The Blog

Aluminum and the Neurotoxicity of Vaccines

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls   Global Research, April 30, 2015

“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” – President Ronald Reagan, as he signed The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, absolving drug companies from all medico-legal liability when children die or are disabled from vaccine injuries.

“In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders.” – C. A. Shaw, MD, Vaccine safety researcher

“…no adequate studies have been conducted to assess the safety of simultaneous administration of different vaccines to young children.” Nor has there been “ any toxicological evaluation about concomitant administration of aluminum with other known toxic compounds which are routine constituents of commercial vaccine preparations, e.g., formaldehyde, formalin, mercury, phenoxyethanol, phenol, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde.” – L. Tomljenovic and C.A. Shaw, Vaccine safety researchers

In the last few decades since the “mysterious” autism epidemic began in the late 1980s, the giant pharmaceutical companies, free from the constraints of medico-legal liability, began pumping out more and more highly profitable vaccines, and their lobbyists in D.C., their well-paid spokespersons and the industry-co-opted “regulatory agencies” (like WHO, the CDC, the FDA and NIH) rejoiced.

Then, in 1996, the Big Pharma corporate machine and lobbyists got the US Congress to do its bidding and legalize direct-to-consumer advertising for its products, which up to then was illegal. And Big Pharma has also been bribing most US Congresspersons with lavish campaign donations and totally dominated the mainstream media debates that come up from time to time concerning drug and vaccine injuries, intoxication, sickness and death.. Up until now they have also succeeded in silencing the thousands of anguished parents of vaccine-injured children who are just trying to tell their tragic stories.

At least partly because of the dire financial consequences that these industries may have to face if the stories were to be widely told, these parents and their advocates have been essentially black-balled by every media outlet that takes advertising dollars from Big Pharma. The black-listing is probably welcome to everybody associated with Big Pharma’s industries, like Wall Street executives, Big Media executives and others in the investor classes that may have pharmaceutical stocks in their portfolios (or are simply on friendly terms with medical or pharmaceutical establishment types that don’t want to destabilize the gravy train).

Tens of thousands of angry and increasingly vocal “Mama Bear” mothers, are no longer willing to accept the excuse from their clinics that “the neurological catastrophe that your child suffered after the shots was just a coincidence”. And they are demanding an audience, some compassion, some help and some compensation for their losses.

These usually disrespected parents are sometimes fired from their clinics when they try to protect their afflicted child from further vaccine injury. There is no doubt in their minds that, after their child got his standard “well-child” inoculations, that previously healthy baby or toddler died of SIDS or regressed into autism (or had other developmental delays) or started having seizures or developed autoimmune disorders such as allergies or asthma or arthritis or so-called ADHD.

(It must be mentioned that the various combinations of inoculations have never been proven to be safe or even effective in unbiased, independent, well-designed, long-term studies. With no legal liability since 1986, the vaccine industry has very little incentive to make that effort.)

But these parents are persistent and they are continuing to speak out despite being routinely shouted down by the ubiquitous pro-vaccine spokespersons that are invited to appear on radio and TV shows whenever vaccine issues are discussed in the media. Pro-vaccine spokespersons are everywhere (like the multimillionaire academic pediatrician Dr Paul Offit, who developed an anti-diarrhea rotavirus vaccine (Rotateq), and then sold – for tens of millions of dollars – the patents and marketing rights to the giant vaccine manufacturer Merck & Co.

Offit has a lot of prestige to lose if the raw truth about America’s over-vaccination program came out. (Dr Offit, by the way, is the “vaccine expert” who says that all vaccines are perfectly safe and once reportedly said that infants can theoretically tolerate 10,000 of them at once: (See “Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?” Pediatrics. 2002 Jan;109(1):124-9.)

Many of the parents whose children are victims of vaccine-injuries have enough common sense to see through the absurdity of Offit’s statement. They know how to find pertinent information on PubMed that their physicians may not be aware of concerning the toxicity of vaccines and vaccine adjuvants, and they are connecting the dots and de-mystifying the causes behind the epidemic of chronic, autoimmune disorders that are occurring in fully vaccinated American children. Those chronic illnesses do not happen in unvaccinated or minimally-vaccinated children like in Amish communities or in the patients of Home First Clinic in Chicago. (For more on that see ”Make an Informed Vaccine Decision”, page 12, where author Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH, who started the Home First Clinic [and did not force vaccinations on his 35,000 pediatric patients] discovered that, among his un-vaccinated or minimally-vaccinated patients, there were essentially zero patients with autism, asthma, allergies or diabetes.)

Knowledgeable parents of vaccine-age children correctly fear the rapidly increasing numbers of mandated vaccines all of which have many toxic ingredients in them that are being injected into the bodies of their immune-deficient infants. And the vaccine doses do not vary no matter what is the infant’s age, weight, developmental status, immune status, mitochondrial status, nutritional status, or whether or not the child is currently sick.

Because of the large amount of new basic science studies that have been done on the subject of the neurotoxic vaccine adjuvant aluminum and the recent studies about the mitochondrial toxicity of vaccine ingredients, I submit the abstracts and portions of articles below from a variety of peer-reviewed medical journals.

Aluminum, as is mercury, is a known potent mitochondrial toxin, and every cell in the body, especially the brain cells of infants, is highly susceptible to permanent damage from those two heavy metals, especially when they are used in combination and especially when they are injected – as was the case during the 1990s when the autism epidemic was escalating from rare (1/10,000 to “normal” (1/150).

The first article in annex (Excerpts) below is from the journal Lupus and the second is from Current Medicinal Chemistry. Neither journal takes pharmaceutical company advertising.


ANNEX

Mechanisms of Aluminum Adjuvant Toxicity and Autoimmunity in Pediatric Populations

Lupus. 2012 Feb;21(2):223-30. doi: 10.1177/0961203311430221.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235057

Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA.

Abstract

Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity.

In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations.

According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic.
Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, several key points ought to be considered:

(1) Infants and children should not be viewed as “small adults” with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults;
(2) In adult humans (and animals) aluminum vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., ASIA = Autoimmune [auto-inflammatory] Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults;
(3) It is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immune-regulation as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in “ASIA” and are thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and
(4) The same components of the neuro-immune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants.
In summary, research evidence shows that increasing concerns about current vaccination practices may indeed be warranted.
Because children may be most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigorous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric population is urgently needed.


Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7

L. Tomljenovic, and C.A. Shaw (article accepted for publication May 12, 2011)

Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, the Departments of Ophthalmology, Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine, and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of British Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada

Full journal article available at: http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

Abstract

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted.

Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.

In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.

INTRODUCTION

Aluminum is the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant and until recently the only one licensed for use in the U.S. In its absence, antigenic components of most vaccines (with the exception of live attenuated vaccines), fail to launch an adequate immune response. Paradoxically, despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants their precise mechanism of action remains poorly understood.

Furthermore, a growing number of studies have linked the use of aluminum adjuvants to serious autoimmune outcomes in humans. That concerns about aluminum adjuvant safety are indeed warranted is evident from the summary conclusions of the Aluminum in Vaccines workshop held in Puerto Rico in 2000 [Eickhoff, T.C.; Myers, M. Workshop summary. Aluminum in vaccines. Vaccine. 2002, 20 Suppl 3, S1-4.]. The written consensus amongst the participants of the workshop was listed under the rubric of “pervasive uncertainty”, a term used to denote what remained unknown regarding potential aluminum toxicity from adjuvants.

The specific areas of concern were: “1) toxicology and pharmacokinetics, specifically the processing of aluminum by infants and children, 2) mechanisms by which aluminum adjuvants interact with the immune system and 3) the necessity of adjuvants in booster doses.” In the concluding paragraphs of the summary, the report nevertheless claimed that “the use of salts of aluminum as adjuvants in vaccines has proven to be safe and effective” [2]. In light of the items of “pervasive uncertainty”, this statement remains questionable.

Given that multiple aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines are often given to very young children (i.e., 2 to 6 months of age), in a single day at individual vaccination sessions, concerns for potential impacts of total adjuvant-derived aluminum body burden may be significant. These issues warrant serious consideration since, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate studies have been conducted to assess the safety of simultaneous administration of different vaccines to young children.

Another issue of concern is the lack of any toxicological evaluation about concomitant administration of aluminum with other known toxic compounds which are routine constituents of commercial vaccine preparations, e.g., formaldehyde, formalin, mercury, phenoxyethanol, phenol, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde.

In spite of all this, aluminum adjuvants are generally regarded as safe, and some researchers have even recommended that no further research efforts should be spent on this topic despite “a lack of good-quality evidence”.

In the following paper we aim to provide an overview of what is currently known about aluminum adjuvants, their modes of action and mechanisms of potential toxicity. We first present well-established evidence that implicates aluminum in a variety of neurological disorders. We then elaborate on the unresolved controversy about aluminum adjuvant safety.

