Diabetes Reports - Feeder 1.2

Approximately 23.6 million Americans struggle with diabetes and from that number 90-95% have Type 2 diabetes. The toll diabetes takes on the population each year is enough to make it the sixth leading cause of death. In this article, the researchers explain and run test on ways to come up with more convincing and consistent instruments or measures to relate to ones diabetes level.  More importantly they think that the study, if it’s a success, can improve the self-management steps and become a more effective way to improve glycaemic control which in return controls most problems associated with diabetes. 

In the new ideas of creating or refining the scales which diabetes is now tested with, there are 3 basic methods that need monitoring, self-care agency, self-efficacy, and self-management. This can not be done unless they also provide a valid reliability scale that the American Diabetes Association will acknowledge. As of right now, theses researchers reason the current instruments or methods can be improved and that there is a need for that improvement.

With the backgrounds and ideas already in place the researchers focused on the methods of the study. To complete what they set out to do their first task was the composition of new scales. Basically they took Hurley’s (1988) Insulin Management Diabetes Self-Efficacy Scale and Insulin Management Diabetes Self-Care Scale and updated items on the scales. Along with this new items were also added to increase the complexity and detail of the scales.

The results section seemed to pivot around the word “clarity” and “validity”. I cant say I have read enough academic reports to say if this is common among most articles like this but it seemed uncommonly frequent in this report. What the study did not include but did post was wanting to research is how these scales should be adjusted for non-English speaking individuals as well as individuals around that suffer from Type 2 Diabetes.

The researchers concluded the study was successful as the study constructed three new diabetes specific content validated scales of measure. The new scales are also consistent with the modern ADA standards. This test is not the completion of diabetes work it is more of the groundwork for clinical practice to improve performance of handling diabetes.

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&hid=116&sid=4d8e2c9c-2dd4-48788ae9-64b53b4f5cb2%40sessionmgr114

Unit 1 Project

Say No to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
Testing embryos before implantation for the risk of transmitting a serious genetic disorder is termed preimplantation genetic diagnosis. European countries condone and practice this method, while other countries legally forbid preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The United States have conflicting views about preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The author Alan Handyside of Nature’s article “Let Parents Decide,” believes parents make the decisions for their children’s medical concerns. This article proposes ethical and moral challenges of the highly controversial idea Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis, such as: failure rates resulting in terminating healthy embryos, gender selection resulting in sexism, “designer babies”, and ignoring God’s authority.
The first ethical problem regarding the procedure of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is the termination of embryos. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis creates several embryos in vitro from interested couples (Botkin). Then the embryos develop to a six-ten cell stage; here one embryonic cell is extracted from each of the embryos (Botkin). After the removal, the cellular DNA is observed and analyzed for detections of genetic mutations and chromosomal abnormities. Embryos that do not show any abnormities are transferred to uterus and ones with abnormities or the possibility of developing an abnormity are discarded (Botkin). The problem that researchers run into is discarding possibly infected embryos that are actually healthy embryos. Author Handyside states, “As genome-wide analysis becomes easier and cheaper, clinicians will be able to test embryos for many more chromosomal or single-gene defects.” Obviously he fails to recognize that increasing embryonic testing for more defects will result in more embryos being destroyed, or maybe he just does not care. Some do not consider embryos to be a form of “life” but some maybe even majority of Americans do believe life starts after conception and therefore destroying unused embryos is killing and therefore, morally unjust.
Although the purpose of preimplantation genetic diagnosis was originally to remove chromosomal abnormities found in embryos, some parents use this practice for gender selecting. Gender selection request from preimplantation genetic diagnosis comes from mainly two types of groups; one being those who wish to pick the gender of their first born child and two being those who already have a child and want to pick the gender of the second child, mostly the opposite sex of the first (Robertson). The problems with gender selection for nonmedical reasons are highly controversial when you are talking about destroying embryos. People wanting to select the gender of their first born are almost always wishing to select a male. People want to ensure they have at least one male child to carry on the family name, or prefer a male to perform certain special rituals. This procedure is not only sexism on every level but if we were to allow this method at a larger scale it could result in great disparities in the sex ratio of the population, as has occurred in China and India. Although some people disagree, feminist argue that picking the gender of a child after the first child is sexist (Robertson). It is one thing to wish to have a certain gender if you already have the other gender; however, it is a totally different thing to act against God to ensure you have a child of a certain gender. “Some would argue that any attention to the gender of offspring is inherently sexist, particularly when social attitudes and expectations play such an important role in constructing sex role expectations and behaviours” (Robertson).
What is a “designer baby?” Most identify “designer babies” as those babies whose genetic makeup was artificially selected by parents to ensure the absence or presence of particular desired genes or characteristic traits by genetic engineering (Robertson). Again, the point behind “designer babies” was not the original purpose for preimplantation genetic diagnosis but technology advances and people have changed the purpose to fit their needs. Parents are now able to choose eye color, hair color and other preferred characteristics. How can one view this as acceptable? Nature’s author Alan Handyside argues, “Many people are concerned about 'designer babies', but the scope for selecting embryos with desirable traits beyond common characteristics such as gender, hair or eye colour is constrained by several factors.” Handyside uses the phrase “beyond..characteristics such as gender, hair, or eye colour” as if choosing those characteristics aren’t harmful enough to the child. Creating a “designer baby” creates a perfect manipulated person. This process makes a baby into someone that someone else wants it to be (its parent’s, majority of the time) and not what the baby is meant to be. Parents often want their children to be what society views as pretty or right instead of what they would initially desire or what God views as right for their child.
All of the situations that I have presented above raise religious concerns. Many people strongly believe that God would not approve of humans making and destroying embryos or human life as some would say. Some, if not majority, believe that God is the creator and the destroyer, and therefore, he should be the only one to handle the making and abolishing of life, not scientists. Religious people would also contest that God would not approve of gender selecting. Again, God is the creator and it is his will to decide which gender a couple should have for whatever his reasons, not the parents themselves. As for “designer babies” the same theory applies, God makes individuals different and unique from everyone else for a purpose greater than our understanding. How boring of a world would we live in if we all had the same preferred hair color, or the same preferred eye color?
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis may have been invented for good medical purposes, (even though those aren’t justified) however, people have altered this practice for even more selfish reasons into other practices. Therefore, preimplantation genetic diagnosis should be outlawed and parents should not have the authority to “decide.”

