So. Now you Know.
So. Now you Know.
I wonder how many practitioners take this into consideration when treating patients?
On Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration proposed stronger warning labels for acetaminophen, widely known by the brand name Tylenol, and the common class of pain relievers known as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs. This group includes ibuprofen and aspirin.
Considering the familiarity of these medicines, many consumers assume they are safe.
However, the FDA estimates that 200,000 Americans are hospitalized every year because of overdoses and side effects of normal doses of these drugs, and they are the cause of thousands of deaths per year.
“Too many people assume these drugs are 100 percent safe because they are available over the counter,” said Dr. Roshini Rajapaksa, assistant professor of medicine in New York University School of Medicine’s division of gastroenterology.
The drugs can also cause gastrointestinal problems and liver damage.
“In people over 60, the most common cause of gastritis, peptic ulcers and upper [gastrointestinal] bleeding is the use of NSAIDs,” said Dr. Joel Weinstock, professor and chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston.
Weinstock adds that acetaminophen also has dangers.
“Use of Tylenol, particularly with alcohol, can readily cause hepatitis and liver failure,” he said. “This happens frequently. Some of these patients will require liver transplant because the damage to the liver is so severe.”
“If these drugs had just come to the market today, I would not be surprised if they would require prescriptions and would not be available for over-the-counter sale,” Weinstock said.
Manufacturers Step Forward
Prominent manufacturers and distributors of pain relievers have expressed their willingness to adhere to enhanced labeling requirements.
In a statement issued Tuesday, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the makers of the acetaminophen pill Tylenol and the ibuprofen drug Motrin, said they had “previously implemented a number of the proposals in the FDA OTC monograph labeling recommendations released today, and will continue to work with the FDA to ensure appropriate information is provided to consumers.”
Linda Suydam, president of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, said in a statement Tuesday that many of the trade association’s member companies had also already implemented label improvements.
“As FDA states in this proposed rule, consumers should remain confident that over-the-counter analgesics continue to be safe and effective,” Suydam said. “The reality is, however, that over-the-counter medicines are real medicines with real risks if misused.”
Certain Painkillers More Dangerous Than Most Realize
Not everyone agrees that the over-the-counter painkillers targeted by the regulations are safe.
“Acetaminophen is a very dangerous drug,” said Dr. John Brems, professor of surgery and chief of intra-abdominal transplantation at Loyola University in Chicago.
Brems says he admits at least a dozen patients every year suffering liver failure caused by the drug.
“Many of these patients took acetaminophen in addition to alcohol,” he said. “I end up transplanting three to four patients per year, and two to three die before we can transplant them. It is probably the most dangerous OTC drug in this country.”
Some suggest that acetaminophen’s over-the-counter availability indicates a lack of awareness of its danger.
“[Acetaminophen] is a leading cause of death from pharmaceuticals,” said Dr. Edward Boyer, chief of the division of medical toxicology at the University of Massachusetts. “The fact that it is an OTC medication suggests to the uninformed a lack of danger associated with its use.”
Many patients assume that painkillers like acetaminophen are completely safe because they are available not only through doctors, but also through pharmacies, grocery stores, and even gas stations.
“Consumers usually have no idea of the toxicity of OTC drugs,” said Dr. Walter Peterson, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. “They believe that because they are OTC, they are safe.”
Abuse Remains Most Dangerous Mistake
Most of those who endanger their health with pain relievers do so by simply taking too much of the drug too quickly.
“We know that people occasionally use the products outside the product label — sometimes on a physician’s recommendation, sometimes on their own, and sometimes inadvertently,” said Randy Juhl, former chair of the FDA Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee and vice chancellor for research conduct and compliance at the University of Pittsburgh.
Occasionally, the overdose is intentional.
“I think that most people don’t understand just how dangerous these drugs are,” Boyer said. “For example, I know of a ‘weight loss club’ whose members ingested [acetaminophen] because they knew it would make them vomit. The girls in the club kept winding up in hospitals. … And nobody could figure it out until one died.”
