South Wales Measles Death – Mother Blames Docs – “3 Docs Said ‘Not Measles’ & Sent Him Home With Water & Paracetamol”

The death of a 25 year old South Wales man who had measles when he died had not been attributed to measles by doctors.  He was sent home with water and paracetamol after three doctors said he did not have measles.  A postmortem [autopsy] is due to be held later this week to establish the cause of death and whether measles was implicated.

In a video interview with The Telegraph newspaper [Embed Code], his mother said he was let down by the medical profession.  She said he could not walk to the surgery and three doctors saw him and said it was not measles.  He was sent him home with water and paracetamol. The Telegraph written report quotes the mother saying “He was covered in a rash, and what with the measles epidemic in Swansea we wanted to get him to hospital. He had been in Morriston Hospital for five or six days before he was sent home.

Read the story and view the video on Telegraph website: Measles death: man was sent home from hospital By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent 20 Apr 2013.

MEASLES WAS NEVER THE SCARY DISEASE OFFICIALS CLAIM NOW

According to the British Medical Journal from 1959 experienced family doctors considered measles to be a generally mild disease.  They were far from the panic they are today scaring parents.  You can read the facts from the BMJ in this CHS article:

British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1 IN 1000 MEASLES DEATHS FIGURE IS FALSE

There is also nothing like 1 in 1000 deaths from measles as being quoted by public health officials to whip up a public scare.  Parents are being frightened by false claims by health officials.  The real figures in modern times are totally different and are well-known to health officials.

NO UK DEATHS FROM MEASLES IN HEALTHY CHILDREN SINCE 1992

Since 1992 there have been no deaths in healthy children but well over 80,000 measles cases.  The only two deaths reported as measles are now only one [according to National Statistics]: a 14 year old with a lung condition on immunosuppressants was classified as measles in 2006; but the 2008 death also in an immuno compromised child is now doubted to be a measles death.

PHW’s director of health protection Dr Marion Lyons quoted recently:

“Measles is a potentially fatal disease and around one in every 1,000 people who contracts measles in developed countries will die.”.

Swansea measles epidemic: Man who died had measles – BBC 19 April 2013

Data from the Health Protection Agency shows there have been over 80,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 but only two deaths since then from acute measles and none in healthy children.

See the figures and especially the quote at bottom of HPA web page:

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.”

…….

“In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  “

Measles notifications and deaths in England and Wales, 1940-2008

NHS VACCINE SAFETY FIGURES USELESS

The claims to vaccine safety compared to the hazards of measles from the Department of Health are also wholly unreliable.  Those nice tables from the NHS comparing risks of vaccines to risks of diseases are useless because they fail to take account of under-reporting of adverse reactions to drugs.

It is necessary to multiply by at least 50 times for any drug as a rule of thumb.  [Under-reporting in all drugs and not just vaccines is 98 in every 100 adverse reactions: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.].

But for vaccines it is thought to be a higher rate of under-reporting and could be 1 in 200.

VACCINES IN GENERAL CAUSE AUTISTIC CONDITIONS

Listen to what the experts say from the US government, US and Italian Courts.  And do not forget, these Court cases were not the judges deciding on the balance of the evidence but the US and Italian government authorities conceding the cases on the basis of their own experts’ advice:

Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

US Court Awards Multi-Million Dollar Payouts To Two More US Children With Vaccine Caused Autism

American parents awarded £600000 in compensation after their son developed autism as a result of MMR vaccine

MMR/Autism Cases Win In US Vaccine Court

MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court

Fox News – US Pays $ Millions In Secret To Vaccine-Caused-Autism Injured Kids

MMR Vaccine Causes Autism Italian Case Now Reported in English National Press

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

Autism Caused by MMR Vaccine – Italian Government Tries To Avoid Paying Up – Just Like the UK

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: – BUT – So Has The USA – Some Autism History

Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine

A peer reviewed medical paper cited in the CHS article Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics confirms that “Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income”: Englehandt SF, Halsey NA, Eddins DL, Hinman AR. Measles mortality in the United States 1971-1975. Am J Public Health 1980;70:1166–1169.

In simple terms that means as people become better off year on year, measles mortality could be expected to keep on falling.

