2415 N. Triphammer Road Ithaca, NY 14850

follow Bartholomew Family Chiropractic on Youtube follow Bartholomew Family Chiropractic on facebook Locate Bartholomew Family Chiropractic on Google Maps

Health Articles

M.D. Speaks Out On Vaccines

Brian Bartholomew - Monday, August 27, 2012

Vaccinated Children 2-5 Times More Illnesses, Allergies and Dis-ease

Brian Bartholomew - Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Suspicions have been confirmed for those wary of vaccinating their children. A recent large study corroborates other independent study surveys comparing unvaccinated children to vaccinated children.

They all show that vaccinated children have two to five times more childhood diseases, illnesses, and allergies than unvaccinated children.

Originally, the recent still ongoing study compared unvaccinated children against a German national health survey conducted by KiGGS involving over 17,000 children up to age 19. This currently ongoing survey study was initiated by classical homoeopathist Andreas Bachmair.

However, the American connection for Bachmair’s study can be found at VaccineInjury.info website that has added a link for parents of vaccinated children to participate in the study. So far this ongoing survey has well over 11,000 respondents, mostly from the U.S.A. Other studies have surveyed smaller groups of families.

Nevertheless, the results were similar. Of course, none of these studies were picked up by the MSM (mainstream media). None were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or any national or international health agency or medical profession group (http://healthimpactnews.com).


 
They don’t dare compare the health of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children objectively and risk disrupting their vaxmania (vaccination mania). The focus for all the studies was mostly on childhood illnesses occurring as the children matured.

Dramatic, debilitating, or lethal vaccine injuries were not the focus since so few, five percent or less, actually get reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Injury Reporting System) in the U.S.A. for various reasons including:

* It’s a complicated system that takes time from a doctor’s practice.
* Most parents don’t know about it.
* Only adverse reactions that occur immediately after vaccinations are considered.
* Since VAERS is voluntary, most doctors don’t want to incriminate themselves with vaccination injuries and maintain their denial of vaccine dangers.

Consequently, even the most terrible adverse reactions are minimally acknowledged, while long term negative health issues resulting from vaccines are not even considered relevant.

Different surveys summarized

The childhood diseases usually posed to respondents by the independent surveys involved asthma, reoccurring tonsillitis, chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, allergies, eczema, ear infections, diabetes, sleep disorders, bedwetting, dyslexia, migraines, hyperactivity, ADD, epilepsy, depression, and slower development of speech or motor skills.

In 1992, a New Zealand group called the Immunization Awareness Society (IAS) surveyed 245 families with a total of 495 children. The children were divided with 226 vaccinated and 269 unvaccinated. Eighty-one families had both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The differences were dramatic, with unvaccinated children showing far less incidence of common childhood ailments than vaccinated children (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf).


From a different survey in the South Island New Zealand city of Christchurch, among children born during or after 1977, none of the unvaccinated children had asthma events where nearly 25% of the vaccinated children were treated for asthma by age 10 (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf).

Many of the comments from non-vaccinating parents to VaccineInjury.info for the ongoing Bachmair survey mentioned vaccination danger and developing true immunity naturally were concerns (http://www.vaccineinjury.info).

A PhD immunologist who wrote the book Vaccine Illusion, Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, has gone against the dogma of her medical training and background. She asserts that true immunity to any disease is not conferred by vaccines. Exposure to the disease, whether contracted or not, does (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org).

Perhaps the most informal grass-roots survey going on now is by Tim O’Shea, DC, author of Vaccination is Not Immunization. He simply has non-vaccinating parents email him with comparisons of their children’s health to friends and families they know with vaccinated children. That and more is available on his site (http://www.thedoctorwithin.com).

Sources for this article include:

http://healthimpactnews.com

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf

Link to participate in Bachmair survey here: http://www.vaccineinjury.info

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com

Source : http://www.naturalnews.com/036220_vaccinated_children_disease_allergies.html#ixzz1yHhh899a

Nurses Are Losing Faith In Vaccines

Brian Bartholomew - Monday, April 23, 2012
April 23, 2012
Nurses Are Losing Faith In Vaccines, Becoming Distrustful of Health Authorities


It's music to my ears and a symphony to my soul. Nurses may finally be coming around and grasping the gravity of how vaccines are damaging our bodies. A study in Vaccine shows that nurses trust in health authorities and vaccination is at an all time low following the H1N1 flu pandemic that was ultimately proven to be a hoax.



The 2009 H1N1 pandemic fraud perpetrated by health authorities worldwide seems to have backfired on those orchestrating the plot. Instead of reinforcing the "claimed" effectiveness of vaccination, it only created more doubt even within conventional medical practitioners themselves. 

The study in Vaccine titled "What lied behind the low rates of vaccinations among nurses who treat infants?" is evidence of a growing resistance to vaccinating infants in the developed world.

What is unfortunate is that many of these nurses refuse the vaccinations themselves, yet proceed to administer these poisons to infants to protect their employment. That is quite cowardly, contradictory and at the very least shameful, not only as a health practitioner, but as a human being. 

The aim of the study was to identify the barriers and reasons why nurses did not vaccinate themselves against pertussis despite the fact that the pertussis vaccine is the vaccine these nurses administer to infants every day. Two major and two minor themes were identified based on qualitative methods as described in the literature.

Lack of Trust in Health Authorities

The majority of nurses in all focus groups expressed, to varying
degrees, lack of trust in the health authorities regarding their
recommendation to be vaccinated. This was related to the recent
influenza pandemic.

"...there was a drastic change in trust..."

"...I feel a real crisis in trust due to the swine flu affair."
The general mistrust generated during the A/H1N1 pandemic
was directed to the pertussis vaccine when they were asked to
vaccinate themselves.

Treatment of Nurses By The Employer 

The nurses expressed their frustration with the administration
and complained of the treatment they received from the administration
that had no respect for them as individuals.

Some of the comments were related to the pertussis vaccine

"They should treat us like human beings."

"...we are not soldiers..."

Most of the comments were related to the influenza vaccine:

"...we were threatened, we got multiple emails asking who got
vaccinated and if not why not..."

The Right For Autonomy

The nurses expressed strong feelings against the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) recommendation for Health Care Workers (HCW's) to be vaccinated. They do not want to be told what to do and want to make the decision themselves.

Regarding pertussis:

"One nurse in the hospital got pertussis, and infected someoneor
not- don't know. So then 'wham' all the nurses have
to get immunized, so no one got immunized and they are
right!...what are we?- in Soviet Russia?...on principle I am not
getting vaccinated this year."

Regarding influenza:

"...if I want to, I will get the vaccine, I am a grownup, I am
responsible, if I want I will get vaccinated, it will not help whatever
he says (the MD)."

Within this conflict between self and profession they wanted to
be given the opportunity to decide for themselves if to get vaccinated.

They knew they had to work by "the book" regarding the
infants they treat. However, they do not accept the recommendations
blindly for themselves.

"...the line runs between me giving vaccines and receiving vaccines,
I can personally be against vaccinations but am not against
the national policy regarding vaccines, whoever wants can get
vaccinated..."

"I don't want anybody to make me get immunized, I do not want
to, even if it is mandatory, even if it is pertussis, I don't want to
get it."

Mistrust of Health Information

Many nurses felt the information they received was not adequate and did not answer their needs. They felt the information they received did not help them counsel families or make decisions regarding their vaccinations. This was in the context of their mistrust in the MOH.