Acetaminophen is also a common drug for those who attempt suicide by overdose.
In most cases, however, the overdoses are unintentional, and the mistake is often an easy one to make.
“Consumers are generally not aware of the four-gram maximum daily dose of acetaminophen,” said Edward Krenzelok, director of the Pittsburgh Poison Center and professor of pharmacy and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Worse, for children the maximum dose is significantly smaller, at 2.6 grams per day.
Yet many adults and children may be in danger of overdosing because they don’t perceive the drug as potentially harmful.
“Most people underestimate the potency of medications, and may act on the principle that ‘if one is good, two is better,'” said Dr. Vivian Tellis, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Montefiore Medical Center in New York City.
In addition, because numerous “combination” medications contain significant amounts of pain relievers mixed in with other active ingredients, consumers may end up taking many different brands at once.
“Often people take over-the-counter compounds for cold, cough, sinus problems, allergies, arthritis or other common conditions,” said Dr. Doris Cope, professor and vice chair for pain medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine’s Department of Anesthesiology. “These proprietary medications, more often than not, already contain the maximum daily doses of acetaminophen, aspirin or ibuprofen.”
“When a patient then adds acetaminophen, aspirin or ibuprofen they will reach toxic doses without even realizing how much they have taken,” Cope said.
Alcohol is another factor that makes certain OTC drugs even more damaging to the liver. Though the danger of mixing alcohol with acetaminophen has been publicized in the past, many remain unaware of the danger.
“The risk of liver damage with Tylenol is significant, when taken in high doses and when mixed with alcohol,” Rajapaksa said. “Even in only slightly higher doses, Tylenol can cause liver damage in susceptible people. And Tylenol is the No. 1 cause of acute liver failure in the U.S.”
Effect of FDA Regulations May Be Negligible
Even though the labeling guidelines proposed by the FDA will likely be applied to boxes and bottles, the impact of the warnings may not be enough to protect many consumers.
“It probably will have little impact on the patient since many do not read the label anyway,” Krenzelok said.
As for physician reaction to the labeling changes, Krenzelok said, “I do not think that it will change the prescribing habits of many physicians. Most probably have a degree of comfort with these meds.”
Some in the medical community, however, remain optimistic that the stronger labeling will have a positive effect.
“Physicians will continue to recommend these medications, but both the patient and the physician will become more aware of side effects,” Weinstock said. “They will stop these medications more readily if early signs of side effects develop.”
“Perhaps the most helpful aspect of the labeling change is the provision for all products containing these drugs to prominently display that characteristic on the label,” Juhl said.
“This should reduce the inadvertent overdosing that may occur when consumers take — or give to their kids — two or three products all of which contain acetaminophen or another NSAID.”
4 years ago, P & W implemented a polarities feature into the Therapeutic Pocket book for trialing and testing. The results of our findings led us to conclude that the inclusion of the polarities model was detrimental to a homoeopathic prescription.
In the entire writings and case examples of Boenninghausen, NO WHERE do we see the numerical value of a rubric used as an arbiter for prescription.
The grading of the symptom rubric defines the occurrence or reliability or clinical observation of its usefulness for consideration, NOT its intensity or absoluteness in a symptoms presence.
A value of 1 or a value of 4, does not negate a choice of a lesser “value” symptom if the Materia Medica indicates that the remedy with the smaller numerical value is the most similar.
In short, a medical proving of a substance either shows the production of a symptom or it does not. An absence of a symptom is NOT included in a repertorization analysis, and should have no bearing on the choice of medication. Neither should a “lesser value” be taken into consideration as the combination of rubric choices should lead to a study of indicated remedies in the Materia Medica for sole selection of a similar.
The inclusion of the Polarities table, in our researched conclusion, is detrimental to the homoeopathic prescription. It is flawed from the beginning by making the Therapeutic Pocket the instrument of remedy choice rather than using the book as defined by Boenninghausen as a guide to the Materia Medica.
