Tag Archives: mortality

LUGOL’S IODINE THE QUINTESSENTIAL SUPPLEMENT: against all diseases including cancer; & infections from fungi & protozoa to TB & HIV:

update 7 November 2015: comments & feedback please.
Orthoiodosupplementation in a Primary Care Practice Jorge D. Flechas, M.D. its undated but the latest ref is 2004..
but informative 2014 iodine update video by Dr Jorge Flechas:
some points: “why women have so many more thyroid problems eg estrogen blocks iodine; whereas ovary hot nodules may cause thyrotoxicosis from secreting T2.  Iodine alerts the brain, so dont take at night! give no more than ~12mg/d ie 2 drops 15% in pregnancy, it stimulates the baby!
“Iodine ie I2 diffuses into cells whereas iodide need to be transported in; babies lack the symporter Iodide transporter, so babies need iodine not iodide.
ie thyroid, ovary and WBCs can make thyroxine- but preferably  they mop up low iodine intake. Thyroid supplements doesnt provide enough iodine for needs elsewhere .
” Millions of women in Japan and Korea on their marine diet used to normally ingest ~13.5mg iodine a day, producing very low neonate problem rates in pregnancy and with IQ far higher than average.
“in the west, Iodine has been taken out of bread and milk, and salt intake cut – associated with increased rate of ADD in USA 500% and more cancer thyroid, breast, ovaries, endomet, cretinism, goitre .. – as iodine intake and output in USA has been halved by admin policy…
the kidneys excrete excess ingested iodine, so avoiding overdose from high iodine intake.

“ie if sufficiency, a 50mg iodine load will excrete >90% . so the spot test for low iodine excretion, and 24 hr high iodine excretion, reflect defective sodium symporter problem. This corrects with ongoing iodine supplement. 80% of vegans in USA are iodine deficient due to skipping seaweed for iodine! Asians eat seaweed in everything.. the body can hold 1.5gms iodine; 50mg in the thyroid, 20% in the skin, 30% in muscles…
– if depleted of iodine, we cant sweat or use our muscles (fibromyalgia), brains, or control the breasts or ovaries.. .. just add ATP cofactor ie incl vits B2 & B3 to iodine…
“Bread & esp cooldrink’ iodine (eg Mountain Dew) has been replaced by bromine, which causes schizoid behaviour… .. Iodine reverses the immortality of cancer cells.
” 3000mg/d ester C , and highdose iodine, and B2+B3 , reverse the iodine symporter block, & abolish the fibromyalgia in 80% of sufferers. .

This Flechas review is encouraging for repletion with Lugol’s 50 to 100mg iodine /day ie 6 to 12 drops 15%; after perhaps a precautionary skin test dose for allergy.
especially for protecting breasts, cancer, diabetics, obesity, heart disease, immune, memory and stroke problems.. .

It does seem that as with vits C and D3, iodine has a minimal RDA as far as basic prevention goes ie ~0.15mg – 1mg/d for avoiding cretinism (cf scurvy with >10mg/d vit C, or frank rickets with 400iu/d vit D3) ; and at the other end of the spectrum ie treating severe disease, grams a day of iodine and vit C, and vit D3 >50 000iu ie >1mg/day..

Then longterm maintenance with eg ~12 mg iodine a day ie 2drops/d 15% Lugols,  cf 1 to 3 gm a day vit C, vit D3 ~7000iu ~ 0.2mg/day… .

perhaps the corollary may be that , (as with vit D3 eg 2million ie ~ 50mg), a massive accidental load dose eg 2gms iodine- 20ml 15% Lugols- (which apparently bypasses the detox reaction at lower ie buildup dose, and incidentally provides 1gm potassium) may be both harmless and will reload for who knows how many years- presumably provided one takes a good magnesium and selenium ie realfood Banting diet .

To test tolerance, and try to reverse my familial irreversible atrial fibrillation, I have built up my Lugols’ dose  so far  to 15% 1 to 2 tsp a day ie 4 to 8ml, ~800mg combined (I + I2) iodine with 400mg potassium K  a day;
whereas a load dose vit D3 eg 0.6 to a million units (6-10gms of standard max strength 100 cwt powder – with a good magnesium and vit K2 diet as in realfood Banting) will replete safely and harmlessly for less than a year.
Its a pity the simple IODINE urine test is- unlike the skin patch test duration- so tediously long and costly (and both can occasionally mislead),
whereas the blood  vit D calcium-creat levels are quick to take but costly  tests.. .

But in those who can afford them , the tests are essential to validate the clinical results we get with iodine and vit D3 .

update 27 Sept 2015

see prev Healthspanlife.wordpress.com ie May 2014 update.

quotes from authorities are in italics: please feed back on errors and experience

Massive iodine deficiency is  as universal worldwide (compared to 50 years ago) as are
*deficiencies of:                                                                                                ..vitamin C (except those who live on fresh fruit and veg);
..vitamin D (except those who work outdoors in sunny climes);
..magnesium; and
..natural saturated fats in all except keen carnivores;
..and increasing deficiency of other vitamins in the food chain, forced on the public by government-sponsored industries and “health authorities” for 50 years now;
*and unnecessary dangerous food-chain toxins ( refined carbohydrates; calcium/bromine/ fluorine/salt, aluminium, mercury supplements, synthetics eg transfats, pesticides eg glyphos Roundup, GMO foodstuffs, antibiotics ; and steroids). .

But with seafood almost wiped out by greed and pollution, and increasing global nuclear pollution, and failure by food producers to supplement   iodine never mind vit D and magnesium in the depleted food chain,

iodine repletion with vigorous Lugols iodine (with its consort selenium) is even more of a priority than concomitant vitamin D (with its consort vit K2) and magnesium supplementation, and vitamin C, plus a broad balanced other score A to Z multisupplement ..

So the dangerous scaremongering myths need to be debunked about the “dangers” of iodine at over a mg a day – when the safe general therapeutic dose is not just ~12mg/d but up to 100mg/d for longterm prevention, and over a gm/d for major diseases; ie >10 000 x the RDA. The US recommended adult dose of iodine for nuclear exposure is about 120mg, without any mention of remotest risk of toxicity.

This 1000 x order of magnitude with iodine is like
*the almost 10 000x margin between minimalistic vitamin C 10mg/d dose (RDA now 60mg/d) to avoid scurvy, up to >3v-7gm a day to treat infections, and >30 gm/day (intravenously, or buffered orally) to treat cancer;

*and vitamin D3 (RDA now up to ~800iu/d) up to 250 x more eg from 200iu /d to prevent rickets vs 50 000iu/d to treat some serious diseases, vs 2million iu single doses and 150 000iu/d for decades that have no documentable toxic effects in adults.
Infants obviously need proportionate dosing of all, not left to depend on mother’s milk when she has received no more than the usual prenatal supp folate and iron.. . .

The heaviest essential metal iodine is perhaps the most rare essential mineral – Wiki: “Iodine is rare in the Solar System and Earth’s crust (47th/60th in abundance):”- hence iodine deficiency is universal – especially now it has become fashionable in our lifetime to stop adding iodine to foodstuffs; and instead food manufacturers pump in toxic halides like bromine and fluoride (like dangerous mercury and aluminium in vaccines, aluminium in antacids) that (unlike chlorine,  iodine and refined sugars) have no essential biological need and benefit , only risks;

and recognition that commercial pure white runny salt NaCl – overdosing chlorine- is adverse because of worsening hypertension with aging and fast foods, instead of encouraging seasalt. .
The myths have been debunked that
*(unlike our essential blood chlorine in moderation), either fluorine or bromine are essential trace element halogens, any more than commercial cane sugar or fructose are biologically essential in our diet;

*and the Wolff-Chaikoff Effect myths (that iodine is toxic at much more than a mg a day) debunked by Abraham & Brownstein’s  review of scientific evidence the past century  including  Wartofsky, et al   1970  that we overdose with iodine at only 20 x the RDA (0.15mg/d) ie over a mg/ day,

*and the myth that only potass KI /sodium NaI iodides should be supplemented. The most proven iodine is in Lugols iodide providing the balance between  KI and free I2.

*Another commercially driven myth is that blood thyroid hormone levels are adequate to diagnose biologically significant iodine sufficiency, and commercial thyroxine to treat patients– the commercial hormones dont address, may worsen the serious iodine deficiency throughout the body that contributes hugely to acute and chronic, common and rare diseases

Studies of traditional Japanese after WW2 showed that their far better cancer-, cardiovascular,- thyroid health (before they emigrated to America, or took up Western diet) was attributable especially to the kelp ie iodine intake in their then-safe seafood diet, giving them an average iodine intake of about 12 mg/day- at least 100 times the current American imposed RDA of 0.15mg/d. But who can trust kelp, seafood from the poisoned oceans and rivers any more?

I recently took for a day each approx 20drops Lugols 2% pd in water ie iodine ~9mg a day; then 15% 4 drops ie 30mg/d …then up to , then 10drops ~70mg/d to test for detox reaction. I carry on with ~50mg/d,  as  many patients take it . I suppose my lack of detox reaction is not surprising since I have been detoxing for years on about 6 gm a day of a 50 -supp -multiblend( half vit C).- but no more than a mg/d of potass iodide. I  find physical and mental stamina better, no longer have  angina from stress or walking fast- which I could not do a fortnight before due to angina and fatigue. . .

One shudders to think of the billions of people – especially kids- who are dull, not achieving their full potential for lack of iodine, either because health professionals dont think we need more, or because patients are dismissed as euthyroid based on the usual thyroid lab hormone tests (which ignore iodine deficiency/excess in the majority who dont fall clearly in the over-or underactive blood hormone range).

Conventional western medicine apparently no longer considers or measures iodine deficiency, forgetting that iodine is the primary essential deficient mineral (along with magnesium, selenium, sulphur, phosphate; and iron in kids and reproductive women) for all systems in the body, not just for thyroid hormone levels- which dont reflect iodine security anywhere outside thyroid hormone production by the thyroid. .

Iodine is needed in microgram mcg amounts for the thyroid, milligram mg amounts for breast and other tissues, and therapeutically as anticancer in gram amounts.[2]- Dr. David Miller
The theoretical iodine lethal LD50 for humans ie 1/10th of rodent dose is about 2 gm / kg, eg 6gm for a newborn baby, 140gm for an adult… a bottle of 20ml 2% Lugols in water contains 400mg, a 100ml bottle of 15% in water contains 15gm iodine(ie a 20ml bottle 3g) ie a harmless dose except corrosive if swallowed neat,.