The following graph supporting that conclusion already appears on CHS covering the 20th Century – from 1901 to 1999: see Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics

[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW]

<big>Measles Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999

The red trendline is exponential.  It is created using the trendline function in professional commercially available software.  As can be seen 2007 is the year when the trendline cuts below a chance of there being one death per annum in England and Wales, based on a population of 55 million.

What a straight line exponential trendline on a logarithmic graph demonstrates is that the fall in measles mortality over the 100 years of the last century has been exponential.

In simple terms this means the rate of fall in mortality has been like throwing something off a cliff and watching it go faster and faster and get smaller and smaller as time passes until you can hardly see it at all.

And particularly, the fact that an exponential trendline results in a straightline is an immensely strong indication that measles mortality would continue to fall exponentially irrespective of the introduction of vaccines.

If we look at the standard “analogue” plotted graph, as in the example immediately below, we might be able to use our judgement and decide in our opinion the vaccine made little or no difference:

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

Measles Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999 - Analog Scale

But is there any way we might be able to tell more precisely whether vaccines had any effect?  Or to put it another way, what is the position for the trend ignoring when any measles vaccine was in routine use?

So here is the same ONS data but plotted only up to 1967 – before the introduction of the measles vaccine – and with the trendline plotted forward to where the chance of mortality falls below 1 in 55 million. 

Putting it simply this graph immediately below shows the rate of decline of mortality prior to 1968 and what might be the position after 1967 if things carried on as they were.  So data for the years 1968 to 1999 are excluded. 

Or the more complicated explanation: by eliminating data after 1967 from the graph the trendline should show the trend unaffected by any potential effect [confounding] by a measles virus containing vaccine affecting the natural rate of decrease in measles mortality associated with natural measles infection.  It is intended to show the likely trend from 1967 for the future, on the assumption the same rate of fall before 1968 applied after 1967.  [And we can check because we have the entire data set pre 1968 and post 1967 to do the comparison.]

[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW].
Measles Mortality ONS Data 1901-1967

Again, we still see that the year 2007 is the point at which the probability of mortality from measles infection falls below one in 55 million per annum.  This is just as the graph for the data from 1901-1999 does.  This seems to suggest strongly that not only did measles mortality fall exponentially before the introduction of the single measles vaccine, it continued to fall exponentially and at the same rate after – even with the position up to 1999 it might seem.

Data from the Health Protection Agency shows there have been 76,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 and no deaths in adults or healthy children from acute measles. There was one death in a 14 year old on immunosuppressant drugs for a lung condition and one in an immunocompromised child [according to the HPA] since 1992.  That gives a chance of nil deaths per annum in healthy children since 1992 over the entire population of England and Wales – which is roughly 55 million – give or take – such as for annual fluctuations etc and 0.1 deaths per annum in immunocompromised children.

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.”

…….

“In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  “

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

According to the Office for National Statistics, the 2008 death is now doubted to have been a measles death.

Regardless of these two deaths in over 20 years, the trendline on both graphs presents a fairly reliable picture showing the chance of measles mortality falling below 1 in 55 million per annum, if there were no vaccination. And we can see that by 2007 actual mortality is in line with the trend shown by the graphs.

As UK measles vaccine coverage was well below 55% in the 1970′s and early 1980s what these graphs show is not unexpected.  It is claimed now that the level of vaccination coverage required to achieve the theoretical concept of herd immunity is 95%.  So any lower rate of vaccination clearly was not achieving that so according to that theory, the disease would still circulate and it clearly did.

The average UK mortality between 1968 [when the single measles vaccine was introduced into the UK] and 1987 was 20 and not hundreds and was falling over that entire period at the same rate exponentially as it had been before 1968.  So we can be reasonably sure mortality would certainly be expected to be well below that level as time passed – and that is what these graphs and the trendlines confirm.

Trendlines do not predict but give an indication of what might be the position.  In the case of the comparison between the trend for data to 1967 and compared to the trend to 1999 can we have a reasonable degree of confidence 2007 is likely to be the year the chance of a death in England and Wales would fall below 1 [ie below 100%] if there were no measles vaccines.

What we can also say with some confidence is that measles mortality would eventually have dropped to such a low level if there were no vaccines – all else being equal.

So what is the position after 1999?  If the introduction of the vaccines had any effect that effect would be to accelerate the fall which already existed – but as can be seen – we do not appear to see that clearly from the trend for the period to 1999 compared to the trend for the period to 1967.

