study was terminated 3 and patients were told to stop taking Plavix

Plavix Health Risks Confirmed Again

Now, research² investigating the effects of Plavix in combination with aspirin versus using aspirin alone for the prevention of stroke and cognitive decline has confirmed these disturbing results.

In fact, the anti-platelet arm of the study was terminated³ and patients were told to stop taking Plavix and take aspirin only, as it became apparent the Plavix-aspirin regimen significantly increased the risk of death. The combination also doubled the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, and more than doubled fatal hemorrhaging. Previous studies have also demonstrated that Plavix patients have a higher rate of stomach ulcers. Numerous lawsuits have been filed by patients alleging they were injured by this common drug.

Here's something to consider: An aspirin regimen will cost you around $6 per month (or even less than $1 per month if you split regular generic aspirin into quarters), compared to Plavix, which will set you back around $200 per month (or one-tenth of that price if you get generic Clopidogrel).

How in the world can anyone justify the use of a drug that increases your risk of death, and costs 33 to 200 times more than the most common alternative, and to top it all off, call it prevention? It's really amazing how Bristol-Meyers has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes on this one. Even if you take Plavix alone, without aspirin, you're still likely wasting huge amounts of money, and, as the new evidence suggests, taking a higher health risk than you would with low-dose aspirin.

A 1996 Lancet study⁴ comparing Plavix versus aspirin for the prevention of ischaemic events, involving more than 19,000 people followed from one to three years, found that:

"...an intention-to-treat analysis showed that patients treated with clopidogrel had an annual 5.32% risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death compared with 5.83% with aspirin."

Note the words "intention-to-treat analysis." Statistically, when a study uses intention-to-treat analysis, chances are exceptionally great that it has been inadequately applied, "potentially leading to a biased treatment effect," according to a study⁵ assessing the methodological quality of intention-to-treat analysis as reported in randomized controlled trials in large medical journals.

What this means in plain English, is that whenever a study resorts to using intention-to-treat analysis, the data has likely been "massaged" in order to achieve a desired result - in this particular case, showing that Plavix was slightly better than aspirin for reducing your risk of stroke, myocardial infarction and vascular death. According to the authors of the above mentioned investigation into the proper methodology of such analysis:

"The intention to treat approach is often inadequately described and inadequately applied. ...Readers should critically assess the validity of reported intention-to-treat analyses."

A Free and Simple Alternative to Plavix

One of the simplest, most inexpensive (as in free), and effective alternatives to blood thinning drugs like Plavix is "Grounding," also known as "Earthing." The concept of earthing, was initially developed by Clint Ober. Stated in the simplest terms possible, earthing is simply walking barefoot; grounding your body to the Earth. And before you dismiss this concept as some placebo-induced fantasy by tree hugging hippies, know that at least a dozen scientific papers have been published demonstrating the mechanics and measurable physical effects of grounding.

When you're grounded there's a transfer of free electrons from the Earth into your body. And these free electrons are probably the most potent antioxidants known to man. Inflammation is a hallmark of virtually all diseases, so preventing chronic inflammation is key for overall health.

Bare skin in general is a very good conductor. You can connect any part of your skin to the Earth, but if you compare various parts there is one that is especially potent, and that's right in the middle of the ball of your foot, which is precisely where your foot would strike the ground if you were walking. It's a well-known point that conductively connects to all of the acupuncture meridians and essentially connects to every nook and cranny of your body. Any free radicals that leak into the healthy tissue will immediately be electrically neutralized. This occurs because the electrons are negative, while the free radicals are positive, so they cancel each other out.

However, there's more!

Another very important discovery, especially as it relates to grounding as an alternative to blood-thinning drugs, is that grounding thins your blood, making it less viscous – essentially doing the same job that Plavix does, but infinitely safer.

Que son Esteroles

Gracias Omar

Esteroles de origen vegetal contenidos en CHEAT + componentes naturales de las plantas con efectos potenciales de beneficio para la salud.

Los esteroles provenientes de plantas o fitosteroles, son alcoholes esteroides con estructuras químicas similares a la del colesterol (Fig. 1), excepto por un grupo extra metilo o etilo. Cuando los esteroles de las plantas están saturados en la posición 5 de sus anillos æ, se forman los estanoles de las plantas.

Estos últimos no se encuentran con frecuencia en la naturaleza y se derivan usualmente por la hidrogenación de los esteroles de origen vegetal más abundantes son el ß-sitosterol, el campesterol y el estigmasterol.