Hence retailers if at all dispense Lugols 2%; we dont lightly prescribe/dispense 15% Lugols except for topical massage. And for cancer and we stick to 20ml dropper bottles.
not even Dischem and Clicks at Cavendish stock Lugols- only 2% iodine tinct IN ALCOHOL ie strictly for burning scratches… so no retailer should sell 100ml of any Lugols prep, only 20ml 2% Lugols, as is enforced in USA. It is indeed apparently regulated in the same way here., ‘tho’ the SA Medicines formulary doesnt mention that (recommends it only preop for eg thyroid storm), nor the multidisease benefits of Lugols including on the brain, wounds, infections, cardiac, vascular, cancer lungs etc;

nor the usual DETOXIFICATION REACTIONS as heavy metals are mobilized, for which (like eg metformin) the Lugol’s dose must be started low and titrated to tolerance with lots of fluids including magnesium, seasalt, selenium , vits B. eg Brief symptoms from heavy metal detox include “headaches, agitation, palpitations, nervousness, the jitters or irritated thyroid symptoms; pimples; skin rashes; fatigue, muscle aches, fever, diarrhea, worsen sinus/asthma, and brain fog. “. http://nourishingplot.com/2014/08/30/detoxing-fluoride-bromine-and-chlorine-naturally/ , http://www.iodine-resource.com/lugols-iodine.html ,   http://www.tiredthyroid.com/blog/2013/07/15/iodine-protocol-asthma-hives-sulfite-sensitivities/ and http://drsircus.com/medicine/iodine/iodine-and-detoxification. If these heavy metal detox reactions occur, stop the Lugols a few days, increase the detox remedies, then resume Lugols at a lower dose that you dont react to.
Threads   indicate that detox problems go away once iodine dose exceeds 50mg/d- especially if taken with a multisupp incl vit C, magnes , BCo, & selenium; and plenty of seasalt in water. (the only one of these not in a multisupplement AntiAging blend is salt).

In perspectivethe thyroid holds 50 milligrams of iodine, the breasts hold 200 milligrams, the skin holds 400 milligrams of iodine, and the whole body holds 2,000 milligrams, and possibly much more. Iodine is found and used in every hormonal receptor in the body. in 1911, 900 milligrams 0.9gm/day!) were considered usual and safe dosage. At 6 grams 6,000 milligrams/day!), iodine has been used to cure syphilis, skin lesions, and chronic lung disease. Iodine makes us smarter, helps with mental functioning. Low iodine is associated with low IQ’s with a difference of up to 13.5 points in children; but iodine deficiency is also associated with mental functioning in adults, because iodine not only chelates lead, but, according to Dr. Jorge Flechas, iodine prevents lead from lodging in the body in the first place. Low thyroid function decreases brain circulation, which slows intellectual function. low thyroid function is associated with cognitive impairment, memory loss, depression, slowness of mind, anxiety, suicidal tendencies, and a variety of psychiatric disorders. Bleichrod’s meta-analysis of 17 studies showed iodine sufficiency increases IQ by 13.5 points in children. Iodine prevents heart disease. Iodine is needed with the use of cordless phones, cell phones and now smart meters to prevent hypothyroidism. Iodine decreases insulin needs in diabetics.

IODINE ALLERGY? The risk of iodine allergy is quite low – Drs. Abraham and Brownstein were only able to identify 3 of 4,000 people who had a negative response to the iodine. People do not become allergic to iodine per se, but people react to the displacement of bound heavy metals; and can become allergic to protein-bound iodine as is found in shellfish or to the binding agents, excipients, fillers, preservatives and/or synthetics (rather than the bioavailable form of iodine itself) commonly found in tablets, capsules, and even liquids. Actually, iodine can help eliminate food allergies according to Dr. Derry.
But dont take Lugols at the same time as vit C, which neutralizes the antimicrobial effects of Lugols. so take them at opposite ends of the day.

and because iodine attacks only pathogens and abnormal cells, not our good probiotic biome or healthy cells, it has none of the risks of pesticides , antibiotics, antivirals, radiotherapy, chemotherapy etc.

despite Dr Jean Lugol having published his landmark 1829 work on his iodine complex  ie ~185 years ago, there is predictably little research on it published on Pubmed, for the obvious reason that Big Pharma and the Disease Industry and governments wont fund research on such a cheap cure, which would greatly increase survival, but in the short term reduce illness and thus need for health industry workers, hospital beds, pharmacies and new drugs.
There are apparently only three clinically relevant LUGOL’s papers listed on Pubmed ie in the past 50 years:-

from India 2012 Consul ea – confirming that painting the cervix with Lugols (the Schiller test ) and vinegar is as effective as Pap smear for screening; thus combined, the two simple cancer diagnostic paints make up for Lugols iodine for cervix cancer being only about 85% sensitive and specific ie not as reliable alone as a costly lab Pap smear…
Greece 2007 Theodoropoulou ea  confirming that preoperative Lugol’s iodine 80mg/d for 15 days in euthyroid people was accompanied by increased intrathyroid total iodine but no changes in intrathyroid hormone HI or demonstrable increases of serum T4 and T3 were observed. It is hypothesized that the maintenance of normal intrathyroidal HI is the result of the combined inhibitory effect of iodine on thyroid hormone synthesis and on the release of T4 and T3 from the thyroid.
Italy 1986 Marani ea  –Iodine is therapeutic in various pathologies where immunity plays a dominant role, eg it facilitates cure in tuberculosis, lepromatous, syphilitic and mycotic incl sporotrichosis lesions . This effect does not depend on iodine’s action on the micro-organism responsible, but on host immune boosting. . Iodine may also be used in Panniculitis, in erythema nodosum, in nodular vasculitis, erythema multiforme etc. . To establish relationship between dietary iodine and immune response, 607 infants in an area of endemic goitre were studied: 215 were given Lugol solution (2 drops- presumably 20mg? a week for about 8 months ; and 392 not. Immune response was assessed by the skin test tetanus toxoid (in the U.S. 80% of paediatric cases aged 2-10 years old were positive). A significant difference was noted in the average diameter of the infiltrations after the tetanus toxoid skin test in the two groups considered (P less than 0.001). The results indicate that an adequate iodine intake is necessary for normal retarded immune response – a fact that the disease industry and Big Pharma blatantly ignore. . . (Iodine does not have the adverse effect of antibiotics on our gut biome, or causing antibiotic-resistant pathogens)

But there are dozens of scientific Lugol’s studies not referenced by Pubmed:

The End of Antibiotics and the Rise of Iodine as an Effective Alternative 2008 Mark Sircus

Iodine and viral infection?
David Derry, MD, PhD Thyroid Science 2009 Iodine: the Forgotten Weapon Against Influenza Viruses

Mamo & Naissides International Journal of Infectious Diseases (2005) from Australia show Iodine Could be effective in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus and AIDS-associated opportunistic infections. as it is in rodents and cats .

Inactivation of human immunodeficiency virus by iodine-releasing products Harbison & Hammer Boston, Massachusetts 1989  showed that “povidine-iodine completely inactivated HIV at concentrations of greater than or equal to 0.5% ie is highly effective at killing HIV.
Betadine is simply “a stable complex of povidone and elemental iodine, contains 9.0% to 12.0% available iodine ie 90-120mg/ml .. Free iodine slowly liberated from the povidone-iodine PVPI solution kills microbe (but not healthy mammalian) cells through iodination of lipids and oxidation of cytoplasmic and membrane compounds, thus exhibits a broad range of microbicidal activity against bacteria fungi protozoa and viruses. Slow release of iodine from the PVPI complex in solution minimizes iodine toxicity towards mammal cells.” This compares exactly with a similar iodine complex  15% Lugols which contains about 10% ie 100mg iodine /ml water .. at far lower cost than but identical safety and efficacy to the patented Betadine – a modern designer marketable patented crib of Lugol’s .. …

see also


Lugols for animal thyrotoxicosis

and IODINE, A CRITICAL NUTRIENT 2014 http://drlwilson.com/Articles/IODINE.htm


Iodine: Its Role In Health and Disease: New Exciting Concepts Michael B. Schachter, M.D. 2007:   Guy Abraham MD, former professor of obsts gyne & endocrinology at UCLA School of Medicine, has written papers about iodine that drastically changed my thinking about its role in health and the prevention and treatment of disease. I had been impressed by Dr. Abraham’s previous work, which showed that vitamin B6 and magnesium could be very helpful to women with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and was eager to learn what he had to say about iodine. Through a series of articles termed “The Iodine Project,” Dr. Abraham proposed that the optimal daily dose of iodine for a WELL person is approximately 12.5 mg, which is 100 times the RDA of 0.125 mg, ie that the current prevailing medical opinion that more than 2 mg a day of iodine is toxic is wrong. He traces the source of this major blunder to a scientific experiment on rats that was published in 1948 by Drs. Wolff and Chaikoff, which erroneously concluded that iodine inhibits the thyroid gland at doses of about 20 times the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for iodine. This conclusion was later generalized to humans and can be found in medical textbooks, including endocrinology and nutrition textbooks. Guy Abraham wrote in 2005: In hypertension, iodine sufficiency resulted in normalization of blood pressure without medications; as reported by other physicians using this program. Best results were achieved when orthoiodosupplementation was combined with a complete nutritional program emphasizing magnesium instead of calcium. Obesity increases the requirement for iodine and up to 100 mg elemental iodine/day may be required to achieve and maintain sufficiency. Increased demand for iodine occurs with excessive amounts of goitrogens from the diet and lifestyle. eg, smoking increases serum thiocyanate levels, interfering with the sodium/iodide supporter function. Low thyroid iodine is associated with thyroid hyperplasia and cancer. Could thyroid hormones cause the same iodine depletion in breast tissue? The prevalence of breast cancer is higher in women on thyroid hormones. Medical iodophobia resulted in removal of iodate from bread 20 years ago, replacing it with the goitrogen bromate- which associated with increased obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, thyroid and breast cancer. Recent reports show association between low iodine intake in women during pregnancy and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in their offspring. The most plausible explanation is a decreased sensitivity of the nuclear thyroid hormone receptor to thyroid hormones. We previously reported evidence for improved receptor response to thyroid hormones following iodosupplementation. Therefore, iodine is not only necessary for the synthesis of thyroid hormones but also for their effect on target cells. This effect is probably due to iodination of the thyroid hormone receptor. The essential element iodine, which is the inorganic, non-radioactive forms, deserves more attention from researchers and clinicians. It maybe the missing link in patients currently resistant to conventional hormonal therapy.
and see
re adding enough selenium, chromium, vit C, Magnesium, Vitamin B2/3

Until 2007, in the United States, Lugol’s solution was unregulated and available over the counter as a general reagent, an antiseptic, a preservative,[11] or as a medicament for human or veterinary application .