Aluminum Toxicity in Animals and Humans

Aluminum is a well demonstrated toxin in biological systems whose more specific impacts on the nervous system have been widely documented. As early as 1911, Dr. William Gies had summarized data from 7 years-worth of experimental testing in humans and animals on the effects of oral consumption of aluminum salts, then used primarily in baking powders, food preservation, and dye manufacturing. The outcome of these studies led Gies to conclude that: “the use in food of aluminum or any other aluminum compound is a dangerous practice.”

Gies’ concerns have since been borne out by experimental studies showing that oral exposure to aluminum that is at levels “typically” consumed in an average “Western diet” over an extended period of time, produce strikingly similar outcomes in rodents to those induced by intracerebral injection of aluminum salts with the exception of seizures and fatalities.

Animals intoxicated with dietary aluminum routinely show impaired performance in learning and memory tasks, impaired concentration, and behavioural changes including confusion and repetitive behaviours. Consistent with these observations, according to the most recent and elaborate toxicological report for aluminum prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): “There is a rather extensive database on the oral toxicity of aluminum in animals. These studies clearly identify the nervous system as the most sensitive target of aluminum toxicity.”

In humans, aluminum toxicity has been solidly linked to dialysis-associated encephalopathy syndrome, also known as dialysis dementia. This syndrome occurs in patients with renal failure subjected to chronic dialysis treatment and is caused by accumulation of intravenously administered aluminum from the dialysis fluid (which is derived from aluminum-treated tap water). Dialysis dementia is associated with abnormally high levels of plasma and brain aluminum and is generally fatal within 3 to 7 months following the sudden overt manifestation of clinical symptoms in patients who had been on dialysis treatment for 3 to 7 years (unless treated with chelating agent such as desferrioxamine (DFO) or reverse osmosis to remove aluminum salts from the water used to prepare the dialysis fluid). Symptoms appear suddenly and worsen either during or immediately after a dialysis session. The first symptom to appear is a speech abnormality, then tremors, impaired psychomotor control, memory losses, impaired concentration, behavioural changes, epileptic seizures, coma and death.

Although frequent ingestion of aluminum-containing medicines was also thought to be a contributing factor in dialysis dementia it should be noted that there were no incidences of this syndrome prior to introduction of aluminum salts in water supplies [21, 27]. Furthermore, symptomatic patients rapidly improved when efforts were made to remove aluminum from the dialysis fluid, despite the fact they still ingested large amounts of aluminum-containing phosphate binding gels.

In addition to dialysis dementia, a host of neurodegenerative complications and diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) [Perl, D.P.; Moalem, S. [Aluminum and Alzheimer's disease, a personal perspective after 25 years. J Alzheimers Dis. 2006, 9(3 Suppl), 291-300.], multiple sclerosis, Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), autism, and epilepsy may also be related to aluminum exposure. While it is likely that these diseases are of multifactorial etiologies, aluminum certainly has the potential to serve as a toxic co-factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Aluminum in various forms can be toxic to the nervous system. The widespread presence in the human environment may underlie a number of CNS disorders. The continued use of aluminum adjuvants in various vaccines for children as well as the general public may be of significant concern.

In particular, aluminum presented in this form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. The widely accepted notion of aluminum adjuvant safety does not appear to be firmly established in the scientific literature and, as such, this absence may have led to erroneous conclusions regarding the significance of these compounds in the etiologies of many common neurological disorders. Furthermore, the continued use of aluminum-containing placebos in vaccine clinical trials may have led to an underestimation of the true rate of adverse outcomes associated with aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.

In our opinion, a comprehensive evaluation of the overall impact of aluminum on human health is overdue. Such an evaluation should include studies designed to determine the short and long-term impacts of dietary aluminum as well as the potential impacts in different age groups of exposure to adjuvant aluminum alone and in combination with other potentially toxic vaccine constituents (e.g., formaldehyde, formalin, mercury, phenoxyethanol, phenol, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde).

For the latter, until vaccine safety can be comprehensively demonstrated by controlled independent long-term studies that examine the impact on the nervous system in detail, many of those already vaccinated as well as those currently receiving injections may be at risk for health complications that exceed the potential benefits that vaccine prophylaxis may provide.

The issue of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccine safety is especially pertinent in light of the legislation which might mandate vaccination regimes for civilian populations (e.g., the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005). Whether the risk of protection from a dreaded disease outweighs the risk of toxicity from its presumed prophylactic agent is a question that demands far more rigorous scrutiny than has been provided to date.

REFERENCES (and full article) available at:http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN. Prior to his retirement, he practiced holistic (non-drug) mental health care. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine (www.readerduluth.com). His columns often deal with issues of mental health, drug/vaccine toxicity and the epidemic of malnutrition.

Read the article

Posted in The Blog | Leave a comment

Merck Recalls Dangerous Measles Vaccine (April Fools Satire)

April 1, 2015   APRIL FOOLS SATIRE © The Refusers April 1, 2015

Merck has announced the recall of its controversial measles vaccine, following a whistleblower’s claim that study results linking it to autism were covered up.

 Problems with the Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine include: 

  • 12% of all vaccine deaths and injuries attributed to measles vaccines, of the $3 billion paid out by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program since 1988. Only four conditions are compensated by VICP:
    • Brain damage Package insert lists types of brain damage as possible adverse reactions: “encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE).” (These are types of brain swelling and damage.)
    • Anaphylactic shock (life-threatening allergic reaction)
    • Excessive bruising and bleeding (Thromcytopenic purpura)
    • Infecting immunodeficient persons (Measles Viral Infection through shedding of live viruses).
  • Aborted fetus cell lines (WI-38, from lung cells of an aborted female baby at approximately twelve weeks of pregnancy used as growth medium.)

“I basically have stopped lying,“ declares CDC scientist whistleblower William Thompson, who admitted he covered up “statistically significant” data linking the M-M-R vaccine to autism.

“Today Merck too wants to come clean,” says Charles Hopewell, spokesman for the pharmaceutical giant. “Merck wishes to make amends for its transgressions by being completely transparent from now on.”

Further, Hopewell states, “Merck apologizes for its part in the PR hype inciting the current measles hysteria, and the resulting rage against unvaccinated individuals. We acknowledge that Merck’s nationwide pressure on state governments to mandate vaccines amounts to nothing less than forced cannibalism and Russian roulette with vaccine injuries, even death.”

We recognize that Merck’s many other vaccines are also problematic for various reasons, and will address this issue at a future date.”

NOTICE
This piece is our annual April Fool’s article. Some of the details herein are true, however, and the article could be suggestive of what Merck might face in the near future, should the company fail to take corrective action.

 

Posted in The Blog | 13 Comments

Secret CDC Front Group Is Behind National Vaccine Exemption Battle

What’s NACCHO got to do with Oregon’s vaccine exemption fight?

WRITTEN ON  BY NoOnSB442 Parents, not Profits

NACCHO?

It sounds like a bad acronym from an Austin Powers movie. What if we told you that the answer to the question asked in the title of this article was “everything”?

What/who the heck is NACCHO?

NACCHO is The National Association of County and City Health Officials. If you briefly perused their website, you might be confused into thinking that they were a federal agency of sorts. First off, there’s the name. Many people associate “National Association” with something sort of official. The next thing that might throw you off is the way NACCHO describes themselves:

NACCHO’s members are the 2700 local health departments across the United States. NACCHO’s vision is health, equity, and security for all people in their communities through public health policies and services. NACCHO’s mission is to be a leader, partner, catalyst, and voice for local health departments in order to ensure the conditions that promote health and equity, combat disease, and improve the quality and length of all lives.

For the uninitiated, reading NACCHO’s self-description might cause you to reach the following conclusions:

  • NACCHO is a federal organization
  • Its members are all the local health departments
  • Somehow, this is a way for all the local health departments to all be connected together, probably there is a rule somewhere that says they should all coordinate themselves on a national basis (and there isn’t, the health of citizens is a state-level job, according to the U.S. Constitution)

As you’re probably getting used to by now with these articles, NACCHO could not be farther from any of that in reality, so let’s look at the details:

  1. NACCHO’s “membership” revenue numbers don’t add up at all

Referring to the conclusions one might draw from the above, it appears that NACCHO is a collective of local health departments. According to NACCHO, there are “over 2700″ of them and most people would probably presume these local health departments pay a membership fee to be a part of NACCHO, which they do.

NACCHO has a membership form for local health departments, you can see it right here. If you look at the form, you’ll see that local health departments (NACCHO’s claim is that they are just a group of local health departments) can join NACCHO, and that their annual membership fees is pro-rated based on how large a population they serve. The most an annual membership could cost any health department would be $4,150 per year, as you can see right here:

Just for fun, we ran the math. 2,700 local health departments. To be conservative, let’s say EVERY health department had 3 million or more people in it (which would be impossible because with more than 2,700 health departments as NACCHO members that would mean the U.S. had 8.1 billion people) but let’s just see how much money NACCHO could pull in annually from membership dues if that were true:

Membership Fee of $4,150 x 2,700 local health departments= $11,200,000

Here’s the problem. NACCHO breaks out their revenue from membership dues on their 990 form. Are you ready for this? Here’s what NACCHO actually made in membership revenues in 2013:

$595,881

If you are saying, at this point, “so what”? You’re right. We haven’t proven anything. In fact, the only thing you know about NACCHO so far is that:

  • They claim to be a collective of 2,700 local health departments. (In fact, it’s fair to say this is the primary way they define themselves.)
  • From their members they receive just over a half million dollars a year in membership dues, according to their 2013 990 form filed with the IRS.

