Many doctors refuse to point a finger at vaccines when a child is clearly harmed after being vaccinated.

Do vaccines cause autism? This question has been the source of a heated debate for a long time. While researching autism for the last six years, I’ve often seen articles about causation and correlation. Although I am a layperson who doesn’t completely grasp the scientific process, I have to say the topic intrigues me. I’m going to, if you will, think out loud in this article. Bear with me, and if you have ideas you’d like to share, please do.

First of all, what does causation mean? What is correlation? Merriam-Webster defines “causation” as:

a: the act or process of causing
b: the act or agency which produces an effect

I’ll come back to correlation in a moment. With this definition of causation in mind, there seem to be three possible answers to the question, do vaccines cause autism?

1. Yes. Always.
2. No. Never.
3. Maybe. Sometimes.

Let’s explore each one.

Yes. Always.

I don’t think anyone believes that vaccines always cause autism. That would mean that every child who gets a vaccine ends up with autism. It just goes against reason and logic—and it’s simply not true. There are a lot of children who have gotten a lot of vaccines, and they don’t have autism.

No. Never.

“Never” is a strong word. It would mean that no child has ever gotten autism because of a vaccine. Not one single child. This option is as unreasonable and illogical as the “Yes. Always” option.

Maybe. Sometimes.

I think any reasonable, logical person would find this option … well, reasonable and logical. Vaccines sometimes cause autism. Not always. Not never. Sometimes. Like cigarettes and cancer. It’s an accepted scientific fact that people who smoke have a higher risk of cancer. But there are people who smoke for a lifetime and don’t get cancer. Then, there are people who never smoke and end up with cancer. Sometimes.

CORRELATION, CAUSATION—OR BOTH?

Back to option #2, No. Never. This is where correlation comes in. If this option were true and vaccines never cause autism, for every child whose parent claims he or she developed autism after a vaccine, there is another explanation in the scientific world: correlation. According to M-W, “correlation” is:

the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone

Correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. But think about these examples:

1. A child runs out in the street, is hit by a car, and dies. Did the car correlate with his death, was it responsible for his death (causation), or both? Obviously, the car correlated with the child’s death because the two events occurred almost simultaneously. Most reasonable, logical people would say that being run over by the car caused the child’s death. So, there was correlation and causation. A skeptical person might say the child was on the verge of a heart attack (or some other fatal event) in the moments before he was hit by the car, so the car correlated with his death but didn’t cause it. Cause of death could have been the heart attack, and the car just happened to hit the child at almost the same time.

2. A child gets a vaccine and then develops a low-grade fever—a known, undebated side effect of the vaccine. Or redness at the injection site—another known, undebated side effect. Since the fever or redness occurred at about the same time the child got the vaccine, the vaccine also correlated with those side effects.

3. A child gets a vaccine and then gets a fever of 102 (not low-grade), has a seizure, gets sick, stays sick, and—you know the rest. Autism. According to diehard pro-vaxers, the vaccine could not be the cause of the autism. The vaccine simply correlated with the autism. Perhaps the more immediate the adverse event—say, the child dies within minutes or hours of receiving the vaccine—the more likely causation might be. Again, I’m thinking out loud here. Maybe the greater the time between the vaccine and the adverse event—say, the child regresses over a period of weeks or months—the greater the possibility that there could be other causes. Maybe, for instance, the child was on the verge of a seizure disorder and it was just a matter of time before he had the first one. Or he had “inherited” autism, and it was just a matter of time before the first symptoms appeared. Correlation but no causation. Personally, I don’t see how any reasonable, logical person could completely rule out the vaccine as at least a contributing cause—if not the only cause.

TALK ABOUT JUNK SCIENCE

You may remember the article I published last month, “1 in 88: What’s Causing the Increase in Autism?” I mentioned some of our government’s proposed causes of autism. Living within three miles of a freeway is one. I’m not saying that isn’t possible. Maybe it is one cause. One of numerous. But how could it be proven? How is it not just correlation? In addition to living close to a freeway—and I’m thinking like the CDC now—maybe these kids’ moms took certain medications when they were pregnant, maybe their moms and/or dads were too old, maybe the mom gained too much weight, maybe the child wore pajamas with flame retardant in them, maybe the baby was premature or inhaled household cleaners or too much dust in utero. Etc. Etc.

When I ponder causation and correlation, the Danish study that was published in 2003 comes to mind. The claim was that even when mercury was removed from most vaccines (which is, of course, not the case), the autism rate did not decline. In fact, it increased. The conclusion: Mercury doesn’t cause autism. How scientific is that? It doesn’t prove that vaccines don’t cause autism. Even if the findings were true as reported (which they weren’t) [1], at best the study could possibly suggest that mercury doesn’t cause autism. The problem with this is, there are so many ingredients in vaccines. Not just mercury. This is the epitome of junk science. It doesn’t prove that aluminum or aborted fetal cells or formaldehyde or ether or antibiotics or bacteria, to name a few, couldn’t cause autism. And it doesn’t prove that an interaction between the many ingredients in a vaccine or between different vaccines given at the same time couldn’t cause autism.

To me, this would be like taking one ingredient out of cigarettes, seeing no drop in the cancer rate, and saying that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. What is the difference? There is no reasonable, logical thinking here, let alone scientific proof.

A FEW QUOTES

So, just briefly, I’ll stop thinking out loud and mention some of the quotes I’ve found on causation and correlation. I chose these because I think they are—you got it—reasonable and logical.

“Obviously, it is much more difficult to prove causation than it is to prove an association. Should we just ignore associations? No! Not at all!!! Not even close!!! Correlations are crucial for research and still need to be looked at and studied …” [2]

“It’s hard to nail down causation conclusively, as evidenced by tobacco company lawyers who argued for forty years that smoking merely ‘correlated’ to lung cancer rather than actually caused it. However, the least you can do is pause and ask yourself what other possible causes exist … If they do exist, you need to think through the evidence and determine why these other causes are less likely than the one you propose.” [3]

I think this is especially relevant to my grandson’s story (Unlocking Jake: The Story of a Rabies Vaccine, Recovery & Autism). Jake was 3½ years old when he developed autism after a series of rabies vaccines. As I’ve explained before, he was not sick, he was not on any medication, he hadn’t been bitten or stung by anything, and he hadn’t ingested any type of poison. Nothing could explain what happened to him except for the rabies vaccines. In my AutismOne interview on Voice America this week, Teri Arranga asked me if I thought the rabies vaccine could have been Jake’s toxic tipping point. I have thought about this a lot, and I’ll probably never know for sure. It’s possible. Maybe if he hadn’t had 30 doses of vaccines between 1 day old and 15 months old, he wouldn’t have regressed into autism after the rabies vaccines. The one thing I do know is that the rabies vaccine caused autism in my grandson. There was no other possible cause. None.

“…correlation does not imply causation, even though in fact some of the most important scientific advances have come precisely because scientists did investigate that implication. … Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.” [4] These are the words of Edward Tufte, Professor Emeritus of political science, statistics, and computer science at Yale University. Tufte holds a Ph.D in political science from Yale and a B.S. and an M.S. in statistics from Stanford University. In early 2010, he was appointed by President Obama to serve on the independent panel that advises the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. [5]

And, last but not least, from Austin Bradford Hill: “Finally, in passing from association to causation I believe in ‘real life’ we shall have to consider what flows from that decision. On scientific grounds we should do no such thing. The evidence is there to be judged on its merits and the judgment (in that sense) should be utterly independent of what hangs upon it—or who hangs because of it. But in another and more practical sense we may surely ask what is involved in our decision.” [6] It’s pretty obvious who stands to lose when the truth about vaccines and autism can no longer be denied.

Hill (1897–1991), by the way, was a British medical statistician who outlined criteria necessary to prove causation. “Hill’s Criteria” forms the basis of modern epidemiological research. You can read all nine of them, but one idea in particular stands out. Just because a perceived association (in this case, between vaccines and autism) doesn’t agree with established theory (that vaccines don’t cause autism), that doesn’t mean the association is false. “… It may, in fact, force a reconsideration of accepted beliefs and principles.” [7]

References

1. www.ageofautism.com/2012/04/revisiting-denmark-more-rotten-than-ever.html

2. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-addiction/201003/correlation-causation-and-association-what-does-it-all-mean.

