Latest Updates
Home » Archive for 05/29/15

Seriously....Never Give Up

Seriously....Never Give Up
On Diabetesaliciousness I joke about diabetes, a lot. On occasion I also rant and rave, and get on my Big D soap box because I'm not Pollyanna and have never claimed to be.
But mostly I point out the humor (somewhat sardonically at times), inform my readers, and try to be positive.

I do this for myself because that's how I can own my Diabetes. I do it for others, (namely citizens of dBlogville,Diabetic citizens, and T3's globally) so they can learn about D, find the humor, and own their D as well. I've always believed that if you can find the humor in Diabetes, then you can handle the serious and not so serious issues associated with it..

Yes, Diabetes is a bitch at times, we all know it and most of us live it. But.....we are lucky. If you don't believe me, please read the following story about a woman who spent the almost 60 years in an iron lung and then died because of a power outage...

This story (which I've cut and pasted,was written by the AP's Woody Baird) will not only make you think....It will make you sad. It will also INSPIRE and make you EXTREMELY thankful.

Diane Odell did a lot with what life threw her way and her attitude was amazing. She never gave up and accomplished so much. Please take Diane's words to heart, I know I will.


Woman Who Spent Life in Iron Lung Dies
By WOODY BAIRD,
AP

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (May 28) - A woman who spent nearly 60 years of her life in an iron lung after being diagnosed with polio as a child died Wednesday after a power failure shut down the machine that kept her breathing, her family said.Dianne Odell, 61, had been confined to the 7-foot-long machine since she was stricken by polio at 3 years old.
John Partipilo, The Tennessean / AP

Dianne Odell spent nearly her entire life in a 750-pound iron lung machine after being stricken with polio at age 3. Above, Odell watches television as she lies inside her iron lung machine at her home in Jackson, Tenn., last year.
Family members were unable to get an emergency generator working for the iron lung after a power failure knocked out electricity to the Odell family's residence near Jackson, about 80 miles northeast of Memphis, brother-in-law Will Beyer said."We did everything we could do but we couldn't keep her breathing," said Beyer, who was called to the home shortly after the power failed. "Dianne had gotten a lot weaker over the past several months and she just didn't have the strength to keep going."Capt. Jerry Elston of the Madison County Sheriff's Department said emergency crews were called to the scene, but could do little to help.Odell was afflicted with "bulbo-spinal" polio three years before a polio vaccine was discovered and largely stopped the spread of the crippling childhood disease.She spent her life in the iron lung, cared for by her parents and other family members. Though confined inside the 750-pound apparatus, Odell managed to get a high school diploma, take college courses and write a children's book.The iron lung that she used was a cylindrical chamber with a seal at the neck. She lay on her back in the device with only her head exposed, and made eye contact with visitors using an angled mirror above her head. The lung worked by producing positive and negative pressure on the lungs that caused them to expand and contract so that she could breathe.Iron lungs were first used to sustain life in 1928, and were largely replaced by positive-pressure airway ventilators in the late 1950s. A spinal deformity from the polio made it impossible for Odell to wear a more modern, portable breathing apparatus, so she continued to use the older machine.It is not known how many polio survivors still use iron lungs, but Odell was believed to have used it for longer than most.Odell was determined to live a full life — she earned a diploma from Jackson High School as a home-bound student and an honorary degree from Freed-Hardeman College. A voice-activated computer allowed her to write a children's book, "Less Light," about Blinky, a tiny star who dreams of becoming a wishing star.

In a 2001 interview with The Associated Press, she said she wanted to show children, especially those with physical disabilities, that they should never give up."It's amazing what you can accomplish if you see someone do the same thing."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Posted by Mr. Boy at 11.02, Add Comment
Read more

Doctors. Are they too close to drug companies? Is this why they don't tell us about the dangers of drugs and vaccines?

Doctors. Are they too close to drug companies? Is this why they don't tell us about the dangers of drugs and vaccines?

