HealthBeat News

Category: Childrens Health

  • CT Scans And Radiation Risks In Children – Is It Really Worth It?

    Opinion By Nurse Mark

    We have become very quick to request CT scans for just about every complaint these days – for ourselves, and especially for our children.

    And who can blame a worried parent: little Suzy has a tummyache, or little Johnny fell and thumped his head, or there is that nagging cough that hasn’t gone away and it’s been almost two weeks now… so it’s off to the doctor to demand some answers.

    The poor doctor though is swamped with all the other worried parents of all the other Suzies and Johnnies, so he listens quickly to the story, makes a perfunctory check to make sure that no disaster will befall the child before it gets to someone else’s care, and sends ’em packing with an order for a CT of whatever.

    Whew – done! Let the radiologist make a diagnosis! (Or face the wrath of a parent who must be told that there is nothing to be seen, and that coughs and colds and tummyaches and thumped noggins have been survived by kids for millions of years before the advent of CT scans and lawsuits.)

    Let’s look at what this is doing to our kids: In terms of radiation dose, a head CT is equivalent to 200 chest x-rays, a chest CT to 150 chest x-rays, and an abdominal CT to 250 chest x-rays.

    In this report, just issued to doctors, nurses, and radiologists on the Medscape website (they felt this was important enough that they provided "continuing education credits" or CE’s for reading the article and passing the test!)  are told "Computed tomography is of particular interest because of its relatively high radiation dose and wide use. Consensus statements on radiation risk suggest that it is reasonable to act on the assumption that low-level radiation may have a small risk of causing cancer."

    Throughout this article the weasel-words "may have" and "small risk" are used repeatedly, and several times the article assures doctors that they should continue to support the CT imaging industry by ordering scans because "Low-level radiation from CT studies might carry a small risk for cancer, but the risk is outweighed by the benefits of indicated CT studies in children."

    In this last statement note the use of the medical weasel-word "indicated." In normal layperson language "indicated" means "really needed because there is no other way to get the same results." For example, in a septic bacterial infection, an antibiotic would be indicated – for an influenza, not. In terms of CT scanning and other radiological examinations, "indicated" means that the doctor has exhausted all other means of making a diagnosis – including a careful and detailed hands-on physical examination!

    Unfortunately, few conventional (i.e. allopathic) doctors have the time, inclination or, in some cases the skills to do such a detailed examination and work-up – much of today’s "art of medicine" involves remembering what drug or test the Merck Manual dictates as being the "Standard of Care" for any given complaint and writing the appropriate order or prescription. Better to pass the risk of misdiagnosis on to a "specialist" than to try to "make the call" by ones-self… – this is known in clinical practice as "Risk Management."

    There is no question that as exposure to radiation increases, so does the risk of stimulating cancer. It is for this reason that those old fluoroscopes were banned from shoe stores and radium is no longer used on watch dials! Why the Big Medical Establishment continues to try to delude use into believing that these high-radiation-dose CT scans are acceptable for our children who are actively growing and thus at even higher risk is beyond comprehension. Is it ignorance, laziness, or the need to protect the multi billions of dollars per year industry that CT scanning has become?

    Fortunately, parents do have a choice – they can insist that all non-radiological avenues of examination and diagnosis are followed, explored, and exhausted by skilled practitioners before consenting to CT scans for their children!

    The Medscape article can be found here:

    Report Issued on the Risks of Using CT Scans in Children

  • Gardasil, Mandatory Vaccinations, And Health Freedom – What Can History Teach Us?

    Do we learn nothing from history?

    Be it the "Swine Flu" vaccine in the 1970’s that caused more deaths than the swine flu did, or the polio vaccine in 1955 that cause more disease than it prevented (known as "The Cutter Incident"), it looks like we need to be reminded over and over again that when we monkey around by introducing foreign substances into people there are likely to be unforeseen, unintended, and serious – even lethal – repercussions.

    But that is just recent history – were you aware that there have been mandatory vaccination programs since the later part of the 1800’s? And that respected physicians of that day exposed the folly, ineffectiveness, and danger of those programs just as there are respected physicians who do the same today? And that those physicians, then and now, are systematically ridiculed, marginalized, harassed, and even ruined by the allopathic vaccine industry that stands to lose obscene amounts of money should the truth about vaccination become common knowledge?