La ingesta dietaria diaria de los esteroles provenientes de plantas fluctúa entre 167 y 437 mg entre diferentes poblaciones de referencia. Este nivel de ingesta se origina del consumo de aceites vegetales, nueces, semillas y granos. Los aceites vegetales son las fuentes más ricas de esteroles; por ejemplo, el aceite refinado de maíz contiene 7.2-9.50 g de esteroles / kg. La absorción en el humano de los esteroles de plantas es considerablemente menor que la del colesterol.

El % de absorción de diferentes esteroles de plantas y estanoles es <5 0.1-0.14="0.1-0.14" 40-60="40-60" absorci="absorci" al="al" bilis.="bilis." carb="carb" colesterol.="colesterol." colesterol="colesterol" compuestos.="compuestos." consecuentemente="consecuentemente" de="de" del="del" eficiente="eficiente" el="el" eliminan="eliminan" en="en" esteroles="esteroles" estos="estos" estructura="estructura" excreci="excreci" extra="extra" grupos="grupos" humanos="humanos" igual="igual" la="la" las="las" los="los" menos="menos" n="n" niveles="niveles" para="para" plantas="plantas" por="por" que="que" responsables="responsables" se="se" solamente="solamente" son="son" span="span" vs="vs">

Efectos fisiológicos
Debido a su similitud estructural al colesterol, los esteroles de origen vegetal reducen la absorción de colesterol y por lo tanto los niveles circulantes de colesterol. Un meta-análisis de estudios sobre la eficacia de los esteroles de plantas como agentes de reducción de colesterol concluyó que la reducción media en lipoproteínas de baja densidad (LDL), los niveles de colesterol fueron 10.1 y 9.7 % en pruebas clínicas en las que se probaron estanoles y esteroles respectivamente. Se conoce que el consumo de alimentos que contienen esteroles de plantas reduce el colesterol LDL, con el grado ajustado de reducción por el placebo, en un rango de 5 a 15%. Las razones para estas variaciones tan grandes incluyen diferentes dosis y frecuencias de consumo de los es­teroles/estanoles de plantas, diferentes formulaciones de esteroles/estanoles de plantas y diferentes tipos de sujetos de prueba.

Los esteroles provenientes de plantas están siendo incorporados dentro de una amplia variedad de productos alimentarios tales como margarinas, leche, yogurt y jugo de naranja. Estos productos que contienen esteroles/estanoles se conocen como alimentos funcionales. La acción reductiva del colesterol de los esteroles de plantas ha sido reportada en adultos sanos con niveles normales y altos de colesterol y en adultos con hipercolesterolemia familiar o diabetes tipo II. La ingesta de untables enriquecidos con esteroles/estanoles de plantas reduce el LDL colesterol aún en combinación con una dieta reductora de colesterol y baja en grasa.

Muchos expertos ---incluyendo aquellos del “National Cholesterol Education Panel” (USA), “American Heart Association, y la “International Atherosclerosis Society --- han sugerido el consumo de aproximadamente 2g/día de esteroles de plantas como una forma para controlar los niveles de circulación del colesterol LDL.

Evidencias provenientes de estudios in vitro y en animales al igual que estudios de observación en humanos sugieren que los esteroles de plantas poseen propiedades anticáncer. En un estudio observacional, la ingesta de aproximadamente 144 mg/día de esteroles de plantas se asoció con la reducción en riesgo para cáncer de pulmón aún después del control de factores de confusión como fumar tabaco y consumo de vegetales, frutas y substancias antioxidantes.

En otros estudios con humanos, la ingesta dietaria total de esteroles de plantas fue inversamente asociado con cánceres de seno, estomago y esófago. Aún más, mujeres en los más altos cuartiles de las ingestas dietarias totales de esteroles de plantas (>122mg/d) tuvieron un riesgo reducido de cáncer endometrial, e ingestas de más de 521 mg/d redujeron el riesgo de cáncer de ovarios. La asociación de altas ingestas de esteroles de plantas con riesgo reducido de cáncer fue independiente de la ingesta de frutas y vegetales en algunos estudios. En otros estudios, la ingesta alta total de esteroles de plantas explicó la mayor parte de la atenuación en el riesgo de cáncer asociado con ingestas de vegetales y frutas. Por lo tanto, la ingesta de esteroles de plantas podrían reducir el riesgo de desarrollar más de un tipo de cáncer; sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios.

