If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message ... AZT AND WACKO AMERICAN MDs... They are still promoting the DNA-chain-terminator AZT... In 1995, Duesberg and Bialy asked of HIV/AIDS scientists: "Are they aware that the manufacturer of AZT says in the Physician's Desk Reference that 'it was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with zidovudine [AZT] administration from underlying signs of HIV diseases...'?... Are they aware that the DNA chain terminators were developed 30 years ago to kill growing human cells for chemotherapy, not as anti-HIV drugs?..." http://www.sumeria.net/aids/howei.html what is not hard to distinquish is that people who have AIDS and take AZT live a lot longer than people who have AIDS and are not treated. I recently quoted from a woman child care worker who observed what happened when children were forced to take AZT: "[Child care worker] Mimi Pascual gave the children drugs every day and every night,on schedule, as the doctors ordered... "The drug Mimi remembers giving most often...is the nucleoside analog AZT... snip "More and more of the kids were there for compliance. They didn't want to take drugs, or their parents didn't want to give them, so they got put in ICC. I don't think anyone wants to take AZT. It is like chemotherapy for patients with cancer. No one would want to take chemotherapy either. But it is much better than the alternative of not taking AZT or chemotherapy: death. "'None of us ever blamed the kids for refusing. We all saw them throw up like clockwork after taking the pills, and then the diarrhea that followed...' snip" Sounds like chemotherapy. And, just like thousands of children and adults are alive because of chemotherapy, thousands of people are alive because of AZT. The side effects stink. But it is better than than the alternative: death. (...) Jeff |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Gastaldo wrote: In one study MDs refused hepatitis B vaccination - even when it was offered free of charge: "...the majority of physicians...failed to be vaccinated even when offered the hepatitis B vaccine free of charge." [Clancy CM, Cebul RD, Williams SV. Guiding individual decisions: a randomized controlled trial of decision analysis. Am J Med, 1988;84(2):283-8] COMMENT: That was back when it was made from the blood of pooled donors. But it had been carefully tested for HIV and put through 3 different rounds of treatments, each of which was sufficient to kill HIV (not possible to do for blood factor products, but possible for the vaccine). Finally, the donor pool for the hep B vaccine protein was a closed one consisting of carefully chosen HIV-neg chronic hepatitis B patients, and not the same group of lowlife plasma donors that donated for factor concentrates, and who were more likely to have HIV (and who ended up transmitting HIV in factor concentrates in 1982-3). So many a doc made the opposite decision for hep B. Including me, who had my first Hep B vaccination shots in 1985. By the time for my next booster in 1990, I believe a genetically engineered product had been around, which had never seen human blood. You could get one or the other, and I don't remember which one I chose. Since then, the issue you bring up has been a non-issue. The vaccine from human donors is long off the market. SBH |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I wrote:
In one study MDs refused hepatitis B vaccination - even when it was offered free of charge: "...the majority of physicians...failed to be vaccinated even when offered the hepatitis B vaccine free of charge." [Clancy CM, Cebul RD, Williams SV. Guiding individual decisions: a randomized controlled trial of decision analysis. Am J Med, 1988;84(2):283-8] Steve B. Harris, MD commented: That was back when it was made from the blood of pooled donors. But it had been carefully tested for HIV and put through 3 different rounds of treatments, each of which was sufficient to kill HIV (not possible to do for blood factor products, but possible for the vaccine). Finally, the donor pool for the hep B vaccine protein was a closed one consisting of carefully chosen HIV-neg chronic hepatitis B patients, and not the same group of lowlife plasma donors that donated for factor concentrates, and who were more likely to have HIV (and who ended up transmitting HIV in factor concentrates in 1982-3). So many a doc made the opposite decision for hep B. Including me, who had my first Hep B vaccination shots in 1985. By the time for my next booster in 1990, I believe a genetically engineered product had been around, which had never seen human blood. You could get one or the other, and I don't remember which one I chose. Since then, the issue you bring up has been a non-issue. The vaccine from human donors is long off the market. Steve, A non-issue? You snipped the bigger issue: Most African children with evidence of Hep B had no Hep B disease - and no (?) evidence that Hep B vaccine prevents hepatocellular carcinoma. Also, you snipped the part about Hep B vaccinations injected into Third World children as American MDs refused the same Hep B vaccinations. Maybe American MDs ("many a doc") made a public protest that Third World children should not be injected with a Hep B vaccine that American MDs weren't taking for fear of catching AIDS? Maybe I just missed it? I mention this because - recently - American MDs didn't go public about thimerosal going into Third World bloodstreams... Or maybe they did and I just missed it? Robert Kennedy writes: "Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but...CDC and FDA...[bought] up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries..." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm Whatever happened in those instances, there are the REALLY obvious crimes American MDs are committing. For example... Your fellow MDs are immediately clamping umbilical cords - temporarily asphyxiating babies/forcing them to breathe with their lungs before they are ready - and in the process robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume. This is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG. See again: ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606 Steve, are you doing anything to stop your fellow MDs from asphyxiating babies and robbing up 50% of their blood? Or are you just going to stand on your valid observation...that if you MDs can get away with crime, in effect, you aren't committing crime? Just curious. Sincerely, Your friend, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote in
oups.com: This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct "poison" like thimerosal, and regardless of the evidence for, or against, liberals will try to hamstring a program that will save 3/4 million kids a year, to keep it from being used. Unintended consequences. They don't care. If the solution doesn't fit their utopian vision, they'd rather *prevent* a reasonable version of it used at all. Don't tar all liberals with the same brush. The subset you're correctly railing against are largely motivated by Romantic ideology and would more correctly be described as "pseudo-liberals" just as many authoritarians have been described as "pseudo-conservatives." Their world-view is actually rather comparable to that of nineteenth-century aristocrats who looked down on anyone who acquired wealth through "trade" rather than his ancestors' use of the battle-axe (they're anti-capitalist not because they think there are better alternatives to capitalism that could be implemented in the future, but because they think that the better alternatives *were* implemented in the past). One similarity is that they tend to view third-world people in "noble savage" terms, worrying greatly that their "traditional ways of life" might come to an end. They never seem to ask the objects of their concern whether or not they *want* to continue living the same way they did millennia ago (I'm reminded of a quote from a woman in Africa who said she wished she could afford (gasp!) *herbicides* to spray on her crops. When asked why, she said she wanted her children to go to school and learn to read and write instead of spending their days stooping in the fields picking weeds). They consist largely of upper-middle-class women, but they idealize societies in which women spend most of their time barefoot, pregnant, and completely at the mercy of men. They take at face value the claims of the most reactionary and authoritarian elements of any "oppressed" society, oblivious to the fact that those "leaders" are simply third-world equivalents of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (www.butterfliesandwheels.com discusses this in great detail). This branch of the Left really consists of reactionaries in progressives' clothing. Romanticism has historically rather quickly led to authoritarianism, even fascism. It contains a streak of anti-urbanism that often has a sub-streak of anti-semitism. Ultimately, it stems from the conviction that humans are inherently evil. How it came to be seen as part of the Left is unclear, though it appears that a lot of it entered through the 1960s counterculture; old-school leftists and their ideological descendants don't seem to be much affected by such nonsense. I've become convinced that when neo-Romantics talk about "health," they're actually talking about achieving a sense of personal *purity*. I think much of the "poison paranoia" is actually a feeling of being ritually unclean. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote in message oups.com... (...) This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct "poison" like thimerosal, and regardless of the evidence for, or against, liberals will try to hamstring a program that will save 3/4 million kids a year, to keep it from being used. Unintended consequences. They don't care. If the solution doesn't fit their utopian vision, they'd rather *prevent* a reasonable version of it used at all. Disgusting! And then you have conservatives who sent people to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction that don't exist. I think the estimate of the number of people who have died has to be around 15,000 directly and around 200,000 directly and indirectly. This is where labels really bug me. Not all conservatives are in favor of the war. And not all liberals are against thimerasol. I am quite liberal and in favor of vaccination. In fact, because of vaccination, I have yet to see a case of Hib menigitis. And there are thousands of kids who are in high school would have otherwise been in the ground. I am also in favor of using GM foods and dislike organic foods. I guess logic can overcome my liberalism. Jeff SBH 1: Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 1999 Dec;13(4):511-7. Prospects for hepatitis B virus eradication and control of hepatocellular carcinoma. Chang MH, Chen DS. Department of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei. Hepatitis B virus infection is the most common cause of chronic hepatitis, liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma worldwide. In areas hyperendemic for HBV infection, the related complications occur mostly during adulthood. However, nearly half of all primary infection in chronic carriers occurs in the perinatal period through maternal transmission, the other half arising from horizontal transmission mainly through intrafamilial spread or injection using unsterilized needles. A universal vaccination programme is better than immunization for at-risk groups. Hepatitis B vaccination should be integrated into the Expanded Programme on Immunization in children. Universal immunization against hepatitis B virus has proved to be effective in reducing the hepatitis B carrier rate to one-tenth of the prevalence before the vaccination programme in highly endemic areas, and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children has also been shown to be significantly reduced. Continued efforts to implement universal vaccination programmes worldwide will very likely reduce the incidence of hepatitis B virus-related diseases, particularly liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 10654916 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 2: JAMA. 2000 Dec 20;284(23):3040-2. Hepatitis B vaccination and hepatocellular carcinoma rates in boys and girls. Chang MH, Shau WY, Chen CJ, Wu TC, Kong MS, Liang DC, Hsu HM, Chen HL, Hsu HY, Chen DS; Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group. Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan S. Road, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China. CONTEXT: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a male predominance and is closely related to hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Hepatitis B virus vaccination was launched in 1984 in Taiwan for neonates of mothers carrying hepatitis B e antigen, resulting in a decreased incidence of HCC in children. The effect on boys vs girls is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between a HBV vaccination program with incidence of childhood HCC by sex. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of data collected from Taiwan's National Cancer Registry System and the Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group between 1981 and 1996. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 6 to 14 years who were diagnosed as having HCC (201 boys and 70 girls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASU Incidence of HCC in boys and girls before and after implementation of the vaccination program. RESULTS: The boy-girl incidence ratio decreased steadily from 4.5 in 1981-1984 (before the program's introduction) to 1.9 in 1990-1996 (6-12 years after the vaccination program was launched). The incidence of HCC in boys born after 1984 was significantly reduced in comparison with those born before 1978 (relative risk [RR], 0.72; P =.002). No significant decrease in HCC incidence was observed in girls born in the same periods (RR, 0.77; P =.20). The incidence of HCC in boys remained stable with increasing age, while an increase of HCC incidence with age in girls was observed. These age and sex effects remained the same regardless of birth before or after the vaccination program. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that boys may benefit more from HBV vaccination than girls in the prevention of HCC. PMID: 11122592 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 3: Cancer J. 2004 Mar-Apr;10(2):67-73. Hepatocellular carcinoma: paradigm of preventive oncology. O'Brien TR, Kirk G, Zhang M. Viral Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland 20852, USA. Morbidity and mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which is primarily caused by hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus, can be prevented. Public health interventions have eliminated transfusion transmission of these viruses and, in endemic countries with effective hepatitis B virus vaccination programs, have greatly reduced incident hepatitis B virus infections (and HCC) in children. Antiviral treatment can eliminate detectable hepatitis C virus in 50%-80% of chronically infected patients, presumably reducing their risk of cancer. HCC survival rates remain universally poor, but early detection and treatment in developed countries has improved survival in selected patients. Despite these advances, worldwide HCC rates remain high, and additional preventive efforts are needed. The most important opportunity is wider distribution of hepatitis B virus vaccine in endemic areas. Development of an HCV vaccine, improved antiviral therapies, and better methods for HCC detection would also help decrease morbidity and mortality from HCC. HCC prevention efforts provide a paradigm for preventive oncology in cancers of viral etiology. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 15130266 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 4: Zhonghua Min Guo Xiao Er Ke Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi. 1998 Nov-Dec;39(6):366-70. Hepatocellular carcinoma in children. Chang MH. Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most frequent malignancies in humans. Although it occurs mainly in adults of 40 to 60 years of age, it may develop in children. It mainly occurs in children older than six years of age, with male predominance. Children with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and underlying metabolic diseases are the two main high risk groups for childhood HCC. HBV infection is the main cause of childhood HCC in areas hyperendemic for HBV infection. In Taiwan, nearly 100% of HCC children were hepatitis B surface antigen seropositive. Maternal transmission (94%) is the most important route of transmission of HBV infection in HCC children. For HBV related HCC in children, immunization is the most effective way for the control of childhood HCC. The first universal vaccination against HBV in the world was launched in Taiwan in July 1984. The prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigenemia in children declined from 10% in 1984, prior to the vaccination program, to 1% in 1994, 10 years after the implementation of the program, in children less than 9 years of age. The annual incidence of HCC in children aged 6 to 9 years of age also decreased from 0.52 per 100,000 born in 1974-1984 to 0.13 per 100,000 born in 1984-1986. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 9926508 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 5: N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 26;336(26):1855-9. Comment in: N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 26;336(26):1906-7. Universal hepatitis B vaccination in Taiwan and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children. Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group. Chang MH, Chen CJ, Lai MS, Hsu HM, Wu TC, Kong MS, Liang DC, Shau WY, Chen DS. Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei. BACKGROUND: A nationwide hepatitis B vaccination program was implemented in Taiwan in July 1984. To assess the effect of the program on the development of hepatocellular carcinoma, we studied the incidence of this cancer in children in Taiwan from 1981 to 1994. METHODS: We collected data on liver cancer in children from Taiwan's National Cancer Registry, which receives reports from each of the country's 142 hospitals with more than 50 beds. Data on childhood liver cancer were also obtained from Taiwan's 17 major medical centers. To prevent the inclusion of cases of hepatoblastoma, the primary analysis was confined to liver cancers in children six years of age or older. Data were also obtained on mortality from liver cancer among children. RESULTS: The average annual incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children 6 to 14 years of age declined from 0.70 per 100,000 children between 1981 and 1986 to 0.57 between 1986 and 1990, and to 0.36 between 1990 and 1994 (P0.01). The corresponding rates of mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma also decreased. The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children 6 to 9 years of age declined from 0.52 for those born between 1974 and 1984 to 0.13 for those born between 1984 and 1986 (P0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Since the institution of Taiwan's program of universal hepatitis B vaccination, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children has declined. PMID: 9197213 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 6: Semin Oncol. 