We would encourage every physician to concentrate on accurate case taking and learn to use the T.P.B. as intended for accurate, precise and repeatable good prescribing.
Below is a research trial documented, which concludes that the use of the polarities is efficaceous. We would point you to a single telling insertion in the study, which we believe is the weakness of the whole premise:
The study, being a rigorous clinical test of homeopathy, also unmasked weaknesses of the method. Due to a low percentage of initially correct prescriptions the suspicion arose, that parents do not report symptoms precisely. Analysis of 100 unsuccessful prescriptions in children who finally improved with another homeopathic remedy, enabled identification of misleading symptoms. Frequently these were sensations and mind symptoms, while modalities (especially aggravations) and polar symptoms usually proved to be reliable information for repertorisation. The exclusion of unreliable symptoms led to an improvement of results,but also often resulted in oligosymptomatic cases, i.e., cases with only few usable symptoms. This problem was resolved by an experimental reintroduction of (pathognomonic) perception symptoms into repertorisation, which again improved our positive treatment results significantly.
The prescribers in this single paragraph, indicate a telling lack of knowledge of how to use the T.P.B. There is a singular and collective mixing of unrelated symptoms based on a lack of correct application to the case. The whole reason for initial case failure is contained therein. This is not a criticism of individuals, just a scientific observation of their own findings.
[gview file=”http://www.heinerfrei.ch/downloads/Downloads%20Publikationen/DL_13_YHOMP474.pdf” cache=”0″]
For a properly trained homoeopath, useful information can be gleaned from knowing the causation. From time to time a well prescribed homeopathic medicine fails to hold, and despite judicious repeating of the same in different potencies, it will not address the issue.
Vaccination is poorly researched, poorly tested and not the panacea it is made out to be. Talking about vaccination is not about medicine, it is about emotion. Just ask a group of people what they think about the use of vaccines and very soon it becomes ‘personal’ and vitriolic. “evidence” is thrown at a questioner, and yet careful dissection of that evidence is not undertaken and evaluated clinically despite the sureity of the medical profession.
Do vaccines work? Go look round the internet for documented comments from both sides of the table and make up your own mind.
Vaccines are the bargain basement of Pharmaceuticals and make them an enormous amount of money for very little work.
Sadly, as years go by, documents are released which show massive cover ups in the testing phase. What other medicine is given blanket immunity by the U.S. government regardless of the side effects caused, even though they would have you believe that there are none.
We mention and discuss vaccines on this blog simply because a practitioner cannot rely on the data sheets supplied by the manufacturer. There is an absence of acceptance of observed reaction, and a denial that the vaccine may to be to blame. If we dont tell you what is happening, no authority will.
It might help to know in treating a patient for certain symptoms, that a vaccine may be the cause and take the appropriate course of specific action required to remove a maintaining cause.
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
7:30AM BST 29 Mar 2012
A study in Finland has found that children vaccinated against the H1N1 swine flu virus with Pandemrix were more likely to develop the sleep disorder narcolepsy.
The condition causes excessive daytime sleepiness and sufferers can fall asleep suddenly and unintentionally.
The researchers found that between 2002 and 2009, before the swine flu pandemic struck, the rate of narcolepsy in children under the age of 17 was 0.31 per 100,000.
In 2010 this was about 17 times higher at 5.3 per 100,000 while the narcolepsy rate remained the same in adults.
Markku Partinen of the Helsinki Sleep Clinic and Hanna Nohynek of the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Finland, also collected vaccination and childhood narcolepsy data for children born between January 1991 and December 2005.
They found that in those who were vaccinated the rate of narcolepsy was nine per 100,000 compared to 0.7 per 100,000 unvaccinated children, or 13 times lower.
The findings were published in the journal Public Library of Sciences One.
