January 25, 2012
By Ryan Jaslow
Can microwave popcorn mess with childhood vaccinations? The two may seem completely unrelated, but a new study suggests chemicals that are widely used for making popcorn bags and lots of other products may counter the immune system benefits from vaccines in kids.
The chemicals in question are called perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). The compounds are found in household items such as food packaging, stain repellents, and non-stick coating in pots and pans. The compounds don’t break down easily and are often found in the environment and wildlife. Previous studies in mice found that high PFC concentrations could be toxic for a mouse’s bloodstream and immune system.
How about in humans? To find out, Harvard researchers investigated whether high PFC levels would interfere with children’s antibody responses to diphtheria and tetanus vaccines. The researchers chose 656 children who lived in the Faroe Islands (located between Iceland and Scotland) to gauge the impact of PFCs, because previous research suggests people who eat lots of marine foods have higher exposure to PFCs.
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.
October 13th, 2010
By: Ethan A. Huff
Vaccines are implicated in causing all sorts of health damage, from neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimer’s disease to intestinal problems like ulcerative colitis and Chron’s disease — and everything in between. And a vaccine injury case currently before the Supreme Court could be the landmark decision that once again allows those injured by vaccines to sue vaccine manufacturers for damages, a course of action that has been barred since 1986 because of special federal protections enacted to immunize vaccine manufacturers against having to abide by the rule of law.
Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages caused by their vaccines. The Act established an entirely new “legal” system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special “vaccine court” that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted.
The Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, for instance, the “vaccine courts” can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated.
But all that could change, depending on how the Supreme Court handles a case currently before it involving a young lady whose parents say she became permanently injured by a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine called Tri-Immunol that she received when she was a child. The Bruesewitz’s say that Wyeth, the manufacturer of the DTP vaccine, knew about a safer version of the vaccine, but continued to sell the dangerous one anyway. Now their daughter Hannah requires costly, specialized care for the rest of her life.
The case was first rejected in “vaccine court” when just a month before the case was to be heard, the court removed all the reported severe injuries from the list of compensatory items. After then taking the case to civil courts, the Bruesewitz’s were told that the case was automatically invalid because of the federal Vaccine Act. So now the case sits before the Supreme Court where, if determined in the Bruesewitz’s favor, will set a new precedent whereby vaccine manufacturers will no longer be able to avert the rule of law.
The illegitimacy of ‘vaccine court’
Much like the phony Internal Revenue Service (IRS) “tax courts”, “vaccine courts” have no justifiable basis anywhere in the law. They serve as nothing more than a way for drug companies to avoid having to bear responsibility for the harm caused by their vaccines. Any other person or company must go through the standard legal process, but the federal Vaccine Act literally grants special legal immunity to vaccine makers that nobody else receives.
There are a few cases where “vaccine courts” have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but such cases are likely just a ploy to trick the public into thinking such courts are legitimate and lawful. Most cases are rejected by “vaccine court” and, even though plaintiffs can then take the case to civil courts, the process has been made very difficult because of the federal Vaccine Act.
Even though $154 million was paid in 2010 for “vaccine court” cases, that amount is a mere fraction of the overall profits vaccine companies rake in every year. And truth be told, vaccine manufacturers do not even pay such settlements.
Vaccine companies don’t even injury settlements, the public does!
Of the few cases that are actually ruled in favor of injured plaintiffs in “vaccine courts”, not a single one of them is paid for by the vaccine manufacturers that cause the harm. A special excise tax is collected when vaccines are sold to the public, which is later used as settlement compensation. This means that insurance companies and ultimately the public end up paying for vaccine settlements while the vaccine manufacturers get off scot-free!
So not only are vaccine manufacturers essentially exempted from the real legal system, but the mock legal system set up in their favor actually guards them from having to pay a single cent for damages caused by their products.
It’s time to end the vaccine racket
Proponents of special legal protection for vaccine manufacturers say that it is necessary to protect them from “undue” litigation. But that is precisely what the real court system is for in the first place: to evaluate cases and determine whether or not a defendant is liable for damages. Setting up special “vaccine courts” that bypass due process is tyranny in the name of medicine, and it is simply unacceptable.
