An osteopathic medical doctor has more than 300 hours of training  musculoskeletal system called osteopathic manipulation. This is similar to, but distinct from, chiro-practic manipulation. Osteopathic doctors trained outside of the U.S. have training very similar to chiropractic. American-trained DOs are often trained in the same programs as their MD counterparts.

The American Osteopathic Association [AOA] does not endorse the content of this site and has sent a certified letter, requesting that I remove its logo and its link from this website. However, I remain a fully paid, card-carrying member of the AOA.

For those who are interested in the Osteopathic profession, please Google “American Osteopathic Association” for more information.

American Academy of Osteopathy

The Cranial Academy

Article by Dr Sherri Tenpenny

We’ve all been taught that germs are bad and they are lurking around every corner, waiting to invade defenseless humans. Doctors and the media talk about swine flu as though getting the flu is an inevitable catastrophe unless, of course, we are injected with the life-saving flu shot.

We go to great lengths to combat these potential invaders: frequent hand-washing, learning to cough in our sleeves and grimacing at the thought of eating a morsel retrieved from the floor. Is all this necessary? Or is there a different view?

One of the chiasms between conventional medical doctors and those who embrace alternative practices is the view of how the Germ Theory of Disease (credited to Louis Pasteur) impacts health. Many assume a discussion about the Germ Theory is a moot point. Questioning its validity elicits divisiveness and hostility among medical practitioners and laypersons alike. Why? Because challenging Pasteur’s mechanistic idea of disease—finding the right cure (drug) for each germ—was the seed of the pharmaceutical empire. Nonetheless, it is most unfortunate that Pasteur’s premise was accepted as complete to the exclusion of all others.

There is little doubt that by the 21st century, a 19th century concept should have evolved. The frailty of the immune system is a medical myth. We need a better understanding of the relationship between humans and microbes to live in optimal health.

 The Immune System Explained

The immune system is the complex interaction between white blood cells, antibodies, hormones, proteins, enzymes, and inflammatory molecules called cytokines. All act in silent synchrony to maintain health. The body is exposed to billions of microbes on the skin, in the mouth, in the digestive tract, and on everything we touch. Microbes that coexist with humans are called symbionts—organisms we have a beneficial relationship with, and are considered to be part of, our normal flora.

The immune system can easily recognize non-symbionts and effectively eliminates them. This process occurs thousands of times per day with little fanfare. However, it is not the “invasion” by external microbes that leads to symptoms known as an infection; it is the compromise of the immune system due to the contamination of the terrain that allows this to occur.

By most historical accounts, Pasteur is considered a luminary hero. Some of his discoveries were undoubtedly noteworthy. For example, Pasteur has been credited with the development of a process known as pasteurization, a method by which microbes are destroyed by heat. Examining his germ theory premises and generally accepted medical history is monumentally difficult, especially regarding someone with the stature of Pasteur. However, there is another view of disease which challenges Pasteur’s 150-year-old premise: Health is about the condition of the body called the “terrain,” or its “soil,” and only when the immune system’s soil is disrupted and contaminated can pathogens propagate.

 Renewing the Germ Theory Debate

The germ theory and the opposing view are part of the fabric woven around the history of medicine. Many notable individuals throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s were involved with the debate, but the most vocal figures were Pasteur and his two contemporaries, Claude Bernard and Antoine Béchamp. Both strong critics of Pasteur’s work, it was Bernard—a physiologist and heralded as the Father of Experimental Medicine—who made the statement amidst a group of physicians and scientists: “The terrain is everything; the germ is nothing,” creating the great debate.

As contrary as it seems, germs are attracted to the diseased tissues; they are not the primary cause of it. A quote from Dr. Rudolph Virchow, the Father of Modern Pathology, supports this idea: “If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat—diseased tissue—rather than being the cause of dead tissue. In other words, mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant.” The symptoms of the flu or pneumonia—fever, chills, cough, and excess mucous production—are actually secondary illnesses; the first “illness” was loss of health in the underlying tissues.

Bernard’s view is that disease is an “inside-out job,” meaning that when the body is disrupted by today’s toxicities—vaccines, chemicals, heavy metals, processed food, preservatives, fluoride, etc. – disease occurs. These molecules create a cellular shift toward an acidic state. When cells become acidic, pathogens find a favorable environment to replicate.

What is little known is that throughout his career, Pasteur had doubts about his own assumptions. On his deathbed, Pasteur said “Bernard avait raison. Le germe n’est rien, c’est le terrain qui est tout.” (“Bernard was right. The germ is nothing; the soil is everything.”) However, by the time of Pasteur’s death, the germ theory of disease had become so profitable that modern medicine dismissed his final confessions as nothing more than the ramblings of a dying man. It should always be remembered: The money is in the medicine—not the cure.

 The Benefit of Pathogens?

It may be that the role of both the bacteria and the virus is to induce an inflammatory response, a low-level and modified cytokine storm, to help the body to detoxify. It would be very interesting to test the secretions that are expelled during a bout of the flu for chemicals and heavy metals. For example, if a person reportedly died from “viral pneumonia,” perhaps the body was trying to expel a huge amount of chemical-containing mucous. If the person’s immune system was too weak to muster an adequate response or his lymphatics were too congested to drain the accumulated debris—and more chemicals are added during the acute episode, such as aspirin, antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, and steroids—the body may have become overwhelmed, leading to the person’s demise.

In the presence of faulty detoxification processes, toxic overload occurs. Maybe microbes are handy to have around, inflaming the system to clear out the muck. If everything on this planet is here for a reason, if we are to work synergistically with nature and if there are no mistakes, perhaps an episode of the flu — with the increased mucous, cough, nasal drainage, and diarrhea — is the act of cleaning out the internal dross.

Supporting the body through this elimination process with homeopathy, herbs, and Chinese medicine – instead of suppressing the symptoms with Western medicine’s tools – may be a key to long-term health and longevity. From this perspective, instead of being the problem, viruses may be part of the solution, the “clean-up crew.” It should be noted that the human race evolved because of its relationship to microbes, not in spite of it.