Here is Health Protection Agency data covering the period from 1948 to 2008.  This data plotted identically shows exactly the same thing as the 1901-1999 and 1901-1967 data with one difference:

[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW].

<big>Measles Deaths 1948-2008 Source Health Protection Agency UK

The trendline for the HPA data drops below a chance of 1 in 55 million by 2000.  This is not like the 1999 data in the other graph which does this by 2007.  So on a very simple approach that might be interpreted as indicating the vaccine might have had some effect in accelerating a reduction in what is admittedly an already very low and continuing to fall rate of mortality. That of course might not necessarily be the case but it can at least be a working hypothesis.

It is of course impossible to prepare a logarithmic graph with zero values [there is no zero for a log graph].  For years which the HPA data had zero deaths it was necessary to substitute a value to plot logarithmically.  0.1 was used for this purpose.

With mortality as low as it was in the 1980s, one question which this data does raise therefore is whether it would be better for public health to have had an effective treatment for measles instead of or in addition to mass vaccination programmes – say like a measles pill. 

It looks an attractive proposition, potentially taking away the problem of mass population disease control and providing a means to save third world lives.  Third world children die despite the existence of vaccines and there is no effective treatment to save their lives.  So western nations have been extremely selfish in failing to address that omission.

What we must always bear in mind when considering graphs of this kind which do not rely on reported cases – incidence – is that reported cases prior to 1994 in the UK are wholly unreliable as an indication of true levels of incidence of a disease.  Doctors over-diagnose and have over-diagnosed measles by 74 times – for every real case there can and have been 73 non measles cases reported as measles: the data supporting this is set out here – Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics

In times of panic especially any rash might be reported as suspected measles and that is likely to be happening now in South Wales, UK.

Putting it simply this graph shows the rate of decline of mortality prior to 1968 and what might be the position after 1967 if things carried on as they were.

First UK Measles Death Suspected In South Wales – Who Is Responsible?

EDITORIAL:

Having blamed Dr Andrew Wakefield for the current measles outbreak, the media and health officials telegraphed their intention last Sunday to blame him for the first UK death from measles for some years eg. First death feared in MMR scare The Sunday Times By Mark Hookham 14 April 2013.

And now today just a short while ago the first suspected death is being reported: Death of 25-year-old man being investigated as part of South Wales measles outbreak:  Daily Mail 11:10, 19 April 2013 Rachel Reilly.

It is not known whether the man did have measles or died from it nor whether he had been vaccinated.  An omission from early reports today is why anyone suspects a measles infection.  Nothing is said which is somewhat odd.

This man would have been around 18 months old when the MMR vaccine was introduced so could well have been vaccinated then.  But it is not so easy to blame Dr Wakefield.  The suspected but unconfirmed measles victim would also have been 10 years old when Dr Wakefield came on the scene in 1998. A post-mortem is expected to be carried out later to confirm the cause of death, according to police and public health officials say the news reports.

This situation  has occurred despite UK vaccination rates being at an all time high and despite the majority of measles cases being in the 1 to 5 age group as confirmed in Parliament by Lord Howe.

If this man has died as a result of measles then the people clearly blameworthy are Dr David Salisbury and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.  Ever since 1998 they purposefully and intentionally took away the sensible option of allowing those parents who did not trust the MMR vaccine or government assurances to have access to a single measles vaccine.

With MMR vaccination rates claimed to be at well over 90% and approaching 95%, there is a small minority of less than 10% not availing themselves of the MMR vaccine.  So if there are parents who did not then and now still do not trust Dr Salisbury and the JCVI over the MMR vaccine – and they have good reasons not to – they are a minority who have been deprived of single measles vaccines since 1998 when Dr Salisbury and the JCVI oversaw the withdrawal of the option of single vaccines then.

So to get the coverage up higher would only take having an option of a single measles vaccine for between 3% and 5% of the remainderThat could easily have been achieved across the entire EU but instead health officials did nothing about it – leaving those parents and their children with nothing.

It was government saying to parents its “our way or the highway” – which is a dangerous precedent politically to set over any aspect of healthcare.  No choice and no freedom.

But a policy of choice would see higher combined rates of uptake with those few families taking the single measles vaccine.  The long sought and repeatedly W.H.O. postponed nirvana for public health policy of the eradication of measles in the UK could have been achieved a decade ago if not for Professor Salisbury and his JCVI.  This post would not be being written now.

