Florida Man Sues Wells Fargo, Says He Was Fired for Daughter’s Cancer Treatment
August 12, 2012
A man in Palm Beach County, Fla., is suing his former employer, saying he was terminated on a pretext because his late daughter’s cancer treatments were too expensive.
Yovany Gonzalez, 36, was a securities broker with Wells Fargo in Palm Beach County. He began his career as a mortgage consultant at a Wachovia bank branch, which was acquired by Wells Fargo in 2008.
One of his children, Mackenzie, was diagnosed with cancer in December 2008. During Mackenzie’s treatment, Gonzalez had to work irregular hours, “generally less than full time, and in several different locations,” the suit states.
Health-care execs question impact of Affordable Care Act
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:56 am
By CANDACE CHASE/The Daily Inter Lake | 3 comments
In the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, Kalispell Regional Healthcare’s top administrators have continued their singular focus on controlling costs while keeping quality high as they navigate toward an uncertain future.
The high court earlier this summer in a split vote upheld President Obama’s heath-care overhaul, saying its requirement that most Americans get health insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’ power to levy taxes.
President and Chief Executive Officer Velinda Stevens, Chief Medical Officer Craig Eddy and Vice President Jim Oliverson sat down with the Inter Lake to discuss the implications of the ruling as well as the impact of a repeal, depending on the outcome of the November elections.
“We have to be prepared for all eventualities — repeal or go forward,” Stevens said.
Eddy said the hospital has tried to keep costs as low as possible and to ensure quality remains high since they don’t know how or if the legislation will evolve. He compared it to a zone defense.
“You’re out there and you’re waiting for the people bringing the ball down the field to move and when they do you have to adjust to it,” he said. “So we work to do that.”
Bringing physicians into the hospital fold from private practices has helped control costs, although the administration didn’t initiate the process that has integrated half of the 200 doctors with hospital privileges.
“They wanted to become part of the hospital,” Eddy said. “If you look at data, integrated health systems deliver lower cost, higher quality care. You can look at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, the Virginia Mason Clinic in Seattle.”
Stevens described the hospital as a reluctant participant as doctors began requesting integration to escape dealing with complex medical coding and other regulations.
“But now that we have 50 percent of the medical staff employed, we’ve already seen the benefit,” she said. “So now we’re embracing it.”
In regard to a projected shortage of physicians from the federal legislation’s insurance mandate, Stevens and Eddy expect to remain competitive in attracting doctors in all areas.
“There’s already a doctor shortage,” Eddy said.
He said some regions of the country have critical shortages of primary care physicians as well as other specialists such as neurosurgery.
In recent years, Kalispell Regional Healthcare — formerly called Northwest Healthcare and the parent company for Kalispell Regional Medical Center — has recruited doctors from some of the top medical facilities in the country. Eddy and Stevens attribute their success to governing the hospital in partnership with the physicians, the beautiful environment of our area and the high quality of the hospital’s physicians, nurses and other providers.
Stevens said the hospital has fostered a very high quality nursing staff by providing training by specialty.
“We’re probably the most generous employer in the state with educating our nurses. In fact, we know we are,” she said. “We encourage all our nurses to get advanced certifications in whatever field they’re interested in.”
STEVENS SAID SHE couldn’t give a simple answer about how the hospital would fare under the Affordable Care Act, including the Supreme Court-sanctioned individual mandate for health insurance coverage. She said there simply isn’t enough information yet to make a judgment.
“We’re hearing that different parts of it are being tweaked,” she said.
Both Stevens and Eddy have concerns about parts of the legislation, like the employer penalty that is less than the cost to businesses to provide insurance.
“We’ve been hearing that 10 to 20 percent of small employers that pay for insurance for their employees are going to drop it because it’s less expensive to pay the penalty,” she said. “So if we end up with fewer insured people, that won’t be better for us. It depends on what really happens with reform.”
She questions the viability of a small population state like Montana providing an insurance exchange to pick up those people. Stevens points out that the state has only a million people, including 250,000 on Medicare and 110,000 on Medicaid and 22 percent uninsured.
“That leaves a very small amount of people in the insurance market — that’s a problem,” she said.
Kalispell Regional Healthcare officials studied the numbers and found a Montana exchange would not break even. To work, the pool would need a substantial subsidy.
“Who exactly is paying the subsidy? It has to come out of taxes,” Stevens said.