"With the swine flu there was a lot of disinformation at the
beginning, there was a lot of confusion at the beginning."

"...you can't brain wash us, they expect us to forget what they
said three months ago or a year ago and start again, part of what
we did was not so good, now we do something else... .you can
do that at work but not in my private life, I can't..."

Being a Role Model

Most nurses did not see themselves as role models and did
not think they should reveal their personal behaviors or beliefs to
patients who ask them about themselves. However, a few nurses
found their decision not to be immunized problematic and debates
between nurses started in all focus groups.

"What I do as a person and my beliefs are not relevant at all as
a professional."

Fear of Side Effects

The nurses reported on their experiences of side effects of vaccines.
They felt that the risk of contracting the diseases and the severity were not worth the risk of being injected with a vaccine that was not in use long enough to know what the side effects were. This was directed towards both influenza and pertussis vaccines, and they felt the authorities were using them as guinea pigs.

The Tides are Turning And The Vaccination Game Will End 

I have no doubt that we will see the end of vaccinations one day and it will be exposed for the barbaric practice that it is, especially on infants and children.

The antivaccinationist ideals the nurses expressed are an indication of the resistance within medical circles. Emotions and attitudes such as fear of the vaccines and mistrust in the health authorities and leading factors in lower compliance rates. 

These attitudes and emotions may influence their actions toward other vaccines in the future. Eventually physicians and medical students themselves will begin to question vaccine wisdom. The house of cards is crumbling and the vaccination hoax health authorities have promoted to the population is being exposed. 

If you still believe in vaccination to prevent disease, I promise that one day you won't!

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment. 

"Nations That Reqire More Vaccines Have Higher Infant Mortality Rates"

Brian Bartholomew - Thursday, December 22, 2011
Nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.
Efforts to reduce the relatively high US IMR have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.

Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 September; 30(9): 1420–1428.
PMCID: PMC3170075
Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman
Neil Z Miller, PO Box 9638, Santa Fe, NM 87504, USA Email: neilzmiller@gmail.com
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.
Keywords: infant mortality rates, sudden infant death, SIDS, immunization schedules, childhood vaccines, drug toxicology, synergistic effects, linear regression model
Introduction
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of child health and overall development in countries. Clean water, increased nutritional measures, better sanitation, and easy access to health care contribute the most to improving infant mortality rates in unclean, undernourished, and impoverished regions of the world.13 In developing nations, IMRs are high because these basic necessities for infant survival are lacking or unevenly distributed. Infectious and communicable diseases are more common in developing countries as well, though sound sanitary practices and proper nutrition would do much to prevent them.1
The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes 7 out of 10 childhood deaths in developing countries to five main causes: pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and malnutrition—the latter greatly affecting all the others.1 Malnutrition has been associated with a decrease in immune function. An impaired immune function often leads to an increased susceptibility to infection.2 It is well established that infections, no matter how mild, have adverse effects on nutritional status. Conversely, almost any nutritional deficiency will diminish resistance to disease.3
Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country,4 33 nations have better IMRs. Some countries have IMRs that are less than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are below 2.80. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening.”5
There are many factors that affect the IMR of any given country. For example, premature births in the United States have increased by more than 20% between 1990 and 2006. Preterm babies have a higher risk of complications that could lead to death within the first year of life.6 However, this does not fully explain why the United States has seen little improvement in its IMR since 2000.7
Nations differ in their immunization requirements for infants aged less than 1 year. In 2009, five of the 34 nations with the best IMRs required 12 vaccine doses, the least amount, while the United States required 26 vaccine doses, the most of any nation. To explore the correlation between vaccine doses that nations routinely give to their infants and their infant mortality rates, a linear regression analysis was performed.
Methods and design
Infant mortality
The infant mortality rate is expressed as the number of infant deaths per 1000 live births. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which keeps accurate, up-to-date infant mortality statistics throughout the world, in 2009 there were 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States (Table 1).8The US infant mortality rate of 6.22 infant deaths per 1000 live births ranked 34th.
Table 1.
Table 1.
2009 Infant mortality rates, top 34 nations8
Immunization schedules and vaccine doses
A literature review was conducted to determine the immunization schedules for the United States and all 33 nations with better IMRs than the United States.9,10 The total number of vaccine doses specified for infants aged less than 1 year was then determined for each country (Table 2). A vaccine dose is an exact amount of medicine or drug to be administered. The number of doses a child receives should not be confused with the number of ‘vaccines' or ‘injections' given. For example, DTaP is given as a single injection but contains three separate vaccines (for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) totaling three vaccine doses.
Table 2.
Table 2.
Summary of International Immunization Schedules: vaccines recommended/required prior to one year of age in 34 nations
Nations organized into data pairs
The 34 nations were organized into data pairs consisting of total number of vaccine doses specified for their infants and IMRs. Consistent with biostatistical conventions, four nations—Andorra, Liechenstein, Monaco, and San Marino—were excluded from the dataset because they each had fewer than five infant deaths, producing extremely wide confidence intervals and IMR instability. The remaining 30 (88%) of the data pairs were then available for analysis.
Nations organized into groups
Nations were placed into the following five groups based on the number of vaccine doses they routinely give their infants: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26 vaccine doses. The unweighted IMR means of all nations as a function of the number of vaccine doses were analyzed using linear regression. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of determination (r 2) were calculated using GraphPad Prism, version 5.03 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA,www.graphpad.com). Additionally, the F statistic and corresponding p values were computed to test if the best fit slope was statistically significantly non-zero. The Tukey-Kramer test was used to determine whether or not the mean IMR differences between the groups were statistically significant. Following the one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) results from the Tukey-Kramer test, a post test for the overall linear trend was performed.
Nations organized into data pairs
A scatter plot of each of the 30 nation’s IMR versus vaccine doses yielded a linear relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.46–0.85) and p < 0.0001 providing evidence of a positive correlation: IMR and vaccine doses tend to increase together. The F statistic applied to the slope [0.148 (95% CI, 0.090–0.206)] is significantly non-zero, with F = 27.2 (p < 0.0001; Figure 1).
Figure 1.
2009 Infant mortality rates and number of vaccine doses for 30 nations.
Nations organized into groups
The unweighted mean IMR of each category was computed by simply summing the IMRs of each nation comprising a group and dividing by the number of nations in that group. The IMRs were as follows: 3.36 (95% CI, 2.74–3.98) for nations specifying 12–14 doses (mean 13 doses); 3.89 (95% CI, 2.68–5.12) for 15–17 doses (mean 16 doses); 4.28 (95% CI, 3.80–4.76) for 18–20 doses (mean 19 doses); 4.97 (95% CI, 4.44–5.49) for 21–23 doses (mean 22 doses); 5.19 (95% CI, 4.06–6.31) for 24-26 doses (mean 25 doses; Figure 2). Linear regression analysis yielded an equation of the best fit line, y = 0.157x + 1.34 with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009) and r 2 = 0.983. Thus, 98.3% of the variation in mean IMRs is explained by the linear model. Again, the Fstatistic yielded a significantly non-zero slope, with F = 173.9 (p = 0.0009).
Figure 2.
2009 Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses (five categories).
The one-way ANOVA using the Tukey-Kramer test yielded F = 650 with p = 0.001, indicating the five mean IMRs corresponding to the five defined dose categories are significantly different (r 2 = 0.510). Tukey’s multiple comparison test found statistical significance in the differences between the mean IMRs of those nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and (a) those giving 21–23 doses (1.61, 95% CI, 0.457–2.75) and (b) those giving 24–26 doses (1.83, 95% CI, 0.542–3.11).
Discussion
Basic necessities for infant survival
It is instructive to note that many developing nations require their infants to receive multiple vaccine doses and have national vaccine coverage rates (a percentage of the target population that has been vaccinated) of 90% or better, yet their IMRs are poor. For example, Gambia requires its infants to receive 22 vaccine doses during infancy and has a 91%–97% national vaccine coverage rate, yet its IMR is 68.8. Mongolia requires 22 vaccine doses during infancy, has a 95%–98% coverage rate, and an IMR of 39.9.8,9 These examples appear to confirm that IMRs will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care. As developing nations improve in all of these areas a critical threshold will eventually be reached where further reductions of the infant mortality rate will be difficult to achieve because most of the susceptible infants that could have been saved from these causes would have been saved. Further reductions of the IMR must then be achieved in areas outside of these domains. As developing nations ascend to higher socio-economic living standards, a closer inspection of all factors contributing to infant deaths must be made.
Crossing the socio-economic threshold
It appears that at a certain stage in nations' movement up the socio-economic scale—after the basic necessities for infant survival (proper nutrition, sanitation, clean water, and access to health care) have been met—a counter-intuitive relationship occurs between the number of vaccines given to infants and infant mortality rates: nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates give their infants, on average, more vaccine doses. This positive correlation, derived from the data and demonstrated in Figures 1 and and2,2, elicits an important inquiry: are some infant deaths associated with over-vaccination?
A closer inspection of infant deaths
Many nations adhere to an agreed upon International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for grouping infant deaths into 130 categories.1113 Among the 34 nations analyzed, those that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst IMRs. Thus, we must ask important questions: is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health? Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with over-vaccination? Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.14 Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.15,16 In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD. SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system.17 By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.18
In 1992, to address the unacceptable SIDS rate, the American Academy of Pediatrics initiated a ‘Back to Sleep’ campaign, convincing parents to place their infants supine, rather than prone, during sleep. From 1992 to 2001, the postneonatal SIDS rate dropped by an average annual rate of 8.6%. However, other causes of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) increased. For example, the postneonatal mortality rate from ‘suffocation in bed’ (ICD-9 code E913.0) increased during this same period at an average annual rate of 11.2%. The postneonatal mortality rate from ‘suffocation-other’ (ICD-9 code E913.1-E913.9), ‘unknown and unspecified causes' (ICD-9 code 799.9), and due to ‘intent unknown’ in the External Causes of Injury section (ICD-9 code E980-E989), all increased during this period as well.18 (In Australia, Mitchell et al. observed that when the SIDS rate decreased, deaths attributed to asphyxia increased.19 Overpeck et al. and others, reported similar observations.)20,21
A closer inspection of the more recent period from 1999 to 2001 reveals that the US postneonatal SIDS rate continued to decline, but there was no significant change in the total postneonatal mortality rate. During this period, the number of deaths attributed to ‘suffocation in bed’ and ‘unknown causes,’ increased significantly. According to Malloy and MacDorman, “If death-certifier preference has shifted such that previously classified SIDS deaths are now classified as ‘suffocation,’ the inclusion of these suffocation deaths and unknown or unspecified deaths with SIDS deaths then accounts for about 90 percent of the decline in the SIDS rate observed between 1999 and 2001 and results in a non-significant decline in SIDS”18 (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Reclassification of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths to suffocation in bed and unknown causes. The postneonatal SIDS rate appears to have declined from 61.6 deaths (per 100,000 live births) in 1999 to 50.9 in 2001. (more ...)
Is there evidence linking SIDS to vaccines?
Although some studies were unable to find correlations between SIDS and vaccines,2224 there is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT “may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study.”25Walker et al. found “the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization.”26 Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.27
Ottaviani et al. documented the case of a 3-month-old infant who died suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after being given six vaccines in a single shot: “Examination of the brainstem on serial sections revealed bilateral hypoplasia of the arcuate nucleus. The cardiac conduction system presented persistent fetal dispersion and resorptive degeneration. This case offers a unique insight into the possible role of hexavalent vaccine in triggering a lethal outcome in a vulnerable baby.” Without a full necropsy study in the case of sudden, unexpected infant death, at least some cases linked to vaccination are likely to go undetected.28
Reclassified infant deaths
It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to over-vaccination. Some infants' deaths categorized as ‘suffocation’ or due to ‘unknown and unspecified causes' may also be cases of SIDS reclassified within the ICD. Some of these infant deaths may be vaccine related as well. This trend toward reclassifying ICD data is a great concern of the CDC “because inaccurate or inconsistent cause-of-death determination and reporting hamper the ability to monitor national trends, ascertain risk factors, and design and evaluate programs to prevent these deaths.”29 If some infant deaths are vaccine related and concealed within the various ICD categories for SUIDs, is it possible that other vaccine-related infant deaths have also been reclassified?