Here’s the problem NACCHO makes $25 MILLION a year in revenues:

$25 million a year? That means membership dues—which NACCHO implies defines who they are—are responsible for approximately 2% of their annual revenues.

2. NACCHO makes all their money from government and private grants

With membership dues of roughly $500,000 and revenues of $25 million, the story on NACCHO is $24.5 million short of an explanation. Luckily, their 990 has to break out sources of revenue one step further, which is how we learn the following:

NACCHO is making the majority of their annual revenue from two sources: government grants ($19.3 million) and other grants ($3.6 million).

Government grants? What kind of government grants? Who, aside from a local health department, wants to contribute to an organization that represents local health departments? Remember, NACCHO’s mission is very clear:

NACCHO’s mission is to be a leader, partner, catalyst, and voice for local health departments

a. Government grants

Unfortunately, NACCHO’s Form 990 doesn’t break out exactly where their Government grants come from, but this document gives you a pretty good idea:

Wait a minute. 7 of the 11 funding priorities from NACCHO come from the Centers for Disease Control? Not only that, but CDC is really all over NACCHO’s website, like herehere, and here.

NACCHO spells out who their partners (funders) are on their website righthere. CDC is listed. So is the Immunization Action Coalition. And, a myriad of other “private nonprofts” that focus on public health.

Can we draw any conclusions from this information? Sure we can:

NACCHO gets most of their money from government grants. CDC appears to be a primary funding source.


What does any of this have to do with Oregon? As the readers of this series know, Oregon is currently experiencing an intense fight over Senate Bill 442, a bill sponsored by State Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward that would remove both philosophical and religious exemptions from Oregon, effectively making vaccinations in Oregon mandatory for a parent who wants to send their child to any kind of school.

NACCHO and the Oregon Legislature

This article was spurred by repeated reports from members of the Oregon Legislature that they were being heavily lobbied by a group called NACCHO about Senate Bill 442. In general, NACCHO was characterized as a primary advocate of Senate Bill 442. This would make sense, since in July 2011 NACCHO issued a very clear policy statement that the time had come for states to eliminate personal belief exemptions:

the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) urges that personal belief exemptions be removed from state immunization laws and regulations.

NACCHO acknowledges that there are states that may not be in a position to eliminate personal belief exemptions immediately. States that easily permit personal belief exemptions to immunizations have significantly higher rates of exemption than states that have more complex procedures. These states should begin a process to limit the availability of personal belief exemptions to the greatest degree possible. An initial step might be to review the process of applying for and receiving exemptions: the more educational and demanding the process, the lower will be the rate of exemptions. There should be more involved in the application process than simply signing a form.

This isn’t the first policy statement from NACCHO. A quick compilation of statements shows where the nonprofit group who get all their money from government grants is focused:

Do NACCHO’s policies share a common theme? Clearly:

  • Mandatory vaccines
  • National registries of vaccination status
  • More vaccines
  • All vaccines

Cradle to Grave

But, perhaps NACCHO’s future goals should be of most concern to Oregonians. In July 2013, NACCHO’s Board approved this new policy statement, titled “An Immunization Program for all Stages of Life”:

The National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) urges the federal government to support the creation of a comprehensive national immunization program that addresses all stages of life (cradle to grave) with the intention of achieving the Healthy People 2020 immunization goals and standards. Such a program will help protect our nation’s population from vaccine-preventable diseases by increasing rates of childhood, adolescent, and adult immunization coverage.

Cradle to grave?

Yes, that’s what NACCHO said. They go on to write:

A function of many state and local health departments is to collect vaccination data and maintain immunization registries. These registries are often used to help ensure children and adolescents have up-to-date immunizations. Low levels of vaccine coverage among adults underscores the need to expand these systems to include adults and for providers to develop systems to minimize missed opportunities.

Immunization registries for adults?

Oregonians, it’s time to wake up. Let’s put SB442 in proper context: its just another step in the plan of comprehensive mandatory immunizations for everyone, including ADULTS.

“Cradle to grave,” as NACCHO says.

Is it really that hard to imagine what their policy statement for adult vaccinations will say in a few years?

If you support SB442, you also need to support getting up to date on your adult vaccines—the CDC recommends 72 vaccinations between the ages of 19 and 65. Are you going to get your 72 shots?

Is NACCHO breaking the law?

We’re not attorneys, but we are very troubled by this document which we found on NACCHO’s website that deals with prohibitions of lobbying on the part of organizations that receive grants from the CDC, like NACCHO. The language is pretty unambiguous:

Except in certain cases of state and local government communication, as part of their normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, as discussed above, grantees [like NACCHO] are restricted from using federal funds to attempt to influence deliberations or actions by Federal, state, or local legislative or executive branches. This includes communications to a legislator or executive official that refer to and reflect a view on specific measure (legislative or executive).

We’re just parents. We haven’t sat in the room during the meetings between our elected representatives here in Oregon and NACCHO, but we’d sure ask our elected representatives to take a close look at these prohibitions and compare those to NACCHO’s efforts on behalf of SB442.

Summary

So, what have we learned?

  • According to Oregon legislative members, NACCHO is heavily lobbying in support of SB442, which appears to violate CDC grantor rules, but we’re not lawyers.
  • NACCHO is not a member-funded organization as their self-characterization implies (less than 2% of revenues from membership dues). NACCHO is an independent nonprofit entity that relies almost exclusively on government grants to operate. CDC is certainly one of the granting organization and given the scale of interaction and partnership between CDC and NACCHO, it’s likely CDC is one of the largest grantors. If true, NACCHO may be better described as a “captive nonprofit” which others might call a “front group”
  • In July 2011, NACCHO issued a policy statement encouraging states to eliminate personal belief exemptions. If that wasn’t a possibility, NACCHO at least encouraged states to make exemptions harder to get by making the process more cumbersome.
  • In June 2013, 24 months later, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 132, which made personal belief exemptions harder to get. Their approach perfectly matched the recommendations of NACCHO from July 2011.
  • Now, two session later, with Senate Bill 442, there is a movement to eliminate all non-medical vaccinations, and NACCHO is heavily involved.
  • The long-term plan for NACCHO is adult immunization—“cradle to grave” as they say. Anyone who doesn’t believe a push for mandatory adult vaccinations is likely somewhere in the near future is not paying attention.

If you support Senate Bill 442, you are supporting a path to mandatory adult vaccinations, plain and simple, and the hand of the CDC in all of this is very hard to miss.

Who’s behind Oregon Senate Bill 442? We think the answer is fairly obvious.

This article was written by several well-meaning Oregonians who are big fans of medical freedom and informed consent. We have nothing to gain or lose financially from the passage of this bill. We have proudly joined a movement of a few thousand Oregonains fighting this legislation, the organizing website can be found here: www.NoOnSB442.com

Read the article

Posted in The Blog | 4 Comments

Survey Finds Support for Vaccine Opt-Out Laws – WebMD

    • Overall, 35% of adults responding say parents should be allowed to opt out of vaccinating their kids for religious reasons, while 26% think it’s OK to refuse vaccines on personal or philosophical grounds.

WebMD Feb. 13, 2015 — More than 1 in 4 adults think it’s OK not to vaccinate kids for religious or personal reasons, a new survey from WebMD shows.

“The WebMD Survey on Measles Vaccinations” found that percentage is even higher among parents with young children. The survey found 40% of those with children under age 12 agree that it’s OK not to vaccinate for personal or philosophical reasons. These parents are also less likely to agree that vaccines are safe or to think of unvaccinated kids as a threat to others.

“The current measles outbreak has shown us how quickly a disease can spread. Measles and other diseases such as pertussis and meningitis can have devastating outcomes; vaccinating children is the best protection available to prevent these serious illnesses and to stop the spread,” says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and medical editor at WebMD.

“While it seems that parents want to respect the choice not to vaccinate a child, there are consequences to these decisions, and we’re seeing that the cost to kids is high,” she says.

The findings come as a measles outbreak that started at Disneyland has continued to spread across the U.S., igniting a debate about the rights of parents to refuse vaccines for nonmedical reasons.

Public health officials say laws that make it too easy for parents to opt out have weakened the nation’s collective protection against preventable infections, like pertussis and measles. As a result, those diseases, which were once thought to be vanquished in this country, are making a comeback.

In some states that have been hard hit by the return of these infections, like California, Oregon, and Washington, legislators have already taken steps to make it tougher for parents to turn down the shots, requiring proof that parents have received education about vaccines before they can opt out.