3. http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/logic_causation.html

4. www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/best/correlation.html

5. www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2010/03/president_obama_8.html

6. www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/hill

7. www.drabruzzi.com/hills_criteria_of_causation.htm

Photo Credit

Childhood Lost -- When a child is injured by vaccination, the parents often struggle many years without compensation.

After 17 years the French State Council finally acknowledged the devastating injuries a five month old baby suffered after receiving a five in one vaccination from her doctor.

In 1995, five months old Ines received the Pentacoq vaccine as part of her regular scheduled childhood vaccinations. One week later the tiny baby was rushed to hospital with serious neurological complications said to have been caused by the vaccine, leaving her with 95% disabilities

The Pentacoq vaccine was given to French babies in the early 1990’s to protect them from whooping cough, haemophilus influenza type b (Hib), diphtheria, tetanus and polio. However, in 1995 due to many children suffering from severe sides affects the vaccination was banned and later replaced.

According to the website ‘Prevent Disease,’ (1) at the time baby Ines was vaccinated, the vaccination was mandatory and therefore the MSA (French Farmers Mutual Insurance) paid her medical costs. The French State Council has now ruled that the Government, and more specifically the Ministry of Health, are to pay not only 3 million euros in compensation to this severely disabled young woman but also to compensate the MSA for all of the medical costs that they incurred.

Pre-2002, the French government assumed any risk linked to vaccinations, however, in 2004 this changed and the responsibility for vaccine related injuries shifted to ONIAM (French Medical Malpractice Compensation Authority) who are now required to pay vaccine-related benefits. Sanofi-Pasteur, the manufacturer of the Pentacoq vaccine, escaped scot-free.

Prevent Disease reported:

It will have taken the Courts 17 years to settle this claim. For the victim and her family, it has been 17 years of waiting and hoping for benefits while the Ministry of Health and Sport, now represented by Xavier Bertrand, dragged its feet; 17 years of lawyers’ time paid by the government, a.k.a. the taxpayer, in litigation against the victim and her family.

 (Following the trail of links through, the original paper on the case in French can be found on easydroit.fr (2))

According to the Easydroit report, the vaccinations baby Ines received in 1995 were mandatory and caused him to suffer from rhombomyélite. This has left him with permanent neurological damage (different translations are giving different genders). As a direct result of his injuries the medical bills for Ines which include specialist equipment have totalled a massive $ 47,412.18 now needing to be paid by the state.

Sadly, lessons have not been learned and the curse of the pentavalent vaccines still exists. It appears that the five in one wonder vaccine still causes death and disability wherever it goes. An open letter sent to Dr Margaret Chan, the Director General, of the WHO (3) by the ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’ reported that deaths caused by this vaccine were currently being recorded all over India.  The letter entitled ‘Pentavalent Vaccine Related Deaths’ says:

‘As you would know, there have been several Pentavalent vaccine related deaths in Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Pakistan. Using the WHO approved classification of AEFI (Adverse Events Following Immunization) many of these deaths are ‘probably related to the immunization’ because no alternate cause for the adverse events has been found. However an expert panel looking at the deaths in Sri Lanka deleted ‘probably related’ and ‘possibly related’ from the classification of Brighton for purposes of their evaluation report, and then certified that the vaccines were ‘unlikely to be due to the vaccines’. (sic)

AIDAN wrote that despite the fact that the WHO had delisted a number of different prequalified pentavalent vaccines the problem had refused to go away. They said that the vaccine had been introduced into India at the end of last year, to evaluate its safety but according to an affidavit filed in the Kerala High Court by the Government of Kerala India four deaths had been reported in the first two months.

It appears that the letter made little impact whatsoever on Dr Chan’s conscience because recently it was reported that she and her colleagues have been introducing the vaccine to as many states of India as possible. It has now been reported that a total of six more states Gujarat, Karnataka, Haryana, Goa, J&K and Pondicherry have been earmarked to receive the vaccination.  (4)

India is not the only country to have had problems with the five in one killer. At the end of last year a nine week old premature baby died in Belgium after she received 9 shots in one day which included the ill fated pentavalent vaccine. (5)

So how many vaccines are a safe number of vaccines?

History has taught us that young children’s immune systems do not cope with multiple vaccinations and yet we chose to keep on vaccinating them. The MMR and the DPT both have long tainted histories of causing death and destruction and yet despite this fact the pharmaceutical industries are happy to keep on developing more and more multiple vaccinations which are accepted onto the market with minimal testing. ‘The more vaccines in one syringe the better’’ seems to be the government’s motto, however, many professionals describe this as more of a cost cutting exercise than an exercise in safety.

Many of the ingredients used in vaccines are considered to be dangerous and different vaccinations contain different ingredients. Many of us are unaware that when these ingredients are combined, their toxic effects can multiply, making them potentially lethal. Donald W Miller describes this extremely well in his paper- Mercury on the Mind. (6) He says that:

“A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum.”

In other words the more vaccines a baby is given in one day the more toxic the multiple ingredients are likely to be. Chas M Higgins (7) once described vaccinations as BLOOD POISONING WITH INFLICTED DISEASE which he described as OFTEN MORE FATAL THAN NATURAL DISEASE’. With the amount of children dying after the five in one vaccine he could be right. Higgins described vaccinations as being so violent and dangerous that they have been frequently known to kill in as little as ten to fifteen minutes.

Higgins paper is probably the strongest outcry of protest against vaccination that I have ever read and it is certainly a must read for anyone who is contemplating vaccinations. Perhaps if more people had heeded his warnings in 1920 when this paper was published the situation we now face may never have reached this point. It certainly appears that the pharmaceutical industries hand in hand with our governments are on a mission to kill and maim as many innocent babies as possible and are targeting them from birth.

It is about time this madness stopped and instead of poisoning children with multiple vaccinations; children were allowed to develop their own natural immunity just as nature intended.

References

1. Prevent Disease – French Government Sentenced To Pay 3 Million Euros In Benefits For Vaccine Damage http://preventdisease.com/news/12/050512_French-Government-Forced-To-Pay-3-Million-Euros-In-Benefits-For-Vaccine-Damage.shtml
2. Conseil d’État, 24 Avril 2012 N° 327915 http://www.easydroit.fr/jurisprudence/Conseil-d-etat-24-Avril-2012/J311167/
3. One Click News – Open letter to DG, WHO, Pentavalent Vaccine Related Deaths http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=7007#newspost
4. The Times Of India – Pentavalent Vaccines in Six More States http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-17/india/31355153_1_haemophilus-influenzae-type-pentavalent-vaccine-hib
5. VacTruth – Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day http://vactruth.com/2012/01/19/baby-dies-after-first-shots/
6. Mercury on the Mind – Synergistic toxicity by Donald W Miller MD http://www.whale.to/a/miller1.html
7. The Horrors of Vaccination Exposed and Illustrated.  http://www.whale.to/vaccine/higgins_b.html

Photo Credit

The Hep-B vaccine may be damaging your baby's liver.

Last week I received an email from the Autism Action Network.   The Vermont legislature voted to preserve their philosophical exemption to vaccines, thus upholding parental rights.  This huge victory is credited to the relentless work of parents, a coalition of health rights organizations and vaccine safety advocates.

The email states, “This is an important defeat in the nationwide effort the vaccine industry has launched to reduce parental control over vaccine decisions for their children.”

According to an article in the Burlington Free Press on May 4th, 2012 by Terri Hallenbeck, “parents from the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice blitzed legislators with emails, phone calls, and conversations.”

Hallenbeck notes that Vermont House of Representatives member George Till, MD who introduced the bill, cited studies from the W.H.O. and the National Academy of Science saying side effects from vaccines are rare, and that adverse events are often incorrectly linked to vaccines.  This, of course, is the same ‘pap’ they have been dishing out for years, which is clearly subject to debate.  We can flip this around and say adverse events are rarely correctly linked to vaccines!

