November 4, 2011
By Christina England
Recently, there has been a vast amount of media coverage exposing many leading stores sexualizing children through the marketing of inappropriate clothing. Mini skirts, crop tops, and sexy under-wear for primary school children, even high heels for toddlers fill the shelves, leaving parents shocked and outraged.
One little girl Suri Cruise, the daughter of Tom Cruise, is often seen teetering around in high heels whilst wearing bright red lip gloss at the tender age of five. In fact this very young child even has her own ‘fashion blog’, showing interested readers her vast array of tiny high heels whilst sharing her latest fashion tips.
Whilst many parents appear outraged by this seemingly blatant sexploitation of such a young child and are sharing their feelings of disgust on various blogs around the internet, the same emotion evades parents completely when it comes to vaccination. Parents are only too happy to have their little darlings vaccinated with the latest must have vaccine for sexually transmitted diseases and happily sign consent forms without giving it a second thought.
Why is it, that there is not the same level of disgust and outrage when drug companies recommend children from birth vaccinations for sexual diseases? Don’t American parents realize that the government has mandated a vaccination for a venereal disease at birth?
In fact Dr Judith Reisman goes as far as to say these vaccines are little more than ‘condoms in the veins’.
The US government insists that children are vaccinated with the Hepatitis B vaccine on the day that they are born. Hepatitis B is a STD or SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE therefore, it is highly unlikely that a tiny baby is going to come into contact with this disease unless they have shared needles, had sex with an infected person or has received contaminated blood.
This being the case, the only possible way that a newborn baby can get Hepatitis B is by having an infected mother give birth to them. So why is the US government insistent that all babies are vaccinated? Why do they not simply identify pregnant mothers who have the disease and vaccinate just those babies? Or better still not give this highly toxic and dangerous vaccination at all?
Dr Reisman is clearly disgusted by what she sees and states:
“Just look at child vaccines. The more pornography and sexology increase juvenile sexual activity, the more big pharma can step in with an Hepatitis B vaccine for infants. HepB is a sexually transmitted disease, and there is no reason to give the vaccine to babies. But big pharma has been making a fortune on it ever since states have begun mandating that all of our little darlings, with their wee tiny hearts and lungs and no immune system functioning, be shot up with it (and recently small girls with Human Papilloma Virus, HPV vaccines) all in the name of protecting them. What we don’t want to do is turn off the pornography flood (no administration has chosen to do that) because it fuels so many other things. And in the wings are vaccines for syphilis and gonorrhea and a whole host of other sexually transmitted diseases.”
She is a strong lady with powerful views and I believe she is correct in her assumptions.
At the ages of nine through twelve, young girls and boys are now recommended the HPV vaccine. Once again this vaccine, according to the manufacturers Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, is for an STD which has been said to cause cervical cancer. I say ‘said to cause cervical cancer’, as there appears to be very little evidence available to support this theory.
Dr Sin Hang Lee who now works with the group Sane Vax says:
The current type-specific HPV vaccines have claimed to be almost 100% effective against infection by HPV-16 and HPV-18, and perhaps also against HPV-31 and HPV-45 infections. However, we do not know if these four HPV types are the most prevalent carcinogenic HPV genotypes in the US. According to two published reports – one by the CDC, HPV-52 not HPV-16 or HPV-18 was found to be the most prevalent “carcinogenic” genotype infecting young American women.
It is not transient HPV infections, but a persistent high-risk HPV infection that may initiate cervical cancer… Therefore, it is the persistent infection, not the virus that determines cervical cancer risk.
Dr. Sin Hang Lee -Pathologist, Milford Hospital
Director, Milford Medical Laboratory, Milford, CT
Despite this lack of evidence however, Jerry Brown feels so strongly about children being vaccinated with this particular vaccine, he recently felt the compelling need to waiver parental rights to protect their children and has passed a bill stating that children can choose to have this vaccine without parental consent.
This move has led to discord among parents. I am beginning to wonder if the parental anger has more to do with their parental rights being taken away than their children being given a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease.
This vaccine is being given to children at a time when they should be climbing trees, riding their bikes and enjoying life, not worrying about sexually transmitted diseases.
The next STD vaccine which has been lined up for our children is the Chlamydia vaccine. Scientists in Southampton have recently announced that they are confident that they will have the vaccine ready for use very soon.