Handyside, Alan.“Let Parent’s Decide.” Nature. (2010). Article: 15. April. 2010. Web. September. 2010.
http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/nature/journal/v464/n7291/full/464978a.html

Robertson, John.“Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate.” Oxford Journals. (2003). Vol 18. 3. 465-417. Web. September. 2010.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/465.full#ref-23

Botkin, Jeffrey. “Ethical Issues and Practical Problems in Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.” HeinOnline. (1998). Web. September. 2010.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/medeth26&div=8&id=&page=

The Controversies surrounding Medically Extending Age Longevity Research

In an age where scientific discoveries seem to be becoming more prevalent every year, what does this mean for human life longevity? Bring into play all the new research and discoveries on various parts of the body made to improve human life. What does the overall benefit of these “improvements” mean for age longevity and lifestyle in an ever changing world? Cable Finch, in a Nature article “secrets to a long life”(1) comments on the situation and likes to point out the negative arguments. Investments into the matter of expanding longevity have begun and should be kept going strong. The link between the medical and research field to the actual benefits of increasing age longevity could create positive effects in more than one area, directly and indirectly.

Finch discusses two books published by writers David Stripp and Jonathan Weiner and the most recent findings in the academic and medical fields of life longevity. Finch does not state his thesis clearly. His reasoning’s throughout the article make him sound unfavorable to the subject and against prolonging life. He states “The ageing process is clearly plastic” and he also mentions The US Alzheimer’s Association and what their future predictions are of the effect the disease will have on people over 65.(1)  Finch argues that previous test done on mice have only been performed in a lab environment. Meaning that even if the same test could be applied to humans Finch is not convinced it would be effective on the biases we live in a world far from the sterile world of lab animals living environments. He is accurate that testing animals in a lab does skew results.  