    Let’s follow the money for a moment: Merck is the Big Pharma giant responsible for the vaccine Gardasil. This is said to be the most expensive vaccine in common use, with a price tag of $360 per three-injection series and Merck is said to have sold some 16 million doses of the stuff so far. Now, if a three dose series is $360, then presumably each dose is worth $120. Multiplied by 16 million, that works out to $1,920,000,000.

    That’s one billion, nine hundred and twenty million dollars folks. Darned near two billion dollars!

    Do we begin to see why there might be a big push going on to make this vaccination "mandatory"? Especially when there are reports that women, given freedom of choice, are not flocking to be vaccinated and sales are sagging (and profits too…)

    Remember, this is the company that also brought you such stellar performers as Vioxx, Fosamax, and Singulair… and has the money and power to "make things happen."

    Even the mainstream media is now beginning to follow the money-trail, with reporters like CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson finding heavy financial connections between Big Pharma, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two (a lobbying group created to promote early childhood vaccination and located within a stone’s throw of the White House in Washington, DC), and vaccination proponent Dr. Paul Offit – the pediatrician and vaccine patent-holder who has been reprimanded by congress for his conflicts of interest.

    Don’t get me wrong – everyone needs to make a living and pay their bills and the money has to come from somewhere – but when these organizations and doctors are taking money from Big Pharma they really shouldn’t be presenting themselves as impartial, public-service, free-from-industry-and-financial-influence when they are presented as experts promoting these drugs and vaccines.

    As I was doing a bit of research on Gardasil and other vaccines I came across a fascinating, chilling little tidbit: I visited Medscape – that medics-only online repository of medical information, supposed to be impartial and unimpeachable in it’s content. I was looking for an article titled "HPV Vaccine Adverse Events Worrisome Says Key Investigator," which was posted on July 26, 2008. In it’s place I found an article titled "HPV Vaccine Deemed Safe and Effective, Despite Reports of Adverse Events" and a note explaining that the first article had been removed following "editorial review."
    Removed, mind you – not left there, perhaps with an editorial caveat or warning about it’s suitability or impartiality so that the readers might draw their own conclusions – but removed. Gone. Dare I say censored? Suppressed?

    Fortunately, with a bit of careful searching, this article can be found elsewhere – though for how long, no-one knows. So that it may remain available to our HealthBeat News readers, I have placed the contents of this article in our archives. We believe that it should be the author of this article Allison Gandey who should decide the fate of her research and work – not Medscape or Merck. Ms. Gandey is welcome to contact us if she feels it should be removed…

    But I have digressed – this was supposed to be an article about mandatory vaccination programs, and it was prompted by recent news articles reporting that New York was considering a new law – Assembly Bill 10942 – would make all vaccines recommended by the CDC mandatory for all children to attend school. Not only that, but for the first time vaccines would become mandatory for infants and toddlers.

    Additionally, according to sources like the "Home School Legal Defense Association" this bill would allow doctors to give a vaccine to children without the consent or knowledge of the parents. Says the Association: "Theoretically, a doctor could ask if a 12-year-old girl had a boyfriend and when told “yes”, the doctor could tell this young girl that she would recommend the HPV vaccine to prevent her from getting cancer. The doctor could administer the vaccine without ever getting the parents’ consent and without their knowledge."

    Best of all, this boon-to-Big Pharma would require all children in the state to be given EVERY vaccine recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – some twenty in all, some of which require multiple doses to achieve their desired "effect."

    So, once again we have legislators looking to remove from us any ability to exercise free will or choice with respect to our health.

    Perhaps the biggest question for us here is just who is at risk when someone is not vaccinated? It would seem to us that the person most at risk is the person who has decided to be at risk. We hear from the CDC, the FDA, the AMA, Big Pharma and others that vaccinations are supposed to "stop the spread of disease" and that this is justification for forced vaccination. But is this really so? Smallpox is said to have been "eradicated" through near universal vaccination – but the truth is that there are still isolated outbreaks of this disease today. People still get sick with this disease – most recover, a tiny few succumb. Smallpox vaccinations have not been given routinely to children since 1977. Why? the WHO would have us believe that because smallpox has been "eradicated" they are no longer needed. Could the truth be that no-one is willing to deal with the liability issues created by a vaccination that causes as much suffering and misery as it is said to prevent?