2001 Oct;28(5):441-9. The epidemiology and prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma. Monto A, Wright TL. GI Research, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cancer. Its incidence is higher in countries where hepatitis B is endemic. HCC is substantially a complication of liver cirrhosis. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are the predominant causes of cirrhosis, and as such, HCC. The link between HCC and alcoholic cirrhosis is less strong. Other less common forms of chronic liver disease can also lead to HCC. HBV is the HCC-determining disease worldwide. In endemic regions, it tends to be acquired early in life. The largest strides in prevention of HCC have been made with the HBV vaccine. HCV has a lower global prevalence than HBV, but HCV causes the most HCC in economically developed regions. In these areas, where the incidence of HCC is low, HCV now accounts for more than 50% of HCCs. There is no vaccine for HCV, so prevention of HCV-associated HCC will focus on prevention of initial infection and elimination of infection through antiviral therapies. HBV-HCV coinfection, and the combination of either with alcohol abuse or aflatoxin exposure seems to raise the risk of HCC development further. Liver transplantation and other adjuvant therapies may offer better options for secondary prevention of HCC than resection alone. Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 11685737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 7: Cancer Detect Prev. 1991;15(4):313-8. Design and compliance of HBV vaccination trial on newborns to prevent hepatocellular carcinoma and 5-year results of its pilot study. Sun Z, Zhu Y, Stjernsward J, Hilleman M, Collins R, Zhen Y, Hsia CC, Lu J, Huang F, Ni Z, et al. Cancer Institute, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, PRC. A large-scale, controlled study of universal immunization of newborns against HBV infection has been conducted in the high incidence area of hepatocellular carcinoma, Qidong County of China. This area has a stable population, standardized cancer registration system, and an epidemiological base for measurements of liver cancer prevention by vaccine. Randomization was done on the community level. The vaccination and the control group each will consist of 38,000 children by the end of 1990. It is anticipated that the design will provide high statistical power to detect 50% reduction in the prevalence rate of chronic hepatitis among the vaccinees vs. the controls at 6 to 10 years of age, and 50% reduction in the incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma at 35 to 40 years of age. The vaccine used is Hep-B Vax, donated by Merck and Co. through WHO. The vaccine was administered at 0, 1, and 6 months after birth, the dosage of 5 or 2.5 micrograms in the pilot study as used before 1985 and of 5 micrograms dose level during the main study starting from January 1, 1985. About 85% of the cohorts have now entered the protocol. The vaccination coverage during 1984 to 1989 was 98.0% (35,064/35,789). Follow-up of the vaccinees and the age-matched controls at 5 years has exceeded 97%. The cumulative mortality in the vaccinated group up to 1988 was 1.29% (354/27,450). No single death nor serious adverse reaction was found that was associated with vaccination. The use of HBV vaccine at a reduced dose was especially important for the developing countries at the present time in order to achieve widespread immunization. Five-year results of the pilot study of this vaccination project showed that significant protection against HBV infection was achieved with the 5 or 2.5 micrograms per dose regimen plus a booster of 5 micrograms given at 3.5 to 4 years of age.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial PMID: 1665400 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Sincerely, Your friend, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
THE MD WHO SLAPPED THE NURSE...
See the very end of this post. Steve B. Harris, MD verbally slapped a nurse online years ago... Steve B. Harris, MD LIED to the nurse. Again, see the very end of this post. A NATION OF "NINNIES" Steve B. Harris, MD just called me a "ninny." (See below.) Dictionary.com says: Ninny: A fool; a simpleton. [Perhaps alteration of innocent.] Part of the reason Steve B. Harris, MD suggests I am a "ninny" is because I believe that law enforcement should enforce laws and stop obvious MD crimes. Steve wrote: "Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime...These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you." I replied: "You make a good point...I am learning only late in life that MDs can blithely commit crime because law enforcement doesn't prosecute it...I just don't think it fair (for example) that babies have to pay with their lives and limbs for such MD arrogance...I am particularly concerned that MD-obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and lying to cover-up... NOTE: For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)... See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606 " I wrote further to Steve that I am also concerned that his fellow MDs are immediately clamping umbilical cords - temporarily asphyxiating babies/forcing them to breathe with their lungs before they are ready - and in the process robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume. This latter massive MD crime is being committed against EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG. See again: ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606 Dr. Morley recommends TEMPORARY asphyxiation experiments with babies (temporary strangulation of the umbilical cord) to help obstetricians understand that they should not rob massive amounts of blood from babies... "[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds.* Common sense will soon release the finger and thumb." http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm Dr. Morley has admitted that he is protecting obstetricians... See Michigan Baby Strangler George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3739 To my knowledge, NO MDs are reporting the obvious child abuse. Steve B. Harris, MD GLOATS ("get an adult to explain it to you") as his fellow MDs "earn" BILLIONS abusing babies and treating the grisly effects of their abuse. The massive criminal enterprise called medicine can commit obvious crime, tell obvious lies to cover-up, and (I say) manufacture and publish "scientific" studies which support the crime and the lies after the fact. I cannot prove that the "scientific" studies are manufactured - but I can prove the obvious crime and obvious cover-up lies - and I know full well that failing to disclose such obvious bias in "scientific" studies is unethical. For example, it was unethical of MDs to fail to disclose in celebrating their recent "Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS transmission" study that - years ago - American MDs anti-scientifically embraced the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to stay out of prison after I exposed the fact that they were ripping and slicing infant penises and using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology to obtain "informed" consent from parents. This obvious bias (MDs stand to go to prison) should be included in any discussion of the notion that their ripping and slicing of infant penises prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS. But the obvious bias is always excluded. That's the "scientific" game. Steve B. Harris, MD may be - wittingly or unwittingly - proffering manufactured "scientific" studies to support his Hep B argumentation below. Steve B. Harris, MD is DEFINITELY ignoring obvious mass child abuse - snipping it - failing to report it - which is a crime. Without suspected child abuse reports from **MDs** (and RNs) - law enforcement is unlikely to act. We live under a medico-"legal" "just us" system where the legal profession studiously protects the medical profession from CRIMINAL prosecution. CIVIL actions - where insurance companies lose money - are the norm. Only rarely do MDs lose their licenses and only VERY rarely do they risk being imprisoned/subjected to criminal prosecutions. It happened in 1995...doctors were "frightened out of their wits." In 1995, after an MD (Einaugler) was prosecuted and imprisoned, American Medical Association (AMA) executive vice-president, Dr. James S. Todd stated that doctors were "frightened out of their wits" - they feared criminal prosecution for their medical decisions. [Nossiter A. A mistake, a rare prosecution, and a doctor is headed for jail. New York Times (Mar16)1995:front page] According to the New York Times article, Dr. Einaugler contended that he shouldn't have been criminally prosecuted - in part because criminal prosecution of doctors is "unprecedented." AMA general counsel Kirk Johnson (who resigned in the AMA/Sunbeam fiasco) echoed Einaugler's sentiment, telling the Times that physicians have "never before" been subject to criminal prosecution in New York; and that criminal prosecution is "extraordinarily uncommon" anywhere in the nation. AMA executive vice-president James Todd, MD chimed in, assuring the Times that "Society has been poorly served by this decision" - doctors "traditionally" handle such matters through "peer review and malpractice," he said. LOL! Traditional "peer review" resulted in NO Medical Board penalty for Einaugler, because the Medical Board found that his "clear and obvious" failure to act - after subjecting his patient to an "enormous anatomical insult" - was not a "flagrant or dramatic departure from standards." (!) FACT: MDs are a protected class - able to commit obvious (sometimes fatal) crime with impunity. To my