Separating Education from Indoctrination

I don’t know about you, but I did not want this.

I did not devote years of my life to health, science, healing, and wellness to be attacked, ridiculed, judged, and labeled.

I did not spend thousands of hours studying health sciences to graduate at the top of my class THREE TIMES to be discredited for my experiences and knowledge about these topics.

I did not dedicate countless hours of my time reading government websites, pharmaceutical documents, peer-reviewed studies, and systematic reviews to be ignored, silenced, rejected, and censored.

I did not want this, but my conscience will not let me ignore my experiences.

I was once indoctrinated. I was taught the vaccine schedule and what infections were covered in those vaccines. I was briefly shown herd immunity. I was informed that “vaccines [were] safe and effective.” I had no reason to question otherwise, and if others did so, they lacked the capacity to understand “the science.” That is what I was, and many others are, indoctrinated to believe.

I was not taught about vaccine efficacy rates or failure. Vaccines were not a focus in immunology, though some processes signaled theories of their supposed actions. Vaccine-targeted bacteria and viruses were not thoroughly explored in microbiology alike other microbes. Vaccines were not covered in pharmacology, where adverse events were always attached to studied drugs. Vaccines did not come with adverse events. There was no mention of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and I was not familiar with this passive avenue of compiling population data through post-marketing surveillance as clinical trials are of short duration (some only FOUR days… e.g., Hep B vaccine).

As a foundation, colleges require you to learn concepts without challenging the information. As you dive deeper into the sciences, you find that challenging theory is vital to the fluid nature of science. We still discover new things about the evolving biome/virome and what humans have done to help or hinder the health of populations (e.g., the implications of antibiotic overuse, tobacco science, and the low-fat/high sugar “heart health” diet in light of the obesity crisis… just to name a few). We see changes in human health and must consider contributing factors to find solutions. Current research in epigenetics, the gut-brain connection, and functional medicine are challenging long-held theories surrounding health and wellness.

I have made up for gaps in school. I have explored the evidence-based practice, how to read scientific studies, how to check for bias, and have challenged mainstream ideas in the classroom with success. I have pulled the studies from databases and notice a trend. Glowing reports of vaccine efficacy always contain a bias as they are usually funded by vaccine manufacturers and government agencies that promote them. Those researchers that challenge the data and ask the hard questions rarely have a government funding source, are never tied to the pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines, and declare no conflicts of interest. Funny how that works, eh?

That being said, we all have biases that need worked through. Our experiences, including formal education, can create these biases. We can be taught to hold certain entities in high regard, but we must be careful not to be blinded to their failures or misrepresentation of data. We must hold them accountable.

I do not think that there is a conspiracy surrounding the childhood vaccination program. I do not believe vaccine manufacturers intended to injure children. At the same time, we have got to recognize that vaccine manufacturers are the same companies that create other pharmaceuticals. If you know anything about FDA regulation and drug testing, you know that there is a price, harm still occurs after the screening of new drugs, and there are regular recalls. You know that medical journals are filled with shady science promoting new medications that are funded by the companies producing those drugs. The clinical trials involved in the manufacturing of vaccines are lesser than those demanded of the FDA for prescribed medications. Fact-Check this; clinical trials are included in manufacturing inserts for vaccines that are required by law.

My take on these issues is that an unintentional loophole was created with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that freed manufacturers from liability and guaranteed a market for vaccines that are recommended for the U. S. Vaccine Schedule. When your vaccine is approved for the schedule, you have secured revenue. The fiscal incentive for more vaccines is high in a developed country.

In 1983, there were seven total vaccine doses. In 2019, there are over 70 throughout childhood, with 22 doses concentrated in the first 12-15 months of life in the U.S. We also have an embarrassing infant (0-12 month) mortality rate as compared to other developed AND developing nations (we rank in the 50s)!

InfantMortalityCountries
List of countries that have LOWER infant death rates than the U. S.

According to the most recent data, the 4th leading cause of death in the first year is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). SIDS is unexplained death that is not the result of congenital anomalies, maternal/pregnancy complications, or gestation-related causes. If we remove congenital, maternal, pregnancy, gestation from the death table, SIDS will rank #1! Sadly, we spend next to nothing on SIDS research as compared to vaccine spending. On top of that, spending on SIDS research was slashed by almost half from 2017 to 2018! Governments are the largest funding source for R&D, and the largest investment category worldwide is Vaccine Research and Development. The CDC claims vaccines aren’t the cause of SIDS; however, SIDS has no explained cause so that statement is a fallacy. Why would the CDC go against their own vaccine recommendations? They wouldn’t. That is why all their supporting SIDS studies contain glaring conflicts of interest (as they are generated internally), not to mention: outdated.