This is where my opinion differs. I find it an advantage for scientist, researchers and doctors to pursue and generate more studies. Some already have, and come to a different conclusion as Finch. The article “In Pursuit Of the Longevity Divided”(2) bring up counter points to make one question Finch’s arguments. The article mentions “The idea that age-related illnesses are independently influenced by genes and/or behavioral risk factors has been dispelled by evidence that genetic and dietary interventions can retard nearly all late-life diseases in parallel.”(2) If this is future researched and found to be true, think of the possibilities it could have on the cost of health care for the elderly, and that could be just the tip of the iceberg. Later in the article the authors show what research has hinted at that “the belief that aging is an immutable process, programmed by evolution, is now known to be wrong.”(2) Other science research outside of ageing now can come into play. It’s been proven gene altering is capable.

Health care and longer life is one of the fastest growing costs in the US. As people live longer more money, facilities, Doctors, are needed along with other resources. What age longevity research is experimenting with is increasing the “vigor and youthfulness” stages of aging. They might be able to scientifically increase our middle years by correcting the cells in your body that control ageing. Scientist have been able to relate the controlling function of ageing to a handful of genes, and specifically target this cluster. (4) This could potentially have tremendous effects on all way of life.

 Let’s make our own best case scenario. Say that research finds a solution that can increase to middle healthy years of your life. This would cause people to know they are going to live longer. In turn they might want to save more money, increase the number of years they work (boosting work performance), live healthier for longer, these are just to name a few. Also people would be able to function longer and healthier, meaning lower age related health care cost.  The cause and effect are only minor ripples in what could happen in actuality considering research keeps improving and the funding is there.

What does all this mean? So what if you live longer but your quality is affected is the argument some people might make. As in most cases, unfortunately there are always negative factors. What I like to look at in these situations is the weigh the negatives against the positives. In this field of work, unless we use test on actual human beings, there is no effect on the human life. There will need to be no “sacrifice” people. A major problem critics have is the uncertainty of the outcomes. What they tend to forget is the rigorous testing process drugs must past that are set in place by our government. If you want to argue that this “unsafe” drug or research could potentially pass the testing procedures done by independent persons, then don’t you think a drug in the past that is “unsafe” might have already slipped through the process? That could open up problems in the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which can turn out to a different topic all together.     

All in all, more positive effects could come from the continuation and expansion of age longevity research. From what I gather, the good it could do to our society could affect it on a drastic level, from big changes to small everyday habits, this research could impact. So why not test and let the researchers find out results, worst case is they come up with nothing to help slow the ageing process. There is no harm done in that. With benefits outweighing the negatives I see I will support the research for it could lead to a better life for all humans.  

1.       http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7313/full/467274a.html

2.       http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23191/

3.       http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp020186

4.       http://www.aarp.org/health/longevity/info-09-2009/a_handful_of_genes_control_aging_can_we_control_them_.html

The Adaptive Trial in Cancer Research

Cancer is one of the United States’ major public health issues, and investigators have been working hard to find a cure. Researchers are now beginning to focus on active clinical trials, the trial that allows some modifications after it starts. This type is more flexible and less expansive than the traditional one. However, “Time to Adapt,” a Nature article, argues that researchers need to handle this experiment with care; the author claims the adaptive trial requires more time to plan and is less accurate than the traditional trial. As with any new experiment, I agree we should proceed with care, however the potential pitfalls are less severe than the author claims. The Bayesian statistics’ increasing acceptance and the new technology are making the adaptive trial more accessible; in some of the cases, it is even considered less risky than the traditional trial; therefore, the adaptive trial could become the new trend in clinical study.

The advantage of the adaptive clinical trial is its flexibility, which even the author of “Time to adapt” would agree. It allows the researchers to avoid being locked into a single trial and offers them chance to try more alternatives. In the traditional trial, after a protocol is developed, researchers executed it without modification. On one hand, the traditional trial protects the study against sources of bias and inflated alpha (alpha in statistics means the probability of a false-positive error, the error of rejecting a null hypothesis when it is indeed true). On the other hand, if the experiment in the traditional trial proves unsuccessful, the investigators have to drop the entire study since the traditional trial normally does not allow modification after it starts. This is why the adaptive clinical trial would be beneficial. In the adaptive trial, investigators use the data they gathered during the trial to change some aspects of the trial. It saves them a lot of time and money because they could make modifications to the trial instead of stopping it.