knowledge, it isn't written anywhere that MDs are above the law. That's just the way it is. I suspect I am not the only one reading who was not aware of this. I suspect I am not the only one who (paraphrasing Steve B. Harris, MD) needs an adult to explain it. We are a nation of "ninnies"...Paying BILLIONS to have our children abused by trusted cultural authorities called MDs. Again, Steve B. Harris, MD may be - wittingly or unwittingly - proffering manufactured "scientific" studies to support his Hep B argumentation below. My responses are interspersed... in article , Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com at wrote on 8/8/05 2:59 PM: Todd Gastaldo wrote: You snipped the bigger issue: Most African children with evidence of Hep B had no Hep B disease - and no (?) evidence that Hep B vaccine prevents hepatocellular carcinoma. COMMENT: There's lots of evidence the vaccine will prevent some fraction of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), though it's indirect evidence, since the virus takes 30-40 years or more to do this, Three medical physicians [Ganiats et al. 1993] concluded that hepatitis B vaccination failed four of five criteria - criteria which, according to Frame [1986], must be satisfied before a preventive measure is accepted as a public health measure. *[Ganiats et al. Universal neonatal hepatitis B immunization - are we jumping on the bandwagon too early? J Fam Prac 1993;36(2):144-9. *Citing Frame PS. A critical review of health maintenance... J Fam Pract *1986;22:341-6.] Ganiats et al. [1993] concluded that up to 37,000 vaccinations are needed to prevent one case of hepatitis B carrier state.... Since hepatitis B carrier state ostensibly can lead to hepatocellular carcinoma, Ganiats et al. [1993] noted ("for those who believe that hepatocellular carcinoma is a valid rationale") that up to 6 million vaccinations are necessary to prevent one case of hepatocellular carcinoma.... Have the numbers changed since Ganiats et al. published in 1993? and so the study would need to be a run a very long one. MDs rushed in to declare that Hep B vaccine prevents cancer. Neither CDC nor WHO have gotten back to me regarding my request that they stop DISHONESTLY promoting hep B vaccination as having "demonstrated important benefits including the prevention of cirrhosis and cancer..." http://www.who.int/gpv-safety/hottop/hepb.htm --URL no good anymore Very occasionally one sees in children, and the rates of this have declined a great deal in countries like Taiwan where vaccination was instituted first. Steve, you simply ignored the fact that researchers reported that African children weren't showing symptoms of Hep B disease. How do you account for that? Did children in Taiwan show symptoms of Hep B disease? The campaign to show that Hep B virus causes cancer seems as strange as the campaign to show that HIV causes a new disease called "AIDS." Can it be possible that the Taiwanese children who were jabbed with Hep B vaccine did not really need to be jabbed? Can it be possible that the Africans who recently had their penises sliced did not really need to endure the penile slicing? In regard to the latter, it may be that MDs are slicing ADULT penises in Africa to help cover-up their mass INFANT penis ripping and slicing crime here in America.... See UW surgical HIV/AIDS vaccine hoax - and HIV/AIDS Clergyman PF Riley, MD http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3776 I'm still wondering about CDC (and WHO) minimizing the 1998 French decision to stop Hep B vaccinating adolescents for fear that Hep B vaccination is causing multiple sclerosis... If you know anything about hepadnaviruses in animals and how they are connected with liver cancer, you'll have little doubt that the epidemiology in humans vis a vis our own particular hepadnavirus (hep B) is real. Steve, you snipped this statement from HIV/AIDS hypothesis critic Peter Duesberg, PhD: "there is no convincing evidence that hepatitis B viral DNA is functionally relevant for the initiation and maintenance of hepatomas." [Duesberg PH and Schwartz JR: Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for pathogenicity. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology, 1992;43:135-204] I know very little about hepaDNAviruses and how they are connected to liver cancer - and experts may also know very little - I quoted HIV/AIDS hypothesis critic Duesberg as above - and you simply snipped that... Duesberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and an expert on viruses. HepaDNAviruses may NOT cause cancer - just like HIV virus may not cause AIDS. Like most Americans, I blindly accepted the HIV/AIDS hypothesis until I exposed American medicine's mass infant penis ripping and slicing using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. I blindly accepted the HIV/AIDS hypothesis until I saw that, to stay out of prison, California MDs ignored their own Scientific Board and by voice vote abruptly changed their "no medical indications" infant penis ripping and slicing to a "we've-been-preventing-tranmsission-of-HIV/AIDS all along" "effective public health measure. THAT'S when I discovered Duesberg's criticisms of the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis. How shaky is the HIV/AIDS hypothesis? VERY shaky... See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]... http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/a...esy-hogan.html --EXCERPT Copied to: Kicking the Sacred Cow author James P. Hogan via Incidentally, the year after California MDs lied to stay out of prison, the American Academy of Pediatrics committee looking into routine infant circumcision failed to mention the California Medical Association's brand new "effective public health measure" in reporting there were still no medical indications - amid a "potential medical indications" media scam... The media scam was so successful that MDs had to be informed: MEDICAL TRIBUNE 30:16 (8 June 1989) * * * * *FORGET THOSE HEADLINES ABOUT CIRCUMCISION * * * * * * AAP IS AGAINST ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/news/ 1989.06.08%3aMedicalTribune There are STILL no medical indications for American medicine's grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males - which may explain why those African gentlemen had their penises sliced recently - for fear of HIV - which likely does not cause AIDS... See again Kicking the Sacred Cow... And see (again): UW surgical HIV/AIDS vaccine hoax - and HIV/AIDS Clergyman PF Riley, MD http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3776 In any case, the vaccine is of very very little risk (as seen in controlled studies in China), and there are many many reasons other than cancer to give it. Such as prevention of acute and chronic hepatitis B . Duh. DUH? "MANY MANY" reasons? I say again...you simply ignored the fact that researchers reported that African children weren't showing symptoms of Hep B disease. I also say again... Three medical physicians [Ganiats et al. 1993] concluded that hepatitis B vaccination failed four of five criteria - criteria which, according to Frame [1986], must be satisfied before a preventive measure is accepted as a public health measure. *[Ganiats et al. Universal neonatal hepatitis B immunization - are we jumping on the bandwagon too early? J Fam Prac 1993;36(2):144-9. *Citing Frame PS. A critical review of health maintenance... J Fam Pract *1986;22:341-6.] Ganiats et al. [1993] concluded that up to 37,000 vaccinations are needed to prevent one case of hepatitis B carrier state.... Since hepatitis B carrier state ostensibly can lead to hepatocellular carcinoma, Ganiats et al. [1993] noted ("for those who believe that hepatocellular carcinoma is a valid rationale") that up to 6 million vaccinations are necessary to prevent one case of hepatocellular carcinoma.... Have the numbers changed since Ganiats et al. published in 1993? Also, you snipped the part about Hep B vaccinations injected into Third World children as American MDs refused the same Hep B vaccinations. COMMENT: They weren't done at the same time, you ninny. Please look at your facts. While hep B was being made from human blood it was WAY to expensive to be shipping to Africa, I assure you. I may be wrong - but I suspect that the Hep B vaccine used in The Gambia was made from human blood - and they kept using it as American MDs refused it... Here again is what I wrote... In 1987, while they were still trying to figure out hep B vaccine efficacy against liver cancer, James E. Maynard, MD wrote: "...[O]ver the next 5 to 10 years...