Author: admin
Adults Meeting Fruit and Vegetable Recommendations
Acetaminophen Useless For Back Pain
Academy on Nutrition and Dietetics Endorses Kraft Singles
A Drug For A New Disorder
Talk Therapy for Schizophrenics
Helping Patients to Focus on Real Health
Sound Reasoning vs. Sound Science
Overuse of Stents: High Costs and Poor Outcomes
Risk Factors for Severe or Fatal SARS-CoV-2
Exercise vs Drugs For Depression
Early Detection Does Not Extend Lifespan
Diet and Cancer Prevention
The Remarkable Uselessness of Masks
COVID Vaccine Efficacy Data
COVID Vaccine Efficacy Data
Pamela A. Popper, President
Wellness Forum Health
According to newly disclosed government data and emails, vaccinated seniors were much more likely to get COVID than those who were unvaccinated. The report was provided by Humetrix Cloud Services, which was hired by the U.S. military to analyze vaccine data for seniors.
For the week ending July 31 2021, 73% of COVID-19 cases were people who had been vaccinated, and the infection rates were higher in those who were vaccinated earlier. The rates were two times high for people vaccinated 5-6 months prior, as compared to people vaccinated 3-4 months prior, indicating that vaccine efficacy rapidly declined. That same week, 63% of COVID-19 hospitalizations were among those fully vaccinated, with the same trend of waning efficacy over time.
Seniors who had already had COVID-19 and recovered were more likely to avoid hospitalization than the vaccinated. This is particularly important, since natural immunity was denied as a justification for exemption from COVID vaccine mandates.
The Humetrix data showed that at the time of the report, there had been 133,000 cases, 27,000 hospitalizations and 8300 intensive care admissions among the fully vaccinated since the vaccines became available. These data were shared with the CDC in August 2021.
Humetrix CEO Dr. Bettina Experton sent an email to FDA officials on September 15, 2021 that included this statement:
“Our observational study VE [vaccine efficacy] findings show a very significant decrease in VE against infection and hospitalization in the Delta phase of the pandemic for individuals vaccinated with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for those 5–6 months post vaccination vs. those 3–4 months post vaccination.”
Emails show that FDA and public health officials were aware of the data:
Peter Marks MD PhD, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at FDA wrote “It would have been nice to know [the military] was conducting this prior to now. Also would have been nice for CDC to share the data.”
Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner at the time, wrote, “This is more worrisome than the other data we have in my opinion.”
Frances Collins, then director of NIH, wrote, that the study provided “pretty compelling evidence that VE is falling 5-6 months post vaccination for both infection and hospitalization for those over 65. Even for those 4-5 months out there is a trend toward worsening VE.”
While clearly aware that there was a problem, the FDA, CDC, NIH and other agencies did not make the data public and continued to support vaccine mandates. The agencies also did not provide the data to their own committees.
The CDC held a meeting with its vaccine advisors on August 30 2021, during which waning vaccine efficacy was discussed. The Humetrix report was not provided. Instead, CDC presented data from COVID-NET which showed that the vaccines were still 80% effective and data from Israel showing that protection against infection ranged from 39% to 84%; against hospitalization vaccine efficacy ranged from 75-95%.
The FDA held a meeting with its vaccine advisors on September 17 2021, and also did not present the Humetrix data. The FDA approved the Pfizer booster for most Americans, and the CDC agreed that most people should be boosted. The Moderna booster was added as another option, and eventually officials recommended that all Americans ages five and older be given a COVID booster.
Trust in public health officials and institutions has never been lower than it is right now, and for good reason. As more and more data are made public, this will most likely get worse. The individuals involved in this spectacular and unprecedented fraud must be punished for their roles, and their agencies need to be defunded, disbanded, and replaced with smaller entities that are more accountable to legislative bodies. Accomplishing these goals will take considerable resources and time.
In the meantime, Americans should commit to learn as much as possible about health (informed consumers know when to ignore public health directives); to contribute to litigation (the government will never punish or fix itself – it’s up to us to do this!); and more important – REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH MEDICAL TYRANNY DISGUISED AS PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORIES AND ORDERS! Remember that agencies and officials are only as powerful as we allow them to be.
Zachary Stieber. FDA, CDC Hid Data on Spike in COVID Cases Among the Vaccinated: Documents. Epoch Times Sept 3 2023
Diet and Type-2 Diabetes
Visual Examination For Skin Cancer
Visual Examination for Skin Cancer
Pamela A. Popper, President
Wellness Forum Health
The only justification for cancer screening programs is that they should reduce the risk of dying of the particular cancer for which the screening test is used. Enthusiasm for cancer screening is based on the idea that if cancer is found early, when it is more treatable, the risk of death is lower.
At this time, only one screening test has been shown to deliver this result – pap tests that screen for cellular changes that can lead to cervical cancer. In every country in which pap testing has been instituted, the death rate from cervical cancer has dropped – significantly.
Many other screening tests have become “routine,” but there is no evidence that use for population screening reduces death rates. For example, colonoscopy has some value as a diagnostic tool, but not as a means for reducing death from colorectal cancer. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care removed it from the list of standard screenings several years ago.[1] A recent large randomized controlled trial showed that colonoscopy did not reduce the risk of developing colorectal cancer, death from colorectal cancer, or risk of all-cause mortality.[2]
The data is even worse for prostate cancer screening: the chance of benefit is extremely low, while the risk of being harmed is at least 30 times higher.[3]
What about skin cancer screening? It’s summertime, and people are outside in the sun more regularly. Many doctors and the sunscreen industry promote the false idea that almost any sun exposure is a risk factor for skin cancer, and regular visual examinations are encouraged. There is no evidence that this is reducing death rates, but not only dermatologists, but also family practice docs and internists are looking for skin cancer. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends against this practice because it has led to more diagnoses but without any change in the death rate. It is estimated that 4000 excisions are required to prevent one death from melanoma. Additionally, specialists (dermatologists) have no better track record than general practice docs in finding early-stage cancer.[4]
The belief in early detection as a means for reducing death remains high despite these data, and one company has developed a direct-to-consumer screening app with the idea that people can examine themselves and find cancer. Perhaps artificial intelligence might be better than doctors?
Well, not so much. A study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology showed that the consumer app incorrectly classified Merkel Cell Carcinomas as low risk 17.9% of the time, and a particular type of melanoma was categorized as low risk 22.9% of the time. Nearly two-thirds of benign lesions (62.2%) were classified as high risk. This means that if widely used, most people with harmless moles and lesions would be told they had serious cancer who did not – exactly the problem with other cancer screening programs.
You might think that in response to this dismal result, the dermatologists would lose enthusiasm for this app. You would be wrong. Full speed ahead. It just needs more work and development, was the conclusion.[5]
Bottom line: Before agreeing to any cancer screening test, make sure it has been proven to reduce the risk of dying from cancer.
[1] https://canadiantaskforce.ca/guidelines/published-guidelines/colorectal-cancer/ accessed 7.31.2019
[2] Bretthauer M, Loberg M, Wieszcry P et al. “Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.” NEJM https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375
[3] Turini G, Gjelsvik A, Renzulli J. “The State of Prescreening Discussions About Prostate-specific Antigen Testing Following Implementation of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force Statement.” Urology 2017 Jun;104:122-130
[4] Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman D, Curry S et al (USPSTF members). “Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement: US Preventive Services Task Force.” JAMA. 2016;316(4):429-435.
[5] Skin Cancer App Fails to Identify Rare, Aggressive Cancers. Oct 15 2021 https://www.practiceupdate.com/c/125242/2/1/?elsca1=emc_enews_daily-digest&elsca2=email&elsca3=practiceupdate_onc&elsca4=oncology&elsca5=newsletter&rid=MTM1MTQ0NTcxMjk3S0&lid=20844069