Because the subsidy relates to health care, she expects politicians to look to providers to make up the shortfall in either taxes or cuts in reimbursements. She said that amounts to putting money in one pocket than taking it out of the other.
Drug scarcity hits Medicaid as states limit spending
Opponents of the measure said it cuts Medicare spending. The administration said it didn’t.
Opponents of the measure said it would raise taxes by billions of dollars. The administration said it didn’t.
Opponents of the measure said it would raise insurance premiums. The administration said it wouldn’t.
It does – by an average of $2,100 per household per year.
President Obama said repeatedly that “if you like your current health insurance, you’ll get to keep it.”
Now we are finding out that scores of employers will be dropping employee coverage because – you guessed it – the law creates an increase in insurance rates.
And perhaps the most controversial of the opposition’s objections/predictions is that the measure would lead to healthcare rationing. The administration vehemently denied this allegation.
Well, it turns out that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) hasled to rationing – already. And the major provisions of the law haven’t even kicked in yet.
Big Pharma and Collaborators Resort to Underhanded Tactics in Push to Ban Homeopathy
Ever since I released my book Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom and began speaking out about the coming destruction of access to vitamin and mineral supplements inside the United States and the rest of the world, I have been met with the tired response of “it won’t happen here.”
Of course, saying “it won’t happen here” is generally a guaranteed method of ensuring that whatever you are claiming can’t happen will happen.
Nevertheless, the historically naïve masses – even those who are aware enough to seek out natural supplements and healthy food – still believe that the supplement lobby and the natural health industry are too large to be brought down by restrictive laws. The people, they say, would never allow it.
Unfortunately, as much as we would like to believe in the power of the people, that power is seldom, if ever, truly harnessed. Take, for instance, the case of the European Union.
After the passage of the European Union Food Supplements Directive (EU FSD) in 2002 and its full implementation on December 31, 2009, the access of Europeans to vitamin and mineral supplements has been significantly reduced. For some supplements, access has been denied altogether.
A clear example of the expression of international guidelines at the national level, the EU FSD is a virtual carbon copy of Codex Alimentarius Guidelines. As a result of the EU FSD, it is now illegal for even moderate levels of many nutritional supplements to be sold to the public in the whole of Europe.
Available supplements are restricted to those on the positive lists provided by the EU FSD, meaning Codex Alimentarius.
In the UK, however, as is the case in much of the rest of the world, the assault on natural and alternative therapies is not confined to one front. For instance, in 1994, the Medicines (Homeopathic Medicinal Products for Human Use) Regulations 1994 was passed and amended again in 2005 which allowed for the increased licensing, regulation, and restriction of homeopathic medicines.
Guardian writer, Martin Robbins, summarized the restrictions the law placed on homeopathic practitioners in his article, “Homeopaths offer to rebrand products as ‘confectionary.’” He writes,
Under current UK law*, it is an offence for a lay homeopath to supply or sell unlicensed homeopathic medicines for which they do not hold a certificate of registration from the MHRA. Unlicensed remedies can only be supplied by those with prescribing rights – medical doctors or registered pharmacists – and then only after a face-to-face consultation with the patient. Since very few homeopathic products are licensed, this means a huge swathe of Big Sugar’s products are, in theory at least, not legal.
Robbins’ reference to “Big Sugar” is actually a clever aside regarding a possible attempt by the leading homeopathic manufacturers to get around the nanny-state regulation policies of licensing choice and healing practices by labeling their products as “confectionary.”
Robbins’ statement is ridiculous in the sense that he labels an industry “Big Sugar” that is miniscule when compared to “Big Oil,” “Big Pharma,” and “Big Agra.” Of course, Robbins is aware of this fact and is only engaging in a silly game of semantics in order to convince the average Guardian reader, who is inherently uninformed, that Big Corporations like homeopathic product manufacturers are using scam terminology for the purpose of forcing their products on the public. This rhetoric is Orwellian in the sense that this type of behavior is exactly what we see coming from major agricultural and pharmaceutical corporations on a daily basis.
Apparently, Mr. Robbins has no problem with giant monopolistic corporations cornering a market and forcing him to use their products to the detriment of his personal health and finances, so long as the individuals who wish to use homeopathic products are unable to do so.
Indeed, in yet another example of Orwellian doublespeak, Robbins even suggests that the reason it has taken so long to produce and enforce regulation of homeopathic products is because of the British government’s “fetishism of free choice.” At this point, there is really no need to go on criticizing Robbins’ conclusions.