[Third World countries] will need 350 million doses a year...By the year 2000 we will have accomplished our task if we see hepatitis B incorporated as the seventh universal immunogen for infant immunization in the Expanded Program on Immunization that is sponsored by the World Health Organization." [James E. Maynard, M.D., executive director of a nine physician international task force run by the Seattle-based Program for Appropriate Technology and Health (PATH), discussing the hepatitis B vaccine produced by Alfred M. Prince, M.D. of the New York Blood Center. *In Marwick C: JAMA, Sept.18, 1987;258(1):1439] As hundreds of millions of Third World children were being injected with hepatitis B vaccine, most of the world¹s physicians were refusing hepatitis B vaccine injections - for fear of catching AIDS.... Dr. AM Prince, developer of the hepatitis B vaccine, wrote in 1991: "[M]any high-risk individuals...do not wish to be vaccinated. *This applies surprisingly to about 50% of physicians and nurses in many countries, who despite all assurances remain unconvinced that HBV vaccine will not transmit unknown agents of disease." [Prince AM: Hepatitis B virus: active and passive immunization. In Cryz SJ (ed.): Vaccines and immunotherapy, 1991, New York: Pergamon Press.] In one study MDs refused hepatitis B vaccination - even when it was offered free of charge: "...the majority of physicians...failed to be vaccinated even when offered the hepatitis B vaccine free of charge." [Clancy CM, Cebul RD, Williams SV. Guiding individual decisions: a randomized controlled trial of decision analysis. Am J Med, 1988;84(2):283-8] Even stranger than doctors not taking their own hepatitis B vaccine is the fact that Hepatitis B vaccine researchers discovered early on that nearly all the African children on whom they were experimenting, were testing positive for hepatitis B virus [The Lancet, May12, 1989, p. 1057-60] - but were almost never expressing symptoms of the disease called hepatitis. [Cancer Res, 1987;47:5782-87] Maybe American MDs ("many a doc") made a public protest that Third World children should not be injected with a Hep B vaccine that American MDs weren't taking for fear of catching AIDS? Maybe I just missed it? COMMENT: Yeah, you missed it. There was nothing to miss. The two cases didn't involve the same vaccine. You sound sure. I say again: I may be wrong - but I suspect that the Hep B vaccine used in The Gambia was made from human blood - and they kept using it as American MDs refused it... There is a THIRD case - children in the US. Since American MDs were refusing their own hep B vaccine for fear of catching AIDS - American MDs should have spoken out. I personally, BTW, wouldn't give a patient any standard preventive thing I wasn't willing to take myself. Yet you remain silent as your fellow MDs make infants scream and writhe and bleed through the bogusly NEW "standard preventive thing" not yet officially recognized - except in the 1988 California Medical Association stay-out-of-prison "effective public health measure" resolution alluded to above (CMA Res. 305-88, still in force I believe.) You also remain silent as your fellow MDs temporarily asphyxiate babies and senselessly rob them of massive amounts of blood volume. Meanwhile you gloat about your profession's ability to commit crime: "Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime...These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you." I've had every vaccine you can name, and some you've never heard of. That's nothing. Most children have had vaccines they CAN'T name - vaccines they've never heard of. These vaccines are being obviously fraudulently promoted. See below. ... I mention this because - recently - American MDs didn't go public about thimerosal going into Third World bloodstreams... Or maybe they did and I just missed it? [COMMENT:] Thimerosol's a political problem. Epidemiologically it's a no-show. I believe thimerosal is a political STUNT. Robert Kennedy writes: "Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but...CDC and FDA...[bought] up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries..." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm COMMENT: Robert Kennedy's a no-show, too. Sucked into one of the stupider liberal causes, when the world is full of very genuine problems that need fixing. I believe Robert Kennedy is a political STUNTMAN. One of the "very genuine problems" that need fixing is the problem with vaccines themselves (see below) - thimerosal just diverts attention from the genuine vaccine problem. Tim O'Shea, DC has written that thimerosal is a 'safe scapegoat/whipping boy'... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3729 I agree. THE GENUINE VACCINE PROBLEM... I wrote to Leon Jaroff of TIME magazine: "You concluded your article about two chiropractors expressing their views/promoting vaccination by stating that both chiropractors believe that chiropractors should not express their views about vaccination!...Be advised: *Vaccination as it is currently performed - without obtaining informed consent - is rather obvious mass battery...Even GOOD medicine administered without consent is a battery...See the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision...The fact that the vaccination mass battery isn't being prosecuted does not mean it is not a crime." That's when you (Steve B. Harris, MD) wrote: "Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime...These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you." You ignored the following in my Open Letter to Leon Jaroff of TIME magazine... MDS have hijacked the power word "immunization" to promote their vaccinations. *(MDs are mostly anti-immunization - effectively denying massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations by concealing the fact that BREASTFEEDINGS are immunizations - more on this below.) Vaccinations are not immunizations. *Vaccinations are ATTEMPTED immunizations. *Many children are not immunized by their vaccinations - yet MDs behave as if their vaccinations are 100% effective. It is a fraudulent vaccination promotion - a financial cattle prod. *MDs are telling parents seeking vaccine exemptions that only THEIR children will be sent home during disease outbreaks - only THEY will have to bear the financial burden of staying home from work and/or hiring tutors during disease outbreaks. CDC's maximum vaccination cheerleader Deborah Wexler, MD: "What if you don't [vaccinate] your child?...During disease outbreaks, [unvaccinated] children may be excluded from school or child care until the outbreak is over...for their own protection...This causes hardship for the child and parent." --Wexler's Immunization Action Coalition/IAC http://www.immunize.org/catg.d /p4017.htm Here is the fraudulent vaccination promotion as stated by the largest pediatric trade union: "Parents should be advised of state laws...which may require that [unvaccinated] children stay home from school during outbreaks." --American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP^^^ ^^^From Informing patients and parents. In: Pickering LK, ed. 2000 Red Book: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, 25th ed. Elk Grove Villiage, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics 2000:4. Quoted in Frederickson et al. Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:401 Parents are asked to SIGN the obvious fraud: "If my child does not receive the vaccine(s)...consequences may include...the need for my child to stay out of daycare or school during disease outbreaks." --American Academy of Pediatrics 2002 http://www.cispimmunize.org/pr o/pdf/RefusaltoVaccinate2.doc THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION Since many children are not immunized by their vaccinations, ALL parents should be told that ALL children will be sent home during disease outbreaks. It is simply wrong for MDs to endanger vaccinated children not immunized by their vaccinations in their fraudulent "disease outbreak" vaccination promotion scenario. I should note here that the "herd immunity" reply of Jeff P.Utz, MD to my criticisms was good...Jeff usually doesn't come up with good replies... http://health.groups.yahoo.com /group/chiro-list/message/3569 But MDs need to finally openly admit their vaccination promotion fraud - and the fact that they are mostly anti-immunization. MDs ARE MOSTLY ANTI-IMMUNIZATION - LYING BY OMISSION As indicated above, organized medicing is lying by omission thereby denying massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations. Organized medicine is failing to inform pregnant women that if they breastfeed they will automatically scan for pathogens and manufacture specific IMMUNIZATIONS for their babies on a daily basis - and these immunizations reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better. MDs are ignoring a SIMPLE way to make the breastfeeding (immunization) and vaccination rates skyrocket. What woman, informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily and (reportedly) make MD-needle-vaccinations work better is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT to breastfeed/immunize her baby daily? VACCINE SAFETY: *TRULY BIZARRE FRAUDULENT VACCINATION PROMOTION BY MDs... One of the saddest commentaries on organized medicine's attitude regarding establishing vaccine safety is pediatrician Martin Smith's essay about the passage of the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act," published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Pediatrics 1988;82(2):264-9] In his essay, Smith [1988] wrote that "members should be informed of the necessity that led to the inclusion of some of the provisions in the act as they now exist." Specifically, Smith [1988] noted that "many [vaccine] administrators have not heretofore practiced" reporting adverse events; but that "these requirements *had to be accepted* in the process of negotiations through the years - because "Congress had *demanded* the inclusion of the reaction reporting requirement as a condition to the legislation." (Emphasis added.) In noting that Congress's adverse reaction reporting requirement will give "a better epidemiologic store of information," Smith [1988] admitted a key point: *No one knows "the real facts" about vaccine reactions/vaccine safety! [Smith M. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. Pediatrics 1988;82(2):264-9] According to the subsequent National Academy of Sciences vaccine safety report mandated by the Act, "many gaps and limitations of knowledge bear...directly and indirectly on the safety of vaccines...