Obviously, this is a novel way of viewing pathogens and the infectious process. Instead of fearing the flu and doing everything possible to avoid it – including spending billions of dollars to create an experimental vaccine – it may be okay to spend a week or two in bed, clearing out accumulated toxicities.

I’m sure many will think of this heresy bordering on the ridiculous. But in the words of Mark Twain, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know; it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Adapted from:

FOWL! Bird Flu: It’s Not What You Think order today

“En 1853, el Parlamento comenzó a aprobar las leyes para hacer obligatoria la prueba de vacunas en todo el Imperio Británico. Otros países siguieron el ejemplo de Europa. Una vez que el repercusiones económicas de la vacunación obligatoria se realizaron, pocos se atrevieron a en desacuerdo. Entonces, como ahora, los medios de comunicación estaban controlados por los fabricantes de vacunas y el gobierno, que era enorme para hacer dinero de la venta de estos falsos vacunas .”… Tim O’Shea, D.C.

¿Qué pasa en el ordinario de la vacuna contra la gripe?

• Proteínas de huevo: incluyendo virus aviar contaminante

• Gelatina: se sabe que causan reacciones alérgicas y anafilaxia son generalmente asociados con la sensibilidad al huevo o gelatin

• Polisorbato 80 (Tween80™): puede causar reacciones alérgicas graves, incluyendo anafilaxia

• Formaldehído: conocido carcinógeno

• Triton X100: un detergente fuerte

• Sacarosa: azúcar de mesa

• Resina: se sabe que causan reacciones alérgicas

• Gentamicina: un antibiotic

• Timerosal: el mercurio se encuentra todavía en viales multidosis

¿Vacunas contra la gripe hacer el trabajo?

No en los bebés

En una revisión de más de 51 estudios con más de 294.000 niños se encuentran “no había pruebas de que la inyección de niños de 6-24 meses de edad con una gripe shotwas más eficaz que cualquier placebo. En los niños mayores de 2 años, sólo fue efectivo el 33% del tiempo en prevenir la gripe. Referencia: Vacunas para la prevención de la gripe en personas sanas los niños. “La Base de Datos Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas. 2 (2008).

No en niños con asma

Un estudio de 800 niños con asma, donde la mitad fueron vacunados y la otra mitad no recibió la vacuna contra la gripe. Los dos grupos fueron comparados con respecto a clínica de visitas, servicio de urgencias (SU) visitas, y las hospitalizaciones para el asma. CONCLUSIÓN: Este estudio no ha aportado pruebas de que la vacuna contra la gripe previene las exacerbaciones de asma pediátrica. Referencia: “Eficacia de la vacuna contra la gripe para la prevención del asma exacerbaciones.” Christly, C. et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Ago; 89(8):734-5.

No en niños con asma (2)

“La vacuna contra la gripe inactivados, FluMist, no impide que las hospitalizaciones relacionadas con la gripe en los niños, especialmente aquellos con asma … De hecho, los niños que reciben la vacuna contra la gripe tienen más riesgo de hospitalización de los niños que no reciben la vacuna.” Referencia: La American Thoracic Society de 105 Conferencia Internacional, 15-20 mayo 2009, San Diego.

No en adultos

En una revisión de 48 informes, entre ellos más de 66.000 adultos, “la vacunación de adultos sanos sólo la reducción del riesgo de la gripe un 6% y redujo el número de días de trabajo perdido por menos de un día (0,16) días. No cambiar el número de personas que necesitan ir al hospital o tomar tiempo libre de trabajo.” Referencia: “Vacunas para la prevención la gripe en adultos sanos. “La Base de Datos Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas.

1 (2006).

No en las personas de edad avanzada

En una revisión de 64 estudios en 98 temporadas de gripe, por ancianos que viven en hogares de ancianos, vacunas contra la gripe no son significativas para prevenir la gripe. Las personas de edad avanzada que viven en la comunidad, las vacunas no (significativamente) eficaces contra la gripe, la neumonía o la ETI. Referencia: “Vacunas para la prevención de la gripe en las personas de edad.” The Cochrane Base de datos de Revisiones Sistemáticas. 3 (2006).

¿Qué acerca de la nueva vacuna contra la gripe porcina?

Un nuevo informe de un grupo asesor de la OMS predice que el mundial la producción de la vacuna para el virus de la gripe H1N1 novela podría ser como hasta 4,9 mil millones de dosis al año, muy superiores a las estimaciones previas. El informe dice que la vacuna se espera que los encargados de producer unas 780 millones de dosis de vacuna contra la gripe estacional para el norte 2008-09 del hemisferio para la temporada de gripe

Anuncio de 12 de junio: El nuevo H1N1 (gripe porcina) vacuna va a ser hecha por Novartis. Probablemente será hecho en PER.C6 células (humanos células de la retina) y contienen MF59, potencialmente debilitante adyuvante.

MF-59 es un adyuvante a base de aceite, compuesto principalmente de escualeno, Tween 80 y Span85. Todos los adyuvantes de aceite inyectado en ratas se encontraron tóxicos. Todas las ratas desarrollado una enfermedad como la EM-que dejaron paralizado, arrastrando paralizado sus cuartos traseros a través de sus jaulas. El escualeno causó graves artritis (3 en una escala de 4). El escualeno en los seres humanos a 10-20 ppb (partes por billón) dar lugar a graves immune respuestas, tales como el lupus y la artritis autoinmune. Referencia: Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. “Estudio de los adyuvantes de uso humano.” Expertos de Vacunas. 2 (2003) p171 Referencia: Matsumoto, Gary. Una vacuna: El Gobierno oculto Experimento Eso es matar a nuestros soldados y por qué de la GI son sólo el primer Víctimas de esta vacuna. Nueva York: Basic Libros. p54.

