whatever reason, pig-goose viral infections keep coming from Asia each year, as they have for thousands of years. You don’t need to believe the CDC story about SARS being some kind of new dangerous killer and you should run out to get your latest flu shot or dash to the store to stock up on a case of “Tylenol Cough and Cold” to help prevent that dreaded 104 degree fever. The only people who benefit from that CDC advice are the drug companies who make the flu shots and manufacture all those many “flavors” of cold medicines. It does not benefit you. To believe the CDC story about SARS and to treat the fever of flu with medications is to roll the dice with death. Don’t do it.
Here’s a prediction. Based on the fact that there is as yet no test to distinguish SARS from any other cold or flu, some medical labs are calling SARS a form of cold virus and others call it some kind of new influenza virus. The CDC is defining a case of SARS as a flu-like fever and having had recent contact with a person from Asia or China. In this day of jet travel, that pretty much includes anybody in the world who comes down with a cold or flu.
Since there are usually several hundreds of millions of cases of cold or flu each year, by mis-labeling SARS, that means without any clear differential diagnosis to separate the fever of SARS from flu, the number of reported cases in the next week will skyrocket from 1,500 to about 10,000, and to around 200,000 by the end of the month. Why?
Because your doctor does not have access to all those expensive tests to determine which brand of flu you might have, he just assumes you have “that thing that’s going around” which in this case is SARS. Thus you are diagnosed as having SARS even if you only have the sniffles. Not because there was any test to determine if that is true, but simply because, to be safe, your doctor assumes it to be true. The CDC can then toot their horn and claim they have discovered a new rapidly expanding epidemic based on the number of “reported cases,” but all they have really done is mis-label flu as SARS.
The CDC has done this many times before. Two such cases are Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Both billion dollar high-profit “diseases.” Probably the best thing to do is just ignore the CDC and get on with your life.
Best advice: do not try to lower a fever, it is your genetically derived natural human defense against any viral infection. Stay wrapped up and warm to cause a sweat. Drink fluids to replace the water lost by sweating. And within 6 to 8 hours overnight the cold or flu is gone. Many older doctors knew this, which is the reason for the old docs advice, “go to bed, stay warm, drink fluids.” But younger docs just out of med school have been taught there is a drug or pill to treat everything. The result of using expensive pills or over-the-counter medications to reduce the fever from colds and flu is prolonged illness, the epidemic spread of viral diseases and the unneeded deaths of hundreds of thousands each year.Don’t buy it.
Marshall SmithEditor, BroJon Gazette
For the latest news about the SARS "worldwide epidemic," check the news items on the front page of The Brother Jonathan Gazette
(Edited slightly for accuracy in blue and my emphasis added in red)
The "mystery" disease SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, is being used as a “bio-terror campaign” by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control. They have used normal diseases with strange new names to terrorize people many times in the last 30 years. SARS is clearly a new variation of an old Influenza. So what makes SARS so dangerous?
Most flu comes from China, as in Asian Flu, Hong Kong Flu or Swine Flu, since it is mostly caused by rare avian or bird viruses crossing species with pig viruses. Many rural Chinese farmers raise flocks of geese side-by-side with herds of swine or pigs. Geese and pigs are a traditional Chinese food source. Humans have no natural immunity to avian bird viruses, and are able to "catch" pig or porcine viruses because of the similarity of human and porcine lung and organ tissue.
If a pig is ill with porcine flu and then eats droppings from an avian-virus-infected goose the result is a new cross-species flu virus, with the outer lining of a pig and the inner viral core of a goose, which spreads from central China around the world and usually kills about 100,000 or more each year in the U.S. Several new variations of goose-pig generated influenza occur each year coming mostly from China. Skip all the CDC recommended flu shots. They are much more dangerous killers than any Influenza. Here’s why.
Love a fever!