[including]...limit ed capacity of existing surveillance systems of vaccine injury..." [Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV. Adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines. National Academy Press 1991] How bad are existing physician surveillance systems of vaccine injury? Hopefully they are better than they were in 1993 when former FDA commissioner David Kessler, M.D. reported evidence that physicians fail to report up to 99% of serious adverse events. [Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA (Jun2)1993;269(21):2765-68] Kessler [1993] said that in spite of the fact that reports from health professionals are "essential" to ensure safety of medicines, physicians "do not think to report adverse events." Also according to Kessler [1993], physician reporting of serious adverse events "is not in the culture of US medicine" because, as of 1985, only 14% of US medical schools had required courses in "therapeutic decision making." The CDC's Vaccine Information Sheet for Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) states, "As with any medicine, there are very small risks," which implies that "any medicine" carries "very small risks" Given FDA commissioner Kessler's statement that one study found that physicians fail to report 99% of serious adverse events, "any medicine" might actually be quite risky. *And since the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet compares vaccine risk with the risk of "any medicine," vaccines might be just as risky as "any medicine." *Thus the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet "warning" (that vaccines carry "very small risks") is worthless. Incidentally, although the courts claim that parents are "warned" about vaccines, the word "warning" does not appear anywhere on the CDC MMR Vaccine Information Sheet; nor, incidentally, does the MMR Vaccine Information Sheet state that some states have "religious" and "philosophical" exemptions. FDA Commissioner Kessler's 1993 report states, "If an adverse event occurs in perhaps one in 5000 or even one in 1000 users, it could be missed in clinical trials but pose a serious safety problem when released to the market." END excerpt of Gastaldo's Open Letter to TIME magazine Steve B. Harris, MD continued - offering his version of a "genuine vaccine problem"... Such as how to vaccine the third world cheaply. Here we have one child die of preventable measles EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY in Africa, and this moron JFK,Jr is worried that we might be giving them **autism**? Of the 1.8 million vaccine preventable deaths in the third world, HALF are measles. Screw the thimerosal. Those kids need MMR and they need it *yesterday.* And RFK,Jr seems something to keep him busy, like organized crime. Steve, regardless whether vaccines and thimerosal are as safe as you indicate, many children in Africa need FOOD, SHELTER AND CLEAN WATER. Food, shelter and clean water would certainly be my priorities were I an African child. Until I had those needs met, I would not want foreigners injecting poison into me to MAYBE prevent liver cancer 60 years later - and to prevent a disease (Hep B) that I am not suffering from. The Hep B/liver cancer campaign seems strange on its face. As I noted (and you snipped): "...the world public is unaware that millions (billions?) are being spent to innoculate children to MAYBE prevent the adult cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma - as 50% of African children in some areas starve to death. [50% mortality rate is from Sachs MY and Martin AS (Eds.): Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Volume 2: Africa, 7th ed., 1988, New York: Worldmark Press, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]" Say, if he could just get a brother elected president, maybe he could get to be attorney general.... Meanwhile he's a pretty pathetic characature of his relatives. Medicine is a pretty pathetic caricature of science. This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct "poison" like thimerosal, and regardless of the evidence for, or against, liberals will try to hamstring a program that will save 3/4 million kids a year, to keep it from being used. Unintended consequences. They don't care. If the solution doesn't fit their utopian vision, they'd rather *prevent* a reasonable version of it used at all. Disgusting! Your fellow American MDs are making babies scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die and lose their penis - and you are silent. Your fellow American MDs are temporarily asphyxiating babies and robbing them of up to 50% of their blood - and you are silent. THAT is disgusting. Thanks for the Hep B references - but I think they are suspect as the African penis studies which as noted above I believe are being conducted because American MDs stand to go to prison. Readers, after Steve's Hep B refs, there are a few last notes below from when he slapped the RN online... 1: Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 1999 Dec;13(4):511-7. Prospects for hepatitis B virus eradication and control of hepatocellular carcinoma. Chang MH, Chen DS. Department of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei. Hepatitis B virus infection is the most common cause of chronic hepatitis, liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma worldwide. In areas hyperendemic for HBV infection, the related complications occur mostly during adulthood. However, nearly half of all primary infection in chronic carriers occurs in the perinatal period through maternal transmission, the other half arising from horizontal transmission mainly through intrafamilial spread or injection using unsterilized needles. A universal vaccination programme is better than immunization for at-risk groups. Hepatitis B vaccination should be integrated into the Expanded Programme on Immunization in children. Universal immunization against hepatitis B virus has proved to be effective in reducing the hepatitis B carrier rate to one-tenth of the prevalence before the vaccination programme in highly endemic areas, and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children has also been shown to be significantly reduced. Continued efforts to implement universal vaccination programmes worldwide will very likely reduce the incidence of hepatitis B virus-related diseases, particularly liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 10654916 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 2: JAMA. 2000 Dec 20;284(23):3040-2. Hepatitis B vaccination and hepatocellular carcinoma rates in boys and girls. Chang MH, Shau WY, Chen CJ, Wu TC, Kong MS, Liang DC, Hsu HM, Chen HL, Hsu HY, Chen DS; Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group. Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan S. Road, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China. CONTEXT: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a male predominance and is closely related to hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Hepatitis B virus vaccination was launched in 1984 in Taiwan for neonates of mothers carrying hepatitis B e antigen, resulting in a decreased incidence of HCC in children. The effect on boys vs girls is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between a HBV vaccination program with incidence of childhood HCC by sex. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of data collected from Taiwan's National Cancer Registry System and the Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group between 1981 and 1996. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 6 to 14 years who were diagnosed as having HCC (201 boys and 70 girls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASU Incidence of HCC in boys and girls before and after implementation of the vaccination program. RESULTS: The boy-girl incidence ratio decreased steadily from 4.5 in 1981-1984 (before the program's introduction) to 1.9 in 1990-1996 (6-12 years after the vaccination program was launched). The incidence of HCC in boys born after 1984 was significantly reduced in comparison with those born before 1978 (relative risk [RR], 0.72; P =.002). No significant decrease in HCC incidence was observed in girls born in the same periods (RR, 0.77; P =.20). The incidence of HCC in boys remained stable with increasing age, while an increase of HCC incidence with age in girls was observed. These age and sex effects remained the same regardless of birth before or after the vaccination program. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that boys may benefit more from HBV vaccination than girls in the prevention of HCC. PMID: 11122592 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 3: Cancer J. 2004 Mar-Apr;10(2):67-73. Hepatocellular carcinoma: paradigm of preventive oncology. O'Brien TR, Kirk G, Zhang M. Viral Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland 20852, USA. Morbidity and mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which is primarily caused by hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus, can be prevented. Public health interventions have eliminated transfusion transmission of these viruses and, in endemic countries with effective hepatitis B virus vaccination programs, have greatly reduced incident hepatitis B virus infections (and HCC) in children. Antiviral treatment can eliminate detectable hepatitis C virus in 50%-80% of chronically infected patients, presumably reducing their risk of cancer. HCC survival rates remain universally poor, but early detection and treatment in developed countries has improved survival in selected patients. Despite these advances, worldwide HCC rates remain high, and additional preventive efforts are needed. The most important opportunity is wider distribution of hepatitis B virus vaccine in endemic areas. Development of an HCV vaccine, improved antiviral therapies, and better methods for HCC detection would also help decrease morbidity and mortality from HCC. HCC prevention efforts provide a paradigm for preventive oncology in cancers of viral etiology. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 15130266 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 4: Zhonghua Min Guo Xiao Er Ke Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi. 1998 Nov-Dec;39(6):366-70. Hepatocellular carcinoma in children. Chang MH. Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most frequent malignancies in humans. Although it occurs mainly in adults of 40 to 60 years of age, it may develop in children. It mainly occurs in children older than six years of age, with male predominance. Children with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and underlying metabolic diseases are the two main high risk groups for childhood HCC. HBV infection is the main cause of childhood HCC in areas hyperendemic for HBV infection. In Taiwan, nearly 100% of HCC children were hepatitis B surface antigen seropositive. Maternal transmission (94%) is the most important route of transmission of HBV infection in HCC children. For HBV related HCC in children, immunization is the most effective way for the control of childhood HCC. The first universal vaccination against HBV in the world was launched in Taiwan in July 1984. The prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigenemia in children declined from 10% in 1984, prior to the vaccination program, to 1% in 1994, 10 years after the implementation of the program, in children less than 9 years of age. The annual incidence of HCC in children aged 6 to 9 years of age also decreased from 0.52 per 100,000 born in 1974-1984 to 0.13 per 100,000 born in 1984-1986. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 9926508 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 5: N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 26;336(26):1855-9. Comment in: N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 26;336(26):1906-7. Universal hepatitis B vaccination in Taiwan and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children. Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group. Chang MH, Chen CJ, Lai MS, Hsu HM, Wu TC, Kong MS, Liang DC, Shau WY, Chen DS. Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei. BACKGROUND: A nationwide hepatitis B vaccination program was implemented in Taiwan in July 1984. To assess the effect of the program on the development of hepatocellular carcinoma, we studied the incidence of this cancer in children in Taiwan from 1981 to 1994. METHODS: We collected data on liver cancer in children from Taiwan's National Cancer Registry, which receives reports from each of the country's 142 hospitals with more than 50 beds. Data on childhood liver cancer were also obtained from Taiwan's 17 major medical centers. To prevent the inclusion of cases of hepatoblastoma, the primary analysis was confined to liver cancers in children six years of age or older. Data were also obtained on mortality from liver cancer among children. RESULTS: The average annual incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children 6 to 14 years of age declined from 0.70 per 100,000 children between 1981 and 1986 to 0.57 between 1986 and 1990, and to 0.36 between 1990 and 1994 (P0.01). The corresponding rates of mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma also decreased. The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children 6 to 9 years of age declined from 0.52 for those born between 1974 and 1984 to 0.13 for those born between 1984 and 1986 (P0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Since the institution of Taiwan's program of universal hepatitis B vaccination, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children has declined. PMID: 9197213 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 6: Semin Oncol. 2001 Oct;28(5):441-9. The epidemiology and prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma. Monto A, Wright TL. GI Research, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cancer. Its incidence is higher in countries where hepatitis B is endemic. HCC is substantially a complication of liver cirrhosis. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are the predominant causes of cirrhosis, and as such, HCC. The link between HCC and alcoholic cirrhosis is less strong. Other less common forms of chronic liver disease can also lead to HCC. HBV is the HCC-determining disease worldwide. In endemic regions, it tends to be acquired early in life. The largest strides in prevention of HCC have been made with the HBV vaccine. HCV has a lower global prevalence than HBV, but HCV causes the most HCC in economically developed regions. In these areas, where the incidence of HCC is low, HCV now accounts for more than 50% of HCCs. There is no vaccine for HCV, so prevention of HCV-associated HCC will focus on prevention of initial infection and elimination of infection through antiviral therapies. HBV-HCV coinfection, and the combination of either with alcohol abuse or aflatoxin exposure seems to raise the risk of HCC development further. Liver transplantation and other adjuvant therapies may offer better options for secondary prevention of HCC than resection alone. Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 11685737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 7: Cancer Detect Prev. 1991;15(4):313-8. Design and compliance of HBV vaccination trial on newborns to prevent hepatocellular carcinoma and 5-year results of its pilot study. Sun Z, Zhu Y, Stjernsward J, Hilleman M, Collins R, Zhen Y, Hsia CC, Lu J, Huang F, Ni Z, et al. Cancer Institute, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, PRC. A large-scale, controlled study of universal immunization of newborns against HBV infection has been conducted in the high incidence area of hepatocellular carcinoma, Qidong County of China. This area has a stable population, standardized cancer registration system, and an epidemiological base for measurements of liver cancer prevention by vaccine. Randomization was done on the community level. The vaccination and the control group each will consist of 38,000 children by the end of 1990. It is anticipated that the design will provide high statistical power to detect 50% reduction in the prevalence rate of chronic hepatitis among the vaccinees vs. the controls at 6 to 10 years of age, and 50% reduction in the incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma at 35 to 40 years of age. The vaccine used is Hep-B Vax, donated by Merck and Co. through WHO. The vaccine was administered at 0, 1, and 6 months after birth, the dosage of 5 or 2.5 micrograms in the pilot study as used before 1985 and of 5 micrograms dose level during the main study starting from January 1, 1985. About 85% of the cohorts have now entered the protocol. The vaccination coverage during 1984 to 1989 was 98.0% (35,064/35,789). Follow-up of the vaccinees and the age-matched controls at 5 years has exceeded 97%. The cumulative mortality in the vaccinated group up to 1988 was 1.29% (354/27,450). No single death nor serious adverse reaction was found that was associated with vaccination. The use of HBV vaccine at a reduced dose was especially important for the developing countries at the present time in order to achieve widespread immunization. Five-year results of the pilot study of this vaccination project showed that significant protection against HBV infection was achieved with the 5 or 2.5 micrograms per dose regimen plus a booster of 5 micrograms given at 3.5 to 4 years of age.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial PMID: 1665400 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] When Rick Churcher, RN wrote: "I didn't say nursing has nothing to do with medicine. I said nursing wasn't part of the medical profession, and it isn't." First you LIED to Mr. Churcher: "[A]n insurance company...doesn't want its money going for quackery,religion...or whatever..."^^^ Then you verbally SLAPPED him: "You'll do as you're told...or somebody (and it may even be me) will get your frigging ass fired. I promise." See MD slaps RN/Two MDs on nurse practitioners (Clergyman Harris and High Priest Borao) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ chiro-list/message/867 ^^^If insurance companies didn't want their money going for "quackery, religion...or whatever" - THEY would help expose the the Four OB Lies. To read the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)... See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606 Part of the reason MDs can get away with their lies and obvious crimes is by professionally slapping RNs. I was pleased when various RNs contacted me to indicate their appreciation of my "ACOG's 2005 edition" post. Thanks for reading Steve. Sincerely, Your friend, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon This response to Steve B. Harris, MD will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "The MD who slapped the nurse/A nation of 'ninnies'" |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote: This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct "poison" like thimerosal, and regardless of the evidence for, or against, liberals will try to hamstring a program that will save 3/4 million kids a year, to keep it from being used. Unintended consequences. They don't care. If the solution doesn't fit their utopian vision, they'd rather *prevent* a reasonable version of it used at all. Disgusting! Actually, trying to tag the anti-thimerosal crowd as "liberals" is rather disgusting in its own right. The anti-thimerosal people are a mixture of Luddite nitwits and relatives of autistic children who are looking for someone to blame. This sort of thing crosses all ideological boundaries -- or are you going to tell me that good ol' Dan Burton (R-Ind) is a "liberal"? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote: This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison paranoia people. I always thought liberals were the people who wanted to extend healthcare benefits to cover all individuals living in the U.S. Or at the very least, expand government programs serving uninsured children and provide childhood immunizations regardless of nationality/immigration status, sort of like the Kennedy/Kerry proposal. Caledonia |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Bohlman wrote: "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote in oups.com: This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct "poison" like thimerosal, and regardless of the evidence for, or against, liberals will try to hamstring a program that will save 3/4 million kids a year, to keep it from being used. Unintended consequences. They don't care. If the solution doesn't fit their utopian vision, they'd rather *prevent* a reasonable version of it used at all. Don't tar all liberals with the same brush. The subset you're correctly railing against are largely motivated by Romantic ideology and would more correctly be described as "pseudo-liberals" just as many authoritarians have been described as "pseudo-conservatives." COMMENT: Thanks for the thoughtful message. Don't tar all liberals with the same brush. The subset you're correctly railing against are largely motivated by Romantic ideology and would more correctly be described as "pseudo-liberals" just as many authoritarians have been described as "pseudo-conservatives. COMMENT: I'm of course using the words conservative and liberal as we use them in the US, which is not the same way they are used in the UK or Canada (say). I don't think the US conservative even has a counterpart in politics in most places (maybe the Israeli Likud). The US liberal in most places would be a called conservative, and the liberal of Canada and the UK, would be closer to a US socialist. The John Stuart Mills classical liberal (my own affiliation) is nowadays called a libertarian, and isn't understood by any major party, except in bits. "Conservative" classically means somebody who harkens back to the past, but if we're stuck in post-modernism, it's rather difficult to tell what conservatives are supposed to believe in. You can call properly them reactionaries, since they are usually to be found opposing the "progressive" ideas of the progressives, where the progressive idea is usually to make the central government responsible for it (whatever it is), at some cost in your taxes. Note the "conservative" politicians can have "progressive" ideas, with the classic one here in the US being Bush's idea to have the Feds more closely control K-12 education (now there's a brilliant idea-- Feds on your schoolboard). Mostly in the US, we just use the term "conservative" for religious Christians who don't trust the government, but (as with that Bush K12 initiative, not to mention Homeland Security) they can be confusing when they get into office. Our "conservatives" often don't include the Roman Catholics, who may be religious and Christian, but who have as much faith in government as Teddy Kennedy or author Tom Clancey does. Which is a lot. Teddy is not a conservative. As for Tom Clancey, who knows? He does have the Catholic love of, and faith in, bureaucracy, including military bureaucracy, so is hard to place. Teddy has the same, but hates the military, so is easy to place. One similarity is that they tend to view third-world people in "noble savage" terms, worrying greatly that their "traditional ways of life" might come to an end. They never seem to ask the objects of their concern whether or not they *want* to continue living the same way they did millennia ago (I'm reminded of a quote from a woman in Africa who said she wished she could afford (gasp!) *herbicides* to spray on her crops. When asked why, she said she wanted her children to go to school and learn to read and write instead of spending their days stooping in the fields picking weeds). They consist largely of upper-middle-class women, but they idealize societies in which women spend most of their time barefoot, pregnant, and completely at the mercy of men. They take at face value the claims of the most reactionary and authoritarian elements of any "oppressed" society, oblivious to the fact that those "leaders" are simply third-world equivalents of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (www.butterfliesandwheels.com discusses this in great detail). COMMENT: Yes, yes. But I think you're wrong to view this as "pseudo-liberalism." It's real gold-standard liberalism, a part of the maternalistic liberalism of Hilary "It takes a village to raise a child" Clinton and a lot of others. And sure, they're reactionaries when it comes to technology--- that doesn't mean they're not "progressives" when it comes to everything else. But that doesn't make them pseudo-liberals. Ralph Nader is not a pseudo-liberal. Nader didn't split the Republican party in the 2000 election, he split the Democratic party. He split the liberals and the Left. The Right paid no attention to him at all, except to thank Jesus for him. This branch of the Left really consists of reactionaries in progressives' clothing. COMMENT: Nah, it consists of progressives who happen to be reactionary when it narrowly comes to matters of technology, because they don't understand it. And, often, because being female they are missing any love of technology for its own sake (which I think is written into the genes of most men). But that's it. I don't think they distrust technology because they're romantics. As often as not, they're romantics for entirely different reasons (like the Nazis) and *would* be lovers of technology if they had the gonads for it (like the Nazis). Romanticism has historically rather quickly led to authoritarianism, even fascism. It contains a streak of anti-urbanism that often has a sub-streak of anti-semitism. COMMENT Oh, that's WAY overgeneralized. A romantic moment was part of an authoritarian process in France, Germany and Italy, but not in England or America. Peoples have their own personalities and make each influence their own. Every country has its romantic movements in the arts or politics. Sometimes it leads to violence and authoritarianism, and sometimes not. Certainly fascism was built on a peculiar romanticism in Italy and (if you insist on calling Nazis fascists) in Germany also. But the emotionalism and idealism of romanticism is merely a way of controlling the masses and getting the votes, especially when times are hard and the past is easy to look to. Romanticism is also a way of resurrecting any country or people from the past. Romantic movements gave us modern Poland, and some of those same Romantic Poles gave us modern Israel. As for antisemitism, I would argue that it was most often a feature of German romanticism merely because the Germans themselves were so often antisemitic. So if the German romantics happened not to like Jews, like Wagner and Wagner's major fan Hitler, you find it in their work. But you don't find it in Nietzsche, and I don't think it's particularly somehow necessary or promoted by Romanticism. Yes, you'd think it would be natural in pastoral movements to vilify urbanites like Jews. Thus I've heard Rousseau accused of antisemitism, and it's a good myth, but as I read him there's no truth in it. Ultimately, it stems from the conviction that humans are inherently evil. How it came to be seen as part of the Left is unclear, though it appears that a lot of it entered through the 1960s counterculture; old-school leftists and their ideological descendants don't seem to be much affected by such nonsense. I've become convinced that when neo-Romantics talk about "health," they're actually talking about achieving a sense of personal *purity*. I think much of the "poison paranoia" is actually a feeling of being ritually unclean COMMENT: Ritual unclean if the paranoics are Jewish, but just "unclean" if they aren't. Yes, indeed, it's handwashing-type personal purity. We hear of people who worry if the inside of their colons aren't clean. Clearly nuts. But how did this get to be part of the Left? Because there was no other place to put these folks. These people usually think of themselves as progressives, and what else do you call them? Are you going to argue with them? Asking people about nuclear power or pesticides is nearly a perfect litmus test for which side of the political spectrum they're going to be on. The same with liability law. When somebody sues his way into being a governor like Sid McMath, or a Senator like John Edwards, he's never a Republican. Injury lawyers are not high on the list of people Republicans admire. It isn't the evangelicals that form the core of the right who seem to be too worried about being detoxified and having poisons in their environments. They are washed in the Blood of the Lamb, don't you know, so they don't need the EPA. I can only conclude that they've been inoculated against such fears by their particular brand of protestantism. Neither Catholics nor Jews, and certainly not secularists, trust providence to protect them from this stuff. And that's the left-right divide in the US: Do you really believe in an imminent god, who's good against toxins? Or do you actually have to (tikkun; Kashrit) "do-it-yourself"? SBH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | May 30th 05 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | March 30th 05 06:34 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | July 29th 04 05:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |
Do Plant and Droaner claim insufficient spanking for Klebold and Harris caused Columbine? | Kane | Spanking | 13 | May 21st 04 03:29 AM |