Because of “vaccine courts”, the idea that vaccines are in any way related to causing autism has been dismissed all across the board, even though numerous studies and research data continue to suggest a connection. And in the case of Hannah Bruesewitz, the system permits gross negligence on the part of vaccine manufacturers to go unpunished, unless of course the Supreme Court decides to do the right thing.
October 13, 2010
The Supreme Court seemed divided Tuesday on whether allowing lawsuits by people allegedly harmed by the side effects of childhood vaccines would hurt the general public by exposing drug companies to so much risk that they would leave the business.
The justices agreed that Congress has gone to great lengths to shield vaccine-makers from suits by the few who have had an adverse reaction to a vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The issue is whether those hurt by vaccines have a right to sue manufacturers if they can prove that a safer version was available.
“We are talking about trying to eliminate some of the most horrifying and horrible incidents of injury to vaccines that we compel children to take,” said David C. Frederick, a Washington lawyer.
He represents the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, 18, who began to have seizures as an infant after receiving the third of five scheduled doses of Wyeth’s Tri-Immunol diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine. The company, now owned by Pfizer, has taken the drug off the market.
But Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, whose daughter will require lifelong care, have been unable to scale the obstacles that Congress put in the way of those trying to sue vaccine-makers.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 said all such claims must first go to a special tribunal commonly called the “Vaccine Court.” The tribunal ruled against the Bruesewitzes, saying they had not proved that the vaccine caused Hannah’s problems.
The couple then sued under Pennsylvania tort law. But federal courts said the suit could not proceed, because federal law prohibits claims against “design defects” in vaccines.
The question before the Supreme Court is whether that is correct, or whether Congress left some remedy for those who say injury or death could have been avoided if the manufacturer had offered a safer vaccine.
Kathleen Sullivan, representing Wyeth, told the court that Congress’s intent was clear and that it acted “against the backdrop of a wave of tort litigation that threatened to drive manufacturers out of the business of providing the vaccine.”
She said the ruling will be important for the future as well. “There are 5,000 claimants in vaccine court now who claim there is a relationship between the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and autism,” Sullivan said.
“They have lost all six test cases, and when the individual cases are resolved, that is 5,000 potential claimants in state court.”
March 18, 2010
By: E. Huff
There is a double standard in Western medicine when it comes to assessing the efficacy of vitamins compared to pharmaceutical drugs. While medical science recognizes that dose levels affect how well a drug works, the same principle is not considered valid for vitamins. As a result, 75 years of physician reports and clinical studies about the success of high-dose vitamin C therapy has been largely ignored.
When it comes to the effectiveness of simple vitamins and minerals at curing diseases, many ill-informed doctors still scoff at the idea, citing studies that allegedly verify that vitamins are ineffective. Most studies conducted on vitamins, however, either use really low doses or synthetic forms which negate any positive results.
High-dose vitamin C therapy, the kind that uses upwards of 1,000 times the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) or Daily Reference Intake (DRI), has been shown in legitimate clinical studies to cure all sorts of illnesses.
Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi first isolated ascorbic acid (vitamin C) back in the late 1800s and, almost immediately, medical professionals realized that high doses of the vitamin were effective in treating a host of diseases.
In 1935, Dr. Jungeblut, then professor of bacteriology at Columbia University, published vitamin C’s effectiveness at preventing and treating polio and inactivating the diphtheria toxin. He later found that the vitamin C ascorbates inactivated tetanus as well.
In the 1940s, Dr. Frederick Klenner, a specialist in chest diseases, successfully cured 41 cases of viral pneumonia using high doses of vitamin C. He published his extensive findings in the February 1948 issue of the Journal of Southern Medicine and Surgery. Dr. Klenner ended up publishing 28 articles in various scientific publications.
Other findings included vitamin C as a cure for kidney stones, cardiovascular disease, hepatitis, AIDS, and even cancer. By administering tens of thousands of milligrams of vitamin C a day, the ability of these diseases to run their course is disabled.
Though the body can only assimilate a certain amount of vitamin C at a time when taken orally, high-dose, time-released oral vitamin C supplementation is a great way of maintaining health and preventing disease. When it comes to combatting serious diseases, intravenous vitamin C therapy is the most effective method because the body is able to more effectively assimilate very high doses of the vitamin this way.
Though generally rejected by most mainstream oncologists, intravenous vitamin C treatments for cancer have proven to be highly effective at eradicating the disease.