However, effective August 1, 2007, the DEA now regulates Lugol’s solution (and, in fact, all iodine solutions containing greater than 2.2% iodine) as a List I precursor because it may potentially be used in the illicit production of methamphetamine.[12] However, transactions of up to one fluid ounce (30 ml) of Lugol’s solution are exempt from this regulation. When buying Lugol’s Solution on places like Amazon, most sellers fail to indicate the DEA tracking requirement. On the other hand Lugol’s Iodine solution is available over the counter in Canada and Mexico.
Toxicity Because it contains free iodine, Lugol’s solution at 2% or 5% concentration without dilution is irritating and destructive to mucosa, such as the lining of the esophagus and stomach.
Doses of 10 mL of 5% solution have been reported to cause gastric lesions when used in endoscopy.[13] The LD50 for Iodine is 14,000 mg/kg [Rat] and 22,000 mg/kg [Mouse].[14]
Most guidelines accept that anything with an LD50 >2 g/kg (-5 g/kg in some countries) can be classed as having a low acute toxicity[citation needed] which classifies Iodine as having low toxicity. Potassium Iodide is not considered hazardous.[15

Iodine Dosages
Treatment of Influenza and other Diseases iodine-dosages 2009 “After testing over 500 patients, I found that 94.7% of my patients are deficient in inorganic iodine. Dr. David Brownstein In this chapter I will present different views and practices from present as well as from the long past when iodine was vastly more popular as a medicine than it is today. For whatever irrational reason, doctors and patients fear iodine thus en mass do not use to its fullest potential.
Humans tolerate large doses of iodine but the ultra high doses that were used many decades ago are not required to get the most out of iodine therapy. Just a little goes a long way, as the governmental iodized salt programs showed but this dosage level was only effective for Goiter and its avoidance. It actually takes very little iodine to prevent this disease but no one ever said that was the only purpose and need for iodine in the body. Today people are more deficient then ever before because our need for iodine has increased in direct proportion to our toxic burdens especially of other competing halogens. Read on at http://drsircus.com/medicine/iodine/iodine-dosages
see lugols_dosage_chart.  . But for obvious reasons stick to 2% till you know you tolerate and need much stronger drops.



for appointments for consultations,   or non-xray procedures by registered practitioners :  Sure Touch breast prescreening on  Saturday mornings next on  7 February 2015  by Sister Zeneath Ismail – cash R650 (then R450 if followup scan desired within 3 months);   -QUS  ultrasound quantitative bone density  cash R450 -tariff item 3612-  anytime;  Unlike radiologists’  and thermography reports (which describe only  the imaging finding), the rates quoted include relevant breast or bone consultation and management planning  by specialist nurse & physician.

IF BOOKED TOGETHER, (not necessarily the same morning) then combined breast and bone screening is R1000.

OTHER SERIOUS health problems ARE DEALT WITH BY CONSULTATION DURING THE WEEK (OR ON A DIFFERENT SATURDAY MORN) : heart- ECG,  fatigue, HRT, sexual health, hypertension, depression, memory/dementia, lung & lungfunction, anaemia-haematology; kidney/bladder/pelvic, hormone-endocrine, depression, osteoporosis, sleep, diabetes, thyroid, adrenal; cramp; skin,  infection including STDs & HIV/AIDs, stroke, epilepsy-neurology, dizziness, heartburn/digestive/liver,  neuropathy,  sexual health, menopause, HRT, genitourinary; immune problems, or arthritis relief;

Thermography no-touch infrared screening  for suspicious  cancer /inflammatory  changes:  by Radiographer Melinda-next 23 March 2015.   R900 breasts; R1100  head and  upper;  or lower body & pelvis;  R1300 whole body.

Bookings/queries contact Evelyn/ Reyhana / Val at  the Natural Medicine Clinic, 1st Floor no 15, Grove Medical Bldg, opp ABSA (parking ABSA Parkade )  near Warwick/Cavendish  Square Claremont Cape Town RSA, ph +27216831465 or a/h +2783 4385248 or reyhanadaya@yahoo.com  .

For the disabled – by arrangement  drive  up the ramp  to the Clinic door on the Grove Bldg 1st floor  parking deck.

Under CMS Council for Med Schemes Reg 10(6), open Medical schemes eg hospital plans  have to pay from their own funds (not members’ savings) for appropriate outpatient consultation (tariff item 0191) for  PMBs ie major conditions eg  cancer,   depression, neck/spinal problems, serious heart, lung, other disease., etc. Breast and osteoporosis concerns are generally part of menopause consultations N95.9   (if not already eg breast cancer code C50) and thus are often billable  med scheme benefits. The menopause billable item only applies if you are 45yrs upwards, unless you have had total hysterectomy.

On patients’ requests, appropriate invoice can be prepared and submitted to your scheme for refund of your due benefits. Some schemes eg hospital plans  falsely deny due benefits until reported to their regulator  CMS. For medical plans where the billable tariff benefit rate is higher than the breast screening fee paid, the med plan rate 0191  will be charged eg R790 by the contracted  specialist,  and refundable by Discovery to the member. some basic schemes eg Keycare, Bonitas require preauthorization, or referral by their contracted GP  .


17 August 2014: neil.burman@gmail.com

Sadly, this month’s publication of the biggest-ever trial of Prostate Screening , in 162 000 men across Europe followed  for a mean of 11years, showed no benefit in all-cause mortality, same as was found in  the 5 previous major RCTrials,  or  trials  of xray mammography:.

Lancet. 2014 Aug 6. Schröder FH1 ea  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the western European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up ie 1.78  million patient years, in some 162 000 men  aged 55 to 69, randomized  to either a screening arm or a control group. If PSA was 3ng/ml or more, they were offered a biopsy. Screening took place on average every four years. Mean follow-up was 11 years.  7408 prostate cancer cases were diagnosed in the intervention group and 6107 cases in the control group. The rate ratio of prostate cancer incidence between the intervention and control groups was  1·66 (1·60-1·73) after 11 years, and 1·57 (1·51-1·62) after 13 years. The rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality was 0·85 (0·70-1·03) after 9 years, 0·78 (0·66-0·91) after 11 years, and 0·79 (0·69-0·91) at 13 years. The absolute risk reduction of death from prostate cancer at 13 years was 0·11 per 1000 person-years or 1·28 per 1000 men randomised, which is equivalent to one prostate cancer death averted per 781 (95% CI 490-1929) men invited for screening or one per 27 (17-66) additional prostate cancer detected. After adjustment for non-participation, the rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality in men screened was 0·73 (95% CI 0·61-0·88). Despite our findings, further quantification of harms and their reduction are still considered a prerequisite for the introduction of populated-based screening.
                                                                                                                   As a 2012 independent analysis on the web says,   Updated data from ERSPC trial still show no impact on all-cause mortality:    A new article in the New England Journal of Medicine this week has updated the prostate cancer-specific and all-cause (overall) mortality data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).       This latest analysis of data by Schröder et al., and based on a randomized comparison of screening (with regularly scheduled PSA tests) as opposed to non-screening, has shown the following results in the predefined, core group of men aged between 55 and 69 years at the time of enrollment:
  • The average (median) follow-up for men in the core group was 11 years.
  • There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the groups who were or were not screened for risk of prostate cancer.
  • Reductions in the risk for prostate cancer-specific mortality in men randomized to the screening group as compared to the unscreened group were
    • An absolute reduction of 0.10 prostate cancer deaths per 1,000 person-years
    • An absolute reduction of 1.07 prostate cancer deaths per 1,000 men who underwent screening
    • A relative overall reduction in the risk of prostate cancer deaths in the screening group of 21 percent
    • A relative overall reduction in the risk of prostate cancer deaths in the screening group of 29 percent after adjustment for non-compliance with screening
  • To prevent a single case of prostate cancer-specific mortality
    • 1,055 men would need to be invited to be screened
    • 37 cases of prostate cancer would need to be detected

The authors conclude that this analysis, which adds two additional years of follow-up data to the data originally published in early 2009, shows that “PSA-based screening significantly reduced mortality from prostate cancer but did not affect all-cause mortality.”

‘These new data are unlikely to help to clarify the debate over the value of mass screening for prostate cancer. From one point of view one can use them to argue that screening can prevent between 20 and 30 percent of prostate cancer-specific deaths. From the alternative point of view, one can argue that screening a million men would indeed prevent about 950 prostate cancer-specific deaths, but would also lead to the potential over-treatment of 36 out of every 37 cases of prostate cancer identified, and would have no impact whatsoever on overall mortality’.

Yoon Jae Lee, O.ea.The study was conducted using existing systematic reviews.   Results  In a total of 400 000 men  in 6 included trials from Europe, USA, and Canada, followed for about 10 years,  ie 4million patient-years, Prostate-cancer-specific mortality was not reduced based on similar prior reviews (relative risk [RR] 0.93; P=0.31). The detection rate of stage 1 prostate cancer was not greater, with a RR of 1.67 (95% CI, 0.95-2.94). No difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the screening and control groups (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01, P=0.50).
Hayes JH1, Barry MJ2  Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts  review  evidence from randomized trials and related modeling studies examining the effect of PSA screening vs no screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality and to suggest an approach balancing potential benefits and harms during a longer follow-up (level B evidence).     Available evidence favors clinician discussion of the pros and cons of PSA screening with average-risk men aged 55 to 69 years. Only men who express a definite preference for screening should have PSA testing. Other strategies to mitigate the potential harms of screening include considering biennial screening, a higher PSA threshold for biopsy, and conservative therapy for men receiving a new diagnosis of prostate cancer.


neil.burman@gmail.com Cape Town

update 24 Feb 2914   Todays JAMA on-line- first prerelease article about  the current resurgence of Critically Ill Patients With Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 Virus Infection in 2014 laments its high deathrate  from acute respiratory and multiorgan failure adults in young adults,  and its guarded response to antiviral designer drugs like Tamiflu.   But it fails to mention vitamins and minerals, although these have dramatic benefit in both preventing infections, and treating flu,  AIDS and  TB.

Flu season: Vitamin D versus H1N1 Flu ,    Hormones Matter and Vit C cures H1N1  highlight the safety and efficacy of vigorous vitamin D  & C repletion, never mind when combined with other antimicrobial supplements like the other vitamins, and the minerals selenium, zinc, iron, iodine, and antimicrobial plant extracts like sutherlandia and  galega officinalis etc.

Guess which Big Pharma is the biggest manufacturer of vitamins in the world? Roche. and guess  which company makes Tamiflu?   Roche–  which refused to release the data from all of its trials, the adverse effects far exceeding its benefits.

But nutritional supplements are not patentable, so they are studiously ignored by the Disease Industry for whom only profit matters.

More about the lethal effect of deriding and suppressing good remedies under the-2014-virus-season-dawns-avoiding-the-semmelweis-reflex-natural-antibiotics-vitamins-c-d3-avoiding-vitamin-denialism –  The Semmelweis Reflex.

update 16 Feb 2014: it’s taken 5 years, but at last the fraud of  Big Pharma and the Regulators, Governments they support is being exposed in more depth:

the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009- set up by the Vaccine Industry paying vast bribes to world Regulators and Governments-  to promote the useless if not risky flu vaccine and Tamiflu drugs, is being confirmed and investigated, as reported by www.NaturalNews.com email newsletter: Even the science journals are now investigating the total scam of the WHO’s flu pandemic fear mongering. Here’s what you need to know: http://www.naturalnews.com/043932_Big_Pharma_World_Health_Organization_flu_scam.html 

and the wider Multiple Vaccine MMR fraud affecting especially infants and children (the gastroenteropathy- Autism link), that has been centre stage for 15 years, is analysed in detail by Dr Andrew Wakefield in his new book Callous Disregard.

