Saturday, January 26, 2008

Consider Vaccination Risks Above All Else!

Folks down at the CDC say they are 'disappointed' because many elderly folks aren't lining up for their shots. Maybe next we'll see SWAT Teams at al assisted living or other facilities forcing these risky solutions into the bodies of another run of test subjects.

A healthier person or companions animal is one who has sound nutrition and avoids a plethora of jabs.

CDC: Too few adults get their vaccines
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Thu Jan 24, 2008

Vaccines aren't just for kids, but far too few grown-ups are rolling up their sleeves, disappointed federal health officials reported Wednesday.

The numbers of newly vaccinated are surprisingly low, considering how much public attention a trio of new shots — which protect against shingles, whooping cough and cervical cancer — received in recent years.

Yet many seem to have missed, or forgotten, the news: A survey by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases found that aside from the flu, most adults have trouble even naming diseases that they could prevent with a simple inoculation.

"We really need to get beyond the mentality that vaccines are for kids. Vaccines are for everybody," said Dr. Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who called the new data sobering. "We obviously have a lot more work to do."

The new CDC report found:

_Only about 2 percent of Americans ages 60 and older received a vaccine against shingles in its first year of sales.

There are more than 1 million new cases a year of shingles, an excruciating rite of aging that causes a blistering skin rash. Up to 200,000 of them develop a complication, severe nerve pain that can last for months or even years. Anyone who ever had chickenpox is at risk, especially once they hit their 60s, because the chickenpox virus hibernates for decades in nerve cells until erupting again.

"Many people describe the shingles pain as the worst pain they've ever endured," said Dr. Michael Oxman of the University of California, San Diego.

The shingles vaccine, Merck & Co.'s Zostavax, isn't perfect, but it cuts in half the risk of shingles — and those who still get it have a much milder case.

_About 2 percent of adults ages 18 to 64 got a booster shot against whooping cough in the two years since it hit the market.

The cough so strong it can break a rib is making a big comeback, because the vaccine given to babies and toddlers starts wearing off by adolescence. Older patients usually recover, but whooping cough can cause weeks of misery. Worse, those people can easily spread the illness to not-yet-vaccinated infants, who can die from the bacterial infection, also called pertussis.

The pertussis booster was added to another long-recommended shot, a booster against tetanus and diphtheria that adults should get every 10 years. The new triple combo is called "Tdap." Sanofi-Aventis's Adacel brand is for ages 11 to 64. There also is a version for 10- to 18-year-olds, GlaxoSmithKline's Boostrix.

_About 10 percent of women ages 18 to 26 have received at least one dose of a three-shot series that protects against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that causes cervical cancer.

There are more than 100 different types of HPV, the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection. Usually, the body gets rid of HPV without symptoms. But certain high-risk strains can persist and cause genital warts or cervical cancer.

The vaccine, Merck's Gardasil, protects against four of those high-risk types. That's not complete protection — so even the vaccinated still need regular Pap smears — but those strains are responsible for about 72 percent of cervical cancer and 90 percent of genital warts, said Dr. Stanley Gall of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Stay tuned: The government is considering whether even more women should get the vaccine — those up to age 45 who aren't yet infected, Gall said. And studies are under way to see if it works in men.

Price may play a role in these low vaccination rates. The shingles shot costs around $150, and the three-shot HPV vaccine about $300, and insurance coverage varies. There's no national program to guarantee access for adults who can't afford vaccines as there is for child vaccines.

But adults aren't taking full advantage of some cheap old standby vaccines, either. Among people 65 or older, a high-risk age, CDC found only 69 percent get an annual flu shot; just 66 percent have had a one-time pneumonia vaccine; and 44 percent had received a tetanus shot in the past 10 years.

It's not too late for a flu shot this year — and Oxman urged getting some of the other adult shots in the same doctor visit.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.


VACCINATION TOXICITY CAN CAUSE INJURY
by Mary Tocco, January 16, 2008

Vaccinations can cause toxic injury in children and adults in several ways. Live or attenuated virus vaccines can actually produce the infection that the vaccine is supposed to prevent. Because vaccines are usually injected into muscle tissue, the major organs of the body may be exposed to the additives and preservatives in vaccines that are toxic as well as the viruses. When we change the method of exposure to the illness, we also change the way the immune system responds to that illness. Normal infectious illnesses do not get into the blood system. Hugh Fudenberg is one of the world's leading immunologists and 13th most quoted biologist of our time who studied the Flu vaccine given to adults. He found that the aluminum and mercury in the flu shot can accumulate in the brain and lead to Alzheimer disease.

