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

When vaccines do not work, the creative way to cover it up is to change the name of the disease.

Doctors around the world are being faced with children catching the diseases they have been vaccinated against. Rather than diagnosing these children correctly, professionals have discovered that the doctors are giving the diseases new names. This suggests a cover up is going on and the vaccinations we are all being told are safe and effective are in fact completely useless.

Vaccinations are now being given to children to keep them safe from every disease known to man. There appears to be a vaccination for everything from polio to a broken finger nail. However, many professionals now believe that the vaccinations are actually causing the diseases they are supposed to prevent.

It appears that they could be right because news has just been released that 47,500 children became paralyzed after polio vaccinations in India in 2011. According to Dr Jacob a member of the national technical advisory group on immunization and of the working group on the food and drug regulation in 2011 after receiving the polio vaccination, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralyzed, over and above the standard rate of 2 children per 100,000 non-polio AFP (acute flaccid paralysis) cases. (1)

Dr Viera Scheibner is a professional who would not be at all surprised at the above figures. She has firmly believed for many years that contrary to the belief that vaccinations prevent children from becoming ill, they are causing children to catch the diseases that they are being vaccinated against. She best explains this in her extremely well written letter published recently in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). (2) Her letter on the subject of polio vaccinations contains outstanding research and opens a gigantic can of worms that will be difficult for the pharmaceutical industries to ignore. In answer to an article titled ‘Polio eradication: a complex end game – Polio Eradication by Vaccination,’ she wrote:

“Polio eradication by vaccination?

Let me quote some original seminal medical research.

Anderson et al. (1951) in his article “Poliomyelitis occurring after antigen injections” (Pediatrics; 7(6): 741-759) wrote “During the last year several investigators have reported the occurrence of poliomyelitis after  a few weeks after injection of some antigen. Martin in England noted 25 cases in which paralysis of a single limb occurred within 28 days of injection of antigen into that limb, and two cases following penicillin injections.”

She continued:

“Geffen, studying the 1949 poliomyelitis cases in London, observed 30 patients who had received an antigen within four weeks, noting also that the paralysis involved especially the extremity into which the injection had been given.

Dr Scheibner provided many examples of researched evidence proving that vaccinations have been causing cases of paralysis and polio for many years.

She could be right because concerns were being raised even during the polio vaccines early days.

In 1954, during testing, Dr Bernice Eddy (3) became very concerned after vaccinating 18 monkeys with the inactivated polio vaccine. She discovered that the vaccine was causing the monkeys to become paralyzed. She wrote:

“We had eighteen monkeys. We inoculated these eighteen monkeys with each vaccine that came in. And we started getting paralyzed monkeys.”

Alarmed, she immediately informed her superiors sending photos of the monkeys. Instead of the thanks she had expected, and the immediate halt of the vaccine programme, a surprising thing happened. William Sebrell, the director of the NIH, stopped by the animal house where they were working, not to thank her for blowing the whistle but to ask if she and her co-workers wanted their children immunized with the vaccine, as it was in short supply.  Needless to say neither she nor her researchers thought the vaccine was worth the risk.

Shortly after Eddy’s discovery, a study written by Peterson et al appeared in the JAMA magazine. (4) Peterson also spoke about vaccination induced poliomyelitis, this time in Idaho during the trial of the Salk (injectable) vaccine. This study was included as part of Dr Scheibner’s research in her letter in the BMJ.

To Hide The Vaccines Inadequacies Polio Develops A New Name

Many professionals believe that in order to keep up the pretence that diseases have been eradicated they are simply being renamed to cover up the fact that the vaccines are failing. According to the site whaleto.com (5) Greg Beatie wrote:

Health officials convinced the Chinese to rename the bulk of their polio cases Guillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS). A study found that the new disorder (Chinese Paralytic Syndrome) and the GBS was really polio. After mass vaccination in 1971, reports of polio went down but GBS increased about 10 fold…….In the WHO polio vaccine eradication in the Americas, there were 930 cases of paralytic disease—all called polio. Five years later, at the end of the campaign, roughly 2000 cases of paralytic disease occurred—but only 6 of them were called polio. The rate of paralytic disease doubled, but the disease definition changed so drastically that hardly any of it was called polio any more.”