Anyway, there is now overwhelming documentation of significant health damage among the population from vaccines.  The moms and citizens are living it, and Representative Dr. Till credited the defeat of his bill (to eliminate the philosophical exemption) to involved citizens, who while small in number were very vocal.

Clearly, we are making progress!

Apropos of the above, a May 2012 article in the journal Apoptosis, entitled, Hepatitis B vaccine induces apoptotic death in hepa 1-6 cells by Hamza, et. al., drives home the dangers of vaccination by demonstrating the death of liver cells from the Hepatitis B vaccine along with a loss of mitochondrial energy, which these authors have show to have been caused by this Hep-B vaccine.

Remember the Hanah Poling vaccine-induced autism case in which they identified a mitochondrial disorder thought to be “activated” rather than caused by the vaccinations Hannah received?  Well here we have research demonstrating a vaccine CAUSING a mitochondrial disorder!

The article’s abstract opens with “Vaccines can have adverse side-effects, and these are predominantly associated with the inclusion of chemical additives such as aluminum hydroxide adjuvant;” and states, “We conclude that exposure of Hepa1-6 cells to a low dose of adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine leads to loss of mitochondrial integrity, apoptosis induction, and cell death, [emphasis mine] apoptosis effect was observed also in C2C12 mouse myoblast cell line after treated with low dose of vaccine (0.3, 0.1, 0.05 μg/ml). In addition In vivo apoptotic effect of hepatitis B vaccine was observed in mouse liver.”

In other words, the toxicity of the vaccine in very low doses was observed both in actual live mouse liver as well as in cell lines from the mouse.  Are we destroying our babies’ livers with these vaccines? Non-alcoholic liver disease has become a virtual epidemic in recent years.  Could vaccines be implicated?

‘Me thinks’ we have still more real chinks in the armor of the vaccinators.  Studies of this nature can be used to educate legislators on why we need vaccine safety research and why we must allow opt-out options for parents who are educated to the dark side of vaccination.

Photo Credit

Healthy teenage girls are a huge market for HPV vaccine makers.

When we see the term “cancer vaccine” in connection with the HPV (human  papilloma virus) vaccine Gardasil we may naturally assume that  it prevents cervical cancer, yet there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. (1)  On the contrary, the term is incorrect because unbelievable though it may sound Gardasil may actually cause cancer. This fact is being ignored by Merck the manufacturer and other promoters including doctors and health authorities.

NOT TESTED FOR CARCINOGENICITY

Information in the package insert states that the vaccine has not been tested for carcinogenicity. (2) Why has this not been done?  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!  There appears to be no official requirement for vaccines to be tested for carcinogenicity and no incentive for manufacturers to do so.  Many experts consider that vaccines are conducive towards the dramatic worldwide increase in cancer cases.

REPLACEMENT MAY CAUSE DEVELOPMENT OF CANCER

A normal phenomenon in virology is that virus strains which have been removed are replaced by new ones.  It is not known by anyone, including the vaccine manufacturer  whether the new virus strains are more carcinogenic than the original ones which have been removed.

The chief editor of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, immunologist Charlotte Haug writes about several unanswered questions including that of replacement in her article “We Need to Talk about HPV Vaccination – Seriously”:

Abhorred vacuum.There is another serious question that may be answered sooner:  what effect will the vaccine have on the other cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and HPV-18  are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus will take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer?

Results from clinical trials are not encouraging. Vaccinated women show an increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than HPV-16 and HPV-18. The results are not statistically significant, but if the trend is real – and further clinical trials should tell us in a few years – there is reason for serious concern. (3)

In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine  “ Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination – Reasons for Caution”,  Dr. Haug again poses the question of replacement:

“How will the vaccine affect other oncogenic strains of HPV? If HPV-16 and HPV-18 are effectively suppressed, will there be selective pressure on the remaining strains of HPV? Other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes”. (4)

INCREASE IN CERVICAL CANCER RISK FOR THOSE PREVIOUSLY EXPOSED TO THE HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS

One of the most disturbing observations which deserves serious investigation  concerns the considerable potential  increase in risk of cancer after Gardasil vaccination for those who have been pre- exposed to the human papilloma virus.

Sanevax writes:

Peer-reviewed analysis and studies many of them on the FDA, NCI and CDC web sites point out the dangers of many of the vaccine ingredients including the potential for the HPV vaccines to increase the risk for pre-cancerous lesions if adolescents have been previously exposed to the human papillomavirus and then get vaccinated: 44.6% increase post Gardasil.

Judicial Watch writes in their Special Report “Examining The FDA’s HPV Vaccine Records”:

A chart in the committee’s report revealed that efficacy in subjects already exposed to “relevant HPV types” had an observed efficacy rate of -44.6%. The disturbing efficacy rate raises questions as to who should be receiving the vaccine, and why the FDA allows Gardasil to be administered without prescreening for HPV. The outcomes that can result from pre-exposure are disconcerting and deserve far more attention.(8)

HPV IS NOT JUST A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTION – ALSO BABIES MAY BE INFECTED!

It is dangerous and  unethical of promoters to recommend Gardasil  when it is unknown whether there has been prior exposure to HPV infection. In an obvious attempt to encourage  thousands of young people to get vaccinated with Gardasil it is widely published that the vaccine should be given prior to sexual relations because HPV infection is sexually transmitted.  This is not necessarily the case. The promoters hide the fact that HPV may be transmitted from mother to child and has been detected in the placenta and in umbilical cord blood.(9)

NEWLY DISCOVERED INGREDIENT GENE MODIFIED DNA MAY LEAD TO MALIGNANCIES

The recent discovery of yet one more potentially cancer causing element connected to Gardasil sent shock waves across the world. This is the story which lead to its discovery:

A sexually naive girl developed acute juvenile rheumatoid arthritis at age 13 within 24 hours after  the third Gardasil injection and her blood sample – tested two years later – was found to be positive for HPV DNA by a local clinical laboratory. On request for more information by her mother  the Sanevax team contracted  an independent laboratory  for analysis of 13 samples of Gardasil, all from different lots.

The results showed that all the samples contained recombinant (genetically  modified) HPV DNA which was firmly attached to the aluminium adjuvant. (10)

The consequences of the presence of recombinant HPV DNA which is  considered a biohazard are unknown and may be horrific. The pathologist Dr. Lee stated:

“Based on medical literature and some of the FDA/Merck’s own publications, adventitious (coming from an outside source) DNA in an injectable protein-based vaccine may increase the risk of autoimmune disorders and gene mutation which may lead to malignancies.” (10)

Merck’s Gardasil product inserts stated “No viral DNAs in the vaccine” – until April 2011 when the line was glaringly absent from U.S. product inserts. (10)

It is shocking to see that FDA admits that it is generally impossible to remove DNA contaminants from vaccines. (11)

On contacting the authorities about the worrying discovery of recombinant HPV DNA in Gardasil, Sanevax received a prompt reply from the Department of Health referring to a statement by the CHMP  (European Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) that  the presence of recombinant DNA fragments does not represent a case of contamination and is not considered to be a risk to vaccine recipients. (12)

No supporting documentation whatsoever has been provided to support this statement!

It is reasonable to assume that the vaccine would not have gained approval had the manufacturers informed the authorities of the presence of the aluminum bound gene manipulated DNA due to potential health risks.

The following issues which may be connected to increase of cancer risk should have been seriously addressed and results from unbiased studies presented before the vaccine was approved:

• Lack of carcinogenicity testing of the vaccine
• Replacement
• Increase in cancer risk for those previously exposed to human papilloma virus
• Presence of recombinant DNA (rDNA)

These important studies have not been presented.  Gardasil should therefore immediately be withdrawn from the market until satisfactory documentation has been provided.

When vaccine critics maintain that the vaccine is dangerous and that it should never have been approved the response from promoters is often a request  for evidence of proof to support the statements.