October 21, 2011
By MARIA CHENG
Scientists are warning officials negotiating a global treaty on mercury that banning the deadly chemical completely would be dangerous for public health because of the chemical’s use in vaccines.
The ban option is one of several proposals on the table for a meeting later this month in Nairobi, but a final treaty isn’t expected until 2013.
According to the World Health Organization, mercury is one of the top 10 chemicals of public health concern and is highly toxic. Most of the worry is centered on mercury emissions from burning coal, gold mining and people eating mercury-tainted fish.
Mercury in small amounts is also found in many products including light bulbs, batteries and thermometers. WHO advises such products to be phased out, suggesting for example, that health systems switch to digital thermometers instead.
The problem is that a proposed ban might include thiomersal, a mercury compound used to prevent contamination and extend the shelf life of vaccines, many scientists say. It is used in about 300 million shots worldwide, against diseases including flu, tetanus, hepatitis B, diptheria and meningitis.
“Not being able to use mercury is not a viable option,” said David Wood, a WHO vaccines expert.
Wood said there isn’t a viable alternative to thiomersal at the moment. If banned, pharmaceuticals would likely have to switch to preservative-free vaccines, which would complicate the supply chain and vaccination campaigns in poor countries, since the injections would have a much shorter shelf life. Costs would also spike since manufacturers would need to reconfigure their factories.
In 2009, the United Nations Environment Programme, or UNEP, began working on a legally binding global treaty on mercury. At the end of October, the third of five meetings to hammer out a treaty will take place in Nairobi.
“The document is a draft at the moment, so some of these proposals have to be taken with a grain of salt,” said Tim Kasten, head of the chemicals branch at UNEP. Kasten said the amount of mercury in vaccines is so minute it doesn’t threaten the environment. He said there could be provisions to allow mercury for certain uses, such as in dental fillings and vaccines.
But according to an annex in the draft document, there is currently no “allowable use exemption” for mercury products in pharmaceutical products, putting vaccines in the same category as banned mercury-containing paints and pesticides.
“That would be a terrible idea,” said Paul Offit, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Pennsylvania. “It would be another tragic example of us not being able to explain to the public where the real risk lies.”
Thiomersal has mostly been removed from childhood vaccines in the U.S. and Canada. In some European countries, including Norway and Sweden, manufacturers have been encouraged to make thiomersal-free vaccines – and no other uses of mercury as a medical preservative are allowed.
Fears about thiomersal in vaccines were first raised after a flawed medical study in 1998 linked a common childhood injection to autism. But numerous studies since have found no sign the mercury compound is risky.
Experts hope countries won’t go overboard in their attempts to control the substance.
“Provided you know the risks and it’s handled properly, there isn’t a problem,” said Andrew Nelson, a toxicology expert at the University of Leeds. “The health of so many millions of children benefit from vaccines containing mercury that an absolute ban is ridiculous.”
August 11th, 2011
By: PF Louis
Just when you think some progress is being made for allowing exemptions from required vaccination schedules, along comes a threatening policy statement from a group that does most of those vaccinations. The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS) has issued a position statement opposing secular exemptions from vaccinations.
Already, many pediatricians are refusing healthcare to children of parents, who oppose heavy vaccination schedules.
Pediatricians Are Vaccine Crazy
The vaccination schedule begins at birth with the Hep B shot, which is followed by two more Hep B shots before two years of age. Hepatitis B is transmitted sexually or with hypodermic needles. Even if the mother is not at risk, the Hep B shots are pushed on newborns.
Two other vaccinations come as three different doses in one package. And those are given more than once before age six. They are the MMR (mumps, measles, and rubella) and the DTP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis) vaccinations.
Including the two inoculations that inject three vaccines, there are a total of fifteen different vaccines inoculated into a child well over 30 times by the age of six. Those shots aren’t cheap, and they are hazardous. The USA requires more infant vaccinations than any other nation, yet it ranks 34th in infant mortality.
So this vaccination nation has more infant deaths than 33 other nations. But the pediatricians want to make sure more are given to protect “herd immunity” and prevent outbreaks. They believe 90% of the population should be vaccinated with the full schedule of vaccines. Hold on a second. Those who are vaccinated shouldn’t be concerned about disease carriers if they are “immunized”, right? The outbreak threat is obviously illogical.