    Vaccinations are a contentious issue. There is ample evidence that vaccines can cause harm and illness. There is ample evidence that vaccination is considerably less than fully effective in preventing disease. There are many people who are suspicious of vaccination, and given the choice would rather take their chances with the disease than with the vaccination. As a kid I can remember "Chicken-pox parties" where moms would gather their children around an infected kid so that all could "enjoy" the illness and subsequent immunity. In fact, the earliest form of "vaccination" for smallpox was simply to rub against the open lesion of an mildly infected person. This usually resulted in a limited, mild infection which conferred immunity. This time-honored practice, known as Variolation, is of course scorned by "modern" medicine.

    Those who refuse vaccination expose only themselves to any possible risk of illness – those who wish to be "protected" are free to be vaccinated and then smile smugly at their "unprotected" neighbors. They are welcome to have a hearty "told you so" at my expense if I spend a day or two longer in bed with the flu because of my decision to forego
    the risks of immunization.

    We are not entirely anti-vaccination – indeed, Dr. Myatt has been known to prescribe certain vaccinations to some patients in order to stimulate immunity. But this is a carefully considered recommendation, not a wholesale mass inoculation program as Big Pharma would like to see.

    We support the right of informed people to make their own decisions. We feel that it is just plain wrong for government or Big Business to force any drug or vaccine or chemical on anyone. Especially when the motivation looks more like profit than health.

    Further reading / Resources:

    • "The Cutter Incident" book review – http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/733
    • smallpox myths – http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/SmallpoxMyths.htm
    • thiomersol controversy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy
    • "Worst Vaccine Bill Ever" article – http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2008/300508vaccines.htm
    • Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program – http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no01/05-1007.htm
    • NY Times – "The Rush To Vaccinate" article – http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/opinion/25CIfry-revere.html
    • Wall Street Journal Article Questions Cost-effectiveness of Gardasil – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121928503311259059.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
    • "DR. PAUL OFFIT: QUOTE MACHINE FOR HIRE" – http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/dr-paul-offit-q.html
    • 60 Minutes-REMINDER of who Dr. Paul Offit is: – http://www.whale.to/a/offit.html
    • "Serious Questions About HPV Vaccine" CBS article – http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/07/eveningnews/main4239462.shtml
    • VaccineEthics.org article: "HPV Roundup: Gardasil safety worries, Cervarix FDA delays, more on mandates" – http://blog.vaccineethics.org/2008/07/hpv-roundup-gardasil-safety-worries.html
    • Variolation and historical inoculation – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation

  • Similase and Similase Jr: – What’s The Difference?

    We get a lot of product questions – and digestion and digestive enzymes make up a large part of those questions. There is no doubt that this important physical function is poorly understood – even by most doctors. No wonder so many lay-people are confused!
    Here is an example of a recent question, with Dr. Myatt’s answers:
    Dear Dr. Myatt:

    Many digestive enzymes are on the market now to digest gluten and casein. Will Similase and / or Similase jr. digest gluten, gliadin, and casein?

    Also, I would like to know the difference between Similase and Similase jr?

    Thank you.

    Dr. Myatt replies:

    Yes they will, but if you know that you or "Jr." have a decided sensitivity, then Tyler’s newest product, Similase GFCF, might be a better choice. You can learn more about this new product here: Similase GFCF

    120 capsules retail for $25. We don’t have this product listed on our website (it’s brand-new), but we can get it in for you in 2 days.

    Basically, the difference between Similase and Similase Jr.  just a dose consideration. Small people don’t need as high a potency as big people! And the capsules are a smaller size, easier for small people to swallow.

    Follow this link to our website to see the exact list/amounts of ingredients of Similase

    And follow this link to see the ingredients and amounts for Similase Jr.

    You’re most welcome! Hope this answers your questions satisfactorily!

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    Nurse Mark adds: Be sure to also see our website for more information about indigestion and food allergies!

  • The Most Dangerous Food

    This just in today from Medscape.

    Do you know what the most dangerous food — an entire category — is considered to be, based on the number of people affected?

    Meat you say? After all, E.coli has killed more than a few people over the years, especially in cheap hamburger from sleazy fast-food joints.

    But alas, meat isn’t it. It turns out that government oversight of meat-packing operations is at least functional.