Boyd Haley from the University of Kentucky has done extensive research on the brain and mercury exposure. He believes that the childhood vaccines given up to 2004 with mercury are directly related to the autism epidemic in this country. The live polio vaccine has been known to cause polio in recipients and care givers of children recently vaccinated. That is why since 1999, the live polio vaccine is no longer recommended. The chickenpox vaccine, Virecella Zoster, has shown to cause family members to break out in shingles or herpes simplex. The new rotavirus vaccine for infant diarrhea, RotaTeq has been associated with intussusception of the colon which is a swelling, inflammation of the colon causing restriction and many times results in immediate surgery to correct. Fifty-two babies died in the trials before the vaccine was released and they say the cause was SIDS. Many vaccines can cause shock, seizures, type 1 diabetes, asthma and death. There are also possible, but unproven links between the MMR vaccine and juvenile diabetes and autism. Vaccines are linked to Gulf War syndrome and much, much more.

The second, and probably the most important theory of vaccine injury relates to allergic reactions and the development of an auto-immune response, stimulated by the vaccine and its adjuvants, which assist in stimulating the immune response. Vaccines always contain adjuvants, which are substances known to amplify the body's response to the vaccine. These adjuvants are known to sometimes cause allergic and auto-immune responses on their own. How would a parent know if their two month old infant is allergic to any of the products in a vaccine? Unfortunately, most vaccine reactions are overlooked and dismissed by the doctors. As the child gets more shots the problems get worse and often the injury is in process and takes many months to discover. I personally know medical doctors whose own children were injured by vaccines and they did not see it coming.

Consider this extensive list of vaccine ingredients listed on this very informative web site called WAVE, World Association for Vaccine Education by far the most complete list of vaccine ingredients available to the public. Click here to see this extensive list of vaccine ingredients, not all are listed.

Questions you need to ask yourself before considering vaccinations: Have I thoroughly researched all the ingredients in the shot and do I understand the toxic risks? Is there a history of auto immune problems in the family because many researchers believe children may be genetically hyper sensitive to the adjuvants in the vaccines? Do I understand the difference between natural immunity and vaccine immune response? Is my child at risk for the illness I am vaccinating for? Is that illness really a health threat?

Congress passed the Immunizations Assistance Act in 1965, assisting the drug companies in mass vaccine programs. At that time they recommended that all 5-6 year olds be vaccinated before going into school. They start vaccinating infants day 1 immediately after birth and continue until adolescents. Now, if you or your child suffers any injury from the vaccines, the vaccine manufacturer is protected from any litigation. As you know, we have an epidemic of autism, learning problems, and chronically sick children in the country and the government refuses to fund the necessary research that could prove the vaccine connection. The CDC and the FDA admits that mercury is one of the most toxic elements known on Earth and yet they claim that the mercury in vaccines is not related to the catastrophic increase off neurological problems plaguing the children of this country. (The amount of mercury "thimerosal" in childhood vaccines until 2004 was 40 to 60 times the EPA safety level. By 6 months, the average child received 187.5mcg of thimerosal from their vaccines. FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research)

Every new vaccine recommended and mandated by the CDC exposes your child to more toxic ingredients increasing the risk for toxic injury. According to Barbara Fisher, President of The National Vaccine Information Center and Vaccine Advisory Committee Member, between 1964 and 2002, the U.S added eight new vaccines totaling 23 doses of 13 diseases. Now almost every year, new vaccines are added including the Flu shot which still contains 25 mcg of mercury, RotaTeq the rotavirus vaccine and the HPV Cervical cancer vaccine for young girls, totaling 18 different diseases given in multiple vaccines. Ted Koren, chiropractor and vaccine researcher, analyzed the vaccine cocktails and states that our children get 74 injected bacterial/viral components by age of 6. This does not even consider all of the un-natural, carcinogenetic ingredients found in vaccines.