And last week, California State Sen. Richard Pan, who is also a pediatrician, proposed a bill he co-wrote that would end vaccine exemptions for personal beliefs altogether. Pan said he’d consider the idea of an exemption that would let parents refuse the shots for religious reasons.

The survey findings suggest that the California bill and similar efforts could meet significant resistance.

Among the notable findings from the survey:

  • Overall, 35% of adults responding say parents should be allowed to opt out of vaccinating their kids for religious reasons, while 26% think it’s OK to refuse vaccines on personal or philosophical grounds.
  • Among parents of children younger than 12 years of age, 43% think it’s OK to opt out of vaccines for religious reasons, while 40% agree that parents should be allowed not to vaccinate based on personal beliefs.
  • Only 69% of parents with younger children say unvaccinated kids pose a health threat to others, compared to 81% of parents with children over the age of 18.
  • Nearly 25% of parents with young children feel it’s unreasonable to keep unvaccinated kids out of school, compared to 16% of parents with grown children, and 14% of childless adults.
  • Among all those who responded to the survey, 42% agree that all FDA-approved vaccines are safe, while 43% feel most are safe.
  • Eighty-three percent of parents with grade school-aged children say they’re following the vaccination schedule recommended by their doctor, while 14% say they’re getting their kids vaccinated on their own schedule. According to the CDC, 1 in 12, or about 8% of children in the U.S. don’t get the first dose of the MMR vaccine on time.

The WebMD Survey on the Measles Vaccinations was completed by 1,197 randomly served WebMD site visitors (58% desktop, 42% mobile) from January 30 – February 12, 2015. The sample represents the WebMD.com online population with a margin of error of ± 2.8% at a 95% confidence level.

 View Article Sources

Read the article

Posted in The Blog | 2 Comments

Measles Outbreak In A Fully Immunized School Population

Pub Med New England Journal of Medicine March 26, 1987

r3An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced. Serum samples from 1806 students at two secondary schools were obtained eight days after the onset of the first case. Only 4.1 percent of these students (74 of 1806) lacked detectable antibody to measles according to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and more than 99 percent had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. Stratified analysis showed that the number of doses of vaccine received was the most important predictor of antibody response. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals of seronegative rates were 0 to 3.3 percent for students who had received two prior doses of vaccine, as compared with 3.6 to 6.8 percent for students who had received only a single dose. After the survey, none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles. In addition, three seronegative students seroconverted without experiencing any symptoms. We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.

Click PLAY to hear Refusers song Vaccination Uber Alles

Read the article

Posted in The Blog | Leave a comment

News Coverage Of Vaccine Controversies Drives Down Support For Vaccines

Washington Post  Feb 9, 2015

As media attention to the measles outbreak in California continues to grow and prominent politicians weigh in with conflicting messages on requiring vaccines, health policy scholars and political scientists warn of the dangerous consequences that politicization can have on public support for vaccination. And they do so for good reason.

This is not the first time that a vaccine has been politicized in media in recent years. In a new article, we examine two recent health-related controversies: the 2009 dust-up over mammography screening guidelines and the 2006-2007 debate over whether to require girls to get the HPV vaccine. The key lesson regarding vaccines is this: the more the news media devoted attention to the political controversy, the less the public supported vaccination.

Click PLAY to hear Get Your Mandates Out Of My Body

Neither mammography nor the HPV vaccine started out as controversial.  But once the news media highlighted political sources or partisan conflict about these issues, future news coverage continued to reflect this politicization — even as news coverage of these issues tapered off.  This fits with journalistic norms of covering conflict and controversy.

For example, after the controversy about the HPV vaccine, states moved on to less controversial measures – like educating the public or providing insurance coverage of the vaccine. But media coverage still mentioned the earlier political firestorm. In short, once the issue gained a political valence, news coverage continued to emphasize the controversy.

In fact, these controversies routinely reappear in media coverage about other issues entirely. Media coverage of the measles vaccine controversy referred back to the 2011 argument between Republican presidential candidates Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann over Perry’s decision to mandate the HPV vaccine in Texas.

Continuing coverage of the controversy surrounding vaccines may have unfortunate consequences. In our study, we found that politicized media coverage was associated with lower support for requiring the HPV vaccine.

This was evident in the relationship between the attitudes of survey respondents and the media coverage in their states.  It was also evident in an experiment we included in this survey.  People were exposed to brief news excerpts discussing the debate over requiring the HPV vaccine.  Some people saw excerpts highlighting conflict among politicians, some saw excerpts highlighting conflict among doctors, and some saw excerpts that mentioned both types of conflict.

For those people who were less likely to have previously encountered news stories about the HPV vaccine controversy, reading about political conflict decreased support for vaccines in general.  It also decreased trust in doctors. This suggests a very troubling implication: media coverage of the controversy about the measles vaccine could actually affect the general public beyond the very small “anti-vax” community.

Click PLAY to hear Vaccination Choice is a Human Right

But our research also suggests a way for news coverage to avoid this.  We found that news coverage that did not emphasize conflict was associated with increased support for both the HPV vaccine and immunization programs generally.  This shows how news media could bolster support for needed vaccinations: steer clear of the political controversy.

At this moment, there are signs that the controversy about the measles vaccine could die down.  Rand Paul and Chris Christie have backed off their controversial statements about vaccine requirements.  More and more, commentators bemoan the politicization of vaccines. And public attention to issues is often short-lived, which means citizens could easily forget political cues about vaccines, presuming that politicians stop stoking the controversy.

However, our research suggests that it is journalists who may not forget. They may continue to remind the public of this controversy for years to come, as they have done for mammography recommendations and the HPV vaccine.

Of course, perhaps coverage of the measles vaccine will prove different.  Nevertheless, politicians and journalists should realize that politicizing vaccines — and reporting on the resulting conflict — can weaken the public’s support for vaccination.

Erika Franklin Fowler is an assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University.  Sarah Gollust is an assistant professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. Their article about vaccines is part of a special issue of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.  The issue is devoted to research about the politics of science.

Read the article

Posted in The Blog | Leave a comment

Whooping cough vaccine failing for many patients – Sacramento Bee

Sacramento Bee  Feb 7 ,2015

As debate simmers nationwide about whether parents should be forced to vaccinate their children, Elk Grove residents have made their choice: Only 80 of the suburb’s 4,500 kindergartners opted out of vaccinations last year, state data show.

Despite those precautions, whooping cough ripped through Elk Grove’s classrooms and cul-de-sacs in 2014. Infection rates within the large Sacramento suburb were three to five times higher than rates elsewhere in the county, local health records show.

The paradox – high infection rates amid high immunization rates – underscores a disturbing truth about the current whooping cough vaccine: It is wearing off after just a few years, and many Californians who thought they were protected instead are catching the disease.

“Children who were vaccinated did not receive the protection desired,” said Kate McAuley, program coordinator of communicable disease and immunization at the Sacramento County Public Health Department. “We had many high-school-aged children who had pertussis. They had received vaccines. The vaccine is lasting two to three years.”

Several of California’s leading infectious disease specialists expressed similar concerns. “This newer version of the vaccine probably has a shorter period of protection. I think that is a scientifically proven point,” said Dr. Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital.

Also called pertussis, whooping cough can be marked by fatigue, vomiting and a distinctive “whoop” sound made by sufferers trying to get a breath after a severe coughing fit. It’s especially dangerous to infants; four babies died from pertussis in California last year.

Whooping cough was a menace in California until the 1940s, when a vaccine was developed. That earlier version was remarkably effective, lowering the number of whooping cough cases in California from thousands a year to dozens.

The early vaccine contained whole, dead pertussis bacteria. It worked well, but in a very small percentage of children caused extreme reactions, including high fever and seizures. Concerned about potential side effects, many parents refused to let their children get inoculated.

In response, vaccine makers in the late 1990s introduced shots that contained only pieces of pertussis bacteria. The new regimen called for five doses by age 6, and a booster shot by 12. The serious adverse reactions dropped significantly – but at a price.

With the new shots, “You get protection in the first year; every year after that, the protection rate drops 10 percent or so,” Blumberg said.

A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association confirms the limitations: Researchers found that the new vaccine provides solid protection in the first year but that the effectiveness steadily declines over five years, often leaving children vulnerable before they get their booster shot. Adults are also vulnerable if several years have passed since the booster inoculation.

The state requires schoolchildren to be vaccinated against pertussis, as well as measles, mumps and several other diseases, before they start kindergarten. Thousands of parents file “personal belief” exemptions each year and leave their children unvaccinated.

As with the measles outbreak sweeping California, parents of unvaccinated children have taken most of the public blame for recent whooping cough epidemics. But the connection between who gets shots and who gets sick isn’t as strong with pertussis as it is with diseases such as measles.

“It’s an outlier,” said Dr. Mark Sawyer, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and a member of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention immunization practices committee.

A map of Sacramento County illustrates the unlikely pattern: About 440 Sacramento County residents had either confirmed or probable cases of whooping cough last year, and roughly half of those with confirmed cases lived in or around Elk Grove. The suburb of North Highland, on the other hand, had among the highest rates of parents opting out of vaccinating their children but reported fewer than five pertussis cases last year.