“It is not vaccine critics who must provide evidence that vaccines are dangerous;  it is the vaccine promoters’  responsibility to prove that vaccines are safe and effective and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”  - Marcella  Piper-Terry

References:

(1)    http://www.cancermonthly.com/blog/2007/12/gardasil-cervical-cancer-vaccine.html

(2)    http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf

(3)    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20928-we-need-to-talk-about-hpv-vaccination–seriously.html?full=true

(4)    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0804638

(5)    http://vactruth.com/2010/06/28/merck-paying-experts-gardasil/

(6)    http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm111283.htm

(7)    http://sanevax.org/

(8)    http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/JWReportFDAhpvVaccineRecords.pdf

(9)    http://www.prlog.org/11554580-hpv-not-just-sexually-transmitted-disease.html

(10)http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-discovers-potential-bio-hazard-contaminant-in-merck%e2%80%99s-gardasil%e2%84%a2-hpv-4-vaccine/

(11)http://vactruth.com/2012/01/21/fly-in-my-vaccine-soup/

(12)http://sanevax.org/freda-birrell-sane-vax-letter-to-committee-for-medicinal-products-for-human-use-gardasil-contamination/

Photo Credit

Reports are indicating a bird flu strain has been engineered.

The cat is out of the bag on bird flu—a strain has been laboratory engineered, and the U.S. government did everything it could to keep the lid on that research!

Thanks to the report published in Nature by a team out of the University of Wisconsin,

 …a mutated version of H5N1 passes from one ferret to another without trouble, the Los Angeles Times reported.  Spread in the air, the hybrid strain of bird flu included an H5 hemagglutinin, which plays a role in binding the virus to airway cells, and genes from the swine flu behind the 2009 pandemic. [1]

Did you note “ binding the virus to airway cells?”  What are they spraying in chemtrails?

Interestingly, the research at University of Wisconsin led by virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka indicates, “how malleable flu strains can be in spreading from one mammalian host to another.”  Kawaoka admits that a mutation which  emerged in his study at U of W already has appeared in the Middle East and Asia.

However, there’s a second study whose ‘shoe will drop’ when it is published in the journal Science sometime in the future.

May 3^rd, 2012, The Los Angeles Times published Eryn Brown’s article “Bird flu can spread in mammals, study finds,” which can be read here http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-bird-flu-20120503,0,6267062.story

The Washington Post published on May 2^nd the article “One of two controversial ‘bird flu’ papers is published” by David Brown at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/one-of-two-controversial-bird-flu-papers-is-published/2012/05/02/gIQA51egxT_story.html

The genetic engineering of microorganisms indicates just how determined science is, in my opinion, to mess around with reprogramming disease patterns that can impact human health—and animal health—and may be ‘just what the doctor ordered’ for Big Pharma to come up with new vaccines and other pharmaceuticals to keep humans in fear, over-vaccinated, and ‘medication poor’.

Perhaps it’s time that healthcare consumers on a global basis take back their health from science and tell science to get out of Frankenstein mode.  We don’t need man-made pandemics that are supported by the World Health Organization, Big Pharma, the U.S. CDC and FDA, or anyone for that matter.  Humans deserve better, especially children—the future of the human race.

Something YOU Should Do About Vaccines Today

SafeMinds and the Vaccine Injured Petitioners Bar Association are hosting a

Congressional Briefing on Autism

Friday, May 18, 2012 at 10 am
in The Rayburn Gold Room
2168 Rayburn House Office Building

It is critical that you contact your legislators directly to ask them and their staff to attend this briefing.   Here’s how to contact YOUR members of Congress: http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm

Call and/or fax and/or e-mail your Representatives directly and request that they attend the briefing.  This is important for everyone, but critical for those members who sit on the House Oversight Committee. They need to hear from their constituents!

House Oversight Committee Majority    Fax (202) 225-3974

 House Oversight Committee Minority   Fax (202) 225-4784

References

[1] http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/story/controversial-bird-flu-study-details-revealed/2012-05-07?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

 
Photo Credit

Your child relies on you to ask questions.

My last article featured “The Clinician’s Guide to the Anti-Vaccinationists’ Galaxy.” [1] Seems only right and fair for parents to have a guide to pro-vaccine doctors. So, based on my personal experience with my grandson Jake and all that I’ve learned over the last six years about autism and vaccines, I give you my advice.

Disclaimer: I am not being compensated financially for creating “A Parent’s Guide to Pro-Vaccine Doctors.” My compensation—and the only compensation I need—is the hope that I can prevent other children and their families from going through what Jake and my family went through as the result of a vaccine injury.

I’ll preface the “guide” with what I believe to be some important information about the vaccine schedule.

Well-Baby Checkups = Excuse to Vaccinate

The main reason for all those “well-baby” checkups during the first year or year and a half of your child’s life can be summed up in one word: vaccines. I think your typical parent is intelligent enough to notice if her baby isn’t eating enough or gaining weight or is sick (pulling at ears, throwing up, coughing, feverish). In other words, she knows when her baby needs to go to the doctor. Sure, a nurse or pediatrician will weigh and measure your child at a well-baby checkup, give him a once-over, and ask you a few questions. But you can bet those syringes are ready when you walk in the door.

If you vaccinate according to the recommended schedule, your child will receive 49 doses of vaccines by the time he is 6 years old. 49 doses. You can choose not to vaccinate—there are exemptions for children of school age. If your doctor discharges you from the practice for not vaccinating, there are doctors who will see your child. See my previous article, “You Can Say No to Vaccines … But Your Child May End Up with No Pediatrician.”

Let’s Play Catch-Up

If, for some reason, your child’s shots are a little behind schedule, your doctor is going to jump on any opportunity to play catch-up. There’s even a catch-up schedule for doctors. [2] And there’s one for parents, too. Thanks to the CDC and the Georgia Institute of Technology, you simply fill in a form online [3] and, at the click of a button, your child’s very own vaccine catch-up schedule is at your fingertips!

I have to get slightly off topic and quote from an article that explains the development of this new tool. It’s from the section entitled “Combination Vaccines.”

“The use of combination vaccines, which combine two or more vaccinations within a single shot, is another practical consideration of note. Simultaneous administration of vaccines under the guidelines set out by ACIP is an encouraged practice (see recommendations in Plotkin and Orenstein (2004) and Atkinson et al. (2006)) since studies have shown that this practice places almost no additional burden on the immune system of a healthy child. Combination vaccines thus, allow for equal coverage with less discomfort to a child.” [4]

I love how that’s worded: “almost no additional burden on the immune system of a healthy child.” That implies a couple of things. One, that the combination vaccine causes some burden on the immune system of a healthy child, and, two, it sounds like the child is assumed to be healthy when getting the shot. And, let’s not forget, there’s “less discomfort” for your child. Discomfort? Seriously? “Discomfort” doesn’t begin to describe autism.

Questions to Ask Pro-Vaccine Doctors

So, what do you do if your doctor is pro-vaccine? I would start by asking some questions before you let your baby get a shot.

• Does my child appear to be well? (no signs of an ear infection brewing, for example)

• How common is the disease (diphtheria, mumps, hepatitis B, etc.)?

• What are the risks of the disease?

• Are there studies proving that this vaccine is safe and effective? (You’ve probably lost him by now, but tell him you prefer studies that aren’t funded by a vaccine manufacturer.)

• Are there studies that show it’s safe to give more than one vaccine at the same time?

• What are the side effects of the vaccine? (He may say redness at the injection site, fever, and fussiness.) Ask what symptoms necessitate calling the doctor or taking your child to the ER (seizures, screaming for hours, loss of skills).

• What side effects have some of your patients experienced? Have any of them told you their children developed autism after a vaccine?

• Are there any contraindications? (Be sure your family history is documented, particularly autoimmune disease, along with any previous reactions your child has had to any vaccine or vaccine ingredient. Some vaccines include egg protein, so if your child is allergic to eggs, it’s critical that the doctor know this.)

• Will you break the shots up?

• Will you start them later?

• Will you spread them out?

• Will you check my child’s titers? (There’s a good chance that he’s still immune to a disease he’s already been vaccinated against.)

• Do you vaccinate your own children? If the answer is yes, ask him if he does it according to the CDC schedule. If the answer is no, ask him to share the schedule that he uses with you.

• If you had to pick one (or two or three) shot(s) to give your children, which one(s) would it be?

And Last—But Certainly Not Least

What’s in this vaccine? Does it contain mercury? (While you’re at it, ask about things like aluminum, formaldehyde, and aborted fetal cells.)

Federal law requires doctors to give parents a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) before administering any vaccine.

“Every time one of these vaccines is given — regardless of what combination vaccine it is given in—regard­less of whether it is given by a public health clinic or a private provider—regardless of how the vaccine was purchased —and regardless of the age of the recipient—the appropriate VIS must be given out prior to the vaccination.” [5]

This law is mandated under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury of Act of 1986 and applies to each vaccine (not just a first dose). If a child is getting a combination vaccine, the parent must be given a sheet for every one. Parents should be allowed to ask questions and, ideally, receive the sheet(s) before the visit or be given the CDC’s URL to download it. They should also be encouraged to take the sheets home in order to have information available about the vaccine schedule and potential adverse reactions. Doctors are advised to record in the patient’s chart that the parent received the sheet, along with the date of the visit, the edition date of the VIS, the manufacturer and lot number of each vaccine, and the office address of the doctor. The doctor is not allowed to change the VIS or make his own.

There are some specific rules about adolescents. If an adolescent is going to receive a shot without the parent being present (for example, at school), the VIS must be mailed home to the parent and returned signed. No VIS, no shot. Permission can be given for multiple doses of the same vaccine, although the form is still sent home prior to each dose and the parent has the option of withdrawing consent. “Prior to administration of each additional dose, the provider should ask the adolescent whether he/she experienced any significant adverse events following receipt of earlier doses. If yes, the provider should consider consulting the parent or delaying the vaccination. The adolescent’s response to questions about adverse reactions to previous doses should be kept in the medical record.” [5]

Here’s the problem—one of the problems, anyway—with a VIS. And this is important. A VIS does not include vaccine ingredients. It may say that if you have a life-threatening allergy (to yeast or another component in the vaccine for Hep B, or to gelatin or neomycin for the MMRV), you shouldn’t get it. But in most cases, it doesn’t tell you what the other components are. And believe me, there’s a very long list for all vaccines. Here’s what I’d do. Ask your doctor for the package insert. If he doesn’t have it, ask him to name the ingredients in the vaccine(s) he plans on giving your child (should be interesting). If he can’t or won’t answer this question, leave without letting your child get any vaccines, and look online yourself. [6]

Doctors: “Do No Harm,” and Answer These Questions

For any doctors who happen to be reading this, remember that you took an oath to “do no harm.” With that in mind, here are a few questions for you.

• Do you know what’s in the shots you’re giving your patients? (Out of curiosity, did you learn about vaccine ingredients in medical school, and/or have you read the package inserts?)

• Would you take all the shots as recommended on the schedule for children?

• Are you vaccinated according to the CDC’s recommended schedule for adults?

• Do you open your ears and mind and listen to parents when they say they have concerns about the vaccines? Or do you play the guilt trip and tell them they’re putting other children at risk by not vaccinating their kids?

• Do you take them seriously when they tell you their child was normal until receiving such-and-such vaccine, and now the child has autism? Look at those 1 in 88 children with autism. Do you really believe vaccines have nothing to do with it?

• What’s the chance that all the parents of these kids are making it up or imagining it?

• What’s the chance that these kids had autism all along and the parents didn’t notice it?

• What’s the chance that YOU didn’t notice it? (If you didn’t, you might want to consider another line of work.)

• Do you throw parents out if they won’t vaccinate their children? If yes, do you supply them with a list of doctors who WILL see their children?

• Have you ever thought of opening your own practice and treating parents with the respect they deserve and accepting parents who won’t vaccinate their children or want an alternate schedule? Could be lucrative. Think about it.

The Right Thing?

“By using the VISs with your patients, you are helping to develop a better educated patient population and you are doing the right thing.” [7] Better educated? Not so much. Some information but a lot of propaganda. Doing the right thing? Far from it. When doctors start really listening to what parents are telling them about how their children are being harmed by vaccines—and asking hard questions themselves about the safety, necessity, and effectiveness of the vaccine program—then, and only then, will they be doing the right thing.

References

1. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198885912000821

2. http://aapredbook.aappublications.org/resources/IZScheduleCatchup.pdf

3. https://www.vacscheduler.org/docs/QuickStartGuide_ImmunizationScheduler.pdf

4. www.tli.gatech.edu/research/humanitarian/files/Catch_upSchedulingforChildhoodVaccinationpaper.pdf

5. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/vis-facts.htm

6. www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

7. www.immunize.org/catg.d/p2027.pdf

Photo Credit

Athletes are being encouraged to get their shots. What the athletes may not know is Big Pharma is a major sponsor.

Olympic athletes and spectators around the world are being urged to have the measles vaccination before traveling to the Olympics. Experts are urging all competitors and anyone traveling to the UK for the Olympic Games this summer to bring home memories not diseases.

With hundreds of thousands of tourists expected to travel to England this year, infectious disease experts in Canada and the USA are worried that travelers could bring the measles back as an extra souvenir and are therefore urging all travelers traveling to the games to make sure that their vaccinations are up to date.

Democrat Chronicle (1) reported that last year was the worst year for measles in 15 years and stated that most cases were imported from abroad. One expert Dr Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made her feelings very clear when she spoke to news reporters, saying:

“For those of you traveling abroad, bring back memories and not measles.”

With GlaxoSmithKline (2) being the number one sponsor of the 2012 Olympic Games, it makes sense that vaccinations are high on the agenda. GSK must have been in seventh heaven when they landed the Olympic contract for drugs testing. They announced in January that they had signed a contract with London 2012 to become an official supplier to the Olympic and Paralympic Games, stating:

“The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) today announces GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) as its Official Laboratory Services Provider in a Tier Three deal. GSK will provide facilities and equipment to enable Kings College London to operate a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited satellite laboratory at Games-time.”

Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline stated:

“The Olympic Games and Paralympic Games provide GSK with a huge opportunity to be part of the delivery of an outstanding world event. I’m delighted we’ve put this alliance with King’s College London together to ensure that excellent science can play a key role in ensuring the Games are conducted to the highest ethical standards and that athletes can lead healthier lives.“

However, is there more to Witty’s wording than meets the eye? It certainly appears that way because many professionals believe that the measles vaccine is an unnecessary vaccine and that measles had died out long before a vaccination was ever introduced.

Dr Jayne Donegan MBBS DRCOG DCH DFFP MRCGP MFHom GP & Homeopath (3) has always believed that we vaccinate against lots of childhood diseases unnecessarily. She believes that the only reason we vaccinate today is because we are told that having the diseases is a bad thing and leads to thousands of deaths. She says:

“When we look at the figures from the Office for National Statistics, we see that 95% of the people who used to die from measles stopped dying before the vaccine was introduced in 1968.”

She is not the only professional to believe this to be the case because many other professionals agree with her. Dr Tim O’Shea wrote that most people growing up in the 1950’s remember having the measles. He wrote that the measles was ‘No big deal’ saying that anyone catching the measles got lifetime immunity as a result. Dr O’Shea provides lists of impressive figures in his book ‘Vaccination Is Not Immunization’ (4) showing exactly how infectious diseases rose dramatically after the introduction of vaccination.

Another vaccination critic from the USA, Cynthia Cournoyer (5) agrees stating:

“Infectious diseases come and go; they are part of the biosphere. To think that we can simply eliminate them through some kind technical engineering is incredibly reckless.”

After reading her work I have to agree with her, especially as she goes on to point out history has taught us that hygiene and living conditions played a significant role in the relative disappearance of cholera and the black plague and that there is no vaccine for either of these diseases. Cournoyer is yet another professional pointing out that the measles death rate decreased by more than 95% from 1915 to 1958 before the measles vaccination was even introduced.