The problem is the method of treatment. The viral core molecule of RNA cannot reproduce if the body temperature is above 101 degrees. Humans have genetically developed a natural method to defeat viral infections called a fever. With a mild fever of 101 degrees the telomers on the ends of the RNA molecule cannot attach and the virus cannot reproduce itself, and the body's white blood cells quickly destroy the invading virus. But the modern “regular” treatment for a fever from a cold or flu is to reduce the fever to ease the discomfort. This is wrong.
By lowering the fever below 100 degrees, the invading virus is allowed to reproduce and spread massively throughout the body. If the multitude of viruses finally cross the blood/brain barrier the result is a fever of 104 or more, causing brain damage or death. This is often called Reyes Syndrome or Viral Encephalitis and is not a disease but the result of improper treatment with aspirin or other NSAIDs to lower the natural viral infection fever.
In the last 50 years a whole new large section in your local drug store has arisen called “Cold and Flu” medications. There seems to be a vast variety of various types to choose from, but really there are only two “flavors”: those containing Ibuprofen and those with Acetaminophen. These are commonly known as Advil and Tylenol. There are many other similar NSAIDs, but in cold medications those are the two most commonly found.
They are about the same, which is why they both remain side-by-side on the store shelves. These are both NSAIDs (NonSteroidial Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) or synthetic forms of aspirin. Since aspirin is an old Native-American Indian traditional medication, made from Aspen Tree bark hence the name Aspirin, its patent ran out over a century ago. But the newer synthetic forms are still patent medicines; and thus the reason for the multi-million dollar ad campaigns each year to get you to buy the higher cost synthetics whenever you get a cough or cold. Don’t buy them.
If you become infected with even a single cold or flu virus, it quickly within minutes will enter one of your nose or lung cells, make many copies of itself and then the copies burst out of the damaged cell carrying with them a covering made from the old cell wall material. This covering is to protect the virus from attack since your body will attack and destroy all “foreign” invaders. But since the new viruses are covered with cell wall material made from your own body the white blood cells of your immune system can’t see them. These many new viruses also within minutes invade other nearby healthy cells and repeat the process.
[However, and the author of this article was unaware of this, if the body tissues and fluids are sufficiently flooded with active oxygen, than how can the anaerobic viruses continue to exist or invade other cells?]
Without anything to stop it, within several hours that one single virus will have copied itself many millions of times quickly overwhelming your body.
But that very first infected cell, when it became destroyed by the infecting virus sent out a hormonal signal created by bursting the cell wall which causes two things to occur. First, the white blood cells stored in your lymph nodes [that manufacture virus destroying natural oxygen therapy hydrogen peroxide in their ‘peroxisome’ areas] are sent out to seek and find the cause of the damaged cell. Second, a fever is induced.
In order to raise your body temperature to create a fever the heat losses through your extremities, such as the hands, feet and skin are reduced by slowing down and constricting the peripheral blood flow. This causes your hands, feet and skin to feel cold. You may even shiver. This occurs within several minutes of the first viral damage. This is called “catching a cold” and the cold feeling is the first step to raising your core body temperature to above 101 degrees to stop any further viral reproduction and infection. At this point you may feel achy and uncomfortable, with a chilled sensation and even a mild fever. You may even have sneezed a few times, caused by the nasal irritation of the invading virus.
The term “catching a cold” is generic and refers to the chilled feeling you get, caused by either a “cold” which is due to a rhino virus or infection of the mucus lining of the nasal passages, or to an influenza or flu virus which only infects the lining of the lungs. The two are separate types of viruses. Whether you have a rhino or flu virus determines whether you begin to sneeze, with a runny nose from a cold, or begin to cough with lung congestion from a flu. But that usually occurs an hour or so later after the initial infection. If your immune system is not in good shape you may end up with both.