Of the 34 nations that have crossed the socio-economic threshold and are able to provide the basic necessities for infant survival—clean water, nutrition, sanitation, and health care—several require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses and have relatively high infant mortality rates. These nations should take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes. Of course, all SUID categories should be re-inspected. Other ICD categories may be related to vaccines as well. For example, a new live-virus orally administered vaccine against rotavirus-induced diarrhea—Rotarix®—was licensed by the European Medicine Agency in 2006 and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008. However, in a clinical study that evaluated the safety of the Rotarix vaccine,vaccinated babies died at a higher rate than non-vaccinated babies—mainly due to a statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related fatalities.30 (One biologically plausible explanation is that natural rotavirus infection might have a protective effect against respiratory infection.)31 Although these fatalities appear to be vaccine related and raise a nation’s infant mortality rate, medical certifiers are likely to misclassify these deaths as pneumonia.
Several additional ICD categories are possible candidates for incorrect infant death classifications: unspecified viral diseases, diseases of the blood, septicemia, diseases of the nervous system, anoxic brain damage, other diseases of the nervous system, diseases of the respiratory system, influenza, and unspecified diseases of the respiratory system. All of these selected causes may be repositories of vaccine-related infant deaths reclassified as common fatalities. All nations—rich and poor, industrialized and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals. Progress on reducing infant mortality rates should include monitoring vaccine schedules and medical certification practices to ascertain whether vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified as ordinary mortality in the ICD.
How many infants can be saved with an improved IMR?
Slight improvements in IMRs can make a substantial difference. In 2009, there were approximately 4.5 million live births and 28,000 infant deaths in the United States, resulting in an infant mortality rate of 6.22/1000. If health authorities can find a way to reduce the rate by 1/1000 (16%), the United States would rise in international rank from 34th to 31st and about 4500 infants would be saved.
Limitations of study and potential confounding factors
This analysis did not adjust for vaccine composition, national vaccine coverage rates, variations in the infant mortality rates among minority races, preterm births, differences in how some nations report live births, or the potential for ecological bias. A few comments about each of these factors are included below.
Vaccine composition
This analysis calculated the total number of vaccine doses received by children but did not differentiate between the substances, or quantities of those substances, in each dose. Common vaccine substances include antigens (attenuated viruses, bacteria, toxoids), preservatives (thimerosal, benzethonium chloride, 2-phenoxyethanol, phenol), adjuvants (aluminum salts), additives (ammonium sulfate, glycerin, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium chloride), stabilizers (fetal bovine serum, monosodium glutamate, human serum albumin, porcine gelatin), antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B), and inactivating chemicals (formalin, glutaraldehyde, polyoxyethylene). For the purposes of this study, all vaccine doses were equally weighted.
Vaccine coverage rates
No adjustment was made for national vaccine coverage rates—a percentage of the target population that received the recommended vaccines. However, most of the nations in this study had coverage rates in the 90%–99% range for the most commonly recommended vaccines—DTaP, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib (when these vaccines were included in the schedule). Therefore, this factor is unlikely to have impacted the analyses.9
Minority races
It has been argued that the US IMR is poor in comparison to many other nations because African–American infants are at greater risk of dying relative to White infants, perhaps due to genetic factors or disparities in living standards. However, in 2006 the US IMR for infants of all races was 6.69 and the IMR for White infants was 5.56.13 In 2009, this improved rate would have moved the United States up by just one rank internationally, from 34th place to 33rd place.8 In addition, the IMRs for Hispanics of Mexican descent and Asian–Americans in the United States are significantly lower than the IMR for Whites.6 Thus, diverse IMRs among different races in the Unites States exert only a modest influence over the United States' international infant mortality rank.
Preterm births
Preterm birth rates in the United States have steadily increased since the early 1980s. (This rise has been tied to a greater reliance on caesarian deliveries, induced labor, and more births to older mothers.) Preterm babies are more likely than full-term babies to die within the first year of life. About 12.4% of US births are preterm. In Europe, the prevalence rate of premature birth ranges from 5.5% in Ireland to 11.4% in Austria. Preventing preterm births is essential to lower infant mortality rates. However, it is important to note that some nations such as Ireland and Greece, which have very low preterm birth rates (5.5% and 6%, respectively) compared to the United States, require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses (23) and have correspondingly high IMRs. Therefore, reducing preterm birth rates is only part of the solution to reduce IMRs.6,32
Differences in reporting live births
Infant mortality rates in most countries are reported using WHO standards, which do not include any reference to the duration of pregnancy or weight of the infant, but do define a ‘live birth’ as a baby born with any signs of life for any length of time.12However, four nations in the dataset—France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland—do not report live births entirely consistent with WHO standards. These countries add an additional requirement that live babies must also be at least 22 weeks of gestation or weigh at least 500 grams. If babies do not meet this requirement and die shortly after birth, they are reported as stillbirths. This inconsistency in reporting live births artificially lowers the IMRs of these nations.32,33According to the CDC, “There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States' relatively low international ranking.”32 Nevertheless, when the IMRs of France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland were adjusted for known underreporting of live births and the 30 data pairs retested for significance, the correlation coefficient improved from 0.70 to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.52–0.87).
Ecological bias
Ecological bias occurs when relationships among individuals are inferred from similar relationships observed among groups (or nations). Although most of the nations in this study had 90%–99% of their infants fully vaccinated, without additional data we do not know whether it is the vaccinated or unvaccinated infants who are dying in infancy at higher rates. However, respiratory disturbances have been documented in close proximity to infant vaccinations, and lethal changes in the brainstem of a recently vaccinated baby have been observed. Since some infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated, and babies vaccinated against diarrhea died from pneumonia at a statistically higher rate than non-vaccinated babies, there is plausible biologic and causal evidence that the observed correlation between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants should not be dismissed as ecological bias.
Conclusion
The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.
Efforts to reduce the relatively high US IMR have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Gerard Jungman, PhD, Paul G. King, PhD, and Peter Calhoun for their assistance in reviewing the manuscript and sharing their expertise.
Footnotes
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
1. Wegman ME. Infant mortality in the 20th century, dramatic but uneven progressJ Nutr 2001; 131: 401S–408S. [PubMed]
2. Beck MA. The role of nutrition in viral diseaseJ Nutri Biochem 1996; 7: 683–690 .
3. Scrimshaw NS, SanGiovanni JP. Synergism of nutrition, infection, and immunity: an overviewAm J Clin Nutr 1997; 66: 464S–477S. [PubMed]
4. Anderson GF, Hussay PS, Frogner BK, Waters HR. Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized worldHealth Affairs 2005; 24: 903–914. [PubMed]
5. MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ. Recent trends in infant mortality in the United States. NCHS Data Brief (CDC), no 9. Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, 2008.
6. Kent MM. Premature births help to explain higher infant mortality ratePopulation Reference Bureauwww.prb.org/articles/2009/prematurebirth.aspx (accessed December 2009).
7. Xu Jiaquan, Kochaneck KD, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: preliminary data for 2007Natl Vital Stat Rep2009; 58: 6 .
8. CIA Country comparison: infant mortality rate (2009)The World Factbookwww.cia.gov (accessed 13 April 2010).
9. WHO/UNICEF Immunization Summary: A Statistical Reference Containing Data Through 2008 (The 2010 Edition). www.childinfo.org .
10. Up-to-date European vaccination schedules may be found herewww.euvac.net (accessed 13 April 2010).
11. WHO International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1979.
12. WHO International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1992.
13. CDC Table 31. Number of infant deaths and infant mortality rates for 130 selected causes, by race: United States, 2006Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009; 57: 110–112 .
14. Iannelli V. Immunization timelineKeep Kids Healthy. keepkidshealthy.com (accessed 21 April 2010)
15. Bergman AB. The “Discovery” of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. New York, NY, USA: Praeger Publishers, 1986.
16. MacDorman MF, Rosenberg HM. Trends in infant mortality by cause of death and other characteristics, 1960-88 (vital and health statistics)Volume 20 Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Government Printing, 1993.
17. National Center for Health Statistics Vital Statistics of the United States 1988, Volume II, Mortality, Part A. Washington, DC, USA: Public Health Service, 1991.
18. Malloy MH, MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths: United States, 1992-2001Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1247–1253. [PubMed]
19. Mitchell E, Krous HF, Donald T, Byard RW. Changing trends in the diagnosis of sudden infant deathAm J Forensic Med Pathol 2000; 21: 311–314. [PubMed]
20. Overpeck MD, Brenner RA, Cosgrove C, Trumble AC, Kochanek K, MacDorman M. National under ascertainment of sudden unexpected infant deaths associated with deaths of unknown cause.Pediatrics 2002; 109: 274–283. [PubMed]
21. Byard RW, Beal SM. Has changing diagnostic preference been responsible for the recent fall in incidence of sudden infant death syndrome in South Australia? J Pediatr Child Health 1995; 31: 197–199 .
22. Vennemann MM, Butterfass-Bahloul T, Jorch G, Brinkmann B, Findeisen M, Sauerland C, et al.Sudden infant death syndrome: no increased risk after immunisationVaccine 2007; 25: 336–340.[PubMed]
23. Stratton K, Almario DA, Wizemann TM, McCormick MC. Immunization safety review: vaccinations and sudden unexpected death in infancy. Washington DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2003.
24. Silvers LE, Ellenberg SS, Wise RP, Varricchio FE, Mootrey GT, Salive ME. The epidemiology of fatalities reported to the vaccine adverse event reporting system 1990-1997Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 279–285. [PubMed]
25. Torch WC. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). American Academy of Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, Apr 25-May 1, 1982Neurology 32(4): pt. 2 .
26. Walker AM, Jick H, Perera DR, Thompson RS, Knauss TA. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death syndromeAm J Public Health 1987; 77: 945–951.[PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Fine PE, Chen RT. Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccinesAm J Epidemiol1992; 136: 121–135. [PubMed]
28. Ottaviani G, Lavezze AM, Matturri L. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) shortly after hexavalent vaccination: another pathology in suspected SIDS? Virchows Archiv 2006; 448: 100–104.[PubMed]
29. CDC About the sudden unexpected infant death investigation (SUIDI) reporting formDepartment of Health and Human Services (accessed 20 May 2010).
30. GlaxoSmithKline Rotarix® (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral) Oral Suspension. Product insert from the manufacturer (April 2008): 6.
31. FDA Center for biologics evaluation and research, vaccines and related biological products advisory committee meeting (20 February 2008): 127–128 .
32. MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ. Behind international rankings of infant mortality: how the United States compares with Europe. NCHS data brief, no 23 Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, 2009.
33. Euro-Peristat Project, with SCPE, Eurocat, Euroneostat European Perinatal Health Report: Data for 2004 (The 2008 Edition): Table 3.1:40 www.europeristat.com .