Además de las acciones de reducción de colesterol y anti-cáncer, los esteroles de plantas poseen otros efectos fisiológicos, que incluyen actividades anti-inflamatorias, anti-aterogénicas, y anti-oxidación a través de disminuir la interleucina-6 y el factor de necrosis tumoral æ de los tumores, formación de placas, y los niveles de lipoproteínas de baja densidad oxidadas y el daño al DNA, respectivamente y por lo tanto deben de ser de importancia clínica.

Seguridad de los esteroles de plantas
El uso de esteroles y estanoles ha sido reconocido como seguro para los humanos por la Administración de Alimen­tos y Drogas de los Estados Unidos (FDA) y el Comité Científico sobre Alimentos de la Unión Europea.

Sin embargo, algunos efectos biológicos potencialmente adversos han sido notados. Los esteroles de plantas podrían afectar la absorción de vitaminas lipo-solubles. Los estudios han mostrado que los esteroles de plantas no afectan los niveles de Vitamina D o Vitamina A.

En algunos estudios el consumo de esteroles de plantas mostraron la reducción de carotenoides y licopeno en forma significativa. No obstante, durante el consumo de esteroles de plantas, incrementando la ingesta de frutas y vegetales a igual o mayor de 5 veces por día e incluyendo una o más fuentes ricas en carotenoides, o consumiendo productos que han sido enriquecidos con esteroles de plantas y carotenoides, ha mostrado revertir cualquier supresión en los niveles de carotenoides que resultan de la ingesta de esteroles de plantas. De ahí que, los niveles en plasma de vitaminas lipo-solubles puede ser mantenido dentro de un rango normal si se siguen las recomendaciones dietarias.

Otro aspecto en relación a la seguridad de los esteroles vegetales resulta del hecho que la ingesta de esteroles de plantas aumenta sus niveles en plasma. Si esta condición podría aumentar el riesgo de ateroesclerosis ha causado un debate entre expertos, ya que niveles excesivamente elevados de esteroles de plantas en el plasma se asocian con el raro y letal trastorno autosómico recesivo, sitosterolemia. Sin embargo, un análisis reciente por Chan y co-investigadores de los estudios que examinan la relación entre los niveles circulantes de esteroles de plantas y el riesgo de enfermedades coro­narias del corazón en poblaciones no-sitosterolémicas concluyó que no hay una clara asociación.

Se cree que los efectos de los niveles aumentados de esteroles en plasma son compensados por la reducción en los niveles de colesterol LDL. Aún más, el monitoreo en Europa después de la introducción de untables enriquecidos con esteroles no reportó ningún efecto lateral no previsto.

Debe de hacerse notar que la dieta humana que fue consumida hace varios miles de años contenía aproximadamente 1g de esteroles de plantas por día. Recientemente, ha sido demostrado que los niveles en plasma de esteroles de plantas en línea base no están asociados con, o predictivos de, cambios en niveles en el plasma de esteroles de plantas y niveles de colesterol después de la suplementación de esteroles de plantas.

Adicionalmente, aumentos en los niveles en plasma de los esteroles de plantas permanecieron bastante alejados de los valores expresados en pacientes sitosterolémicos aún en sujetos con altos niveles de esteroles de plantas en la línea base.

Algunos expertos creen que el uso de estanoles de plantas para reducir el colesterol sérico puede ser más seguro que el uso de esteroles de plantas debido a que los estanoles de plantas se absorben en menor extensión que los esteroles de planta y por lo tanto no aumentan la concentración en plasma de los esteroles de plantas. Sin embargo, aumentando la ingesta de estanoles de plantas en lugar de esteroles de plantas puede afectar otros efectos potencialmente benéficos de los esteroles de plantas, incluyendo las acciones anti-inflamatorias y anti-cáncer.

Compuestos adjuntos de esteroles de plantas
Los esteroles de plantas pueden ser esterificados a un amplio rango de substancias, (Fig. 2) que pueden mejorar sus efectos fisiológicos.

En su forma cristalina pura, los esteroles de plantas tienen aplicabilidad limitada en alimentos y por lo tanto deberán ser formulados antes de su incorporación a productos alimenticios. Los métodos más aceptados para optimizar el efecto de los esteroles de plantas sobre la absorción del colesterol han sido disolverlos o suspenderlos en grasas alimentarias y esterificarlos a ácidos grasos de los aceites vegetales.