We live in a very toxic environment and it is our responsibility as parents to protect our children and to try to reduce our toxic load. There is much that we do not have personal control over, but vaccinations are one area where we can take control and make informed decisions. If we do not get actively involved in making these decisions, we will eventually lose our rights. How will you feel when you no longer have the right to say "NO" and the government forces vaccines or you go to jail like a common criminal? The vaccination program in this country is not about health, it is about profit. Greed and power have been fueling this industry for many years. We must wake up and realize that as long as we passively allow the government to make our healthcare decisions; we do not own our bodies.

Parents must understand that they have the last say as to what gets injected into their children. All states allow exemptions to vaccines but most parents are not informed of their rights. In fact, we are told that our children cannot attend school unless they are fully vaccinated. That is only part of the story. Each state has its own vaccine requirements and most have religious exemptions, medical exemptions and some have philosophical exemptions available. Your local health department will have a copy of the written law which is available for you by request. If you do not know your rights, you are no different than a slave! Education is the key to making sound decisions and our children are counting on us to make health decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Please, do not make vaccine decisions out of fear!

Parents note: If any mandatory vaccine will cause injury or serious side effect, you will be responsible for the medical bills. Laws have been passed and signed making the vaccine manufactures, doctors, federal, state and county health departments immune from prosecution. In other words, you will be stuck paying the bills.

Aspirin is a risky pill to swallow

The issue surrounding the use of aspirin for any so-called health protection is outweighed by the risks of silent bleeding and further for the risk of failure of the clotting mechanism in general, similar to long term warfarin therapy, and disruption of the cell wall membrane.

Herbs with "blood thinning" capacity without untoward effects are available, as is vitamin E. Both nutrient classes of natural supplements will aid in this effort.

Caution that high-dose aspirin is not recommended for routine long-term use in cancer prevention in a healthy population and carries the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and other adverse effects.

Aspirin Prevents Colorectal Cancer but Risks Too High
By Crystal Phend, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: January 24, 2008

BOSTON -- Long-term, higher-dose aspirin may protect men against colorectal cancer, but gastrointestinal and other associated risks outweigh the benefit, researchers said.

Men who took six to 14 aspirin tablets a week were 28% less likely than nonusers to develop colorectal cancer, and those who took more than 14 a week were at 70% lower risk, reported Andrew T. Chan, M.D., of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard, and colleagues, in the January issue of Gastroenterology.

However, the benefit was seen only for men who took aspirin consistently for at least six years, they found in their analysis of the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study.

Randomized controlled trials have shown reduced adenoma recurrence with short-term aspirin use, but the Physicians' Health Study and the Women's Health Study showed low-dose aspirin did not protect against colorectal cancer.

"Our study provides additional support that aspirin chemoprevention requires use of higher doses over a long period, which raises the risk of adverse events such as gastrointestinal bleeding," they said.

Thus, aspirin cannot be recommended for general chemoprevention for a healthy population, they said. That conclusion is consistent with those of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

In an accompanying editorial, Peter Lance, M.D., of the Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson, agreed that the toxicity to achieve these benefits would be prohibitive.

"Despite much effort over two decades," he noted, "no chemopreventive intervention for colorectal cancer has yet entered routine clinical practice as part of usual care for healthy members of the general population."

The Health Professionals Follow-up Study followed 51,529 male dentists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, pharmacists, and veterinarians for 18 years with biennial questionnaires.

During this period, there were 975 documented cases of colorectal cancer.

Men who used at least two aspirin a week, classified as regular users, had lower risk of colorectal cancer overall than men who did not regularly take aspirin in multivariate analysis controlling for other colorectal cancer risk factors (relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.90).

The benefit rose with increasing dose (P=0.004 for trend). Compared with men who did not report taking aspirin, the relative risk of colorectal cancer was:

Not reduced for those who took the equivalent of 0.5 to 1.5 standard tablets (325 mg) of aspirin a week (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.18)
Reduced, but not significantly so, for men taking two to five tablets a week (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01)
Significantly reduced for men taking six to 14 standard aspirin tablets a week (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92)
Dramatically reduced for men who took more than 14 tablets a week (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.81)
However, use conferred a benefit only for men who reported consistent use for more than five years (P=0.008 for trend).

Greater benefits for longer duration of use were seen for advanced-stage cancers (P=0.03 for stage 2 and P=0.005 for stage 3 and 4 for trend), but not for early-stage cancers (P=0.31 for trend).

When men discontinued regular aspirin use, the benefit fizzled out after four to five years and their relative risk of colorectal cancer was as if they had never taken it (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.39).

The study may have underestimated duration of aspirin use, the researchers noted.

A previous subset study in the same Health Professionals Follow-up cohort found most aspirin users had used it for at least five years before baseline.

"Thus, it is likely that the minimum duration of use necessary to observe a risk reduction may be comparable to the 10 years we observed in a parallel cohort of women," Dr. Chan and colleagues said.

Nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) similarly improved colorectal cancer risk when used regularly for more than five years (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94, P=0.008 for trend with increasing duration).

However, no nonspecific analgesic effect appeared when the researchers looked at regular acetaminophen use for five or fewer years (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22) or longer than five years (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22).

The investigators noted that the study was observational and aspirin use was self-selected, but they countered that the results have "strong biologic plausibility" with causality demonstrated in prior studies.

Further study is needed to determine whether the benefits would outweigh the risks for a subset of patients, they concluded.

Other strategies may include finding new chemopreventive agents or combining lower doses of agents with separate pathways to improve safety, Dr. Lance added.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute and by the Entertainment Industry Foundation National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance.

Dr. Chan reported receiving support from awards from the American Gastroenterological Association/Foundation and the National Cancer Institute, as well as an award from the Glaxo Institute for Digestive Health for an unrelated study.

Dr. Lance provided no information on conflicts of interest.

Additional source: Gastroenterology
Source reference:
Chan AT, et al "Aspirin dose and duration of use and risk of colorectal cancer in men"Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 21-28.

Additional source: Gastroenterology
Source reference:
Lance P, "Chemoprevention for colorectal cancer: some progress but a long way to go" Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 341-353.

Add Your Knowledge™

doug keller - Jan 25, 2008
I would like to see risk/benefit/cost analysis comparing chronic aspirin use to colonoscopy.

navarro jose, md - Jan 26, 2008
I know a patient that because arthritis took aspirin in a compulsive neurotic way and in spite of gastric pain and bleeding,continued to do it, until ultimately developed renal insufficiency.

Friday, January 25, 2008

UPDATE - Herbal extract extends heart patients' lives: study

Posted originally March 2007
It is unfortunate that Bill Berkot failed to do his research when he wrote this story report.

Hawthorne has been the preemminent herb for the heart for hundreds of years and is used in the states (US) daily for CHF and related cardiovascular conditions.

It has additional uses as well for health especially in people over 40. When using hawthorne make sure that you inform your physician as it can and will lower your blood pressure.

Send us your questions about its use and effectiveness. You can order organic hawthorne extract made in the proper way from us too.

Hawthorn contains oligomeric procyanidins, flavonoids (including vitexin-2-rhamnoside) and other compounds. This product is standardized to contain 6.01 mg per tablet of vitexin-2-rhamnoside and 15 mg per tablet catechin polymers to ensure optimal strength and quality.
The substances in Hawthorn, particularly the oligomeric procyanidins and flavonoids, work together to:
support the healthy functioning of the heart muscle
help maintain normal blood pressure within a normal range
supports normal coronary blood flow
promote cardiovascular system health
provide antioxidant protection

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Bill Berkrot 34 minutes ago

An extract from the leaves of the crataegus, or hawthorn tree, already available in Europe, extended the lives of patients with congestive heart failure who were already receiving medicinal treatment by an average of four months, a study found.

Results of the 2,681-patient clinical trial that tested the extract known as WS 1442 against a placebo, were presented on Tuesday at the American College of Cardiology scientific meeting here.

The extract from the crataegus tree, which has its origins in Europe and Ireland and grows throughout North America, is a natural antioxidant that has been used in parts of Europe to treat heart failure, a condition in which the heart is no longer able to pump enough blood to the body's other organs.

Patients in the trial had severely impaired left ventricular function, indicating advanced congestive heart failure.

The primary goal of the study was time to first cardiac event, defined as sudden cardiac death, death due to progressive heart failure, fatal and nonfatal heart attacks or hospitalization due to heart failure.

Researchers found that patients who received the extract had a 20 percent reduction in cardiac-related deaths, which translated into four months of added survival time during the first 18 months of the study.

They said the lower number of deaths in the WS 1442 group compared with those who received placebo on top of their regular medicines was an indication of the safety of the crataegus extract.

"It postpones death of cardiac cause after 18 months and sudden cardiac death in an important subgroup of patients," said Dr. Christian Holubarsh, lead investigator of the study that was sponsored by the Germany-based Dr. Willmar Schwabe Group.