Statewide, a record-high 11,000 Californians caught whooping cough in 2014. About 4,500 of them lived in counties where fewer than 2 percent of kindergartners opted out of vaccines last year.

“It’s not correct to only pin (the pertussis outbreak) on the people who are unvaccinated,” Sawyer said. “The effectiveness of the vaccine is a huge part of this. People who are immunized do still get pertussis.”

Even so, McAuley, Blumberg and other doctors said it was critical that parents vaccinate their children against pertussis, noting that the vaccine still reduces the chances of infection.

A 2013 study in the journal Pediatrics found a significant correlation between low vaccination rates in California and high rates of pertussis. Unvaccinated children and adults, the experts noted, are still more likely to catch the disease and put others at risk.

“People shouldn’t avoid this vaccine for any reason,” Sawyer said.

Mill Valley parent Joan Bullen became aware of the vaccine’s limitations in December 2013 when her high-school-age daughter, Emma, caught pertussis years after vaccination. Bullen was frustrated and surprised.

“We were aware that kids were getting it, but we thought we didn’t have to worry,” she said. “The cough was just hellish for weeks and weeks and weeks. She couldn’t sleep at night.”

Emma eventually recovered, even as whooping cough swept through her school. “There were so many kids who had it and didn’t know they had it,” Bullen said.

The same type of story played out repeatedly in Elk Grove, county public records show.

In the 95758 ZIP code surrounding the Laguna community of Elk Grove, residents caught pertussis last year at a rate three times as high as residents elsewhere in Sacramento County. Parents of just six of the 430 kindergartners in that ZIP code filed personal-belief exemptions this school year, opting not to vaccinate their children. And just seven of the 500 seventh-graders opted out of the booster shot.

“We were surprised by the increase in cases last year,” Elk Grove Unified spokeswoman Xanthi Pinkerton said in an emailed statement. “We do have a high percentage of students who have been immunized.”

The district responded by disseminating common-sense advice, encouraging children to practice good hygiene.

Dr. Scott Cannon practices family medicine at a Sutter Health clinic in the Laguna community. A strong advocate of vaccinations, he recently has treated “a handful” of whooping cough patients. Most were adults who had been vaccinated against the disease, but years had passed since their last shot.

Dr. John Belko, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Elk Grove Promenade medical office, said about a third of the pertussis cases treated in his practice in 2014 involved unvaccinated patients, a third involved patients who didn’t get the full regimen of shots, and a third were patients whose vaccine had worn off.

“I think we did a better job of testing and identifying” pertussis cases than clinics elsewhere, he said, offering another explanation why so many cases were reported in Elk Grove.

A few labs are working on pertussis vaccines that provide longer-lasting protection, but it could be years before those efforts produce results, several experts said.

In response, doctors have begun encouraging adults to get a pertussis booster if it has been more than a decade since their last shot. Physicians also now urge adults who spend time around infants to get a booster, since the disease can be devastating to babies.

Doctors also try to manage the disease through quick diagnosis and community outreach when an outbreak hits. Their efforts are hampered by the fact that some whooping cough cases are mild and patients don’t seek help. Even with a record high number of pertussis cases reported last year, thousands more likely went unreported, several health experts said.

Call The Bee’s Phillip Reese, (916) 321-1137.

Read the article

Posted in The Blog | 1 Comment

Inaccurate Vaccine Information Is Causing Harm To Our Children – Dr. Michael Elice MD

By Michael Elice MD     Feb 3, 2015

As a board certified pediatrician, I took the same oath as all physicians, “to do no harm.”

The latest media presentation of the measles outbreak at Disneyland as a result of unvaccinated children is very upsetting to me.  We are being fed information that is essentially inaccurate by media journalists – none of whom have medical degrees – which may actually be promoting medical harm to our children.

The latest reports blaming a failure of the measles vaccine on the unvaccinated population are not accurate, and in some reports, not true at all.  In fact, over the past 30 years, there have been similar numbers of measles cases reported in various areas of the United States.  Studies published in leading medical journals, such as the New England Journal of MedicineAmerican Journal of EpidemiologyAmerican Journal of Public Health and others around the world have confirmed small numbers, 75-140 cases of measles annually.  So why then is the latest statistic of over 90 cases of measles spread over 14 states, representing tens of millions of people being billed as an epidemic?

The media would have us believe that this is a result of the fringe population of anti-vaxers who refuse to have their children vaccinated according the guidelines of the current vaccine schedule.  Medical reporting has brought to light the glaring ineffectiveness of the measles vaccines in fulfilling their widely claimed promise of preventing outbreaks in highly vaccine compliant populations.  In fact, measles outbreaks have occurred in populations that have been vaccinated on the average of 77%- 99%, not the so-called anti-vaxers.

Last year 1 in every 500,000 Americans came down with the measles. Nearly all recovered in a few days without serious consequences.  At the same time 1 in 68 American children were diagnosed with autism or for every case of measles there were 7000 cases of autism.  I ask myself which is the real epidemic here?

Frank Bruni in an editorial in the New York Times on February 1, 2015 states that this measles outbreak is a result of “wealthy, educated people who deliberately didn’t vaccinate their children.”  He refers to measles as “the scourge once essentially eliminated in this country is back” when, in fact, it never left!  He refers to all links between autism and MMR vaccines as having been discredited yet he obviously has not read all the studies from the U.S. and around the world proving his information false.   As a recent example, I would ask him to justify the 340% increase in autism in African-American boys in Chicago – a report that was supposedly squelched by the CDC .  While he reports that the incidence of measles has increased over the past 10 years, no patients have died.

Scare tactics were used to terrorize those who attended this year’s SuperBowl in Phoenix because of one woman who sat in a clinic without being properly isolated or that every one of the thousands of people passing through Penn Station are at risk because of one man who rode an Amtrak train.  It appears that the saturation of the media amplifies the hypotheses to a point that seems misleadingly worthy of consideration.  In other words, if enough people say things enough times there must be some truth to it.  Does that justify USA Today publishing an article claiming that non-vaccinated parents should be jailed or sued or have their children removed from the home if they chose not to vaccinate their children against the measles? Does that justify the immediate vaccination of every child and adult in this country regardless of their immune status or overall medical health?  Will the local pharmacies be hooking pedestrians into their stores for MMR vaccines as they have been doing for the less than effective flu vaccines?


As I write this piece, the director of the CDC states that the overall vaccination rate in this country is 92% !!  Yet he is very concerned of a large outbreak because of the trend in not vaccinating certain children.  Does this make sense?

I wish these journalists, vaccinologists and infectious disease specialists spent a week in my office.  I wish they would actually listen to the testimonials given to me by parents of autistic children who were obviously affected by these vaccines adversely.  I wish they would tell parents that the risk of dying from the measles in the United States is around zero.  I wish they would admit that they are being told by pharmaceutical companies not to report certain statistics or to cover up factual scientific information.  I wish they could be free to report honestly about vaccines rather than being dependent upon drug advertising and internet information.

This is an emotional debate for sure.  If we discount emotion and fear, we would realize that a child may have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning, accidental drowning or possibly from adverse side effects of the MMR vaccination itself than from acquiring live measles infection.  I wish that my pediatric colleagues would offer parents factual pros and cons of vaccines in general so that a parent can make an informed decision and then give consent to vaccinate rather than being told that if their child isn’t vaccinated they will be thrown out of school and they are guilty of child abuse!

I am not advocating that vaccines be discontinued.  I am advocating that doctors and patients become aware of the ingredients of these vaccines, what they can potentially do to affect an adverse outcome in an immunologically compromised child.  Adverse reactions to MMR and other vaccines have been reported in numerous clinical trials and studies.  I am advocating that medical practitioners and researchers, not journalists, address the real medical epidemics of autism, asthma, GI disease and autoimmune diseases facing our society and people around the world. Stop hyping the safety of MMR vaccines which may actually be more dangerous than live measles and may be ineffective in preventing the illness which they are so anxious to report as a dangerous epidemic itself.   Let’s stop believing that the mainstream media is telling us the truth when all they are doing is shutting down any intelligent and open discussion about vaccine safety and how to improve it.

Read the article

Posted in The Blog | 2 Comments

How Vaccine Hysteria Could Spark Totalitarian Nightmare – Lee Hieb, MD

r2By Lee Hieb, MD   February 6, 2015

Gov. Chris Christie has been vilified for making a very simple statement – that parents (and presumably patients themselves) should have the freedom to choose whether to vaccinate their children. I have been asked for years what I thought about vaccination, so let me lay out the issues.

Before getting into the science, lets discuss the philosophy:

1. The voices shrieking to forcibly vaccinate people are the same voices shrieking to support a woman’s right to choose abortion under Roe v. Wade. If a woman’s body is sacrosanct, if she has the right to choose to deliver a child or not, if she has total authority over her body, how can she not have the right to accept or refuse a vaccination?