Por ejemplo, datos provenientes de estudios en humanos han mostrado que los ésteres del aceite de pescado de esteroles de plantas disminuyeron no solamente los niveles circulantes de colesterol pero también los niveles circulantes de triglicéridos. Similarmente, los ésteres del aceite de oliva de esteroles de plantas alteraron favorablemente el perfil de lípidos en plasma y redujeron la susceptibilidad del colesterol LDL a la oxidación. En otro estudio, los ésteres de ácido ascórbico de estanoles redujeron el aumento de peso corporal en hamsters y los niveles en circulación de colesterol y triglicéridos.

Conclusión
Los esteroles de plantas son componentes naturales de las plantas que pueden tener efectos fisiológicos benéficos incluyendo la acción reductora de colesterol, las actividades anti-cáncer, anti-inflamatorias, anti-aterogenicidad y anti-oxidación, y son, por lo tanto, de importancia clínica.

El pequeño aumento en niveles circulantes de esteroles de plantas reportado después de aumentar su ingesta, no es indicativo de que tenga ningún riesgo potencial de daño.

Los efectos fisiológicos benéficos de los esteroles de plantas podrían ser mejorados aún más por su esterificación con otros productos benéficos tales como el aceite de oliva, el aceite de pescado y el ácido ascórbico.

La adición de los esteroles de plantas a la dieta es un medio seguro y efectivo para reducir el riesgo de enfermedades coronarias del corazón a través del mejoramiento de los perfiles de lípidos en circulación.

Referencias sobre Esteroles de Plantas

AbuMweis, S.S., Nicolle, C. and Jones, P.J.; Cholesterol-lowering action of plant sterol-enriched products, Food Sc. Tech. Bull. 2:101-110 (2006).■

Berger, A., Jones, P.J., and Abumweis, S.S.; Plant sterols factors affecting their efficacy and safety as functional food ingredients; Lipids Health Dis. 3:5 (2004).

Chan, Y.M., Varady, K.A., Lin, Y.G., Trautwein,E., Mensink, R.P., Plat,J., and Jones, P.J.H.; Plasma concentrations of plant sterols: Physiology and relationship with coronary heart disease, Nutr. Rev. 64:385-402 (2006).

Katan, M.B., Grundy, S.M., Jones, P., Law, M., Miettinen, T., and Paoletti, R.; Efficacy and safety of plant stanols and sterols in the management of blood cholesterol levels; Mayo Clin. Proc. 78:965-978 (2003).

Piironen, V., Lindsay, D.G., Miettinen, T.A., Toivo,J., and Lampi,A.M.; Plant sterols biosynthesis, biological function and their importance to human nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 80:939-966 (2000).

ANIAME © Copyright 2007
Praga 39 Piso 3, Col. Juárez. Delegación Cuahutémoc C.P. 06600 T. 5533-2847 F. 5525-7551

UY!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=HhN6CG1zCRc&NR=1

Cuales son TUS PRINCIPIOS

Este señor acaba de demostrar lo que quiere decir, tener pantalones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=nI5WoXpmPiM

En Youtube

Regelio Figueroa dice que tenemos que producir mas Bebes: Aqui esta la razon por la cual el lo dice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kKkY5EpVpY&feature=fvsr

Prueba del efecto de los farmacos y el bandidaje

By Dr. Mercola

There were a record 4.02 billion prescriptions written in the United States in 2011¹– that's more than ever before.

There are 314 million people in the United States, and with 4.02 billion prescriptions, that amounts to roughly 12.74 prescriptions per person.

The cost for all these prescriptions? $308.6 billion, a hefty sum that is likely to continue to soar even higher as Americans grasp at what they believe to be the solution to their failing health.

Sadly, many will have their hopes go unanswered, as most of the top-selling drugs treat conditions that are better treated with lifestyle changes, healthy food and other forms of natural healing.

Putting your health, your very life, in the hands of drug companies is a frightening prospect when you consider the leading pharmaceutical companies are also among the largest corporate criminals in the world, behaving as if they are little more than white-collar drug dealers.

As these companies have shown time and again, they consistently put profits above human health.

