Mendel
Senior Member.
The JSVRC is the group Masanori Fukushima speaks for.
Gundry (with the PULS score) is from California; does he have ties with JSVRC?
Need debunking: Japanese researchers claim thousands of paper on vaccine side effects
- Thread starter Jasondebunker
- Start date
Gundry (with the PULS score) is from California; does he have ties with JSVRC?
Nicole Schnaß
New Member
This report clearly speaks against the claim of possible increases in heart disease in Japan after the booster vaccination.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00203-1/fulltext
"
There were 39 and 18 confirmed cases of myocarditis and pericarditis for any Pfizer booster doses (including monovalent and bivalent vaccines), respectively. There were no confirmed cases of myocarditis and pericarditis for the Moderna bivalent vaccines, whereas there were 24 and 13 confirmed cases for any Moderna booster doses, respectively. The reporting rates of myocarditis according to age and sex are presented in Appendix pp 10−12. The reporting rates of anaphylaxis by age and sex are presented in Appendix pp 13−15. Regarding death, the number of deduplicated reports from healthcare professionals and MAH was 6 and 82 for Pfizer vaccines for Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, respectively, whereas there were 305 reports for any Pfizer booster doses. There were 5 and 1 reports for Moderna bivalent vaccines for Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, respectively, whereas there were 137 reports for any Moderna booster doses. The reporting rates of death by number of doses are presented in Appendix p 16. None of the cases were confirmed by experts as having a suggested causal relationship between vaccination and death, except for 1 case (woman aged 42 years) with the Pfizer vaccine for BA.4/BA.5.
For infants and young children, as of 12 March 2023, among the 369,270 doses administered (163,978 as the 1st, 144,268 as the 2nd, and 61,024 as the 3rd dose) of Pfizer monovalent vaccines, there were 6 (5 [0.0030%], 0, and 1 [0.0016%], respectively) reports from healthcare professionals and 16 (12 [0.0073%], 4 [0.0028%], and 0, respectively) from MAH. The details are presented in Appendix pp 17−18; no cases of strongly suspected myocarditis/pericarditis were reported.
In summary, the reporting rates of serious adverse events (including myocarditis/pericarditis, anaphylaxis, and death) associated with bivalent vaccines for Omicron variants were generally not higher than those for any booster doses (including monovalent and bivalent vaccines). In addition, the reporting rate of serious adverse events was low in children aged 6 months to 4 years, which is in line with reports in the US."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00203-1/fulltext
"
There were 39 and 18 confirmed cases of myocarditis and pericarditis for any Pfizer booster doses (including monovalent and bivalent vaccines), respectively. There were no confirmed cases of myocarditis and pericarditis for the Moderna bivalent vaccines, whereas there were 24 and 13 confirmed cases for any Moderna booster doses, respectively. The reporting rates of myocarditis according to age and sex are presented in Appendix pp 10−12. The reporting rates of anaphylaxis by age and sex are presented in Appendix pp 13−15. Regarding death, the number of deduplicated reports from healthcare professionals and MAH was 6 and 82 for Pfizer vaccines for Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, respectively, whereas there were 305 reports for any Pfizer booster doses. There were 5 and 1 reports for Moderna bivalent vaccines for Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, respectively, whereas there were 137 reports for any Moderna booster doses. The reporting rates of death by number of doses are presented in Appendix p 16. None of the cases were confirmed by experts as having a suggested causal relationship between vaccination and death, except for 1 case (woman aged 42 years) with the Pfizer vaccine for BA.4/BA.5.
For infants and young children, as of 12 March 2023, among the 369,270 doses administered (163,978 as the 1st, 144,268 as the 2nd, and 61,024 as the 3rd dose) of Pfizer monovalent vaccines, there were 6 (5 [0.0030%], 0, and 1 [0.0016%], respectively) reports from healthcare professionals and 16 (12 [0.0073%], 4 [0.0028%], and 0, respectively) from MAH. The details are presented in Appendix pp 17−18; no cases of strongly suspected myocarditis/pericarditis were reported.