Funcionarios federales de salud probablemente recomendará que la mayoría de Americanos obtener tres vacunas contra la gripe este otoño: uno ordinario y la vacuna contra la gripe dos dosis de cualquier vacuna contra la nueva cepa de gripe porcina. Referencia: Washington Post, miércoles, 6 de mayo, 2009

• Kathleen Sebelius Secretario de HHS está hablando a la escuela superintendentes de todo el país, instándolos a gastar el verano de planificación lo que debe hacer si el gobierno decide que necesita sus edificios de las vacunas y la vacunación en masa los niños primero. Referencia: CBS News, 12 de junio de 2009.

¿La vacunación obligatoria es posible?

1946: U.S. Servicio de Salud Pública y se estableció la igualdad de oportunidades EO 9708 (Ejecutivo Orden) fue firmado, la lista de las enfermedades transmisibles en cuarentena podría ser utilizado. 1946 y 2003, el cólera, la difteria, la tuberculosis, la fiebre tifoidea, la viruela, fiebre amarilla, fiebres hemorrágicas virales y se han añadido.

4 de abril de 2003: EO 13295 SRAS añadido a la lista.

1 de abril de 2005: EO 13295 añadido “de influenza causados por nuevos o re-emergentes virus de la influenza que causan, o tienen el potencial de causar una pandemia. ” EO 13295 también: El presidente dio a la Secretaría. de HHS el poder para poner en cuarentena, o su discreción.

o Sec. de HHS tiene la facultad de disponer la distribución de la “aprehensión y el examen de las personas de las que razonablemente se piensa que la infección. “La tos o una fiebre podría poner a una persona en situación de riesgo por estar en cuarentena por un período de tiempo prolongado sin que se recurra.

28 de enero de 2003: Proyecto BioShield se introdujo durante Bush Estado de la Dirección Unión. Esto creó permanente e indefinida de financiación a la autoridad desarrollar “contramedidas médicas.” El NIH se dio autoridad a fin de acelerar la aprobación de medicamentos y vacunas. Aprobación de emergencia de un “seguimiento rápido” de drogas y vacunas pueden ser dado sin el curso regular de pruebas de seguridad.

17 de diciembre de 2006: División E: La Pública y Preparación de Emergencia Ley de la preparación se añadió como una adición al proyecto de ley de Defensa de Créditos HR p 2863 a las 11:20 el sábado por la noche, mucho después de Casa de los miembros del Comité habían firmado el proyecto de ley fuera de casa y se ha ido para las fiestas. Sección(b)(1) dice:

La Secretaría de HHS puede hacer una determinación de que una “enfermedad, la salud condición o la amenaza “que constituye una emergencia de salud pública. Él o ella podrá recomendar “la fabricación, pruebas, desarrollo, administración, o el uso de uno o más de las medidas cubiertas … “. Una cubierta de contramedida se define como un “producto pandemia, la vacuna o de drogas.”

División E también proporciona una completa protección de responsabilidad para todas las drogas, vacunas o productos biológicos considerará una “contramedida cubierta” y utilizados para un brote de cualquier tipo. Completo la responsabilidad de protección se ha dado a las compañías farmacéuticas para cualquier producto utilizado para cualquier emergencia de salud pública, declarada por la Sección de HHS. Pharma está protegido de toda responsabilidad, a menos que “penal la intención de hacer daño “puede ser probado por la parte lesionada. Son protegido de la responsabilidad, incluso si saben que la droga será perjudicial.

¿Qué puedo hacer?

Estas son sólo algunas sugerencias, por favor llegar con más de su propio! Añadir a esta lista y la propagación de la palabra.

• Dar esta información a todas las personas que conocen y aman.

• Contacto local de los primeros respondedores (EMTs, paramédicos, bomberos, etc.) Contar ellos lo que se estará en la vacunas contra la gripe y que * se * será el primer más para obtenerlo.

• En contacto con la policía local y debatir preocupaciones acerca de obligatorio vacunación. Vas a la iglesia y al supermercado con estos gente y sus niños jugar con sus hijos. No se trata de “miedo” de personas. Tomar un café y tratar de obtener en la puerta … ☺

• En contacto con los miembros del consejo local de la ciudad sobre sus libertades. Usted necesita su apoyo para mantener su derecho a negarse.

• Escribir un pequeño artículo para LOCAL, periódicos comunitarios. Ver para muestras en www.DrTenpenny.com

• Tener al menos 3 semanas de los alimentos y el agua en su casa y se dispuestos a la cuarentena voluntaria de auto-darse otras opciones.

• Abastecerse de la vitamina D3 (3000IU por persona), Vitamina A, Vitamina C, etc y productos homeopáticos para la gripe. Alguien me dijo que si tuviera que recibir la vacuna, in *mediatamente* después, frote el área duro y rápido con 1 / 2 de un limón recién cortado. Yo no que saber si te va a ayudar, pero ciertamente no puede doler.

• Echa un vistazo a www.oath-keepers.org. Un pdf de su juramento para un fácil la impresión será en www.DrTenpenny.com estoy compartiendo esto con oficina local de reclutamiento militar, los reservistas y militares retirados personas sabemos.

• Conectar con otras organizaciones de activistas – los que apoyo 2nd cuestiones de la enmienda, el medio ambiente y los derechos de los animales. Contribuir a la diffusion la palabra acerca de su pasión y su participación con la suya.

Usted no puede hacerlo todo, pero usted puede hacer algo!

Como se dijo hace años por Margaret Mead, “No cabe duda de que una pequeño grupo de ciudadanos comprometidos puede cambiar el mundo, sino que es la única cosa que nunca ha hecho. ”

Para obtener más información, vaya en inglés www.sayingnotovaccines.com o www.drtenpenny.com o +1-440-239-1878

Research still is being performed to substantiate whatever connections may exist, but the problems with vaccines have caused enough concern to spark the formation of dozens of grassroots political organizations that promote the right of a parent to refuse inoculation for their children. In addition, The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created via a cooperative effort of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS collects information about adverse-vaccine events and side effects.