Because the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) is the agency tasked with regulating homeopathy, it is also “obliged to enforce the law if they receive complaints” regarding a homeopathic product.
Predictably, complaints were then lodged against the homeopathic manufacturers. Of course, these complaints did not come from consumers, doctors, or victims. They came from the Nightingale Collaboration, a self-proclaimed “skeptic campaign” organization.
Obviously, in place of “skeptic campaign” one can insert the phrase “smear campaign.” Indeed, organizations such as the Nightingale Collaboration largely exist only for the purpose of serving the major pharmaceutical companies who are becoming more and more discredited as time moves on. Thus, they must rely on underhanded tactics like snitching and outright lies in order to maintain their current grip on the healthcare system.
Regardless, the complaints have centered around homeopathic kits manufactured by Helios Homeopathics Ltd., which were marketed only to licensed and registered homeopathic practitioners . Out of the Basic kit, Basic Plus kit, Accident & Emergency kit, Child Birth kit, and Travellers kit, only the Basic kit was determined to be marketable according to the standards set forth by the MHRA.
The MHRA then directed Helios to “’discontinue the sale and supply’ of the rest, on the basis that the kit names are not approved by the MHRA, and ‘the kits contain remedies that are not registered or authorized.’”
A Nightingale Collaboration spokesman is quoted by Robbins as saying:
Even though they knew about the clear guidance that was issued in March last year by the MHRA, it took a complaint from a member of the public in September to finally make it clear that their kits of homeopathic products were not allowed under the regulations because some of them were unlicensed.
That is, except for the fact that it was not a “member of the public” per se who made the complaints. It was the Nightingale Collaboration.
As a result of the complaints filed by Big Pharma-friendly Nightingale Collaboration, Helios and many other homeopathic manufacturers are being forced to make a decision whether or not to attempt reclassification of their products or to cease producing them altogether. However, as an act of sheer desperation to stay in business, Helio has, at least at some point, considered a more novel approach. Namely, reclassifying their homeopathic products as confectionary.
In a correspondence cited by Robbins, Helios stated the following to the MHRA:
If necessary we could revise the manufacturing method, the labelling of the bottles and kit box to present them as non-medicines and non-homeopathic and market them as ‘confectionery’. Customers who have an interest in homeopathy would still know how to use them and would continue to purchase them despite limited labelling. There would of course be media repercussions and uncontrolled sources appearing and confusion among the public and MPs who would demand a full explanation for the change.
It should also be noted that, in conjunction with the EU FSD which separately attacks the availability of vitamin and mineral supplements, the EU also has a directive which allows for the registration of Homeopathic products.
All in all, the forced registration and licensing homeopathic products and practitioners, regardless of the level of government, is a precursor to the denial of licenses to sell and practice homeopathy. While Martin Robbins may believe that the UK government has a fetish with freedom of choice; the fact is that the English have lost almost every remnant of freedom they have ever had.
Unfortunately, the police state tyranny and nanny state control system that the British are currently living under is only a precursor to what is coming to the United States in short order unless the American people suddenly grow a backbone and fight back.
 “Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.” http://www.codexalimentarius.net/search/advanced.do?lang=en
 Directive 2002/46/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to food supplements. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR. 2007. Pp. 237-243
Pfizer’s Torisel drug fails in a combination study
Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:23am EDT
(Reuters) – Pfizer Inc said on Friday that a late-stage trial of its drug for renal cell cancer failed to meet its main goal when given in combination with Avastin, a drug made by Roche Holding AG.
Pfizer’s drug Torisel is approved as a single agent for the treatment of advanced renal cell cancer (RCC). The company had hoped to show that Torisel, known also as temsirolimus, plus Avastin, known also as bevacizumab, would be more effective in extending progression-free survival than Avastin combined with interferon-alfa-2a.
The combination of Avastin and interferon-alfa-2a is approved as a first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma.
“This trial advances our knowledge about the role and limitations of combining targeted therapies in the treatment of advanced RCC,” said Mace Rothenberg, senior vice president of clinical and medical affairs in Pfizer’s oncology unit.
(Reporting By Toni Clarke; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Gardasil Vaccine rDNA Introduced at Coroner’s Inquest
|Researchers such as Dr. Sin Hang Lee
are finding contaminants in vaccines
Catherine J. Frompovich, Contributor
Wellington, New Zealand. According to testimony presented via international video link before a coroner’s inquest in Wellington, New Zealand, (August 9 NZ) by Dr. Sin Hang Lee (August 8 USA), a pathologist on the medical staff of Milford Hospital in the State of Connecticut, “residual HPV DNA fragments from the viral gene or plasmid injected with Gardasil®”have been found six months after that vaccination (series) was given to Jasmine Renata.
Ms. Renata, a teenager, died in her sleep of unknown and unexplained causes. An autopsy was performed to determine cause of death.
Interview With Norma Erickson, President, SaneVax, Inc: Part 1
Norma Erickson is President of Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective Vaccines and Vaccination Practices(SaneVax, Inc.), a vaccine safety advocacy group. SaneVax became involved at the request of the late Jasmine Renata’s parents, who were seeking help understanding what happened to their lovely daughter following her death after experiencing numerous problems with the HPV vaccine Gardasil®. 
This interview covers part of the ‘history’ involved in that unfortunate case.
Do you happen to know if Jasmine experienced any medical problems before her death?
Yes, beginning with warts and mood changes after her first injection; same thing after the second. The warts came back a third time after the last injection, mood and behavior changes, tingling sensations in her limbs, memory loss, tachycardia, chest pains and multiple other symptoms. The entire chronicle is here: http://sanevax.org/jasmine-from-wellington/
How many Gardasil® injections did Jasmine receive? How far apart were the injections given?
Gardasil®, as you know, is a series of three injections. The first injection was September 18, 2008; the second, November 18, 2008; and the third, March 17, 2009.
At any time were her parents suspicious of any reactions to the Gardasil®, vaccinations? If so, what were they?
I have not spoken personally with Jasmine’s parents, as they have been working with an associate in New Zealand since shortly after their daughter’s death. Out of respect for their privacy, all personal contact is maintained through the person they had established a relationship with. That being said, Jasmine’s mother wrote her version of the events and allowed SaneVax to post it on our site in order to try and let other parents know the potential risks involved with HPV vaccinations. The story can be viewed here: http://sanevax.org/gone-after-gardasil-jasmine-new-zealand/ .
How did SaneVax become involved in this case?
Once information about Dr. Lee’s discovery of HPV rDNA fragments firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant in multiple samples of Gardasil® circulated, SaneVax began to receive requests from parents of girls suffering severe reactions all over the world looking for a way their daughter’s blood could be tested for the contaminants. SaneVax had to turn them all down, because we knew Dr. Lee’s lab was not set up to work with blood samples and no protocol had been developed to try and detect HPV DNA particles attached to aluminum in human samples. No one knew if it would even be possible to detect such fragments.
Occasionally there would be some sort of special circumstance involved where I would forward an inquiry directly to Dr. Lee because the questions were beyond my field of expertise. The New Zealand advocate working with Renata’s parents posed many questions I could not answer with any degree of certainty, so I put her in direct contact with Dr. Lee.
I understand an autopsy took place. What did that autopsy reveal?
The autopsy did not uncover any HPV DNA fragments. Quite the contrary, the autopsy ruled out all known causes of death.
So, why then, did a coroner’s inquest take place recently?
In New Zealand, when there is a death with no identifiable cause, it is routine for there to be an inquest.
Let’s back up a little. If you say SaneVax was getting requests from around the world to have blood tested of young girls experiencing severe reactions to Gardasil®, how did this come to happen?
Originally, Dr. Lee tested 13 different Gardasil® vials from six different countries and four different manufacturing facilities, and all were found to be contaminated with HPV rDNA, firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.
Can you reveal the dates of Dr. Lee’s discovery?
The tests were done in June to August of 2011.
Did SaneVax contact any health authorities, e.g., FDA?
As soon as Dr. Lee’s final report was turned in to SaneVax, we reported the situation to the FDA, September 2, 2011. Considering the Gardasil® issues came right on the heals of the Vioxx scandal, we saw no reason to report the issue to Merck. Furthermore, it is the FDA who is responsible for protecting the health and safety of medical consumers in the United States. Since that time, a couple more Gardasil® vials have been tested. I believe we are at 16 now, and all confirm residual HPV DNA.
I know we can’t divulge information regarding what took place at the inquest until the coroner releases it to the public, but from what you know of Dr. Lee’s research, can you please share with us what he found after his pathological examination, since he is under contract to SaneVax and you are the owners of the research?
I can discuss it to the best of my ability.
Dr. Lee’s pathology report indicates that Gardasil® material was lodging in tissue and may have been causing health problems. The fact that Gardasil® DNA fragments were suspended in post-mortem blood—and six months post vaccination—indicates there is pathology that HPV vaccine makers did not warn about on the vaccine package inserts as a contradiction. How serious a problem is that for vaccine makers?
In my opinion, it poses a quite serious problem for two reasons. First, the manufacturer went to great lengths to remove all residual HPV DNA from the vaccine, including using a patented process to remove it from the vaccine. They assured regulatory agencies worldwide that there was no ‘viral DNA’ in the vaccine in order to obtain approval for marketing their product. Any way you slice it, HPV DNA is viral DNA – it need not be the complete virus to be viral DNA.
After we reported the presence of HPV DNA in Gardasil® to the FDA, FDA declared without presenting any supportive data that rDNA fragments are an acceptable excipient. The fact is the FDA does not know the physical condition of the HPV DNA or plasmid DNA in the vaccine. The physical condition of naked foreign DNA determines the fate of these DNA fragments and their pathophysiological effects in the human body.
Up to now, the vaccine industry always knew “The FDA specifically requires vaccine developers to show that VLPs [virus-like particles] do not encapsidate “specific” nucleic acid sequences from the expression system, and especially those encoding VLPs components.” (Valley-Omar’s paper)
Second, had Jasmine had wild (natural) HPV in her blood, it would not have lasted very long as the macrophages would have degraded it within a couple of days. Therefore, according to Dr. Lee:
The finding of these foreign DNA fragments in the post-mortem samples six months after vaccination indicates that some of the residual DNA fragments from the viral gene or plasmid injected with Gardasil®have been protected from degradation in the form of DNA-aluminum complexes in the macrophages; or via integration into the human genome. Undegraded viral and plasmid DNA fragments are known to activate macrophages, causing them to release tumor necrosis factor, a myocardial depressant which can induce lethal shock in animals and humans.
Norma, could that tumor necrosis factor include cancer? Are there other ‘unknowns’?
TNF [tumor necrosis factor] is but one possible byproduct of macrophage activation. To the best of my knowledge, it only affects the heart. Other cytokines also could theoretically be produced as a result of macrophage activation causing other problems – no one knows. Study in this area is relatively new.
No one knows the potential consequences of these foreign DNA fragments remaining in the human body. Can they cause cancer? Can they cause autoimmune disorders? Can they cause birth defects? Can they cause death? No one knows – that is a HUGE problem, in my opinion.
Do you think AAHS [amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate] in Gardasil® can be the primary contributing factor to so many deaths and adverse reactions in young girls who were vaccinated withGardasil® ? Please elaborate.
Personally, having looked at the results of the clinical trials where the vaccine was tested against the AAHS as a control, I believe it is a strong possibility that AAHS is a contributing factor. The reason being the adverse events during the trials were somewhat evenly distributed between the two groups. Unfortunately, over 70% of all trial participants experienced a ‘new medical condition’ during the trials – which, by the way, is the CDC’s definition of an adverse event.
How very interesting! And, of course, that does not appear on vaccine package inserts, does it?
The only thing quoted in package inserts or advertising is Gardasil® is safe and effective. It does not seem to matter what the truth is, i.e., the vaccine appeared to be no more dangerous than the adjuvant during clinical trials. Remember that even this may be misleading, as no one knows the long-term effects of the HPV DNA particles. The real experiment is being conducted on young people around the world as we speak.
What did Dr. Lee’s pathology report state regarding that connection?
Dr. Lee was not looking for aluminum damage or exposure. He was simply attempting to discover whether or not the HPV DNA fragments found in Gardasil® were also present in autopsy samples.
According to Dr. Lee, the HPV DNA fragments in the vaccine were firmly bound to the amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) particles that are used as an adjuvant in Gardasil® formulation. The post-mortem finding obviously indicates an apparent unknown role AAHS in Gardasil® plays in the body’s retention of HPV DNA particles, especially since a relatively high amount of AAHS is administered with each vaccination. What should the U.S. CDC and FDA do in view of these findings?
Ideally, these agencies would rescind Gardasil® approval until such time as independent—not Big Pharma—laboratory analysis could prove the residual HPV DNA attached to an aluminum compound poses no risk to medical consumers.
