1023collaborative

OSHA supporters often suggest that workers systematically underestimate the true amount of risk that they face on the job. If a new worker asks his or her employer about the probability of a job-related injury or fatality, it is not uncommon for employers to state that people are only injured when they are careless or do not follow the firm's safety procedures. Since most workers believe that they are more careful than the "average" worker, workers in high-risk occupations believe that they are getting high wages while facing only a moderate level of risk. OSHA supporters argue that OSHA regulations reduce the level of risk closer to that which workers would have preferred if they had perfect information about the level of risk. Even if workers are aware of the risk they face, an argument for OSHA regulations can also be based on the negative externalities associated with job-related injuries or deaths. While each worker might select a combination of risk and wages that is optimal given only his or her own costs and benefits, this choice does not take into account the external costs imposed on others when a work-related injury or death occurs in the workplace. The existence of these negative externalities provides another argument for the existence of OSHA regulations designed to reduce job risk. In general, supporters of OSHA argue that the benefits from saving lives and reducing work-related injuries outweigh the costs. OSHA critics argue that the costs resulting from OSHA regulations outweigh the benefits.

sed marijuana as a medical treatment for thousands of years. S

arijuana refers to the dried flowers, leaves, stems and seeds of the Cannabis sativa plant.

contains at least 60 chemicals called cannabinoids. Researchers are evaluating how effective so

widespread marijuana use has only become prevalent in this country within the last three decades, so the effects of long-term use are just beginning to become apparent.

safest recreational substances available

ocaine, heroine, alcohol, and even cigarettes are more dangerous to the user’s health than marijuana.

For starters, it could cause harm. All vaccines carry the risk of injury or death. During trials, nine individuals developed arthritis after receiving the vaccine versus three for the placebo, out of approximately 21,000 individuals in that trial. Nine kids with arthritis after receiving the vaccine might not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of things. After all, arthritis is better than cancer, right? That depends. Given the fact that cervical cancer is relatively rare, highly preventable and most often successfully treated early on, maybe the risk of arthritis — a painful and often debilitating disease — isn’t a worthwhile trade-off.

In order to learn the truth about an unknown, honest science dictates that we have to compare it to a known. When most people think about a vaccine placebo, they are probably thinking about saline. But that’s not what was used during trials. The “placebo” in this case was an aluminium-containing shot. The vaccine itself also contains aluminium. Aluminium hydroxide is what’s known as an adjuvant — it stimulates immune response. Studies in both animals and humans have found that aluminium adjuvants can cause death of brain cells. Similar studies have also shown that aluminium adjuvants in vaccines can cross the blood-brain barrier, as well as cause injection-site inflammation leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue. Aluminium adjuvants have never been subjected to clinical trials for safety. Read that again: Although the metal has been used in vaccines for decades, it has never been rigorously studied for long-term safety. So perhaps the 1 case of lupus and 2 cases of arthritis out of 9,701 participants who received the “placebo” were not just statistical anomalies. Maybe it was the aluminium. Perhaps that would also explain the 1 case of juvenile arthritis, 2 cases of rheumatoid arthritis, 5 cases of arthritis and 1 case of reactive arthritis in 11,813 Gardasil recipients. We’ll never know. (Some of the trial participants did, in fact, receive straight saline but there’s no way to tell from the data released which cases are which.) More importantly, a reactive placebo artificially decreases the appearance of danger of an experimental vaccine in a clinical trial because the drug company only has to prove that adverse events weren’t statistically significant in the vaccine group versus the placebo group. So using aluminium-containing placebos falsely inflates the adverse-event data of the “placebo” group, making the vaccine look relatively safe by comparison. Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminium. Neither Merck nor the U.S. FDA would answer my questions as to how much aluminium was used in the placebo. (Sanofi Pasteur MSD is marketing the vaccine in Europe and is a joint venture of French company Sanofi Pasteur and U.S. pharmaceutical company Merck.) Clinical trial investigators dismissed most of the 102 serious adverse events including 17 deaths that occurred in the clinical trials as unrelated to the study. But given the reactivity profile of aluminium, can we really say that for sure?