Update 15 January 2010: current commentaries:                                                   Mary budinger@earthlink.netn is quoted as writing:

INQUIRIES GET UNDERWAY INTO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Governments heeded warnings from the United Nations that there would be millions of deaths unless nations promptly proceeded with the controversial vaccination plan promoted by the UN’s entity for health matters, the WHO. With billions of dollars of unneeded inventory now going to waste, government leaders turned angry and started to demand hard answers.

Articles in the European press have repeatedly called into question the myriad ties between vaccine manufacturers and decision makers in the WHO.

The French opposition Socialist Party described that country’s national campaign as an “extravagant fiasco” and demanded a parliamentary investigation.

In early January 2010, the Council of Europe member states announced they are launching an inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the drug industry’s influence on WHO. The text of the resolution says, in part, “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines. The ‘bird-flu’-campaign (2005/06) combined with the ‘swine-flu’-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.”[1]

The WHO’s “false pandemic” flu campaign is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century,” according to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. “The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers,” he adds.

Wodarg, a doctor and former SPD member of the German Bundestag, says that the “false pandemic” campaign began last May in Mexico City, when a hundred or so “normal” reported influenza cases were declared to be the beginning of a threatening new pandemic, although there was little scientific evidence for this. Nevertheless the WHO, “in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies and their scientists, re-defined pandemics,” removing the statement that “an enormous amount of people have contracted the illness or died” from its existing definition and replacing it by stating simply that there has to be a virus, spreading beyond borders and to which people have no immunity.

These new standards forced politicians in most states to react immediately and sign marketing commitments for additional and new vaccines against swine flu, through “sealed contracts” under which orders are secured in advance and governments take almost all responsibility. “In this way, the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks. So they just wait until WHO says ‘pandemic’ and activate the contracts,” says Dr. Wodarg.[1]

The Japanese health ministry announced it is launching an inquiry into deaths and side effects from the vaccine. Japan recorded 104 deaths, roughly 80 percent of whom are people aged 70 or older who had chronic diseases or disorders. Additionally, some 1,900 cases of side effects had been reported from medical institutions.

In the U.S., President Obama had decreed the H1N1 pandemic a national emergency, prompting some analysts to warn about increased governmental powers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had issued a “formal declaration of a Public Health Emergency” in April of 2009, even though there had only been 20 confirmed cases of the H1N1 virus.

To date, the U.S. has not followed in the footsteps of the Council of Europe.
[1] http://www.pharmatimes.com/WorldNews/article.aspx?id=17147

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. writes:

How Big Pharma profits off fear            With Big Pharma raking in billions off swine flu fears, the last thing they need is a government handout.

Yet Uncle Sam is busy playing Daddy Warbucks with YOUR lunch money, helping Swiss drugmaker Novartis open a new vaccine plant in North Carolina. You’ve generously contributed around $700 million to help Novartis build their shiny new drug factory — $220 million three years ago, and $486 million this year.

And I’ll bet you didn’t even get a thank-you card.

In return for this bad investment in a foreign company, the U.S. government gets the right to PURCHASE vaccine for 17 years. Not only that, but these vaccines will be created using a new and unproven biotech method that relies on dog kidneys instead of chicken eggs.

In other words, this plan really is a dog.

I’m a doctor, not an economist. But if this is someone’s idea of stimulus, you do the math: The plant now employs 191 people making an average of $50,000 per year. At that rate, it would take around 75 years for the government money put into this joint to make its way back into our own economy.

Slice off a few years if you believe them when they say they’ll ultimately employ 350 people when the plant is fully operational in 2013 — in any case, it’ll be decades before Americans ever see that cash again.

But don’t worry — I’m sure somewhere, a poor Swiss ski resort is hosting a group of free-spending Novartis executives.

Maybe they’ll be joined by their yodeling friends at the World Health Organization. A report at World Net Daily says at least three of the WHO’s top flu “experts” have financial ties to vaccine makers.

That sure explains a lot.

Meanwhile, anyone who doubts that money is the real driving force behind swine flu fears only needs to check out Business Week magazine.

A recent headline there tells whole story by itself: “How Big Pharma Profits from Swine Flu.”

Careful there, Business Week. That kind of thinking would have gotten you branded a radical conspiracy theorist just a few months ago!

Just check out these big paydays off swine flu vaccine sales:
•  $1.7 billion for GlaxoSmithKline
•  $700 million for Novartis
•  $500 million for Sanofi-Aventis
Those figures are for the fourth quarter of 2009 alone — analysts expect them to grab similar piles of cash for the first quarter of 2010 as everyone from President Obama to Santa Claus push these needless vaccines on you and your children.

Business Week also notes that vaccine sales are booming just in time: Patents on prescription drugs worth a combined $135 billion in annual sales are about to expire… with no new meds ready to replace them.

And that means you can expect another phony swine flu scare any moment now.

Never feeding the flu fears”.

And tp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/Harvard-Takes-it-Back-and-Says-Swine-Flu-was-Oversold.aspx

These need to be read in tandem with the other vaccine sagas:

Martin Walker’s ongoing expose of  The Drug Industry-GMC-NHS  vendetta  against Dr  Andrew Wakefield  for daring to question the benefits of mass vaccination of infants;

about the risks versus benefit of vaccinating pubertal boys and girls against cervix cancer;

and the mad search for an HIV vaccine against a disease which is in fact a sociological problem of  nutritional immunodeficiency upon which is superimposed sexual violence as in rape  or voluntary recklessness usually against (usually)  innocent partners – promiscuity   in multiple concurrent sexual relationships as currently promoted  by sexual predators  like Tiger Woods and the illegitimate and corrupt  South African “president” Jacob Zuma. .

UPDATE 16 December:

It is now 15  weeks since this column  expressed grave doubt about the cost-benefit of the touted anti-virals Tamiflu and Relenza .

All hell has broken loose over drug company fraud- which could only have happened in collusion with big politicians:

while Bayer and BMS Bristol-Myer Squibb are under heavy attack, and Pfizer paid a record $2.3billion fine to settle, and Novartis and Baxter are under the vaccine fraud microscope,

not only has proven  swine flu  mercifully fallen far below pandemic deathrate and sickness predictions,  while big batches of vaccine (GSK)  have had to be pulled due to serious complications even in Canada- and GSK directors /promoters too are under scrutiny;

but predictions about the fraud of massive anti-influenza drug promotion have proven all too true.  The BMJ today is full of doubts since a solitary Japanese author questioned the veracity of selectively published let alone unpublished Tamiflu studies orchestrated by Roche.

As some say, in marketing and disease-mongering,  its like in love and war-  anything goes – and provided it promotes American corporate interests, the FDA goes along.. ..

20091111 A This WW1 Armistice day : A new report quotes the CDC projection that “4000 rather than 1200 Americans have died of swine flu since April.. and that the  University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research thinks deaths are likely to be in the 30,000-to-40,000 range, and would have a long way to go to even get there… The vaccine should also cut the death rate.”.

Yesterday an appeal from the FDA Commissioner of Food and Drugs went out to all to promote the swine flu vaccine. But Dr Hamburg does not quote one iota of evidence that the vaccine does or will do more good than harm- especially in those at highest risk, the pregnant, the  old and ill and infants. She fails to address the cardinal issue: why have no trials so far assessed the benefit of the vaccine (on swine flu infectivity and morbidity)  against placebo on a background of well-known anti-infective natural safe supplements?

It is perfectly obvious that with an apparent infectivity rate of swine flu well above 1:1000, but an apparent linked mortality rate of  2 per million of population per month through September-October- the USA- the FDA CDC and the other interlinked countries at highest risk- Canada, Australia,  UK, Brazil, Argentine –  had a duty to see that the vaccines were immediately tested in double-blind RCTs against placebo injection in volunteers–  at least the apparently moderate risk ie the well young, but most of all  in the high-risk groups ie the age extremes, pregnancy and those with serious chronic diseases.

From the already established  spread-, fatality- and complication rate, it is obvious that, during the current upsurge reported by these countries, it would take no more than a few weeks – at a vaccination rate even in Sweden of 2million people in a few weeks, with spread rate of thousands of new  tested cases a month, to produce the crucial answers- how far does the vaccine cut the infection rate, and  the morbidity rate and degree.

Yet according to the NIH Clinical trials.gov registry, there is still no such trial listed. The FDA decided it doesnt require efficacy data on the vaccines.

So it appears that the Authorities in all pandemic  countries are guilty of gross deception- at best  that they know that the vaccine is pretty useless, or worse, that they dont know – and don’t want to know till the vaccine is all used up. Dastardly conspiracy theorizing, by sober scientists,  but that’s what the Authorities’ declared deliberate omission (evasion of such a basic obvious  efficacy trial)  creates.

At least there is a double-blind placebo-controlled  clinical trial of Tamiflu in progress in Hong Kong, in 300 patients with the swine flu, lasting a year. . The outcome is likely to be that, if tamiflu doesnt prove to be worse than the placebo, 300 is far too few subjects to show any significant benefit over placebo.

Bloombergs reports today that Norway has had 6300 confirmed cases by last week and 16 related deaths by Nov 9, but while Sweden had cases doubling weekly to the last week of October, there have still been only 3 related deaths reported . However on Nov 9th perhaps the 4th related death was reported in Sweden.  . But Sweden has banned media reporting on swine flu vaccine deaths, which stood at 5 after 2million vaccinations.

It looks like the cumulative swine-flu related deathrate in Europe has reached 0.8 per million population.

20091109  The past week: only one new case has been reported in Southern Africa (Namibia) and no linked deaths in Africa; in Canada between 3-5 Nov there were 14 new linked deaths (14% increase);   in Netherlands 7 people died in the week to 6 Nov, with the total there still only around 20 attributed to the swine flu.

The USA latest  CDC report shows that in the 2 months   to end October influenza-associated death rate was  2 per million of population per month; for comparison, in 2006 the monthly deathrate  was 770 per million, of which influenza and pneumonia  contributed only 2.3%, the 8th  leading cause  after cardiac-, stroke, malignant, lower respiratory, accident, diabetes and alzheimer causes.  Since – accidents aside- all of these commonest fatal  diseases are precisely the highrisk patients that die most of influenza anyway,  it is unclear whether the present increase in ILS ( influenza-like syndrome)  deaths has significantly increased overall mortality

SWINE FLU 1918: There is a graphic  interview on November  5th with a living survivor of the 1918  genuine flu epidemic, which killed some 2.5-3% ie 25 000 of  every million  people   (5% in India) by blue death- drowning-  in at least America, France and Germany, far more in India.  That  H1N1 plague lasted at least 2 years,  infecting perhaps 1/3 of the world population of 1.5billion,  with 50% cross-infection  rate and mortality rate of between 2% and 20% of those infected.

SWINE FLU 1976:  that outbreak never spread beyond Fort Dix, where one victim died. But in the ensuing government panic, 22% of the population were given a hastily prepared vaccine, followed by 1098 cases of Guillaine-Barre syndrome, at least half of which were attributed to the H1N1 vaccine, with at least 25 deaths. A recent review puts this risk (of GBS after H1N1 vaccination) at about 1 in a million- far  higher than  there is now of  healthy people dying of the current swine flu outside the Americas and Australia.

SWINE FLU 2009: it is cold comfort to see the current swine flu  global picture on Wiki at the end of October- a true deathrate of probably <1 per million after at least 6 months. The big question is, will there be more waves of it or, worse, a deadlier mutation caused by hasty vaccination?

The biggest  question, mystery, now is:  if swine flu is indeed pandemic  and spreading at least in America and Australia, why are there still no placebo-controlled trials published confirming that the vaccines and antiviral drugs reduce infectivity, severity and mortality of the 2009 H1N1 virus?

INCIDENCE: While bigger countries have stopped testing all but key or high-risk suspect cases for swine flu,   the smaller countries’ figures of confirmed cases relative to population size are instructive:

closed communities like the Cook Islands, Hong Kong and Macau respectively found incidence of 0.9% – 0.47%;

but only 0.07 -0.25% in other “ islands” world wide – Caymans, New Zealand, Jersey, Bahrain, Iceland, Marshall, Australia, Malta.

Mainland countries that apparently continue screening all who report in with flu symptoms – like Portugal and Belgium -found respectively 0.24% and 0.08% of suspects positive for  swine flu.

FATALITY: As regards death rates: Mexico and South Africa reported apparently related deaths among confirmed swine flu cases as approx 0.7%/1000 infections ; Australia & Japan approx 0.5%; Hong Kong 0.12%; and Germany and Portugal approx 0.02%.

Multiplying  the incidence rate by the case  fatality rate- or more simply dividing the number of deaths by the population- suggests that if you the reader  are generally well, the odds of  your  dying of swine flu are far below  1 in a million; whereas infants, or the elderly,  the chronically ill or  the obese are at far higher risk of dying anyway.  So far there have been some 1500 deaths in 308million Americans recorded in people testing positive for swine flu- that, is some 5 deaths per million- but by epidemiological  reasoning by an  international team, most of those deaths were already in pregnant or  other (chronically) high risk patients  and therefore not attributable primarily  to the swine flu itself- they were already, knowingly or not, at high background risk..

1500 deaths in 6 months  in America is ~0.8 deaths  per million per month, but the  background- all-cause  death rate there averages about 68 per million per month by last CDC count.

Japan and India with the highest population density in the world for  big  developed populations are remarkable – since the first case in their spring 6 months ago,  similar  population deathrates so far  of only 0.00004%  or  0.4 per million.

whereas in USA the official attributed  swine flu death rate so far is  12 fold higher ie  about 0.0005% ie  5 per million. North America’s epidemic  had only a month headstart on the rest of the world.

These fatality rates may be the maximum theoretically, since even in these first-world countries, the great majority of those who did have swine flu symptoms would not have reported in to be tested.

While most cases of swine flu would have been unrecorded- shrugged off-  in both developed and poor countries it is likely that many deaths at the time of maximum scare may have been wrongly ascribed to swine flu. This is what the naysayers about deaths after vaccination (whether against eg HPV- cervix cancer or against swine flu) are arguing strongly- that with mass vaccination superimposed on normal deathrates, the deaths within a few hours of vaccination or within days of  flu  are simply co-incidence, they are unrelated to the co-incidental  vaccination or the flu….

In Canada, “The majority of suspect swine flu patients— over 85%  (in intensive care)    — have some associated medical risk factors.”

The current NICD  stats for South Africa show that 77% of those who died with swine flu had  relevant co-morbidity  – 50% had HIV, 28% were peripartum women, 21% were obese,  11% diabetic, and 9 to 11% had active TB and/or serious cardiac disease. 91deaths is 1.8deaths per million – surprisingly low in the most unequal and reckless population in the world with massive overweight and ischemic heart disease;   the poor  great  majority having  been  increasingly deprived of jobs, education and quality health care, and suffering the  highest AIDs, tuberculosis,  infantile and maternal  mortality rates,  due to criminally negligent government since ‘independence’ 15years ago which has left the majority increasingly worse off.

So while the 2009 swine flu infectivity  the world over  is  probably far above 1%,  the fatality rates  causally related to the flu virus in those who contracted the swine flu in developed prosperous northern  countries (eg Europe, USA, Canada, Japan) was surely well below 0.03% ie <3:10 000;   and in poor countries like RSA and Mexico and India, probably similar since the virus would have spread far more densely in crowded poor communities with  higher malnutrition and underlying common diseases- but more protected by  having already survived poverty-related infections but also having less robust immune response.

It remains a mystery of rational reasoning as to how the wildfire spread of the 2009 H1N1 virus, and the low linked case fatality rates,  justify the promotion by first-world countries of ‘pandemic’ panic and mass treatment  with untested vaccines  and risky antivirals- especially when the vaccines contain  notoriously risky adjuvants like mercury, aluminium and squalene, let alone extracts (and possibly prions)  from species other than humans. These countries seem to have learned nothing from experience the past century with influenza, polio and HIV.

The reasons may be simply economic- Only Disease Pays, it’s a huge boost for healthcare providers, and manufacturers of  “antiviral” drugs, test kits, anti-swine flu vaccines, masks, disinfectants etc.

Why are there such differences in reported swine flu deathrates in similar countries?

Examining regions in the ~  6 months since the the pandemic hit them:

EUROPE: the biggest nation- Germany with 80million people has had  20 000 people test positive ie 1 in 40 000, with 9 deaths  ie about 0.1 in a million of population.

AlpineSwitzerland with almost 8million people has tested all suspicious cases with only 1000 confirmed swine flu, and no suspected deaths – but it  has  banned the  Glaxo  vaccine Pandemrix from being used in  pregnant women, children or young adults (below 18 years of age) or elderly (above 60 years of age).

Scandanavia: In Sweden this Glaxo vaccine has already been associated with 5 deaths in the first 2 weeks  –  5 deaths per (2) million population vaccinated in a month   -with  only some 2000 flu cases documented. Yet   so far in 6 months  only 3 -4 deaths there – 0.3 -o.4 per million population-  have been associated with swine flu itself . If 5 deaths there  soon after the swine flu vaccine , out of (2) million people vaccinated in less than a month,  are co-incidental- a vaccine-related death rate of 1:200  000. – one can equally argue that 4 deaths with the swine flu in a month  in a population of 9.2 million is not a causal relationship but co-incidence of death from other causes and not from the passing mild swine flu.. Norway has had 15 deaths ie 3/million; but Finland only 0.4  and Denmark only 0.16 per million. These and Switzerland are all cold countries with some 33million total population, 22deaths representing a fatality rate of 0.66 per million- the same as the average for Europe. Can there be such significant difference in prosperity and social services accross the EU  to explain the vastly different death rates? Or is it just statistical vagary, or  the fault of sensationalist disease-mongering  media?

A warmer but still cool  country like Germany has a swine flu deathrate of only 0.1/million, whereas the warmer British Isles have a rate of 2.5/million. And the  four  Greko-Latin European nations vary from 0.5 in Portugal & Greece  to 1.1 in  Spain to 4/million in Italy. Why the 8 fold difference? they all  take plenty of wine, olive products and a Mediterranean diet; and many citizens travel widely between these old countries and their migrant kith and kin at  the fountainhead  of swine flu  in North America. .

The overall European swine flu deathrate is only 0.78/million, with France – stretching from the Alps to two warmer  major oceans – similar, and the Low Countries only  0.5..  Why deathrates in three prosperous countries  genetically so linked to the rest of Europe but climatically so  diverse as  Norway, Italy  and UK   are so much above the rest of Europe remains to be unraveled.

CONTINENTAL DIFFERENCES:  in poor  South America there are also wide differences with 1.5 / million in Argentine but 7 per million in Brazil and the whole continent,   compared to 3 per million in the colder  North America;  4/million in the warmer  Caribbean; and  9/million in Australasia.  Why should deathrates be the high  in the Americas and Australasia, but 90%  lower in Japan, India and most of Europe?

But presumably the bigger and poorer the population, the fewer swine flu deaths  get reported, tested and  attributed- this may apply equally in Southern Africa, as in India, China and Russia.

Despite the vastly different climate conditions under which the majority of their people lives, the American deathrate so far – 5/million- is 25% higher than in Canada and poor Mexico‘s 4/million. But the USA admits that most cases of virus-like pneumonia are no longer being tested for H1N1, there are assumed to be due to it. Yet some sources say that this assumption grossly overestimates the  actual swine flu.

COMPARISON WITH AIDS: while the flu also  knows no social barriers- it merely spreads faster and bites faster  in denser and more vulnerable  poor populations- AIDS remains largely a scourge of ignorance, violence (male) and recklessness(male)- especially amongst politicians, who are  amongst the most promiscuous people globally, but eg  in South Africa also the cruelest in deliberately depriving the population until very recently  of both a semblance of social security and antiretrovirals, while spending the abundance of tax revenue on corrupt profligacy – in unneeded weaponry, and personal luxuries like mansions and (to this day) German limos.

Hence the prevalence rate of AIDS varies from above  15% in Southern Africa ( antenatal HIV prevalence of 30%)  to between o.1 and 1% in the rest of the world; with mortality varying from 50% within a year  of clinical presentation in the malnourished squatter millions  without treatment, to 50% survival after 20years with decent living standard and ARVs etc. In South Africa this year AIDS is said to kill a thousand a day ie 20 per million of population every day ie 7200 per million (7.2% of the population) per year- against a crude birthrate of 2% giving a nett population decrease of 5.2% a year, reducing life expectancy at birth to only 49years .


HIV-AIDS  VACCINE:  after >30years  there is still no proven safe  relevant vaccine in sight against the HIV.  But if rape and male reckless promiscuity  were stopped, there would be no need for a vaccine since cross-infection is so easily avoided.

SWINE FLU VACCINE: Since there has been  no  trial published of the clinical benefit of the  flu vaccine, no objective  information whatsoever is available to judge it’s efficacy versus risk  in  swine flu prevention.   No significant double-blind  trial has been done offering the flu vaccine versus placebo injection.  The first uncontrolled apparently open trial  started  in Australia 22 July, with results  promised and delivered within 6 weeks ie 2 months ago. It is strange indeed that just 8 weeks after the start of that trial, the Australian govt approved the vaccination campaign. . A medical media report of 11 Sept says only 240 people were enrolled in the trial, age 18 to 64 years ie outside the peak risk agegroups at the extremes of life; and the only result released was that the subjects had a good antibody response.

