The issues of safety and efficacy of certain vaccines remains extremely contentious. The venues for this debate have included periodicals, documentary films, and an ever-increasing number of on-line sites. While debate in science is not only a common occurrence but a fundamental tenet of the scientific community, it only works when divergent opinions can be heard. When those who hold an opposing opinion are denigrated and/or marginalized by those holding the majority opinion such as in the issue of vaccination, where cultural authority for the issue is owned by the profession of medicine, both science and the public lose. What is often forgotten are the benefits derived from the questioning of drug safety that not only extends to the public but to physicians who rely on the truthfulness and accuracy of the information that is being supplied to them by manufactures and government agencies. While most physicians believe they are functioning in their patient's best interest when making vaccine recommendations, these recommendations by in large have become a matter of rote and are made because most physicians have bought into the "vaccines are safe" mantra. What most physicians don't realize is they have unknowingly been recruited by big pharma to assist in shutting down the vaccination debate. This suppression of vaccine opposition even among academics, is becoming more commonplace and will lead down a slippery slope that will silence opposition science, and the dangers that come with this. Those who question vaccine safety have been ostracized, misquoted and even made to appear mentally ill by those who hold the majority opinion on the issue. Physicians who question vaccine safety have had their licenses threatened or have been fired from positions. Tactics such as name calling and the use of terms such as pseudo-science, (even when the evidence being presented is from widely accepted peer-reviewed journals) or "conspiracy theorists" which has the effect of placing those holding the minority opinion in the category of such groups as 9/11 truthers, are not uncommon. Other methods of How to cite this paper:

The standard definition of spontaneous regression (SR) of cancer is as follows, “…when a malignant tumor partially or completely disappears without treatment or in the presence of therapy which is considered inadequate to exert a significant influence on neoplastic disease.” SR is also known as Saint Peregrine tumor, the name taken from a young priest, Peregrine Laziosi (1260 [5]–1345, exact date is unknown), who had been diagnosed with a tumor of the tibia. The mass eventually grew so large that it broke through the skin and became severely infected. The available treatment for this condition was limited to amputation. Historical records report that on the day of surgery, physicians found that the tumor had disappeared and reportedly never returned. To date, the medical literature consists only of individual case studies and overviews of this phenomenon. The most cited work on the subject was done by surgeons Tilden Everson and Warren Cole who reviewed 176 published cases of SR from 1900 to 1960. While a percentage of these were found not to be cases of SR, there remained a number of unexplained cases. A frequent theme in many cases of SR is the co-occurrence of infection. Given the current interest in immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer, this article discusses one of the very early pioneers of this theory, William Bradley Coley, MD, a surgeon who was clearly ahead of his time. Ostracized by colleagues for his belief that stimulation of the immune system could in fact produce a regression of cancer, Coley remained convinced that his theory was right and, while he was not familiar with cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interferons, and streptokinase, he knew instinctively that an innate immune response was taking place.

No abstract

First launched in France in 1988, zolpidem (Ambien®) is a short-acting hypnotic agent. Early studies reported that that the development of physical dependence and tolerance to sedative-hypnotic drugs, such as the depressant and anticonvulsant effects evidenced with benzodiazepines, is not found with zolpidem. Direct to consumer advertising by the manufacturer continues to state that the risk for dependency is low; however, recent publications seem to contradict this. Additionally, adverse drug reactions affecting the central nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory system have been reported. Other studies have examined the interactions of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and zolpidem as a possible cause of hallucinations. With continued physician marketing efforts touting the safety and efficacy of zolpidem, there is a high likelihood to overlook the risk of dependency and the symptoms related to zolpidem withdrawal. We report a case of a 41-year-old female who developed a dependency to zolpidem, who on her own decided to decrease her dosage, resulting in intractable nausea requiring hospitalization. Reported cases of zolpidem withdrawal have occurred with doses in excess of 160 mg per day, none of these have reported with intractable nausea as the sole symptom. In our reported case, although exceeding recommended dosage withdrawal phenomenon seemed to be severe after withdrawal from a comparatively low dose of zolpidem. Before zolpidem is prescribed, patient education should include warnings about the potential problems associated with dependency and abrupt discontinuation. Education about this common and likely underrecognized clinical phenomenon will help prevent future episodes and minimize the risk of misdiagnosis.

The term medicalization has been defined as the process by which non-medical issues come to be defined and treated as medical problems. There are no better examples of this than pregnancy and childbirth. Prior to the intervention of physicians and hospitals, most females delivered unassisted or assisted by a relative or a midwife who usually had no formal education. As long as this remained the practice, pregnancy could not become a medical procedure. Through systematic changes, discussed in detail herein, this primarily female-oriented event involving family and amateur aids would come to be dominated by males who were the sole legally authorized providers of obstetrical care [1]. The increasing cultural authority of medicine facilitated the transfer of home delivery to hospital delivery and changed normal birth into a surgical procedure. This paper will examine the history of obstetrics and how a profession comes to redefine a normal life event as a disease state.

The words "human medical experimentation" conjure up visions of Nazi medicine, which has come to exemplify the worst evils in the history of humankind. Places like Auschwitz and Dachau, where human life was cheap and test subjects plentiful were used as laboratories. In 2010 the US government apologized to Guatemala for allowing U.S. doctors to infect Guatemalan prisoners and mental patients with syphilis 65 years earlier, while acknowledging dozens of similar experiments were performed in the United States. Among these included studies that often involved making healthy people sick or keeping sick patients ill, such as in the Tuskegee syphilis study. These experiments were often life threatening and took place with the direct approval and/or supervision of some of the country's most prestigious research institutions and some of the country's leading medical researchers. Among these was the prestigious cancer research center in New York City, Sloan Kettering Hospital and its director of cancer research Chester Southam, MD.

This article traces the historical and philosophical roots of the provaccination and anti-vaccination movements through to the present day, with a focus on the role of chiropractic within those movements. Political, legal, and scientific issues are considered. Attempts to portray the anti-vaccination chiropractors as unscientific extremists, by both orthodox medicine and from within the chiropractic community itself, clouds the informed consent and freedom of choice aspect relating to health care that they espouse, and scapegoats the so-called extremists rather than facing the ethical issues surrounding fully informed consent. The authors conclude that would-be medical ethicists promote their own political agendas that aid profit before safety and breed distrust within the community that is meant to be served in a balanced and ethical manner.

No abstract