The medical term “rhino virus” is from the Greek word “rhino” meaning the “nose” and refers to a viral infection of the nasal membranes which we normally call a cold. The medical term “influenza” comes from the Spanish word “influence.” This comes from the times of the Crusades in the middle ages when armies of knights from western Europe, mostly England, France, Spain and Germany, first came into contact in the Middle Eastern Holy Land with merchant camel caravans from far Asia, carrying with them not only trade goods but many cases of pig-goose viral infections from China. The viral infections were probably in dried form on the Asian cloth and trade goods, which only needed to be moistened to become re-activated.
The Europeans had no clue where the deadly disease causing viral pneumonia and swift death was coming from. It was named and identified by the medieval Spanish doctors as the “Influenza de Diablo” or Influence of the Devil. Today we simply call it the flu. What this shows is that the Spanish did not know how to cure coughs and colds by allowing fevers, and that the Chinese farming technique of raising pigs and geese, creating new influenza viruses has been going on for thousands of years. But in those days it took over a year for new diseases to travel from Asia to Europe by camel train. Today by jet a new pig-goose flu virus can travel from central China to New York City in less than 24 hours.
If, when you get the first hint of a cold or flu, you do as you should, and go to bed and stay warm overnight with a mild fever, then the white blood cells can quickly surround and destroy the infected cells [by squirting hydrogen peroxide and ozone (Scripps Institute) on them], and no new viruses can reproduce to infect other cells because of the fever. These special type of immune system white blood cells are called macrophages, which is from a Greek word meaning “big eaters.” The macrophages are very large or “macro” white blood cells and their job is to ingest or eat, or “phageo,” the damaged body cells.
By surrounding and swallowing up the infected cells and using chemicals to “eat” or break apart all the material inside, the big macrophages effectively destroy the virus and stop the viral reproduction and infection. [The reason we need to help our immune systems out and safely and effectively - according to known protocols while working with our doctors - flood our bodies with active oxygen is because…] No macrophages nor any part of the immune system [except active oxygen in fluids] can actually seek out and destroy viruses directly. The macrophages can only find and destroy virus-infected cells, which are found since they have a different outer cell wall structure once the virus enters the cell.
[This is exactly why oxygen therapies are so necessary and so safe and effective. The healthy uninfected cells produce anti-oxidant coatings so active oxygen forms do not react with or ‘see’ them. Infected cells full of virus invaders have been forced into slavery by the viruses and are spending all their energy making new viruses, so they cannot create an anti-oxidant cellular coating to protect themselves from being burned up by active oxygen! Oxygen used correctly only attacks infected cells! ]
So it is a two-step process, but it actually works. And usually within 6 to 8 hours after the chills and fever begin, the virus infection is completely stopped and destroyed.
But, if instead of doing as you should and go to bed and stay warm, you also take a cough or cold medication to reduce the discomfort of the fever, you then actually allow the viruses to reproduce. They start to spread throughout your body. And with the reduced fever you feel well enough to go to work. You cough and sneeze invisible micro-droplets of mucus containing viruses and infect your family, friends and co-workers, and even the people you pass on the street. You become the source of a spreading epidemic. For a week you feel miserable but continue going to work until your fever starts to rise up to about 104. Then you go to the doctor or clinic [and pass it on to them unless the doctor’s office or hospital room is full of strong but safe levels of nature’s ozone gas].
[SARS type diseases - spread by droplet transmission - are the quintessential proof of the argument as to WHY we immediately need ozone active oxygen air and water purification surrounding us in our homes and clinics and offices and hospitals and schools and cars and buildings and subways, and movie theaters and planes and taxis.]
But by then it is too late. X-rays show that your lungs are congested with fluid. That fluid is the huge number of puss-like lymph node macrophage white blood cells trying to cope with the vast array of virus-infected damaged lung cells. At this point it is often a losing proposition. You are diagnosed with viral pneumonia, and it’s about 50-50 whether you will survive. If you are young and in good health with an effective immune system [and because the invaders are anaerobic, if you are already stuffed full of, or quickly stuffing yourself full of, active oxygen supplementation or having your healer inject safe levels of medical ozone/oxygen into your blood stream] you may survive. If you are older or with a damaged or aging immune system, [and therefore only have average American smog and toxin compromised low oxygen blood and tissue oxygen levels] viral pneumonia death is almost a certainty. There is no cure or treatment for viral pneumonia. [Except possibly what we are explaining] All caused because you were mis-informed and took a cough or cold medication to reduce an uncomfortable fever. Your body would have prevented and quickly cured the viral infection, if you had allowed a fever to do its job and stop the viruses from reproducing.
Even the North American Indian “doctors” who first developed the Aspen Tree bark, aspirin precursor, medical treatment did not use it for viral infections. They used it only for bacterial infections. The bacterial infections are usually caused by cuts, gashes or damage to the skin or underlying tissue which produce swelling and pain, caused by bacteria entering the wound. A poultice of tree bark was applied to the skin to reduce the swelling and pain caused by a different type of macrophage which directly attacks and “eats” invading bacteria. Aspirin is still used effectively today as a mild pain reliever for injury induced swelling and pain. But the very same Indian “doctors” had a much better way to cure the cough and colds of viral infections. They induced a fever.
When European immigrants began to settle in the New World in the 17th and 18th centuries, they discovered that many native American tribes were treating their “patients” who had coughs, colds, chills and fever with something called a “sweat lodge.” The infected ill “patient” was isolated in a small quickly made thatched hut with a small hole dug in the center of the floor filled with water. Hot rocks from a nearby fire were put into the water until it boiled and produced steam. The “feverish patient” slept overnight in the steamy sweat lodge and the next morning took a quick brisk dip in a nearby cold stream and was completely cured.
The dip in the cold water was not actually part of the anti-viral treatment, but was really a morning kick-start for the circadian rhythm system to remove the logy “jet-lag” symptoms from having just had a high fever. Thus the “patient” is now invigorated and cured with a sense of health and well-being. No, the Indians did not know about viruses, bacteria or circadian rhythms. They only knew what worked best after thousands of years of medical trial and error. Sometimes grandma’s old folk remedy does work best. In this case it does.
The North American Indians were not the only ones to use the “sweat lodge.” It was well known and used worldwide in ancient times. It is the source of the healthful Scandinavian “Sauna Bath.” Even 2,000 years ago when the ancient Romans invaded Britain, they found that the locals were curing coughs and colds by placing the patients in small huts near a bubbling geothermal pool which produced natural steam. That natural steam pool was located at a village called Bath, England.
The ancient village of Bath is the source of the English name “steam bath.” The Romans built a large temple over that geothermal pool and spread the concept of the health-inducing Bath House throughout the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, the Romans lost the original medical reason for the therapeutic fever-inducing steam hut, and the Bath House became merely a popular “health spa” location for social interchange, which still remains today.
Even in modern day America and Europe until the 1930's and ‘40s a common home remedy for treating the onset of the chills and fever from viral infections was for the “patient” to sit with feet in a basin of warm water, body wrapped in warm towels and the head draped with a large towel while breathing steam from a boiling tea kettle. The treatment usually didn’t work, since it did not last all night or long enough to work, but was clearly based on an attempt to duplicate the old Indian steamy “sweat lodge” therapy. In this case, grandma’s old folk remedy didn’t work. But at least, grandma’s loving TLC along with some warm chicken noodle soup, didn’t hurt.
Thus the traditional knowledge of how to quickly and effectively cure a common cold or flu infection due to viruses has been known worldwide since ancient times. But you are not supposed to know that. You are not supposed to know that you can quickly cure a viral infection overnight by yourself and at no cost to you. You are supposed to believe that you need costly medications and medical treatments to cure new life-threatening diseases. That’s the job of the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. That job is nothing short of medical bio-terrorism.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia is not what you might think it is. First note that the first word in the name is not “Center” but is “Centers.” There is no Center in Atlanta that does medical research or cures diseases. What is in Atlanta is merely a government administrative building which administers the many “Centers” throughout the United States. The Atlanta office is funded and operated by the Federal Government. The many different Centers are mostly funded with private grant money from pharmaceutical companies who deal in drugs relating to the specialty of each of the many Centers.