Even the NEJM official trial report gives no clinical results as to protection- although  the New York Times got it wrong in reporting that the “convincing  trial showed robust  protection” . This conclusion is hysterical nonsense since  the only data reported was the antibody response, which does not mean there will  necessarily be any clinical protection against the swine flu.  There can be  no conclusion  as to whether the vaccine reduced the swine flu infection rate or severity because there was no placebo group, double blind or otherwise. Similarly, the Australian trial in children 10 to 17 years old,  the Spanish trial in toddlers, the USA trial  in pregnancy,   and the Chinese trial, showed good antibody response by 10 days – but gave no result about clinical protection.

So all we need is a simple 2 x 2 RCT of  flu vaccine versus placebo vaccine, with all cases independently covered by eg a supplement of zinc plus  highdose vitamin betacarotene + C + D + K plus fish oil as baseline safety net,  or placebo. The most important question remains: given the huge proven benefit of  safe vigorous doses of these cheap freely available supplements against both flu and AIDS, do people need anything more than a multisupplement to reduce risk of all diseases?  and does adding a costly hazardous H1N1 vaccine on top of that give worthwhile better protection against swine flu? The answer must be overwhelmingly NO, given the risk of at least GBS if not anaphylactic death after H1N1 vaccines. Why take a vaccine if it’s risk is  far worse than that of the swine flu itself, let alone  simple all-system multinutrient prevention that reduces all-cause mortality by at least a third?

But the last thing that vaccine manufacturers,  marketeers and governments  want is a negative answer, so they dont allow such a trial- is it because they lack courage, or that they already know the answer is negative, or worst of all,  that the vaccine is worse than useless?

Some may argue that it is unethical to offer nothing ie double placebo in such an RCT with rare but arguably serious virus-related complications. So all could be covered by at least a simple standard multivite a day at below RDA levels- which by all accounts gives marginal if any benefits except in the malnourished.

Obviously the difficulty with such a virus trial  is cost and invasiveness:  in  an RCT of the vaccine, one ideally needs to have  both serological and culture screening for this hybrid H1N1 virus at baseline – as well as placebo-controlled evidence of reduction in disease. Since the swine flu is so far milder than seasonal flu, there is no other way of defining whether a specific swine flu  vaccine is of significant overall benefit against this H1N1 virus.

Trumpeting “pandemic” and compulsory vaccination with an unproven vaccine  is a great distraction and profiteering  for governments-  presidents and the Big Business that controls them and their agencies,   beset with insoluble political and corruption scandals as are most. Recently an Australian anti-vaccination group published a damning cross-referenced  litany of evidence against  the trillion$ vaccination industry.

The current “pandemic” distraction with swine flu while they wage war on their peoples, effective martial law implemented or foreseen  in the USA, China,  and South Africa (predicted conversion of the police to a massive politicized  paramilitary, nationalization of all major industry and business and provincial governments), is beyond the imagination of most fiction writers except masters like Margaret Atwood – ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’;  Jose Saramago – ‘Blindness’ and ‘Seeing’;  Gabriel Garcia Marquez ; Franz Kafka.  .

We can only continue to pray, hope that sanity will prevail , that  RCTs  of  both the swine flu vaccine and antiviral drugs are  being done  to prove that they are both useful, necessary and safe. There is no evidence on the internet of this,   suggesting that conspiracy theory may  prove correct – that the whole vaccination and antiviral drugs if not the severity of the ‘pandemic’  are simply the result of disease-mongering for profit, like ever-popular  war-mongering on every continent..



Two weeks ago, in response to mounting international concern for the welfare of older women, the UK government announced that it is setting up an independent review of the risks and benefits of xray mammography screening. 

 It has been publicised since the 1970s that low-dose mammographic irradiation may increase risk of breast cancer 4 (to 6) fold, and more so in women with a genetic risk. (Heyes ea 2006 Dept Medical Physics Birmingham Hospital UK; publicised studies -including from survivors of atomic bomb exposure).

A new French study published this month confirms in human breast cancer cells that a significant dose-effect of lowdose irradiation was observed, “with an exacerbation in high-risk compared to low-risk patients (p = 0.01). The dose repetition (2 + 2 mGy) provided more induced and more unrepaired DSB than 2 mGy and 4 mGy, and was exacerbated in HR (p = 0.006). ”

 Just three weeks after the last review in this column of the mounting evidence against xray breast screening, at least 4 more major studies (three from USA) have been published the past month refuting the marketing spiel that “Xray screening Mammography Saves Lives” :

1. A trenchant debunking appeared in the New York Times a fortnight ago based on the latest USA Dartmouth University study of USA 20 year national Breast cancer statistics published in a leadng medical journal that day It concluded: “Most (87% to 97% of) women found to have breast cancer by xray screening are not helped by the test. Only some 4% to 8% of women with breast cancer so detected are helped by such screening. Most are instead either diagnosed early (with no effect on their mortality) or overdiagnosed. Thus of millions of average-risk asymptomatic women having breast irradiation screening each year, only 1 in 10 000 really benefit.”  They put the risk of having breast cancer found on xray screening at 2% over 10years ie 0.2% per year in a 50year old women, and her 20 year risk of dying of breast cancer at 1% . Most women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their life saved by screening.  

 Dr Susan Love a leading USA professor of surgery would like to see “less emphasis on screening and more focus on cancer prevention and treatment for the most aggressive cancers, particularly those that affect younger women. Roughly 15 percent to 20 percent of breast cancers are deadly. And even with screening, bad cancers are still bad. ” 

Dr Cornelia Baines an emeritus professor at the University Toronto affirms that “the benefit (of breast xray screening) is much smaller in terms of avoiding death than is the harm arising from over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment for breast cancer, to say nothing of increased rate of mastectomy associated with screening.These issues are not widely known to the general public. ”

 2. Similarly, a massive study from  Georgetown University Washington DC, concluded that  “Biennial screening from 50-74 reduces the probability of breast cancer death from 3% to 2.3%. Screening annually from 40 to 84 only lowers mortality an additional one-half of one percent to 1.8% but requires substantially more mammograms and yields more false-positives and over-diagnosed cases. Decisions about screening strategy depend on preferences for benefits vs. potential harms and resource considerations”.

 3. A pan-USA consortium found that in 170 000 USA women followed with xray screening annually for 10 years, more than half of women received at least 1 false-positive recall, and 7% to 9% a false-positive biopsy recommendation.

 And finally a survey of the Swedish screening mammography program since 1986 found similar outcome as in the Norwegian program: “the 4-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer was -significantly higher in the screened group by 49% (982 per 100 000) than it was in the control group (658 per 100 000). Because the cumulative incidence among controls did not reach that of the screened group, we believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated xray screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress”.

It is obvious to most when the light is switched off; and that lengthy exposure to intense sunshine damages- no randomized cotrolled trials are needed. Conversely it took millennia before most educated people recognized that neither our Earth nor Sun are the centre of the universe- and many people still do not believe in human rights..

 In contrast to eternal human need for mysticism /spiritualism promoting blind faith in deities and prayer and an afterlife, rationalists like Steven Jay Gould argue irrefutably that science and religion are incompatible non-overlapping magisteria. Even Kierkegaard had to admit this in conceding that its tough going against mainstream belief however strong and wrong the mainstream may be, even though religious belief is simply that- irrational blind faith. From the heart, not from rational reasoning.

 Search of Pubmed for “randomized controlled trials screening xray mammography” yields not a single trial. In fact the only truly randomized long trial ever conducted with modern xray mammography – the Canadian Breast Screening trial between 1980 and 1990 and comparing manual self-examination alone versus combined with xray mammography (Miller & Baines 1997) – showed that adding screening xray mammography had no impact on the rate of death from breast cancer at up to 13 years’ follow-up from entry.

This outcome has never been disproven except in the minds of those who zealously promote the $8billion a year xray mammography industry, whatever their vested interests from fundraising organizations to service providers and screening machine manufacturing countries.

There are thus at least 20 studies already published showing that screening xray mammography has no benefits compared to its many risks, for reduction in future breast cancer and breast procedures or mortality.

  So it is ethically, morally and scientifically negligent to continue to promote fearmongering  xray screening mammography without explaining to women that xray screening has no benefit for survival from breast cancer, and may in fact not just promote fruitles pain, anxiety, mastectomy and radiochemotherapy but also hasten death.

Should screening xray mammography even still be offered as a diease-mongering  choice for women ? when it is now so well proven by independent studies and expert reviewers that it offers no benefit over regular manual breast examination, but indeed offers many cumulative risks to women, at great cost to individual women and society.

The analogy is the sale of tobacco smoking and alcohol. Unlike the safe use of moderate social alcohol in private, should aggressive promotion, marketing of xray breast mammography, smoking,  alcohol and other addictive drug (like designer antidepressants and other psychotropics) consumption be allowed at all?


 Update 18/10/2011 neil.burman@gmail.com


A medical scheme recently asked for a motivation letter for a member wanting them to fund a non-xray mammogram.

 Thinking women cannot do like a postmenopausal professor in genetics – a senior health lecturer and counsellor no less- shrug off the issue of their blind obedience to medical diktat as “not my field”, when unquestioningly undergoing invasive let alone known hazardous tests like screening xray mammography, and major therapy for asymptomatic hidden lumps, on the say-so of their doctors/ their medical scheme advisors, however great their eminence.

Safety in numbers of eminent opinions is no assurance that the collective conventional wisdom and Guidelines are correct, when such conventional wisdom is as likely as not turned on its head in a few years.

Blind obeisance without careful personal study of the evidence for and against is as foolish as taking the advice of the glib salesman self-promoter in any costly and therefore risky investment, be it in health as in finances, property, a motor car, costly other assetts, a job or a glib new lover.

This week Dr Joe Mercola  highlights the latest reports from USA, the  double disaster of xray mammography increasing the risk of breast cancer in women with a familial risk; and more than half of women xray- screened regularly  over 10 years receive at leat one false-positive recall- with all the extra breast  procedures, and upset, that that entails.

Look at what happened to USA and UK-Europe when they blindly followed the advice of the snakeoil vendors the Bush-Blair Gang in invading Iraq in 2003, and listened to the advice of  their self-enriching financial gurus and bankers that led to the demise of balanced national budgets and the western capitalist system in 2008. The USA has achieved the unthinkable, being downgraded to the most bankrupt country, worse than many southern European nations now are, because Bush for the benefit of his cronies abandoned the common-sense balanced budgets reducing national debt insisted on by Clinton, and plunged USA into multitrillion dollar debt that future generations of taxpayers have to pay. .

In women without breast symptoms or familial risk of breast cancer, regular analysis of evidence  to April 2011  on the pros and cons of SCREENING xray mammography ie breast imaging, showed increasingly the risk but no benefit of such xray screening.