It is clearly nonsense to blame Dr Wakefield for something which has solely been within the control of Dr Salisbury and the JCVI for a decade and a half.  Dr Wakefield did not decide to withdraw the vaccine – Dr Salisbury and others did, so they must accept responsibility for their own decisions and stop trying to scapegoat others.  They have sat back complaining about vaccination uptake for 14 years with the sensible option available to them throughout.

And politically, what is the role of the state in public health matters affecting individual children and their families?  At what point is the State justified in intervening? Should parents have the right to decide wisely or not on matters affecting the health of their children.  Should the state override and intervene and if so, when and to what degree? Can the state be trusted to? Or more to the point, can those officials entrusted with the task be?

Or should the State facilitate by offering choice in a matter so important that choice could be the only and best sensible approach – common sense prevailing.

Health officials and the media were hedging their bets in trying recently to pin a feared death on Dr Wakefield last weekend.  There have been 76,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 but only two deaths since then from acute measles and none in healthy children:

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.”

…….

“In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin. 

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

“Measles To Be Eradicated in 1967 With 55% Vaccine Coverage”

On 1st November 1966 US Government vaccine experts announced momentously to the world in a paper presented to the American Public Health Associations meeting in San Francisco, November 1,1966 that measles was to be eradicated in 1967 and just 55% vaccine coverage would do the trick.  You can read it for yourself here in this formally published paper by those experts: EPIDEMIOLOGIC BASIS FOR ERADICATION OF MEASLES IN 1967.

With the isolation of the measles virus and the development and extensive field testing of several potent and effective vaccines, the tools are at hand to eradicate the infection. With the general application of these tools during the coming months, eradication can be achieved in this country in the year 1967.

This paper states the epidemiologic basis in support of this statement, specifies the essential conditions, and outlines the priorities for attaining this goal.

The experts were the Sencer and Dull [yes really – their real names] with their colleague Langmuir.

They were from the forerunner to the The US Centers For Disease Control – The Public Health Services National Communicable Disease Center of Atlanta, Ga. , USA.   Dr. Sencer was chief and Dr. Dull was assistant chief of the Center.  Dr. Langmuir was chief of the Epidemiology Program.

They wrote:

….. it is evident that when the level of immunity was higher than 55 percent, epidemics did not develop. This is an estimate of the threshold of herd immunity providing protection to the city against a measles epidemic.  

………

There is no reason, however, to question the validity of the basic assumption that the occurrence of measles  epidemics depends upon the balance of immunes and susceptibles, and that for all areas and special groups in this country the immune threshold is considerably less than 100 percent.

So from 1966 to 2013 the measles vaccination programmes were based on this wisdom from the US CDC.  And from 1966 to 2007 something else did not change – the CDC’s ineptitude – except when it comes to spending billions of tax dollars. 

The US CDC was castigated by the US Senate as one which “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“.  “CDC Off Center” is an extraordinary 115 page review published in June 2007 by the US Senate on the US Centers for Disease Control:-

A review of how an agency tasked with fighting and preventing disease has spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars for failed prevention efforts, international junkets, and lavish facilities, but cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.”  CDC OFF CENTER“- The United States Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security, Minority Office, Under the Direction of Senator Tom Coburn, Ranking Minority Member, June 2007.

So what is the score today?  Health officials have kept increasing and increasing the level at which vaccine uptake is necessary to eradicate measles.  Today it is 95%.  They have increased the number of times children have to be vaccinated.  It was just one shot of measles vaccine and then one of MMR.  Now it is two shots and teenagers and adults are also told they can be vaccinated with the MMR at any time they like. 

But hey, we see measles and mumps outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. 

And the fact that children are killed and injured by the vaccines is hushed-up.  In their rabid religious zealotism for vaccinology health officials introduce vaccines they know to be dangerous for children like Pluserix in 1988 and like Cervarix for 12 year old schoolgirls in the UK in 2008.

And millions of third world children have been dying despite vaccination and it is because they still get measles and there are no effective treatments for it and other basic childhood diseases.  These experts have concentrated on vaccines and when their approach fails they do not change even though there is a desperate need for development of effective treatments TO SAVE THE LIVES OF CHILDREN and when WE CAN DO IT.  We have the technology.