If a Center in Montana, specializing in rare tropical reptilian viruses accidently discovers a new Framawitz Disease and finds that a drug called Gillibrulin will cure it, then the disease and the drug are owned by the pharmaceutical company which privately funded the medical research. The company then has the right to develop and exploit the drug to make billions in profit. Thus the reason for the strange separation between the Federal government office in Atlanta and the many separate privately-granted research Centers around the United States. And the reason for the name “Centers” for Disease Control.
The purpose of the main office in Atlanta is to be a promotional agent and salesman for the pharmaceutical companies who “discover fictitious disorders” at the various “Centers” and then convince you that to prevent Framawitz Disease you need to be on a lifetime dose of Gillibrulin, which you need as much as you need a horseshoe kick in the pants. But the CDC has convinced many people and their governments to pay billions of dollars per year around the world to the drug companies to prevent diseases by just that method. I call it bio-terrorism.
In the last 20 years, in my research, articles and media interviews I have identified 12 fictitious medical problems which have resulted in massive billion dollar profits to a few pharmaceutical houses. All of the medical problems were either man-made or don’t exist, and were hyped and promoted by the CDC. All of them are characterized by including the words Disorder or Syndrome in their names. That’s because they are not legitimate diseases. I am sure you can think of a few of the big ones. I won’t mention them here, since that would take us off topic. Here we are only focusing on the latest hype, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS, a classic case of CDC bio-terrorism.
According to an AP wire story from March 29, 2003, “On Saturday, the first doctor to realize the world was dealing with an unfamiliar disease died of the illness in Thailand. Dr. Carlo Urbani, 46, of Italy, a World Health Organization expert on communicable diseases, became infected while working in Vietnam, where he diagnosed a U.S. businessman hospitalized in Hanoi, the U.N. agency said. The businessman later died.”
What can I say? At age 46, Dr. Urbani was getting old enough for having an age-reduced immune system. If he had followed the normal CDC-WHO advice he would have treated the symptom of flu, the fever, and not the cause, the viral infection. He would have tried to treat and reduce the fever by using cough medications containing NSAIDs, which is the equivalent of signing his own and his older patient’s death warrants.
In the same article, the head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding said that no successful drugs or treatments had yet been found. Of course not, there is no and never has been any successful drug treatment for viral pneumonia. Especially when it gets to be a hospital case with a fever of 104 degrees. If the problem is a bacterial lung infection, then there are antibiotics like penicillin which can kill the bacteria. But antibiotics have no effect on viral pneumonia. The only known successful treatment for viral infections is a fever [and its helper active oxygen] which completely stops the viral reproduction. Its been known for thousands of years.
The article continues, “U.S. health officials said Saturday that none of the antiviral drugs and other treatment they have tested are effective against a flu-like disease that has killed at least 54 people and sickened nearly 1,500 others around the world.” What can I say? Is this the blind leading the blind, or what? What we do learn is that SARS is “flu-like” and it has sickened 1,500 worldwide and has killed 54. But compare that to the normal annual flu season which sickens several hundred millions each year with a normal death rate of about one million annually worldwide, and about 100,000 dying of influenza-induced viral pneumonia each year in the U.S. alone.
SARS is not even a statistical drop in the medical bucket. And there is no indication that SARS is any different from any other form of cold or flu from a viral infection. So how does the CDC get to scare or terrorize you into believing that SARS is any worse or more dangerous than any other annual flu? Mostly its done with the assistance of an uninformed press and media which simply publishes the CDC handouts without any knowledge of what it means. This has been going on for about 25 years. I squarely target the news media as the primary cause of such medical nonsense for publishing without investigating the facts.