Deciding whether to have a child vaccinated is one of the most important choices a parent will ever make. In the interest of informed consent, a pediatrician should present a full disclosure of the pros and cons of innoculation. Unfortunately, pediatricians rarely give parents the opportunity to learn about their option to not vaccinate. Often pediatricians or family doctors confront parents with strong opposition when merely questioned by parents about the potential risks of vaccination.

Parents should seek information on the pros and cons of vaccination on their own in order to make an educated, informed decision. A number of questions about vaccination follow. Each offers a statement commonly given by pediatricians and family doctors in support of vaccination. Information that rebuts this statement and supports the decision not to vaccinate follows.

1. Is vaccination necessary to prevent childhood disease?

Support of Vaccination:  Immunization has been repeatedly demonstrated to be one of the most effective medical interventions we have to prevent disease.

Rebuttal:  Most of the common childhood diseases were declining in terms of morbidity (complications) and mortality (death) prior to the introduction of vaccinations, according to information obtained directly from government sources.

2. How many lives does vaccination save?

Support of Vaccination:  It has been estimated that immunizations currently save three million lives per year throughout the world.

Rebuttal:  A negative cannot be proven. For example: how can you know that a vaccine saved a life? Do all people contract all infections? How do you know how many infections have been prevented by vaccines and how many infections have been prevented by other means?

3. Is vaccination cost-effective?

Support of Vaccination:  Immunization is one of the most cost-effective health interventions.

Rebuttal:  We do not know the actual cost of vaccination worldwide but a few costs are known:

The wholesale price for vaccines used in the U.S. pediatric schedule is more than $170 per child. Given that there are more than 77,000 live births per week in the U.S., that equals more than $13 million each week to prevent a few childhood infections.

More than $1.3 billion has been spent to eradicate polio from Third World countries.

The estimated lifetime cost of caring for one autistic (possibly vaccine-injured) child is more than $4.5 million.

4. Are vaccines safe?

Support of Vaccination:  Vaccines are safe and do not cause untoward effects on the immune system.

Rebuttal:  Safety studies have been too short, too small and too few in number to enable us to declare vaccines safe. In addition, the natural immune system of infants has not been studied and is not yet fully understood. The long-term consequences of vaccines on the immune systems of children under two years of age cannot be predicted. And as of yet, this information is not being tracked. If a child develops an autoimmune disorder, the cause is not studied; instead, a therapy/medication is developed to treat it.

5. Do vaccines contain toxic additives?

Support of Vaccination:  The additives in vaccines are in small concentrations and are non-toxic.

Rebuttal:  Vaccines contain a combination of at least 39 different toxic additives, preservatives and cell types introduced during the manufacturing process. The cumulative effect of these toxins, particularly the heavy metals, is hotly debated. Most vaccines are given in combination, and in doing so potentially create a cumulative effect of toxicity. In addition, vaccine contaminants have included bovine (cow), avian (chicken) and monkey viruses and bacteria such as streptococcus in the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine [Pediatrics, Vol. 75, No. 2, Feb 1985] and Serratia marcesens in the influenza vaccines [2004 influenza season].

For example, DTP, a common vaccine given to most newborns, is produced using formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, polysorbate 80 and gelatin. In some cases, thimerosal still is used. The polio vaccine is produced using three types of polio virus and can contain formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), sucrose (table sugar), neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B and VERO cells (a continuous line of monkey kidney cells).

It is also important to consider an infant’s developing filtering system for eliminating toxins. For example, aluminum is eliminated from the body primarily through the kidneys. Infant kidney function (glomerular filtration rate) is low at birth and does not reach full capacity until one to two years of age. [Simmer, K. Aluminium in Infancy. In: Zatta PF, Alfrey AC. (Eds) Aluminium Toxicity in Infants’ Health and Disease. 1997, World Scientific Publishing.]

6. What do vaccines protect against?

Support of Vaccination:  Vaccines provide high levels of protection against several diseases, as well as disability and death.

Rebuttal:  Vaccines vary in efficacy, and many who have been vaccinated still contract the disease. Therefore, vaccines do not necessarily protect against disability and death from disease. In addition, vaccines have been documented to cause certain disabilities, even death.

7. Are adverse side effects of vaccination common?

Support of Vaccination:  Serious adverse events following immunization are rare.

Rebuttal:  Between mid-1999 and Jan. 4, 2004 (for all vaccines and all reactions), 128,035 adverse reactions were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). It is estimated that only 10% of all reactions are actually reported to VAERS. Therefore, this may actually represent between 1.28 million (10%) and 12.8 million (1%) of all vaccine-associated adverse reactions. In that same period, there were 2,093 deaths reported to VAERS. This may actually represent between 20,930 (10%) and 209,300 (1%) of the deaths thought to be associated with vaccines.

Even though this data does not prove an association to vaccine-related injury and death, the magnitude of the numbers certainly takes exception to the concept of a “rare” event. It is worth mentioning that more than $1 billion has been paid in settlements to victims of vaccine-related injuries and death through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) since the program’s inception in 1988.

The decision to vaccinate or not is important and complex. Parents must take on the responsibility to seek enough information to make an educated, informed decision. Armed with as much information as possible, parents then can make the choice in consultation with their own health-care providers.

Typhoid fever is an illness caused by the bacterium Salmonella Typhi. In the United States, only about 400 cases occur each year, and 75% of these are acquired while traveling internationally. Typhoid fever is still common in areas of the world where hand washing is less frequent and water is likely to be contaminated with sewage. In the developing world, it affects about 21.5 million persons each year. If you are planning to travel outside the United States, you should know about typhoid fever and what steps you can take to protect yourself.

Signs and symptoms of typhoid fever include a fever as high as 103° to 104° F (39° to 40° C). Weakness, stomach pain, headache, diarrhea, malaise and loss of appetite are the most common symptoms. In some cases, patients have a rash of flat, rose-colored spots. The only way to know for sure if an illness is typhoid fever is to have samples of stool or blood tested for the presence of S. Typhi. Many other gastrointestinal microbes can cause similar types of traveler’s diarrhea.