2. Medical ethics are clear: No one should be forced to undergo a medical treatment without informed consent and without their agreement to the treatment. We condemn the forced sterilization of the ’20s and ’30s, the Tuskegee medical experiments infecting black inmates and the Nazi medicine that included involuntary “Euthanasia,” experimentation and sterilization. How can we force vaccination without consent? Vaccination is a medical treatment with risks including death. It is totally antithetical to all ethics in medicine to mandate that risk to others.

3. Science is never “concluded.” Mr. Obama and other ideologues may think the truth is finalized (“The science is indisputable”), but the reality is our understanding of disease and treatment are constantly being updated. Just like Newton’s mechanical paradigm of the universe was supplanted by Einsteinian physics, and physicists today modify that view, medical “truth” is not the truth for long. In an attempt to quantify change in medicine, years ago a cardiology journal discussed “The Half-life of Truth.” cardiologists looked back in their journal at 20-year-old articles to see how much of what was believed then was still believed to be true. The answer? 50 percent. So in cardiology, at least – and in all of medicine to greater or lesser degree – only half of what we believe now will still be true in 20 or so years. The last word on vaccination is not in. It hasn’t even begun to be written.

4. If you believe absolutely in the benefit and protective value of vaccination, why does it matter what others do? Or don’t do? If you believe you need vaccination to be healthy and protected, then by all means vaccinate your child and yourself. Why should you even be concerned what your neighbor chooses to do for his child – if vaccination works? The idea of herd immunity is still based on the idea that in individual cases vaccines actually are protective.

5. If you think the government has the right to forcibly vaccinate people – for the good of society – what is to prevent them from forcibly sterilizing people, or forcibly euthanizing people, or forcibly implanting a tracking device – for the good of society? You make think those examples are extreme (although two-thirds have happened), but the principle is the same. You are allowing government to have ultimate authority over your body.

So, I’ve been asked, “Why not vaccinate your children? Why not take the influenza vaccine?” Well, I believe the choice is up to you. I’ve covered my thinking about the influenza vaccine in an article in the Journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, available online, but here are some facts about childhood vaccines that make me think twice about their use. I traced these points back to the source, so these are not blindly reprinted from hearsay Internet articles. In some cases I found public references to be wrong but the data to be correct when I got to the source. Much of this comes from government reporting. Anyone can research disease incidence by reading MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) from the CDC and accessing the search engine for VAERS (Vaccine complication reporting site) athttp://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.php.

1. Since 2005 (and even before that), there have been no deaths in the U.S. from measles, but there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine – 68 of them in children under 3 years old. And there were nearly 2,000 disabled.

2. In countries which use BCG vaccinations against tuberculosis, the incidence of Type I diabetes in children under 14 is nearly double. (“Infectious Disease in Clinical Practice” no. 6 pages 449-454, 1997)

3. As reported in Lancet in 1995, inflammatory bowel disease (i.e. Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis) is 13 times more prevalent in persons vaccinated for measles.

4. In a nested case-control study within the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) in the United Kingdom, patients who had a first MS (Multiple Sclerosis) diagnosis recorded were compared with controls. The authors concluded that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine is associated with a threefold increased risk of developing MS (Hernan et al., 2004). No increased risk of MS was associated with other vaccines, which included tetanus and influenza vaccinations.

5. In 1982 William Torch, a prolific researcher and publisher on Neurologic topics, presented a paper (later published) at the American Academy of Neurology reviewing SIDS deaths. He reported that in 100 consecutive cases, 70 percent of SIDS deaths occurred within three weeks of pertussis vaccination. In very convincing confirmation, a Japanese prefecture stopped vaccinating after associating SIDS with the pertussis vaccine. It is worth reading the entire description from Viera Scheibner, PhD:

In 1975, about 37 Crib Sudden Deaths were linked to vaccination in Japan. Doctors in one prefecture boycotted vaccinations, and refused to vaccinate. The Japanese government paid attention and stopped vaccinating children below the age of 2 years. When immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age, Sudden Infant Death cases and claims for vaccine related deaths disappeared. Japan zoomed from a high 17th place in infant mortality rate to the lowest infant mortality rate in the world when they stopped vaccinating. Japan didn’t vaccinate any children below the age of 2 years between 1975 and 1988, for 13 years. But then in 1988, Japanese parents were given the choice to start vaccinating anywhere between 3 months and 48 months. The Ministry study group studied 2,720 SIDS cases occurring between 1980 and 1992 and they established that their very low SIDS rate quadrupled.

6. A mail survey was done of 635 children in the Netherlands in 2004. German measles and whooping cough (pertussis) were twice as common in unvaccinated children. However, throat inflammations, ear infections, rheumatologic complaints, seizures and febrile convulsions were much more common in the vaccinated group. Aggressive behavioral episodes were eight times more frequent in vaccinated children, and sleep disordered more often. Tonsils were removed in 33 percent of children who had been vaccinated vs. 7.3 percent unvaccinated.

7. In 1947, the first reports of brain inflammation and chronic brain damage, including death, after pertussis vaccination began to be published (Brody, 1947; Byers and Moll, 1948, Low, 1955, Berg, 1958; Strom, 1960, 1967; Dick, 1967, 1974; Kuhlenkampff, 1974; Stewart, 1977, 1979). But it took more than 40 years of collective evidence before academic medicine decided it was true –1981 National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) and in 1991 and 1994 by the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences.

In 1991, after reviewing vaccine safety, the Institute of Medicine admitted, “In the course of its review, the committee encountered many gaps and limitations in knowledge bearing directly or indirectly on the safety of vaccines. These include inadequate understanding of the biologic mechanisms underlying adverse events following natural infection or immunization, insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series, inadequate size or length of followup of many population based epidemiologic studies [and] few experimental studies published in relation to the number of epidemiologic studies published.”

So the next question is: Does vaccination work? Does it really protect you against disease? The answer is variable. Smallpox vaccine seems to be nearly universally protective against the very fatal disease of smallpox, and use of vaccine led to the eradication of the disease in the wild. But the dirty little secret in recent outbreaks of mumps, measles and pertussis is – they are occurring in vaccinated people in highly vaccinated populations!

In 2006 an epidemic of mumps broke out in my state of Iowa. Ultimately, 11 states reported 2,597 cases of mumps. The majority of mumps cases (1,487) were reported from Iowa. As reported in“Mumps Epidemic – Iowa, 2006,” “Despite control efforts and a highly vaccinated population, this epidemic has spread across Iowa and potentially to neighboring states.” According to the CDC, “During the prevaccine era, nearly everyone in the United States experienced mumps, and 90 percent of cases occurred among children, although 97 percent of children entering school in Iowa had received two doses of MMR vaccine. ” Of note, this outbreak mostly occurred in young adults of college age who had received the vaccine. Only 6 percent of those affected were known to be unvaccinated, 12 percent received one dose of MMR vaccine, 51 percent had two doses of MMR vaccine, and 31 percent (mostly adults) were not sure of their immunization history.

In 2008-2009, Australia had epidemics of whooping cough and measles. Health authorities there must reveal the vaccination status of children in epidemics. Eighty-four percent of Australian children who got whooping cough were fully vaccinated, and 78 percent who got measles had record of measles vaccination.

In the 2010 outbreak of whooping cough in California, well over half the victims were fully vaccinated.

Whooping cough continuously declined in the U.S. from over 100,000 cases in 1922 to around 1978 when 2,063 cases were reported. That year, pertussis vaccine became mandated for school attendance. Beginning around 1995, when the U.S. had 5,137 cases, the incidence has increased, to 2012 when over 48,000 cases were reported, including 20 deaths. The majority of deaths were in newborns under three months of age. Why is this happening? It is not because people are not becoming vaccinated. The CDC says more than 84 percent of children under 3 years old have been vaccinated with four doses of pertussis vaccine. But the current vaccine does not include all strains of pertussis. And the most vulnerable to the disease – the small infants – are not able to take the vaccine. Since older children and adults are much less likely to die of whooping cough, the question that must be asked is this: Is vaccination effective in producing antibody transfer from mother to infant? Or is it better to allow the natural disease to occur?

Finally, it turns out that death and disability from many childhood diseases is preventable by means other than vaccination. Vitamin A has been known since the 1930s to reduce mortality from measles by 60 percent. Vitamin D is protective against viral illness. And numerous authors and studies have shown the damaging effects of chemical antipyretics (fever lowering drugs) on the natural course of disease – a practice still sadly in widespread use in America. Better understanding of disease mechanisms, utilizing nutritional support and better scientific care of the sick child are safer alternatives to widespread vaccination.

Perhaps one of the best perspectives on the whole vaccination paradigm is provided by Dr. Harold Buttram, M.D., FAACP:

As one of today’s senior citizens who grew up in a Midwestern state in the 1930s, and as a doctor who has treated many children, I may have a special vantage point of time and experience in regard to the changes that have taken place in the health of America’s children since the relatively innocent times of the 1930s. At summer camps in the New Mexico Mountains that I was fortunate to attend, no boy had allergies, none was on medication, and no boy was ever sick with the common ailments of today. It was much the same in schools. I don’t recall ever seeing a child with easily recognized behaviors now described as hyperactivity (ADHD) or autism.