It has been documented that the most dangerous disease carriers are those who have been recently vaccinated. The attenuated live viruses used in the vaccine “shed” off the vaccinated child for a few weeks after the shot.
There have been scientific studies that prove SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) is linked to the Hep B and DTP vaccinations. There are also many cases of severe infant vaccine adverse effects reported, but many more are not reported because too many parents do not realize vaccines can have adverse reactions. Of course, the medical people usually deny any connection even if a baby drops dead immediately after a vaccination.
There are two studies linking SIDS to early vaccinations. Dr. Viera Scheibner, the author of one of the studies, concluded that “vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths.” Dr. William Torch, of the University of Nevada School of Medicine at Reno, discovered that almost 80% of SIDS deaths occurred shortly after the DPT vaccination. There are other similar studies with similar results. (3)
Pediatricians consider parents, who are concerned about vaccine safety, virtually criminal for not permitting them to vaccinate their children. Their position paper claims vaccines are the medical miracle of modern medicine, but hysterical celebrities and junk science has led many astray from honoring this miracle. Hypocritically, they say this without scientific proof of their own.
If you protest or refuse vaccinations for your child, there is a looming possibility that legal actions could be taken against you. Children could be taken away and foster homed, and parents can be arrested unless they yield to pediatricians’ warped demands. This is where medical fascism is headed as the medical mafia continues their lobbying for more control.
Some parents are avoiding pediatricians and using regular MDs they trust or holistic practitioners for their children to avoid possible confrontations. These are difficult times for raising children safely. So do your research and connect with supportive groups (5), who are really invested in children’s safety instead of vaccine profits.
December 8th, 2010
By: Christina England
A child of twelve was charged with ‘threatening behaviour’ at his school in Bowmanville, East of Toronto last week. The arrest happened when the boy (who cannot be named for legal reasons) threw a tantrum refusing the Hepatitis B vaccine. The National Post reported that police were brought into Ross Tilley Public School because the boy had threatened to damage the school. Unfortunately, the report failed to give the reason why the child was refusing the vaccine or what made him so angry.
The National Post said:
“Officers consulted with the Crown attorney’s office and charged the boy with threatening, a criminal charge police said was justified: “due to the age of the child and concerns over public safety.”
This may or may not be true; however, at no time did there appear to be any concern for this child’s welfare. There may have been many reasons why the twelve year old did not want to be vaccinated. These range from being afraid of the needle to being worried about the possible side effects. It could be that Hepatitis B is in fact a disease that is mainly transmitted through sexual intercourse or sharing dirty drug needles!
For the side effects for more information on the Hep B vaccine please read – Drugs.Com, Side Effects of Hepatitis B vaccine – for the Consumer
It appears from the report that it is perfectly OK to give this vaccine to the children at school but it is clearly not an option for any child to refuse to have it. Having the police brought into the school sends out the message to the other children that they must not refuse the vaccine. Clearly this child did not want to have the vaccine and was subsequently treated like a criminal/animal as a result.
But is it perfectly OK to force vaccinate a child if that child refuses the vaccine?
Hospitals and schools are supposed to use a law called the Gillick law to establish whether a child is competent enough to decide whether they want/do not want a medical procedure.
When a parent does not want their child to have a vaccine a child has the right to decide that they want the vaccine and overrule their parents wishes by using the Gillick law. A recent document entitled The Royal College of Nursing Signpost Guide: Nurse-led Immunisation of School Aged Children explains the Gillick law as follows:
“…even if a child is under 16, she or he might be able to give consent to medical treatment providing that they have sufficient understanding of the proposed procedure.” (http://www.rcn.org.uk/…)
However, a child may also refuse medical treatment even if the treatment is life-saving.
Although the Gillick law originally was approved for use in England it is now used worldwide.
When children refuse medical treatment: role of government and assessments; a standardized test to assess a child’s maturity and understanding would help judges in their Solomonic roles to render more uniform decisions.(Canada)
To determine the law in Canada they use the Medical Consent of Minors Act, R.S.N.B. 1976, c. M-6.I.
April 8, 2010
Four years ago, Qiang Qiang was a healthy boy. Now, he is epileptic and has trouble keeping up at school — problems that emerged after a vaccination against Japanese encephalitis. The seven-year-old is one of dozens of youngsters in the northern Chinese province of Shanxi whose parents believe their children may have suffered serious side effects from vaccines in the country’s latest public health scare. “His teacher at school tells us he is dumb, that he has short memory and cannot follow classes,” his father Gao Changhong told AFP. “We have spent nearly 60,000 yuan ($8,800) to try to cure him, and we really hope the government will take this situation seriously.”
A Chinese state media report last month said four children had died and more than 70 others in Shanxi fell ill after they received shots against illnesses such as hepatitis B and rabies between 2006 and 2008. The China Economic Times report blamed vaccines that had been exposed to excessive heat and should have been destroyed. The report quoted Chen Tao’an, a whistleblower at Shanxi’s Centre for Disease Control (CDC) where the vaccines were being handled, as a key source. China’s health ministry initially investigated reports of bad vaccines in Shanxi in 2008 and found no problems.
But a probe of the latest allegations indicated issues with “management” of the vaccines, though the shots themselves were not faulty when first produced, the health ministry said Tuesday. It however insisted that the vaccines were not responsible for the four deaths. According to the World Health Organisation, vaccines that are exposed to high temperatures can lose their effectiveness and trigger reactions. Shanxi’s CDC admitted in a press briefing in March that its former director had been dismissed following irregularities in his ties with the vaccine firm at the heart of the scandal. But it has insisted its shots were safe. The allegations have triggered yet another health scare in a nation regularly plagued by food and medicine-related product safety concerns. In the past few weeks alone, authorities have ordered inspections of cooking oil nationwide after reports said up to one-tenth of China’s supplies contained cancer-causing agents. Peddlers in the central province of Hunan have also reportedly been found soaking dry soybeans in green dye and selling them as fresh green beans. And according to state media, a drug firm in the eastern province of Jiangsu has been accused of using an additive in a rabies vaccine that allowed it to meet inspection standards at a lower cost but compromised its potency.
The State Food and Drug Administration has admitted that “inferior materials” were used in producing the rabies vaccines. It said the firm had been ordered to halt production and some employees were suspected of criminal activity. The parents of the children in the Shanxi case are convinced their children were harmed by faulty shots. Wang Mingliang lost his baby son after he received a vaccine against hepatitis B. Xiao’er soon began suffering from spasms and breathing difficulties — he died months later. “We spent more than seven months trying to get him well, from Western medicine to traditional Chinese medicine, and none of it worked,” he told AFP. “None of the hospitals we went to managed to find a cause for his illness, and that’s when we started suspecting the vaccine.” China has launched a high-profile product-safety blitz in recent years after a string of scares. But scandals have continued, including revelations that the industrial chemical melamine was added to milk supplies in 2008. At least six babies died and 300,000 were sickened as a result, according to the government.
February 8th, 2010
In a new study, the researchers report that using a standard 1-inch needle to immunize obese adolescents against hepatitis B virus produced a much weaker effect than using a longer needle.
“As obesity rises in the US, we need to be aware that the standard of care may have to change to protect obese youth,” study co-author Dr. Amy Middleman of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston told Reuters Health.
Over three years her team vaccinated 22 young women and two young men in the shoulder, randomly assigning them to be injected with either a 1-inch or a 1.5-inch needle.
Once injected, vaccines trigger production of small molecules called antibodies, which kick-start our immune system if we are ever attacked by the virus again.
The two groups turned out to have different antibody counts depending on the needle used. In those injected with the short one, the number was almost halved.
Although everyone in the study had enough antibodies to be considered protected against hepatitis B, a lower count generally means a less robust response.
“It gives us more evidence of the importance of choosing the right needle length,” said Middleman, “because we just don’t know what the impact could be in other vaccines.”
The results are no surprise, said Dr. Gregory Poland, who studies vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. For years, doctors have known that vaccines tend not to work as well in heavy people. Whether the obese have weaker immune systems, or fat keeps shorter needles from reaching muscles, where the vaccines can affect immune cells, was unclear.
The introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine in the 1980s offered some clues. Soon after doctors began using the vaccine, they realized that it was failing to protect some female nurses.
At the time, the shot was given in the buttock, Poland told Reuters Health, and was thwarted by the padding there.
Instead of entering the muscle as it was supposed to, the vaccine apparently was broken down in the fat tissue, where it had little chance to affect immune cells. So doctors began giving the shot in the less-padded shoulder.
With the obesity epidemic now adding extra insulation to the shoulder, “our needles are going to have to be longer,” Poland said.
And those long needles aren’t as unpleasant as they sound. In fact, Poland said, “they turn out to be less painful and have fewer side effects.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends longer needles in obese patients, but it is unclear how many doctors follow these guidelines, or even know about them.
Women are more affected by needle length than men, because their fat distribution is different. But even obese women shouldn’t be overly concerned until more research has been done, Middleman cautioned.
“Should you go back and get all your immunizations repeated?” she said, “No, I don’t think so.”
January 13, 2010
By Lucy Johnston
Up to 200 doctors, nurses, firefighters, prison officers, police officers, forensic scientists and binmen say they have developed serious physical and mental health problems after injections essential for their work over the past 10 years. All have given up their jobs and some are now 60 per cent disabled.
Last night it emerged they are to miss out on payouts, prompting furore among campaigners. More than 150 MPs have lent their support to demands for a better deal for the victims.
Olivia Price, of the Vaccine Victim Support Group, said: “These people have given their lives in the service of looking after others and this is how they’re repaid. They’ve lost their careers and are a burden to their families. It is very degrading.”
Frontline health workers, social workers, prison officers and binmen have to be vaccinated against hepatitis B as a condition of their employment.
This is to protect them from contracting potentially fatal conditions from infected blood through needle injuries or physical assaults.
Although they are not legally forced to have the vaccinations, without them they are not allowed to work.
Experts believe the injections caused the health problems, which include chronic fatigue, muscle pain, weakness and cognitive problems, because illnesses developed soon after vaccination. In one case Steve Robinson, a previously fit 43-year-old father of three, was vaccinated six years ago against hepatitis A, B and polio, tetanus and diphtheria as part of his work as a forensic specialist.
Two days later he became ill and developed muscle weakness and chronic fatigue. Mr Robinson, from Morpeth, Northumberland, is now 60 per cent disabled, which an industrial injuries tribunal put down to the vaccinations.
October 29, 2009
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Matthew Millington, 31, was an Iraq war veteran who served in the British army. Suffering from an unspecified “serious long condition”, doctors told him he would be dead in two years unless he underwent a lung transplant. With tens of thousands of people world-wide awaiting organ transplants, the young man was one of the “lucky” patients who soon received his lungs from a donor. The problem was he was given lungs riddled with a fast growing cancer — and Millington died less than 10 months after his operation.
This is just a horrible, rare, mistake right? Not necessarily, according to a warning just issued by the UK health service. It specifically lists other examples of diseased and damaged organs being inappropriatedly donated for transplantion — in addition to cancer, these include “fatty” organs, which can be caused by a donor’s obesity or alcoholism and result in cirrhosis in a transplant patient, and organs containing cuts and other damage resulting from the organ retrieval process. Most horrific was a report of a donor patient found to be infected with vCJD, the human form of mad cow disease, as well as hepatitis B. In addition, the report notes problems with patient identification errors and incorrectly matched tissue types.
The British report does not include any information about diseased transplanted organs in the U.S. or other countries. However, it does point out that the quality of transplant organs isn’t always the best, in large part because there is a huge, critical need for transplanted organs. And this organ shortage has hit the U.S., too. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, around 17,000 Americans have received organ transplants this year but another 104,335 are waiting for organs.
In the UK, according to the British newspaper The Telegraph information has emerged revealing that donated organs are being accepted from drug addicts because of the critical organ shortage in that country. In fact, an investigative report in that publication found a reluctance by patients and transplant surgeons alike to reject any organs offered unless there are extremely compelling reasons.
A spokesman for Papworth Hospital, Huntingdon, where Matthew Millington received his deadly transplant, told The Telegraph: “Using lungs from donors who have smoked in the past is not unusual. During 2008/09 there were 146 lung transplants carried out in the UK. During the same period 84 people died on the waiting list. If we had a policy that said we did not use the lungs of those who had smoked, then the number of lung transplants carried out would have been significantly lower.”
Because of the critical shortage of organs for transplants and the fact more people are needing transplants every year, there is a push world-wide to encourage organ donation. Unfortunately, the same amount of resources and energy doesn’t seem to be directed into preventing the need for transplants in the first place. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lists the major reasons for organ failure as being conditions that are almost always preventable or treatable with healthy diets, exercise and other natural measures: obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and lifestyle choices ( including drug and alcohol abuse).