CDC SIDS Articles

Where your money goes, there lie your interests. Infant mortality in the U.S. is not the result of infectious diseases, yet that is where the money is spent. We have “no idea” why infants suddenly die, yet we aren’t interested in finding out why? Every year, roughly 2,500 babies born in the U.S. die before age one for unknown causes when you remove strangulation/suffocation from the data. Scientific processes allow people to find out the cause of death for a mummy buried over 4,000 years ago, but we cannot do the same for a baby that dies today. Let that sink in.

I do not think there is a conspiracy, but I do believe that these health agencies feel they have gone too far to turn back. They have sold us to their dogma of “vaccines are safe and effective” that is slathered all over government websites. If the childhood vaccine program fails, several people lose trust in government programs that seek to do some good. The challenge is identifying when data is misrepresented due to strong biases. It takes a level of commitment and discomfort (cognitive dissonance) when you seek education and put your biases aside. There is a lot on the line when you challenge the science of vaccines, but without conflict there cannot be progress. We have conflict because we demand progress. Never stop demanding progress.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx
https://www.who.int/research-observatory/monitoring/inputs/neglected_diseases_source/en/
https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm

Vaccine Studies… “the science is settled” and the evidence cannot be denied

There is nothing more important than protecting our population, especially the most vulnerable, from risks. If there is a risk, there must be a choice. Vaccines (lab-created biologics) are not without their risks. The statement “Vaccines are safe and effective” is simply unfounded. Protection of informed consent is essential in a free society, but that is threatened today.

Independent bodies such as the Cochrane Collaboration, which is considered Level I hierarchy of medical evidence, are unable to determine if vaccination prevents primary disease and reports safety issues. This is a lot of information, so it is broken down by the vaccine. I have thoroughly covered measles and chickenpox, so they are not included in this post. You can find those here and here. Quotes below are directly obtained from studies.

 

COMBO VACCINES

In 2012, Bar-On, Goldberg, Hellman, & Leibovici evaluated DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines. Overall, they reported “Data for the primary outcome (prevention of disease) were lacking” and reported increased bias within performed studies. There was a reassessment of this in 2017, and those authors were unable to perform the study.

 

HEPATITIS B

Mathew, El Dib, Mathew, Boxall, & Brok evaluated Hepatitis B in 2009 and stated “Twelve trials were eligible. All had high risk of bias and reporting was inconsistent.” They went on further to state:

“In people not previously exposed to hepatitis B, vaccination has unclear effect on the risk of developing infection, as compared to no vaccination. The risk of lacking protective antibody levels as well as serious and non-serious adverse events appear comparable among recipients and non-recipients of hepatitis B vaccine.”

A review evaluating Hepatitis B booster vaccination conducted in 2016 reported, “There were no eligible randomised clinical trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria of this review.”

In 2017, Eke, Eleje, Eke, Xia, & Liu performed a study evaluating the Hepatitis B vaccine on newborns of seropositive women, and they stated:

“Due to very low to low quality evidence found in this review, we are uncertain of the effect of benefit of antenatal HBIG administration to the HBV-infected mothers on newborn outcomes, such as HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg compared with no intervention. The results of the effects of HBIG on HBsAg and HBeAg are surrogate outcomes (raising risk of indirectness), and we need to be critical while interpreting the findings. We found no data on newborn mortality or maternal mortality or both, or other serious adverse events. Well-designed randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of HBIG versus placebo in prevention of MTCT of HBV.”

 

TETANUS AND PERTUSSIS

In 2014, Zhang, Prietsch, Axelsson, & Halperin reported in a tetanus study that:

“Ethical barriers to the inclusion of a placebo group, combined with the evidence that whole-cell vaccines are not uniformly effective, will create problems for future efficacy studies. Such studies will need to include a self-selected, non-immunised and potentially biased control group, in order to provide an estimate of absolute vaccine efficacy. Further, analyses of the data from existing placebo-controlled studies, with the aim of determining characteristics of participants and their environment which affect vaccine efficacy, will permit future studies to improve these estimates of absolute efficacy by adjusting for such factors.

Finally, the lack of a laboratory correlate of efficacy means that the testing of new acellular pertussis vaccines currently requires prolonged and expensive clinical trials. Research into determining such a laboratory correlate should be a priority.”