It appears that the Chinese may not have been the only country to adopt this philosophy.  Anla et al reported children being diagnosed with GBS immediately after polio vaccinations in Turkey. In an article published in Neurology India. (6) Anla reported that five children became ill with GBS following a national oral polio vaccination campaign to eradicate the disease in Turkey. He wrote:

It was observed that the number of cases of GBS in children increased during the period of the oral polio vaccination (OPV) campaign in Turkey, suggesting a causal relationship.

In their discussion they wrote:

In our series all children were younger than 5 years of age. GBS was primarily related to OPV administration in all children except Case 4 in whom a history of viral gastroenteritis was present, which was well known as a triggering factor in the etiology of GBS.[13] When OPV was not given during 1999 we diagnosed only 2 children with GBS who were younger than 5 years of age in our clinic. Though the results are variable and the evidence is not robust, it is essential to consider OPV as a potential trigger for GBS in children, especially during a nationwide campaign and the children should be monitored.

It was observed that the number of cases of GBS in children increased during the period of the oral polio vaccination (OPV) campaign in Turkey, suggesting a causal relationship.

Could these children actually be suffering from vaccine induced poliomyelitis, simply renamed GBS, to cover up the fact that the vaccine had caused the children to contract the disease rather than protect them from it? It certainly is a strong possibility.

Amazingly, Guillain Barre Syndrome is not the only new name given to patients developing polio after receiving the polio vaccine. Beddow Bayly author of the book “The Case against Vaccination,” (7) wrote:

After vaccination was introduced, cases of aseptic meningitis were more often reported as a separate disease from polio, but such cases were counted as polio before the vaccine was introduced. The Ministry of Health admitted that the vaccine status of the individual is a guiding factor in diagnosis. If a person who is vaccinated contracts the disease, the disease is simply recorded under a different name.

This leads us to ask the question – is polio the only disease that has had a sudden name change?  Sadly the answer to this question is a resounding “NO!”; this is because other diseases have also been reported to have had a sudden name change.

Smallpox Gets A New Lease Of Life

It has long been suggested that smallpox still exists and has simply been renamed to carry on the hoax that vaccination has saved us from the mighty jaws of the smallpox epidemics. In an article titled ‘Smallpox: a New Threat’ Susan Claridge (8) wrote:

A popular tactic among the supporters of vaccination is renaming of a disease when it occurs in the vaccinated so that the statistics do not reflect the true numbers of vaccinated people contracting the disease, thus concealing the fact that the vaccine does not work.

George Bernard Shaw was a member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council at the turn of the century: “I learned how the credit of vaccination is kept up statistically by diagnosing all the revaccinated cases (of smallpox) as pustular eczema, varioloid or what not – anything except smallpox.

Susan Claridge does not stand alone in her beliefs; Dr R Obomsawin (9) joins her, writing:

In turning to recognized textbooks on human virology and vertebrate viruses we find that attention has been given since 1970 to a disease called “monkeypox,” which is said to be “clinically indistinguishable from smallpox.” Cases of this disease have been found in Zaire, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Liberia, and Sierra Leone (by May 1983, 101 cases have been reported). It is observed that ” . . . the existence of a virus that can cause clinical smallpox is disturbing, and the situation is being closely monitored.

Does the deceit stop here? No of course not, the next disease to get a name change is whooping cough.

Whooping Cough Gets A Revamp

Whooping cough has also been found to have a name change. It has been reported over and over that cases of whooping cough have been diagnosed in fully vaccinated children. In fact one report stated that vaccine failure has actually been admitted. Natural News (10) reported:

New research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

Doctors have known this for a very long time and there could be many more cases than we could ever imagine. Professionals have discovered that doctors have been diagnosing whooping cough as croup!.

Dr Viera Scheibner says:

In the Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1994, “Age Specific Incidence of Bacteriologically Confirmed Pertussis, between 1981 and 1991 – ten year follow-up”.(11) The majority of cases occurred in the most vulnerable age group below the age of one year in the most vaccinated children. Actually the majority of cases happened within the first four months. The vaccine is causing whooping cough. A lot of children develop whooping cough from the vaccine, but if they are vaccinated, it will be diagnosed as ‘croup’.