Pandemrix was the main vaccine used in Britain against the swine flu epidemic in which six million people were vaccinated.
It was formulated specifically for the swine flu pandemic virus and is no longer in use.
The World Health Organisation has conducted an investigation after the link was first suggested in Finland and Sweden two years ago and found no other countries experienced a increase in narcolepsy rates during or after the pandemic.
A spokesman for the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, said: “The MHRA is aware of the study from Finland concerning Pandemrix vaccine and narcolepsy.
“The data from Finland, as well as from Sweden, were considered as part of an in-depth European safety review of Pandemrix in 2011.
“The outcome of this review was that Pandemrix may only be used in persons aged under 20 years if the annual seasonal vaccine was not available and if there was a particular need to immunise against H1N1. No restrictions on use in adults were imposed, and the EU review acknowledged the important role that Pandemrix played in reducing the consequences of H1N1 in Europe during the pandemic.
“Further work is ongoing to establish if a similar risk is evident in other countries where the vaccine was used. This includes a UK study led by the Health Protection Agency. The MHRA will review any new data as it becomes available.”
Professor Sir David Salisbury, director of immunisation at the Department of Health, said: “The Department of Health is aware of the Finnish data, and keeps all new evidence under review.
“Through the MHRA and HPA, further UK research is going on into the risks associated with Pandemrix.
“This follows a European-wide review last year, which reached the conclusion that Pandemrix may only be used in people under 20 if the annual seasonal vaccine is not available and there is a particular need to immunise against H1N1.”
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Amish children raised on rural farms in northern Indiana suffer fromasthma and allergies less often even than Swiss farm kids, a group known to be relatively free from allergies, according to a new study.
“The rates are very, very low,” said Dr. Mark Holbreich, the study’s lead author. “So there’s something that we feel is even more protective in the Amish” than in European farming communities.
What it is about growing up on farms — and Amish farms in particular — that seems to prevent allergies remains unclear.
Researchers have long observed the so-called “farm effect” — the low allergy and asthma rates found among kids raised on farms — in central Europe, but less is known about the influence of growing up on North American farms.
Holbreich, an allergist in Indianapolis, has been treating Amish communities in Indiana for two decades, but he noticed that very few Amish actually had any allergies.
As studies on the farm effect in Europe began to emerge several years ago, Holbreich wondered if the same phenomenon might be found in the United States.
He teamed up with European colleagues to compare Swiss farming children and non-farming children to Amish kids in Indiana.
Amish families, who can trace their roots back to Switzerland, typically farm using methods from the 1800s and they don’t own cars or televisions.
The researchers surveyed 157 Amish families, about 3,000 Swiss farming families, and close to 11,000 Swiss families who did not live on a farm — all with children between the ages of six and 12.
They found that just five percent of Amish kids had been diagnosed with asthma, compared to 6.8 percent of Swiss farm kids and 11.2 percent of the other Swiss children.
Similarly, among 138 Amish kids given a skin-prick test to determine whether they were predisposed to having allergies, only 10 kids — or seven percent — had a positive response.
In comparison, 25 percent of the farm-raised Swiss kids and 44 percent of the other Swiss children had a positive test, the researchers report in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
The study did not determine why the kids who grew up on farms were less likely to develop asthma and allergies, but other research has pointed to exposure to microbes and contact with cows, in particular, to partially explain the farm effect (see Reuters Health story of May 2, 2012).
Drinking raw cow’s milk also seems to be involved, Holbreich said.
The going theory is this early exposure to the diverse potential allergens and pathogens on a farm trains the immune system to recognize them, but not overreact to the harmless ones.
As for why the Amish kids have even lower allergy and asthma rates than the other farming kids, “that piece of the puzzle we really haven’t explained,” Holbreich told Reuters Health.
He speculated that it could be at least partly a result of the Amish having larger families or spending even more time outside or in barns than people on more modern working farms.
Dr. Corinna Bowser, an allergist in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said there’s also a possibility that inherited factors could play a role.