Many professionals believe that far from eradicating the measles and other diseases we vaccinate for, the vaccinations are in fact causing people to become more susceptible.

Despite all this important information CTV News (6) remains convinced that experts are right to be worried. They stated in their report that the British Canadian Center for Disease Control (CDC) noted that measles had been on the rise in many parts of the world and that last year alone; there was an outbreak of almost 800 cases in Quebec that started with at least one unvaccinated traveler.

I have always had a problem with statements like this because if the majority of the population has been vaccinated then I cannot understand how just one unvaccinated traveler can do so much damage! It is my belief that by insisting on the vaccination of athletes and spectators against measles and other diseases, governments are making them more susceptible to the diseases they are vaccinating them against. Furthermore thousands of Olympians and their families are likely to suffer adverse reactions including autism, allergies, neurological conditions, seizures and even death as a result.

I feel that far from the wonderful uniting of nations in sport that the Olympics is supposed to be about, the 2012 Olympics has became little more than a money spinner for big pharma to cash in on.

Resources

1.    Democrat Chronicle – CDC: 2011 was worst measles year in US in 15 years http://www.democratandchronicle.com/viewart/CB/…
2.    GSK Press Release -  http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2009/2009_pressrelease_10137.htm
3.    Dr Jayne Donegan – Are Childhood Infections A Good Thing? http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/…
4.    Dr Tim O’Shea – Vaccination Is Not Immunization
5.    Cynthia Cournoyer – What About Immunizations? Exposing the Vaccine Philosphy
6.    CTV News Headed to Europe – Do You Have All Your Shots http://healthblog.ctv.ca/post/Headed-to-Europe…

Photo Credit

Doctors on Big Pharma's payroll deceptively give your pediatrician propaganda to 'debunk' your concerns about vaccines.

NIIW (National Infant Immunization Week) was “celebrated” April 21–28.

If you’re like me and have never heard of NIIW, it’s “an annual observance to promote the benefits of immunizations and to improve the health of children two years old or younger.” This year, for the first time since the group’s inception in 1994, NIIW was celebrated as part of WIW (World Immunization Week). WIW is an initiative of the WHO (World Health Organization). [1]

NIIW, according to the CDC, “provides an opportunity to …focus attention on our immunization achievements and celebrate the accomplishments made possible through successful collaboration.” If you click on “Promotional materials” on the Web site, you’ll find PR tools and links such as “Pitch and place childhood immunization PSAs all year long.” There are even health e-cards doctors can send to their patients. One has a to-do list on the front and includes, in order, “car seats, outlet covers, cabinet covers, baby gates, smoke detectors, vaccines.” Another starts with “I promise to” and is accompanied by the typical e-card music and a slew of promises for a pregnant mom, such as taking her pre-natal vitamins, eating a balanced diet, holding her baby all night when he’s upset, changing 5,000 diapers a day, and learning everything she can about caring for her baby. It ends with, “I promise to protect you against 14 vaccine-preventable diseases by your 2^nd birthday.” [2] The site is filled with propaganda like this. Check it out—if you have the stomach for it.

“ANTI-VACCINATIONISTS”—A GUIDE FOR DOCTORS

After reading about NIIW, I decided to poke around for more information. I’m glad I did. I saw an article published on the Mayo Clinic Web site entitled “A Physician’s Guide for Anti-Vaccine Parents.” [3] The statement that “a Mayo Clinic vaccine expert and a pediatrician have offered suggestions for refuting three of the most common myths about child vaccine safety” raised my antenna. Their advice appears in the Human Immunology journal as “The Clinician’s Guide to the Anti-Vaccinationists’ Galaxy.” [4] I went to the source but was only able to read the Abstract, so I purchased the article. $31.50. Priceless. Here’s why.

One of the writers, Gregory Poland, MD (the “vaccine expert”), is chair of a Safety Evaluation Committee for vaccine trials conducted by … guess who? Merck. Yes, that’s right. He’s a consultant on vaccine development for Merck. The other writer, Robert Jacobson, MD (the pediatrician), is on a safety review committee for a study funded by … guess who? Merck. He’s also a member of a data monitoring committee for a Merck-funded investigational vaccine trial and an investigator for two studies (one funded by Novartis, the other by Pfizer). I like the way this information is listed at the end of the article, under “Disclosures.” There are probably a lot of doctors who won’t even read it. Maybe that’s the idea. If it was the first paragraph, could ANYone—with the possible exception of doctors who know the writers—read the article and not question their objectivity?

The threat to the vaccine program

Poland and Jacobson begin by hailing vaccines as “a modern miracle of science” and quickly move to the threat of “anti-vaccinationist [is that a real word?] propaganda” and explanations for why vaccine fears exist. To sum up, anti-vaccinationists are uninformed or misinformed, don’t understand probability or statistics, have conspiratorial thinking, blindly accept reports from the media and celebrities [Jenny McCarthy], or have taken on a “life cause.” The authors, who want clinicians to learn how to deal with the “concerns, fears, and misconceptions,” say that their article is aimed at people on “one end of the spectrum” (interesting choice of words)—those who are anti-vaccine and with whom discussions are “other-worldly and alien.” They go on to say that doctors are one of the top three sources of vaccine information for most parents, and “providing patients the right information at the right time will help them make informed decisions, and perhaps prevent undue influence by anti-vaccinationists.”

Next comes a history of the “anti-vaccine movement” and a definition of “anti-vaccinationist.” The definition is lengthy. My favorite part is those who “deny or unfairly disparage … even the motives of those who produce, recommend, and provide vaccines.” Who produces the vaccines? The manufacturers. (Like Merck.) Who recommends them? (The AAP, the CDC, etc.). Who provides them? (The doctors.) Question their motives? Why in the world would we do that? And why would we question the motives of Dr. Poland and Dr. Jacobson?

The myths about vaccine safety

In plain English, the myths are:

1. Babies’ systems can’t handle so many shots.
2. Vaccines can cause autoimmune diseases.
3. Natural immunity from diseases is better and safer than vaccine-induced immunity.

Basically, the article refutes the concept of “antigenic overload” and the association between vaccines and autoimmune diseases and claims that vaccines are effective and safer than the infections they protect against. The authors then proceed to discuss the “harms done by the anti-vaccine movement,” including decreased vaccine rates (resulting in death), alternate schedules (resulting in under-vaccination and putting children at risk from vaccine-preventable diseases), and Dr. Wakefield’s study (resulting in parents choosing vaccine exemptions). “With relatively cheaper and more global means of communication through the Internet, anti-vaccinationists now have the opportunity to spread their message more extensively,” say Poland and Jacobson. The result? Lowered public confidence in vaccines worldwide and the “risk of pandemics and extensive outbreaks.” By the way, an entire page is devoted to Dr. Wakefield’s role in the “anti-vaccine movement.” (Thank you, Andy!) Then, a study is cited in which 8% of physicians said that more than 10% of parents in their practice refused all vaccines, and 20% reported that more than 10% requested an alternate schedule. Still a long way to go, but sounds like progress to me.

The solution to the problem

Finally, in “Conclusions and call to action,” the authors maintain that vaccines are safe for the “vast majority” of people,” and they are effective in decreasing “morbidity and mortality” due to infectious diseases. They state: “Misinformation and lack of scientific understanding must be countered for the public good, and the false information anti-vaccinationists spread countered.” I have to admit that I agree with the next—and last—two sentences: “The only rational way in which to proceed in devising individual and public health policy in regards to the use of vaccines requires high-quality studies and resulting data, interpreted carefully and based on the scientific method. In this regard, physicians have a duty and an important role to play in education, and the public health and vaccine debates.”

Keyword: studies. How about an independent, controlled study? How about a study that isn’t funded by Big Pharma or anyone else who makes money off vaccines? How about a study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children? What a novel idea.

WHAT DO THE DOCTORS HAVE TO SAY?