Well, isn’t that part of the problem with vaccines, e.g., the rush to get vaccines certified for human use often with a rush to judgment and sometimes-flawed science?
Yes, at the very least, the CDC/FDA should provide autopsy samples from all deaths subsequent to Gardasil®vaccinations to independent laboratories with suitable technology to investigate the situation further. Anything less is a betrayal of the public trust.
I think this is where we can end Part 1 of this interview.
In Part 2 we will address as much as we can about Dr. Lee’s research.
August 9, 2012
Hepatitis-B is a viral attack on the liver that is transmitted through sex, shared hypodermic needles, and iatrogenic (medical) exposure. It’s a bodily fluid transmitted virus that often occurs among those engaging in “risky behavior.” The Hep-B vaccination (HBV) is administered at or near birth and again between three and six months of age. It’s the beginning of a lengthy runway of hazardous pediatric vaccinations recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
Hep-B vaccination – A Danger to Infants
If vaccines worked safely, it would be prudent to screen expectant women for hepatitis-B and exclude unnecessary Hep-B vaccinations for newborns. Maybe a Hep-B vaccination would make any sort of sense for a newborn whose mother tested positive for hepatitis-B.
Except Hep-B Vaccinations Don’t Work and They are Very Dangerous
There are examples of acute hepatitis-B among those who had been vaccinated. Those examples were from “high risk” adults, young and promiscuous, and some who were exposed to hepatitis-B in clinics and hospitals (iatrogenic exposure).
The announced removal of mercury adjuvants is a public relations distraction. Mercury based thimerosal has been replaced with aluminum hydroxide, which also creates serious adverse neurological effects.
Ironically, there is evidence of almost immediate liver damage from HBV shots. Several animal studies with low dose Hep-B vaccines have been published since the 1990s.
A recent study discovered gene mutations that led to liver cell death. This study noted that vaccine manufacturers don’t test for gene mutations in their safety tests. All the studies were reported in peer reviewed journals.
How does all this affect helpless infants undergoing the CDC’s rigorous vaccination schedule beginning at or near birth with the Hep-B vaccination?
Renowned neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock puts it this way: “Because the child’s brain is undergoing a period of rapid growth from the third trimester of pregnancy until age 2 years, his or her brain is at considerable risk from this insane policy” [infant vaccinations].
The statistical evidence of rapidly rising autism and SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) is overwhelming. Yet only five percent of adverse events (at best) get reported to the adverse event reporting system (AERS), making it easier for the CDC to claim their low risk to benefit vaccine ratios.
Even with those cooked books, adverse effects and deaths from HBV vaccines greatly outnumber the hepatitis-B infections and deaths among children between 10 and 14 years of age, considered the earliest age span for hepatitis-B from “high risk behavior.”
One would get a realistic adverse event statistic by multiplying what is reported by almost ten. Most affected adversely don’t know about AERS. Others don’t want to bother with the level of effort required, while many doctors prefer to deny giving a shot that destroyed a child’s life.
The CDC has steadily increased the vaccination schedule since the late 1970s, inserting the Hep-B vaccination shot in the 1990s. Autism has skyrocketed by almost 90 percent in three decades. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has also jumped dramatically within the USA, which is leading industrialized nations in that category.
A number of peer-reviewed studies have also found a relationship between the hep-B vaccinations and infant deaths both in the U.S. and Europe. With links to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), multiple sclerosis, and numerous chronic autoimmune disorders, some doctors are speaking out against the dangers of the hep B vaccine.
Nevertheless, mainstream medicine overall still constantly promotes vaccine safety and efficacy for HBV shots and all others. They continually dismiss those statistics as not scientific evidence for causality; while freely using epidemiology statistics, often manipulated, for their purposes.
Don’t fall for their spin. Spare your child’s future, and yours, the agony of constant suffering and medical care from adverse vaccine injury damage. If a pregnant woman doesn’t have hepatitis-B, the Hep-B vaccination shouldn’t even be considered.
Vaccinations are risky at any age. Before two years, when HBV vaccinations are scheduled, negative health results are highly probable later if not sooner.
Anti-HIV drug Truvada backed for all high-risk adults
Women and straight men at high risk of contracting HIV should also have access to a pill that can help prevent the virus, says US health officials.
The government previously advised doctors to give the pill Truvada to high-risk gay and bisexual men only.
But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say straight people make up over 25% of new HIV cases each year.
Truvada has been used to treat Aids patients since 2004, but was approved last month as a preventive measure.
“That’s not a portion of the epidemic we want to ignore,” Dr Dawn Smith, CDC expert and main author of the new guidance, said of the decision to expand the advice for Truvada.
The medication has not been suggested for use by all sexually active people. Even among couples where one person is infected with HIV, using a condom is adequate protection, experts say.
But Dr Smith said the pill might be used, for example, by couples trying to have a baby.
When used as a preventive measure, the Truvada pill is taken once a day and can cost between $6,000 (£3,840) and $12,000 per year.
But some private insurance companies and Medicaid programmes have covered it, Dr Smith said.
Gilead Sciences, the company that makes the drug, has said it is difficult to know how many people are using the medicine as a HIV-prevention measure.
Medicaid: The Court Got it Right
Yes, the Supreme Court’s Medicaid Decision was Good Contract Law
In NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) a 7-2 majority voided that part of the law that required states to join the Medicaid expansion or lose all (not just a part) of their Medicaid funds. The court treated the federal-state Medicaid relationship as a contract. It essentially held that while the states had granted the federal government power to make changes in the program, any changes the feds imposed had to be reasonable and foreseeable.
Former Solicitor-General Charles Fried has attacked this part of the decision on Scotus Blog, referring to it as“The Court’s Bad Contract Law:” He compares the states’ position to
“a commercial tenant who has a lease in commercial premises in which he has invested heavily and where he has lots of good will (e.g., a neighborhood restaurant). The lease is terminable after five years on sixty days’ notice and the lessor insists on a greatly increased rent. I submit that the tenant’s complaint that this constituted duress would get nowhere.”
Where ‘Socialized Medicine’ Has a U.S. Foothold(Or, As I’d like to call it, “Hello, I’m a British snotrag who uses the Hegelian Dialectic and Logical Fallacies To Win Petty Arguments About The Utter Destruction of True Health Freedom Around The World) By UWE E. REINHARDT NYT
Last Friday’s exuberant celebrationof Britain’s National Health Service during the opening ceremony for the 2012 Olympics, directed by the Oscar-winning filmmaker Danny Boyle, got me thinking about American attitudes about socialized medicine.As might be expected, the event elicited a few tut-tuts from Conservative members of Parliament, and more stern rebukes from the commentariat in the United States, most vehemently by Rush Limbaugh.Bashing the N.H.S. has become a favorite ritual during any debate on health care reform on this side of the Atlantic. As the disgraceful treatment of Dr. Donald Berwick, former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services, illustrates, any American remarking positively on the N.H.S. runs the risk of being declared unfit to serve in government and vehemently attacked in the blogosphere.
The most humorous illustration of American N.H.S.-bashing was supplied during the heated health reform discussions in 2009 by Investor’s Business Daily. In an editorial, the paper asserted, “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the quality of life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”Dr. Hawking, who has lived and worked in Britain all of his life, responded: “I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”Eventually, Prof. Ara Darzi, a former minister of health, head of surgery at Imperial College in London and Britain’s ambassador for health and life sciences, and Tom Kibasi of McKinsey & Company, an honorary lecturer at Imperial College, gently lectured American readers on this amusing episode and on the actual modus operandi of the N.H.S. The episode also opened a lively and sometimes bemused blog traffic in Britain.Although I personally have never advocated adopting an N.H.S.-style approach to health reform in the United States, I have been puzzled for decades by the almost instinctive habit among many Americans of incessantly running down every other country’s approach to health care and health insurance.Is this habit born of the deep-seated insecurity that might naturally arise from the cognitive dissonance of boasting “ours is the best health system in the world,” all the while beholding daily the travails and hand-wringing over the sometimes glaring shortcomings of the American health care system?I have found that one effective way I can stop N.H.S.-bashing dead in its track is to ask bashers this simple question: “Why don’t you like my son?” I posed that question to a congressman who had berated “socialized medicine” during a hearing on health insurance reform at which I testified.In response to the stunned look this question invariably elicits, I go on: ”You see, our son is a retired captain of the U.S. Marine Corps. He is an American veteran. Remarkably, Americans of all political stripes have long reserved for our veterans the purest form of socialized medicine, the vast health system operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (generally known as the V.A. health system). If socialized medicine is as bad as so many on this side of the Atlantic claim, why have both political parties ruling this land deemed socialized medicine the best health system for military veterans? Or do they just not care about them?”Full Article
About the Author: