Pages

Monday, October 22, 2012

Opportunity for news stories: New federal rules mean all nonprofit hospitals must do a community health needs assessment

It's long been the rule that nonprofit hospitals have had to provide charitable benefits to their community in order to keep their nonprofit status. That's no small matter, given that 60 percent of the nation's almost 3,000 hospitals are nonprofits and those tax benefits equal $12.6 billion annually. The benefits those hospitals provide have usually come in form of care for those unable to afford it, but it's unclear how, and how much, hospitals spend on community benefits has led to increased oversight by the Internal Revenue Service and Congress.

This year, there's a new kink for nonprofit hospitals and one that is important to every community those hospitals serve -- and a golden opportunity for every news outlet that reports on them. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires each nonprofit hospital to conduct a community health needs assessment, which must include a wide variety of community stakeholder input, prioritize needs, and eventually, when completed, be made widely available to the public. As explained by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the assessment does more. It "offers an opportunity for the entire community to work together to collectively improve health." Participants can include health systems, health departments and other government agencies, community organizations, employers, the faith community, the United Way and other non-profits, local funding organizations, academic institutions, and other community leaders.

To read the issue brief and find more resources about the benefit and programs associated with it, go here.
It's long been the rule that nonprofit hospitals have had to provide charitable benefits to their community in order to keep their nonprofit status. That's no small matter, given that 60 percent of the nation's almost 3,000 hospitals are nonprofits and those tax benefits equal $12.6 billion annually. The benefits those hospitals provide have usually come in form of care for those unable to afford it, but it's unclear how, and how much, hospitals spend on community benefits has led to increased oversight by the Internal Revenue Service and Congress.

This year, there's a new kink for nonprofit hospitals and one that is important to every community those hospitals serve -- and a golden opportunity for every news outlet that reports on them. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires each nonprofit hospital to conduct a community health needs assessment, which must include a wide variety of community stakeholder input, prioritize needs, and eventually, when completed, be made widely available to the public. As explained by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the assessment does more. It "offers an opportunity for the entire community to work together to collectively improve health." Participants can include health systems, health departments and other government agencies, community organizations, employers, the faith community, the United Way and other non-profits, local funding organizations, academic institutions, and other community leaders.

To read the issue brief and find more resources about the benefit and programs associated with it, go here.
Read More


Breast cancer awareness: Testing urged, guidelines explained, misconceptions explored

Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2, the
genes most commonly involved in breast
cancer, have up to an 80 percent chance
of getting the disease.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Although Kentucky's breast cancer rate is slightly lower than the nationwide rate, almost 600 women die every year from breast cancer in the Commonwealth. The American Cancer Society predicts approximately 3,160 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in Kentucky this year. Early detection and prompt treatment can significantly reduce suffering and death from the disease.

According to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, all health plans serving Kentuckians must, by law, cover mammograms. Medical guidelines strongly recommend that women older than 40 have annual mammograms and women younger than 40 with a family history of breast cancer should also have regular screenings. Through local health departments, the Kentucky Women's Cancer Screening Program provides breast cancer screenings, mammograms and Pap tests to eligible women in every county. During the 2011 fiscal year, KWCSP provided breast cancer screenings to 14,212 women. Services are provided to low-income women through the Kentucky Department for Public Health. Those women must be uninsured with incomes less than 250 percent of federal poverty guidelines.  For more information about breast cancer or screening services, call your local health department.

There are many misconceptions about the risks of developing breast cancer. Genetics, of course, is a well-documented factor but lifestyle issues have gotten a lot of talk. So what's true? Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, a principal teaching affiliate of Harvard University, tackles some of the more common questions here:

1) Soy may increase the risk of breast cancer returning.
False. Chen, who was part of a study that looked at over 9,500 American and Chinese breast cancer survivors who ate soy every day, says that eating soy may be linked to a lower risk of recurrence of breast cancer.

2) Alcohol consumption can increase the risk of breast cancer.
True. Dana-Farber researchers found that women who consume one alcoholic drink a day may increase their risk for breast cancer.  Chen and her colleagues analyzed data from over 105,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study. Those who consumed three to six glasses of wine a week were 15 percent more likely to receive a diagnosis of breast cancer. Those who drank fewer than three drinks a week had no increased risk.

3) Fertility treatments increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.
False. According to a recent study from the National Institutes of Health, ovulation-inducing fertility treatments like Clomid and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) do not significantly increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

4) Wearing deodorant can increase the risk of breast cancer.
False. According to the National Cancer Institute, there is no conclusive research linking underarm deodorants to breast cancer.

5) The bigger the baby the bigger the risk of getting breast cancer.
Possibly true. “This is a tough one because the research is still evolving,” says Chen. "But the latest research shows that women who have larger babies have more than twice the risk of developing breast cancer than mothers who give birth to smaller infants. Researchers say that having a heavier baby may create a hormonal environment in pregnancy that could lead to the future development of breast cancer. They found that during pregnancy in women who have heavier babies, the ratio of estrogen to anti-estrogen is unusually high. The greater the level of estrogen, the higher the risk of breast cancer. However, Chen emphasizes, women who have larger babies should not panic. There is definitely a need for further research.” (Read more)
Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2, the
genes most commonly involved in breast
cancer, have up to an 80 percent chance
of getting the disease.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Although Kentucky's breast cancer rate is slightly lower than the nationwide rate, almost 600 women die every year from breast cancer in the Commonwealth. The American Cancer Society predicts approximately 3,160 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in Kentucky this year. Early detection and prompt treatment can significantly reduce suffering and death from the disease.

According to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, all health plans serving Kentuckians must, by law, cover mammograms. Medical guidelines strongly recommend that women older than 40 have annual mammograms and women younger than 40 with a family history of breast cancer should also have regular screenings. Through local health departments, the Kentucky Women's Cancer Screening Program provides breast cancer screenings, mammograms and Pap tests to eligible women in every county. During the 2011 fiscal year, KWCSP provided breast cancer screenings to 14,212 women. Services are provided to low-income women through the Kentucky Department for Public Health. Those women must be uninsured with incomes less than 250 percent of federal poverty guidelines.  For more information about breast cancer or screening services, call your local health department.

There are many misconceptions about the risks of developing breast cancer. Genetics, of course, is a well-documented factor but lifestyle issues have gotten a lot of talk. So what's true? Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, a principal teaching affiliate of Harvard University, tackles some of the more common questions here:

1) Soy may increase the risk of breast cancer returning.
False. Chen, who was part of a study that looked at over 9,500 American and Chinese breast cancer survivors who ate soy every day, says that eating soy may be linked to a lower risk of recurrence of breast cancer.

2) Alcohol consumption can increase the risk of breast cancer.
True. Dana-Farber researchers found that women who consume one alcoholic drink a day may increase their risk for breast cancer.  Chen and her colleagues analyzed data from over 105,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study. Those who consumed three to six glasses of wine a week were 15 percent more likely to receive a diagnosis of breast cancer. Those who drank fewer than three drinks a week had no increased risk.

3) Fertility treatments increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.
False. According to a recent study from the National Institutes of Health, ovulation-inducing fertility treatments like Clomid and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) do not significantly increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

4) Wearing deodorant can increase the risk of breast cancer.
False. According to the National Cancer Institute, there is no conclusive research linking underarm deodorants to breast cancer.

5) The bigger the baby the bigger the risk of getting breast cancer.
Possibly true. “This is a tough one because the research is still evolving,” says Chen. "But the latest research shows that women who have larger babies have more than twice the risk of developing breast cancer than mothers who give birth to smaller infants. Researchers say that having a heavier baby may create a hormonal environment in pregnancy that could lead to the future development of breast cancer. They found that during pregnancy in women who have heavier babies, the ratio of estrogen to anti-estrogen is unusually high. The greater the level of estrogen, the higher the risk of breast cancer. However, Chen emphasizes, women who have larger babies should not panic. There is definitely a need for further research.” (Read more)
Read More


Northern Kentucky group forms in response to what some consider 'epidemic' of heroin use in their area

Ashel Kruetzkamp with a vial of Naloxone
HCl, used to treat those who overdose
on heroin. (Photo by Patrick Reddy)
Heroin use is reaching such high levels in Northern Kentucky that experts are calling it "a plague." The problem is so dire that local agencies are coming together to form the Northern Kentucky Heroin Impact and Response Workgroup.

Cincinnati Enquirer reporter Terry DeMio reports that the group includes leaders from St. Elizabeth Healthcare, law enforcement, addiction treatment programs, the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce and those who have been impacted by heroin. The goal of the group is “to fight, treat and prevent the destructive force of heroin in our community,” said Dr. Jeremy Engel, a family doctor with St. Elizabeth Physicians, Bellevue. Engel spearheaded the effort based on his belief that heroin use in the area has hit “epidemic” levels.

Engel points to first nine months of 2012 when St. Elizabeth Healthcare treated 311 heroin overdose patients in the emergency rooms of its five hospitals. For the same time period in 2011, the heroin overdoses presented in those emergency rooms numbered 186. With help from the chamber, St. Elizabeth Healthcare and others, Engel is forming the task force under the NKY Vision 2015 umbrella. (Read more)
Ashel Kruetzkamp with a vial of Naloxone
HCl, used to treat those who overdose
on heroin. (Photo by Patrick Reddy)
Heroin use is reaching such high levels in Northern Kentucky that experts are calling it "a plague." The problem is so dire that local agencies are coming together to form the Northern Kentucky Heroin Impact and Response Workgroup.

Cincinnati Enquirer reporter Terry DeMio reports that the group includes leaders from St. Elizabeth Healthcare, law enforcement, addiction treatment programs, the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce and those who have been impacted by heroin. The goal of the group is “to fight, treat and prevent the destructive force of heroin in our community,” said Dr. Jeremy Engel, a family doctor with St. Elizabeth Physicians, Bellevue. Engel spearheaded the effort based on his belief that heroin use in the area has hit “epidemic” levels.

Engel points to first nine months of 2012 when St. Elizabeth Healthcare treated 311 heroin overdose patients in the emergency rooms of its five hospitals. For the same time period in 2011, the heroin overdoses presented in those emergency rooms numbered 186. With help from the chamber, St. Elizabeth Healthcare and others, Engel is forming the task force under the NKY Vision 2015 umbrella. (Read more)
Read More


Cure for cancer developed, but kept a secret to benefit Big Pharma


 
 
 
One of the major issues and diseases that the people are concerned with is the deadly disease, cancer. This issue is something that concerns almost everybody in the world now. This disease has become a common ailment now days and people look for its cure. Every household throughout the world is affected with this serious problem. The health rangers of this sector aim to provide and offer good range of information and knowledge to the individuals all throughout the world so that they can be aware of the diseases, its effects and the cure.


Is Disease just an “ailment”

The big pharmaceutical companies offer their products to the people and have created a monopoly over the market. They refuse any kind of natural remedies or cure that has the power to actually make an individual get rid of this disease. But the big companies are afraid that these natural remedies will take over their market and will destroy their monopoly that has been established by them in the market.

The scientists and researchers of the developed countries like the United States have found ways to treat the disease easily but most of them are reluctant to make the information public.

Big pharmaceutical companies control the media!

The authorities are well aware about the seriousness of cancer and the number of people it affects each and every year and the rising number of lives that it takes away, but just to make money they refuse to divulge this information and share it with the people.

Big pharmaceutical companies control the media, which is a medium of mass communication and through which a lot of facts can come to light. This control helps them to actually keep the cure and the remedy of this disease away from the reach of the general public so that they have to rely on their services. This will help in the growth of their companies and its expansion in the market. It shows that though being in a developed and highly educated and sophisticated country; for these people, money is much more valuable than the lives of general public.


Get educated. Get Natural News today. Get the inside scoop. Detox your body if you’ve been eating GMO. Get free from “free radicals”. Get healthy. Get your pH alkaline. Get smarter. Don’t be fooled by the system, the media, the food lies. Don’t drink fluoridated water. Never eat processed food. Go organic. Go to your local farmer’s market. Make your own garden great! Buy organic seeds. Never feed your kids GMO. Boycott all Fast Food. You can do it! Fry vegetables at home and put them on organic bread if you want a “fried sandwich”. This is the way to live to be 100 and healthy all the while. You can win the health war. Eat organic and avoid Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Osteoporosis, IBS, depression and lack of energy. Find out the real YOU and function at the best of your abilities!


Natural News and Natural Health go hand in hand.

 
 
 
One of the major issues and diseases that the people are concerned with is the deadly disease, cancer. This issue is something that concerns almost everybody in the world now. This disease has become a common ailment now days and people look for its cure. Every household throughout the world is affected with this serious problem. The health rangers of this sector aim to provide and offer good range of information and knowledge to the individuals all throughout the world so that they can be aware of the diseases, its effects and the cure.


Is Disease just an “ailment”

The big pharmaceutical companies offer their products to the people and have created a monopoly over the market. They refuse any kind of natural remedies or cure that has the power to actually make an individual get rid of this disease. But the big companies are afraid that these natural remedies will take over their market and will destroy their monopoly that has been established by them in the market.

The scientists and researchers of the developed countries like the United States have found ways to treat the disease easily but most of them are reluctant to make the information public.

Big pharmaceutical companies control the media!

The authorities are well aware about the seriousness of cancer and the number of people it affects each and every year and the rising number of lives that it takes away, but just to make money they refuse to divulge this information and share it with the people.

Big pharmaceutical companies control the media, which is a medium of mass communication and through which a lot of facts can come to light. This control helps them to actually keep the cure and the remedy of this disease away from the reach of the general public so that they have to rely on their services. This will help in the growth of their companies and its expansion in the market. It shows that though being in a developed and highly educated and sophisticated country; for these people, money is much more valuable than the lives of general public.


Get educated. Get Natural News today. Get the inside scoop. Detox your body if you’ve been eating GMO. Get free from “free radicals”. Get healthy. Get your pH alkaline. Get smarter. Don’t be fooled by the system, the media, the food lies. Don’t drink fluoridated water. Never eat processed food. Go organic. Go to your local farmer’s market. Make your own garden great! Buy organic seeds. Never feed your kids GMO. Boycott all Fast Food. You can do it! Fry vegetables at home and put them on organic bread if you want a “fried sandwich”. This is the way to live to be 100 and healthy all the while. You can win the health war. Eat organic and avoid Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Osteoporosis, IBS, depression and lack of energy. Find out the real YOU and function at the best of your abilities!


Natural News and Natural Health go hand in hand.
Read More


One of Humana's plans to get 5% more in Medicare payouts under bonus plan that rewards proof of preventive care

The Courier-Journal reports that Louisville-based Humana Inc. will get 5 percent more in Medicare payments and the highest rating for one of its health plans under a government program that is likely improving care for the elderly, according to an analysis. The program provides bonus payments to insurers that limit "how many members are readmitted to the hospital after a discharge, increasing the amount of preventive care and getting acceptable ratings on patient satisfaction surveys, among other criteria," according to the report. Separate analyses by the consulting firm Avalere Health LLC and the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund conclude that the bonus system, created by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is working. It has since been modified by the Obama administration to allow for bigger payments to more plans.
The Courier-Journal reports that Louisville-based Humana Inc. will get 5 percent more in Medicare payments and the highest rating for one of its health plans under a government program that is likely improving care for the elderly, according to an analysis. The program provides bonus payments to insurers that limit "how many members are readmitted to the hospital after a discharge, increasing the amount of preventive care and getting acceptable ratings on patient satisfaction surveys, among other criteria," according to the report. Separate analyses by the consulting firm Avalere Health LLC and the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund conclude that the bonus system, created by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is working. It has since been modified by the Obama administration to allow for bigger payments to more plans.
Read More


Ragdoll cats and kidney disease

Paepe D, Saunders JH, Bavegems V, et al. Screening of ragdoll cats for kidney -disease: a retrospective evaluation. J Small Anim Pract. 2012; 53: 572-7.

A very popular cat breed worldwide is the Ragdoll. Ragdoll breeders often advise clients to watch for future renal disease in their cats. Most of these questions center around potential chronic interstitial nephritis and polycystic kidney disease (PKD). There is minimal scientific evidence regarding risk of renal disease in this breed. The Veterinary Medical College at Ghent University in Belgium performed a retrospective evaluation of Ragdolls screened for renal disease over an 8-year period. The screening methods included abdominal ultrasonography, measurement of serum creatinine and urea concentrations, and genetic testing for the PKD-1 mutation. The study population was made up of 244 Ragdoll cats: 172 females and 72 males.
 
In this study, 8.6% of the screened cats showed ultrasonographic abnormalities that could be compatible with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The suspected CKD cats were significantly older and had significantly higher urea and creatinine concentrations compared to cats with normal ultrasound results. Ragdolls are one of the breeds that have been outcrossed with Persians, so Ragdoll cats could be at risk for PKD. The researchers found a PKD prevalence of less than 3% in the study cats, considerably lower than the 31-42% prevalence of PKD described in European studies of Persians and related cats. Only one PKD-positive and one suspected PKD-positive Ragdoll cat were noted in the last 7 years of the study. This could mean that PKD screening before breeding is effective at eradicating PKD in this breed. All genetically tested cats tested negative for PKD.