Some have health concerns

In a 2005 survey of Swiss doctors, “a significant proportion” of non-pediatricians either declined or delayed certain vaccines because of concerns about safety. [5] Last August, in an Age of Autism article, “Protecting Their Own: The Unofficial Vaccination Policy of Doctors in the Know,” L. J. Goes quoted (anonymously, of course) a physician who admitted that he didn’t vaccinate his own kids and claims “they are all perfectly healthy.” He went on to say that although he and other doctors “question vaccines all the time, among ourselves … you never say it openly. … You just don’t question, they look at you like you’re crazy.” He said that his partners tell him, “You make them vaccinate on schedule or they are out.” [6] I know. This is one doctor. But I bet it’s a conversation that goes on among other doctors. Behind closed doors, of course.

Some are losing money

But there’s another reason why some doctors have abandoned or at least decreased the number of vaccines they give their patients. Some vaccines just aren’t profitable. According to an article entitled “Is Our Vaccine System at Risk for a Future Financial ‘Meltdown’?” that appeared in Pediatrics, inventory costs and inadequate insurance reimbursement are posing a problem for some pediatricians. “Vaccine-purchasing costs account for approximately 20% of all pediatric practice expenses.” The AAP recommends that the reimbursement be 17%–28% more than the vaccine cost. And this isn’t happening, especially in smaller practices, which, in some cases, are losing money on vaccines. Many family physicians questioned by the authors said they were no longer purchasing the more expensive vaccines. As a matter of fact, one in five were actually considering stopping all recommended vaccines for privately insured children. [7]

What is appalling to me is that there are pediatricians and other doctors out there who may stop vaccinating their patients—not because of safety concerns (except for the rare few who have the guts to speak the truth and stand up to the other doctors in their practice)—but because they aren’t profitable enough. They defend the vaccine program to parents and pressure them to vaccinate their kids, even throwing them out if they won’t. But when it comes down to money, they have second thoughts. I really shouldn’t be surprised. It’s always about money. Always has been. God forbid our children should come first.

Mike Adams, who reported these findings on www.naturalnews.com, makes an excellent point: “Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the vaccine industry failed due to its own greed? If more doctors refuse to offer vaccines and more parents refuse to chemically assault their own children with those same vaccines, the vaccine industry could sharply contract and experience a substantial loss of business.” [8]

I think I may have an idea for an article down the pike: “A Parent’s Guide to Pro-Vaccine Doctors.”

REFERENCES

1. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/events/niiw/overview.html

2. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/events/niiw/index.html

3. www.mayoclinic.org/news2012-rst/6841.html

4. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198885912000821

5. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/5/e623.full

6. www.ageofautism.com/2011/08/protecting-their-own…

7. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/6/1372.full.html

8. www.naturalnews.com/News_000569_vaccines_doctors_vaccination.html

Photo Credit

A University of Pittsburgh study showed vaccines altered the behavior in monkeys.

Someone did perform safety studies the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should have mandated be performed and vetted BEFORE numerous vaccines were released into the public sector for mass vaccinations.

Lead investigator Laura Hewitson, PhD, probably dropped a bombshell when she and her colleagues completed a macaque monkey (primates) study of the very same vaccines given to children during 1994-1999, i.e., the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and several Thimerosal mercury-containing vaccines injected into children during that time frame when the autism spectrum disorder skyrocketed.

The results of that pilot study were published as a Research Paper in Acta Neurobiological Experimentals in 2010 and titled “Influence of pediatric vaccines on amydgala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study.” [1] Even though there was alleged controversy revolving around Hewitson’s monkey studies, e.g., charges of conflicts of interest since she filed a claim with the vaccine court on behalf of her child, [2] the information generated needs to be revisited and duplicate studies need to be undertaken. Why haven’t they?  Is there too much influence from vaccine makers not to do them? Parents need to make demands on the U.S. Congress to require such safety studies on monkeys be duplicated immediately, plus suspend all mandates on vaccinations until the study results are in.  Did Dr Hewitson become another professional persona non-grata because she may have been on the right track?

Congress needs to consider seriously the Hewitson, et al. report that stated:

“Vaccine-exposed and saline-injected control infants [monkeys] underwent MRI and PET imaging at approximately 4 and 6 months of age, representing two specific timeframes within the vaccination schedule. …

 “These results suggest that maturational changes in amygdala volume and the binding capacity of [11C]DPN in the amygdala was significantly altered in infant macaques receiving the vaccine schedule.” [1]

That alone should be the explicit reason for duplicating the monkey study with independent non-pharmaceutical industry conflict of interest scientists. 

In this author’s opinion, no one has bigger conflicts of interest in study outcomes than the pharmaceutical makers who routinely perform them.  Those are the very studies that should be subject to the same criticism as Dr Hewitson’s.  Why aren’t they?  Good question?

For those keeping track data, ASD went from 1 in 5,000 in the 1990s to the recently acknowledged [March 2012] figures of 1 in 88 along with 1 in 6 children in the USA having developmental disabilities.  These stats were generated for data in the years 2006 to 2008. [3] There’s a 4 to 6 year lag time.  Could ASD be 1 in 50 by now at the rate it is escalating?, especially since there’s a heavier push on mandates for vaccinations.

According to the Hewitson, et al. research study, biological changes and altered behaviors did occur in vaccinated monkeys, which resembled and were similar to those observed in ASD diagnosed children.  However, there were no such symptoms showing or present in unvaccinated monkeys.  Don’t you just gotta love those little monkeys!  Guess what else the ASD monkeys came up with, and Dr Wakefield is gonna like this one: Gastrointestinal problems manifested in vaccinated macaques such as “many significant differences in the GI tissue gene expression profiles between vaccinated and unvaccinated animals.” [3] It’s been a deeply debated topic within medicine that vaccinated children who contract ASD also have GI tract issues.  Personally, I gotta wonder how the British Medical Journal is going to deal with encrusted dried egg on its face when duplicate studies confirm the Hewitson monkey results.  Perhaps the infamous BMJ retraction of the Wakefield article and Doctor’s professional evisceration, commonly referred to as the “Wakefield Syndrome,” euphemistically speaking is medicine protecting its vested interests.

Those little monkeys, however, came up with some other significant information that led former National Institutes of Health director Dr Bernadine Healy to voice some bon mots like:

“I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as ‘irrational,’ without sufficient studies of causation…without studying the population that got sick.”

“I have not seen major studies that focus on 300 kids who got autistic symptoms within a period of a few weeks of the vaccines.” [4]

Perhaps the most on-point quote regarding the monkey study came from Scott Bono, the National Autism Association chairman, i.e., something those who are accused of being against vaccinations have been questioning and demanding:

 “To date, the CDC has conducted no safety testing on the possible harmful effects of simultaneously administering multiple vaccines to infants, and has steadfastly refused to state a preference for mercury-free vaccines to be given to children and pregnant women.  It’s time for HHS and Congress to step in and take vaccine safety away from the CDC.”  [4]

This author’s retort to Mr. Bono’s remark is that vaccine safety should be taken away from the Food and Drug Administration too!  I’d like to remind readers that Congress is more at fault than anyone in this vaccine debacle.  Congress has oversight and it has dropped the ball big time, probably due to all the lobbyists from Big Pharma who prowl the halls of Congress with deep pockets and nice expensive luncheon dates. 

One of the issues I feel Congress has been remiss about is that it has not demanded safety studies and interaction of multiple vaccines studies BEFORE being placed into the marketplace.  According to common and accepted knowledge, no such safety research or studies have been done on the current childhood vaccination regimen, except until the Hewitson ‘monkey business’ that was funded by independent, private money, for which everyone, I think, should be eternally grateful. However, the study had to be shot down since it was not favorable to vaccine makers.  Why isn’t someone else duplicating the monkey studies?  Are they afraid of becoming another victim of science?  Why, when isn’t that what medical science should be all about: investigating problems and theories, publishing results, and interacting with other sciences, NOT excommunication as if they were breaking some religious dogma.  Or, do they, in some vested interests minds?

