MIMS Leading AAN/INN Harmonisation

In its next data release, MIMS Australia will be including, for the first time, INN (International Non-proprietary Names) as well as Australian Approved Names (AANs) as part of its push to support a recent Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) project.  In 2015, the TGA announced a 4 year plan to harmonise AANs to INNs to facilitate the clear identification and subsequent use of medicines.  The overall aim is to promote patient safety by eliminating major differences between AAN and INNs.

MIMS is the largest distributor of medicines information in Australia and plays an important role in implementing initiatives that improve the safe use of medicines.  In their approach to this issue, MIMS has decided to address the most clinically important name changes first and as such, in the July data release, MIMS users will find that adrenaline and noradrenaline will now include their associated INNs, epinephrine and norepinephrine.

Further changes will be rolled out over the next few months.  For users of MIMS products, including the over 80 partners that use MIMS integrated clinical data, they will be able to access these changes as part of their ongoing subscription.  This means that clinicians using a system that has access to MIMS, will find they have seamless access to these changes.

Finally, a common concern from clinicians is whether changes such as these affect patient histories and medical records.  The approach to implementation taken by MIMS has been designed to ensure that the patient history and searches saved in history will be unaffected by these changes.

WHO Vision for Future Health Care Resonates with HAP Policy

According to the AMA website and an opinion piece in The Medical Journal of Australia, the health policies of the Health Australia Party are “dangerous” for health care in this country. Contrast this with the recommendations from the eminent and prestigious World Health Organization (WHO), which resonate strongly with HAP policies. In their recent 76-page global strategy paper for Traditional and Complementary Medicine (T&CM) entitled WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014-2023, the WHO writes (we have added italics for emphasis): 

“T&CM is an important and often underestimated part of health care. T&CM is found in almost every country in the world and the demand for its services is increasing. TM, of proven quality, safety, and efficacy, contributes to the goal of ensuring that all people have access to care. Many countries now recognize the need to develop a cohesive and integrative approach to health care that allows governments, health care practitioners and, most importantly, those who use health care services, to access T&CM in a safe, respectful, cost-efficient and effective manner. A global strategy to foster its appropriate integration, regulation and supervision will be useful to countries wishing to develop a proactive policy towards this important – and often vibrant and expanding – part of health care.” 

The WHO then goes on to recommend 5 key strategic actions for member states (which of course includes Australia). These are as follows:

1. Acknowledge the role and diversity of T&CM within their health care system.Define the scope of the sector through the use of data identifying the number of people using specific forms of T&CM, their reasons for using it, the most popular (important) forms, whether use follows advice from a health professional, and whether health care professionals know about patients’ use of T&CM.
2. Implement and integrate T&CM policies and programmes as integral components of their national health system, where appropriate.
3. Foster communication and partnership between stakeholders.
4. Prioritize and determine actions to be taken in line with national priorities, capabilities, etc.

Compare these extracts from the WHO strategy paper with current HAP policy:

    (a) Recognise that a broad, integrative approach to health care is required based on what is best for patients and free from corporate or personal vested interests.

    (b) Support a national system of health care which encourages collaboration between general practitioners, specialists, allied health professionals and natural health care practitioners.

    (c) Recognise that the present epidemic of chronic diseases in Australia needs to be managed using a different paradigm which includes natural medicine…

    (d) Fund methodically appropriate, objective, independent research into all aspects of natural and pharmaceutical medicine to reliably inform citizens and political leaders of the relative proven costs and benefits to the community.

The similarities between HAP policy and the WHO strategy are striking! The dinosaurs in Australian health care should take heed of the WHO, which is clearly not shackled by vested interests and outdated policies in its approach to natural therapies.

Health Australia Party
26th June, 2016

 

ACCC issues public warning about conduct of Australian Business Funding Centre Pty Ltd’s “Government grants” website targeting small businesses

Read more

 

Vactruth 26 June 2016

Acetaminophen: A Catalyst to Autism

In 2005, I was told to consider “out-of-home placement” for my son David. He was four years old and had been diagnosed with “worst-case-scenario for autism” by specialists. He was violent, self-injurious and had a tendency to wander.

The recommendation for out-of-home placement inspired me to schedule a Pharmacology Clinic where a team of child experts would meet with me to discuss behavior meds. In preparation for the Pharmacology Clinic, I was asked to put my son’s medical file in chronological order.

In doing so, I noticed a distinct regression after his MMR vaccine. The regression included a loss of language, eye contact and marked the onset of violent behavior. His pediatrician eventually conceded and admitted that vaccines had in fact triggered David’s autism.

Acetaminophen and Vaccination

My desire to understand why my son regressed into autism following the MMR vaccine has led me to read more books, journals and articles than I can recall. I’ve read so much, in fact, it all seems to be blurred together with the exception of one critically important piece of information: the country of Cuba is 99 percent vaccinated and has almost 300 percent less autism than the U.S. Why is this?

The answer is actually quite simple. Cuban children receive fewer vaccines than American children. Cuba manufactures many of the vaccines their children receive and they have higher safety standards than the U.S. They have limited exposure to genetically modified foods (GMOs) and do not allow the sale of acetaminophen over the counter. [1]

From what I can gather, Cuban children receive 37 vaccines by age 18 while American children receive 69 vaccines (soon to be 72) by age 18. Cuba also has more rigorous safety standards for vaccines than the U.S. In 2003-2004 Cuba began manufacturing their own diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTwP) vaccine because the imported batches did not meet their safety standards.

On one hand, Cuba’s low autism rates can be attributed to a higher quality of vaccines and on the other hand, maybe it’s even simpler than that. Maybe, just maybe, it’s the use of acetaminophen at the time of vaccination in the U.S.

 Glutathione Levels Impaired

Acetaminophen is found in commonly used products like Tylenol and Nyquil and seems to be a harmless painkiller. However, when you look closely at acetaminophen, it becomes abundantly clear why Cuba does not allow this product to be sold over the counter.

Acetaminophen hinders the production of glutathione. Glutathione is an antioxidant. In short, it helps the body detox and is necessary for proper immune system function. If acetaminophen hinders the production of glutathione, then it also hinders the body’s ability to excrete toxic ingredients found in vaccines, such as formaldehyde, cellular DNA, MRC-5 human diploid cells, aluminum, thimerosal, acetone, etc. [2]

In the U.S., we routinely give our children Tylenol or another pain reliever containing acetaminophen before or after they are vaccinated. By nature, acetaminophen hinders the production of glutathione and creates a perfect storm for permanent and disabling vaccine injury. Without adequate glutathione levels, the body simply cannot excrete the toxins in vaccines.

In theory, if a person is exposed to these harmful toxins, the body will excrete them before they can cause cellular damage. However, when acetaminophen is introduced, the body can only excrete about ten percent of toxins. Toxin excretion is dependent upon optimal glutathione levels. If glutathione production is lowered, the body cannot rid itself of toxins and an onslaught of injury can occur.

Conclusion
Autism rates in the U.S. have reached epidemic proportions. One in 36 boys now has some form of autism. Autism rates have increased exponentially since the increase in the vaccine schedule set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The increase in the number of childhood vaccines coincides with the 1986 ruling, exempting vaccine manufacturers from liability. If we have increased the number of vaccines a child receives, we have, in turn, increased the number of toxins a child is exposed to. [3]

If we have increased the toxic burden on our children, we need to take a critical look at acetaminophen and its role in detoxification. If the MMR vaccine is triggering autism in children, then we need to take a closer look at our manufacturing process, GMOs, the safety of vaccine ingredients and the potentially harmful role of acetaminophen at the time of vaccination.

There is a root cause for the autism epidemic and while the increased vaccine schedule may be a causal factor, acetaminophen is certainly a catalyst to vaccine injury. [4]

References

http://mediccreview.medicc.org/articles/mr_56.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

http://morganverkamp.com/statement-of-william-w-thompson…

Correcting the Information Provided by John Cunningham in the Vaccination Debate
by Dr Judy Wilyman PhD

On my website I have invited medical practitioners and other health professionals to debate the information that I am providing on Australia’s vaccination policies. John Cunningham decided to take up this offer in February/March 2014.
He is a leader of the Stop the Australian VaccinationNetwork (SAVN) lobby group and a medical practitioner.
When responding to my request he chose to send his opinions in emails to members of the public, including UOW academics involved with my research and journalists. This occurred whilst I was a student at the University of Wollongong (UOW).

Here are the corrections to the information he provided to members of the public in 2014. I have provided Cunningham’s statements in bold with the corrected information below:

1) John Cunningham (2 February 2014):
‘You claim “the Australian media has stated they will not publish information on health if it is not presented by a “medical practitioner.” A single journalist made this statement after an online conversation with you. An off-the-cuff remark made in this context hardly represents the views of the Australian media as a whole; 

My Reply:
The statement I made about the Australian media was with respect to the research I am presenting on health and it was not based on a comment from a single journalist. Several journalists have stated they will not publish the other side of the vaccination debate and this includes Jonathon Holmes (ABC Media Watch), Janet Albrechtsen (News Ltd and ABC editorial board), Caroline Marcus (News Ltd), and Sarrah Le Maurquand (News Ltd). Reasons journalists have given for refusing to publish the medical literature I am presenting include their belief that this is a ‘conspiracy theory’ or the claim that I am not a ‘medico or scientist’. Other journalists such as Rick Morton (and more recently Emily Laurence and Kylar Loussikian), are presenting biased articles that give more credibility to comments from lobby group blogs than to the academic information I am providing.

Further, journalists do not interview me for these biased stories and they provide their own interpretations of my research. In January 2013 I complained to the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) about the biased reporting of the medical literature in the Australian media and the ACMA upheld journalist’s right to not present the medical literature on the risks of vaccines. The ACMA claimed that presenting this medical literature would provide ‘false balance’. The argument of ‘false balance’ may be appropriate after there is a consensus by the stakeholders on the risks involved in a procedure but it should not be used to suppress scientific information from the debate. This is essential because the perception of risk in a procedure will vary according to a person’s interest in the procedure. For example, an assessment of risk for a drug will vary between the manufacturer who produces and profits from the drug and the consumer whose health depends upon the drug. This is why ‘false balance’ shouldn’t be used to justify the suppression of the risks of vaccines in the vaccination debate and doing so is contrary to an evidence-based medical procedure or policy. 

Here is the documented evidence of a plausible link between vaccines and autism and this evidence needs to be presented to the public for debate. Policies or procedures based on science require transparency and scrutiny of the science by all stakeholders. Without this scrutiny, vaccination is being accepted by the public as a ‘belief’ system and not an ‘evidence-based’ system. Good science will stand up to scrutiny from all stakeholders yet Australian journalists are being encouraged and protected by lobby groups and the ACMA to suppress medical literature that is demonstrating the danger of Australia’s national immunisation program (NIP).

For more corrections of the comments made by John Cunningham, please click here.

Dr. Judy Wilyman
Science and Politics of Australia’s Vaccination Policies
www.vaccinationdecisions.net