Even though the adaptive trial may take longer time to plan than the traditional trial, it still saves the cost. The author of “Time to Adapt” argues that the adaptive trial requires more statistical sophistication and consequently more time to plan. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies may have to change their practice of rewarding the speed in research if they are going to adopt the adaptive clinical trial. However, I think the adaptive would still cost less even if it needs more time to plan because the researchers would not have to drop an entire study if they find if unsuccessful. The sophisticated statistics used to make the investigators stay away from the adaptive trial, but nowadays the development in computers make it much easier to handle these statistics than before. Most importantly, if more researchers start to adopt the adaptive trial, they will have more experience in this kind of trial. It would not take this much time to plan in the future.

One factor that clears the way for the adaptive trial is the growing acceptance of the Bayesian statistical framework, which allows more flexibility than the traditional frequentist framework. The Bayesian statistics are usually computational intense. The recent breakthrough in computational algorithms and computer speed make it possible to compute such complex data. In “Guidance for the Use of Bayesian Statistics in Medical Device Clinical Trials”, the FDA explains the differences between the Bayesian statistics and the traditional statistics. According to the Guidance, “Bayesian statistics is an approach for learning from evidence as it accumulates. In clinical trials, traditional (frequentist) statistical methods may use information from previous only at the design stage...In contrast, the Bayesian approach uses Bayes’ Theorem to formally combine prior information with current information on a quantity of interest. The Bayesian idea is to consider the prior information and the trial results as part of a continual data stream, in which inferences are being updated each time new data become available.” Therefore, the advantage of Bayesian approach is its process of updating knowledge; researchers could update at any time without penalty. This characteristic makes Bayesian statistics more useful for the adaptive trial than the frequentist one does.

Moreover, as the author in “Tools Supporting Adaptive Trials” says, the new technology has made it much easier to conduct an adaptive trial than before. The success of the adaptive trial relies greatly on the real-time data from different resources. In the early days, researchers use fax to transmit the paper-based data. They first manually transcribed the data to a paper case report form (CRF) and then put them together periodically. Such inefficient collection of data had hindered the development of adaptive trial. But now, they use an electronic data capture (EDC) system to assess the data and make it more effective to obtain the real-time data. The researchers can also incorporate the EDC system with the interactive voice response system (IVRS), in which the patients can report the information on the phone.

Though the FDA advises against using an adaptive trial when a traditional one could be used, there are some cases when adaptive trial is less risky than the traditional trial. As the author in “An Assessment of Adaptive” states, “ if the assumptions and available data underlying the design of the traditional study are tenuous, then the risks may be greater for the program than those associated with the study being adaptive. “ When the assumptions in a design is not strong enough, it would be more useful to use the adaptive trial because the investigators will have the chance to explore different solutions.

The FDA also offers advises to solve the problems associated with the adaptive trial. In “Time to Adapt”, the author argues that the adaptive trial might increase the chances of reaching a false-positive conclusion (or Type I error). The FDA Guidance states that, to control the Type I error rate, the researchers can prospectively specify and include in the statistical analytic plan (SAP) all possible adaptations that may be considered during the course of the trial.

The adaptive trial is a great breakthrough in the cancer research area. Like every new finding in science, it has some disadvantages at the beginning stage, but if we put more resources in improving the adaptive trial, it would make great contribution in fighting against cancer in the future.


1. “Time to Adapt”, Nature April 29 2010.
2. “Tools Supporting Adaptive Trials”, by Graham Nicholls, Bill Byrom (2008). Article: ClinPage June 19,2008.
2. “An Assessment of Adaptive”, by Imogene Grimes, Barbara Tardiff.
4. “The Opportunities and Advantages of Using Bayesian Statistics in Clinical Trials”, http://www.tessella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Capability-statement-Bayesian-Statistics-in-Clinical-Trials.pdf
5. “Guidance for the Use of Bayesian Statistics in Medical Device Clinical Trials”,
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071121.pdf
6. “Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical trials for Drugs and Biologics”,
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm201790.pdf

Fertility and IVF Treatment

Fertility and IVF treatments are dramatically changing. Natural birth and adoption are no longer the only ways to have children and build a family. Yes, IVF embryos could quite possibly bring relief to those who suffer from sickness but what can experimentation with human embryos result in; designer babies, cell modification, increased abortion rates? The next thirty years for in vitro fertilization brings about new methods, intriguing possibilities, and passionate controversies that all seem to come from two sides of argument: being pro IVF and anti IVF. IVF treatment should not be legal due to the ethical issues concerning the waste of human embryos, the safety concerns for both parent and child, the stress that comes with fertility treatment and the morality and expansive nature that in vitro fertilization could turn in to.

The author of the Nature article “Making babies: the next 30” , uses pathos to persuade his readers of the benefits of in vitro fertilization. He presents the idea that this form of reproduction hasn’t changed, they are trying to provide people that cannot have children with the opportunity to do so and take away children from the people that don’t want them. In a perfect setting this is the solution to the world’s problems. Readers relate this issue to their friends or family members that have this situation and are sympathetic for them. If anyone of any age is eligible to have a child with in vitro fertilization then what are the increased number of human embryo being used for?

Because the development of this subject is still fairly new, people are interested in the process that in vitro practices. The author of “Making babies: The next 30 years” chooses to make no reference to the way the cells will be made, therefore not speaking to the ethical issues concerning the embryos. In another article “Some moral and ethical issues concerning IVF techniques” the author approaches the ethical issues of IVF treatments from the view of the Catholic Church. While yes, not everyone agrees with the Catholic church they represent the conservative fews of society in a strong manner; new life can be made through in virtro fertilization but many unborn babies are also destroyed in the process. The surplus number of human embryos are sold off and manufactured, not truly considered as a human life. Ethical reasons are a substantial part of the ongoing in vitro fertilization debate. People have a right to support their reasons and opinions through their faith. The article based on the Catholic Church relates the idea of love and marriage back to this topic. For those who base their morality through their faith, God’s intentions for marriage are love and reproduction; IVF treatments don’t sustain this principle.

Advances in technology should also introduce new safety protocol. “Making babies: the next thirty years” emphasizes the fact that new IVF technology can result in artificial placentas, pre genetic diagnosis, increased embryo survival rate, and artificial womb-technology. These advancements can bring great possibilities, but what it doesn’t refer to is the possibility of defectiveness and the safety concerns for both the children and the parents. Is it worth the risks? The author of “Some moral and ethical issues of IVF treatments “illuminates the point that babies born using in vitro fertilization are more likely to be disabled in some form or another. Parents unable to conceive should consider the possibilities of adoption; the IVF process leads to the destruction of human embryos before they find the one that will work and then still, there is the possibility of it being defective. Adoption serves as a way to not only build a family but also further the life of a birthed baby.

Not only is the embryo or child’s health at risk but the parent is also at risk. Some parents worry about the genetic components that could affect their children. These parents result to preimplantation genetic diagnosis where doctors assess the chances that their children will inherit certain traits. How trustworthy is a preimplantation genetic diagnosis? If parents find a specific gene disorder that could negatively affect their child they will work to fix or avoid it. There’s always the possibility that the genetic information isn’t correct and they go to drastic measures to change it. “Making babies: the next thirty years” claims that IVF babies are more susceptible to Beckwith Wiedemann syndrome, but they are unclear about the actual effects. IVF treatments are not taking the safety precautions that they should. They simply brush over the idea and don’t even consider the long term effects of IVF children. Safety concerns are a legitimate reason why IVF treatment should not be legal.

Activists of IVF treatment view this technology as a solution to provide children for those that wish to have them. They do not account for the stress, the possible failure and the tension that can be put on the family by IVF. IVF treatment enforces the question of pro-choice. In the article “A new debate over in vitro” a doctor states that after a women goes through the in vitro process they hope to build families but if the women wishes to terminate the baby its solely her decision. Not only does IVF take more effort to produce a baby than the natural way, it is expensive and can possibly destroy many embryos before making just one. The topic of pro choice also introduces the thoughts on abortion. While abortion by a normal pregnancy is a highly debated topic, abortion after in vitro should not even be a practical option. In vitro is a planned pregnancy made with real embryo that shouldn’t be thrown away like a typical science project. Irrational decisions after beginning the in vitro fertilization process is one of the many reasons IVF treatments cannot be properly managed. It is understandable that the stress of in vitro fertilization can be overwhelming but it is already suggested that whoever choices to do so should have proper counseling for the emotional aspects of the pregnancy. Too many people embark on the journey of fertility treatment before they realize the financial, emotional and physical aspect. The more popular IVF becomes the larger possibility for increased abortion rates. The author states “Because in the end, terminating fertility treatment or terminating a relationship may prove less traumatic than terminating a pregnancy (A new debate over in vitro).”