The anonymous Wikipedia review outlines the violently opposing views of the screening mammography issue – from sceptical independent analysts, and from the zealous majority, the lucrative vested-interest screening xray mammography – breast surgery industry, who claim shortterm benefit from emotive early diagnosis and treatment. .

It is a sign of the paradigm shift in medical thinking and dogma when a leading medical school eg Tygerberg Hospital no longer accepts women with a palpable breast mass referred for diagnosticxray mammography, but instead first sees them for careful history, examination and fine needle aspiration biopsy.

Last months’ leading Radiology journal features a debate between the two opposing viewpoints;  ; as does a recent medscape debate; http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/734977 with Heaod of Radiology  Daniel Kopans at  Harvard spearheading the xray mammographers and breast surgeons argument – Just the facts: mammography saves lives with little if any radiation risk to the mature breast.

and Dr Cornelia Baines from Toronto University joins the European and USA critics of routine screening in exhaustively analysing why so many studies convincingly confirm the original Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Study Miller, Baines ea 2004  evidence against routine xray screening – xray screening did not reduce breast cancer mortality after 13years when compared to routine clinical breast examination;

– and the 2009 recommendation of the US Preventitive Task Force to limit recommendation for xray screening mammography to well women only from age 50 years onwards, and every 2 years not annually. Since April 2011 at least nine more authoritative independent scientific papers listed below detail why routine screening xray mammography of well breasts (in women not at known increased risk) gives no longterm meaningful reduction in either invasive breast cancer or mortality. In fact, there is evidence that such repeated breast trauma- crushing, irradiation, surgery and therapy –  actually increases risks of mastectomy, breast cancer and mortality after 10 years, just as oral xeno-hormone replacement therapy may.

The Dec 2010    UK NHS recommendation brochure  by contrast  limits screening mammography to women over 50yrs up to 70yrs, and only every 3 yrs. Thus the UK recommends only about 7 screening mammograms over her lifetime for well lowrisk women. This contrasts with the pressure on USA women to have screening from age 40 years annually ie four times as many as in UK- about 30 screening mmmograms over her lifetime. …

The latest published study, from the University of California no lessconfirms their earlier 2007 study that the more costly computer-aided detection was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer. CAD use during xray screening mammography in the USA is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer. When previously well women are followed up over decades with xray screening mammography, objective studies of at least thirteen first-world countries – Australia, U.S.A, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, U.K, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Ireland – show no patient benefit from such screening xray in reducing breast surgery, advanced breast cancer, mastectomy, or mortality,.

Such evidence and argument against screening of the asymptomatic male without familial risk has been widely accepted for prostate cancer screening. Why are women with no known increased risk perversely all irradiated about 15 to 30 times from their 40s?

And a new study from Minneapolis finds that lowrisk women ie without dense breasts, symptoms or family history need not have screening xray mammography more than every 3 -4 years. The Mayo Clinic lists simply the obvious risks of xray mammography.

There is yet another obvious reason – conveniently not mentioned by researchers and xray mammographers – why screening xray mammography may miss cancers ie give false negative results: because adult female bosoms are obviously threedimensional, not flat like health mens’.. But xray mammography (unlike CAT or MRI scans) is done in only two – the vertical and lateral planes.

Unlike eg the limbs, spine, chest and head, globular female breasts cannot be xrayed meaningfully in the anterior-posterior plane superimposed on the chest, and thus small breast cancers close to the lateral chest wall or the armpits cannot be xray imaged. By contrast, examination with the hands, with thermography, with ultrasound, MRI and now with (eg SureTouch) mechanical pressure transducers check for suspicious lumps in three dimensions ie also in the anterior-posterior plane.  

3D breast xray imaging is becoming a reality . But it still relies on xray irradiation.

Research PhD Geneticist Dr Natalie Bjorklund-Gordon pleads for altenatives to xray screening mammography, she explains exquisitely why she will not have xray screening mammography (let alone screening colonoscopy) . She pleads for nonxray safe and sure technology for screening.  

But review  shows that proven alternatives are available here and worldwide. Thermomammography is now highly evolved over the past 40 years; and mechanical tactile breast mapping over the past decade.

As these on-line reviews detail, is it ethical let alone cost-beneficial to promote routine screening mammography on women at any age who do not have probable breast cancer?

But for those well women who desire screening mammography for peace of mind, infrared thermomammography is the physiological gold standard that may pick up precancerous increased bloodflow years before a cancer mass is detectable by other ie anatomical mammography methods so as to allow non-interventional preventative steps;

while mechanical tactile mammography (eg SureTouch) as recommended by the Cancer Association of RSA is the safe non-invasive anatomical screening tool of choice.

Yet Curves Tokai is still promoting the pernicious offer of free membership of curves upon production of a recent mammogram – without bothering to warn of the major potential hazards of screening xray mammography.  . So long as the Curves empire is openminded ie accepts the alternatives to xray mammography eg MRI, thermography and Digital Tactile Mammography

For anxious women, third party funders should pay for these safe and at least as specific and sensitive non-invasive investigations (rather than for invasive xray screening mammography at two to four times the cost).

In conclusion: all thinking women hold the primary responsibility for their own and their families’ health. It therefore behoves every woman let alone man to take responsibility for prevention when young for their future health. Like Dr Bjorklund-Gordon, they have to make informed decisions about the risk:benefit of having invasive screening like xray mammography and biopsies – just as they have to about their education, careers, financial management and relationships- about their health choices including screening.

Recent refs.

  1. Oct 2011 Utzon-Frank N, Lynge E ea Cancer Epidemiol.Balancing sensitivity and specificity: Sixteen year’s of experience from mammography in Copenhagen, show that after 14 -16 years of xray mammography every 2 years, the incidence of new breast cancers detected at 14-16years actually rose by 50% compared to in the first 12 years.
  2. Sept 2011 Junod Zahl ea in Investigation of the Apparent Breast Cancer Epidemic in France show 8-fold increase between 1980 and 2000 in the number of xray mammography machines in France. Opportunistic and organised screening increased over time. In comparison to age-matched cohorts born 15 years earlier, recent cohorts had adjusted incidence proportion over 11 years that were 50 (23-76)% higher for women aged 50 to 79 years. Given that mortality did not change correspondingly, this increase in adjusted incidence was considered an estimate of overdiagnosis. Breast cancer may be overdiagnosed because screening increases diagnosis of slowly progressing non-life threatening cancer and increases misdiagnosis among women without progressive cancer. We suggest these effects could largely explain the reported “epidemic” of breast cancer.
  3. Sept 2011 Jorgensen Keen & Gotzsche at the authoritative Cochrane Centre ask Is xray mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? They point out that the original Swedish Two-County Trial was the most optimistic and pivotal for the introduction of screening, but subsequent trials of higher quality found smaller effects...
  4. Sept 2011 Suhrke P, Gøtzsche PC, Zahl P ea BMJ note in Effect of mammography screening on surgical treatment for breast cancer in Norway: that the aim of screening xray mammography is to reduce surgery and deaths. But in 35 408 women aged 40-79 with invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ treated surgically from 1993 to 2008, xray mammography screening in Norway was associated with a noticeable- 70%- increase in breast cancer surgery in women aged 50-69 (the age group invited to screening) and also an increase in mastectomy rates. Although over-diagnosis is likely to have caused the initial increase in mastectomy rates and the overall increase in surgery rates in those screened, the more recent decline in mastectomy rates has affected all age groups and is likely to have resulted from changes in surgical policy. 

5.  Sept 2011 Haukka J, Autier P ea. University of Finland examine Trends in Breast Cancer Mortality in Sweden before and after Implementation of Mammography Screening. : Incidence-based mortality modelling comparing the risk of breast cancer death in screened and unscreened women in nine Swedish counties suggested a 39% risk reduction in women 40 to 69 years old after introduction of mammography screening in the 1980s and 1990s. Without individual data it is impossible to completely separate the effects of improved treatment and health service organisation from that of screening, which would bias our results in favour of screening. However, our estimates from publicly available data suggest considerably lower benefits than estimates based on comparison of screened versus non-screened women. 

 6. Aug 2011 Int J Cancer. Hofvind S, Graff-Iversen S. ea at the Cancer Registry of Norway- dissect Breast cancer incidence trends in Norway-explained by hormone therapy or mammographic screening? A decline in breast cancer incidence has been observed in several countries after 2002. Reduced use of menopausal hormonal therapy (HT), as a consequence of the publication of results from the Women’s Health Initiative, has been argued to be the main reason. the interpretation of breast cancer incidence trends in Norway from 1987 to 2009 is complicated because the xray breast screening program was introduced during a period with increasing HT use. Both factors likely contributed to the observed trends, and the role of each may vary across age

7. August 2011 Professor of Surgery Michael Baum from University London has argued for years that Breast xray screening should be scrapped.

 8. August 2011 Fenton JJ, Barlow W E ea; J Natl Cancer Inst.Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. University of California,examined the Effectiveness of computer-aided detection CAD in community mammography, concludingCAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21795668

9. August 2011 Autier P, Gavin A. ea studied Advanced breast cancer incidence following population-based mammographic screening : Breast cancer mortality is declining in many Western countries. If mammography screening contributed to decreases in mortality, then decreases in advanced breast cancer incidence should also be noticeable. They assessed incidence trends of advanced breast cancer in areas where mammography screening has been practiced for at least 7 years ie Australia, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, U.K, U.S.A, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Age-adjusted annual percent changes were stable or increasing in ten areas (APCs of -0.5% to 1.7%). Thus in areas with widespread sustained mammographic screening, trends in advanced breast cancer incidence do not support a substantial role for screening in the decrease in mortality. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21252058

10.   July 2011 Autier, Vatten ea in BMJ in Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries 1986-2000 with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment compare Norway with Sweden, Belgium with Netherlands and Eire with Ulster, The contrast between the time differences in implementation of xray mammography screening and the similarity in reductions in mortality between the country pairs suggest that screening did not play a direct part in the reductions in breast cancer mortality. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798968

And finally

11. June 2011: PhD research clinical scientist geneticist Dr Natalie Bjorklund-Gordon details exquisitely “why I am not having screening mammography” (or screening colonoscopy). http://www.science20.com/selective_genetics/why_i_am_not_having_screening_mammogram-79776




18 months ago a warning was published about   the risk of Negligence  Damages for  Prescribing Bisphosphonates- Fosomaxes- for common osteoporosis. 

 A year later an updated review of the evidence rebutted    the attempt by an Australian group (Phillip Sambrook  MD, BS, LLB, FRACP  ea )  to promote routine use of bisphosphonates, blame the news media for wrongly sensationalizing these largely unnecessary drugs’ rare but lethal  adverse effects. 

 Now three other eminent Australian professors, of   Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and  Endocrinology  (Paul Sambrook, Chris Nordin and Alastair Goss) publish a further rebuttal  of Phillip Sambrook ea for serious errors in underestimating by at least twentyfold both the incidence and the seriousness of bisphosphonate risks.