In summary, the reporting rates of serious adverse events (including myocarditis/pericarditis, anaphylaxis, and death) associated with bivalent vaccines for Omicron variants were generally not higher than those for any booster doses (including monovalent and bivalent vaccines). In addition, the reporting rate of serious adverse events was low in children aged 6 months to 4 years, which is in line with reports in the US."
Ann K
Senior Member.
There is a society using that name:
https://restorativemedicine.org/about-us/The Association for the Advancement of Restorative Medicine (AARM) is a non-profit medical association which supports cross-disciplinary learning and collaboration in the use of herbal, nutritional, and hormone medicines. AARM’s focus is on providing medical education about endocrine system disorders, with an emphasis on therapeutic approaches for treating hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, adrenal dysfunction, and dysglycemia, as well as male and female hormonal imbalances. We also provide protocols and scientific information to physicians for using Restorative Medicine to treat chronic diseases, including digestive, respiratory, nervous, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and autoimmune diseases.
.......
AARM is empowering physicians to more effectively treat their patients and build their practices through the use of herbal, nutritional, and natural hormone medicines.
"Herbal" and "nutritional" are red flags for me that make this sound more like a way to sell supplements than a legitimate medical group.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I'm left wondering if the "natural hormone" will be drenchrom, just to complete some kind of messed up loop!
Mendel
Senior Member.
it's at least woo-adjacent
Sounds like a more expensive form of wellness.Article: What is Restorative Medicine?
Restorative medicine is an umbrella term that encompasses all fields of medicine that work with the body's physiology and innate ability to heal in order to restore function and help prevent and treat diseases. These therapies may include dietary changes, lifestyle modifications, herbal treatment, supplements, acupuncture, manual manipulation, mindfulness, and more.
Placed explicitly as alternative medicine.Article: Conventional medicine focuses on isolated “symptoms” and “diseases”, through an ever-widening array of specialty drugs and specialist doctors.
Restorative Medicine balances and optimizes overall body chemistry using bioidentical hormones, vitamins, minerals, herbal extracts, probiotics, ‘superfoods’, etc. It is a natural way of returning your physiology to its proper state so that your body can heal itself.
Article: The Journal of Restorative Medicine (JRM) features peer-reviewed articles in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies and integrative medicine for promoting practical clinical skills in endocrinology and chronic disease. The primary focus of the journal is to feature evidence based articles for clinicians on integrative therapeutic interventions and research reviews on nutrients, diet, botanical medicines, and hormones.
So let's look at the "evidence-based" articles in the current issue (excerpts):
Article: We studied the effect of a dietary supplement on blood glucose. This prospective, single-arm, unblinded clinical interventional study [...] [note: no controls, no blinding = placebo effect?]
These case reports discuss two middle-aged patients with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection that improved swiftly upon receiving orthomolecular oral and intravenous therapy. The intravenous solution provided minerals like magnesium, as well as vitamin C and B complex vitamins, among others. The patients also started iodine-based nasopharyngeal decontamination spray and oral supplements, including substantial doses of vitamins C, B complex, and D, as well as magnesium, zinc, quercetin, melatonin, and omega-3. [..] [note: anecdotal evidence]
[...] This review summarizes the evidence regarding the effects of CBD as a non-toxic adjuvant in cancer care. [note: might have merit]
We propose the concept of the net micronutrient balance value (NMBV), which refers to the actual micronutrient content of the food product minus the portion not absorbed and the amount depleted in metabolic processes due to additives, contaminants, medication, and faulty metabolism. [note: not related to medical outcomes, feels sketchy, sales pitch incoming]
So, yeah.
These vaccine-opposing doctors definitely make money when their audience is put off "conventional medicine" and onto the nutritional supplements they're selling. It's a lucrative business, just ask Alex Jones and Joe Rogan!
(Eat fresh fruit and vegetables!)
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
The phrase "orthomolecular medicine" was new to me, so I looked it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicineThe notions behind orthomolecular medicine are not supported by sound medical evidence, and the therapy is not effective for chronic disease prevention;[6][7] even the validity of calling the orthomolecular approach a form of medicine has been questioned since the 1970s.[8]
Nicole Schnaß
New Member
I personally discovered a case where alternative medicine actually torpedoed a clearly defined therapy. One resident only took her alternative medicine with cow's milk. Previously, I was wondering why, despite therapy with levodopa, she suddenly noticed the typical Parkinson's tremors again, small steps when walking and difficulty swallowing. The fact that dairy products neutralize the effect of antiparkinsonian medications is just a matter of specialist knowledge. So I was able to convey that in the future she would only take her alternative medicine with water and document that the preparation was not even considered a medication. Since they do not require a prescription, are freely available for purchase on the Internet, but could certainly interact with real medications, these nutritional supplements are a real problem.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Yeah, never heard of it!
Oh. Him. Yeah, he should have quit while he was up.Original proponents Linus Pauling (coined term)
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_PaulingIn 1965, Pauling read Niacin Therapy in Psychiatry by Abram Hoffer and theorized vitamins might have important biochemical effects unrelated to their prevention of associated deficiency diseases.[131] In 1968, Pauling published a brief paper in Science entitled "Orthomolecular psychiatry",[132] giving a name to the popular but controversial megavitamin therapy movement of the 1970s, and advocating that "orthomolecular therapy, the provision for the individual person of the optimum concentrations of important normal constituents of the brain, may be the preferred treatment for many mentally ill patients." Pauling coined the term "orthomolecular" to refer to the practice of varying the concentration of substances normally present in the body to prevent and treat disease. His ideas formed the basis of orthomolecular medicine, which is not generally practiced by conventional medical professionals and has been strongly criticized.[133][134]
Never heard of Hoffer, snuffle, snuffle...
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_HofferIn 1967, Hoffer resigned some of his academic and administrative positions, entered into private psychiatric practice in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and created the Journal of Schizophrenia (renamed the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine in 1986). Hoffer used the journal to publish articles on what he called "nutritional psychiatry", later orthomolecular psychiatry, claiming his ideas were consistently rejected by mainstream journals because they were unacceptable to the medical establishment.[12]
But I can't leave it at that. Just for you and my fellow droogs, here's the end of the prior paragraph:
I *swear* I didn't know that connection when I made my prediction earlier.Hoffer thought niacin could be used as a methyl acceptor to prevent the conversion of noradrenaline into adrenaline and that Vitamin C could be used to prevent the oxidation of Adrenaline to Adrenochrome.[11] Hoffer called his theory the "adrenochrome hypothesis".
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
From there it's a relatively straight line (via Hunter S. Thompson) to QAnon and pizzagate:
Article: Drs. Hoffer and Osmond reported successful treatment of schizophrenics with megadoses of niacin and vitamin C, but a number of follow-up studies by others failed to confirm any benefit. The Adrenochrome Hypothesis faded into the background, but the reputed hallucinogenic effect of adrenochrome probably stimulated Hunter Thompson to include the drug in his novel. [..]
The stage was now set for QAnon’s perverse fabricated tale that a pedophile ring of Democratic politicians and Hollywood celebrities is engaged in satanic sacrifices culminating in slurping the blood of massacred children. [..]
Adrenochrome, which has no rejuvenating effects, and very questionable psychedelic properties, would have long faded into obscurity had it not been rejuvenated by the QAnon twaddle.
Gaspa
Member
My one year-old just got Covid. We are all currently infected in my household, myself, the wife and the son.
We didn't vaccinate him because all the doctors we talked with told us it to wait a little longer, most of our friends with young kids had not vaccinated either, some of them had already been infected and their kids only had very mild symptoms. And, oh boy, how we regret not having done it now!
He is going to be fine, but it wasn't a mild infection. He had very high fever on Saturday (Feb 17th) and we took him to the ER because we were unable to lower his 40+°C fever with just our regular pediatric medication and cold baths, and he needed intravenous medication. By Monday the fever was gone but then on Wednesday he had high (39,9ºC) fever again and, let me tell you, this wasn't supposed to happen, so it scared the hell out of us. It lowered soon enough with medication, so no ER this time. But he has suffered body pains, terrible coughing, and we have been loading him with all sorts of medications. Yesterday we started with antibiotics because his chest X-ray showed an infection and, although we're don't think it's pneumonia, we're not taking any chances. It has been hell.
You know what I think happened? There are so many antivaxxers around us now, that some reasonable people gave a little ground to them. You know, just so we can say "Maybe we can agree on something! Yes, vaccinating babies? Maybe the evidence is not in yet for that. See? I'm not that bad!" and keep the friendship. What's the name of the fallacy again? False middle ground? Something like that.
If I had vaccinated my son, he might have had a little fever from the vaccination, maybe a little body pain for a day, but we would not have been worried. And when he got infected, it would most likely not have been 1/10th as bad. So, a lesson learned is: never give ground to anti-vaxxers. Not an inch.
Mendel
Senior Member.
What happened was bad luck.
Statistically, Covid severity and outcome varies greatly with age. For the strains we know, what happened to your son was very rare. And that changes how decisions are made.
Would you pay $5 to win $100 if the chance was 10%? Of course!
Would you pay $5 to win $100 if the chance was 2%? Probably not.
So it's a no-brainer to vaccinate older people because a lot of them are going to die if unvaccinated and infected. The occasional adverse reaction and small chance of long-term problems from the vaccination are far outweighed by the benefit.
But for children, that chance (win the main prize=avoid a severe Covid infection) is a lot smaller, so the decision is made on different numbers and, yes, on different evidence. That's just how the process works.
The disease is new, the vaccine is new, the data's not there yet, and there's a chance that when it's there, the advice would still be the same. Your choice was rational, your son just had bad luck.
Ann K
Senior Member.
My grandson got Covid, in spite of being vaccinated. He got his shots earlier than most teenagers because he was considered high risk, due to a heart problem at birth, but he was still sick enough to be miserable. I'm so glad your child is on the mend, but at his age it probably was not anticipated that he was at risk. But now you know, and his physician should know enough to keep a close eye on him from now on.
Here's wishing him many long, healthy years to come!
Gaspa
Member
He wasn't at a high risk of death or anything severe, but I would rather not have gone through what we're going through now.
Gaspa
Member
And the odds would have been much better if I had vaccinated him. The disease and the vaccine are still "new", but literally billions of people have been vaccinated several times for years, and also billions of people have been infected. The data is in. We know enough. Vaccinate.
Gaspa
Member
And thanks for your you kind wishes! All the best for your family as well!
Get well soon, lil Gaspa.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Let's look at the recommendations in various countries.
USA
CDC
Article: During December 2022–April 2023, FDA amended multiple authorizations for bivalent mRNA vaccines for children aged 6 months–5 years. During this period, CDC updated recommendations, with input from ACIP, for children in this age group for use of bivalent doses based on a child’s vaccination history (Table).
Article: On September 12, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended vaccination with updated COVID-19 vaccines for all persons aged ≥6 months.
AAP
Article: Date: 5/3/23
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends COVID-19 vaccination for all children and adolescents 6 months of age and older who do not have contraindications using a vaccine authorized for use for their age.
UK
Article: COVID-19 vaccination of children aged 6 months to 4 years: JCVI advice, 9 December 2022 (updated 26 April 2023)
Updated 3 May 2023
Regarding children aged 6 months to 4 years, JCVI advises that:
children aged 6 months to 4 years in a clinical risk group (as defined in the Green Book) should be offered two 3-microgram doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty®) with an interval of at least 8 weeks between the first and second doses
further advice regarding a potential third 3-microgram dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine will be issued in due course; for children who are immunosuppressed and are eligible for a third primary dose, please refer to the Green Book for more details
JCVI does not currently advise COVID-19 vaccination of children aged 6 months to 4 years who are not in a clinical risk group
Australia
I had trouble finding current information. I saw a 2022 recommendation that did not include small children, but could not find age restriction in their current handbook.
Germany
https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/Vaccination/recommandations/recommendations_node.html links to
That's similar to the UK.Article: 
WHO
Article: SAGE updates COVID-19 vaccination guidance
28 March 2023
The low priority group includes healthy children and adolescents aged 6 months to 17 years. Primary and booster doses are safe and effective in children and adolescents. However, considering the low burden of disease, SAGE urges countries considering vaccination of this age group to base their decisions on contextual factors, such as the disease burden, cost effectiveness, and other health or programmatic priorities and opportunity costs.
This looks like (some of) these vaccines are generally considered safe for small children; but also that the risk of severe disease in healthy children is so low that vaccinating all of them may not be worth it.
If you live in the UK, your physician would have followed the official recommendations.
None of this is about compromising with anti-vaxxers. For a more in-depth reasoning, have a look at my UK source.
captancourgette
Active Member
Yes, my anecdote (so a little bit of noise) My daughter has had covid 2x, First time was when she was 1-2 months old, 2nd time was ~18months old. She was never vaccinated for Covid (all the other things though yes) I have been vaccinated.
Both times weren't so bad. Just lucky and perhaps good genes play a part. Myself have never had the flu (at least not that I noticed), though I have had colds, maybe 1x every 5 years or so. Not enough that I have to stay in bed.
So Gaspa don't beat yourself up, luck plays a massive role.
Though from memory I thought the data about cost vs benefit for younger children for the covid vaccine was pretty much a wash. Though TBH its been a long time since I even thought of covid.
Mendel
Senior Member.
It also helps if the mother went through a Covid infection (perhaps asymptomstically) during pregnancy. I've seen it recommended for pregnant mothers to be vaccinated, which then protects the newborn child later.
It looks like the data on vaccinating small children stabilized early in 2023.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Apparently Fukushima won't quit. He's recently co-authored a garbage article with a "vaccines cause cancer" implication in its subject matter, and absolutely no data to support that implication.
Yes, Cureus again, so by default you should be wary. The easiest way to detect that there will be no scientific evidence to support any implication that the vaccines are responsible is to notice that it doestn't even compare the vaccinated with the unvaccinated, >face palm<. And the easiest way to see he's pulling a /post hoc ergo propter hoc/ is to notice that once he's found a date that interesting, he simple selects the nearest thing before that (the third jab) as the thing to blame, despite there being the opposite trend after the prior jabs:
https://www.cureus.com/articles/196...ne-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japanIncreased Age-adjusted Cancer Mortality after the 3rd mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan
Creators: Gibo, Miki1, Kojima, Seiji2, Fujisawa, Akinori3, Kikuchi, Takayuki4, Fukushima, Masanori4
Yes, Cureus again, so by default you should be wary. The easiest way to detect that there will be no scientific evidence to support any implication that the vaccines are responsible is to notice that it doestn't even compare the vaccinated with the unvaccinated, >face palm<. And the easiest way to see he's pulling a /post hoc ergo propter hoc/ is to notice that once he's found a date that interesting, he simple selects the nearest thing before that (the third jab) as the thing to blame, despite there being the opposite trend after the prior jabs:
And, yes, some green jelly beans for good measure. If you've gonna do junk science, do it properly and go trawling. Other tell-tale signs it's bogus - there's nothing special about Japan (apart from their median age) - this correlation hasn't been spotted anywhere else in the world, including the most highly vaccinated countries - so they're probably just harvesting noise.Methods:
Using published national data, we compared age-adjusted mortality rates for each cancer type between the first 3 years of the pandemic (2020-2022) and the 3 years before the pandemic (2017-2019), and also compared mortality rates in 2022 after nationwide mRNA-LNP vaccination to rates in 2020 before vaccination began. In addition, we identified trends in mortality from 2012 to 2019 to assess excess/deficit mortality during the pandemic.