Along with ethical, practical and safety concerns, IVF treatment opens doors for new opportunities for technology to expand. IVF supporters seem to forget the extent in which an artificial process can be taken. Will cloning become legal in order to “cure illnesses?” Will people begin to develop designer babies eliminating the diversity in the world? Without proper regulation no one knows the extent of IVF. The Catholic Church does not agree with human cloning and realizes that it may be only a matter of time before testing changes from animals to humans. Not only does IVF treatment bring uncertainty in the future it is also morally wrong. The act of having a baby should be morally sound. IVF treatment goes against the nature aspect of reproducing as well as increasing the chance of sickness and disease among these babies.

The controversial topic of in vitro fertilization needs legitimate reasons to be rightfully justified. IVF activists have manipulated our thoughts on in vitro fertilization seemingly forgetting to mention the important risks, and disapprovals that the topic encompasses. The surplus and destructive nature of human embryo discredits the possibility of everyone’ s ability to have children. The faith that stands behind the natural way of reproduction and the potential long-term harmful effects on IVF children seize the positives of the process. Choosing the path of this technology in order to have a baby and then aborting it reveals the immoral aspect of IVF treatment. IVF treatment should be illegal, there is no way to actively control its rights and maintain an ethical standard.


Pearson, Helen. "Making Babies: the next 30 Years." Nature. 16 July 2008. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. .
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080716/full/454260a.html

"Some Moral and Ethical Issues concerning IVF Techniques « Brendakaren's Weblog." Brendakaren's Weblog. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.
.

"Some Moral and Ethical Issues concerning IVF Techniques « Brendakaren's Weblog." Brendakaren's Weblog. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/arguments-for-and-against-the-designer-baby-541283.html

H1N1 Vaccine: Disease Curer or Silent Killer

Imagine a newborn baby girl and the joy that comes with a new life present in your own. She is beautiful, sweet, and playful. After her doctor’s visit for her first shots, she begins to become ill. Surprisingly, the nurse has given her the H1N1 vaccine with her other routine shots, without your consent. The illness grows worse, and your new baby girl is permanently hospitalized after not long after she is born. This true-story results from the swine flu vaccine. The H1N1 treatment has serious side-effects that are not well-known or advertised due to the need for a treatment for the swine flu pandemic. A recent article in Nature, “Vaccinate Before the Next Pandemic,” states, “Pre-pandemic immunization with a cocktail of likely strains could be a cheap, practical and equitable way to protect people against influenza” (Nature 1). There are aspects of this article of which many, including myself, disagree. Many people, including me, disagree with aspects of this article. I believe because of limited knowledge of the virus strain, cost, and many health risks, the H1N1 vaccine is considered unsafe; there are other preventative measures that can be taken to protect Americans from the swine flu.

The article in Nature argues that everyone needs to be pre-vaccinated against the H1N1 virus this flu season (1). “This could limit the spread of the virus in the early stages of a pandemic and significantly reduce the peak demand for vaccine,” states the article. (1) This initially sounds like a good plan, however there are many controversial issues facing pre-vaccination for the H1N1 virus, some of which include the lack of knowledge of the virus strain and the vaccine’s high cost. Although there is only one H1N1 virus, there are many different strains of the virus that affect the population from year to year (Blaylock 1). Because of this, there is no way possible to predict which strain of the virus will plague the world this flu season. The article answers this concern by proposing a “cocktail” of virus strains to be included in the vaccine (Nature 1). However, this method of protection would prove to be very costly and time consuming and is not guaranteed (Ahrcanum 1).

Spending money on a medical treatment that has yet to materialize is politically difficult and requires strong justification. As always, taxpayers are footing the $1.5 billion check for the 250 million swine flu vaccines that the government has ordered (1). This is over $600 per individual for a shot that is being distributed freely to those at high risk (1)! Still, over 18% of those who wish to take the vaccine are denied treatment (1). Another issue is time. Integrating pre-pandemic immunization into existing immunization programs around the world would take several years (Nature 1). Who is to say whether the swine flu will be an issue at that time, or that another pandemic of a different virus will not have broken out? The thought of pre-vaccination varies too much on which to spend this much money and time. There are alternative ways to protect against the H1N1 virus that are more cost and time effective, in addition to having fewer health risks that will be discussed.

