Parents Are Responsible for Child's Weight

This post is about weight loss.  It's about basic physiology, and personal responsibility (ooh, dirty words).  I recently tweeted a bunch on a subject I wrote about three years ago.  The number of responses I received was incredible.  The subject was on giving the cholesterol lowering medication, statins, to children.  In 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommended screening children as young as two-years-old for high cholesterol.  If a child is found to have high cholesterol, the Academy recommended putting him or her on statins to prevent future cardiovascular disease.  My response today is the same as it was three years ago--it's a freakin' crime!

I know too much about physiology and human health to accept this as a treatment option for children, let alone the first line of defense.  Statins have side-effects, and they are also based on a faulty premise--that low density lipoproteins (LDLs) are the most important factors in cardiovascular health.  While definite contributors, LDLs are simply not as important as high density lipoproteins (HDLs) when it comes to cardiovascular risk.  To consider giving drugs that most people take for a lifetime to children as a preventative is purely irresponsible.

But, really, the criticisms I encountered weren't about points I made on statin use in children.  They were mostly directed at a particular line, an idea,

"Childhood obesity? Excuse my language, but...that's effin' child neglect and abuse by lazy, undisciplined, ignorant parents."

Now many people said, "Bravo! Thank you for telling it like it is."  Many others, however, felt it was callous, off-base and out-of-sync with the real causes of obesity.  Some tweeters informed me that my understanding of basic physiology was prehistoric, and that my solution to the obesity problem (I didn't know I had actually given one) was short-sighted and erroneous.  So in the next few posts I will attempt to clarify my thoughts on weight loss/weight gain, the obesity epidemic and parental responsibility as it relates to the weight--and health--of a child.

I am actually going to start with my thoughts on parental responsibility.  I contend that if you as a parent are not responsible for your child and his or her health, then who is?  This question is only obvious to those parents who share this philosophy, and won't be to those believing (either consciously or subconsciously) that health is the responsibility, and byproduct, of something outside themselves.

Every parent will say that they take full responsibility for their child, but far too many act otherwise.  What you do your children will do, period.  They eat what you eat, they think like you think, and they care for themselves in the same way you care for yourself.  How is your child's weight, then, independent of you?  Oh, you didn't shove the cookies down his or her throat...but did you buy them?  Maybe you thought it was harmless to feed your child cookies as a baby...I hope you know better now (Plenty of tweeter critics claimed to not feed their children junk food...listen, your obese child is eating junk food--WAKE UP!)

Parents of heavy children have lots of support for their innocence.  The concept that "your illness is not your fault" is preached by many doctors, psychologists, talk show hosts, media celebrities and support groups; and while it's true that illness is not a fault, it certainly isn't true that we have no hand in how our health plays out.  More importantly, though, everyone has the potential to achieve and maintain great health, no matter what the current circumstances.

When health issues arise, the most important thing to do is determine where changes need to be made.  Whether talking about major lifestyle modifications--like quitting smoking, or changing food habits, or exercising--or simply getting checked by a professional, change is an absolute necessity in correcting any health problem.  How soon you make that decision can mean the difference between life and death.  Symptoms are your body's way of telling you something needs attention.  Ignoring them is the worst possible approach you can take toward your health.

Obesity, as a morphological symptom, is a major change--and it just doesn't happen overnight.  Once parents see it unfolding, they have a responsibility to act (neither children nor teens can make this decision on their own) and create change.  For parents of chubby or obese children, this also means how you decide to change.  A child isn't going to change independently from his or her parents.  Are you going to change your diet to a more healthful one?  Are you going to eat less, and decrease your intake of junk foods, fast foods and sodas?  Are you going to work out, play sports with your kids or take fitness classes together?  Your child isn't going to change without you--you've got to change as well.  And simply dishing them off to Little League will not do either, as building their confidence before they compete in groups will be paramount to their psychological health and well-being.  The bottom line is that parents must get actively involved in the obese child's life, if they are to stand a chance of losing weight.

For new parents, it simply begins with creating good habits from the very start--the foods you expose your children to, the activities you share, how much television you watch, and so on.  You control the environment, and your choices contribute to your children's bodies, and their health.