Current Vaccine Safety Activism in Congress

Now here is something every VacTruth reader should consider seriously: Supporting Congressman Dan Burton’s (R-5-IN) request to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa to hold hearings on the Vaccination Injury Compensation Program. Back on January 12, 2011, this writer filed a Whistleblower’s Complaint on Vaccines with Chairman Issa and has yet to receive an acknowledgement of that filing. 

Isn’t about time to revisit, update, and do more extensive research into the Autism Spectrum Disorder pandemic that is spreading globally?

April 24, 2012 Congressman Burton posted a letter to The Hill’s Congress Blog titled, “It is time to re-engage on the autism epidemic.”  He also wants to pass legislation to force the President to address the ASD epidemic and its impact on Americans.  Burton is committed to helping millions of children, adults, and families afflicted with ASD.  We need to support Congressman Burton ASAP and here’s how:

1. Contact the Canary Party to support their Facebook pages to hold Congressional hearings and a White House Conference on Autism.  Contact News@CanaryParty.org.
2. Contact Congressman Darrell Issa at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee at 2157 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515 or preferably telephone your request for Autism Investigation Hearings to 202-225-5074.

For those who want to know about this information, the National Autism Association (www.nationalautism.org) will be holding a rally for toxin-free immunizations in Washington, DC on June 4, 2012, titled “Green Our Vaccines,” which this author thinks is an oxymoron.  How can you green vaccines when every ingredient is toxic?  Just check out the CDC’s PinkBook Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf.

Before I leave this article, I would like VacTruth readers to know that my colleague who also writes for VacTruth, Laraine C Abbey, RN (retired) and I co-edited a 150 page monograph in January 2011 titled Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation, which you can read in full on VacTruth at http://vactruth.com/vaccines-vaccinations-the-need-for-congressional-investigation/.

Apparently others have read it and agree.

Congressman Burton, Nurse Abbey and I congratulate you on taking the stand you have, and we offer you our resources in obtaining a Congressional investigation.

President Obama, Nurse Abbey and I respectfully request a White House conference on Autism, and we offer you our resources to effectuate a non-biased conference.

VacTruth readers, I charge you with spreading this information and article as far and wide as you possibly can so that we can get an investigation that ought to be open, not biased, and the scientific facts—nothing but the facts, like those the monkeys finally had to prove.  It was not monkey business; it’s the real deal.

References:

[1] http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf

[2] http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/07/laura-hewitson-has-left-the-university-of-pittsburgh/

[3] http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

[4] http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Infant-Vaccines-Produce-Autism-Symptoms-In-Primates

Photo Credit

Many nurses are refusing to get vaccinated.

That may be a disturbing undercurrent question for healthcare authorities to consider in Israel where Mother and Child Healthcare Centers nurses refused to get vaccinated against pertussis.  Why would nurses, who vaccinate infants and children, refuse to get vaccinations for themselves even when a directive went out that all MCHC nurses must be vaccinated against pertussis?  Only two percent got those vaccinations by the end of three months.  That left healthcare authorities not only scratching their heads in amazement, but also apparently suggesting—and getting—a study performed to analyze the problem.  The results of that study are published in the journal Vaccine. [1]

The authors of the paper “What lies behind the low rates of vaccinations among nurses who treat infants” are ‘heavy-hitters’ from Israel’s School of Public Health and the Haifa District Health Office, Ministry of Health.  It appears from the authors’ pedigree that Israel health authorities are determined to do a shake down and probably “kick butt” to get vaccinations up to par among nurses, above all people.  So what did they find?  VacTruth readers probably won’t be surprised.

After reading the report, this author decided to classify the findings into several breakout reasons for easier and a more comprehensive interpretation of the study.

Reason 1: Nurses lack of trust in health authorities

Their lack of trust apparently was grounded in the H1N1 pandemic fiasco that had every thinking person questioning what all healthcare authorities were doing and mandating on a global basis.  Does that make those Israeli nurses bad nurses or bad people?  Heck no! I’d say they were correct in their mistrust.  Even the World Health Organization was called on the carpet for its part in misjudging a health crisis pandemic that never panned out.

Reason 2: Mistrust of health information

So why should nurses be different from parents and researchers—other than Big Pharma’s paid science performers—who see, know, and experience what’s going on with children after receiving vaccinations.  The nurses felt the information they received was inadequate, plus it did not answer their professional needs in helping them counsel families.  Perhaps that is not unique to the Israeli situation.  Many contend the same thing happens in the United States, i.e., doctors don’t know what the vaccine package inserts say.

Reason 3: The nurses right to autonomy

Nothing this author could say about that speaks more clearly than what one nurse is quoted as saying, “…what are we? –in Soviet Russia?…on principal I am not getting vaccinated this year.”  Furthermore, the nurses feel that they don’t want to be told what to do regarding their personal lives, which should not be mixed in with their profession. The Israeli nurses claim they should not have to be role models.

Reason 4: A fear of side effects

The article states that nurses have reported on their experiences with side effects of vaccinations, and “they felt the authorities were using them as guinea pigs.”

Furthermore, their claim that vaccines were not in use long enough to know what side effects to expect or were reported was valid reason for their fear.  This author is totally in agreement with that assessment.

Reason 5: Risk perceptions

Even though the nurses dealt daily with infants and children, they did not consider themselves to be at risk for contracting pertussis.  Furthermore, they wanted something that this author has been pitching for, for years, which is testing for levels of immunity response before vaccination, and not blindly assuming everyone has to be vaccinated.  This author thinks the important factor in testing infants, in particular, would be to check for mitochondrial proclivities that would increase a child’s vaccine adverse reactions that impact the brain with such anomalies as convulsions, febrile seizures, ADD, ADHD, and the autism spectrum disorder, e.g., health issues—some of which were never discussed in medical journals—except after children were mandated to get vaccinations in the 1980s.

Overall, the nurses expressed in the survey “the importance of having autonomy in the decision to be immunized against pertussis.”  Personally, I think that is every thinking person’s concern, desire, and inborn, God-given right: Autonomy not mandates.

The other issue the nurses were vocal about and that authorities everywhere don’t like hearing is, “their clients had the same right to decide for themselves whether or not to immunize their children and respected this.”  Such consensus must “bust the chops” of healthcare authorities and Big Pharma lobbyists everywhere, just not in Israel.

Interestingly, the Israeli MCHC nurses were not unique in their refusal to vaccinate.  There are several studies voicing similar concerns.  They include:

• Seasonal and Pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination coverage and attitudes among health-care workers in a Spanish University Hospital, Vaccine 2009;28(July) 30)):4751-7.
• Influenza vaccination compliance among health care workers in a German university hospital.  Infection 2009;37(June(3)):197-202.
• The reluctance of nurses to get vaccinated against influenza. Vaccine 2010;28(June(29)):4548-9.
• The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists, New England Journal of Medicine 2011;364(January (2)):97-9.
• Influenza vaccination of health care workers in hospitals—a review of studies on attitudes and predictors.  Vaccine 2009;27(June(30)):3935-44.

What apparently comes out of this is that nurses and other healthcare professionals question many issues that health authorities seemingly want to shove down the throats, literally speaking, of children, parents, and adults regarding vaccines and vaccination safety issues.  Very few are willing to take for granted that safety studies have been done because either they know what they see happening as adverse events or they know all too well the skullduggery that transpires in medical science to prove points.  Class action lawsuits against Big Pharma sometimes speak volumes.

Again, I must reiterate that nurses are no different from oncologists, those medical doctors who give chemotherapy to cancer patients. The very MDs who push chemo on cancer patients said in a survey that they would NOT take the very drugs they give to their cancer patients.  What does that tell you?

Something definitely is very wrong in medicine, and pharmacology in particular with vaccines as a huge moneymaker in the healthcare market place.  Medicine and health authorities really need to assess that the healthcare consumer is smarter than they think. Authorities also need to revamp not only their thinking but also their science to a factual basis if they want to be taken seriously not only by the public, but also by healthcare professionals.

References

[1] O Baron-Epel, et al. What lies behind the low rates of vaccinations among nurses who treat infants? Vaccine 30 (2012):3151-3154

Photo Credit