Study shows connection: asthma, early vaccinations

From the Canadian Press, important but probably something you won't see written up in the US media venues.

U of M researcher links asthma, early vaccinations
By Jen Skerritt Thursday, January 24th, 2008

Children who have their routine vaccinations delayed by two months or more cut their risk of asthma by half, a University of Manitoba researcher has found.

Anita Kozyrskyj, an asthma researcher in the U of M faculty of pharmacy, studied the immunization and health records of 14,000 children born in Manitoba in 1995.

Kozyrskyj found nearly 14 per cent of the children who received their first shot of diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccine at two months of age developed asthma — compared with only 5.9 per cent of children who were vaccinated more than four months after the scheduled date.

Manitoba recommends vaccinating children at two months, four months, six months and 18 months of age for diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and tetanus (DPT).

The DPT causes an allergic reaction and Kozyrskyj said researchers are speculating whether children's immune systems are better able to handle the vaccine's side effects when they're older. The pertussis vaccine used in Manitoba before 1997 caused fever in some children, and some studies have linked fever in early childhood to a greater risk of developing asthma.

The study's findings are going to be published in the U.S. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology within the next few weeks.

"We're thinking that maybe if you delay this allergic response until a bit later, the child's immune system is more developed and maybe you're not seeing this effect," Kozyrskyj said.

The findings come as little surprise to parents who have spoken out against the risks of vaccinating infants at an early age.

The prevalence of childhood disorders like asthma and auto-immune disorders like autism has increased over the last few decades, leaving many parents wondering whether childhood vaccinations may be contributing to the rise.

"They're barely out of the protection of the womb before we're sticking vaccines in them," said Irene Gergus, a Winnipeg mom whose son Andrew lost his ability to speak shortly after receiving his fourth DPT shot at 18 months in 1993.

"I'm not against vaccination I just think they're too young to be receiving (them)."

Kozyrskyj is the first researcher to study the effect between asthma and vaccines, but said she doesn't believe the findings will spur a change the province's vaccination schedule. She said Japan recommended children under 10 months not be vaccinated between 1975 and 1988, and the country saw a spike in the number of childhood cases of whooping cough.

Kozyrskyj said she is "pro-vaccination" and noted the safety and efficacy of vaccines has been studied for years.

"It's not an alarm bell," she said. "We have many years of research on these vaccines and I would say the benefits, by far, outweigh the risks."

Of the 14,000 immunization records Kozyrskyj studied, 11,531 children received at least four doses of DPT.

Overall, nearly 12 per cent of the children who received at least four doses of DPT had asthma. The majority of children who had asthma lived in urban areas and were predominantly male.

Kozyrskyj said researchers did not compare the risk of asthma among children who did not receive any vaccinations, saying only about 100 children in the province did not receive DPT — a number that would not be statistically significant.

jen.skerritt@freepress.mb.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2008 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

Something to question

Generally thinking most drug companies warn you to avoid taking your Rx with grapefruit.

Now here is a point made by Dr. Russell Blaylock, taken from his brief article found further along in this blog, teling us how beneficial grapefruit is to help protect your liver form those drugs...

But several powerful nutrients have been shown to help protect liver cells from damage inflicted by toxins and toxic medications: grapefruit, quercetin, curcumin, N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), and methionine.

Grapefruit, quercetin and curcumin all reduce the toxicity of acetaminophen as well as a number of other toxins. N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) and methionine are also both effective in treating acetaminophen poisoning.

Nasal Irrigation Beats Saline Sprays for Stuffy Nose

It is an interesting observation how mainstream medicine (MSM) denigrates natural health care methods proven effective for eons, that is unless a drug company seems to come up with the idea, post facto.

In my work I have been advising nasal washing for decades and people are so amzaed at how it brings about true relief.

I offer an herbal nasal 'inhaler' along with a nasal washing kit and also a salt inhaler for both children an adults. And I'm happy to answer any inquiry about the products, including how you can order. Remember that our work is supported by profits from our sales and service along with donations this BLOG is sponsored by a 501c3 tax-exempt and non-profit organization.
Note that the studies showed both short-and-long-term benefits to nasal irrigation, suggesting a preventive effect.

ANN ARBOR, Mich., Nov. 19 -- For chronic rhinitis, nasal irrigation may clear sinuses substantially better than a saline spray, suggested a comparison of what has been assumed to be equivalent treatments.

Flushing the sinuses with salt water about doubled short-term improvements in symptom severity and frequency compared with saline spray, reported Melissa A. Pynnonen, M.D., of the University of Michigan here, and colleagues in the November issue of the Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The irrigations help people significantly," Dr. Pynnonen said. "The amount of improvements people get is similar to the amount of improvement that patients with chronic sinus and nasal problems get after sinus surgery."

The results suggest irrigation may be ready to move beyond the otolaryngologist's armamentarium into primary care, the investigators said.

Both irrigation and sprays have been used as adjuvant treatments to medical therapy for allergies and other chronic nasal and sinus conditions. But "nasal saline sprays are often used as an alternative to saline irrigations because saline spray is often perceived to be equivalent to and better tolerated than irrigation," the researchers said.

So the researchers conducted a randomized, controlled trial comparing the two methods in 121 adults with chronic nasal and sinus symptoms, such as nasal stuffiness and thick nasal discharge. Symptoms were similar between groups at baseline.

Participants were taught how to use nasal irrigation or nasal saline spray and continued treatment twice daily for eight weeks in addition to their usual medications.

Symptom scores improved in both groups during treatment (P0.001 at weeks two, four, and eight), but the irrigation group consistently scored better than the saline group. The symptom severity changes from baseline were, respectively:

12.2 versus 6.7 points on a 100-point scale at two weeks (P=0.05).
16.2 versus 7.4 points at four weeks (P=0.002).
15.0 versus 8.5 points at eight weeks (P=0.04).

Symptom frequency also improved more in the irrigation group. Whereas almost all patients (93% to 95%) reported nasal or sinus symptoms "often or always" at baseline, only 40% of the irrigation group compared with 61% of the spray group reported the same at week eight (adjusted odds ratio: 0.49, absolute risk reduction: 0.2, P=0.01).

So the number needed to treat with saline irrigation was five to reduce symptom frequency and seven to have a clinically significant, 16-point or greater improvement in symptom severity.

Adverse events, most commonly nasal drainage after treatment, were similar between groups. Use of other medications, whether prescription or over-the-counter, was likewise similar between groups throughout the study.

However, compliance with irrigation dropped over time compared with the spray (92% versus 97% at week two, 81% versus 93% at week four, and 79% versus 93% at week eight, P=0.03).

While the researchers called the 79% compliance high, they added that it "suggests that our results are a conservative estimate of the true benefit of irrigation therapy."

These benefits compared with saline spray could "be due to greater volume, increased delivery pressure, and mechanical debridement achieved with irrigations," Dr. Pynnonen and colleagues said.

Whatever the mechanism, the findings are likely generalizable to the millions of patients with nasal and sinusitis-like symptoms seen in primary care every day, they said.

Furthermore, the magnitude of improvements with nasal irrigation (range 12.2 to 16.2 points) was not substantially different from improvements seen with sinus surgery (19 to 22 points) in one study and was greater than that with oral prednisone (10 points) in another.

"This finding is even more remarkable given the nominal cost and minimal risk of this saline intervention," they wrote.

The study was supported by NeilMed Pharmaceuticals.

Primary source: Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery
Source reference:
Pynnonen MA, et al "Nasal saline for chronic sinonasal symptoms: a randomized controlled trial"Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 133: 1115-1120.


Nasal Irrigation Flushes Away Kids' Cold Symptoms

BRNO, Czech Republic, Jan. 21 -- Nasal irrigation with a saline solution of processed seawater may clear up children's cold symptoms faster than standard medication alone and prevent them from returning, researchers here found.

Kids' stuffy and runny noses improved more in the first three weeks of treatment when frequent saline rinses were used along with standard medication than with medication alone (P0.05 for both), reported Ivo Šlapak, M.D., of Teaching Hospital Brno, and colleagues, in the January issue of the Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery.

At eight weeks, children using nasal irrigation in the prospective, open-label study still had lower scores for sore throat, cough, nasal obstruction, and secretion (P0.05 for all).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most compelling result was the reduction in medication use for children who used the low-volume wash, commented Melissa A. Pynnonen, M.D., of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in an interview.

Her research group has also reported benefits of nasal irrigation for adults.

But overall evidence of efficacy has been poor, the researchers said. And, it was questionable whether irrigation would be a feasible treatment for children, Dr. Pynnonen said.

"This was really well tolerated," Dr. Pynnonen said. "The question was whether you can get kids to do it, and these authors show that you can."

Their prospective, parallel-group, open-label study included 401 children ages six to 10 seen for uncomplicated cold or flu in eight pediatric outpatient clinics.

Participants were randomized to treatment with standard medication, which could include antipyretics, nasal decongestants, mucolytics, and antibiotics, alone or in combination with nasal wash, and then observed over 12 weeks.

The nasal irrigation used was a commercially available product (Physiomer) processed from Atlantic Ocean seawater using electrodialysis to maintain the concentration of trace elements and minerals, the researchers said.

Patients used the saline nasal wash in a volume of 3 to 6 mL for each nostril six times a day during acute illness and three times a day for prevention over the remainder of follow-up.

At the second office visit during the up to three-week "acute illness" phase of the study, some symptoms had improved more with the nasal irrigation than with medication alone.

The improved scores, on a scale where 1 was symptom free and 4 was severe symptoms, included:

Sore throat (1.09 with irrigation versus 1.23 for controls, P0.05).
Nasal secretion (1.79 with irrigation versus 2.10 for controls, P0.05).
Nasal breathing (1.25 with irrigation versus 1.58 for controls, P0.05).

Physicians rated health status as significantly more improved compared with baseline among those using nasal irrigation whether they entered the study with a cold (1.87 versus 2.60 on a four-point scale in which 1 is cured and 4 is no change, P0.05) or the flu (1.59 versus 2.00, P=0.02).

At the 12-week follow-up in the subsequent prevention phase, symptoms of dry cough, nasal secretion, and nasal breathing were less common or less severe among children in the nasal irrigation group than in the control group (P0.05).

Long-term saline irrigation also was associated with better parent-reported health status, fewer reported days of illness, fewer absences from school, and fewer complications (P0.05).

At the first visit, the saline nasal wash group reported less use of nasal decongestants (15.9% versus 35.6%, P0.001) and mucolytics (17.3% versus 31.7%, P=0.002).

At the follow-up visit at about week eight, medication use was lower in the nasal irrigation group for antipyretics (9.4% versus 32.7%), mucolytics (9.7% versus 36.6%), nasal decongestants (9.7% versus 46.5%), and systemic antibiotics (5.6% versus 20.8%).

All five comparisons were likewise significant at week 12 (P0.05), except that the difference in systemic antibiotic use disappeared.

"The reduced use of topical decongestants is important since they are appropriate only on a short-term basis," the researchers said.

Long-term use of topical decongestants, although common, they said, "can lead to complications, including paranasal sinusitis and histologic changes in the mucosa."


The children had more complaints about the higher volume washes and three patients reported nosebleeds, but overall it was well tolerated, Dr. Šlapak and colleagues said.

The study was limited by its unblinded design and use of symptom scores for which a clinically significant level of difference has not been established, the researchers noted.

"It is not clear whether the effect is predominantly mechanical, based on clearing mucus, or whether salts and trace elements in seawater solutions play a significant role," the researchers said.

However, the benefit is likely related to more than mucus clearance because it lasted beyond the acute phase of cold or flu, Dr. Pynnonen said.

The study was funded by Goemar Laboratoires La Madeleine.

Dr. Šlapak reported receiving speakers' honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline and Servier. Co-authors reported conflicts of interest for GlaxoSmithKline, Servier, Merck & Co., Schering-Plough, Piere Fabre, Artu, Roche, Zentiva, Pfizer, Schering AG, sanofi-aventis, Gedeon-Richter, Eli Lilly, and Astellas.

Dr. Pynnonen has received research support from NeilMed Pharmaceuticals, which makes a sinus rinse product.

Primary source: Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery
Source reference:
Šlapak I, et al "Efficacy of isotonic nasal wash (seawater) in the treatment and prevention of rhinitis in children"Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 134: 67-74.

UK report on more Gardasil DANGER

"PATIENTS DIE AFTER BEING GIVEN CERVICAL CANCER JAB"

A cervical cancer vaccine is being monitored after 2 girls died suddenly after being given the Gardasil vaccine. One was in Germany & the other in Austria. No cause of death could be found. 3 girls are reported to have died in USA after the vaccination.


Please refer to other posts about the risks of this vaccine via 'search'.