“Even scientists who helped develop the vaccine for smallpox are saying they’re not going to take the vaccine and are urging their friends and family not to take the vaccine either,” (Undetheradarmedia 1). This is the statement made by RT investigator Wayne Madsen concerning the swine flu and its controversial cure. The safety of this treatment is a concern to some, but the number is small. Many people believe that because the vaccine is recommended, its benefits outweigh its risks; the swine flu vaccine is not one of those treatments (Blaylock 1). There are two ingredients in the serum that have devastating side effects: an adjuvant called Squalene and another chemical, Thimerosal (1).

Adjuvants are used to boost an immune response (1). Squalene is used as an adjuvant in the H1N1 vaccine and is also the drug associated with the Gulf War illness (1). This adjuvant has been proven to cause crippling arthritis and premature death in almost 100% of lab animals (1). Those who have taken the vaccine are already reaping the side effects as the drugs slowly maim and eventually kill its consumer (2). Those who take the vaccine will be protected from the swine flu, however they can expect to have many more issues to face in taking this vaccine (1).

Thimerosal is another chemical used in the shot; it is composed of approximately 49% ethylmercury (Undertheradarmedia 1). The mercury in half of this vaccine has been proven to cause autism in children and Guillain-Barré syndrome (1). Children are at high risk for contracting H1N1, and therefore are number one on the list of recipients for the vaccine (Mayoclinic 1). Since the vaccine contains a substance that is outlawed in children’s routine vaccines, why are they the first on the list for an autism-causing treatment?

Because of the high risk of the H1N1 vaccine, different preventative measures need to be taken. Taking vitamin D3 supplements is one of the best preventative measures for any virus, especially the swine flu (Madrid 1). Researchers knowledge of the power of vitamin D has evolved dramatically over the years (1). It was once known as a simple vitamin, but it is now known to be a steroid hormone that directly affects over 2,000 genes in the body (1). Studies show that those with higher vitamin D blood levels are less likely to contract influenza (1). This is why flu season occurs in the winter and early spring, when vitamin D levels are at their lowest due to lack of sunlight. Not only is vitamin D useful in preventing H1N1 and other types of viruses and bacteria, but it is also a preventative against cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and other chronic diseases (1).

Another preventative measure that is also applicable to many other areas of life is having a balanced diet. A good diet and healthy lifestyle can help boost the immune system and leave us better able to cope with infections, especially at times of epidemics such as the swine flu (Wilkinson 1). Because viruses prefer dry environments, it is essential to stay hydrated (1). It is also important to eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables for anti-oxidant protection (1). Essential fats also play a key role in protecting the cell and cell membrane (1). A balanced diet is essential to leading a healthy lifestyle and is of utmost importance to boost the immune system and prevent against viruses such as the swine flu.

Although listening to doctors and health professionals about taking certain treatments is generally wise, you must also remember that medicine is a practice. New drugs are developed with best interest in mind, however when pandemics such as the H1N1 virus are plaguing the country, doctors must attempt to develop a cure as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is what happened with the swine flu vaccine; the risks far outweigh the benefits of taking this vaccine. It has side-effects that can cause autism in children, crippling arthritis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and premature death (Blaylock 1). By taking vitamin D3 supplements (Madrid 1) and eating a balanced diet (Wilkinson 1), you can greatly reduce the chances of contracting an illness, such as the H1N1 virus. It is imperative to keep in mind that once the vaccine is injected, there is little that can be done to reverse the effects.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/465161a.html
http://www.pandemicfluonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/BlaylockArticle_IO.pdf
http://undertheradarmedia.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/vaccine-manufacturers-refuse-to-take-h1n1-vaccine/
http://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/flu-shot-cost-taxpayers-600-each/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/swine-flu-vaccine/MY00816/?utm_source=Highlights&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HouseCall&pubDate=September%2027,%202010
http://vitamind-prescription.com/2009/04/26/swine-flu-prevention-and-treatment-can-vitamin-d-help/
http://www.suite101.com/content/swine-flu-immune-strengthening-through-diet-a135945