Fwd: WDDTY e-News Service - 4th March 2004

[Guest guest]

" WDDTY e-News "

WDDTY e-News Service - 4th March 2004

Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:19:07 0000

 

 

WHAT DOCTORS DON’T TELL YOU - E-NEWS BROADCAST No. 72 - 04 Mar 2004

 

Please feel free to email this broadcast to any friends you feel would

appreciate receiving it.

 

 

 

 

SPECIAL NOTE: This E-news broadcast includes the complete response from Dr

Andrew Wakefield to allegations made in the London Sunday Times against him and

his research into a MMR link to autism. Please circulate it as widely as

possible. Because of a technical glitch, there is no Readers' Corner this week.

All your responses have unfortunately disappeared into a digital black hole. If

you have sent in comments since last Friday (February 27), please resend your

message and we'll try to include next time. Apologies from the Glitch.

 

 

 

ALCOHOL: It's good for you, but then it's bad for you if you're a

post-menopausal woman

 

A glass (or two) of red wine every day may be good for the heart, but it could

cause breast cancer if you're a post-menopausal woman.

 

Research among 2,000 women aged between 65 and 79 found that those who drank two

or more alcoholic drinks a day significantly increased their risk of breast

cancer compared with nondrinkers.

 

The risk was increased by over three times for some types of breast cancer.

There was no increased risk among younger, premenopausal, women who drank, which

suggests a link with estrogen levels. " Alcohol is known to increase estrogen

levels in the blood, and therefore it could stimulate hormonally sensitive

tumours, " said one of the researchers.

 

(Source: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, October 2003).

 

 

 

CANCER BATTLEPLAN CONFERENCE: Metabolic-type pioneer speaking

 

Tickets are already selling for our forthcoming cancer conference. This year

one of the keynote speakers is William Wolcott, pioneer of the metabolic diet.

Other speakers joining him on the podium for the Cancer Battleplan Conference

include Jochen Toedtmann, one of the few practitioners of the Hamer therapy, and

Dr Patrick Kingsley from the UK. The conference is on June 19 and 20 (one day

for patients, and one for practitioners) in Islington, London N1. To book your

seat, now: http://www.wddty.co.uk/conference_main.asp

 

 

 

AIR TRAVEL: DVT risk is higher than first feared

 

Just two weeks after we reported a 20 per cent increased risk of catching some

virus while on a flight, researchers have now discovered that deep vein

thromboembolism (DVT) is a bigger threat than was thought.

 

Researchers assess the risk at one per cent, especially for those who frequently

fly long-haul. Interestingly, the usual preventative measures - taking aspirin

and wearing special compression stockings - seemed to have only a limited

effect.

 

Researchers from the New Zealand Air Traveller's Thrombosis study monitored the

health of 878 air travellers who frequently flew long-haul, defined as any

flight longer than 10 hours. After flying, the participants were tested, and

four had pulmonary embolism and five had deep venous thrombosis. Of those, six

had a pre-clinical risk factor and two had a recognized thrombophilic risk

factor. All nine had taken some preventative action - five had taken aspirin

and four were wearing compression stockings.

 

(Source: The Lancet, 2003; 362: 2039-44).

 

 

 

THE FAR SIDE: OK, so prayer can work, but after the fact. . .?

 

There are plenty of studies around to suggest that prayer can quicken a

patient's recovery. If you accept the current non-quantum space/time paradigm,

this alone is a remarkable fact, and would suggest that the space between us all

is far from empty.

 

But Dr Larry Dossey, who researches the effects of prayer, is positing an even

more extraordinary theory: that prayer can also influence past events. This

suggests that you can intend (or pray) for a better outcome for something whose

outcome would appear to be determined - and still influence it.

 

He quotes in support a study carried out by Leibovici, published in the British

Medical Journal in 2001 (BMJ, 2001; 323: 1450-1). Leibovici enlisted 3393

patients who were prayed for between four and 10 years later. While the

mortality levels were similar in the group prayed for and the one not prayed

for, those who were prayed for actually left hospital sooner - even though they

were prayed for up to 10 years later. (I know, it's hard to get your head

around this. Imagine what it's like trying to write it).

 

How can this be? Dossey suggests that we really don't know enough about the way

the universe functions, or our own consciousness, to answer that. Physicists

don't know how time operates, and they are equally clueless about consciousness

so " dismissing retroactive prayer, which involves both, seems premature, " says

Dossey.

 

(Source: British Medical Journal, 2003; 327: 1465-8).

 

 

 

BYPASS SURGERY: Does it stop our natural defence system?

 

It appears that bypass surgery interrupts a self-healing process that the body

will start when it detects that oxygen is not reaching the heart.

Extraordinarily, 75 per cent of heart patients experience a relief of pain

within three to six months without any medical intervention because the body

starts growing new blood vessels to form a natural bypass of the obstructed

arteries.

 

These 'collateral vessels', as they are known, are able to keep the blood

flowing to the heart, even when a main artery has completely closed. These

vessels usually disappear after bypass surgery, 'sensing' a new flow of blood to

the heart.