Today in stark contrast, approximately one-third of our youngsters are afflicted with the 4-A Disorders (Autism, ADHD, Asthma, and Allergies), as described and documented by Dr. Kenneth Bock. School budgets are being strained to the breaking points in providing special education classes for autistic and learning disabled children. Allergy problems are proliferating, as indicated by long lines of children at school nursing stations for their noontime medications.

Could today’s infant and childhood vaccine programs, with their steadily increasing numbers of vaccines, be a contributory cause of this ominous health trend? As reflected in the U.S. Congressional Hearings (1999 to December 2004) on issues of vaccine safety, in which major deficiencies in vaccine safety testing were disclosed, it is a real possibility that vaccines may be one of the major, if not the major cause of this trend.

I, too, am old enough to remember these times. We are changing the pattern of disease, but not necessarily making our children nor ourselves healthier. We are converting benign childhood disease into more severe adult disease. Consider the chickenpox vaccine. We used to have chickenpox parties where small children were purposely exposed to kids sick with chickenpox. In those days, every mother or grandmother knew it was safer for toddlers to get the disease early and not wait until teenage years. Now we vaccinate, but of course that vaccine is only effective for 15-20 years, so now adults must constantly be revaccinated or run the risk of getting a life-threatening severe form of chickenpox. The shingles uptick is directly attributable to the lack of re-exposure of older people to the wild chickpox virus. But not to worry – the drug companies can sell us a shingles vaccine for a disease their previous vaccine created.

We have forgotten that for most normal children, childhood diseases are benign. As recounted about mumps in the Iowa Department of Public Health Manual, “it is more common in infants, children and young adults. Of people who are not immunized, >85 percent will have mumps by adulthood, but symptoms may have been mild and therefore not recognized.”

At the end of the day, the issue here is one of freedom, and freedom is the freedom to choose – even if we make a bad choice. The argument that I must vaccinate my children for the good of the community is not only scientifically questionable, it is an unethical precept. It is the argument all dictators and totalitarians have used. “Comrade, you must work tirelessly for the good of the collective. You must give up your money and property for the good of the collective, and now … you must allow us to inject your children with what we deem is good for the collective.” If American’s don’t stand up against this, then we are lost. Because we have lost ownership of ourselves. Our bodies are no longer solely ours – we and our children are able to be commandeered for the “greater good.”


Read the article

Posted in The Blog | 1 Comment

The US Government Has Paid out $3 Billion to Vaccine-Injured Americans Since 1989

By Lily Dane  - The Daily Sheeple February 4th, 2015

Unless you live in a cave and have NO access to television or the internet, you’ve likely been exposed to the Measles Mania that has swept America.

Facebook, Twitter, online news site comment sections…everywhere you look, people are launching into hysterical tirades and internet battles about vaccines, “evil anti-vaxxers”, and fear-mongering.

Some people are so whipped up into a frenzy over those who don’t vaccinate that they are calling for those people to be sued or jailed. Even more disturbing? Some are saying they hope anti-vaxxers’ children die of a communicable disease.

Click PLAY to hear Refusers song VACCINE GESTAPO

It’s like a modern-day witch hunt.

The anger is strong, and it is infectious (pardon the pun).

And mainstream news sites and politicians are fueling the fire.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, both potential Republican presidential candidates, have stated publicly that parents should have a say in which vaccines their children receive.

Hillary Clinton and President Obama are both saying that vaccines are safe, and that all children should be vaccinated, which is in stark contrast tocomments each made in 2008:

At a 2008 rally, Mr. Obama said, “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to person in audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”

In 2008, Hillary Clinton was asked in a questionnaire from an autism group about whether vaccines should be investigated as a “possible cause” of autism. She answered: “I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines.”

Amidst the hype and hysteria over whether or not people should be forced to vaccinate their children, I have noticed two issues that are causing quite a bit of confusion.

One is autism. Whenever a person says they do not vaccinate their children, a lot (and I mean, A LOT) of people assume that it is because that person is afraid of autism. This assumption inevitably launches that person into a lecture about how the link between autism and vaccines has been “debunked” or “disproven.”

(Autism is far from being the only risk associated with vaccination. More on that later.)

The other is the widespread lack of awareness of the “vaccine court.” People just don’t believe this entity exists. It’s as if I’m telling them that I have a flock of magical unicorns frolicking in my backyard. If I had a dollar for every time a person has accused me of being wrong – or lying – about the existence of the vaccine court, I might actually be able to buy a flock of unicorns.

Anyway…yes, the government does have a vaccine court and fund that serve to compensate people who can show strong evidence that their child’s injury, disability, or death is linked to vaccinations.

Here’s an explanation of the vaccine court from Generation Rescue:

The United States federal court has presided over landmark cases for the autism community, filing official court decisions that have linked vaccinations as an environmental trigger of autism.  The court in which all of these decisions are rendered is the Office of Special Masters of the United States Courts of Federal Claims, otherwise known as “Vaccine Court.”

The U.S. government created this specific court in 1986 to protect pharmaceutical companies from the direct lawsuits that were arising due to the preponderance of illnesses and injuries that were stemming from the company’s vaccination products.  By establishing the Vaccine Court, the government now protects the pharmaceutical industry by trying the cases and awarding damages from a federal excise tax added to the cost of each dosage of a vaccine.

In the “Vaccine Court,” the burden of proof lays squarely on the claimant.  In other words, a family must show a clear causal connection between a vaccination and its adverse effects.  For the autism community, this standard is made more challenging because the “Vaccine Court” does not accept “autism” as a legal determination.  This is because autism is a clinical diagnosis, labeled on the basis of a collection of clinical features and created by causes that are still unknown.  But the autism community has still persevered, and compelled the court to acknowledge the link between their children’s autism diagnoses and vaccinations’ environmental triggers.

Here’s how that system works.

The CDC and FDA co-sponsor a national vaccine safety surveillance program called Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). It serves to collect information about adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of vaccines licensed for use in the United States. People can report reactions that may be related to vaccinations there, and the data is open and available for anyone to access.

If a case makes it to vaccine court and an award is granted to a family, the money comes from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program:

Since the first National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP) claims were filed in 1989, 3,887 compensation awards have been made. More than $3.0 billion in compensation awards has been paid to petitioners and more than $120.4 million has been paid to cover attorneys’ fees and other legal costs.

To date, 9,860 claims have been dismissed. Of those, 4,912 claimants were paid more than $64.8 million to cover attorneys’ fees and other legal costs.

For those who are still skeptical that such a thing exists…

The following are cases in which the families of children who suffered from vaccine-related injuries (and in one case, unfortunately, death) were awarded compensation by the vaccine court.

Click on each child’s name to view the actual court documents.

Richelle Oxley: DPT shot reaction: post-pertussis vaccine encephalopathy

“…no evidence to overcome the strong probability that the DPT was the most likely cause. Richelle’s disabilities include autistic-like behavior, hyperactivity, and partially controlled seizures. The court finds further that all other statutory requirements have been met, and concludes that petitioners are entitled to compensation for injuries sustained as a result of the DPT vaccine administered on July 30, 1979.”

Hannah Poling: MMR vaccine

“Court ruled in favor of compensation due to the significant aggravation of child’s pre-existing mitochondrial disorder based on an MMR vaccine Table presumptive injury of encephalopathy, which eventually manifested as chronic encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder and a complex partial seizure disorder as a sequelae.”

Eric Lassiter: DPT vaccine

Eric was completely healthy prior to a DPT booster. His is a “known case of static encephalopathy after DPT immunization.” Based on the court’s own findings of fact and the reasons proffered by Dr. Lichtenfeld, the court concludes that Eric, more likely than not, sustained an encephalopathy and that the first manifestation of onset of the injury occurred within the Table time frame.

*The possibility of autism was discussed in depth during Eric’s court proceedings, but a conclusion was never made. One doctor believed the child had autism…but not as a result of the DTP vaccine.

Bailey Banks: MMR vaccine

“The Court found, supra, that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.”

Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) is “an acute or subacute encephalomyelitis or infiltration and 3 demyelination; it occurs most commonly following an acute viral infection, especially measles, but may occur without a recognizable antecedent….It is believed to be a manifestation of an autoimmune attack on the myelin of the central nervous system. Clinical manifestations include fever, headache, vomiting, and drowsiness progressing to lethargy and coma; tremor, seizures, and paralysis may also occur; mortality ranges from 5 to 20 per cent; many survivors have residual neurological deficits.”

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) is a ‘subthreshold’ condition in which some – but not all – features of autism or another explicitly identified Pervasive Developmental Disorder are identified. PDD-NOS; also referred to as “atypical personality development,” “atypical PDD,” or “atypical autism”, is included in DSM-IV to encompass cases where there is marked impairment of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interest, but when full features for autism or another explicitly defined PDD are not met.