The Vaccine

The protective efficacy for the Vi capsular polysaccharide (lyophilized formulation) group for blood culture confirmed cases of typhoid fever was 55%. That is just only slightly better than a coin toss.

Vaccination has been associated with an increase in anti-Vi antibodies. Antibody levels have documented to remained elevated at 6 and 12 months post-vaccination. An increase in serum antibodies is thought to be the basis of protection provided by Typhim Vi vaccine. However, the specific correlation between antibody levels and protection is not known and the level of Vi antibody that will provide protection has not been determined.[1]  In addition, most efficacy studies were done on children on Third World countries. Because of the low incidence of typhoid fever, efficacy studies were not feasible in a US population.

Typhoid vaccination is not required for international travel. It is only recommended for travelers thought to have prolonged exposure to potentially contaminated food and water. The definition of “prolonged exposure” is not given, but is thought to be 4-6 weeks in other literature.

 Vaccine Side Effects

Acute allergic reactions have occurred and the vaccine should not be given to anyone with blood disorders. No studies have been conducted to evaluate interactions or immunological complications when the Typhim Vi vaccine is given concurrently with antibiotics and antimalarial drugs, and other vaccines.  No studies have been done to to evaluate the vaccine for its carcinogenic potential, mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility.[2]

The most common side effects of the vaccine are strikingly similar to the symptoms seen from the disease itself: malaise, headache, myalgias, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and fever ≥100°F. Other side effects include:

• Local Reactions: injection site pain, injection site inflammation, injection site induration, injection site erythema, and lymphadenopathy.

• Generalized: Fever, malaise, flu-like episode, abdominal pain.

• Immune system disorders: Allergic-type reactions such as pruritus, rash, urticaria, difficulty breathing, hypotension and Serum sickness.

• Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders: Myalgia, arthralgia, neck pain.

• Nervous system disorders: Headache, loss of consciousness, tremor.[3]

Post-marketing reports of glomerulonephritis, neutropenia, bilateral retinitis, and polyarthritis have been reported in patients who had also received the typhoid vaccine along with other vaccines.[4]

It may surprise you, but watching what you eat and drink when you travel is as important as being vaccinated. This is because the vaccines are not completely effective.[5]  Avoiding risky foods will also help protect you from other illnesses, including travelers’ diarrhea, cholera, dysentery, and hepatitis A. A simple rule in very rural areas is “Boil it, cook it, peel it, or forget it.”

Typhoid fever can be treated with antibiotics.[6] Taking antibiotics will not prevent typhoid fever; they only help treat it. Three commonly prescribed antibiotics are ampicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and ciprofloxacin. Persons given antibiotics usually begin to feel better within 2 to 3 days, and deaths rarely occur. In fact, during the period of 1983 to 1991 in the US, the case fatality rate reported to the CDC was 0.2% (9 cases out of 4010 documented cases).

What should I pack?

A compact travel kit should include:

• diarrhea, upset stomach, or heartburn remedies like Pepto-Bismol. Some frequently travelers have been known to consume 1-2 chewable Pepto-Bismol tablets daily to decrease risk of traveler’s diarrhea. NOTE: This over-the-counter preparation will turn you stools black (due to the bismuth). Don’t be alarmed!

• constipation remedies like FiberCon®

• decongestants or natural antihistamines

• antibacterial soap like Safeguard®

• skin cream/antibiotic ointment (for cuts and scratches)

• first aid supplies (bandaids, gauze, adhesive tape)

• sunscreen/suntan lotion

• natural, non-DEET insect repellant

• soothing, non-alcohol-based lotion (for insect bites and sunburn)

• vitamins. A good daily supplement is Opti-Biotic or Culterelle to keep good bacteria in your intestines.

• sun glasses and possibly a duplicate pair of eyeglasses. Take a copy of your prescription with you.

• any prescription medicine that you are taking

Bottom line: Be cautious about water from unknown sources. Take prescription of antibiotics with you on your trip. Some studies have shown that taking

1. Typhoid fever vaccine package insert: http://www.vaccineshoppe.com/US_PDF/TyphimVi_4928_4929%20_03.05.pdf

2. Ibid. Typhoid fever vaccine package insert:

3. Ibid. Typhoid fever vaccine package insert:

4. Ibid. Typhoid fever vaccine package insert:

5. CDC: Typhoid Fever http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/typhoidfever_g.htm

6. Ibid. CDC: Typhoid Fever

1. Project Bioshield

ON June 16, 2003, Congress allocated $5.6 billion over the next 10 years to a program known as Project Bioshield. The funding is intended to encourage pharmaceutical research for vaccines and antidotes to be used in the event of a bioterrorism attack. Since there is no commercial market for these products, the linchpin of the legislation is the guarantee that the government will buy and stockpile these products, making it financially worthwhile for the companies. The legislation also gives the government power to bypass normal competitive bidding procedures and to relax safety and testing rules when necessary.[1]

2. The Medicare Subscription Bill

On December 8, 2003, President Bush signed into law H.R 1: The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. The program is expected to cost $400 billion subsidy over the 10 years that it exists but over the actuarial life of this program, it is a $7 trillion subsidy–$7 trillion. When the baby boomer generation retires, there is going to be massive influx of seniors into the system. It is estimated that between 2010 and 2030, the number of persons age 65 and older will increase from 39.7 million to 69.1 million, an average of one and a half million more seniors per year for 20 years.[2]

The cost this bill will put on the system is going to be dramatic. It has been predicted that any child born in the United States today will immediately arrive with a $44,000 debt which that child will pay his working life in order to pay for the baby boomer’s benefits under Medicare. This is the largest intergenerational tax increase in the history of the country.[3]

In the words of Ron Paul (R) from Texas: “Congress worked late into the night [the week of November 27, 2003] to pass a Medicare prescription drug bill that represents the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s. The new Medicare drug plan enriches pharmaceutical companies, fleeces taxpayers, and forces millions of older Americans to accept inferior drug coverage – while doing nothing to address the real reasons prescription drugs cost so much.[4]

The government—and in particular medicare—is the largest customer of the pharmaceutical industry.[5]  It seems the hard questions were not asked: Why do drug companies need to charge $10/pill? Why can’t they lower the cost of medications to an affordable level for Seniors? Why can Seniors get the identical drugs for pennies on the dollar from Canada? Instead of reducing prices to make drugs affordable to low income seniors, drug companies now have a multi-trillion dollar, government-guaranteed subsidy for years to come.