Bronwyn Hancock Vaccine Information Service agrees (12) stating:

“(2) The diagnostic guidelines given to doctors were supplemented with “No history of vaccination” when the vaccines were introduced. Even without these written guidelines, doctors are taught that vaccines are effective. The result is that upon seeing an illness in a child who has been vaccinated “against” it, doctors have been observed to conclude that the disease must be a different disease, so the case of the disease is not reported.

For example whooping cough gets called “croup” when it occurs in vaccinated children, and diphtheria gets called such names as “epiglotitis”, or, as in this case, described in “Raising a Vaccine Free Child”, by Wendy Lydall (2005, pg 68),

‘Her aunt had nursed diphtheria cases in Britain in the 1950s, and she said that her niece had the typical symptoms of diphtheria. The girl was flown by helicopter to a bigger hospital in Auckland, where they took a swab from her throat and confirmed diphtheria. When they learned that the girl was fully immunised, one of the doctors said to the mother, “Then it can’t be diphtheria.” They changed the diagnosis to bacterial tracheitis.’

So the teaching of doctors that vaccination will reduce number of cases *reported* of a disease is a self-fulfilling prophecy, regardless of how many cases there are in reality.”

The bottom line is parents are being duped into believing that vaccinations will protect children from deadly diseases when in fact they protect children from absolutely nothing. The truth is that more and more vaccinated children are becoming sick with the diseases that they have been vaccinated against and research is revealing that doctors are devising clever ways to cover this up. Not only this but the adverse reactions that children can have from the vaccines, are potentially worse than the diseases themselves. It seems to me that vaccinations are little more than a get rich quick scheme run by the pharmaceutical industries and endorsed by the governments. This is not only criminal it is fraud by any other name.

Research

 1) K.P. Sethunath – Deccan Chronicle Rise in Paralysis Cases After Polio Vaccine  http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/thiruvananthapuram/rise-paralysis-cases-after-polio-vaccine-234

2) Dr Viera Scheibner Polio eradication: a complex end game – Polio Eradication by Vaccination http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2398/rr/578260

3) Book extract. The Health Century] Dr. Bernice E. Eddy, whose lab tests found that the Cutter vaccine had been improperly inactivated. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/eddy_h.html

4) Peterson et al (Vaccination-induced poliomyelitis in Idaho. Preliminary report of experience with Salk poliomyelitis vaccine. JAMA; 159 (4): 241-244). http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/159/4/241.extract

5) Greg Beatie  Hiding Polio http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html

6) Neurology Of India – Report of five children with Guillain-Barré syndrome following a nationwide oral polio vaccine campaign in Turkey Anlar O, Tombul T, Arslan S, Akdeniz H, Caksen H, Gundem A, Akbayram S Department of Neurology, Yuzuncu Yil University Medical School, Van http://www.neurologyindia.com/article.asp?issn=0028-3886;year=2003;volume=51;issue=4;spage=544;epage=545;aulast=Anlar

7) Dr M Beddow Bayly M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Case Against Vaccination http://www.whale.to/vaccines/bayly.html

8) Susan Claridge  Smallpox: a new threat? http://www.archetypeltd.co.nz/Smallpox.htm

9) Hiding Smallpox http://www.whale.to/vaccine/smallpox1.html

10)  Natural News Vaccine Failure Admitted: Whooping Cough Outbreaks Higher Among Already Vaccinated Children  http://www.naturalnews.com/035466_whooping_cough_vaccines_outbreaks.html#ixzz1sYoBPd4W

11) Dr Viera Scheibner Consumer Health VACCINATIONS: PART I – MEDICAL RESEARCH ON SIDS AND EPIDEMICS http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990705002005

12) Bronwyn Hancock, Co-ordinator, Vaccination Information Service Turramurra NSW Australia - Letter to the BMJ http://www.whale.to/vaccine/hancock9.html

Photo Credit

Some medical professionals sell their souls to the highest bidder.

I have to start by saying thank you to Sandy Lunoe for writing “10,000 Crazy Vaccines!” I’ve wanted to share my feelings about Dr. Offit for quite a while, and your article inspired me to stop putting it off.

“What I’ve learned in all this is to stick to the truth, talk about the science. It’s not about me, it’s about the data. Above all else, it’s about doing right by the children.”

—Dr. Paul Offit, interview with Newsweek [1]

While I was writing Unlocking Jake: The Story of a Rabies Vaccine, Autism & Recovery, I frequently searched Amazon for books about autism. On February 21, 2009, I ran across Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure by Dr. Paul Offit. I had only ever commented on one book (Ellen Notbohm’s The Autism Trail Guide: Postcards from the Road Less Traveled), and that was because it’s one of my favorites.

Dr. Offit’s book prompted my second comment on Amazon. Not because it was one of my favorite autism books. Not even close. Here’s what I said (part of it, anyway):

Dear Dr. Offit …

I’m outraged!

Let me start by saying that when I wrote this review, I was forced to rate it from 1 to 5 stars. There was no choice for 0, or I would’ve rated it with 0 stars.

[Then, I provided a brief summary of my grandson’s regression into autism after the rabies vaccines, along with this statement: “For anyone to believe that vaccines have nothing to do with autism is ludicrous.”]

A couple of specific points. One, Dr. Offit claims that vaccines do not harm children. That you could give 100,000 in one day, no problem. Has anyone read his book that was published in 1999 about antibiotics, Breaking the Antibiotic Habit? Check out the product description on Amazon:

Protect your child. Leading pediatric experts answer all your questions about reducing the risks of antibiotic overuse.

“An important book for parents…the best source I have seen about the dangers of antibiotic resistance and the risks of antibiotic overuse.”

 —Scott Dowell, M.D., M.P.H., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“Finally, a book that discusses the problem of antibiotic overuse in a readable way, combining daily experiences in pediatric practice with scientific explanations.”

—S. Michael Marcy, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics

If your child has a cough, cold, ear infection, or sore throat, will antibiotics help? The answer may surprise you. Overuse of antibiotics has led to antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, or “superbugs.” Antibiotics are increasingly ineffective because they are often prescribed inappropriately to treat viral infections, such as colds, bronchitis, and sore throats. Natural supplements may offer more relief. Clearly organized and packed with vital information, Breaking the Antibiotic Habit covers all the key issues, including: 

Distinguishing between strep throat and sore throat, sinus infection and the common cold, pneumonia and bronchitis, and ear infections and ear fluids

Helping children with viral infections feel better—without antibiotics

Getting the most from over-the-counter remedies and natural supplements—which are best for specific symptoms, and which to avoid altogether [2]

Don’t get me wrong—I agree with Dr. Offit about antibiotics and the benefits of homeopathic remedies. If only he had the same concerns over vaccines, which are INJECTED IN UNSAFE AMOUNTS into our children’s tiny bodies for years AND CONTAIN ANTIBIOTICS [such as Neomycin and Chlortetracycline. The RabAvert rabies vaccine Jake had contained both of these as well as Amphotericin B. According to the CDC, antibiotics are “added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine.”] [3]

Two. For Dr. Offit to claim that he doesn’t get paid to discuss vaccines is also ludicrous. Last I heard, he held a patent for a rotavirus vaccine that was eventually taken off the market because of the problems it caused in some children. Are we really going to rely on the word of someone who has an obvious financial interest in the outcome?

In Response

Soon the comments started rolling in. Here are several:

“… you should be ashamed of your ignorance—your type of idiocy is literally killing people by discouraging them from getting lifesaving vaccines. You have no answers to the science other than pathetic conspiracy theories. You have blood on your hands, you ignorant, ignorant person.”

“The anti-vaccination people are deluded and have no concept of science or critical thinking. There is no provable link between vaccinations and autism. There isn’t even a clue about how it could happen. Vaccines are the greatest contribution of science to human health.… Get a clue and learn some science.”

“Sadly you don’t understand science at all. … perhaps you could join an on-line University course [slamming Jenny McCarthy] and then reconsider science.”

Who’s Gaining What?