Top 10 Drug Company Settlements

Big Pharma lawsuits, especially those that settle in the hundreds of millions or billions, are intended to make these criminal corporations start to straighten out, abandon their fraud and deception, their kickbacks, price-setting, bribery and all other illegal sales activities in favor of looking out for public health, which to date has been clearly ineffective.

Most of these settlements amount to a mere slap on the wrist for the drug company, which typically will continue right along with their deceitful behaviors. As reported in Time,² an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine³ echoed these sentiments, calling for change:

"…levy large enough fines against drug companies for illegal behavior, so that the payouts can't be dismissed as merely "the cost of doing business;" offer more protections for whistleblowers; and perhaps most importantly, file criminal charges against drug company executives for misconduct that could put them in prison."

Time recently compiled a list of the top 10 drug company settlements,⁴ and while they are significant, they seem to be of little deterrent to the companies' unethical, and dangerous, behaviors:

10.  2007: Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $515 million for illegally promoting its atypical antipsychotic drug Abilify to kids and seniors (despite a black box warning that warned of potentially fatal side effects in the elderly). Other accusations included giving payments, kickbacks and expensive vacations to medical professionals and pharmacist to dispense its drugs.

9.  2010: AstraZeneca settled for $520 million for trying to persuade doctors to prescribe its psychotropic drug Seroquel for unapproved uses ranging from Alzheimer's disease and ADHD to sleeplessness and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Using Seroquel for improper use has been linked to an increased risk of death.

Company executives also promoted the drug for weight loss, highlighting one favorable study while burying others that linked it to substantial weight gain.

8.  2007: Purdue Pharma paid $634.5 million for fraudulently misbranding Oxycontin, and suggesting it was less addictive and less abused than other painkillers. The company was charged with using misleading sales tactics, minimizing risks and promoting it for uses for which it was not appropriately studied.

7.  Currently pending: Amgen, the makers of anemia drugs Aranesp and Epogen, has been accused of handing extra profits to doctors who prescribe the drugs (by overfilling vials, then allowing doctors to charge insurance companies for drugs they got for free). Other accusations include misconduct involving claims of safety and efficacy, marketing, pricing and dosing of the drugs. Amgen has set aside $760 million to settle the suits.

6.  2011: Merck settles for $950 million to resolve fraudulent marketing allegations and safety claims related to Vioxx. Vioxx was pulled from the market in 2004, after it was shown to double the risk of heart attack and stroke. In addition to the $950 million, Merck paid hundreds of millions more to harmed patients and their families (Vioxx contributed to causing heart attacks in up to 140,000 people, half of which were fatal).

5.  2009: Eli Lilly pays $1.4 billion for promoting Zyprexa for off-label uses, often to children and the elderly, and not properly divulging side effect information. For instance, Zyprexa was marketed as a sleeping aid for the elderly because one of its side effects is sedation, even though the drug also increases the risk of death.

4.  2012: Abbott Laboratories settles for $1.5 billion for aggressively promoting their seizure drug Depakote for off-label use in elderly dementia patients, despite lacking evidence of safety or effectiveness (and a known increase of serious side effects, like anorexia, in the elderly).

3.  Currently pending: Johnson & Johnson will pay anywhere from $1.5 to $2 billion for illegal marketing of Risperdal and other drugs. The company not only heavily marketed drugs to children and the elderly despite inadequate evidence of safety or efficacy, they also hid data about drugs' side effects.

2.  2009: Pfizer pays $2.3 billion for marketing fraud related to Bextra, Lyrica and other drugs. Charges included marketing drugs to doctors for uses for which they had not been approved and giving kickbacks to doctors and other health care professionals for prescribing their drugs. This was Pfizer's fourth settlement numbering in the multimillions in less than a decade.

1.  2012: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to pay $3 billion for illegal marketing of Paxil and Welbutrin and downplaying safety risks of Avandia, among other charges. The company hid data about drug risks, marketed drugs for unapproved uses, and paid doctors (or gave them lavish gifts like expensive vacations) for prescribing their drugs. One of the most high-profile accounts involved tv's Dr. Drew, who reportedly received $275,000 from GSK to promote Welbutrin to treat sexual dysfunction associated with depression even though it hasn't been proven effective for this purpose.

Flu Shots will kill you

It's that time of the year again when drug companies, doctors, government officials and media conduct a national advertising campaign to sell flu shots to every American.^1, 2, 3 You can't pass by a pharmacy,⁴ enter a supermarket,⁵ shop in a "big box" store⁶ or catch a plane⁷ without seeing the "flu shots for sale" signs trolling for customers.