As a preliminary matter, even though Respondent conceded during briefing that Bailey suffers from PDD, Respondent’s expert, Dr. MacDonald characterized Bailey’s condition as autism; however, he at one point conflated the two as of one or of like kind. Tr. at 84-86. Despite his comments to that effect, the Court is inclined to view Bailey’s condition as accurately as the medical records will allow; that is, to find that Bailey more likely than not suffers from PDD, and not from autism.

Elias Tembenis: Death after DTaP vaccination. This little boy had seizures after receiving a DTaP shot…but was still given boosters and other vaccines. In 2002, doctors noted that Elias had features of Pervasive Developmental Disorder (“PDD”), which is an autism spectrum disorder. He died in 2007, at age 7. The immediate cause of death was multisystem organ failure, which was a consequence of cardiac arrest…which was a consequence of Elias’s seizure disorder.

“Petitioners have satisfied the legal requirements for proving that Elias’s December 26, 2000 DTaP vaccination was a legal cause of his epilepsy and death. Respondent has not overcome Petitioners’ evidence by proving an alternative cause. Therefore, I find that Petitioners have established entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act.”

Ryan Mojabi: MMR vaccine

Saeid and Parivash Mojabi of San Jose, California had their infant son vaccinated with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), among other vaccinations, between 2003 and 2005. Shortly after the MMR vaccinations, their son developed Autism Spectrum Disorder, asthma, and an encephalopathy, which refers to a syndrome of brain dysfunction. The case is ‘unpublished,’ meaning there is little information available to the public.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services conceded that the MMR vaccination caused the boy’s encephalopathy. There is no documentation stating the government recognized that the encephalopathy directly led to his autism. The Mojabi’s were awarded a lump sum of more than $980,0000, and another lump sum, several million dollars more, will be invested in annuities on his behalf to cover annual costs for the rest of his life. (source)

From the same law firm that represented Ryan Mojabi:

A similar case involving a young girl reports an eerily similar timeline. The girl’s mother, Jillian Moller, filed her claim in 2003, alleging that her daughter was severely injured by the vaccines she received at 15 months old.

Almost immediately, the girl developed high fevers, seizure episodes, and a similar measles-type rash. She started staring blankly, having shaking episodes, and was diagnosed with encephalopathy characterized by speech and developmental delay. She was also ultimately diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

More than seven years after filing her claim, the government agreed to settle, and made an offer upwards of $1.1 million. Another $9 million will be granted for annual expenses throughout her life. The Department of Health and Human Services did not officially admit that the vaccines caused her encephalopathy or autism.

Notice that in several of those court cases, terms like “autistic-like,” “features of autism,” “PDD or atypical autism,” and “autistic disorders” are used.

Here’s a recent case from outside of the US.

Valentino Bocca: MMR vaccine (Italy)

Valentino was never the same child after the jab in his arm. He developed autism and, in a landmark judgment, a judge has ruled that his devastating disability was provoked by the inoculation against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR).

Judge Lucio Ardigo, awarding compensation to the family, agreed. He said it was ‘conclusively established’ that Valentino had suffered from an ‘autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay’ and his illness, as Dr Barboni stated, was linked to receiving the jab.

Skeptics will say that none of these cases proves there is a link between vaccinations and autism.

Maybe they don’t prove anything. Maybe the definition of “autism” is too broad and confusing (after all, the diagnostic criteria specified by the American Psychiatric Association has changed several times). There isn’t a blood test – or any medical test – that can be used to detect autism spectrum disorders. Diagnosis is challenging.

But it is hard to discount the increasing number of heartbreaking tales of drastic changes (or death) in once-healthy children shortly after receiving vaccinations.

Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), said that she believes the science behind vaccination risks is far from settled and that hundreds of parents have reported that their children have had severe deficits after an inoculation.

“We have a lot of observations that are not otherwise explainable,” said Dr. Orient, an internist. “I don’t think we can dismiss it out of hand.”

The AAPS has called for an end to government-mandated vaccinations in the past:

“Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that aren’t necessary or that have very limited benefits,” said Dr. Orient.

“This is not a vote against vaccines. This resolution only attempts to halt blanket vaccine mandates by government agencies and school districts that give no consideration for the rights of the parents or the individual medical condition of the child.”

“It’s obscene to threaten to seize a child just because his parents refuse medical treatment that is obviously unnecessary and perhaps even dangerous,” said Dr. Orient. “AAPS believes that parents, with the advice of their doctors, should make decisions about their children’s medical care — not government bureaucrats.”

You won’t hear about most of this via the mainstream media. Could that be because vaccine manufacturers like Merck give money to some news organizations? (One example: Merck sponsors CNN.)

Perhaps parents are a more reliable source of information. After all, don’t parents know their children better than anyone else?

Let’s look at some video footage of parents speaking about their experiences with vaccines.

****

This video shows footage of expert and parent testimony during a vaccine hearing in MA:

This is a video of a mom talking about her son’s vaccine reaction:

More on vaccine court cases:

Parents are sharing videos of their children’s stories of possible vaccine-related disabilities on the YouTube page Hear This Well: Breaking the Silence on Vaccine Violence. To date, 295 personal videos have been submitted to that channel.

Former NFL quarterback Rodney Peete discusses why he believes that vaccines, MMR in particular, could have caused his son R.J.’s autism here: Facing the trauma of autism diagnosis

****

As I mentioned earlier, most of the controversy surrounding the possible health risks of vaccines centers around autism.

But there are many other possible injuries and conditions that can be caused by vaccines. To see the complete Vaccine Injury Table from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, click here.

Because there is so much discussion about MMR vaccines lately, let’s take a look at the vaccine manufacturer’s package insert adverse reactions.

MMR II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus VACCINE LIVE) from Merck:

ADVERSE REACTIONS: The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality, within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella:

Body as a Whole Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability. Cardiovascular System Vasculitis. Digestive System Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea. 7 Endocrine System Diabetes mellitus. Hemic and Lymphatic System Thrombocytopenia (see WARNINGS, Thrombocytopenia); purpura; regional lymphadenopathy; leukocytosis. Immune System Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported as well as related phenomena such as angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm in individuals with or without an allergic history. Musculoskeletal System Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia. Arthralgia and/or arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic), and polyneuritis are features of infection with wild-type rubella and vary in frequency and severity with age and sex, being greatest in adult females and least in prepubertal children. This type of involvement as well as myalgia and paresthesia, have also been reported following administration of MERUVAX II. Chronic arthritis has been associated with wild-type rubella infection and has been related to persistent virus and/or viral antigen isolated from body tissues. Only rarely have vaccine recipients developed chronic joint symptoms. Following vaccination in children, reactions in joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration. In women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children (children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),{17,56,57} and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years. In adolescent girls, the reactions appear to be intermediate in incidence between those seen in children and in adult women. Even in women older than 35 years, these reactions are generally well tolerated and rarely interfere with normal activities. Nervous System Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS); acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia.

Respiratory System Pneumonia; pneumonitis (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); sore throat; cough; rhinitis. Skin Stevens-Johnson syndrome; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritis. Local reactions including burning/stinging at injection site; wheal and flare; redness (erythema); swelling; induration; tenderness; vesiculation at injection site. Special Senses — Ear Nerve deafness; otitis media. Special Senses — Eye Retinitis; optic neuritis; papillitis; retrobulbar neuritis; conjunctivitis. Urogenital System Epididymitis; orchitis. Other Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines; however, a causal relationship has not been established in healthy individuals (see CONTRAINDICATIONS).

Whoa.

Most vaccine package insert “adverse reactions” sections look like that, so for the sake of saving space (and not overwhelming readers), I’ll stop here. Package inserts for other vaccines can be found here, for those who are up for some heavy reading.

The CDC’s Vaccine Safety page has links to information on each vaccine and their associated risks.

****

A compilation of 97 research papers that reportedly support the vaccine-autism link can be found here.

****

And one more item from the AAPS site:

Selected vaccine authorities from CDC, FDA, and manufacturers discuss, in a closed meeting, the possibility of neurodevelopmental disorders resulting from vaccine components. 

The CDC published a study in late 2003, repudiating any possible link between thimerosal and developmental problems such as autism, but the CDC did have data supporting such a link which it secretly kept from the public.

Documents released through the Freedom of Information Act detail the transcript of a meeting held in June of 2000 between members of the CDC, the FDA, and representatives from the vaccine industry.

The conference followed a study that showed that mercury in vaccines may have caused neurodevelopmental problems.

To read excerpts from the 260-page transcript, click here.

Unfortunately, there are many more stories and cases like the ones I’ve covered here.

Many will say that correlation does not equal causation. I’m not denying that, but when we have this many people speaking up about their personal stories, and government-run vaccine courts paying out billions to families, what are we supposed to think?

Could all of these cases be coincidental?

Where do we go from here?

(H/T to D. Seal for video recommendation)

Posted in The Blog | Leave a comment