Obesity is reversible, that's a fact.  How you see things, and how you approach the world determines your chances of overcoming (or your child overcoming) obesity.  Too many people lose weight to make it a hopeless situation.  Blaming obesity on genetics, hormones, depression, lack of health insurance or anything else will not change the fact that everybody is capable of being either obese or anorexic, and everything else in between; it just comes down to one's habits in determining where one will weigh on the scale.  You have the power to change anything with regard to your health, or that of your child's.  Understanding this, and fully embracing it, is the only way to create lasting changes.  Denying it will only get you the same, which is definitely your prerogative, but don't act as if you have no hand in the matter.

ADD Rx: Turning Kids Into Speed Freaks II

So the modern medical solution to ADD is primarily stimulant medication.  And funny that the U.S. is the major consumer of the pharmaceutical Ritalin, a drug compound similar to cocaine.  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and the United Nation's International Narcotics Control Board both recognize the dangers to individuals and society by the increased prescriptions of Ritalin to growing numbers of children (mostly boys) being diagnosed with ADD.

Despite these facts, and the dynamic nature of the ADD definition (parameters), doctors in the U.S. (not Europe, not Asia, and in fact the full demographics are quite startling) continue to prescribe hard core meds to children.  Even worse is that some doctors have taken the next step to even harder drugs to treat their pediatric patients labeled ADD--antipsychotics.

What are the real dangers of taking central nervous system stimulants, that is, how do they affect the bodies and minds of the children put on them?  First, as I described last post, stimulant drugs like Ritalin, cocaine, and methamphetamine are dopaminergic, which means that they affect the dopamine neurotransmitter system.  Dopamine is involved in the pleasure and reward responses of the brain.  Stimulant drugs, then, create a state of euphoria--they feel good.

Drugs that feel good have a high-propensity to cause dependence, that is why stimulants for treating ADD are classified as Schedule II drugs (some medicinal uses, high potential for abuse, high rate of dependency).  Other Schedule II drugs include cocaine, morphine, methadone, methamphetamine, and opium; yet, only Ritalin can be obtained by a doctor's prescription.  Think about that.

Stimulants do increase focus and concentration in the short-term, that's why amphetamines were given to pilots in World War II, but they come with some unwanted side-effects.  The side-effects associated with Ritalin are:

• nervousness (common)
• insomnia (common)
• dizziness
• nausea
• vomiting
• loss of appetite
• stomach pain
• diarrhea
• heartburn
• dry mouth
• headache
• muscle tightness
• uncontrollable movement of a part of the body
• restlessness
• numbness, burning, or tingling in the hands or feet
• decreased sexual desire
• painful menstruation
• stunted growth

More serious symptoms may include:

• fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat
• chest pain
• shortness of breath
• excessive tiredness
• slow or difficult speech
• fainting
• weakness or numbness of an arm or leg
• seizures
• changes in vision or blurred vision
• agitation
• believing things that are not true
• feeling unusually suspicious of others
• hallucinating (seeing things or hearing voices that do not exist)
• motor tics or verbal tics
• depression
• abnormally excited mood
• mood changes
• fever
• hives
• rash
• blistering or peeling skin
• itching
• difficulty breathing or swallowing

And according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information:

Methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) may cause sudden death in children and teenagers, especially children or teenagers with heart defects or serious heart problems.This medication also may cause sudden death, heart attack or stroke in adults, especially adults with heart defects or serious heart problems.

It must be kept in mind that these side-effects are known with regard to short-term use.  Long-term effects of Ritalin and other stimulant meds is not yet fully known.

One thing we do know for sure is that Ritalin is currently the most stolen drug as listed by the DEA.  Why?  Kids want it.  The highest rate of abuse is among college students--Ritalin helps them stay awake to study (smart drugs?).  Some children prescribed Ritalin sell their pills to others who wish to take the drug recreationally.  Since overdose is possible on Ritalin, the practice of ADD-labeled kids selling their drugs (more reason to question the drug's necessity) makes this a serious public health concern.

I write these posts because I know that many of you reading this are either being faced with making a decision for your ADD-labeled child now or you may be in the future.  This is a paramount decision, and very likely a scary one.  When a medical diagnosis is rendered, it may seem as if conventional wisdom is as solid the Newtonian laws of gravity (wink, wink).  But in this case it is not.  There are too many holes in the current ADD model, and the solution American doctors are prescribing for their pediatric patients can alter your child's life forever.