Vaccine Exemption Paperwork

Brian Bartholomew - Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Please click on this link and get connected with the organization to find out how to avoid legally opt out of vaccinations!

For help with New York school exemptions, please contact:
Gary Krasner, Director, Coalition For Informed Choice.
188-34 87th Drive, #4B, 
Hollis, NY 11423 
Fax / Phone: 718-479-2939
comprehensive counseling and guidance for obtaining the religious waiver, only for NY state.
CFIC website has a page of information on New York exemptions:
For More Information and an email address to CFIC:
For More Information and an email address to CFIC:
Coalition For Informed Choice

There is No Safe Flu Shot

Brian Bartholomew - Sunday, November 13, 2011

Babies, Elderly, & Pregnant women receive 250x safe amounts of toxic heavy metals for EACH flu SHOT.

 

     Thimerosal is a widely used vaccine preservative that is present in the majority of flu shots and other vaccines. Thimerosal is 49% mercury by volume, an extremely toxic chemical element that wreaks havoc on the nervous system, neurological function, and overall biological function [1]. Each dose of flu vaccine contains around 25 micrograms of thimerosal, over 250 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit of exposure. Mercury, a neurotoxin, is especially damaging to undeveloped brains. Considering that 25 micrograms of mercury is considered unsafe by the EPA for any human under 550 pounds, the devastating health effects of mercury on a developing fetus are truly concerning.

     Though thimerasol is not entirely mercury, the mercury content is still extremely high, making it very toxic to the human body. Despite highly exceeding the EPA safety standards for mercury content by over 250 times, flu shots are still recommended for children over 6 months and pregnant women.

     It seems that the age groups that are urged to receive the flu shot are actually most affected by mercury exposure. Young children, pregnant women, and elderly are the ‘targeted’ demographic of flu shot manufacturers, and these individuals also happen to have the least defense against the elemental neurotoxin mercury.

     Dr. Russel Blaylock, a leading neurologist, explains: A recent study looked at the immune reaction in newborn infants up to the age of one year who had received the HepB vaccine to see if their immune reaction differed from adults getting the same vaccine. What they found was that the infant, even after age one year, did react differently. Their antibody levels were substantially higher than adults (3-fold higher) and it remained higher throughout the study. In essence, they found that the babies responded to the vaccine by having an intense Th2 response that persisted long after it should have disappeared, a completely abnormal response.

     In 2004, the The Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs petitioned the FDA to limit the use of thimerosal in vaccine citing safety concerns. In a reply made public years later, the FDA denied the request despite overwhelming evidence that mercury is harmful to the human body [2] [3] [4]. In addition to mercury, vaccines also contain other toxic fillers and preservatives that have been linked to health conditions such as cancer: Aluminum: Also a neurotoxin, aluminum has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease [5] and other cognitive diseases [6]. Formaldehyde: Among the 8 new substances to be added to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services list of carcinogens. Antibiotics: Various forms include neomycin, streptomycin, and gentamicin. Triton X-100: A detergent that should not be injected into the human bloodstream.

     By recommending flu shots to the public, the CDC and vaccine manufacturers are ignoring the warnings of not only major studies conducted by prominent universities, but also the EPA. The EPA’s safety limit of mercury exposure is being exceeded by over 250 times each shot. In addition to a number of other ‘recommended’ vaccines, flu shots are dished out each year to the public, meaning that this exposure increases to 250 times the limit each year. Over a 10 year period, it is possible to exceed the limit by 2500 times simply by receiving a yearly flu shot.

Above written by:  Anthony Gucciardi 


Sources:

1. Frustaci A, Magnavita N, Chimenti C, et. al; Marked elevation of myocardial trace elements in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiology 1999;33:1578-83

2. Chang YC, Yeh C, Wang JD. Subclinical neurotoxicity of merucyr vapor revcelaed by a multimodality evoked potential study of chloralkali workers. Amer J Ind Med 1995;27(2):271-279.

3. Yang Y-J, Huang C-C, Shih T-S, et al . Chronic elemental mercury intoxication:clinical and field studies in lampsocked manufacturers. 1994;Occup Environ Med 57(1):245-247.

4. Bluhm RE, Bobbitt RG, Wlech LW, et al. Elemental mercury vapour toxicity, treatment and prognosis after acute intensive exposure in chloraklali plant workers. Part 1I. History, neuropsychological findings and chelator effects. Hum Exp Toxicol 1992 11(3):201-210.

5. Bertholf, R. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease: prospectives for a cytoskeletal mechanism. CRC-Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 25:195, 1987

6. Krishnan, S. Aluminum toxicity to the brain. Sci Total Environ 71:5

What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About the Flu Vaccine

Brian Bartholomew - Thursday, October 06, 2011

The Flu Vaccine–What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You (Or Probably Doesn’t Even Know)

It’s September.  Where I live, September begins as a continuation of summer and ends by transitioning us into fall.  The days remain hot, but the nights become cold and warn of impending weather changes.  The sun sets earlier, and my thoughts often turn to the festivities fall bring with it.  Flu shot signs and tables with bored looking nurses and boxes full of needles join Christmas decorations as they make their seasonal debut into stores.  Flu vaccine debates on internet message boards also make their yearly appearance.  There, I find many false statements regarding the flu vaccine and influenza itself being swept throughout cyberspace.   Let’s identify some of these myths.

b

 

Myth #1: There’s No Thimerosal (or Mercury) in the Flu Shot Anymore.

First, I would like to direct you to two articles: Vaccine Ingredients – A Comprehensive Guide and Is There Thimerosal in the Flu Vaccine? If you click on the first link, you can scroll down to the section that explains a little more about thimerosal and mercury in vaccines.  Here’s a quick summary of the articles’ findings.

According to the CDC, vaccines labeled “thimerosal-free” often have a little asterisk next to those words which lead you to something like: “This vaccine has ‘trace’ amounts of thimerosal, which the FDA says is equivalent to thimerosal-free products.”  If we look closer into “thimerosal-free” vaccines, we will actually find that there is still a toxic amount of mercury contained in them.

There are two kinds of flu shots given.  One contains 25 mcg of thimerosal and is often given as the “regular” flu shot to those with no special circumstances.  The other kind of flu shot is labeled “thimerasol-free” (containing less than 3mcg of mercury) and is given to young children and pregnant women.