Those who received the vaccine reported even more serious adverse events such as gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis. In a never before done study, scientists recently found a link between aluminium in vaccines and symptoms associated with Parkinson’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease) and Alzheimer’s. “This is suspicious,” neuroscientist Chris Shaw told the Georgia Straight, Canada’s largest urban weekly. “Either this [link] is known by industry and it was never made public, or industry was never made to do these studies by Health Canada. I’m not sure which is scarier.” Shaw said there could be 10,000 studies showing aluminium hydroxide is safe to be injected, but that he hasn’t been able to find one study that looked beyond the first few weeks of injection. The reason this is significant, according to Shaw, is that neurological damage can take years to manifest.

Owens and author Diana Baumrind analyzed data gathered from 100 middle-class white families from 1968 to 1980. The children and parents were interviewed, tested and observed on three occasions by two teams of psychologists when the children were 4, 9 and 14. The study found the majority of families disciplined their preschool children by using mild to moderate spanking. The results showed no negative effects on cognitive, social or behavioral skills of those youngsters and found no difference between them and the 4 percent of children who were not physically disciplined. The study found that 4 percent to 7 percent of parents fell into the "red zone" by disciplining their children frequently and impulsively, by such means as verbal punishment, using a paddle, hitting their children in the face or torso or throwing and shaking them. Those children were found to be not as adjusted socially and more likely to have behavioral problems or experience anxiety or depression, Owens said. She acknowledged that the children studied were from an earlier generation and the results could be different if the same research were done on today's youngsters. A study released last August found that avoiding corporal punishment altogether increases the probability of the child being well-behaved and well-adjusted. Murray Straus, co-director of the University of New Hampshire Family Research Laboratory, said spanking could backfire and push a youngster into delinquency.

Females in the United States number 140 million people, comprising over half of the total population

ancer screening. An estimated 662,870 women will be diagnosed with cancer in 2005, and cancer is projected to lead to death for 275,000 women. An estimated 211,240 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 10,370 with cervical cancer; 40,410 and 3,710 women are projected to die of breast and cervical cancer, respectively.4 Mammograms and Pap tests are an effective means of reducing the incidence of late stage breast and cervical cancers, respectively, and mortality caused by these cancers.

Treatment of heart attack. Each year, about half a million women die of heart disease5; it is the leading cause of death for both women and men.

How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed? The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster dose of vaccine will be needed.

There are no federal laws requiring the immunization of children.

How much will the HPV vaccine cost? The retail price of the vaccine is $120 per dose ($360 for full series).

A Pap test is done to look for changes in the cells of the cervix . During a Pap test, a small sample of cells from the surface of the cervix is collected by your health professional. The sample is then spread on a slide (Pap smear) or mixed in a liquid fixative (liquid-based cytology) and sent to a lab for examination under a microscope. The cells are examined for abnormalities that may indicate abnormal cell changes, such as dysplasia or cervical cancer.It is important to have your first Pap test within 3 years of having sex for the first time or by age 21. You may be able to stop having regular Pap tests after you are 65 to 70 years of age, if you have had 3 normal Pap tests in a row, you do not have a high risk of cervical cancer, and you have not had any new sex partners over the last 3 years. If you do not have a uterus, you don’t need a Pap test as long as cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer was not the reason your uterus was removed. You may need more frequent Pap tests if you have had an abnormal Pap test in the past. Talk with your health professional about how often you should have Pap tests.A high-risk type of the human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of most cases of cervical cancer. In women older than 30, an HPV test may be done at the same time as a Pap test. A vaccine (Gardasil) is available to prevent infection with the types of HPV that are most likely to cause cervical cancer.

"Also, the public needs to know that with vaccinated women and women who still get Pap smears (which test for abnormal cells that can lead to cancer), some of them will still get cervical cancer."The reason, she said, is because the vaccine does not protect against all HPV viruses that cause cancer - it's only effective against two that cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers.For months, Harper said, she's been trying to convince major television and print media to listen to her and tell the facts about the usefulness and effectiveness of this vaccine.