And after the failure of measles eradication programme in 1967, it kept failing during the 1970s, failed again in 1984 in the USA and 1988 in the UK and other countries with the introduction of the MMR [with the also unnecessary mumps component].  Failed again when MMR two doses were introduced because one was not enough.  Failed again and again as health officials kept raising the level of vaccination coverage to achieve supposed “herd immunity” [they started with 55% coverage in 1967]. And now even with 95% coverage levels it is failing.    After that it will be 100% coverage enforced with compulsory vaccination and it will be failing again, with boosters already being suggested for adults:  Vaccines Are Causing Measles. Child Who Caught Measles From Vaccine Was Shedding Live Vaccine Measles Virus In Throat and Urine

Now that is a spectacularly under-impressive record for medical “science” [or should we say pseudoscience? Because that is more accurate.]

The destruction of natural disease immunity is yet another step along the route of making citizens believe and feel they are dependent upon the state and those who control it for their health and security and that of their families and children, just like false flag attacks in the USA do.  The cause of adults in highly vaccinated populations contracting measles and perhaps even dying when with natural immunity they would not, is the vaccines and the vaccine programmes.  So the ways in which the safety from disease conferred by natural immunity is undermined by vaccines are manifold.

And they want to blame it all on Dr Andrew Wakefield for having the guts to point out the vaccines cause autism [but it is also a whole lot more besides].  Sheesh!

There are no words which can describe what low-lives these people are.

Dr Andrew Wakefield Answers UK Government Allegations Over UK Measles Outbreak

Dr Andrew Wakefield having been attacked by members of the British Government and Health Officials with claims he is responsible for a measles outbreak in a region of the United Kingdom has been denied media access preventing him being heard and replying to redress the Government Health Officials’ claims.

It is a fight he did not start.  Here on camera he sets out the facts. He had been booked to appear on several media programmes, but all have cancelled on short notice just prior to airtime.

Legitimate debate about the safety of the MMR vaccine and the origin of the measles outbreak has been blocked by Government officials and others insisting he is not given airtime and not allowed to respond to the allegations they are making and those are allegations made against him.

Here he sets out how and why Government officials are trying to cover their tracks and blame him for what they are very culpable for.

A transcript of the video can be found at Age of Autism:

Transcript: Statement from Andrew Wakefield

US Human Rights Abuse – US Government Funds Potentially Lethal Nazi Style Experiments On Premature and Other New Born Infants – Reports US Charity AHRP & Public Citizen

Well now you know that it is not just vaccines which can kill and injure your child.  The US Government is publicly funding Nazi style potentially lethal experiments on premature and other new borns.  Forget human rights – this is Obama’s government barely 100 days into his second term, carrying on as it left off in his first with these experiments.  CHS previously reported on Anthrax Vaccine Tests On Underprivileged US Children Planned By Obama Administration – Public Meeting 14-15th January – University of Miami.

The institutions involved in carrying out this “research” include: Stanford University, Yale University, Brown University, Duke University, Wake Forest, and University of Alabama at Birmingham (a complete list is at the end).

Republished from AHRP Infomail 15/Apr/2013

Alliance for Human Research Protection – www.ahrp.org [AHRP ]
Advancing Honest and Ethical Medical Research

In a follow-up letter, Public Citizen has informed HHS Secretary Sebelius that 4,500 extremely vulnerable premature babies are being enrolled in 7 publicly funded experiments conducted by the National Research Network. This Network, comprised of 23 medical research centers, conducted the lethal oxygen experiment, SUPPORT. See: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/915/9/

This is one of the 7 examples:

Transfusion of Prematures (TOP) Trial: Does a Liberal Red Blood Cell  Transfusion Strategy Improve Neurologically Intact Survival of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants as Compa red to Restrictive Strategy?

(primary endpoints: deathor significant neurodevelopmental impairment)

This study is comparing two different strategies for treating anemia (low red blood cell count) in extremely premature infants (birth weight of less than 2.2 pounds).

The infants are randomly divided into two groups. Babies in one group receive blood transfusions whenever their red blood cell counts are moderately low (“liberal” transfusion group), and babies in the other group will receive blood transfusions only when their red blood cell counts are severely low (“restricted” transfusion group). The researchers will then determine whether one group of babies has higher rates of death or long term neurologic damage compared with the other group. The study began in December 2012 and is expected to continue until August 2017. The researchers plan to enroll more than 1,800 extremely premature babies.