Why not accept that your child is a unique expression of life, carrying his or her own untapped genius?  Why not learn to find your child's inspiration and nurture it?  Offering your child hard-core drugs may actually suppress that genius from expressing itself.  In the next few posts we'll discuss these ideas, and look at a few people that have done extraordinary things with their lives, despite being labeled ADD.  But next--the antipsychotics.

There's Always Sumptin'

No free ride--dang!  There never seems to be something for nothing.  Always a cost, always a price.  Anyway, now it looks like a popular blood pressure medication may raise cancer risk.  You mean I can't eat what I want, neglect exercise, or indulge in type-A behavior at any time I want, and then just take a magic little pill that'll make everything all right?  Whuh?

According to a recent analysis of five previous studies following about 60,000 patients, researchers found a link between taking angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer.  ARBs are taken by millions of people worldwide for conditions like high blood pressure, heart problems and diabetic kidney disease.  Researchers found that people taking these meds had a one percent higher risk of developing a whole range of cancers, including prostate, breast and a noticeable spike in lung cancer.  About 85 percent of the people in the studies were on telmisartan, sold as Micardis, made by Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.

Although the individual risk is modest, the wide numbers of people taking these drugs means that the overall cancer numbers worldwide should increase due to ARB use.  It is unknown at this time if the cancer risk is reduced following discontinuation of the drugs.

Of course, Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., makers of the drug Micardis, dispute the results, claiming their hypertension drug is one of the most-studied in the world.  The company claimed in a statement that it had "internal safety data" contradicting the recent study. According to studies run by the pharmaceutical company, there was no link between increased cancer risk and Micardis.  Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Lead author of the study, Dr. Ilke Sipahi, warned patients not to stop taking their drugs, and recommended they consult their doctor if they were concerned.  However, he does say that he now thinks twice before prescribing ARBs himself.  Nevertheless, for some people that can't handle the side-effects of some of the other hypertension drugs, the risk of dying of stroke or heart disease far outweigh those of developing cancer.

Well, let me interject my two-cents.  Hypertension comes in two flavors, primary and secondary, the former being due mostly to lifestyle behaviors, the latter secondary to other causes, many hormonal.  85 percent of people with high blood pressure have the primary type.  I hope you see where I'm going.  If you handle your own lifestyle modification, take things into your own hands, why...you could lower your blood pressure and avoid the increased risk of developing cancer by using and ARB, like Micardis.  Go figure.

Here are a few simple tips to lowering blood pressure:

• Get adjusted--studies have shown chiropractic care can reduce blood pressure by 17mmHg systolic and 10mmHg diastolic*
• Lose weight--obesity increases blood pressure; the heart has to work harder to pump through the fat
• Reduce sugar intake--yeah, I know it's hard, I live it every day; so what, do it anyway; sugar is a killer
• Reduce salt intake--this decreases blood pressure in about 33% of people
• Quit smoking and reduce or quit drinking alcohol--I know, I know, but just so you know, both increase blood pressure immediately
• Learn to handle your stress--stress is a necessary part of life; however, putting things into balanced perspective is essential (don't know how? contact me)

Blood pressure medications are supposed to be prescribed after lifestyle changes have been modified.  But you know as well as I do that, like pretty much all medications in our arsenal, they are prescribed first and immediately, with lifestyle behaviors touched only obligatorily with the five second, "Oh, and you should probably lose weight and quit smoking," line your doctor says as he hands you your scrip and walks out the door.

Listen, don't rely solely on your doctors.  They are overworked, and they know that most people won't comply with suggestions on lifestyle changes (although this is not entirely true, it is a belief of the average medical doctor).  Be good to yourself, take your health into your own hands.  The results are yours and yours alone.  Trust me, there's never something for nothing.  Nobody can do your exercises for you, and there is no such thing as a magic bullet.  Don't worry, it'll be worth all the hard work.

*Thank you Dr. Tim Swift, best chiropractor in San Clemente, for the reminder of my obvious oversight.

Promising New Cancer Treatment

Exciting news for cancer patients: A new technology shows promise of fighting cancer with magnetic fields. Tiny discs, called "nanodiscs," that are just a millionth of a meter in diameter and around 60 billionths of a meter thick could be used to disrupt the membranes of cancer cells, causing them to self-destruct. This technology could replace chemotherapy and it's harmful side effects as the treatment of choice for cancer patients.