In 2015, Demicheli, Barale, & Rivetti evaluated the studies on effects of TDaP vaccines in pregnant women concluding, “For our primary outcomes, there was no high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments.” They went on to elaborate on two chosen trials and said:

“One study (1182 infants) assessed the effectiveness of tetanus toxoid in comparison with influenza vaccine in preventing neonatal tetanus deaths.

Another study, involving 8641 children, assessed the effectiveness of tetanus-diphtheria toxoid in comparison with cholera toxoid in preventing neonatal mortality after one or two doses.”

These two studies qualified to be evaluated, and both studies do not have true saline-placebo controls as the ‘placebo arm’ was administered a vaccine including adjuvanted components.

 

PNEUMOCOCCAL

In 2012, review by Moberley, Holden, Tatham, & Andrews on a Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine (PPV) they report:

“PPV was not associated with substantial reductions in all-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09; random-effects model, I2 statistic = 69%). Vaccine efficacy against primary outcomes appeared poorer in adults with chronic illness. Non-RCTs provided evidence for protection against IPD in populations for whom the vaccine is currently utilised (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61; random-effects model, I2 statistic = 31%). This review did not consider adverse events as it was outside the scope of the review.”

In a 2015 review of evidence for the use of pneumococcal vaccines in pregnancy, Chaithongwongwatthana, Yamasmit, Limpongsanurak, Lumbiganon, & Tolosa reports:

“The overall quality of evidence is low for primary outcomes. Most outcomes had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and most of the included trials had small numbers of participants and few events which led to downgrading evidence for imprecision of findings.

There is insufficient evidence to assess whether pneumococcal vaccination during pregnancy could reduce infant infections.”

 

ROTAVIRUS

In the 2010 review by Soares-Weiser, Goldberg, Tamimi, Leibovici, & Pitan on rotavirus in preventing diarrhea, the study reported:

“Evidence about safety, and about mortality or prevention of severe outcomes, is scarce and inconclusive… Rotavirus vaccines can prevent diarrhoea caused by rotavirus, but we are still not clear about safety and whether they prevent deaths.”

Because the vaccine evaluated in the above study was taken off the market due to intussusception, there was an updated review conducted in 2012. Soares-Weiser, MacLehose, Bergman, Ben-Aharon, Nagpal, Goldberg, Pitan, & Cunliffe conclude:

“Serious adverse events were reported in 4565 out of 99,438 children vaccinated with RV1 and in 1884 out of 78,226 children vaccinated with RV5. Fifty-eight cases of intussusception were reported in 97,246 children after RV1 vaccination, and 34 cases in 81,459 children after RV5 vaccination.

The vaccine efficacy is lower in high-mortality countries; however, due to the higher burden of disease, the absolute benefit is higher in these settings. No increased risk of serious adverse events including intussusception was detected, but post-introduction surveillance studies are required to detect rare events associated with vaccination.

Of the 41 RCTs analysed in this review, 25 (61%) reported an adequate generation of allocation sequence, while the method of assignment was unclear in the remaining studies. The methods used to conceal allocation were considered adequate in 19 trials (46%), and unclear in the remaining studies.

Incomplete outcome data was adequately addressed in 28 studies (68%), unclear in 12 studies, and was not addressed adequately in one study. Sixteen trials were free from selective reporting bias, eight were not, and the remaining trials were unclear. Most trials were sponsored by the industry and it was not possible to assess if they were free of other biases; two recent trials performed in Africa were considered free from other biases.”

 

INFLUENZA

In 2018, Jefferson, Rivetti, Di Pietrantonj, and Demicheli reported in an influenza vaccine study in healthy children that, “Only a few studies were well designed and conducted, and the impact of studies at high risk of bias varied across the outcomes evaluated.”

The 2018 study on influenza vaccination in adults conducted by Demicheli, Jefferson, Ferroni, Rivetti, & Di Pietrantonj, they report:

“We found 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 adults. We were unable to determine the impact of bias on about 70% of the included studies due to insufficient reporting of details. Around 15% of the included studies were well designed and conducted. We focused on reporting of results from 25 studies that looked at inactivated vaccines. Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.

Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).”

In the 2018 study performed by Demicheli, Jefferson, Di Pietrantonj, Ferroni, Thorning, Thomas, & Rivetti regarding influenza vaccination in older adults, they concluded:

“The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.”

 

There you have it! Of the available studies about vaccines, this is the available analysis…

  • Lack of
  • Limited by bias
  • Low-quality
  • Low-certainty
  • Uncertain
  • High-risk of bias
  • Inconclusive
  • Insufficient

Don’t believe me? Go have a look for yourself. These evaluations were made by medical doctors of an independent, non-profit organization that are free from conflicts of interest. This demonstrates that there is no evidence of safety, nor efficacy, of these vaccines. Further, evaluating the use of several vaccines at the same time is absent from the literature. We need to create an independent council that can evaluate the overall safety of the childhood vaccine schedule. We also need the ability to evaluate vaccines for all ages, as mandatory vaccine laws are entertained in legislative houses today.

The good news is that the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group has proposed a systematic review on the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines this year (2019). This is going to be a monumental study that has implications for the entire vaccine schedule as most vaccines contain aluminum adjuvants. I eagerly await the results.

HEAR THIS WELL: Your rights to medical freedom and informed consent are being threatened TODAY. These are current vaccinations that are being tested.

Vaccine Trial Tracker

Maybe you don’t care about the childhood vaccine schedule. Maybe you don’t have children and never plan to do so. Maybe you believe in your heart of hearts that vaccines are for the greater good. That is fine. That is YOUR choice (for now). However, if a mandatory vaccination law is passed, there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines that are authorized to be injected into YOU, an adult.

What happens if it is no longer your choice? What happens when Stage 4 of the clinical trial (use in populations and post-marketing studies) determines that a new vaccine causes harm and you did not have a choice? Well, by that point it does not matter. You have NO CONTROL over your health. You have NO CONTROL over what goes into your body at the discretion of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. Then what? Public health officials can essentially go door-to-door to mass vaccinate communities. Is this what you want? Because if you do not stand up now, this is what you will get. It has been done before and it can be done again.

Your voice must be heard. Informed consent must be protected. A law mandating a medical intervention eliminates informed consent, as you no longer have the choice and therefore do not need to know the risks. Last year (2018), HEPLISAV-B was approved for the adult vaccination schedule. Just look up ACIP vote last year on this issue and how exactly they voted this vaccine through, here is one link. Certainly, that brings you to pause. Still feel like lining up for the future HIV vaccine?

Above all, we need to focus on safety. Even if you are a proponent for mandatory vaccines, you should be able to prove their safety and efficacy. You should be 100% confident in what an unbiased safety council will find when evaluating these biologics. So why not prove it? This easily accessed petition will help squander this debate.

You can find state-specific information on vaccine laws here. But in the meantime, #IDoNotConsent. A society that touts personal liberty should be free from coercion. Informed consent, body autonomy, individualized care, and evidence-based practice are cornerstones to today’s medical practice; without these things, we can expect higher profits for pharmaceutical/medical technology and insurance companies, higher risks, and worsening health outcomes. Stand up for yourself (and future generations), before you’re forced to sit down and blindly accept medical interventions.

Shalom, Light, and Love.

 

Sites To Consider:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/about-cdsr
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/
https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Home.aspx
https://www.nvic.org/
https://www.learntherisk.org/
https://www.who.int/immunization/research/vaccine_pipeline_tracker_spreadsheet/en/
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/presidential-appointment-independent-vaccine-safety-commission

Eke, A. C., Eleje G.U., Eke, U.A., Xia Y., & Liu J. (2017). Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Bar-On, E. S., Goldberg, E., Hellman, S., & Leibovici, L. (2012). Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae B (HIB). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4).

Chaithongwongwatthana, S., Yamasmit, W., Limpongsanurak, S., Lumbiganon, P., Tolosa, J. E. (2015). Pneumococcal vaccination during pregnancy for preventing infant infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Demicheli, V., Barale, A., & Rivetti, A. (2015). Vaccines for women for preventing neonatal tetanus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (7).

Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Ferroni, E., Rivetti, A., & Di Pietrantonj, C. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Di Pietrantonj, C., Ferroni, E., Thorning, S., Thomas, R. E., & Rivetti, A. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Jefferson, T., Rivetti, A., Di Pietrantonj, C., & Demicheli, V. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Mathew, J. L., El Dib, R., Mathew, P.J., Boxall, E.H., & Brok, J. (2009). Hepatitis B immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis B or with unknown exposure status. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Moberley, S., Holden, J., Tatham, D. P., Andrews, R.M. (2012). Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Soares-Weiser, K., Goldberg, E., Tamimi, G., Leibovici, L., & Pitan, F. (2010). Rotavirus vaccine for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).

Soares-Weiser, K., MacLehose, H., Bergman, H., Ben-Aharon, I., Nagpal, S., Goldberg, E., Pitan, F., & Cunliffe, N. (2012). Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11).