What is different and unique about SARS is simply the fact that the CDC has for the first time put a name on a flu variant while there are still so few cases. Normally each year the CDC identifies the many dozens of newly discovered flu forms with odd names like Asian type dcp-9w37 or some such gibberish that even your own doctor has no idea what it means. That information is only useful to CDC forensic technicians to make up a new flu-shot cocktail each year, based on finding out what pig-goose flu variants were discovered floating around Asia last year. And you thought you had to be a doctor to figure this stuff out.
Do the Chinese know that their farmers raising pigs and geese together are the source of most influenza in the world? Yes, its been discussed in the medical journals for the last 25 years. Do the Chinese do anything about it? No. Nobody knows why. Maybe its a Chinese form of population control to weed out the wheat from the chaff among their vast multitude of six billion Chinese. Who knows? The Chinese medical profession does not even collect data on the number of pig-goose influenza cases which occur each year and in what province, region or district they came from.
For whatever reason, pig-goose viral infections keep coming from Asia each year, as they have for thousands of years. You don’t need to believe the CDC story about SARS being some kind of new dangerous killer and you should run out to get your latest flu shot or dash to the store to stock up on a case of “Tylenol Cough and Cold” to help prevent that dreaded 104 degree fever. The only people who benefit from that CDC advice are the drug companies who make the flu shots and manufacture all those many “flavors” of cold medicines. It does not benefit you. To believe the CDC story about SARS and to treat the fever of flu with medications is to roll the dice with death. Don’t do it.
Here’s a prediction. Based on the fact that there is as yet no test to distinguish SARS from any other cold or flu, some medical labs are calling SARS a form of cold virus and others call it some kind of new influenza virus. The CDC is defining a case of SARS as a flu-like fever and having had recent contact with a person from Asia or China. In this day of jet travel, that pretty much includes anybody in the world who comes down with a cold or flu.
Since there are usually several hundreds of millions of cases of cold or flu each year, by mis-labeling SARS, that means without any clear differential diagnosis to separate the fever of SARS from flu, the number of reported cases in the next week will skyrocket from 1,500 to about 10,000, and to around 200,000 by the end of the month. Why?
Because your doctor does not have access to all those expensive tests to determine which brand of flu you might have, he just assumes you have “that thing that’s going around” which in this case is SARS. Thus you are diagnosed as having SARS even if you only have the sniffles. Not because there was any test to determine if that is true, but simply because, to be safe, your doctor assumes it to be true. The CDC can then toot their horn and claim they have discovered a new rapidly expanding epidemic based on the number of “reported cases,” but all they have really done is mis-label flu as SARS.
The CDC has done this many times before. Two such cases are Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Both billion dollar high-profit “diseases.” Probably the best thing to do is just ignore the CDC and get on with your life.
Best advice: do not try to lower a fever, it is your genetically derived natural human defense against any viral infection. Stay wrapped up and warm to cause a sweat. Drink fluids to replace the water lost by sweating. And within 6 to 8 hours overnight the cold or flu is gone. Many older doctors knew this, which is the reason for the old docs advice, “go to bed, stay warm, drink fluids.” But younger docs just out of med school have been taught there is a drug or pill to treat everything. The result of using expensive pills or over-the-counter medications to reduce the fever from colds and flu is prolonged illness, the epidemic spread of viral diseases and the unneeded deaths of hundreds of thousands each year.Don’t buy it.
Marshall SmithEditor, BroJon Gazette
For the latest news about the SARS "worldwide epidemic," check the news items on the front page of The Brother Jonathan Gazette
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Health Begins In The Colon $19.99  The REAL Secret to Health is Finally Revealed! Did you know that disease starts and health begins in the colon? You can read more about how to better your health in Dr. Group's exclusive book |