“The Amish are still of a limited genetic pool, I would assume, because they’re much more segregated than the Swiss kids are,” she told Reuters Health.
Holbreich said upcoming studies will further investigate the differences between the farming groups, with an eye toward designing possible interventions.
For instance, pregnant mothers or young children could be exposed to the mysterious factors that seem to protect farm kids as a preventive treatment, he explained.
“The goal is to try to find a way to prevent this allergy and asthma epidemic that western populations are facing,” Holbreich said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/Kx5841 Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, online April 16, 2012.
By Catherine J. Frompovich | April 29th, 2012
A University of Pittsburgh study showed vaccines altered the behavior in monkeys.
Someone did perform safety studies the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should have mandated be performed and vetted BEFORE numerous vaccines were released into the public sector for mass vaccinations.
Lead investigator Laura Hewitson, PhD, probably dropped a bombshell when she and her colleagues completed a macaque monkey (primates) study of the very same vaccines given to children during 1994-1999, i.e., the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and several Thimerosal mercury-containing vaccines injected into children during that time frame when the autism spectrum disorder skyrocketed.
The results of that pilot study were published as a Research Paper in Acta Neurobiological Experimentals in 2010 and titled “Influence of pediatric vaccines on amydgala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study.”  Even though there was alleged controversy revolving around Hewitson’s monkey studies, e.g., charges of conflicts of interest since she filed a claim with the vaccine court on behalf of her child,  the information generated needs to be revisited and duplicate studies need to be undertaken. Why haven’t they? Is there too much influence from vaccine makers not to do them? Parents need to make demands on the U.S. Congress to require such safety studies on monkeys be duplicated immediately, plus suspend all mandates on vaccinations until the study results are in. Did Dr Hewitson become another professional persona non-gratabecause she may have been on the right track?
Congress needs to consider seriously the Hewitson, et al. report that stated:
“Vaccine-exposed and saline-injected control infants [monkeys] underwent MRI and PET imaging at approximately 4 and 6 months of age, representing two specific timeframes within the vaccination schedule. …
“These results suggest that maturational changes in amygdala volume and the binding capacity of [11C]DPN in the amygdala was significantly altered in infant macaques receiving the vaccine schedule.”
That alone should be the explicit reason for duplicating the monkey study with independent non-pharmaceutical industry conflict of interest scientists.
In this author’s opinion, no one has bigger conflicts of interest in study outcomes than the pharmaceutical makers who routinely perform them. Those are the very studies that should be subject to the same criticism as Dr Hewitson’s. Why aren’t they? Good question?
For those keeping track data, ASD went from 1 in 5,000 in the 1990s to the recently acknowledged [March 2012] figures of 1 in 88 along with 1 in 6 children in the USA having developmental disabilities. These stats were generated for data in the years 2006 to 2008.  There’s a 4 to 6 year lag time. Could ASD be 1 in 50 by now at the rate it is escalating?, especially since there’s a heavier push on mandates for vaccinations.
According to the Hewitson, et al. research study, biological changes and altered behaviors did occur in vaccinated monkeys, which resembled and were similar to those observed in ASD diagnosed children. However, there were no such symptoms showing or present in unvaccinated monkeys. Don’t you just gotta love those little monkeys! Guess what else the ASD monkeys came up with, and Dr Wakefield is gonna like this one: Gastrointestinal problems manifested in vaccinated macaques such as “many significant differences in the GI tissue gene expression profiles between vaccinated and unvaccinated animals.”  It’s been a deeply debated topic within medicine that vaccinated children who contract ASD also have GI tract issues. Personally, I gotta wonder how theBritish Medical Journal is going to deal with encrusted dried egg on its face when duplicate studies confirm the Hewitson monkey results. Perhaps the infamous BMJ retraction of the Wakefield article and Doctor’s professional evisceration, commonly referred to as the “Wakefield Syndrome,” euphemistically speaking is medicine protecting its vested interests.