    How about sushi? After all, raw fish could transmit parasites…

    Guess again.

    The most dangerous category of foods based on the number of deaths and sickness is FRUITS and VEGETABLES. And while some of the contaminants can be removed by careful cleansing, many others are internal to the fruit or produce and no amount of washing will make them safe.

    What to do?

    • Buy as many of your fruits and vegetables locally as you can (they’ll be much fresher anyway).
    • Try your hand at growing some of your own. (Salad veggies like lettuce and sprouts are particularly easy and require very little space).
    • Consider using an organic fruit and vegetable supplement like Red Alert or Greens First to give yourself the benefit of 10 + servings of fruits and vegetables daily without the risk. (And these tasty supplements help to "fill in the gaps" of the 10 servings of fruits and vegetables I’m willing to bet money you’re NOT eating anyway)!

  • Reader Questions Soy Benefits: “One Man’s Meat is Another Man’s Poison”

    Michael writes to comment:

    All of my other “Natural Health” information areas (including the book , “The Whole Soy Story”) are stressing the detriments of soy, so I am surprised to see such a positive review (of course, with some caveats). This statement from “The Dangers of Soy” actually contradicts what you have stated: Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.”
    What’s up??? I usually trust what you have to say, but I have a hard time believing that soy is good for us!!!

    Dr. Myatt replies:

    Hi Michael:

    Your question brings up several good points that I’d like to address. The first one is taken directly from my “Read This First” letter found on the footer of every page of my website. I’m betting about 3 people have read this in the 14 years I’ve been in business, but here’s the “short course”:

    “Also keep in mind that although my advice and statements are supported by scientific research, experts do not always agree on the meaning and interpretation of research data. Another physician might look at the same information and draw a different conclusion. This is why it makes good sense to get a second (and even a third and fourth!) medical opinion…”
    Read the full letter here.

    Second, I believe the “black and white” argument about soy is completely misguided. Some folks totally vilify soy (as in the book you quote), while others make it sound so great that you’d think it should be added to the public drinking water supply!

    My opinion? Soy is neither a terrible substance nor a “miracle food” that everyone should take. As with many foods, it has “pros” and “cons.”

    Soy has estrogenic effects. That is, soy acts as a weak estrogen. Is this bad? Ask a post-menopausal female suffering from hot flashes if using a weak (and therefore presumably safer) form of estrogen is bad and she’ll probably look at you like you just got off a spaceship from Mars. Estrogenic effects have a role to play in medical practice, especially when they are safer alternatives to more potent estrogens. A number of studies have shown that soy helps prevent and may even be effective for treatment of hormone-related cancers. Please visit our webpage on soy for a complete list of references — 45 in total.

    Soy has also been shown to help lower cardiovascular disease risk (a claim allowed by the FDA), lower cholesterol levels, improve bone mineral density, and improve insulin sensitivity. Again, all of this is fully referenced on the above-mentioned page.

    Now, is estrogen good for babies? Hello? I think not. And for men? Sometimes in prostate cancer it is useful, but overall, increasing estrogen effects is not generally desirable in men.

    Further, as I have previously mentioned, unrefined soy (such as soy protein powder and soybeans) acts as a goitrogen and can lower thyroid function. Soy is also allergenic to many people, especially in this form. Fermented soy products such as tofu, miso, and tempeh are better tolerated.

    As for soy lowering fertility, this has not been a problem in Asian countries with the highest intakes of soy! Again, if someone is eating enough soy to lower thyroid hormone production, this can cause infertility. (low thyroid is associated with infertility). This is easy to monitor with a simple blood test.

    My summary: “Soy: not all good, not all bad.” It depends on the person and their unique cirumstance. Please be sure to take a peek at our website page on soy for a boat-load of references that reveal some of the “positives” of soy and it’s derivatives.

    P.S. You’ve got a book that vilifies soy? (There are a number of them).
    But here are some titles that sing soy’s praises:
    Soy One Choice For Menopausal Health, Ari Babaknia, M.D.
    Soy The Right Protein For Improving Your Health, Ari Babaknia, M.D.
    The Soy Zone, Dr. Barry Sears (author of The Zone Diet)
    Soy for Health: The Definitive Medical Guide, Stephen Holt, M.D.
    Earl Mindell’s Soy Miracle, Earl Mindell, pH.D