Results:
Age-adjusted mortality rates decreased from the pre-pandemic period to the pandemic period for stomach, liver, lung, gallbladder/biliary tract, colon, and esophageal cancers, which account for a large proportion of cancer deaths in Japan, but this decreasing trend slowed from 2021 to 2022. Age-adjusted mortality rates for breast, pancreatic, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancers and leukemia increased significantly in 2022 after much of the Japanese population had received the third mRNA-LNP vaccine dose, compared to 2020, the first year of the pandemic when no vaccinations were administered. There were also marginally significant increases for ovarian and uterine cancers between 2020 and 2022.
John J.
Senior Member.
-And the study is for mortality rates, not diagnosis / detection rates.
People, even if seriously ill, might have been reluctant to seek medical aid if they thought it might end up in a hospital admission during the height of COVID-19.
It's possible (I haven't looked into this) that terminally ill people in Japan received more care in community settings during the COVID outbreak- particularly later on, as systems adapted- to relieve pressures (or anticipated pressures) on hospitals.
Anecdotally, and some years ago, there was concern among some healthcare staff in the UK that, hypothetically, terminally ill patients admitted for "unscheduled care" in teaching hospitals- perhaps because of inadequate hospice or primary care provision- might receive "heroic" interventions that extended life, a "win" for medical staff, but compromising the wishes/ plans of the patient (whose quality of life might decline, and who might require ongoing acute care, when they might have wanted to die peacefully at home).
Of course, even if vaccinated, people at high risk of serious illness from COVID may remain at relatively high risk.
People with terminal cancer would perhaps be at high risk (e.g. from suppressed immunity) and their vaccination might be prioritised (and widely taken up by that group). But, sadly, we shouldn't be too surprised if mortality was higher in that group of patients during a viral epidemic.
Most cancers show a strong age: risk correlation. COVID-19 shows a very strong age: risk of death correlation.
Deaths due to COVID-19 in the terminally ill might not be diagnosed as such (as I'm guessing such patients rarely go to PM).
People, even if seriously ill, might have been reluctant to seek medical aid if they thought it might end up in a hospital admission during the height of COVID-19.
It's possible (I haven't looked into this) that terminally ill people in Japan received more care in community settings during the COVID outbreak- particularly later on, as systems adapted- to relieve pressures (or anticipated pressures) on hospitals.
Anecdotally, and some years ago, there was concern among some healthcare staff in the UK that, hypothetically, terminally ill patients admitted for "unscheduled care" in teaching hospitals- perhaps because of inadequate hospice or primary care provision- might receive "heroic" interventions that extended life, a "win" for medical staff, but compromising the wishes/ plans of the patient (whose quality of life might decline, and who might require ongoing acute care, when they might have wanted to die peacefully at home).
Of course, even if vaccinated, people at high risk of serious illness from COVID may remain at relatively high risk.
People with terminal cancer would perhaps be at high risk (e.g. from suppressed immunity) and their vaccination might be prioritised (and widely taken up by that group). But, sadly, we shouldn't be too surprised if mortality was higher in that group of patients during a viral epidemic.
Most cancers show a strong age: risk correlation. COVID-19 shows a very strong age: risk of death correlation.
Deaths due to COVID-19 in the terminally ill might not be diagnosed as such (as I'm guessing such patients rarely go to PM).
Similar threads