3. Nationwide Flu vaccine program

A movement is afoot in Congress to create a long-term plan to ensure the supply of future influenza vaccines. On December 12, 2003, US Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist (R-TN) reminded the American public that he had introduced legislation to develop a “national vaccine strategy and contingency plan.” [6]

All the pieces are in place to ensure that children receive the flu vaccine annually, and to become a “customer for life” for the pharmaceutical industry: the addition of the vaccine to the pediatric vaccination schedule; government reassurances that the supply will remain intact and a fabricated “epidemic” fresh in everyone’s mind.

Big Pharma wins big, without putting an additional line item in their marketing budget.

_____________________

1. Robert Cohen. June 16, 2004. The Star-Ledger, Washington Bureau. “D.C. gearing up for a bio-defense.”

2. The White House. Press release. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/bud05.html

3. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, Senate conference report, November 24, 2003. From speech by Sen. Judd Gregg (R ), N.H.

4. Ron Paul. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul143.html

MONEY IN POLITICS ALERT. May 17, 1999,Vol. 5, No. 17. “Bitter Pills: The Battle Over Prescription Drug Prices”

Blood pressure regulation within the body is a complex system. The primary control mechanism is through the “renin-angiotensin” system, a cascade of hormones produced in the kidneys. When the enzyme renin is released from the kidneys, it attaches to angiotensinin, a protein found in the blood. Once attached, angiotensinin is converted to an intermediate compound called angiotensin I (AT1). This molecule is further converted to the active form called angiotensin II (AT2). When this cascade is overactive, hypertension (high blood pressure) is the result.

AT2 can powerfully constrict blood vessels during times of stress, shifting the blood flow from the extremities to vital organs. Protherics vaccine, called Angiotensin Therapeutic Vaccine, is designed to induce antibodies that will neutralize AT1. Without AT1, there can be no AT2. The planned result is normal blood pressure.

On first blush, the idea of a vaccine to control high blood pressure sounds like a good idea. Many patients fail to take their prescribed medicines, often because they do not like the side effects or because they can’t afford the drugs. As a result, it is estimated that nearly 70% patients with hypertension suffer from complications, including the possibility of a heart attack or a stroke.

For Protherics, the positive result from its clinical trial has potentially enormous economic ramifications. Recent data shows that the market for high blood pressure medication is worth approximately US$36 billion per annum.(2) The Company hopes that a vaccine given every few months will improve control of blood mild to moderate pressure by increasing patient compliance. Protherics is developing an improved formulation that will contain a “novel vaccine adjuvant” and will continue its human trials throughout 2007. If all goes well, Protherics plans to start licensing the vaccine to manufacturing partners after the new trials have been completed.

But before rushing to the doctor, the consequences of manipulating the AT1-AT2 system by a vaccine need to be considered. Within the past two decades, a great deal has been learned about the renin-angiotensin system in other parts of the body. It has been discovered that the brain also produces angiotension peptides and depends on these molecules for high function. AT1 and AT2 in the brain are responsible for the regulation of blood flow to the brain tissue, cognition, learning, behavior, memory and regulation of emotional responses.(3)(4)(5) It is not known if the vaccine will cross the blood-brain barrier and cause dysfunction of the brain renin-angiotensin system.

The skin is also directly affected by angiotensin peptides. It has been clearly demonstrated that AT2 plays an important role in wound healing.(6) A vaccine that blocks the formation of AT2 may seriously impact the ability for the skin to repair and heal after an injury.

There are simple, natural ways to lower your blood pressure. Start by maintaining your ideal body weight, exercising regularly, getting plenty of sleep and keeping well-hydrated. Be very cautious before agreeing to be vaccinated for blood pressure control.

___________________________

(1) “New Vaccine to control Blood Pressure developed by Protherics.” Health Jocky News. http://www.healthjockey.com/2007/05/12/new-vaccine-to-control-blood-pressure-developed-by-protherics/

(2) Protherics website information.

(3) “Angiotensin, thirst, and sodium appetite.” PMID: 9674690

(4) “The neuronal role of angiotensin II in thirst, sodium appetite, cognition and memory.” PMID: 8923799

(5) Brain angiotensin II: new developments, unanswered questions and therapeutic opportunities. PMID: 16075377

(6) A novel function of angiotensin II in skin wound healing: Induction of fibroblast and keratinocyte migration by angiotensin II via HB-EGF-mediated EGF receptor transactivation. PMID: 16543233

A fever is an increase in body temperature above the “normal range.” But the definition of “normal” can vary from person to person. Body temperature also varies with different levels of activity and at different times of the day. Medical texts differ in their definition of the highest “normal” body temperature, which can range from 98.6 to 100.4°F. It is generally accepted that a fever is defined as an “early morning temperature greater than 99°F or a temperature greater than 100°F at any time of the day.” REF: Harvard Medical School’s Inteilhealth.  http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/9991.html

There are several causes of fever, but it is most commonly associated with dozens of different viruses, bacteria and parasites that cause upper respiratory infections, pneumonia, diarrhea, and urinary tract infections.

When infectious micro-organisms invade the body, it is fever that gets our attention. Yet, despite its universal recognition, little is known about how is occurs. The currently held view is that when an infectant enters the body, the body activates its innate immune responses, which include the release of a complex mediators with equally complex names: cytokines, pyrogenic molecules that including tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), interleukin (IL-1β) and interleukin (IL-6). These substances signal the part of the brain called the hypothalamus to raise the body’s thermostat, which in turn leads to chills and shivering to increase the metabolic rate. Heat loss is minimized by restricting blood flow to the skin, giving it a pale appearance. Fever sufferers may lose their appetite and most feel lethargic, achy, and tired.

However, contrary to the reflex need to give an aspirin to make a fever stop, an elevated temperature can be an expression of the immune system working at its best. The number of white blood cells is increased and cascades of molecules to flood the blood stream, in rapid pursuit of the host’s invaders. Fever impairs the ability of bacteria and viruses to replicate, creating an inhospitable environment for the invading organisms. By turning up the heat, invading microbes cannot replicate and by definition, die off. Fever results in winning the war against a wayward microbe.

 Fever phobia

Fever is certainly one of the most common reasons that parents seek medical attention for their children. In 1980, a paper published by Barton Schmitt, MD contained the results of a survey in which 81 parents were asked their understanding of fever. All parents were inappropriately worried about low-grade fever, with temperatures of 102°F (38.9°C) or less. Most parents (52 percent) believed that fever with a temperature of 104°F (40°C) or less could cause serious neurological side-effects. As a result, almost all parents in the study treated fever aggressively: 85 percent gave anti-fever medications and 68 percent sponged the child with cool water temperatures far below 102°F (39.5°C).  Their over concern was designated by Schmitt as “fever phobia.” REF: Am J Dis Child. 1980 Feb;134(2):176-81. “Fever phobia: misconceptions of parents about fevers.”

In 2001, a follow-up study was conducted to see if the trends in “fever phobia” had changed. The study sought to explore current parental attitudes toward fever and to compare these attitudes with those described by Schmitt in 1980. The results of the study were disturbingly worse than the fever phobia reported by Schmitt twenty years earlier:

Of the 340 caregivers who were interviewed, 56 percent reported that they were “very worried” about the potential harm that fever could cause to their children. Compared with 20 years ago, more caregivers listed seizure as a potential harm of fever, woke their children and checked temperatures more often during febrile illnesses, and gave anti-fever medications or initiated sponging more frequently for possible normal temperatures. Forty-four percent considered 102°F (38.9°C) to be a high fever, and 7 percent thought that a temperature could spiral out of control and reach temperatures greater than 110°F (43.4°C) if left untreated. Almost all of the caregivers (91 percent) believed that even a low-grade fever could cause harmful effects. The worst concerns listed were brain damage (21 percent) and death (14 percent.)

Strikingly, 25 percent of parents admitted giving anti-fever medications for fevers less than 100°F (37.8°C) and a full 85 percent would awaken their child to give fever medications. The survey revealed that 14 percent chose acetaminophen, and 44 percent opted for ibuprofen; however, both were given at too frequent dosing intervals. When it came to baths to cool children, 73 percent stated that they sponged their child to treat a fever. However, 24 percent sponged at temperatures less than 100°F (37.8°C) and nearly 20 percent used alcohol in a cool bath. REF: Pediatrics Vol. 107 No. 6 June 2001, pp. 1241-1246.

 “Fever Phobia Revisited: Have Parental Misconceptions About Fever Changed in 20 Years?”

The study also revealed that nearly one quarter of those surveyed alternated the use of acetaminophen and ibuprofen during their child’s febrile illness. This is a common practice despite a lack of evidence to support the efficacy and safety of this practice. A study by Mayoral et al in May, 2000 reported that 50 percent of pediatricians surveyed stated that they advised parents to alternate acetaminophen and ibuprofen using various regimens despite being no evidence to support this protocol. REF: Pediatrics Vol. 105 No. 5.  May 2000, pp. 1009-1012.  “Alternating Antipyretics: Is This an Alternative?”

Troubling, yet not surprising, was that 46 percent of caregivers listed doctors as their primary resource for information about fever. When obtaining a history about a child’s illness, pediatric health care providers often are quick to ask about the importance and value of an elevated temperature. Discharge instructions to parents after a visit with the physician often include calling or returning if the child’s temperature rises beyond a certain level or if a fever persists. But placing emphasis on the child’s temperature without providing information about when a fever should be of concern and allowing a fever to persist to aid the body in healing heightens anxiety and serves to perpetuate fever phobia.

Caregiver anxiety about fever may be heightened by the lack of knowledge regarding the importance of fever in illness. In fact, fever phobia is most likely fostered by the medical community itself. When doctors tell parents to give medication when a temperature rises above a certain level, say 101°F, many parents automatically assume that a fever is “dangerous” at that level. The result is to give children drugs to keep them from harm. In reality, the purpose of anti-fever methods is to provide comfort as the body fights off the infection. If doctors were clear about this, there would be a lot less “fever phobia” around.

Confirming the problem with misinformation about fever, May and Baucher published a study in Pediatrics revealing that instructions given to parents about the management of fever are often dismally incomplete and lack consistency. The study which reviewed information given to parents during sick-child visits, found that 10 percent of providers almost never discussed the definition of a “high fever”; 25 percent almost never discussed the dangers of fever, and sadly, a full 15 percent almost never discussed the reasons for fever, assuming that parents understood the importance of fever. REF: Pediatrics. Vol 90. Issue 6, pp. 851-854, 12/01/1992. “Fever phobia: the pediatrician’s contribution.”

If parents understood the importance of fever and how to appropriately support their child during a fever, parents would acquire a comfort level with caring for an ill child. They would rid themselves of unnecessary stress, unnecessary doctor and emergency room visits and most of all, their child would benefit from infection-fighting fevers. The concern of parents about fever is not justified but is understandable without appropriate information. Health education to counteract “fever phobia” should be a part of routine medical care for children.

 When is fever harmful?

In addition to the beneficial effect of fever on the immune system, it is important to note that the body has a way to protect itself from excessively high temperatures. Many parents are unaware of this process and believe that temperatures will continue to rise to potentially lethal levels if left untreated. In the absence of overwhelming factors, such as extreme dehydration and unsafe circumstances, such as being locked in a closed automobile, a normal children’s temperature will not rise out of control to potentially lethal levels. Therefore, it is exceedingly rare for a child’s temperature to exceed 107°F (41.7°C) in the event of a routine infection.

The fear most parents have about a high fever—defined as a sustained temperature of greater than 104°F for several days—is the concern about developing seizures. A febrile seizure manifests as abnormal jerking movements all over the body without evidence of central nervous system infection. Febrile seizures occur most commonly in children between the ages of three months and five years of age and usually last  five minutes or less). About 3 percent of all children experience a febrile seizure sometime during childhood. Febrile seizures occur most commonly due to a sudden rise in temperature and not due to a prolonged fever, unless the child is dehydrated.

This susceptibility is not well understood. Of those children who have a first-time febrile seizure, about one-third experience a recurrence. Risks for recurrence are elevated for children who experienced the first seizures at age 16 months or younger, and who have a family history of febrile seizures. In general, 30 to 40 percent of children who have had a febrile seizure are likely experience one more. If a child has had two febrile seizures, there is a 50 percent chance that an additional episode will occur at some time in the future. Although frightening, febrile seizures are almost always benign. Nonetheless, if a child experiences a febrile seizure, it is important to seek medical attention immediately. In addition, if your child is under six months of age or if an older child has had a fever of more than 104°F for more than four or five days, a healthcare provider needs to be consulted.

How best to treat a fever: home management

So, what can you do at home?

1. Encourage drinking lots of water. Fever increases fluid loss, and dehydration cause fevers to remain high. Often, children with fevers do not feel thirsty, or by the time they do want something to drink, they’re already dehydrated. Keep offering water or an electrolyte-based drink such as Gatorade. Every drop and teaspoon counts. Small, frequent sips are often best, especially if the child feels nauseated. If necessary, use a plastic medicine dropper that can be readily purchased at the drug store to gently insert water into your child’s mouth.

2.  To dress lightly or bundle up? The answer depends on your children’s perception of temperature – follow her cues. If your child looks pale, shivers, or complains of feeling chilled, bundle her in layers of breathable fabrics but be sure that the layers are easily removed. If the fever is low-grade, dress her snuggly and give warm liquids to assist the body’s fever production. If he complains of being too hot, use light close and sheets for comfort.

3. Starve a fever? Children with fevers generally don’t have much appetite and it is much more important to remain hydrated than to consume foods. Let your child determine when and what she wants to eat. Try light foods such as chicken broth or Cream of Wheat cereal for calories and easy digestion.

4. Avoid white, refined sugar.  It has been documented that refined white sugar can suppress the immune system. In a study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition as far back as 1977 reported the adverse that sugar has on the immune system. Blood was drawn from subjects and the activity of the white blood cells that neutralize viruses and bacteria was observed and calculated. The white blood cell activity was calculated before and after subjects were given various doses of sugar: 6, 12, 18 and 24 teaspoons, respectively. Each subsequently higher dose of sugar created a corresponding decrease in the activities of the subject’s white blood cells. The group that had consumed the largest amount of sugar had essentially no functioning white blood cells within an hour after consuming the sugar. The immunosuppression occurred for up to two hours after consuming that sugar, but the adverse effects of no blood cell activity persisted in some instances for up to five hours. REF: Am J Clin Nut 1977;30:613 “Depression of lymphocyte transformation following oral glucose ingestion.”

Why is this important? White blood cells eliminate viruses and bacteria that invade our defenses. Without the efforts of these cells, susceptibility to infection is increased and recovering from infection can be stalled. Therefore, do not offer children with fevers Coca-Cola, 7-Up, or Ginger Ale for an upset tummy and ice cream to soothe a sore throat. Unaware, these hefty doses of sugar can further drag down the immune system at a time when it needs to be at its strongest.

To medicate or not to medicate?

A rule of thumb when treating a fever is “First, do nothing,” meaning that observation is a better choice than running for the medicine cabinet. Is your child drinking fluids well? Urinating at least once every eight hours or wetting at least eight diapers per day? Does your touch console her? Is he attempting to play? If the answer to these questions is yes, this is probably not a serious illness, despite the number on the thermometer.

Medications for fever can act as a screen. Here are some pros and cons regarding giving your child over-the-counter medication to ease a fever:

The good news: Medications such as acetaminophen should be used for comfort. If your child feels miserable because of a fever, a trial of one or two doses can be given as a “screening test.” If you child looks and acts much better within a short period of time, it is likely that the infection is not a serious one. He may be more likely to drink fluids, nibble food, and sleep if he is a little more comfortable. This means keeping the fever around 100 or 101°F.

The not-so-good news: Several studies have shown that by suppressing the fever, the body needs a longer time to recover.

• In a study of children with chickenpox, acetaminophen prolonged itching and the time to scabbing compared to placebo treatment. REF: J Pediatr 1989; 114:1045-1048. “Acetaminophen: more harm than good for chickenpox?”
• A study of adults found that aspirin and acetaminophen suppressed production of the patient’s antibodies and increased cold symptoms, with a trend toward longer viral shedding and prolonged symptoms. REF: J Infect Dis 1990; 162:1277-1282. “Adverse effects of aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen on immune function, viral shedding, and clinical status in rhinovirus-infected volunteers.”

The bottom line

Use anti-fever medicines sparingly when your child suffers discomfort from a fever over up to 104°F (40°C). Ask yourself whether you are administering the fever-reducing medicine to make your child more comfortable or to decrease your own anxiety. Drug-free approaches can go a long way toward helping your child feel better. If the situation does not seem urgent, consider a trial of echinacea tea, lavender oil, Vitamin D 5000-50,000IU/day and Vitamin C (10mg per pound) before you pull out the fever drugs.