If we look at “safe” and “un-safe” levels of mercury, per the FDA, we find this:

2 ppb is the maximum amount of mercury that deems water “safe” for drinking

Anything over 200 ppb mercury is considered TOXIC [source - EPA]

After doing some math [you can check my math in the article: Vaccine Ingredients – A Comprehensive Guide], we find this:

There is 600 ppb mercury is in the “thimerosal-free” flu vaccine.

There is 50,000 ppb mercury given in the flu shot containing 25 mcg of thimerosal as a preservative.

No matter how you cut it, flu vaccines contain toxic amounts of mercury.  So yes, the flu vaccines still DOES contain thimerosal.  The claim that there is “no thimerasol” in the flu vaccine is a complete fallacy, which leads to the next myth.

Myth #2: Sure, the Flu Vaccine Might Contain Thimerosal, but 25mcg is a Safe Amount.  Pregnant Women Can Even Eat Up to 25 mcg of Mercury Contained in Fish.

 

I have heard this countless times.  First, I would like to point out that pregnant women do not get the flu vaccine containing thimerosal as a preservative.  They receive the vaccine falsely claiming to be “thimerosal-free.”  It really should be called, “thimerosal decreased, but still overly toxic.”  From the above statement, we have people running around thinking it’s safe to not only eat 25 mcg of mercury, but also to inject 25 mcg of thimerosal into their body (thimerosal is 50% mercury).

There have never been any real studies done on pregnant women and the effects of eating fish-contained mercury.  What information has been gathered is mainly based on trial and error.  Some doctors urge their pregnant patients to completely steer clear of fish altogether because of the mercury content, while others advise pregnant women to eat “low mercury fish” once or twice a week.  According to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, eating 8-12 ounces of low mercury fish per week is safe for pregnant women.  The FDA (Federal Drug Administration) and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) say up 12 ounces per week is safe.  The Mayo Clinic says to limit albacore tuna, chunk white tuna and tuna steak to 6 ounces per week. [source Mayo Clinic]

So then we have to ask: What is considered low mercury fish?

According to the FDA: shrimp, crab, salmon, pollock, catfish, cod, tuna, and, tilapia are considered low mercury fish.  Tuna contains the highest amount of mercury in the low mercury fish category. [source FDA.gov]

Which leads us to: How much mercury is in fish?

Using tuna as an example, which contains the highest amount of mercury in the low mercury fish category, we find out it contains approximately 128 ppb mercury.  All of the other low mercury fish are lower than that.  The fish containing the highest amount of mercury, tilefish, has 1,450 ppb mercury — very understandable that pregnant women and children are urged to not eat high mercury fish.   [source FDA.gov]

Now we’ll look at how many micrograms of mercury is in a serving of fish, again using tuna as an example.  Three oz. of tuna is considered 1 serving, so that means a pregnant woman can safely eat 1 serving of tuna 4 times a week, according to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.  If we look at the current amount of mercury in fish (because it changes from year to year), we see that there are approximately 13.32mcg of mercury in 12 ounces of tuna, which equates to 3.33mcg per serving.  The amount of mercury in tuna sits between 12-14mcg per 12 ounces every year, and has never been recorded as going over 14mcg. [source EPA]

Therefore, we can safely come to the conclusion that the FDA standard for mercury consumption in pregnant women is a maximum of 14mcg in one week, not the 25mcg that floats around on message boards. Consuming 25mcg of mercury in fish would almost double the amount the FDA considers safe for pregnant women.

I would also like to point out that *INGESTING* mercury is very different than *INJECTING* it straight into your muscle or blood stream.  Ingesting small amounts of mercury is considered safe because it goes through a number of natural filtration systems in our body before it reaches the blood stream.  Studies suggest that eating higher amounts of mercury (anything over 200ppb) can be toxic because a small amount of mercury is able to reach the blood stream and can cause neurological disorders, immune disorders, and other significant problems. A very in-depth study done by the University of Calgary showed that even small amounts of mercury reaching the brain cannot only halt neuron growth, but it actually causes the neuron growth to *reverse*.  Neurons are integral cell bodies and nerve processes in our brains.  Unlike other body cells, neurons stop reproducing shortly after birth. Because of this, some parts of the brain have more neurons at birth than later in life because neurons die and cannot be replaced.  [source University of Calgary] [source]

By injecting mercury instead of ingesting it, you are essentially by-passing your inner filtration systems.  All of the mercury in a vaccine enters the blood stream, which leads straight to the brain.  Remember that toxic amounts of mercury is considered anything over 200ppb, and the smallest amount of mercury in a “thimerosal-free” flu vaccine is 600 ppb – the vaccine most commonly used contains 50,000 ppb.  When you ingest mercury, the amount that reaches your blood stream is much less than the actual amount you consumed.  When you vaccinate, the entire amount of mercury reaches your blood stream.

So here’s the point: when we combine the information from Myth #1 and Myth #2, even the FDA and EPA standards for INGESTION (over an entire week) of mercury are significantly lower than the amount in even the “thimerosal-free” vaccines – which are given all at once – and are outrageously lower than the 25mcg flu vaccine which, of course, is also given all at once.

Myth #3:  Last Year I Got the Flu and I Threw Up Three Times a Day and was Constantly in the Bathroom with Diarrhea!  There’s No Way I’m Skipping my Shot This Year!

Many people, after experiencing a rough weekend of throwing up and diarrhea, come back to work and say they had an awful flu.  This is a common misconception.  The “stomach flu” is different from “the flu” that we vaccinate for.  The flu shot is ineffective against “stomach flu.”

The flu vaccine guards against “the flu.”  Flu is short for Influenza.  Many interchange the word “flu” to also mean “stomach flu,” which in fact is not a flu at all.  Many describe having the flu as being a “cold from Hell.”  Symptoms generally include fever, runny nose, head congestion, body and muscle aches, fatigue, dry cough, and sore throat. It’s definitely not fun to have and will often keep you in bed, depending on how healthy your immune system is.  Influenza is caused by a virus – meaning antibiotics are not affective against killing it.  With the influenza virus – as well as any other virus – you generally have to “wait it out” and let your body take care of killing the virus.

The “stomach flu” is scientifically called gastroenteritis and is caused by a virus, parasite, or bacteria.  The symptoms include stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and is usually caused by eating contaminated food or drinking contaminated water.  Conditions such as lactose intolerance or food allergies can also cause gastroenteritis. [source Web MD]

Myth #4: If I Get a Flu Shot, I Won’t Get the Flu! (And My Body Will Be Healthier and Stronger to Boot!)

 

 There are several different strains of influenza that cause a human to get “the flu.”  There are 3 different classifications, or genuses, of Influenza: Influenza A, Influenza B, and Influenza C.  Each genus has several different serotypes (or several different flus), under each classification.  Influenza A has been shown to affect humans the most and has 10 known serotypes, and the CDC suspects that there are over 100 different serotypes of Influenza A.  Considering that only a small percentage of people are actually tested in one year to find out what kind of flu they contracted, it is impossible to know just how many different serotypes of Influenza there are.  Most people that get the flu don’t go to the doctor or hospital, and even those that are hospitalized are not commonly tested. [source Wiki]

According to the CDC:

There are several reasons why someone might get flu-like symptoms even after they have been vaccinated against the flu.