The discs, made from an iron-nickel alloy, would be directed by a magnetic field to an area populated by cancer cells. In a study conducted at the Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago, this process was carried out by subjecting the discs to a low magnetic field for around ten minutes, which was enough to destroy 90 percent of cancer cells in tests.

That's outstanding news as we need more alternatives to the pan-annihilation mechanism of chemotherapy. If this nanodisc technology continues to produce results, cancer patients can kiss the hair loss, nausea, fatigue, and myriad of other side effects away for good. Let's keep our fingers crossed, as it's been long time coming.

Kids Meds are Poisons

Wow! Dramatic headline, yes? Dramatic but true: More than half a million children in the U.S. have bad reactions or side effects from widely used medicines that require medical treatment and sometimes hospitalization. Why? Because drugs are poisons, that's why.

According to a new study appearing in the medical journal, Pediatrics, 585,922 children (on average) need to be treated for bad drug reactions every year. Rashes, stomach aches, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and accidental overdose are some of the side effects children can suffer. Parents are advised to monitor children closely when giving them medications for the first time. Younger children, under five, are the most commonly affected, accounting for 43 percent of visits to clinics and emergency rooms. Teenagers (15-18) are next at 23 percent of ER visits.

Some pushers, er...doctors, believe that it's the parents' fault, that they just don't understand how to properly measure doses. Michael Cohen, a registered pharmacist and president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, said a common problem involves giving young children liquid medicine. Doses can come in drops, teaspoons or milliliters, and parents may mistakenly think those amounts are interchangeable. Uh...whatever.

First it's the doctors' and pharmacists' responsibility to make sure the parent understands dosages. In my opinion, it is the height of arrogance to solely blame parents whom have never been to medical school and have probably passed on the opportunity to take basic pharmacology classes. Second, let's face the facts: drugs are poisons, plain and simple.

This doesn't mean drugs are evil or that they shouldn't be taken--heck no! I've said it a million times in this blog, I am enormously grateful for having a multitude of drugs and medications in our arsenal; they are necessary under very specific circumstances. But here's the problem: We are a drug-happy culture. We run to medications for everything under the sun, when in fact our bodies can and do heal most situations quite adequately.

Are parents at fault? Yes, because they maintain the mind-set that they must protect their child from any suffering whatsoever, remaining blind to the fact that symptoms ARE our bodies way of expressing health. But doctors are at fault, too, because they know better. All drugs are toxins, and every human being is different, so how any particular person responds to a drug will be different too. Doctors are educated--they have been to medical school, and they have taken basic pharmacology classes--so they could be a bit more discriminating in pushing the "all drugs all the time" approach that is typical in most medical offices.

Listen, this is not just a "parents have to be more careful" issue, although they certainly do in a different way. Adverse drug reactions are happening with the same frequency in hospitals. 540,000 hospitalized children have bad drug reactions, including side effects, medicine mix-ups and accidental overdoses every year. Read the article. Drugs are useful and necessary in times of crisis. But if you are giving your child medications for every cough, sniffle or feeling of discomfort (and this includes "sadness"), then you are responsible if something goes wrong, because well...now you know.

Do As Your Doctor Do

I don't know; what do you think? If 50% of health care workers would refuse the swine flu vaccine, do you think there might be something behind that? According to a recent study that polled 2,255 Hong Kong health workers, even during the height of global swine flu panic in May, less than half were willing to get vaccinated. You don't say...

According to the report, the workers cited being "afraid of side effects," and having doubts about, "how safe and effective it would be." Well, no Schlitz. Du-uh-uh-uh-uh.

But what is obvious to you and me, seems like a real head-scratcher for public health authorities, like the World Health Organization (WHO). Bioethicists are debating the ethics of health care workers protecting their patients by getting vaccinated to the pig flu. But if health care workers believe that it's bogus--as bogus as the regular flu shot (doctors read the data; they know: In the U.S., about 35 percent of health workers get a regular flu shot, while in Britain, only about 17 percent do), and even possibly dangerous--then good luck.

When it comes to vaccinations, freaky side effects usually come about after 1 million inoculations. This was the case in 1976 when a swine flu vaccine was produced then; and the poor suckers who got the stab developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, a temporary paralyzing disorder that can lead to death; however, the numbers were a bit less than one in a million. But I'll bet you those one in million were none too happy with the results. Add in that pharmaceutical developers will be immune to any lawsuits, and scheiße, who the hell is gonna take the chance.

George Annas, a bioethecist at Boston University says of this recent finding, "Like the lay population, [health care workers] assume they won't need the shot because they don't think they will get the flu." Uh...noooo....since health care workers have a basic understanding of the health sciences, they know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Face the facts.

If It Seems Too Good To Be True

Wouldn't it be great if there was a drug that could decrease the need for sleep, allow more time to work and study, and essentially make you smarter...without side effects? Well, if you remember my post on the subject last year, you'll recall that that drug doesn't exist. Oh, there are plenty of drugs that'll keep you up and allow you to study harder--in the short term; but the one without side effects--dream on.

According to a recent study, the popular prescription stimulant, Provigil, has a higher risk of addiction than previously thought. Brain scans taken of people on the drug showed changes in the brain's pleasure centers, which were similar to those occurring with the more frowned upon stimulants coke and meth. The study which is due for publication in this month's Journal of the American Medical Association may break the myth that Provigil is safe for healthy people.

Provigil, or Modafinil, is known as a "smart drug" for its ability to keep people up for hours, thus making it popular with students and other academia (professors) in search of unlimited knowledge. Modafinil, however, is approved as a narcolepsy drug--that is, to fight off the daytime sleepiness associated with this disorder and obstructive sleep apnea. But why worry about that detail? Speed is speed is speed.

The "controversy" over smart drugs was brought to light last year when several scientists commented in the journal Nature that people should have the right to boost their brain power through the use of drugs like Provigil. At the time of that editorial it was thought that Provigil provided stimulation without side effects. This new study is the first evidence that Modafinil increases dopamine release--the "feel good" neurotransmitter implicated in most forms of addiction.

Well, as I've said time and time again, there's no free lunch. You want to play you gotta pay. You can gain knowledge and be productive through hard work and study. But there's simply no substitute for sleep. Sorry.

Mandatory Vaccination Nightmare

You all know how I feel about mandated vaccinations--it's damn near Orwellian! Here's a little story about what can go wrong when the government steps in and decides what they think is best for it's peoples' health, and then forces them to comply.

From 1994-1998, the right-wing government which controlled France at that time mandated a national hepatitis vaccination campaign to "protect" its people against this dreadful microbe. 20 million citizens were vaccinated against hepatitis B which can infect the liver. As it turned out, approximately 1,300 people allegedly contracted serious side effects from the vaccine--one woman died. Now two drug companies are facing charges that they withheld important information regarding side effects of the vaccine, French officials reported yesterday. Smithkline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline GSK, and Pasteur Merieux MSD-Aventis Pasteur, now Sanofi Pasteur MSD, are accused of aggravated deceit for their roles in the mass vaccination campaign. Both companies deny any wrong doing.

OK, I'm not going to play judge, jury or hangman on this post. I will contend that, perhaps, the drug companies did nothing wrong; they just provided a product. It's really up to the consumer to weigh the risks. My main problem here lies with the fascist government that not only backed mass vaccination, but ordered it. How dare any government tell its people what they must put into their bodies. What an absolute violation of human rights. It seems to me that the French government, the one in power during the hepatitis vaccine mandate, is liable for criminal conduct--forcing anyone to undergo a medical treatment is simply barbaric.

Now welcome to the world we live in: Mandatory vaccinations are increasingly introduced into legislation here in the good ol' US of A. Mandatory HPV vaccinations for girls in Texas, mandated flu vaccinations in New Jersey--what the hell is this world coming to?

Are you a big believer in the "this world was a cesspool before vaccinations" philosophy? Great! Go ahead and inoculate your heart out. And you trust that the government knows what's best for you? Great? Enjoy your life. But don't tell me what to put in my body, or my child's. It'll be a cold day in Hades before I accept what the corrupt political machine tells me I have to do to maintain my health. Heck no--I'd rather move to France.

A Mournful Tragedy

Academy-award nominated actor Heath Ledger was found dead in his Manhattan apartment this afternoon, the apparent victim of a drug overdose. Although the exact cause of death is as of yet unknown, prescription sleeping pills were found strewn around his bed, recent reports disclose. Ledger apparently had some trouble sleeping recently and told the New York Times in November that he was taking Ambien. He also was reported to be suffering from pneumonia.

This a very sad and tragic story and my heart goes out to Heath Ledger's family. Although there is no way, yet, to know what happened exactly, I wouldn't be surprised if the combination of pneumonia (hacking, phlegmy congestion) and sleeping pills did him in. Ambien, in particular, can close off the airway and cause breathing difficulties. Add to that a sedative effect, and it may be a recipe for disaster. Ambien can also cause anaphylaxis--an acute and severe allergic reaction that can lead to death within minutes.

Let me say it loud and clear: Ambien is bad stuff! Don't take it. I've reported the dangers of this drug extensively on the Dr. Nick Show (Episode 3--Lifestyle Drugs). It has side effects (read them here--this stuff is no joke). According to the Mayo clinic, you don't want to take Ambien if you are suffering from respiratory conditions. Duh! YOU HAVE GOT TO READ THE LABELS! Period. Just because a drug is doctor prescribed doesn't mean diddly. It's everyone's responsibility to know exactly what they are taking and what the dangers are at all times.

Google Ambien and pick an information site. Pick one--any one. The side effects are there. Don't think it can't happen to you. Heath Ledger was only 28 years old. He was young and vibrant and healthy. It could happen to anyone. Please, read the instructions, and if you're not sure--don't take it!

Rest in Peace Good Soul.

Heath Ledger 1979-2008.

Sham of the Century

Pssst. Hey Buddy. Wanna buy a bridge? How about a flu shot? Yeah?...thought so sucker.

Alright, alright, maybe I'm being a little hard--most people don't know. They only know what the authorities tell them.

Get your annual flu shot. Prevent the flu. Save your life. Isn't that the mantra?

Recent reports show that the distribution of flu shots in the U.S. this year is at 103 million--an all time high. Well, I've got some bad news for ya--the flu shot is a scam. No, no--it's not a conspiracy; your doctor really believes in it. And a couple hundred bucks a shot doesn't hurt the believing process, either.

So how is it a scam? First off, it's not 100% protection. That is, you can get a flu shot, and...still get the flu. How's that? Well, according to the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), "It takes about two weeks after vaccination for antibodies to develop in the body and provide protection against influenza virus infection. In the meantime, you are still at risk for getting the flu (emphasis mine)." Furthermore, you can still get the flu due to the variability in flu strains--that is, the current flu vaccine protects (however questionably) against a particular strain, not all of them (also from the CDC; read here). And your protection also depends on the age and health status of the person getting the vaccine (more on this in a second).

Second, the flu virus is one of the most highly mutating organisms there is, so strains change all the time. That's why you have to get a new shot every year (and don't forget, a couple hundred bucks a shot also helps with this category). The bottom line is this: you don't know which flu strain you'll encounter, and even if it's "this year's strain", you still don't have total protection.

Lastly (and this is my favorite one), even though the flu shot is an inactivated virus (i.e. it has been killed), it still has potential side effects, and they are:

• Soreness, redness, or swelling where the shot was given
• Fever (low grade)
• Aches

And if you use the spray mist:

• runny nose
• headache
• sore throat
• cough

And the mist in children:

• runny nose
• wheezing
• headache
• vomiting
• muscle aches
• fever

Call me crazy, but...ain't that the flu?

So let me put this into perspective: You go to your doctor every year and pay good money for a vaccine that doesn't work all that well, only protects you from a small faction of microorganisms that can cause the flu, and which actually causes flu-like symptoms. Uh...can I ask a question? WHY NOT JUST GET THE DAMN FLU?!?!

I know, I know, the authorities tell us that it's for the protection of the elderly, the immunocompromised, and children. However, in the same breath they tell us that the effectiveness of the vaccine is age dependent; and I highly doubt that 20 to 60-year-olds are at the highest risk.

All I can say is this: I've never had a flu shot; I've had the flu plenty of times; I've had the runs, fever, and body aches; and I didn't want to do anything. So I drank lots of water, and I slept a bunch. I got better, and I developed natural immunity--so, ultimately, I got stronger. Hey, listen--if you feel safer with a flu shot, then go ahead. And when you're ready, I've got an excellent multi-level marketing business opportunity for you...and a bridge.

If you want to read more on this sham, here is an excellent piece published in the British Medical Journal.

And comments to that piece from skeptical MDs in the U.K. (read this because this is from the guys who are administering the shots, so perhaps they have some insights you and I do not have--please scroll down to read the comments).