The pharmaceutical industry is cutting out the M.D. middleman and going straight for the gold in places where we shop for toothpaste, clothes and food.⁸ Even on the evening news, flu shot commercials are becoming as frequent as political campaign ads.

Up until the year 2000, flu shots were not recommended for everyone. Back in the 1990's, doctors were telling seniors over age 65 and younger people with chronic illness to get vaccinated.⁹

No Flu Shot? No Job or Daycare!

Now, doctors at the CDC tell every man, woman and child over six months old they need an annual flu shot¹⁰ and it is OK for health care workers to be fired if they don't get vaccinated every year.^{11, 12, 13, 14}

In the states of Connecticut and New Jersey, mandates are already in place that force parents to give their six-month old babies a flu vaccine or be banned from daycare.¹⁵ This, as state health department officials join with medical trade association lobbyists in many states to severely restrict or eliminate medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions for all children.^16, 17

The vaccine liability shield that Congress gave doctors and drug companies in 1986¹⁸ and the public-private business partnership between government and the pharmaceutical industry that Congress created after Sept. 11, 2001,^19, 20 is paying big dividends for liability free drug companies and liability free doctors selling flu shots to more than 300 million Americans.

It doesn't matter if 80 percent of all flu-like illness is really caused by other viruses and bacteria and not influenza,^21, 22 or that flu vaccine efficacy is estimated at 60 percent to 80 percent, depending upon age and what kind of vaccine is given.²³

Selling Big Mortality Numbers to Sell Flu Vaccine

The selling of influenza vaccine has a lot to do with selling big morbidity and mortality numbers. So how bad were those numbers in the late 20th century to justify government taking a "no exceptions" cradle to the grave approach to flu shots for every American in the 21st century? Let's take a quick look at the hype versus the evidence.

The first experimental influenza vaccines were given to soldiers in World War II. It wasn't until the 1957-58 and 1968-69 influenza pandemics that the vaccine was marketed to civilians.²⁴ Between 1970 and 2000, the trivalent influenza vaccine containing two strains of type A influenza and one strain of type B influenza was primarily recommended for the elderly. That is because respiratory infections, especially with pneumonia complications, have always been a leading cause of death for people at the end of their life span.²⁵

There was only one deadly influenza pandemic in the last 100 years that killed the young and healthy in great numbers and that was the 1918 Spanish Flu. It turns out that bacterial pneumonia is what killed most people, young or old, in the 1918 pandemic. Today, antibiotics would have prevented most of those deaths.²⁶

But just how bad is seasonal influenza today?

Is It 200,000 Influenza Hospitalizations or 37,000?

The CDC has been telling the public for nearly a decade that there are more than 200,000 estimated hospitalizations and 36,000 estimated deaths from influenza in the U.S. every year.²⁷

But are those figures accurate? Well, it all depends upon use of the word "estimate." The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported that, in 2004, there were about 37,000 Americans hospitalized for either influenza or another illness in addition to influenza, and patients over age 85 were twice as likely to die.²⁸

Now, 37,000 influenza hospitalizations is five times less than the 200,000 hospitalization figure the CDC uses. That is because what CDC employees did to come up with their influenza hospitalization "estimate" was to count a lot of people hospitalized between 1979 and 2001 – not just with influenza but also with pneumonia, respiratory and circulatory illnesses – which they counted as probably associated with influenza.^29, 30

And they got away with it.

Counting Influenza Deaths & A Whole Lot More

In 2003, CDC employees also used a convoluted statistical modeling scheme to "estimate" that 36,000 people die from influenza in the U.S. every year. Again, they counted not just influenza death cases but also threw in other respiratory, circulatory, cardiac and pulmonary deaths they thought might have been associated with influenza.³¹

And they got away with it.

In 2005, a young PhD candidate at MIT published an article in the British Medical Journal and asked the question: "Are U.S. Flu Death Figures More PR Than Science?"³² He analyzed the U.S. Vital Statistics Mortality Data, which has been carefully recorded for more than a century by the National Center for Health Statistics. I recently looked at that Vital Statistics data, too, and created a chart of influenza and pneumonia deaths recorded between 1940 and 2010.³³

Recorded Influenza Deaths Dropping in 21st Century

Here is what I found: Since 1940, the highest number of influenza deaths recorded in a single year was 21,047 deaths in 1941. In fact, the mortality rate from influenza was NOT rising in the late 20th century – as the CDC employees have alleged – it wasdropping.