I responded by referring to Dr. Offit’s Newsweek interview. When he was asked how much of the $182 million patent royalties he received from the sale of the rotavirus vaccine, he refused to give a specific amount but said it was like ‘winning the lottery.’” If the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia stuck with its usual distribution policy, Dr. Offit could have received anywhere from $29 million to $55 million. [4] Shame on you, Dr. Offit. No financial interest in vaccines? Right. 

Offit’s book, says the Newsweek article, “is a critical assessment of the theories that have swirled around autism, the therapies marketed to fix it, and the people—the ‘false prophets’—who he says have taken emotional and financial advantage of parents seeking a cure.”

So, we have Dr. Offit, who clearly has a lot to gain from vaccines. Already has. And then we have the “false prophets” who also have something to gain. But what about the parents of children with autism? What do they have to gain by claiming that their kids developed autism after a vaccine? 

What’s in It for Us?

The other day, Amy, my oldest daughter, who stopped vaccinating her children after she saw what happened to Jake, said to me, “Mom, it would be so much easier just to vaccinate.” When I asked her to explain, she said it would be easier to believe that vaccines are safe instead of enduring the pressure of the pediatricians and the school and the looks of other moms who think you’re crazy and endangering their kids by not vaccinating yours.

I started thinking. She had a point. Wouldn’t it be easier just to take your child to the doctor and sit quietly while he’s injected with the recommended childhood vaccines? To take him home, give him some Tylenol, tuck him into bed, and go to sleep with no worries? Wouldn’t that be easier? 

Wouldn’t it be nice to get together with girlfriends for coffee, go to the movies, get your hair done—like you used to? Before … well, you know. Before that day when you took your child to the doctor and sat quietly while he was injected with the recommended childhood vaccines. And you took him home, gave him some Tylenol, tucked him into bed, and went to sleep with no worries. 

Wouldn’t it be easier—and nicer—to go to a job every day like you did before? To go out as a family like you used to when everyone didn’t stare at you and make nasty comments and wonder what the hell is wrong with your kid—and you as a parent?  To read a book at night—one recommended by your best friend if you still have a best friend or any friends—after the kids are tucked into bed? Or maybe watch a movie or the news with your spouse? Wouldn’t those things be nicer than spending every second of your time (when you’re not cleaning up poop and handling a meltdown and battling with the school for services your child desperately needs and deserves) researching autism and trying to figure out how you are going to help your child who is now sick when he used to never be sick, who now can’t talk when he used to never stop talking, who now takes all your time and energy—what energy you have left—to the neglect of your other children and your spouse and the rest of your family and friends? The ones you used to have before … yeah, you remember. How could you forget that day?

I ask again, what do we as parents have to gain? Don’t we have better, more pleasant things to do with our time than all the things that have become a way of life? For anyone who thinks we are making all this up and/or that our children were always like this and we just didn’t notice, step into our lives for 24 hours. Or just an hour. That’s all it would take to see that we’re not exaggerating. That autism is not something that was there all along and we just didn’t notice. Impossible to miss, trust me. Then, ask yourself what’s in it for us. Certainly not money. We’re all broke from paying for therapies our insurance companies won’t pay for—if we’re still employed and have insurance. Maybe sympathy so our family and friends will come and visit and even help us? Maybe attention? Wait—maybe we all have Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy. (See Andy Wakefield’s new book, Waging War on the Autistic Child: The Arizona 5 and the Legacy of Baron von Münchausen.) I’m sure there are as many “theories” about what parents stand to gain as there are causes of autism.  

Our reason for everything we do—our reason for being—is to advocate for our children and try to help others. That’s why we talk until we’re blue in the face and write articles and blogs and go to conferences. Because getting our children back and maybe, just maybe, preventing someone else’s child from going through the same thing, is what we have to gain. That’s what’s in it for us. And we won’t shut up or give up, because we love our children more than anything, and they have been injured and our lives have been turned upside down and it’s not fair and it should never have happened.

 References

1. www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/10/24/stomping-through-a-medical-minefield.html

2. www.amazon.com/Breaking-Antibiotic-Habit-Parents-Infections/dp/0471319821

3. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

4. www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/voting-himself-rich-cdc-vaccine-adviser-made-29-million-or-more-after-using-role-to-create-market.html

Photo Credit