  1. People may be exposed to an influenza virus shortly before getting vaccinated or during the two-week period that it takes the body to gain protection after getting vaccinated. This exposure may result in a person becoming ill with flu before the vaccine begins to protect them.
  2. People may become ill from other (non-flu) viruses that circulate during the flu season, which can also cause flu-like symptoms (such as rhinovirus).
  3. A person may be exposed to an influenza virus that is not included in the seasonal flu vaccine. There are many different influenza viruses that circulate every year. The flu shot protects against the 3 viruses that research suggests will be most common. Unfortunately, some people can remain unprotected from flu despite getting the vaccine. This is more likely to occur among people that have weakened immune systems. However, even among people with weakened immune systems, the flu vaccine can still help prevent influenza complications. [source CDC.gov]

Reports of “getting the flu” after vaccination is common.  Immediately following vaccination, the body’s immune system is weakened.  During that time of weakened immunity, it is common for someone to more easily contract a flu virus (or any other kind of virus), even one that the vaccine prevents against considering that it takes up to 2 weeks for the body to create enough antibodies to prevent future illness from the strains contained in the vaccine.

So how many strains are contained in this year’s vaccine?

Three.  H1N1, H3N2, and an Influenza B serotype called Brisbane.  [source CDC.gov]

How are the strains chosen for the current year’s vaccine? 

The most popular strains from the previous year become the blueprint for the current year’s vaccine.  However, according to the CDC, the most popular strains of influenza change on a yearly basis.  My red flag just went up!  If the flu vaccine for this year is made from the previous year’s most popular strains, and they change yearly, doesn’t that mean this year’s “most popular strains” will likely be different?  My internal compass says yes.  Hence,  the vaccine with last year’s most popular strains will be grossly ineffective this year.

“The viruses used in making seasonal flu vaccines are chosen each year based on information collected over the previous year about which influenza viruses are spreading.” [source flushotstogo.com]  

One interesting fact about this year’s flu vaccine (2011-2012) is that it’s EXACTLY the same vaccine as last year’s.  Nothing has been changed, yet the medical community and the government are recommending that even if you had this vaccine last year, you should still get it this year because it “wears off” in just a matter of months.  HUH?! Flu vaccines are made exactly the same way as all the other vaccines we give our children:  Inactivated virus, preservatives, chemicals, etc… except this is the ONLY vaccine they admit lasts for “just a couple of months.”  Shouldn’t that mean that other vaccines are just as ineffective?  We give those to our children and they’re supposed to last for up to 10 years after the whole series is completed. If I knew how to raise one eyebrow, I would do that now.

Myth #5: The Flu Vaccine Has Saved Countless Lives.

Influenza vaccines have been around since 1945.  Just before the flu season of 2003-2004 the CDC recommended for the first time that children younger than 60 months (5 years) and older than 6 months receive an annual flu vaccination.  About this time is when the fad of getting a flu vaccine became common for not only children under 5, but for everyone over 5 as well. [source CDC.gov] [source vaccineinformation.org]

The following is a list of different years and the number of flu associated deaths in children reported to the CDC:

  • 1999-2000 -36 deaths [source
  • 2000-2001 -30 deaths [source] 17% decrease
  • 2001-2002 – 25 deaths [source] 17% decrease
  • 2002-2003 – 29 deaths [source]  16% increase (This is the last year that the flu vaccine was considered “unsafe” by the CDC for children under 5 – now let’s watch the increase of deaths after the CDC recommends all children age 6 months to 5 years be vaccinated for Influenza.)
  • 2003-2004 – 153 [source] 427% increase
  • 2004-2005 — 47 deaths [source] 69% decrease
  • 2005-2006 – 46 deaths [source] 3% decrease
  • 2006-2007 – 68 deaths  [source] 48increase
  • 2007-2008 – 88 deaths [source] 29% increase
  • 2008-2009 – 133 deaths  [source] 51% increase
  • 2009-2010 – 282 deaths [source] 112% increase
  • 2010-2011 – 115 deaths [source] 59% decrease

The number of children dying from the flu has risen *drastically* since the CDC recommended children under 5 receive the flu vaccine.  There has been an average of 67% increase of flu-associated death in children since the CDC recommended children under 5 receive the flu vaccine.

According to research presented at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego, children who get the flu vaccination have a 3 times greater risk for hospitalization:

They found that children who had received the flu vaccine had three times the risk of hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine. In asthmatic children, there was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization in subjects who received the TIV (Stands for Trivalent Influenza Vaccine – a.k.a. the flu shot), as compared to those who did not. [source Sciencedaily.com]

So in essence, parents who vaccinate their children against the flu are increasing the hospitalization risk for their child!

”The number of deaths attributed to influenza over the years is always averaged at 36,000 per year in the United States, and that number is still often used.  This number, as many people found out, was completely false and misleading.

Their claim that 36,000 Americans die from the seasonal flu is classic deception & fear mongering propaganda. Most of those deaths, as you can see by the breakdown chart below, resulted from bacterial pneumonia triggered by the Flu. And the age bracket for most victims is 65 and over. But the Flu itself is relatively innocuous by comparison, and actual flu death figures are statistically minor.  The who base Flu death averages not on the Influenza totals but on the combined Pneumonia & Influenza totals are overcoming a serious political challenge: convincing the public of the urgency to be vaccinated when the crisis is no longer perceived to be real. Without that advantage of fear, given all that we have learned about the lack of efficacy & dangers inherent to the shots, the entire Flu Vaccine Industry might very well collapse.

INFLUENZA: ACTUAL NUMBER OF DEATHS CATALOGED IN THE US
2002 – 727
2003 – 1,792
2004 – 1,100
2005 – 1,812

PNEUMONIA: ACTUAL NUMBER OF DEATHS CATALOGED IN THE US
2002 – 64,954
2003 – 63,371
2004 – 58,564
2005 – 61,189

PNEUMONIA & INFLUENZA: ACTUAL NUMBER OF DEATHS CATALOGED
2002 – 65,681
2003 – 65,163
2004 – 59,664
2005 – 63,001

The CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO) converts numbers from the third set; based on yearly fluctuations they arrive at 36,000.” [Joel Lord in VRM: “One For All” Universal Flu Vaccine – 21st Century Genetic Roulette Part 1; Founder of the VRM]

So when you hear the number of flu related deaths per year, remember that it’s a complete estimation.  The WHO and the CDC take the numbers of not only those individuals with confirmed influenza cases, but also those individuals that have not been tested to see whether or not they had influenza but died from pneumonia.  They’re taking a complete guess and assuming that about half of the individuals that died from pneumonia developed pneumonia because they contracted influenza as well, which may or may not be true.  You’ll also see that, despite a consecutive increase of flu vaccinations each year, the number of influenza AND pneumonia cases remain about the same.

At the end of all of this, we find that the Flu vaccine is dangerous and essentially ineffective.  So that means we must be doomed to live in a never-ending cycle of possibly contracting the yearly flu? 