See: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01702805

Note that the primary endpoint of the newly uncovered current infant experiments–like that of the oxygen SUPPORT experiment–is listed as “death or severe disability.” That is an indication to us that the experiment is NOT geared toward improving the infant’s survival chances.

Public Citizen urges HHS Secretary to make the protocols and consent forms for these trials and all those conducted by the Network since 1986 public available on the HHS website; order suspension of new enrollment in the ongoing trials until they are independently assessed for appropriateness and adequacy.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection calls for disciplinary action to hold medical researchers and their academic institutions accountable for violations of Federal research protections.  If research violated Federal protections, resulting in preventable injury or deaths, the senior researchers involved should be ineligible to obtain public funding; their research privileges should be suspended for a probationary period during which they should enroll in medical ethics training. If ever they violate ethical / legal standards again, they should be banned from all research involving human subjects.

AHRP also calls for the revocation of the Federal licensure from academic institutions that have been the site of unethical medical research whose subjects suffered permanent injury or death—as happened in 2001 when Johns Hopkins University research license was suspended. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/jul01a.pdf

The 23 research centers that conducted the SUPPORT experiment on premature babies are:

– Brown University

– Case Western Reserve University

– Duke University

– Emory University School of Medicine

– Indiana University School of Medicine

– Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns

– Stanford University School of Medicine

– Tufts Medical Center

– University of Alabama at Birmingham

– University of California, San Diego

– University of Cincinnati

– University of Iowa

– University of Miami Miller School of Medicine

– University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center

– University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry

– University of Tennessee

– University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston

– University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

– University of Utah School of Medicine

– Wake Forest University School of Medicine

– Wayne State University

– Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island

– Yale University School of Medicine

Conventional Medicine – #1 Leading Cause of Death In USA

Joseph Mercola has set out with citations and links to original sources an updated ranking of leading causes of death in the USA, using data from the US’ Centers For Disease Control and others.

Here is an extract of the article – Kills More People Than Heart Disease or Cancer (But Hardly Anyone Knows) which also has interesting analyses of the official statistics showing what has been left out and disguised or hidden.

The CDC Left Conventional Medical Care Off of Their Death List — It Should be #1

Over a decade ago, Professor Bruce Pomerance of the University of Toronto concluded that properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs were the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. More recently, an article authored in two parts by Gary Null, PhD, Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Debora Rasio, MD, and Dorothy Smith, PhD, describes in excruciating detail how the modern conventional American medical system has bumbled its way into becoming the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.

From medical errors to adverse drug reactions to unnecessary procedures, heart disease, cancer deaths and infant mortality, the authors took statistics straight from the most respected medical and scientific journals and investigative reports by the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), and showed that on the whole, American medicine caused more harm than good.

In 2010 (the same year from which the CDC data came), years after the original article was written, an analysis in the New England Journal of Medicineii piqued my interest – as the researchers found that, despite efforts to improve patient safety in the past few years, the health care system hasn’t changed much at all.

Instead, 18 percent of patients were harmed by medical care (some repeatedly) and over 63 percent of the injuries could have been prevented. In nearly 2.5 percent of these cases, the problems caused or contributed to a person’s death. In another 3 percent, patients suffered from permanent injury, while over 8 percent experienced life-threatening issues, such as severe bleeding during surgery.

In all there were over 25 injuries per 100 admissions! In my update to the original Death by Medicine article, you can get an idea of just how deadly the conventional medical care system actually is:

  • In a June 2010 report in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, study authors said that in looking over recordsiii that spanned from 1976 to 2006 (the most recent year available) they found that, of 62 million death certificates, almost a quarter-million deaths were coded as having occurred in a hospital setting due to medication errors.
  • An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the U.S. every year.
  • The costs of adverse drug reactionsiv to society are more than $136 billion annually — greater than the total cost of cardiovascular or diabetic care.
  • Adverse drug reactions cause injuries or death in 1 of 5 hospital patients.
  • The reason there are so many adverse drug eventsv in the U.S. is because so many drugs are used and prescribed – and many patients receive multiple prescriptions at varying strengths, some of which may counteract each other or cause more severe reactions when combined.