Those little monkeys, however, came up with some other significant information that led former National Institutes of Health director Dr Bernadine Healy to voice some bon mots like:
“I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as ‘irrational,’ without sufficient studies of causation…without studying the population that got sick.”
“I have not seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of the vaccines.” 
Perhaps the most on-point quote regarding the monkey study came from Scott Bono, the National Autism Association chairman, i.e., something those who are accused of being against vaccinations have been questioning and demanding:
“To date, the CDC has conducted no safety testing on the possible harmful effects of simultaneously administering multiple vaccines to infants, and has steadfastly refused to state a preference for mercury-free vaccines to be given to children and pregnant women. It’s time for HHS and Congress to step in and take vaccine safety away from the CDC.” 
This author’s retort to Mr. Bono’s remark is that vaccine safety should be taken away from the Food and Drug Administration too! I’d like to remind readers that Congress is more at fault than anyone in this vaccine debacle. Congress has oversight and it has dropped the ball big time, probably due to all the lobbyists from Big Pharma who prowl the halls of Congress with deep pockets and nice expensive luncheon dates.
One of the issues I feel Congress has been remiss about is that it has not demanded safety studies and interaction of multiple vaccines studies BEFORE being placed into the marketplace. According to common and accepted knowledge, no such safety research or studies have been done on the current childhood vaccination regimen, except until the Hewitson ‘monkey business’ that was funded by independent, private money, for which everyone, I think, should be eternally grateful. However, the study had to be shot down since it was not favorable to vaccine makers. Why isn’t someone else duplicating the monkey studies? Are they afraid of becoming another victim of science? Why, when isn’t that what medical science should be all about: investigating problems and theories, publishing results, and interacting with other sciences, NOT excommunication as if they were breaking some religious dogma. Or, do they, in some vested interests minds?
Now here is something every VacTruth reader should consider seriously: Supporting Congressman Dan Burton’s (R-5-IN) request to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa to hold hearings on the Vaccination Injury Compensation Program. Back on January 12, 2011, this writer filed a Whistleblower’s Complaint on Vaccines with Chairman Issa and has yet to receive an acknowledgement of that filing.
Isn’t about time to revisit, update, and do more extensive research into the Autism Spectrum Disorder pandemicthat is spreading globally?
April 24, 2012 Congressman Burton posted a letter to The Hill’s Congress Blog titled, “It is time to re-engage on the autism epidemic.” He also wants to pass legislation to force the President to address the ASD epidemic and its impact on Americans. Burton is committed to helping millions of children, adults, and families afflicted with ASD. We need to support Congressman Burton ASAP and here’s how:
For those who want to know about this information, the National Autism Association (www.nationalautism.org) will be holding a rally for toxin-free immunizations in Washington, DC on June 4, 2012, titled “Green Our Vaccines,” which this author thinks is an oxymoron. How can you green vaccines when every ingredient is toxic? Just check out the CDC’s PinkBook Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary athttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf.
Before I leave this article, I would like VacTruth readers to know that my colleague who also writes for VacTruth, Laraine C Abbey, RN (retired) and I co-edited a 150 page monograph in January 2011 titled Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation, which you can read in full on VacTruth athttp://vactruth.com/vaccines-vaccinations-the-need-for-congressional-investigation/.
Apparently others have read it and agree.
Congressman Burton, Nurse Abbey and I congratulate you on taking the stand you have, and we offer you our resources in obtaining a Congressional investigation.
President Obama, Nurse Abbey and I respectfully request a White House conference on Autism, and we offer you our resources to effectuate a non-biased conference.
VacTruth readers, I charge you with spreading this information and article as far and wide as you possibly can so that we can get an investigation that ought to be open, not biased, and the scientific facts—nothing but the facts, like those the monkeys finally had to prove. It was not monkey business; it’s the real deal.
We need to make a mental adjustment when thinking of disease. A ‘disease’ is not a unique entity. It does not exist outside of a living organism. It is a condition, a deviation from a healthy state. Once we comprehend that fact, it allows us to proceed with interpretation and assessment of the individual a lot more comprehensively.
As Stated previously elsewhere, there are known states of disorder which have been classified by symptom exhibition and pathological progression in a known order. These states have occurred, be it a contagion or epidemic, in individuals, albeit from a infecting agent which cause the progression of disorder in the known manner. The organism will exhibit the fundamental reality of altered response and functional changes which can be observed.
In homoeopathic diagnosis, this functional change, according to know pathological progression, according to location and altered responses, is ONE of the diagnosis tools used. Knowledge of progression of a type of disorder is useful to evaluate treatment and give a prognosis of the efficacy of the medicines prescribed. A physician utilising the true Hahnemannian application of therapeutics, will match the individual expression of disease, with an individually required medicine for individual curative purpose. Orthodox medicine will contain its treatment within the parameters of causation and location, ie treat the causative infection and the locale that is affected only. Given that the homoeopathic physician is looking to treat the person suffering under a disease state, it makes it totally imperative that he or she does not get trapped into the nosological form of diagnosis, to the detriment of treating the patient by individualising exhibited symptoms. If we keep the nosological diagnosis firmly in view, but attach a far WIDER significance to it, we can proceed cautiously further in our search for a curative medicine.
Diagnostic issues that face the homoeopath today, are far more complex than naming diseases, and knowledge of the anatomical areas of concern. A homoeopath will have to weigh up carefully and determine what value to place on aetiology and intervening events in the progression of the disorder that has the patient before them today. The physician will have to look past the causation and see what is to be treated RIGHT NOW Regardless of the causation if necessary. The homoeopath will have to take into consideration the reactions to all external stimuli IF there has been changes in reaction since an altered state of health ensued. This is a much widened viewpoint of disease acknowledgement that current medicine allows for.
We cannot ignore pathology. Pathology is a symptom and an observable symptom of part of the disease state. Hence;
A new amendment to California’s Health and Safety Code as it relates to vaccinations will take effect this fall for the 2012-2013 school year, and will require all incoming seventh graders, as well as eighth and twelfth graders for the first year, to get a Tdap booster vaccination for pertussis (whooping cough) before being admitted to school. The website of the Marin County School District, which includes the city of San Francisco, literally states “No shot, No School!” in an apparent attempt to strong-arm parents into complying with the new provision.
Even though students in California can be exempted from any and all vaccinations for medical or personal reasons, most parents are largely unaware of this fact. And because of the 2010 whooping cough outbreak in California, many parents will likely just comply with the new Tdap requirement simply out of fear that their child could be the next victim of the disease, even though the Tdap vaccine itself has been shown to be ineffective at protecting against whooping cough (http://www.naturalnews.com).
Unless parents specifically request a Personal Belief Exemption Form (PBEF) from their local health department’s Immunization Program, their school-age children are required to get whatever vaccinations the State Department of Public Health decides is necessary from year to year. And those wishing to opt out of the new Tdap requirement will need to specifically request a CDPH 8261 form from the school (http://vaclib.org/exempt/states/ca/FAQ-CDPH8261.htm).
The interesting thing about DTaP, Tdap, and other pertussis vaccines is that they have never been tested for long-term safety, and they have never been proven to work. In fact, as we reported previously, the majority of the children who developed whooping cough during the 2010 scare had already been vaccinated against the disease. It was also revealed openly that pertussis vaccinations do not provide “lasting protection” against the disease.
Every California parent has a right to know the truth about Tdap and DTaP, not to mention the many other vaccines they are told their children are required to receive upon entering school for their own safety. They also have a right to know that they can exempt their children from such vaccines for medical or personal reasons. Sadly, most of them know neither, which is why it is crucially important to spread this information far and wide.
Sources for this article include: