3,561,596 members
12,429,752 petition signatures
$19,571,785,510 diverted from Big Pharma
Routine Treatment for Shock Kills 3 Out of 100 Children
Outcomes from routine measures often go unnoticed and methods go unchanged because, it’s what’s always been done before. Routine shock treatments include intravenous fluids for extremely ill children, but have never actually been tested.
Such standard treatments wind up killing around 33 out of 1,000 children, because this type of hydration during shock is assumed to be beneficial. In cases, where fluid loss will lead to death, this treatment is crucial. But shock affects the circulatory system and its ability to bring oxygen to all they body’s systems; dehydration is only one of the symptoms resulting from shock.
~Health Freedoms
The routine intravenous administration of fluids to children in shock is killing them. It had never been tested before now—just presumed to be beneficial. How many thousands of children have died for that presumption?
If your child is severely ill with a high fever, you need to know that the standard treatment, injection of fluids, has been killing them. Over the years, thousands, if not millions, of children have probably been killed by the routine approach of giving intravenous fluids to children in shock.
Sick feverish children who arrive in hospitals so ill that they’re in shock are routinely given intravenous liquids, a bolus dose to counteract the dehydration that is common in such situations. It has never been studied to see if such treatment is effective. In spite of the claim that modern medicine is evidence-based, the simple fact is that this treatment had never been tested before.
So, without ever bothering to do a study to test the approach, doctors in emergency situations routinely give intravenous injections of fluids to feverish children in shock—and they have simply assumed that it was beneficial.Now, a humble study done by African doctors, who frequently face the situation, has shown that it’s killing about 3 out of a hundred children treated with these boluses.
Before continuing, it should be made clear that there are exceptions to this rule. In some conditions, such as cholera and other diarrheal diseases, the situation is different. In these cases, death is induced by loss of fluids, so the primary treatment is restoration of the lost fluids.
Shock
Shock is a critical medical condition. It is an acute failure of the circulatory system to bring oxygen to most of the body. Fainting is a typical symptom. Naturally, there can be signicant loss of fluids in the event of high fevers. So, the logic—such as it is—has been that forcing fluids into the circulatory system will replace what nature is missing. It is, of course, hubris to presume to know better than millions of years of evolution or the designs of God, whichever view you take. But then, what would modern medicine be without hubris?
Shock slows circulation. Here is how a popular website that promotes modern medicine explains their view:
Think of the cardiovascular system of the body as similar to the oil pump in your car. For efficient functioning, the electrical pump needs to work to pump the oil, there needs to be enough oil, and the oil lines need to be intact. If any of these components fail, oil pressure falls and the engine may be damaged. In the body, if the heart, blood vessels, or bloodstream (circulation) fail, then the body fails.(1)
There’s just one problem with the analogy. Human beings are not automobiles. Hearts are not oil pumps. And the circulatory system in humans is not analogous to oil lines in cars. Even if the analogy were valid, there is another significant point that’s being missed: Refilling the car’s circulatory system with oil does not resolve the underlying problem of why the car has lost oil.
The Study
The study, “Mortality after Fluid Bolus in African Children with Severe Infection”, just published in the New England Journal of Medicine,(2) was performed by African doctors in Africa. Rather humorously, funding came from the UK’s Medical Research Council and Big Pharma’s Baxter Healthcare, which provided the resuscitation fluids that the study demonstrated do far more harm than good.
The results were conclusive: About 33 children out of a thousand are killed by the boluses! Of the children who survived, there was no statistical difference in neurological damage between those who received boluses and those who didn’t. It also made no difference whether the bolus received was saline-based or albumin-based.
As is so common in most medical journal reports that run counter to the prevailing paradigm, the authors’ conclusion was rather mild:
In conclusion, the results of this study challenge the importance of bolus resuscitation as a lifesaving intervention in resource-limited settings for children with shock who do not have hypotension and raise questions regarding fluid-resuscitation guidelines in other settings as well.
What’s neatly sidestepped is just how thoroughly the study demonstrates how deeply flawed the modern medical paradigm is. Evidence based medicine clearly isn’t evidence based.
That old canard about “evidence-based medicine” is once again shown for what it is: nice-sounding words to promote a system of medicine that is based on a failed paradigm.
by Heidi Stevenson
Source:
http://www.gaia-health.com/articles451/000466-routine-treatment-kills-children.shtml
The headline makes it sound like 3% of the population is being killed by this treatment. In fact, it appears the article is talking about 3% of those treated for shock with a particular bolus. Quite a difference, expecially since there is no indication how many children are treated with the bolus. The title of the article is extremely misleading, probablly by design, I think. Such nonsense undermines the reputation of “health freedom alliance”. It tends to make hit “delete” rather than “read”.
Medicine should be more process based than evidence based. Although that would require dumping the hubris or the arrogance against nature. Apparently medicine is in competition with nature because what is healed naturally is not so profitable. Raising the few above the many is what is so profitable in the educational arena. When we teach the principles we can empower people to help themselves and that empowers the public or the many above the few. So obviously those esteemed to be above us would rather not admit they don’t understand how to solve the problems. Let’s admit that the dumber the public is the more money medical professionals and the like can make.
How do I realize these things? I was raised with lymphology. In fact, I understand that the best way to get the fluids back into the blood stream is with vigorous lymphactuation and deep breathing etc. Its the particulates that hold the water in the blood and only the loss of particulates can produce loss of plasma fluids. Once these get around the cells ONLY the lymphatic system can return them back to the blood stream. I wish I could teach the doctors in africa to try what my father referred to as The Art of Lymphasizing in order to help those inflicted with shock. Whole Body Vibration might be very useful for this as well.
If anyone wishes to learn more they can visit http://www.ial.org and subscribe to the free lessons.
Paul Jagnow is upset about the headline? Mainstream media routinely tosses off titles that give the impression of a cure for [name the disease of your choice]. They’re always lies. But, he comes here and reads a title – which is, by the way, true – and twists it to suggest it implies that 3% of all children are killed by this treatment, a treatment that most children never get. Really, how many people believe that 3% of all British children are killed by anything nowadays?
Does he really believe that people who see the title think that anyone believes that 3 out of every 100 children die from a treatment they don’t receive? Does he really believe people are that stupid?
No, he must actually be upset about the article itself. It tells the truth that 3% of all children suffering from shock and given injections of fluids die from the treatment – and those injections do absolutely no good. There is no gain from them and 3 out of 100 children die from them.
A full three percent of children treated with fluid boluses (outside of those suffering from diarrhea or other disease that kills by dehydration) die. And they die with absolutely no possibility of gain from that treatment.
First off…..this is scaremongering to the extreme!
3% of all children injected with fluids, as a treatment for shock, die.
This article is implying that the actual introduction of the fluids is the cause of the death. Where is the evidence to support this?
How do we know that the underlying cause of the shock was not something far more severe, like a major trauma with severe haemorrhaging, was not the cause of the death, and the administration of the fluids was not detrimental to the patients health at all – it just wasn’t effective?
The study that the author here is referring too is called “Mortality after Fluid Bolus in African Children with Severe Infection”. Severe infection being the key……there is a lot more than just shock going on in the patient. Where is the proof that the author has fully researched the article? Can we seriously believe that these doctors have looked at a child with a “severe infection” and said, “oh my, this child has shock!”?
If that is the case, then the medical staff are guilty of incompetence at the least. If it is not the case, and the patient is being treated for the infection, and PART of that treatment is the provision of fluids….then it is rather reactionary to just jump to the conclusion that the fluids caused the death.
Perhaps, as a direct result of the “conclusions” from this study, the medical profession should abandon the administration of fluids as a treatment for shock? It MAY save the 3% that have would of “allegedly” been killed by the fluids, but what about the remaining 97% that did survive fluid injection?
Once again, this is a case of a journalist cherry picking the juicy bits to gain readers and web page hits.
And Heidi, I don’t recall anywhere in Paul’s reply his mentioning that he was “upset”. He did say that it was a misleading title, and he implied that the article was nonsense. I agree. It IS mis-leading, and it IS nonsense. Just because people do not agree with your sensationalist and alarmist views and opinions does not mean that they are wrong.
Steve is correct, there really was not support for the claims made. this is pseudo science leading the reader to a conclusion which may or may not have merit. Demonization of Big pharma and conventional medicine is as misleading as total unquestioning acceptance.
Also, I think rehydration is usually done by intravenous drip and is generally carefully observed, the rate adjusted to the kids’ specific needs to maintain volume, not an iv “injection”.