There were only between 600 and 750 influenza deaths recorded annually between 1995 and 1997.³⁴ The most influenza deaths recorded in a single year since 1979 was about 2,900 deaths and that was in 2009, the H1N1 swine flu pandemic year!

CDC Expanding the Flu Vaccine Market Between 2000-2010

But that didn't stop CDC policymakers, along with drug company and medical trade association lobbyists ever present at the policymaking table, from using inflated influenza hospitalization and mortality estimates to justify expanding the influenza vaccine market:

• In 2000, CDC policymakers voted to expand flu shot recommendations to all healthy Americans over age 50.³⁵ Out of a population of 300 million, there were 1,765 recorded influenza deaths that year.
• In 2002, CDC voted to add all healthy babies from six to 23 months.³⁶ There were 727 recorded influenza deaths that year.
• In 2006, CDC voted to recommend flu shots for all healthy children up to five years old as well as all healthy pregnant women in any trimester.³⁷ There were 849 recorded influenza deaths that year.
• In 2007, CDC voted to add all healthy children up to eight years old.³⁸ There were 411 recorded influenza deaths that year.
• In 2008, CDC voted to recommend annual flu shots for all healthy children up to age 18 years.³⁹ There were 1,722 recorded influenza deaths that year.
• In 2009, the Secretaries of Health and Homeland Security declared a national emergency because they said pandemic H1N1 swine flu was sweeping the country and tens of thousands of people could die. Liability free drug companies were told to rush an experimental swine flu vaccine to the market.⁴⁰
• In 2010, a year when there were 494 recorded influenza deaths, the CDC officials finally reached the ultimate goal of their long game: they told doctors to give annual flu shots to every American, healthy or not, from the year of birth to the year of death.⁴¹

And they got away with it.

CDC Does Not Require States to Report All Influenza Cases or Deaths

They got away with it because the CDC does not require states to "report individual seasonal flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age."⁴² That's right – the CDC is not actually asking for the information they need to accurately assess influenza morbidity and mortality in the U.S. It would be funny if people weren't actually losing their jobs or being denied daycare or becoming paralyzed^43, 44 by this "no exceptions" flu shot policy.

Global Flu Vaccine Market: U.S. Biggest Customer

Today, the global market for seasonal influenza vaccine is $3.6 billion and forecasters have recently reported that the U.S. is the single biggest and most profitable market in the world.⁴⁵ They say the huge U.S. market is "driven by price increases" and high vaccine coverage rates generated by the 2009 influenza pandemic and the government's "universal" flu shot recommendation in 2010. They add that "campaigning by U.S. authorities" will continue to drive up flu shot sales.

CDC: We Don't Know How Many Influenza Deaths There Are

Meanwhile, doctors at the CDC now quietly admit on their website that the "CDC does not know exactly how many people die from seasonal flu each year."⁴⁶ Having gotten that cradle to the grave flu shot recommendation firmly in place, they are backing away from the 36,000 influenza death figure. CDC now says that "only 8.5 percent of all pneumonia and influenza deaths and only 2.1 percent of all respiratory and circulatory deaths" are influenza related.

You can almost hear those liability free drug companies and doctors laughing all the way to the bank.

Mold Illness

For the record, my use of the term "mold illness" needs to be clarified: 

It’s merely an expression for a sub-category of biotoxin illness, a jargon term, a shortcut I use, one that connotes that this illness is an acute and chronic, systemic inflammatory response syndrome acquired following exposure to the interior of a water-damaged building (CIRS) with resident toxigenic organisms, including, but not limited to fungi, bacteria, actinomycetes and mycobacteria as well as inflammagens such as endotoxins, beta glucans, hemolysins, proteinases, mannans, c-type lectins and possibly spirocyclic drimanes, plus volatile organic compounds(VOC's). There is no one element that is a causative of mold illness. It is the end result of countless aspects of innate inflammation merging together.

While molds themselves may be associated with human illness, in my opinion the secondary metabolites of microbial growth and inflammagens from those microbes are of greater overall importance. Until we have a way to identify the specific interaction that each individual component of the "biochemical stew" found inside Water Damaged Buildings can cause, we can only look at exposure to the entire interior environment as the cause of the illness.

-Ritchie Shoemaker, MD