In conclusion, almost 10% of this healthy Ragdoll population had ultrasonographic findings compatible with CKD, and PKD occurs at a low prevalence in Ragdoll cats in Belgium and the Netherlands. [VT]

See also: Heiene R, Rumsby G, Ziener M, et al. Chronic kidney disease with three cases of oxalate-like nephrosis in Ragdoll cats. Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery. 2009; 11: 474-80.

More on cat health:
Winn Feline Foundation Library
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Google+

Paepe D, Saunders JH, Bavegems V, et al. Screening of ragdoll cats for kidney -disease: a retrospective evaluation. J Small Anim Pract. 2012; 53: 572-7.

A very popular cat breed worldwide is the Ragdoll. Ragdoll breeders often advise clients to watch for future renal disease in their cats. Most of these questions center around potential chronic interstitial nephritis and polycystic kidney disease (PKD). There is minimal scientific evidence regarding risk of renal disease in this breed. The Veterinary Medical College at Ghent University in Belgium performed a retrospective evaluation of Ragdolls screened for renal disease over an 8-year period. The screening methods included abdominal ultrasonography, measurement of serum creatinine and urea concentrations, and genetic testing for the PKD-1 mutation. The study population was made up of 244 Ragdoll cats: 172 females and 72 males.
 
In this study, 8.6% of the screened cats showed ultrasonographic abnormalities that could be compatible with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The suspected CKD cats were significantly older and had significantly higher urea and creatinine concentrations compared to cats with normal ultrasound results. Ragdolls are one of the breeds that have been outcrossed with Persians, so Ragdoll cats could be at risk for PKD. The researchers found a PKD prevalence of less than 3% in the study cats, considerably lower than the 31-42% prevalence of PKD described in European studies of Persians and related cats. Only one PKD-positive and one suspected PKD-positive Ragdoll cat were noted in the last 7 years of the study. This could mean that PKD screening before breeding is effective at eradicating PKD in this breed. All genetically tested cats tested negative for PKD.

In conclusion, almost 10% of this healthy Ragdoll population had ultrasonographic findings compatible with CKD, and PKD occurs at a low prevalence in Ragdoll cats in Belgium and the Netherlands. [VT]

See also: Heiene R, Rumsby G, Ziener M, et al. Chronic kidney disease with three cases of oxalate-like nephrosis in Ragdoll cats. Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery. 2009; 11: 474-80.

More on cat health:
Winn Feline Foundation Library
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Google+

Read More


Sunday, October 21, 2012

Flu Vaccine Study Reveals It To Be Quack Science...

Research Proves That Flu Shots Are Medically Useless
October 21, 2012
Member of the Pastoral Medical Association

Have you been waiting in line to get that needle full of Animal DNA, Human Fetal Tissue From Abortions, Mercury Formaldehyde and many more lovely, life improving ingredients? 
Well you may want to read this post first….

A recent study out of the University of Minnesota (UM) suggests that it isn’t necessary, having found that the two groups most at risk from developing serious complications from the flu, seniors and children, derive little or no benefit from getting flu shots.
Michael Osterholm from the UM Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy analyzed more than 12,000 peer-reviewed studies, documents, transcripts, and notes dating back to the 1930s, and found that there was very little solid evidence that the flu shot provides any real protection for most people.
"We found that current influenza vaccine protection is substantially lower than for most routine recommended vaccines and is suboptimal…we can no longer accept the status quo regarding vaccine research and development." said Osterholm about the findings.”
In Osterholm's opinion, a flu shot should ideally be between 85 and 95 percent effective in all age groups before ever being considered effective and useful. This means that the types of flu shots currently administered to hundreds of millions of Americans every single year are COMPLETE MEDICAL QUACKERY.
Yet even this researcher manipulates the numbers to get results. (Can You Say Unethical?!?!),  He claims efficacy in 60% of those vaccinated, but the facts tell otherwise, as do his own numbers.
When taken in the light of the research that was used for this studies' research, the efficacy associated with influenza vaccine is negligible at best.
In a major study published in Lancet 2011, which involved 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza, which 357 of them did, in fact, contract influenza resulting in 2.7% infection rate.
The vaccinated group, on the other hand, had an overall infection rate of 1.2%.
So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!
So where does this "60% effective" come from?

This is know as “Statistical Manipulation",and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.
First, you take the 2.7% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.2% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you roughly 0.45.
You can then say that 0.45 is "45% of 2.7," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "60% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "60% effectiveness rate" claim.
The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults. 
There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.
So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," this, to the average person, means that of 100 vaccinated people, 60 of them will not get the flu.
However, as you have seen, this is not the case, if you were to 100 adults then 1.5 of them would avoid getting the flu.
In other words, to prevent 60people from getting the flu a total of 4,000 people would have to be immunized!
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.
But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.
As for children and flu shots, well the evidence is lacking at best and what is spewed by those that profit from these vaccines is just parroted from what they have been told or seen, because if they would just read some research they would know things such as: A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD004879).

How To “Cook The Books” With Statistics!
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancerindustry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.
You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"
 But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women. 
But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!"
And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"
And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

 Real Protection From The Flu…


Become Pro-Active with your health! Eat more organic fruits and vegetables, especially green leafy veggies, supplement with garlic, colloidal silver, plenty of B vitamins, get plenty of good quality sleep every night and drink plenty of purified, mineral-rich water.

These are just some of the highly effective ways to naturally avoid the flu without risking potentially deadly side effects.

-->
-->



Research Proves That Flu Shots Are Medically Useless
October 21, 2012
Member of the Pastoral Medical Association

Have you been waiting in line to get that needle full of Animal DNA, Human Fetal Tissue From Abortions, Mercury Formaldehyde and many more lovely, life improving ingredients? 
Well you may want to read this post first….

A recent study out of the University of Minnesota (UM) suggests that it isn’t necessary, having found that the two groups most at risk from developing serious complications from the flu, seniors and children, derive little or no benefit from getting flu shots.
Michael Osterholm from the UM Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy analyzed more than 12,000 peer-reviewed studies, documents, transcripts, and notes dating back to the 1930s, and found that there was very little solid evidence that the flu shot provides any real protection for most people.
"We found that current influenza vaccine protection is substantially lower than for most routine recommended vaccines and is suboptimal…we can no longer accept the status quo regarding vaccine research and development." said Osterholm about the findings.”
In Osterholm's opinion, a flu shot should ideally be between 85 and 95 percent effective in all age groups before ever being considered effective and useful. This means that the types of flu shots currently administered to hundreds of millions of Americans every single year are COMPLETE MEDICAL QUACKERY.
Yet even this researcher manipulates the numbers to get results. (Can You Say Unethical?!?!),  He claims efficacy in 60% of those vaccinated, but the facts tell otherwise, as do his own numbers.
When taken in the light of the research that was used for this studies' research, the efficacy associated with influenza vaccine is negligible at best.
In a major study published in Lancet 2011, which involved 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza, which 357 of them did, in fact, contract influenza resulting in 2.7% infection rate.
The vaccinated group, on the other hand, had an overall infection rate of 1.2%.
So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!
So where does this "60% effective" come from?

This is know as “Statistical Manipulation",and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.
First, you take the 2.7% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.2% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you roughly 0.45.
You can then say that 0.45 is "45% of 2.7," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "60% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "60% effectiveness rate" claim.
The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults. 
There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.
So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," this, to the average person, means that of 100 vaccinated people, 60 of them will not get the flu.
However, as you have seen, this is not the case, if you were to 100 adults then 1.5 of them would avoid getting the flu.
In other words, to prevent 60people from getting the flu a total of 4,000 people would have to be immunized!
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.
But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.
As for children and flu shots, well the evidence is lacking at best and what is spewed by those that profit from these vaccines is just parroted from what they have been told or seen, because if they would just read some research they would know things such as: A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD004879).

How To “Cook The Books” With Statistics!
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancerindustry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.
You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"
 But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women. 
But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!"
And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"
And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

 Real Protection From The Flu…


Become Pro-Active with your health! Eat more organic fruits and vegetables, especially green leafy veggies, supplement with garlic, colloidal silver, plenty of B vitamins, get plenty of good quality sleep every night and drink plenty of purified, mineral-rich water.

These are just some of the highly effective ways to naturally avoid the flu without risking potentially deadly side effects.

-->
-->



Read More