Dec 5, 2013, Mercola.com: What's Causing the Rise in ADHD?
Dec 4, 2013, TIME: Is Katie Couric The Next Jenny McCarthy?
Dec 4, 2013, Chicago Tribune: Foundation hopes to fill a void by helping autistic young adults
Dec 2, 2013, Washington Post: Flu vaccine is not universally praised
According to a 2010 US government survey,1 1 in 10 American children now has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-a 22 percent increase from 2003.
ADHD makes it hard for children to pay attention and control impulsive behavior, and an increasing number of older children, including high school students, are now being labeled as having ADHD. Adult ADHD is also becoming more prevalent.
As reported by the Las Vegas Guardian Express,2 nearly 11 percent of American kids are labeled with the disorder. More than twice as many boys are diagnosed with ADHD than girls-one in five, compared to one in 11. The featured article speculates about the cause behind these rising numbers.
Some experts feel the increase could be due to increased awareness and better diagnosis, but I think you'll find it interesting that this trend also coincides with increased prevalence of the pervasive weed killer, glyphosate, in the American food supply.
There's also plenty of room for overdiagnosis. In fact, an ADHD diagnosis is often made on the subjective observations of teachers or guardians, based on signs that nearly every child will display at some point. Aggravating factors, such as diet or home environment, are oftentimes overlooked entirely.
The featured article actually points out some interesting correlations between ADHD diagnoses and changes to the American educational system that might help explain how, if not why, so many children are misdiagnosed or flat out falsely diagnosed.
This article explores why so many children today have a diagnosis of ADHD. Increased awareness is often cited as the reason for all the ADHD. There's also the link to environmental toxins, which is talked about here. And there's the question of over-diagnosing by school districts in order to discount lower test scores which affect federal aid. What impact does this have the number of children who are then put on behavior controlling meds. It's a very troubling look at childhood today.
There is no "HPV Vaccine Controversy." At least, not when it comes to the injection's safety. And yet, that was the title of the lead segment on Katie Couric's daytime talk show, "Katie," this afternoon. The nearly half-hour story, which the program called their "Big Conversation," centered around two mothers who believe the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV) harmed their daughters.
Among the guests were Emily Tarsell, a mother who claims the death of her daughter, Christina, was caused by the HPV vaccine Gardasil in 2008. Another mother and daughter pair, Rosemary and Lauren Mathis, believe Lauren developed a bizarre illness characterized by nausea and fatigue due to the vaccine. Rosemary Mathis is now the director of the anti-HPV organization, SaneVax, Inc.
Tarsell and Mathis are understandably distraught mothers. But Couric is a journalist. . . .
The two HPV vaccines currently available, Gardasil and Cervarix, are both proven safe through clinical trials, independent studies, and post licensure monitoring. The CDC and FDA also continue to track the vaccines' safety.
And yet Couric has framed the issue as if there were a debate to be had about whether the HPV vaccines are good for the public's health. . .
I understand there were two Gardasil interviewed by Katie Couric.
The interview with Rosemary and Lauren Mathis was less than 5 minutes long. Dec 4, 2013
Rosemary Mathis wanted to protect her daughter Lauren from cervical cancer and followed her doctor's recommendations to have her vaccinated. But now she believes that decision nearly killed her daughter.
Couric: "Then you finally got to a doctor at Duke. What did that doctor tell you?
Rosemary Mathis: "The doctor looked in my records, which was probably a foot tall--all these medical records, he analyzed everything, ran tests, and he said she had a vaccine injury."
Couric: "Now when he said a vaccine injury, he wasn't specific about Gardasil, but that's the conclusion you drew?"
Mathis: "No, he was not. But Gardasil is the only vaccine that she had had at that time."
Lauren said she spent most of her days in bed. She was in constant pain. She had nausea and headaches. Her gall bladder has stopped functioning.
Rosemary Mathis: "My advice to parents is go out and research this vaccine."
Dr. Diane Harper, in the audience, didn't dispute the claim that this is a vaccine reaction. She advised that people should evaluate the risks vs the benefits.
Norma Erickson, founder of SaneVax.com, was asked why she had set up her website. "It was important because, like Rosemary said, she didn't know any of these side effects. She didn't know that there were perhaps substantial risks."
Almost immediately TIME came to the defense of the HPV vaccine. I posted 10 comments and almost immediately I was attacked along with AoA.
According to Paul Shattuck, an associate professor in the A.J. Drexel Autism Institute and Drexel University School of Public Health, out of the roughly 11,000 studies on autism between 2000 and 2010, about 23 focused on services for adults. And none of those examined the way race, ethnicity and even poverty further complicated the outcomes of these adults.
Shattuck recently led two studies showing that many young adults with autism-spectrum disorders face grim prospects for getting a job and finding suitable housing. Only about 21 percent of respondents polled said they worked full time, and their average pay was $8.10 per hour.
"The typical life span (of an American) is 70 to 80 years, and by not studying young adults with autism-spectrum disorders, we're not understanding the typical person with autism," Shattuck said. "What happens in adulthood is what impacts society most in terms of costs and policy." . . .
Paul Shattuck has long pretended that autism is nothing new and that all we need is services and awareness. I posted one comment.
I read with interest your article "Why the flu is worse than a cold" [Nov. 26]. Please allow me to point out that the key assertions - the flu shot reduces death in the elderly, prevents the illness about "50 to 80 percent of the time" and "side effects are uncommon and usually mild" - are contradicted by a recent article, "Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease."
From that article, which appeared in the journal BMJ: "What evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths among the elderly .?.?.? Virtually none. .?.?. Influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes." While "many randomized controlled trials of influenza vaccines have been conducted .?.?. a systematic review found that .?.?. vaccinating between 33 and 100 people resulted in one less case of influenza."
It also reported that "Australia suspended its influenza vaccination program in under five year olds after .?.?. [one in every 110 vaccinated] children had febrile convulsions after vaccination. Another serious reaction .?.?. occurred in Sweden and Finland, where H1N1 influenza vaccines were associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents."
The author of the article, Peter Doshi, summarized the flu vaccine situation as follows: "Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although the proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate [CDC] officials' claims."
Josh Mazer, Annapolis
So why is a vaccine that is admittedly ineffective and unproven so heavily promoted by the CDC, mainstream medicine and the media? Most likely because efficacy and safety take a seat way in the back when profit is driving the bus.