Zhang, L., Prietsch, S. O. M., Axelsson, I., & Halperin, S. A. (2014). Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).

Your Herd Immunity Is A Myth

For herd immunity, they say you need 95% vaccine compliance. They say that the majority need to be vaccinated so that we have “high levels” of immunity. This “coverage” allows for those vulnerable populations (immune-compromised, vax failure, unvaccinated) to be somehow protected. With high rates of immunity, the virus has low levels of presence within the population. You need your population to be highly immune to lower the chances of endemic exposure to those “not protected.” This is the idea behind herd immunity.

Let’s talk about varicella (chickenpox) and rubeloa (measles). Both used to be widely accepted as a childhood right of passage. Both natural infections are self-limiting with a short duration. As with every single respiratory virus, including common colds (there are 100s of strains), there are risks for complications when the child is immunocompromised, or their nutrition is poor. A healthy immune system is key to fending off diseases and infections. There are always risks of secondary infections with any illness. This does not change just because there is a vaccine available. All viruses have risks.

Chickenpox (varicella zoster virus)

Why did they create a chicken pox vaccine? To help families avoid missing work. They recognized that chickenpox kept mothers from work for 1-2 weeks so they created a vaccine to shorten this time frame… so they could save up those precious sick days. Not going to school is even listed as an inconvenience due to this disease on the CDC website. Have a look (https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/about/symptoms.html). Instead of weeks of chickenpox, if your child happened to get the infection, it would only last a few days. This is still true today. If your child has been vaccinated, they can still get the infection, but it is a “milder form” of chickenpox, though some vaccinated children still get full-blown chickenpox (approx. 1-3% vaccine failure). You cannot inject health. You can inject substances that provoke the immune system (action of a vaccine), but it does not guarantee immunity. If the body does produce an antibody, it is only guaranteed for a short term. The vaccine insert for varicella estimates 10-13 years of antibody presence, with a high (99%) seroconversion rate for 2-dose series.

If herd immunity was our goal, let’s suppose everyone gets maximum 13 years effect starting at age 6 when the second vaccine is administered. Where are those vaccine campaigns for 19-year-olds, 32-year-olds, 45-year-olds, and so on…? Nope, no varicella vaccine campaign for them. 24% of the US population is under 18 years of age. So, we can go ahead and understand that more than 76% of our total population holds no immunity to varicella. On a herd immunity stance, this does not exist for chickenpox. Shingles proves that the varicella vaccine is a huge failure, we can explore that another day.

Measles (rubeola virus)

This virus causes high fever and a rash from head to toe. The complications include ear infections and pneumonia. Again, pneumonia is a complication of all respiratory viruses. Like the varicella vaccine, the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) has a short duration of 11-13 years, and a booster at elementary age is usually recommended. They should really start this mass campaign for MMR and varicella vaccination for ages 19, 32, 45, 58… so on, because that herd immunity theory is really taking a hit right now.

Moving on, the CDC and medical world attribute the decline of measles to vaccination alone. This is an outright lie. If you go to the vital statistics rates in the United States from the 1930s to the 1960s, you will see the natural decline of measles in the chart on page 85. I’ve attached it below.

measlesgif
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf

Keeping this graph in mind, the vaccine was not licensed for use until 1963. Furthermore, the vaccine was not widely used until the late 1970s, per the CDC website. The campaign to eliminate measles by vaccination began in 1978 and ended in the early 1980s. They called it a success because of decline in numbers of measles comparatively. They seem to omit the fact that measles declined on its own from the 1900s to 1960s, but still cite the numbers of infections and deaths from this period (1900-1960s) to justify the use of the vaccine, when it was not directly linked to the fall of the disease. Questioning these tactics yet?

I also can’t get behind a vaccine that is currently pending trial in U.S. courts for research scientists exposing that they falsified the efficacy. Here is the court document for that (http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/chatom-v-merck.pdf). That CDC scientist has whistleblower status and is barred from testimony.

So, when you get up in arms about that one child with measles in a population of 74.2 million children, they are effectively driving the fear. Think about it… Do you really consider 0.00000000054% of the population an outbreak?! 0.0000000135% of children in the US has measles and the masses are outraged and free to ostracize parents that choose to educate themselves about this topic and take different approaches. And, for what? Did you accomplish anything? Did you spread awareness about anything or further the divide without evidence to back the claims? The media does a great job in keeping us divided, especially when they try to prove child injury or the fear of some massive “outbreak.” They allowed you to take sides on a parental choice. This should be a parent’s informed decision, but sensational stories sell. They want you to take sides. They want you to push for mandatory interventions. Less liberty, more control. Don’t let them take away your parental rights because of ignorance and fear.