Not so.  Studies have shown that adequate amounts of Vitamin D during the flu months (when Vitamin D levels are at their lowest) can prevent people from contracting influenza up to 100% of the time!!  And even if your Vitamin D levels aren’t as high as they need to be to completely prevent the flu, even higher than average levels of Vitamin D can greatly minimize the symptoms of the flu if you catch it.  This is one of the only safe and natural ways to prevent the flu or lessen flu symptoms.  [source Naturalnews.com][source medicalnewstoday.com] [source mercola.com] [source University of Cambridge Medical Journals]

Along with adequate amounts of Vitamin D, studies show that regular visits to a chiropractor can have significant affects on immune system health and development.  The Journal of Pediatric, Maternal & Family Health issued a release on May 04, 2009 with the headline “Flue Prevention Plan Should Include Chiropractic,” urging people to include chiropractic during this most recent flu scare. In this report, it states:

People of all ages are encouraged to add chiropractic to their strategy for warding off and fighting the flu and its effects swine flu or otherwise. Spinal adjustments can have a positive effect on immune function according to a growing number of researchers who are exploring the common denominators in disease processes, and the role of the nervous, immune, and hormonal systems in development of immune related illnesses. [source]

During the Spanish Influenza outbreak in 1918 in Davenport, Iowa, 50 medical doctors cared for 4,953 cases of the Spanish flu, and 274 of their patients died. In the same city, 150 chiropractic doctors, including students and faculty of the Palmer School of Chiropractic, treated 1,635 Spanish Flu patients where only 1 patient died.

Outside Davenport, chiropractors in Iowa cared for 4,735 Spanish Flu sufferers with only six deaths – one out of 866. In Oklahoma, out of 3,490 flu patients receiving the benefits of chiropractic care, only seven people died.

National figures for the United States show that 1,142 chiropractic doctors treated a total of 46,394 flu patients during the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak, with a mortality rate of only 54 patients – one out of every 859, or less than 0.12 percent.

In sharp contrast, the mortality rate from Spanish flu in regular US hospitals generally ranged from 30 to 40 percent. For one hospital in New York, the mortality rate was 68 percent! [source][source]

Vaccine Safety A Huge Issue

Brian Bartholomew - Friday, September 23, 2011

Contact: Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota / Nancy Hokkanen 952-831-3777

Lives ruined, “Gardasil Girls” abandoned by CDC, manufacturers & media

ST. PAUL, MN – Vaccine consumers were shortchanged yet again by media’s selective reporting of Rep. Michele Bachmann’s HPV vaccine comments from last week’s Tea Party debate. Whatever one’s opinion of Republican Presidential candidate Bachmann, the seriousness of vaccine injury was lost to many journalists’ indulgences in bias, jingoism and ignorance.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune found demagoguery irresistible, inaccurately titling its editorial “Bachmann’s foolish attack on vaccines.” The subhead, “Congresswoman’s fear-mongering put politics over health,” was unintentionally ironic, especially given the Strib’s consistent failure to investigate many readers’ vaccine injuries and legitimate product safety concerns.

In 2006 the HPV vaccine was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. A few years later the U.S. Centers for Disease Control stated, “As of June 22, 2011… VAERS [the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination.” A total of 2,799 adverse events were classified as “Serious,” including encephalopathy (brain damage). 98 deaths have been reported.

In 2009 CBS News quoted Dr. Scott Ratner, whose wife is also a physician, saying one of their daughters became severely ill after a shot of Gardasil: “My daughter went from a varsity lacrosse player at Choate to a chronically ill, steroid-dependent patient with autoimmune myofasciitis.”

Girls injured by HPV vaccines have little recourse – medical treatments are few and vaccine injury research is minimal. Teenaged victims have taken their stories to Facebook and YouTube. Websites like www.TruthAboutGardasil.org list victims’ symptoms and photos. A documentary on HPV vaccine injury, “One More Girl,” is currently being filmed by ThinkExist Productions.

Glossed over in most media is possible influence peddling by Governor Rick Perry’s former chief of staff Mike Toomey, who went to work for Merck, the manufacturer of the Gardasil HPV vaccine. The legislative group Women In Government was courted by HPV vaccine manufacturers; a subsequent 2007 Minnesota HPV vaccine bill sponsored by WIG attendees was defeated.

The Washington Post did run “Perry’s Financial Ties to Merck Run Deep” on 9/14/11, but concluded with this tepid caveat: “[S]ome experts have said they are concerned that there is insufficient evidence about how long Gardasil’s protection will last, whether serious side effects will emerge and whether a reduction in infections will necessarily translate into fewer cancers.”

Despite these unanswered questions, a bill to allow 12-year-olds to get the HPV vaccine without parents’ consent is on the desk of California Governor Jerry Brown. Yet few media outlets have reported on the myriad negative implications of this usurpation of parental health care rights.

Media’s repeated failure to investigate vaccine safety issues is perhaps best summarized this week in an insightful analysis by Alison Bass, a Brandeis and Mount Holyoke journalism professor, science writer, Pulitzer Prize nominee, and author of the book “Side Effects”:

“I wish the media would use this opportunity to explore the public health ramifications of allowing a drug manufacturer to aggressively target the wrong population for an expensive and possibly unnecessary vaccine.”


Recent Posts


Tags

Immune System pH Head Weights Aspirin Children Genetics Blood Pressure Air Purifier Vaccines Rotator Cuff Exercises Spinal Degeneration Upper Back Pain juicing Dentist Vegan Hip Pain Vibe Plate Lower Body Exercises Stress Colds Soap Work Outs Eyesight Ankle Pain exercise Birth Knee Pain Fluoride Barefood Shoes GERD Fibromyalgia Mercury Mindset Acid Reflux Arthritis Leptin aging Gluten Ankle Sprain Amalgam Fillings Chlorella Antidepressants Cancer Genetically Modified Liver High Blood Pressure Hormones Heart Disease Infertility Goal Setting Caffeine Cortisol Cough Cholesterol Earthing Milk, Dairy Bacteria Gout Eat to Live Autism Fungal Cloves Chiropractic Deep Breathing Detox ADHD Snacks Tylenol Holiday Health Digestive Issues Sacroiliac Pain Shower Filter Filings Flu Fever Bipolar General Health Scoliosis Burst Training Sciatica Good Fats Toxins Coconut Oil Athletes Medication Doctored Hives Water Skin Dirty Dozen Well Adjusted Babies Strength Wheatgrass SSRI Piriformis Syndrome Longevity Speech Iatrogenic SI Pain Pork Factory Farms, Organic, Muscle Rheumatoid Arthritis Hearing Loss Probiotics FDA Epilepsy Sensory Integration Vision Psoriasis Chocolate Soda Fitness Teeth Farming Allergies Neck Pain Eggs Shoulder Exercises Coffee Webster Technique Upper Body Exercises Alcohol Weight Loss Bread Depression Diet Adrenals Sleep Fasting Posture Cervical Curve Obesity Vomiting Surge Training Surgery CoQ10 Glutathione Calcium Frozen Shoulder Babies Dyslexia Lyme Disease Headaches Artificial Sweeteners Cayenne Recipes Vit K, Low Back Exercises Nutrient Density Spices Energy Clean 15 Acid Alkaline Charts Alkaline Potassium Turmeric Breast Cancer Herniated Disk Knee Exercises Anxiety Sensory Processing Inflammation Nutrition Joints Diarrhea Subluxation Spirulina Healthcare Omega 3's M.S. Diabetes Spinal Rehab Superfoods Organic Cinnamon Pregnancy Parkinson's Disease Birth Control Soy Healing Diet Mammograms Estrogen Strength Training Supplements Stimulants Sugar Spinal Surgery Ear Infections Grass Fed Ritalin Antibiotics Household Cleaners Gall Bladder Tea Behavior mediation Osteoporosis Home Care Kit Virus Asthma Thyroid Issue Tonsils Plastic Breast Feeding Sinus Books Ankle Exercises Vitamin D Mold Plantar Fasciitis

Archive

site designed by www.completelaunch.com