Thursday, April 9, 2015

The Home Stretch

The Home Stretch

girl_eating_watermelon.jpg
Regular Chiropractic Care and Effective Stretching
Starting a stretching program is appropriate for most people. As we want to get the most out of our stretching routine, it's important to ensure that our musculoskeletal system is working at peak capacity.
Regular chiropractic care performs these essential services by detecting, analyzing, and correcting spinal misalignments. Left uncorrected, such misalignments cause muscles, ligaments, and joints to become tight and irritated and also cause irritation to spinal nerves. By correcting spinal misalignments, your spinal nerves are free to conduct information properly between your brain and the rest of your body. Your musculoskeletal system is enabled to do its job properly. The result is that regular chiropractic care helps to optimize the functioning of our muscles, bones, and joints, thereby making our stretching and exercise time useful, healthful, and profitable.
Thanks to effective public health campaigns regarding healthy lifestyle choices, many people have incorporated regular, vigorous exercise, a nutritious diet, and getting sufficient rest in their daily routines. For many people, an additional important component of a healthy lifestyle is regular stretching.
Regular stretching provides numerous benefits, including enhanced flexibility and adaptability of your musculoskeletal system, that is, your bones, muscles, and joints.1 As a result, regular stretching helps improve overall mobility and range of motion. Regular stretching helps reduce injury by improving circulation, bringing increased supplies of oxygen and critical nutrients to the large muscles of your thighs and legs and the small muscles of your back. As a bonus, regular stretching helps to reduce stress. It's clear that stretching activities provide a very big return for a modest investment of time and effort.2,3
In order to derive the greatest benefits from your stretching program, knowledge of stretching "best practices" is essential. First, it's critical to conceive of stretching as a journey rather than a destination. In stretching, we have to give up all our notions of how much we think we should be able to achieve. On any given day, our muscles will be tighter or less tight. On any given day, it will be "harder" or easier to obtain the stretchability of the day before. The best practice is to pay attention to your body, focus on what you're doing, and work with what you have on a particular day. This "centering" approach is in direct contrast to trying to force your muscles to conform to the stretching length you think they should achieve. Using force while stretching will always result in injury. Instead, the activity of stretching calls for a calm, steady, and methodical approach.
What is it that you're doing when you stretch? Primarily, you're using a process of visualization. You're visualizing the particular muscle getting "longer". When you do a stretch for your hamstring muscle group (there are three muscles that comprise this group), you have an image in your mind of the muscles of the back of your thigh and you're "seeing" these muscles lengthening. You're not actually "doing" anything other than performing the activity of the stretch itself. In other words, you're not actively making the hamstrings longer. But you are "seeing" them lengthen in your mind, and the result is an effective stretch, that is, increased length and flexibility of the hamstring group.
Pictures of the quadriceps muscle group (the muscles on the front of your thigh), the hamstring muscle group, the calf muscles (the surface gastrocnemius and the deeper soleus), and your spinal muscle groups will provide great assistance with your visualization process. Such images are widely available on the Internet. Your "Zen-like" process of visualization will make your 10 or 15 minutes of stretching time more effective and may also be applied to various other tasks throughout your day, providing additional ongoing benefits to your health and well being.
1Peck E, et al: The effects of stretching on performance. Cur Sports Med Rep 13(3):179-185, 2014
2Morrin N, Redding E: Acute effects of warm-up stretch protocols on balance, vertical jump height, and range of motion in dancers. J Dance Med Sci 17(1):34-40, 2013
3Avloniti A, et al: The Acute Effects of Static Stretching on Speed and Agility Performance Depend on Stretch Duration and Conditioning Level. J Strength Cond Res 2014 Jun 17 [Epub ahead of print]

The Top Shelf

The Top Shelf

The Top Shelf Shoulder Injury
Shoulder Rehabilitation and Regular Chiropractic Care
Effective shoulder rehabilitation frequently depends on factors other than those related to the shoulder itself. For example, obtaining improved shoulder range of motion and improved shoulder girdle strength may be directly related to the functioning of your neck and the regional neck musculature.
Your seven neck vertebras have a big responsibility. Not only do they support the weight of your head all day long, but they also provide a structural framework for the complex web of muscles that move your head in all directions and interface with chest muscles involved in respiration. Beyond this, regional neck muscles are closely interconnected with shoulder girdle muscles. Rehabbing the shoulder means paying attention to neck muscles as well. Regular chiropractic care helps ensure that the spinal joints and muscles of your neck are functioning at peak efficiency. Therefore, regular chiropractic care is a critical component of any successful shoulder rehabilitation program.
Many adults begin to develop shoulder pain, even though they may not have sustained a specific injury. It's important to pay attention to such shoulder issues, as a healthy shoulder joint is the key to full function of the upper extremities. We all know at least one person whose ability to perform normal activities of daily living has been significantly compromised by chronic shoulder pain. Conservative treatment may be of benefit, but the key, as always, is to prevent these problems before they occur. The primary prophylactic intervention, as is the case for most musculoskeletal conditions, is exercise.
We all agree that the human body's design is magnificent. Every component has a purpose, down to the smallest cell. Every system is deeply interconnected with every other. Miraculously, the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts. And yet, there are a few "gotchas" built-in to this ingenious design. With respect to the shoulder, the "gotcha" relates to the shoulder joint's extraordinary mobility. The shoulder joint has the greatest range of motion of all the joints in your body. But this extreme mobility comes at a price, that is, the shoulder joint is not a particularly stable joint. For example, shoulder dislocations comprise approximately 50% of all such injuries.
Shoulder pain in the absence of a specific injury often represents damage to the rotator cuff. Again, the design of the shoulder joint and surrounding soft tissues is implicated in these rotator cuff problems. The blood supply to the bones, muscles, ligaments, and tendons of the shoulder is consistently compromised during normal motion of the shoulder above 90º, as in placing an object on or taking an object down from the top shelf in a kitchen cabinet. If much of your day is spent with your arm elevated above 90º to the front or to the side, over time you may develop nagging shoulder pain. Worse, with persistent repetitive motion above 90º, nagging shoulder pain may become chronic pain that restricts activities.
The best approach to shoulder problems is to become aware of the rotator cuff's well-known tendency to develop degenerative changes. We can be proactive by doing strength-training exercises for the shoulder and incorporating these exercises in our weekly exercise program as soon as possible.1,2 Beginning such exercises in the teenage years would be ideal. For those of us who are older, the right time to begin shoulder strength training is now. Shoulder exercises stimulate growth of new muscle fibers, increase the size of muscle fibers already in existence, and stimulate growth of nerve fibers bringing information to and from all shoulder girdle structures.
Shoulder exercises should be done once or twice a week as part of your overall fitness program. As with all exercise that's new to you, start slowly and gradually increase the level of difficulty over time.3 The result of all this activity is a dramatically improved blood supply to the shoulder region and a dramatically reduced tendency for rotator cuff degeneration and injury.
1Choi SH, Lee BH: Clinical Usefulness of Shoulder Stability Exercises for Middle-aged Women. J Phys Ther Sci 25(10):1243-1246, 2013
2Saltychev M, et al: Conservative treatment or surgery for shoulder impingement: systematic review and meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil 37(1):1-8, 2015
Another example of a common issues
3Daenen L, et al: Exercise, not to exercise, or how to exercise in patients with chronic pain? Applying science to practice. Clin J Pain 31(2):108-114, 2015

Health Statistics and You

Health Statistics and You

health-statistics
Preventive Care is the Best Care
In health care, an ounce of prevention is worth very much more than a pound of cure. If you can prevent health problems from happening, you save a great deal of time, effort, and money. Also, by avoiding the frequently ongoing stress and anxiety associated with treatment of a chronic illness, you and your family conserve precious, irreplaceable personal resources such as peace of mind.
A comprehensive preventive care program incorporates a healthy food plan, consistent regular exercise, and regular chiropractic care. Regular chiropractic care, focusing on the spinal column and targeting nerve interference, is a key resource in your health care program. Regular chiropractic care provides the framework so that your body can function at peak efficiency, thus helping ensure your long-term health and well-being.
We are awash in numbers, thanks in large part to the proliferation of personal mobile devices and the wrong-headed use of so-called big data.1 But applying statistical tools to the same set of data can support competing theories and lead to contradictory results. Such conflicting outcomes, known as antinomies if you remember Philosophy 101, cannot logically co-exist, and the field of statistics gets a bad reputation as a result. But big data can provide substantial value for people as individual patients. The key is to set some ground rules and understand the limitations of statistical investigation.
First and foremost, it's important to gain some clarity regarding the concept of false positives in regards to health. This statistical construct is familiar to all of us, although we may not be aware of it. If one of your doctors sends you for a laboratory test and the results are "positive", you'll be sent for follow-up tests until a final determination is made. If the final test turns out "negative", then the earlier results represented a false positive. The test results said you had the condition or disease, but in fact you did not.
False positives create numerous serious problems, not the least of which is the emotional toll of stress, anxiety, and fear experienced by the patient and her family and close friends. This is especially true when the suspected disease is a malignancy or other serious, life-threatening condition. It's useful and empowering for people to learn that 5% of all test results are falsely positive right from the start. Medical tests are designed this way. The 5% false positive rate is a necessary part of statistical analysis. It's built-in to the statistical design. In other words, test values that represent "normal" are obtained by cutting off the bottom 2.5% and the top 2.5% of a large sample of results from people who are "normal" for the thing being tested, such as white blood cell count or hemoglobin level.
Thus, 5% of normal people automatically have false positive results. Another way of stating this outcome is to consider that if you undergo a panel of 20 blood tests, one result (5% of 20) will be positive no matter what.
The vast majority of patients are not familiar with the statistical concept of false positive results.2With a basic understanding of this construct and its implications, patients could ask their doctors meaningful questions such as, "What do the test results mean?,", "Have you considered the possibility of a false positive result?," and "How will the additional tests you're recommending affect decision-making in my case?"
Posing such questions is tremendously empowering for you, the patient, and helps reestablish equity in the doctor-patient relationship.3 As a health care consumer, a little knowledge goes a long way. Gaining more than a little knowledge by reading articles on diagnostic methods and health care decision-making will further strengthen your own process as a patient. 
1Bates DW, et al: Big data in health care: using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health Aff (Millwood) 33(7):1123-31, 2014
2Paddock SM: Statistical benchmarks for health care provider performance assessment: a comparison of standard approaches to a hierarchical Bayesian histogram-based method. Health Serv Res 49(3):1056-73, 2014
3Stacey D, et al: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochane Database Syst Rev 28;1:CD001431, 2014

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Spontaneous Integration of Human DNA Fragments into Host Genome

Title: Spontaneous Integration of Human DNA Fragments into Host Genome K. Koyama, T. A. Deisher Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, Seattle, WA

http://s3.amazonaws.com/soundchoice/soundchoice/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/DNA_Contaminants_in_Vaccines_Can_Integrate_Into_Childrens_Genes.pdf

Introduction
A trio of recent publications in the journal NEURON reports the presence of hundreds of diverse de novo gene mutations indicating that autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be a disease of genomic instability, with a significant environmental component. Altered double strand break formation and repair pathways (DSB) may be a commonality among the diverse genetic mutations that have been documented in ASD. US birth year change points in AD are apparent in 1980, 1988 and 1996, coinciding with the switch to or introduction of childhood vaccines contaminated with human endogenous retrovirus K (HERVK) and human fetal DNA fragments (6). We hypothesize that the HERVK and human fetal DNA contaminants could contribute to the genomic instability of ASD as demonstrated by de novo mutations. Cell free DNA can be taken up by healthy cells via receptor mediated uptake or may spontaneously penetrate cell membranes that have altered permeability, for instance, during inflammatory reactions. Nuclear uptake of cell free DNA fragments is thought to provide a source for maintenance of DNA integrity during rescue of collapsed replication forks or base lesion repair. Spontaneous extracellular DNA uptake has also been exploited for gene therapy as well as for cellular gene correction (2,4,5,7,8, and 9). While free DNA uptake has been used advantageously, the process has also been associated with generation of mutations and chromosomal aberrations (3). Vaccines manufactured using human fetal cells contain residual DNA fragments (50-500 bp) (Table I). It is possible that these contaminating fragments could be incorporated into a child’s genome and disrupt normal gene function, leading to autistic phenotypes. In this study we demonstrate foreign DNA uptake in human cells and genomic integration by incubating the cells with Cy3-labeled human Cot1 (placental) DNA fragments which represents contaminating residual human fetal DNA in vaccines.

Table 1. Levels of residual human double stranded DNA (Picogreen assay) and human single stranded DNA (Oligreen assay ) in Rubella vaccine (MeruvaxII) and Hepatitis A vaccine (HAVRIX).

Vaccine name Double Stranded DNA (ng/vial) Single Stranded DNA (ng/vial) Length (bps) Meruvax II (Rubella) 142.05 35.00 240 HAVRIX (Hepatitis A) 276.00 35.74 Not measurable

Materials and Methods: Human Cot1 DNA (Invitrogen) was labeled with Mirus Label IT CyTM3 Labeling Kit (Mirus). U937 cells (monocytes) were grown in Dublecco’s Mofication of Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 15% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution at 37°C under a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 /95% air. HL-60 cells (myeloblast) were grown in Iscove’s Modified Dulbecco’s Medium (IMDM) supplemented with 20% FBS and 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution at 37°C under the same condition. 750ng of Cy3 labeled Human Cot1 DNA was incubated per1.0×107 cells for 24 hours and 48 hours. Cellular and nuclear DNA uptake was analyzed under fluorescent microscope. Genomic DNA of U937 cells was purified by ethanol precipitation removing short fragment of nucleic acids including unincorporated Cy3 labeled Human Cot1 DNA. The amount of Cy3 labeled human Cot1 DNA incorporated into U937 chromosomes was calculated with relative fluorescent unit (RFU) measured by a fluorimeter. Loosely adherent NCCIT (teratocarcinoma) cells were grown with a cell density 3×104 per well of a 24-well plate which a German glass cover slips was placed in each well at 37°C under a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 /95% air. HFF1 (Human Foreskin Fibroblast 1) cells were grown with the same condition except DMEM supplemented with 15% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution was used as a medium.

Methods and Results
BE (2)-C (neuroblastoma) cells were grown in the same condition except medium used was a 1:1mixture of Eagle’s Minimum Essential Medium (EMEM) and F12 Medium supplemented with 10%FBS and 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution. M059K (Glioblastoma-Double Stranded Break repair proficient) and M059J (Glioblastoma-Double Stranded Break repair deficient) were also grown with the same condition except the medium used was a 1:1 mixture of DMEM and Ham’s F12 Medium supplemented with 10% FBS, 0.05mM non-essential amino acids, and 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution. After cells were cultured in each condition for 2 to 3 days 500ng Cy3 labeled Human Cot1 DNA was added and incubated at 37°C under a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 /95% air by gently shaking for 24 hours and 48 hours. After incubation nucleus was stained with Hoechst, German glass cover slips were placed on glass slides, and cellular and nuclear DNA uptake was analyzed under fluorescent microscope. To model inflammation, all adherent cell lines were activated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS). And, saponin permeabilization was also tested for HFF1 cells . Three concentrations of LPS, 1ng/10 4cells, 10ng/10 4cells, and 100ng/104cells were tested in the wells of each cell line previously mentioned. Cells were incubated with Cy3 labeled Human Cot1 DNA and LPS at 37°C under a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 /95% air by gently shaking for 24 hours and 48 hours. As well as cells incubated without LPS, these cells were also stained with Hoechst before cellular and nuclear DNA uptake was analyzed under fluorescent microscope. HFF1 cells were incubated with 0.02% saponin , 300ng DAPI, and 500ng Cy3 labeled human Cot 1 DNA for 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. Cells were viewed under fluorescent microscope as well. Results (Table 2): Spontaneous cellular and nuclear DNA uptake was evident in HFF1, NCCIT and U937 (Fig1, 3, 7 and 8). DNA uptake in BE (2)-C and M059K was not measurable because of high auto fluorescence of the cells. No Cy3 signal was observed in HL-60. With inflammation caused by LPS cellular DNA uptake was observed in HFF1, NCCIT, M059J, and U937 (Fig 2, 4, 5 and 6). The amount of labeled Cy3 human Cot1 DNA incorporation in U937 genomic DNA was 0.0111 +/- 0.0034pg (n=12) per cell in 24 hours, which was approximately 0.167% of total U937 genomic DNA. DNA incorporation in NCCIT cells was 0.0026pg/cell in 24 hours and 0.04pg/cell in 48 hours which is 0.6% of total NCCIT genomic DNA.

Table 2: DNA uptake in Various Cell lines Spontaneous Cellular uptake Spontaneous Nuclear uptake Incorporation in Genomic DNA Cellular /Nuclear Uptake with LPS or saponin HFF1 Yes Yes Not Done Increase/Increase NCCIT Yes Yes (variable) 0.0026pg per cell 24 hrs 0.04pg per cell 48 hrs Same/Same BE(2)-C No No Not Done No/No M059K No No No No/No M059J No No Not Done Yes/No U937 Yes Yes 0.011 +/- 0.003pg per cell 24 hrs Same/Same HL60 No No No No

Discussion
Our measured genomic incorporation (0.003 to 0.04 pgs) of 0.2% - 0.6% of the whole genome in 24 to 48 hours seems high at first glance. However, our numbers are consistent with previous reports showing that exogenous DNA replaced up to 1% of the whole genome within 30 minutes (6). Although HL-60 cells did not spontaneously take up exogenous DNA in our experiments, the cell line has been used in the past as a model for spontaneous DNA uptake (8). Cellular and nuclear DNA uptake in human foreskin fibroblast (HFF1) cells and in NCCIT cells suggests that embryonic and neonatal cell are more susceptible to DNA uptake than cells from a more mature source. These results indicate the need for further study of DNA incorporation from exogenous sources to compare the susceptibility of infants and toddlers versus teens and adults. Increased DNA uptake after LPS activation suggests that systemic inflammation or immune responses could increase susceptibility for exogenous DNA uptake. Human diploid cell produced vaccines are contaminated by exogenous DNA fragments and a retrovirus, and vaccines elicit systemic inflammation and immune activation. Our future research goals are to localize the sites of DNA integration, to demonstrate phenotype changes caused by foreign DNA integration in factor dependent cell lines, and to determine the biological and/or pathological activities of Human Endogenous Retrovirus K (HERVK) fragments in vaccines.

Table3: Cell Description
Cells Source Morphology Transfection host U937 Histocytic Lymphoma Monocyte Yes HL60 Leukemia Myeloblast Yes BE(2)C Neuroblastoma Neuroblast No M059K Glioblastoma Fibroblast No M059J Glioblastoma Fibroblast No HFF1 Foreskin Fibroblast No

Conclusion
Not only damaged human cells, but also healthy human cells can take up foreign DNA spontaneously. Foreign human DNA taken up by human cells will be transported into nuclei and be integrated into host genome, which will cause phenotype change. Hence, residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccine can be one of causes of autism spectrum disorder in children through vaccination. Vaccine must be safe without any human DNA contaminations or reactivated viruses, and must be produced in ethically approved manufacturing processes.

1. Golan M, Hizi A, Resau J, Yaa-Hahoshen, Reichman H, Keydar lafa, and Ian Tsarfaty. “Human Endogenous Retrovirus (HERV-K) Reverse Transcriptase as a Breast Cancer Prognostic Marker” NEO PLASIA, Vol.10, No.6, June 2008, pp. 521-533. 2. Filaci G, Gerloni M, Rizzi M, Castiglion P, Chang H-D, Wheeler MC, Fiocca R, and Zanetti M. “Spontaneous transgenesis of human B lymphocytes.” Gene therapy, 2004, 11, 42-52. 3. Howe S, Mansour M, Schwarzwaelder K, Bartholomae C, Hubank M, Kempski H, Brugman M, PikeOverzet K, Chatters S, Ridder D, Gilmour K, Adams S, Thomhil S, and other 14. “Insertional mutagenesis combined with acquired somatic mutations causes leukemogenesis following gene therapy.” Journal od Clinical Investigation. Vol 118, No.9, September 2008. 4. Lehmann MJ, and Sczakiel G. “Spontaneous uptake of biologically active recombinant DNA by mammalian cells via a selected DNA segment.” Gene Therapu 2005, 12, 446-451. 5. Rogachev V, Likhacheva A, Vratskikh O, Mechetina L, Sebeleva T, Bogachev S, Yakubov L, and Shurdov M. “Qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the extracellular DNA delivered to the nucleus of a living cell” Cancer Cell International, October 2006, 6:23, P1475-2867. 6. Victoria J, Wang C, Jones M, Jaing C, McLoughlin K, Gardner S, and Delwart E. “Viral Nucleic Acids in Live-Attenuated Vaccinces: Detection of Minority Variants and an Adventitious Virus.” Journal of Virology, June 2010, P.6033-6040. 7. Yakubov L, Deeva E, Zarytova V, Ivanova E, Ryte A, Yurchenko L, and Vlassov V. “Mechanism of Oligonucleotide uptake by cells: , September Involvement of specific receptors?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Vol. 86, pp 6454-6458, September 1989. 8. Yakubov A, Petrova N, Popova N, Semenov D, Nikolin V, and Os’kina I. “The Role of Extracellular DNA in the Stability and Variability of Cell Genomes.” Doklady Biochemistry and Biophysics, Vol. 382, 2002, pp.3 1-34. 9. Yakubov L, Rgachev V, Likhacheva A, Bogachev S, Sebeleva T, Shilov A, Baiborodin S, Petrova N, Mechetina L, Shurdov M, and Wickstrom E. “Natural Human Gene Correction by Small Extracellular Genomic DNA Fragments.” Cell Cycle 6:18, 2293-2301, 15 September 2007.

Dear Jon Stewart, from a Doctor


Dear Jon Stewart, from a Doctor


This is a post by Dr. Helen Box.JS
Dear Jon Stewart:
I was sorry to hear that you are retiring from the Daily Show because I feel it is often the only place that we are presented with the truth in American media. One of my favorite bits that you do is when you show a clip of what someone says in the media, and then expose how they took the opposite stance in the past.
As a parting gift, I am going to do the same thing for you.
In June of 2014 you had Dr. Paul Offit on your show, promoting vaccines. Did he tell you about how he made $6 million on the sale of his rotavirus vaccine patent?  Because he didn’t mention it on the show and nobody asked him about it.  All that your producer did was provide him with a platform to disparage parents who of opted out of vaccinating their children.
About those parents, Offit said, “They have an amazing ability to ignore scientific consensus.  They believe simply by Googling the term ‘vaccine’ on the Internet, they can know as much, if not more than anyone who’s giving them advice.”
Who is giving these parents advice?  Why, the pharmaceutical companies and the US government, of course.
But on multiple shows you have personally expressed your lack of trust in pharmaceutical companies, and in literally every episode of The Daily Show you do the same for the people who run our government.
And yet, you throw it all away when talking about vaccines. Jon, it is the very same pharmaceutical companies and government– that you otherwise don’t trust– telling us that vaccines are safe for everyone and that all of us should follow the recommendations blindly.
Consider these facts:
  1. The terms, “allergy” and “anaphylaxis” were coined in the early 1900’s to describe a severe vaccine reaction.  The word “anaphylaxis” did not exist before vaccination.
  2. In 2014, a CDC scientist was granted protected whistleblower status from the Obama administration.  He admitted that he and his team lied and manipulated data to say there was no association between vaccines and autism when their data showed there actually was. Congressman Posey is investigating currently. Not a single “mainstream” media told that story.
  3. A national TV producer told me that the media would never undermine their sponsors (pharmaceutical companies) even if a story were true.  Perhaps, once retired, you will share your thoughts on undermining your own sponsors?
  4. Drug companies have complete and total protection from all liability for any damage caused by vaccines. They list multiple side effects on their drug insert. If vaccines were so safe, why would they need that protection?
  5. Most major drug companies have been found guilty of lying about their study results, recommending off-label uses, and committing bribery. The fines they had to pay were much smaller than what they made by selling those lies.
  6. For decades the CDC lied to black menabout having syphilis. Even after antibiotics were available to treat them, the government let them expose their wives to the disease and die without ever telling them that they could be easily treated.  Why do you think the CDC is beyond reproach?
  7. The ingredients in vaccines include mercury and aluminum (serious neurotoxins), formaldehyde (classified as a carcinogenic), DNA from many different animals, antibiotics and many other toxins.
  8. Most parents who are against vaccinating their children were once all in favor for vaccines. The only reason they changed their opinion was because they now have a vaccine-injured child.
  9. The federal government pays out billions of dollars for vaccine injuries through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  No mention of this on your show.
  10. While some children may have no reaction at all to vaccines, there is a segment of predisposed children who should never receive vaccines.
While the media likes to throw around all the studies that declared no association between autism and vaccines, I know that in at least two of those studies, the data was manipulated. There are actually nearly 100 studies that do show an increased risk of autism from vaccines. There are also studies that show increased risk of Sudden Infant Death, autoimmune disorders, seizures and much more.
When you endorse the current safety record of vaccines you are saying that you, Jon Stewart, trust the government, the drug companies, the FDA and the CDC, yet you repeatedly and rightly otherwise imply that you do not on any other given night.
I sincerely hate to see you leave The Daily Show, but I hope that in the time you have remaining that you will consider being objective in considering what I have said here.  Show your audience that there is more than one side to the vaccine issue.
Sincerely,
Dr. Helen Box
Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

28 studies that support Dr. Wakefield’s research.

Here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s research:
  1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
  2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
  3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
  4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005 
  5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
  6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
  7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
  8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
  9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
  10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
  11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
  12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
  13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
  14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
  15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
  16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
  17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
  18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
  19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
  20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
  21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
  22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
  23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
  24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
  25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
  26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
  27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
  28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303
- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again/#sthash.mGaei4Q1.dpuf

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Whiplash

BY 

Whiplash is a slang term for an injury to the neck that’s typically associated with a motor vehicle collision (MVC). A better term for “whiplash” is “whiplash associated disorder” (WAD) as it includes specific history and exam findings. There are usually two phases to an MVC: 1) an acceleration phase that is followed by 2) a deceleration phase. Injury can arise during either phase depending on the following: 1) The direction or angle of the collision (head-on, rear-end, T-bone, etc.); 2) The size of the bullet vs. target vehicle; 3) The speed the vehicles are traveling; 4) The size of the injured person’s neck (short/stocky vs. long/thin), 5) Head rotation at impact; 6) Position of the headrest (ideally ≤1 inch from the back of the head and raised up to bottom of the ears); 7) The angle and “springiness” of the seatback; 8) Seat belt use and position; 9) Collision anticipation, 10) Condition of the road (dry vs. wet/slippery), and more!

Anatomically, injury can occur to muscles and/or their tendon attachments, the ligaments that firmly hold bone to bone, the fascia (or the covering of the muscles), the bones, the joints, the skin, the nerves, and/or blood vessels. It all boils down to the ten or more factors listed above, and as discussed in last month’s topic on PTSD, depending on whether concussion occurs and how well the injured person reacts or copes with the injury (the psychosocial part). Obviously, A LOT of factors drive the outcome of a whiplash injury!

One of the more vulnerable parts of the neck that is frequently injured are the small facet joints and/or their coverings (called joint capsules). This is referred to as a WAD II injury. Picture a vertebrae as a bony tripod with one leg being big and wide representing the vertebral body and shock absorbing disk. This large leg is the main weight-bearing part of the tripod supporting up to 80% of the weight. The other two legs represent the facet joints that lie in the back of the vertebrae that open and close as we look down (opens) and look up (closes). When we turn our head, the movement primarily occurs in the first two vertebrae high up in the neck. Injury here most commonly occurs when the head twists or rotates, which can result from either the angle the chest portion of the seat belt lays against and/or if the head is rotated upon impact, such as looking in the rear view mirror. In other words, it’s probable that head rotation occurs in MOST motor vehicle collisions due to the seat belt’s angled position as it crosses the chest. When this twisting / rotation movement of the head occurs suddenly, it can result in brain injury or concussion, as studies show that delicate axons and nerve fibers can literally twist and tear due to this rotational component of the injury. Also, it’s WELL ESTABLISHED that the head DOES NOT have to hit anything to cause a concussion injury, as simply the force of the brain hitting the inside walls of the skull is enough to do this!

Another slightly less common WAD injury involves the pinching of the nerve root as it exits the spine (referred to as a WAD III injury). Think of the nerves as wires between a switch and a light, each having a specific area that they “run” (innervate). For example, if tingling/numbness occurs in the thumb and index finger, it can mean the C6 nerve could be interfered with at some point in between the spine and the fingers. We also test specific muscles for weakness associated with each individual nerve to identify the main culprit! When a nerve gets pinched, sensory and/or motor deficits can occur, which is validated by the neurological examination. The disk is basically like a “jelly donut” where the jelly is located in the central part of the disk and held in place by a tough fibroelastic tissue (called the annulus fibrosis). When this “jelly-like” substance (called nucleus pulposis) breaks through the tough, outer “annulus” and pushes against the nerve, loss of sensation and/or specific muscle weakness can occur. As chiropractors, we will carefully examine you and render many highly effective treatment methods!