 

Collateral vessels tend to grow when artery narrowing and blocking is a slow

process. A vessel that is only slightly narrowed, and then suddenly blocks

completely, is likely to cause a myocardial infarction (heart attack) that the

body can do nothing to prevent.

 

" The common practice of rushing patients in for emergency or urgent surgery

because of a severely narrowed coronary artery is completely unnecessary, and

needlessly frightens the patient and his family " , says Dr Howard Wayne of the

Noninvasive Heart Centre.

 

His view is supported by a study that found that chances of survival following a

mild heart attack are higher if the hospital does not immediately operate but

instead adopts a conservative approach. Overall, 80 of 138 people who underwent

invasive treatment such as a bypass died during a 23-month follow-up period,

compared with 59 of a group of 123 patients who had received conservative

treatment, including drug therapy.

 

(Source: What Doctors Don't Tell You March 2004; New England Journal of

Medicine, 1998; 338: 1785-92).

 

* This article is one of many revealing pieces about bypass surgery in this

month's What Doctors Don't Tell You. If you want to start subscribing, click on

this link: http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/details.asp?product=330

 

 

 

DR WAKEFIELD: His side of the story

 

Many of you will know that Dr Andrew Wakefield, who pioneered research into a

link between autism and the MMR vaccine, was strongly attacked in the London

Sunday Times the other week, as reported in the previous E-News. In particular

he was criticised for receiving funds from a legal aid charity that was

representing parents of children who were possibly injured by the vaccine. His

statement follows in full. Please circulate it as widely as you can.

 

" Serious allegations have been made against me and my colleagues in relation to

the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel disease, and

the subsequent reporting of their disease. These allegations have been made by

journalist Brian Deer who has expressed, in front of witnesses, his aim of

destroying me.

 

All but one of the allegations, which are grossly defamatory, have been shown to

be baseless. One allegation remains against me personally. That is, that I did

not disclose to the Lancet that a minority of the 12 children in the 1998 Lancet

report were also part of a quite separate study that was funded in part by the

Legal Aid Board.

 

It is the Lancet's opinion but not mine that such a disclosure should have been

made since it may have been perceived as a conflict of interest. This is

despite that fact that the funding was provided for a separate scientific study.

 

It needs to be made clear that the funds from the Legal Aid Board were not used

for the 1998 Lancet study, and therefore I perceived that no financial conflict

of interest existed.

 

The Lancet defines a conflict of interest as anything that might embarrass the

author if it were to be revealed later. I am not embarrassed since it is a

matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest. I am, however, dismayed

at the way these facts have been misrepresented.

 

Whether or not the children's parents were pursuing, or intended to pursue

litigation against the vaccine manufacturers, had no bearing on any clinical

decision in relation to these children, or their inclusion in the Lancet 1998

report.

 

It is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest at any time in

relation to the medical referral of these children, their clinical investigation

and care, and the subsequent reporting of their disease in the Lancet.

 

As far as the 1998 Lancet report is concerned, it is a matter of fact that we

found and reported inflammation in the intestines of these children.

 

The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital Special

Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the Legal Aid

Board. These research funds were properly administered through the Royal Free

Hospital Special Trustees.

 

The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the purpose of

conducting an examination of any possible connection between the component

viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the bowel disease in these

children. This is entirely in line with other studies that have been funded by

the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services Commission) and reported in the

BMJ. If and when this work is finally published, due acknowledgement will be

made of all sources of funding.

 

It is unfortunate that, following full disclosure of these facts to the editor

of the Lancet, he stated that in retrospect he would not have published facts

pertinent to the parent's perceived association with MMR vaccine in the 1998

Lancet report. Such a position has major implications or the scientific

investigation of injuries that might be caused by drugs or vaccines, such as

Gulf War Syndrome and autism, where possible victims may be seeking medical help

and also legal redress.

 

Health Secretary John Reid has called for a public enquiry. I welcome this

since I have already called for a public enquiry that addresses the whole issue

in relation vaccines and autism.

 

It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be investigated by the

General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome this, I insist on it and I

will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the forthcoming week.

 

This whole unpleasant episode has been conflated to provide those opposed to

addressing genuine concerns about vaccine safety with an opportunity of

attacking me - an attack that is out of all proportion to the facts of the

matter.

 

I stand by everything that I have done in relation to the care, investigation

and reporting of the disease that I and my colleagues have discovered in these

desperately ill children.

 

My family and I have suffered many setbacks as a direct consequence of this

work. As a family, we consider that our problems are nothing compared with the

suffering of these children and their families. For the sake of these children,

this work will continue. "

 

 

* To search the WDDTY database - where every word from the last 14 years of

research can be found – click on http://www.wddty.co.uk/search/infodatabase.asp

 

 

View missed/lost e-News broadcasts:

 

View our e-News broadcast archives, follow this link -

http://www.wddty.co.uk/archive.asp

 

 

Help us spread the word

 

If you can think of a friend or acquaintance who would like a FREE copy of What

Doctors Don't Tell You, please forward their name and address to:

info.

 

Please forward this e-news on to anyone you feel may be interested,they can

free by clicking on the following this link:

http://www.wddty.co.uk/e-news.asp. Thank you.

 

=============================================================

 

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.