If all of the children were vaccinated on schedule (which we know they are not) then we would have 24% coverage nationwide (nowhere near 95%). When was the last time your adult parents had vaccines? Aunts? Uncles? Grandparents? Alright then. Time to wake up. Your herd isn’t immune.

Here’s an interesting thought. Approximately 5-15 and 150-200 people in the United States each year get the plague and leprosy. Do you fear the plague? Leprosy? No? Probably because we don’t have a vaccine for those conditions and the mainstream media doesn’t have anything emotionally driven like children and “life-saving vaccines” to blame that on. But, hey, plague and leprosy still occur in the United States in higher incidence than the measles, but that is a non-issue. The media is a powerful tool, if you give it that power.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:

Population Distribution by Age
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM142813.pdf
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM123793.pdf
http://www.who.int/immunization/measles_grad_duration.pdf
https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/measles/measles-history-in-america.aspx
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf
http://unhoodwinked.com/Measles.html
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html
http://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/

 

5 Examples of Slow or Shady Science

If you struggle with new ideas, have you researched cognitive dissonance? Science is pretty funny, let us revisit a few things…

1. Infections in laboring women (puerperal sepsis, “childbed fever”) used to be rampant in hospitals, so much so that women would rather birth in the streets. A doctor researched the differences between birthing in areas of low postpartum infection and high postpartum infection. He discovered handwashing would prevent mothers from dying. This practice, simple handwashing, took OVER TWENTY YEARS to come to light. That doctor (Ignaz Semmelweis) was ridiculed and pushed out of medicine. I am serious. He was also beaten to death in a mental asylum, though the facts surrounding that are suspect.

2. Smoking used to be touted as good for health! Doctors used to promote smoking, a majority smoked themselves. Scientists started to uncover the harms of tobacco and the first study was published in 1939. The tobacco industry struck back by funding fake science to promote their products. It took 26 YEARS for health warnings to be administered by the Surgeon General about the risks of smoking. Funding science from conflicts of interest did not end with tobacco products; other entities now manipulate research and saturate the market with false science.

3a. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, the most respected medical journal, stated that clinical research is steeped in conflicts of interest and people are paid to sway studies for the benefit of large pharmaceutical companies.

3b. Dr. Richard Horton, current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, another highly respected medical journal, states that half of the science is UNTRUE. Half! Studies are falsified, controls are used to influence outcomes, and we can no longer take them at face value as there are heavy conflicts of interests straight from drug manufacturers who fund these studies.

3c. Former Director of National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, constantly dealt with science fraud and even stated that not looking into something because of pressures from industry should throw red flags, yet this is happening. At the very end of this clip, she speaks on a statement from the IOM that discourages research. The Institutes of Medicine have issued warnings of looking into matters because they are afraid of what it will show. These are topics that influence our children!

4. A senior vaccine safety research scientist within the Centers for Disease Control holds whistleblower status. Dr. William Thompson tried to uncover the fraud with the creation and efficacy studies for the MMR vaccine. He has to have permission from the Director of the CDC to testify, he has still not been granted permission. Surprised?

5. ALL infant vaccines state in section 13.1 of the insert that “[vaccine name] has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.” This is not studied. We put these biologics into newborns fresh from the womb and every two-three months up to their first birthday and beyond. These things are not studied, and yet we tout them as “safe and effective.” Infants double their birth weight by six months of age and triple their birth weight by their first birthday. This is a period of rapid growth and development, wouldn’t it be keen to have studies performed on carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials at the VERY least?

Cognitive dissonance is real and Semmelweis reflex happens today. We need to partner with providers within our community to lead and support us to better health practices. It is up to parents to question current practices as they see changes in their children (or their friends/family). Medical professionals are busy, but need to make research a priority. They may need a vaccine insert given to them directly with the plea of a concerned parent. There are physicians that are changing the course of healthcare for our children, they are starting to see problems. Informed consent must be protected and touted as the bare minimum, and we need to keep providers accountable. Healthcare practitioners are charged to give true informed consent, constantly weighing risks versus benefits. Downplaying risks or negating them all together is not true informed consent: it is an agenda.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87
NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/05/19/science-publication-is-hopelessly-compromised-say-journal-editors
List of vaccine inserts: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm