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).

Holiday Health

It is the time of year for gathering with friends and family with some full meals, heavy soups, and high sugar treats. These things can be detrimental to your health when they are not supported by useful sources of nutrition. Good news! You get to be creative in the kitchen. As I say: Most things in moderation, some restricted.

While you’re preparing those leftovers from Thanksgiving, throw in some fresh vegetables! It is the season for broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, garlic, onions, spinach, kale, cabbage, and lettuce! All these things work well as garnishes, on sandwiches, in casseroles, and soups. Well, I wouldn’t put lettuce in soup, but cabbage soup is pretty tasty!

As it cools down, think soup! Soup is nice and warming, has the potential to provide you with several nutrients (it is all about what you toss in), and supplies your body with HYDRATION. We tend to remember to drink water in the summer while we are hot; yet, forget in the winter while we are hermits. You need hydration all year long. Soup to the rescue!

[https://therecipecritic.com/vegetable-detox-soup/]

Which brings us to the stars of the show… these winter vegetables.

Garlic and Onions: Antimicrobial (bacteria, fungi, and viruses); High in sulfur which replenishes glutathione essential for detoxification; High in Manganese, Vitamin B6, and Vitamin C

Broccoli and Cauliflower: High in Vitamin C; good source of fiber and potassium; contains isothiocyanates that reduce oxidative stress

Carrots: Excellent source of beta-carotene; good source of threonine which is an amino acid used to treat neurological disorders and helps thymus growth and immune cell functions

Spinach: High in vitamin K; high in beta-carotene; high in Vitamin C; good source of Manganese

Kale: Same as spinach with additional anti-cancer, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. I add kale to all my recipes!

Cabbage: Great source of vitamin C

These vegetables (plus, many more and fruits) are sources of metabolites and biologically active components that are found to be beneficial to overall health and several immune functions.

Phytochemicals: aid in detoxification, stimulate the immune system, prevent DNA damage, repair DNA damage, regulates hormones, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-carcinogenic

Flavonoids: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-carcinogenic, anti-mutagenic, inhibits neurodegeneration, regulates the immune system, antimicrobial

[https://www.growbetterveggies.com/growbetterveggies/2017/11/tending-a-winte.html]

While cooking some vegetables, be careful not to boil your soup. Why?

Vitamin C.

– Vitamin C is a powerful antioxidant. It cleans up waste within your body by capturing free radicals. Free radicals are unstable, highly-reactive particles that cause cell damage. You want to limit these!

– Because Vitamin C is water-soluble, it is excreted in your urine. This means that you must constantly replenish this vitamin for use. It also means that Vitamin C escapes foods when exposed to heat and water. Boiling as preparation for vegetables high in vitamin C breaks down this vitamin, and it can get lost in the liquid. That is obviously okay in soups! If you are worried about the heat, just add your vitamin C rich vegetables LAST and be careful when reheating leftovers. Or, you can do what I do and just save some vegetables and add them in each time you reheat your soup.

Vitamin C is also tolerable in high doses with no upper limit toxicity. The only documented side effect is abdominal discomfort and bowel flushing in frequent mega-doses.

Yet, some vegetables love the heat!

A gentle sauté before tossing them in soup can bring out the flavors and do wonders for carotenoids found in carrots and deeply colored root vegetables! These are excellent vegetables in soups.

Beta-carotene: This is a mineral that is converted to Vitamin A. Beta-carotene has anti-cancer properties specific to the gut, lungs, and leukemia. Dietary beta-carotene is safe in high doses as the body will not convert more beta-carotene than needed. Retinol (another form of vitamin A) is already converted and can be absorbed in toxic amounts as it is readily stored in fats. Vitamin A protects your skin and mucous membranes (your first line of defense!). Vitamin A fortifies the immune system and is essential for eye health and vision.

Most of all, have fun combining flavors and find what works for you and your family. Some vegetables are a pain to prep; some are easier. Some people cannot tolerate certain flavors; some put garlic in EVERYTHING (guilty!). I capitalize on naptime for veggie prep. Hours in the kitchen may save you hundreds in the stores seeking out illness remedies. A fortified immune system is well-equipped to fight off those “seasonal” invaders!

Shalom, light, and love.

Sites to Consider:
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-HealthProfessional/
https://www.livestrong.com/article/17387-nutritional-value-carrots/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252758.php
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/L-threonine#section=Top
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=38
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5465813/
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/diet/elements_phytochemicals.html
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=60
https://www.livescience.com/45293-onion-nutrition.html
https://www.livescience.com/45408-broccoli-nutrition.html
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/benefits-of-cauliflower#section

They do not care about your children.

This has been a long time coming… So, let’s get started.

The Department of Health and Human Services neglected to study the vaccination program for safety and efficacy for almost 30 years. Surprised? What’s more is that THIS CAME OUT IN JULY AND IT WAS NOT MAJOR NEWS. Nope, not a sliver surprised about that part, eh?

How can we vehemently protect a program that is not held accountable by anyone? How do we recognize that mainstream media does not hold our best interests and will not call out the government for slipping up yet again (Google “CDC Whistleblower” for the ball dropped there and buried into silence), yet we protect a massive medical program that is instituted, funded, and promoted by that same government?

A little backstory. In the early 1980s, when the vaccine schedule increased for the first time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers for injuries and death of their children after vaccine administration. Vaccination was new and reactions were occurring. These pharmaceutical companies realized the cost of litigation was unsustainable so they approached the federal government with plans to cease making vaccines.

The government decided that vaccines were important and they would solve the problem by taking liability off the manufacturers, absorbing the expenses, and limiting costs of litigation by capping amounts that were paid to families. They also stated that they would task the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create a task force to conduct safety studies. Thus begat the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (H. R. 5546): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220067/

You can also look up full-text of the legislation in the congressional database. Legal jargon is so much fun to read, believe me, I have almost a decade of it under my belt. Much of it is about limiting claims, releasing liability from manufacturers, creating the Vaccine Advisory Committee, and a tidbit at the end about safety studies going forth.

The National Vaccine Advisory Committee and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services were tasked to conduct studies of the entire schedule 2 or 3 years after the passing of this bill in 1986. The failed to do so. How did this come out just recently?

Robert F. Kennedy and a non-profit foundation sued the federal government earlier this year for neglecting to follow the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when they requested the results of the studies conducted by the DHHS starting in 1988/1989 and so forth. The government stated that no FOIA breach was made as there were no studies found. This information was released July 9, 2018. The document is here with a synopsis: http://icandecide.org/government/ICAN-HHS-Stipulated-Order-July-2018.pdf

There you have it, folks! The current vaccine schedule is touted as “safe and effective” yet this is unproven. Untested, highly-recommended, and government-approved.

Do you still wonder why parents are concerned about the changes witnessed in their children? Don’t patients know their bodies best? Wouldn’t you think there is some truth to the parent knowing their child? Why distrust the patient? What do we, parents, have to gain for declining medical interventions? Do we err on the side of do no harm anymore?

America is reactive. We are calling for studies after all these things have happened. Health should never be reactive. It is time enough that longitudinal studies be conducted to see what has resulted in our population of vaccinated people. Since the schedule was pushed on parents in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we have enough people to do a mass study. More recently, what health effects have resulted in the last 10 years after the volume of vaccines tripled? Is there a positive (or negative) correlation?

We absolutely need a study conducted by the department of HHS before another child is injured by these biologics. Remember, you had a fraction of what is mandated on the infant schedule today. A fraction of this untested medication “recommendation.”

Saving the babies is a great, altruistic cause, but this is clearly not important enough to ensure safety first. The government bodies no not care, but we do. We hear you. We stand with you.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
https://vaers.hhs.gov/
https://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/index.html
https://www.nvic.org/

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

Lesson #3.5: Education is Key to Informed Consent, Everything Else is Coercion

Part 2 of 2.

Aside from the “medical neglect” fiasco, the nurse felt like the pediatrician involving the DA, PD, and CPS stemmed from a huge misunderstanding. The pediatrician hadn’t been in to speak with me since she threatened to call the very people who visited the afternoon prior. So, the nurse convened a meeting. The pediatrician, charge nurse, and my primary nurse came in. They spoke their side. I spoke mine. I questioned everything. I got vague answers. She didn’t care to see what I compiled on my laptop. I questioned the dangers, showing her the insert. The nurses downplayed the adverse effects listed, saying the neurological effects were for older populations. One even said the neurological risks were with multiple vaccines and not for this vaccine (though, it is written in its specific insert). Somehow the immature immune system and developing organs of a newborn are more adept to take on this vaccine than an adult with fully functioning immune systems and mature organs? Or, do we ignore presentations in infants? Perhaps, we call these presentations and conditions “idiopathic” and SIDS.

My husband arrived with the kids. We discussed the issues as a group. Well, they discussed. To stop the pediatrician from prying and fear of something happening to take our children from us, we consented. Under duress. I see now that this was not truly informed consent. Consent is an act of freewill. I should have protected him better. I didn’t.

Immediately after the vaccine (over 30 hours into his life), my infant developed horizontal nystagmus every time his gaze drifted. I pointed it out, and the pediatrician did not address it. This persisted for about 2-3 weeks. At his follow-up visit, I mentioned it again and the new pediatrician did not address it. At his one month visit, the nurse and pediatrician asked for clarification about his milestone questionnaire. “He sleeps 20 hours a day?!” “Yep. Including nursing sessions, he only has 4 hours of wakefulness.” That was an overestimate. It was sometime between month 2 and 3 when he started to come around.

I spent months following his birth compiling my research and knowledge. I was not prepared for the day of his birth, and I was going to be prepared for the in-clinic visit. I am prepared today. I even researched the adjuvant ingredients. Adjuvants are substances that the body would identify as foreign and mount a “stronger immune response” toward, at least that is the theory. They’ve used Aluminum in vaccines for so long that it is assumed to be “safe” because vaccines are assumed to be safe. See how that works?

Aluminum (Al) is present in our environment. We consume it. The EPA regulates the “safe” amount of aluminum in our water. Remember, there is a difference between consuming substances that confront your gastrointestinal tract (first line of defense) and bypassing all that and placing it into your muscle for direct absorption (sources calculate absorption within 10 minutes or sustained for weeks). Aluminum is poorly absorbed in the GI tract; this has been studied. Intramuscular (IM) aluminum has not been studied. The DHHS and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that “healthy serum levels of Aluminum are 1-3 mcg per liter.” A healthy adult (upper-end 5.5 liters of blood) would have a maximum serum Al level of 16.5 mcg. A newborn infant would have a max of 0.6 mcg Al for their entire blood volume. A single dose of the Hep B vaccine contains 225-500 mcg of Aluminum. TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE AT THE VERY LEAST. That is 375 times the healthy serum level for an infant! Are. We. Serious?!

The equivalent, 375 times the safety limit, for an adult is a 6,187.5 mcg Al injection. Who volunteers to test the effects of that? No? Does this not pose valid concerns? Health agencies say the amount of Al in vaccines is “extremely low.” By what standards? Why aren’t we questioning this adjuvant? It’s a neurotoxin, yet we give it to babies within minutes of life. A reckless, in my opinion, and clearly unsafe amount of it. What are the consequences of the entire Al quantity being released systemically within 10 minutes? How does that differ from a sustained release over time? Why don’t we study absorption IM of Aluminum? (Side note: I recently reviewed some documents and it looks like 2 doses of Hep B were given to my newborn, one of each type, in one single injection.)

But hey, correlation doesn’t equal causation and my healthy newborn may have coincidentally developed the eye drift and twitches 30 hours into life. My baby was simply categorized as “a sleepy baby.” Extreme drowsiness is a documented symptom of aluminum toxicity, but he was just an infant. How would we know? We have no qualms with too much sleep. If an adult acted that way, we would do a slew of tests because that isn’t normal. That’s what they tell us about anything developing after a vaccine. It is a coincidence that it developed after injection. This was a healthy newborn. That was not a coincidence. The ATSDR even reports “neurological effects” due to toxic levels of Aluminum. Don’t take my word for it, go fact check me on all of this. I’ll provide you some links.

If I only knew then what I know now, I would have demanded more from the pediatrician than a nod in your direction when I pointed out your nystagmus twice. I would have advocated better for you. I would have pressed them to acknowledge the concerns. I would have pointed out all of these facts, but mama was still learning. If I knew then what I know now, I would have stood my ground for you. You depend on me, and I won’t fail you again. Guaranteed.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
Al ToxGuide: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/index.asp&ved=2ahUKEwjhlOiCjabaAhXr6oMKHeF9D-UQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0ubhOoPxYMBL-F3uSckYHf
Al neurotoxic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/
Al in drinking water: https://www.wqa.org/Portals/0/Technical/Technical%20Fact%20Sheets/2014_Aluminum.pdf
CDC adjuvant page: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html (you will see their claim to low levels link is broken) Further down the page there is an ingredient list, if you are interested.
Al MSDS: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922853