Many people now believe that doctors have become very close to the Big Pharma drug companies. It is certainly well known that Big Pharma companies employ many ways to seek to influence the prescribing behaviour of doctors.
Certainly, the almost inevitable outcome of most patient visits to GPs is a prescription for drugs, even though in most cases there are many other kinds and areas of health advice and treatment that could be given. Too often health factors like diet, exercise, life-style changes, and of course traditional therapies, are ignored.
Even some doctors have become concerned about this situation. WDDTY reported in October 2006 that a group of doctors were taking a stand against the 'overt and covert inducements' offered to encourage doctors to prescribe drugs. They have a website at www.nofreelunch-uk.org to try to change the current relationship between doctors and Big Pharma. They described this relationship as "based on hospitality and patronage which is unknown and undeclared to the general public" and that "without action we will continue with the relentless medicalisation of society".
The objectives of the ‘No free meals’ group of doctors is given as follows:
“We are health care providers who believe that pharmaceutical promotion should not guide clinical practice. Our mission is to encourage health care providers to practice medicine on the basis of scientific evidence rather than on the basis of pharmaceutical promotion. We discourage the acceptance of all gifts from industry by health care providers, trainees, and students. Our goal is improved patient care.

We aim to achieve our goal by informing health care providers as well as the general public about pharmaceutical industry efforts to promote their products and influence prescribing; provide evidence that promotion does in fact influence health care provider behaviour, often in ways that run counter to good patient care; and provide products that can replace pharmaceutical company paraphernalia and spread our message.

We believe that there is ample evidence in the literature-contrary to the beliefs of most heath care providers - that drug companies, by means of samples, gifts, and food, exert significant influence on provider behaviour.
There is also ample evidence in the literature that promotional materials and presentations are often biased and non-informative. We believe that health care professionals, precisely because they are professionals, should not allow themselves to be bought by the pharmaceutical industry: It is time to Just say no to drug reps and their pens, pads, calendars, coffee mugs, and of course, lunch.
So these doctors are telling us about what is going on behind the doors of the conventional medical establishment. These are laudable objectives, although there appears little evidence that their motives have been generally accepted by the conventional medical establishment.
Most patients place their trust in their NHS GP. They do so in the belief that their advice is impartial, and in the best interests of their health. 
Most patients do not consider that GPs practice just one medical therapy, and that prescriptions might follow bribes or junkets. 
Yet drug companies are wealthy, and doctors are human. So within the NHS lays a situation that can leave patients vulnerable.


Posted by Mr. Boy at 07.35, Add Comment
Read more

The NHS brings down Governments: the record so far

The NHS brings down Governments: the record so far

Spending money on health care has become a major political objective for every British government since the inauguration of the National Health Service in 1947. In every election, political parties have positioned themselves carefully so that the electorate would see them as 'major investors' in health care.
The result has been that each successive government has sought outbid itself, and its predecessor (with little appreciable improvement in national health outcomes) but leading to a situation that has brought down governments, and leading to spending on health now coming close to bankrupting the nation.
This is an outline of the record, so far. But just listen to the news about health, and the NHS today, and recognise that it is still happening today. The NHS is under pressure, the government wants to reduce public expenditure, but 'ring fences' health; and Labour is ready to attack breakdown of emergency services, or anything else that suggests the government is not pouring money into a failing medical system.
1951 General Election
The Labour manifesto in 1951, 4 years after the creation of the NHS, appealed to the electorate by contrasting Britain in the inter-war years with the new situation, brought about by the NHS. It spoke about the people’s dread of doctor's bills, and good healthcare costing more than most people could afford. They criticised the Tory opposition, who had consistently opposed the scheme.
"Now we have a national health scheme which is the admiration of the post-war world".
For their part, the Tories stated that "In Education and Health some of the most crying needs are not being met. For the money now being spent we will provide better services and so fulfil the high hopes we all held when we planned the improvements during the war".
Clearly, Labour were not spending enough - so they lost, and went into opposition for 13 years!
1964 General Election
Under the Conservative government, expenditure on the NHS increased, although never sufficient to satisfy the Labour opposition. The Conservatives said this in their 1964 manifesto, entitled 'A Healthy Nation'.
"The past thirteen years have seen improvements in the nation's health greater than in any comparable period. These advances we owe to medical science and the skill of the healing professions. They could only have been achieved against a background of rising living standards and continuously expanding health services such as Conservative Government is providing".
They went on to promise that every man, woman and child in the country would have access to the best treatment, and that their aim was to build or rebuild some 300 hospitals. There was also a promise to "improve and bring up to date the law controlling the safety and quality of drugs".
These promises were not sufficient. The Conservatives lost the election, and Labour returned to power.
1970 General Election
Labour lost again, despite their promises on health. They claimed to have doubled expenditure on hospital building, whilst local health and welfare expenditure "is now running at three times the level of just ten years ago". They promised a continued expansion of training on doctors, nurses and other staff, the continuation of "our great building programme", and inevitably, more changes in the administrative structure of the NHS.
Again, it was not enough, and Labour lost again.
1974 General Election
There is little or no mention of the NHS in the Conservative manifesto of this outgoing Tory administration – so perhaps it is little wonder that they lost!
In comparison, the Labour opposition made many health promises - to revise and expand the NHS, to abolish prescription charges, to introduce free family planning, to phase out private practice from the hospital service, and to transform the area health authorities into democratic bodies.
1979 General Election
After 5 years in power, the Labour Manifesto for this election was called 'A Healthier Nation'. It stated that it would gave 'priority to health', and attacked the Tory alternatives.
"We reject Tory plans to create two health services: one for the rich, financed by private insurance with a second-class service for the rest of us. Labour reaffirms its belief in a comprehensive national health service for all our people. We oppose Tory proposals for higher prescription charges and charges for seeing a doctor or being in hospital. Our aim is to abolish all charges in the NHS".
And Labour tried to defend its record from Conservative claims that it was cutting NHS budgets.
 "For all the talk of cuts, the truth is that the Labour Government are spending over £600m a year more on health in real terms than the Tories. Labour will devote a higher proportion of the nation's wealth to the health service and the personal social services".
As usual, the problems of the NHS was also said to concern management rather than the medical treatment that was offered.
"We will streamline the bureaucratic and costly structure the Tories created and give a bigger say in running the NHS to the public and staff".
Needless to say, despite these promises Labour lost the election, and the Tories were destined to be in power for the next 18 years.  
1997 General Election
Despite the low priority that the 11-year Thatcher government gave to public spending, the Tory manifesto of 1997 was prepared to defend its record.
"Government spending has concentrated on priorities, not wasteful bureaucracy and over-manning. Despite tough overall public spending plans, real spending on the NHS has risen nearly 75% since 1979". The Health Service is treating over 1 million more patients each year than before our reforms. The number of people waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment has fallen from over 200,000 in 1990 to 22,000 last year. The average wait has fallen from nearly 9 months to 4 months".
The Conservative government lost the election, and Labour was in power for 13 years, embarking on the biggest increase in NHS spending ever seen.
2010 General Election
The New Labour government cannot be accused of scrimping on the NHS for the 13 years of its existence! Indeed, it virtually bankrupted itself, and the country, in an effort to make the NHS, now completely dominated by the Conventional Medical Establishment, work properly! When they were defeated in this election NHS spending had reached close to £120 billion per annum. But it did not save them! 
Nor could any political party admit at this time that NHS spending was a major factor in the nation’s financial difficulties! All the main parties campaigned to ‘ring-fence’ health spending even though it was known that massive government spending cuts would have to be enforced over the next few years.
The new Coalition Government decided to ‘ring-fence’ health spending, one of the few departments to be so privileged. And in order to do so the government is prepared to cut other departmental spending by as much as 40-50% over the life-time of the Parliament. 
Clearly, government spending on ConMed has become not just a priority. It is now a sacred cow!

Posted by Mr. Boy at 06.41, Add Comment
Read more

Health Mis-information and the Media; the Swansea Measles Outbreak

Health Mis-information and the Media; the Swansea Measles Outbreak
What has happened to the measles epidemic in Swansea? Well, basically, it never happened, except in the minds, and in the misinformation given to us by the BBC, and other mainstream media outlets!

I wrote about the nonsense, and the  'moral panic' of this measles epidemic in April. I said that the numbers did not justify the panic, the disease did not justify the panic, and that only impact the media coverage was having was to panic people to get the MMR vaccine, which was too dangerous.

NSNBC International has researched this 'epidemic' and has found that the suppositions I was making in these blogs were correct. NSNBC International was founded in January 2013, committed to journalistic principles that the BBC, and others, have long forgotten when it comes to issues of health. It commits itself to being independent of political parties, governments, organisations or corporations (like the Big Pharma companies). On its website it says:


"NSNBC's journalistic ethics oppose many, if not most mainstream media's bias, the uncriticial repetition and dissemination of mis- or disinformation to justify war or aggression and other violations of good ethics in journalism".
It has certainly done a good job in looking at the Swansea Measles outbreak. In this article, BBC News removes false news claims about measles epidemic 'after being busted' it takes the BBC to task for its coverage, and argues:
  • that Welsh health officials were caught out initially when it emerged that the measles cases were only reported cases, which were massively over-reported by doctors. It is now estimated that as many as 73 in 74 cases were NOT measles.
  • that the BBC removed their online article claiming that prior to 1988 (and the MMR vaccine) there were 'millions' of measles cases in the UK, with 100  child deaths every year. It also said that there were 'death risks' in the outbreak, and this reported comment "we are not in any way judgemental about why their children missed the MMR in the past, the important thing is to get the jab now". No pro-ConMed bias there, then! Certainly no information about the known and accepted dangers of the MMR vaccination.
  • that the media, particularly BBC News were acting like a 'self-styled Pravda for the British Government (I personally disagree with this - they act for the Pharmaceutical interests, and the Conventional Medical Establishment rather than the government).
  • that it is deeply troubling that the BBC publishes such 'fake' news, and then tries to 'airbrush' this from history. Indeed, there has been no retraction, no apology from the BBC. As far as anyone knows, there WAS as epidemic, measles IS a dangerous disease, and that one person was killed by measles.
  • that 'scam' claims, for instance, that 1 in 1000 would die from measles were completely false; that since 1992, there have been more than 80,000 cases of measles and no deaths in healthy individuals during that time. Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine.
  •  that the 1 in 1000 figure was taken from Bulgarian statistics, and then over-hyped (perhaps we should all ask "why?")
  • The claims of a 25 year old man having died from measles has also turned out to be a scam. He had been in hospital with severe asthma, was discharged, and then not re-admitted when he reported that he had a rash. The rash was never diagnosed as measles.
  • Additionally, the man's family reported that he had been 'fully immunised' against measles as a child. This makes it difficult to understand how the BBC (and other mainstream media) were prepared to collate this case with their calls for un0immunised people to get the vaccine.
  • It has also emerged that the man was treated with Steroid drugs; but, of course, there was never any suggestion that his health may have been jeopardised by these drugs.
NSNBC International go on to ask pertinent questions about why this misinformation was being provided by the Welsh Health authorities, why the BBC so meekly went along with it, and why neither has sought to correct it, in an open and honest manner. They go on to suggest that we should all complain to the BBC Trust, and repost the article to Facebook, to blogs (which I am doing here), to Twitter, and circulate to friends and family.

It is vitally important that anyone who does not want to be scammed by ConMed Heath officials, and the media, that we all do this!

Posted by Mr. Boy at 06.15, Add Comment
Read more