 In  a USA case for damages against Merck,  for irreversible  osteonecrosis- resulting in jaw amputation-  following Fosamax, a patient was last year awarded $1.5million . This American class action is about over 1500 Fosamax cases against Merck.  So far two related case against Merck  have been  dismissed. But all such cases are on appeal. The robust American tort system may yet hammer Merck. .

 As recently as october 2010 Merck staunchly defends Fosamax’s safety for osteoporosis.

The FDA has recently added a warning about Fosamax-related thigh fractures.

But no evidence has ever been published that the catastrophic risk of bisphosphonates- however rare-  is justified for routine osteoporosis when

1.In common osteoporosis, Bisphosphonates have no multisystemic benefits  except for halving fracture risk, and

2.Appropriate combination of natural supplements- as this column has repeatedly revewed -approximately halve all risks ie of both osteoporosis fractures and all other common major diseases of aging, and thus chronic disability and deaths, without any significant risks.

Curent Authority statements eg from the Mayo Clinic simply fail to say this- why risk bisphosphonates?  New reports  in November-December of dozens of osteonecrosis cases on bisphosphonates  have just appeared on Pubmed  from Italy, Germany, Romania and Spain.

In fact a major international study has just beeen published showing the obvious, that survival in the elderly is strongly linked to gait speed and mobility. It is common cause that such integrated function is dependent on optimal joint, neuromuscular and cardiovascular integration- to which (- unlike the score of natural human micronutrient supplements that deplete with age-) bisphosphonates and strontium contribute nothing except bone density.

Fosamax lobbyists studiously avoid the plain  truth that it is not osteoporosis; but frailty – falls –  that is the chief cause of major elderly fractures- and that bisphosphonates and strontium may make bones appear denser.

Its too early to judge strontium ranelate (which also has rare but catastrophic risk- the DRESS syndrome); but fosamaxes in some cases  make bones more brittle; without in the slightest combating senescence frailty ie muscle, mobility, vascular, cancerous, arthritic, immune, mood, cognitive and neurological deterioration (unlike the multinutrient microsupplements – vitamins, minerals and biologicals like fish oil, chondroglucosamine, sex hormones which together halve all chronic major degenerative diseases and premature mortality) ..

August 15, 2010 Regulators like the FDA  and WHO the world health organization and  their worldwide equivalents are notorious for bowing to their chief funders- Big Pharma- in registering new designer drugs on the flimsiest evidence, often despite vociferous objection from some honest assessor at the Regulator; then waiting till there is an uproar of complaints over the drug before they belatedly demand more evidence of cost-benefit from the manufacturer, and admit that key adverse data were  suppressed from the outset- as happenened and is still happening most notoriously  in the case of aspartamate Canderal.

And what was obvious from the word go,   that  in the case of last year’s swine flu vaccines and the spurious pandemic declaration, the Regulators/WHO expert committees were  heavily loaded with biased specialists paid by  vaccine  manufacturers.

But why are the fosamaxes and other  bisphosphonates  still allowed to be prescribed  for osteoporosis? When the first report of long bone fracture associated with them first appeared on Pubmed 16 years ago (Guanabens 1994) and they are unnecessary -indeed contra-indicated – for osteoporosis.   Not for nothing does a  recent ABC Good Morning America broadcast   ask: “Fosamax: Is Long Term Use of Bone Strengthening Drug Linked to Fractures”?  

This review is in fact an update on The Fraud of Modern Medicines.

 A recent review from Oxford    lists the myriad adverse effects of bisphosphonates. They say “All four  currently approved nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have a favorable tolerability and safety profile.” But why don’t they discuss the reality which is that although all these adverse effects  may be infrequent, why risk such serious  complications  such as 30% incidence of oesophagogastric symptoms?; oesophageal stenosis and cancer?, toxiderma, atrial fibrillation, eye, muscle bone joint pain?; or incapacity from jaw and teeth loss or  longbone fracture related to bisphosphonates for osteopororis?,  when bisphosphonates  are clinically unnecessary and unjustified for osteoporosis.

 Why dont they state the truth, that there are no head to head trials against the basket of proven natural supplements, comparing fracture and global benefits versus risks of bisphosphonates ? Most reviews eg Wikipedia say bisphosphonates are “ the leading prescription for osteoporosis”; but this is simply for the same reasons that statins are for lipidemia, angiotensin blockers for hypertension and sulphonylureas/ glitazones are for type 2 diabetes, and aspartame is for artificial sweetening- because drug companies market such hoped-for $billion rainchecks overwhelmingly, and fund no comparative trials against the gold standard old supplement basket that makes most hazardous modern drugs like statins, glitazones and bisphosphonates mostly redundant.

Filleul ea from Univ Mona, Belgium have just reviewed the world literature from 2003-2009, finding 2400 cases of BIOJ bisphosphonate induced osteonecrosis of the jaw. of these about 215 were not cancer cases. Such cases very rarely occur without cancer. So why risk them?

 So why does an Australian team bewail decreased use of the fosamaxes? Impact of adverse news media on prescriptions for osteoporosis:effect on fractures and mortality. Their statistical modelling is perhaps no more than promotion of bisphosphonates since it ignores the high number of adverse effects that bisphosphonates cause long term; and the major reduction in allcause disability and premature mortality that balanced appropriate supplements ( instead of bisphosphonates ) produce. Why would the lead author of so many papers- Professor Phillip Sambrook – promote bisphosphonate as the prime pharmacological prevention, and only calcium and vitamin D as the supplementary prevention of osteoporosis fractures?  when the evidence so strongly favours safe multisupplements including appropriate lowdose hormone balance as preventative against all major chronic diseases? Can a new-drug proponent who sits on the medical advisory boards of and has received speaker fees from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Servier. be considered objective ? Their critique of the media for publicizing the potential disaster from bisphosphonates is hollow when they fail to mention the numerous potential risks, and the numerous benefits instead from supplements.

Geusens, Sambrook ea in 2008 published  a major review on Drug Insight: choosing a drug treatment strategy for women with osteoporosis-an evidence–based clinical perspective.. ‘The most important clinical determinant in the clinical choice of drug therapy for fracture prevention is a woman’s fracture risk; second is the evidence for fracture prevention in terms of spectrum, size and speed of effect. Other determinants include the potential extraskeletal benefits and safety concerns of the drugs.” But they again studiously avoid considering supplements (vitamins plus minerals plus appropriate hormone combination) as one of the drug regimes, especially as osteoporosis is simply one of the co-morbidities of aging, and far less of a risk for premature death and disability than stroke, cardiovascular, cancer, diabetes, frailty, dementia, arthritic disease and premature death – all of which can along with fractures be avoided and mitigated by the basket of supplements. So their review is surely biased in excluding all but new designer patent drugs while excluding the best and safe anabolics. .

 It is well proven from observational studies that longterm use of appropriate natural supplements reduce all-cause mortality by at least a third:              In the Womens’ Health Initiative WHI, appropriate hormone replacement HRT reduced all-cause mortality i.e. deaths from vascular disease, cancer and  fractures by 1/3 as well.    In the UKPDS the plant extract metformin reduced all-cause mortality also by 1/3. Understandably, metformin halves the incidence of new diabetes by reducing insulin resistance,  hence it also reduces fracture risk let alone cancer and vascular disease risk .   

 Incontestable data shows that epidemic deficiency  of vitamin D ,  vitamin C, magnesium, vitamin B especially B6,   vitamin K,    fish oil,    and prime hormone dysregulation  (thyroid, insulin,  cortisol vs androgens and estrogens)   in first-world aging populations are associated with increased mortality from all degenerative diseases especially fracturing, cardiovascular and cancer. It also showed that  vigorous supplements of balanced vitamins,  minerals (especially B,C,D,K, and Ca, Mg, Zn, Bo, Mn, Se, Cr), fish oil,  and human sex (co)hormones (testosterone, progesterone, estradiol, metformin) drastically reduce all morbidity and especially fractures  even  (perhaps especially )  in the well-off over nourished..  

  In contrast to bisphosphonates- which are aimed solely at reducing fracture in the at-risk elderly and thus reduce all-cause mortality by perhaps 10%-  these supplements in appropriate doses and balanced combination  reduce all-cause aging disease and preventable premature mortality by at least 50%, without any adverse risks. .  

Neville-Webbe ea (2010)  note that bisphosphonates have anti-cancer potential. So use it for terminal cancer fracture pain. Why use it for anticancer potential in those with just osteoporosis when the basket of supplements (including approriate HRT, vigorous dose vitamin D and if approriate metformin) gives safe  global protection against all the major aging diseases?

 Just the reduction in excess diet omega6 oils will mean that only 10% of the current necessary omega3 daily allowance (3.5gm) will be essential.  

 In 2007 a leading team from the International menopause Society  Genazzani ea  warned that “Recent controversies with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have caused much concern in women and their health-care providers. As a result, the number of HRT users in USA has fallen dramatically. Consequently, the potential HRT-induced reduction in fracture risk is lost so that, in the next few years, we can expect an excess of 43,008 fractures per year in women aged 65 – 69 years. In addition, the recent evidence on the merits of early initiation of HRT on cardiovascular disease risk and neurocognitive function and the effect of type and combination of hormones on breast cancer risk now require an urgent review by the regulatory authorities of their recommendations about HRT.”

 Now – 8 years after the  debacle the WHI caused – the Endocrine Society has at last come out with a Position Statement admitting the grave consequences from the hysterical misinterpretation of the early release of the Womens Health initiative results in 2002-2004, especially in rising fracture and colon cancer rates from avoidance of appropriate HRT in menopausal women across midlife. . Let alone, as Genazzani ea said above and we discussed at international, UK and European menopause meetings in 2003-2006, the potential loss of benefit against breast cancer, heart, stroke, depressive, diabetic and neurocognitive problems.

 In conclusion: A major intervention is required from governments, world authorities  to reduce all-cause morbidity and mortality : by drastically curtailing the marketing and prescription of rarely essential prescription designer drugs like bisphosphonates, and strontium ranelate for osteoporosis;  by insisting on increasing universal intake of proven natural multisupplements that are increasingly deficient in the food chain for the poor,  for infants, youngsters and the multiplying  aging- in the latter, including appropiate HRT;  and by forcing the processed food industry to stop stuffing foods and drinks with not just salt  and aspartame but also fructose, sucrose, various growh hormones, and omega6 oils.

But neither Big Pharma manufacturers, governments, so-called independent regulators, nor university and private practice leaders or retail pharmacists will do so, promote evidence-based supplements over risky new drugs- there is too much money at stake from lost taxes. research funding, lower under-patent snake-oil sales and far less major disease and hospital admissions.

So it is up to patients and honest healthcare providers to insist that evidence-based supplements – not trading practice based on huge marketting and snakeoil preaching for profiteering – be prescribed for prevention/ managing the major diseases of aging including osteoporosis.