February 6, 2012
“The CDC is out of control. One has to wonder how much money they are making by recommending Gardasil.” –KTRN
Every male between the ages of 11 and 21 should get a Gardasil vaccine for cervical cancer, and those between the ages of 13 and 21 should also get “catch-up” shots later down the road. This is only the opinion of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), of course, which recently announced its final recommendations for the controversial vaccine.
CBS News reports that, as a followup to its earlier, but incomplete, recommendation back in the fall that boys be given HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines in addition to girls, the CDC has now formalized its position in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, as well as in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The agency is basically now recommending that all young men and women get the Gardasil vaccine.
The CDC announcement comes just days after Canadian health officials made a similar announcement recommending that all boys between the ages of nine and 26 in that country be jabbed with Gardasil. Together, the two announcements could potentially double profits for the vaccine, that is if enough members of the public are foolish enough to actually comply with these new recommendations.
ACIP heavily influenced by Big Pharma
Many of ACIP’s members are nominated directly by the drug industry, and often have significant financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. So it is really no surprise that ACIP has made such egregious recommendations without considering the fact that Gardasil has been shown to be medically useless for its stated purpose, and a significant threat to health in many cases.
January 18, 2012
By Sayer Ji
The Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, holds up India as a prime example of its success at eradicating polio, stating on its website (Jan. 11 2012) that “India has made unprecedented progress against polio in the last two years and on 13 January, 2012, India will reach a major milestone — a 12-month period without any case of polio being recorded.”
This report, however, is highly misleading, as an estimated 100-180 Indian children are diagnosed with vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year. In fact, the clinical presentation of the disease, including paralysis, caused by VAPP is indistinguishable from that caused by wild polioviruses, making the PGEI’s pronouncements all the more suspect.1
According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative’s own statistics2 there were 42 cases of wild-type polio (WPV) reported in India in 2010, indicating that vaccine-induced cases of polio paralysis (100-180 annually) outnumber wild-type cases by a factor of 3-4. Even if we put aside the important question of whether or not the PGEI is accurately differentiating between wild and vaccine-associated polio cases in their statistics, we still must ask ourselves: should not the real-world effects of immunization, both good and bad, be included in PGEI’s measurement of success? For the dozens of Indian children who develop vaccine-induced paralysis every year, the PGEI’s recent declaration of India as nearing “polio free” status, is not only disingenuous, but could be considered an attempt to minimize their obvious liability in having transformed polio from a natural disease vector into a man-made (iatrogenic) one.
August 2nd, 2011
By: Ethan A Huff
Influenza vaccination rates are on the decline as Americans increasingly learn not only that flu shots contain harmful additives like Thimerosal (mercury), but also that they do not even work as claimed (one of the “side effects” of getting a flu shot, after all, is the flu itself).
So in order to convince the public into believing that flu vaccines are useful and necessary, experts from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) are now touting the advent of a “universal” flu vaccine currently in the works that will supposedly protect against all types of flu.
According to USA Today, scientists are currently working on a universal flu vaccine that targets certain unchanging characteristics of flu viruses that are common among many strains. Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the NIH, says that the viral coatings of every flu strain contain some of the same, universal characteristics. So it is theoretically possible, he says, to design a vaccine that targets these universal characteristics, and thus target virtually all flu strains.
“There are parts of the viral coat that don’t change,” said Collins concerning the vaccine concept. “If you designed a vaccine to go after the constant part of the virus, you’d be protected against all strains.”
But is creating such a vaccine actually possible, or is the NIH announcement just a pipe dream based on wishful thinking? Or perhaps the idea of a universal flu vaccine is just a ploy to convince people that vaccine science is legitimate, and that vaccines actually work?
These are some of the glaring questions that stand out in this matter since, as many of us now know, the vaccine industry has no intention of actually “curing” the flu, and thus killing its flu vaccine cash cow.
Universal flu vaccine an attempt to convince public that vaccines are legitimate
Let’s face it. More and more Americans are growing reluctant to take vaccines just because their doctors and various public health agencies are telling them they should. Last fall, a Consumer Reports study revealed that flu vaccination rates are on the decline, with only about 37 percent of respondents to a survey indicating that they planned to get vaccinated that year.
Nearly half indicated that negative side effects were the primary reason why they planned to skip the shot, while roughly the same percentage expressed concern about the safety of flu shots in general. Many also claimed that flu shorts are probably not even necessary in the first place.
And every year, an increasing number of people are expressing such sentiments, as the number of willing volunteers for the flu shot continues to decline.
Questioning the legitimacy of the flu shot is important. After all, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which many look to as the “be all, end all” source of health information, has basically admitted that flu vaccines are useless.
This is why the agency says individuals need to be re-vaccinated every year. But even a cursory knowledge of how antibodies work in the human body proves that vaccines do not work to boost immunity in the way the CDC alleges, otherwise there would be no need to re-vaccinate.
Then, there is the inconvenient truth that flu vaccines are ineffective more than 99 percent of the time anyway. In other words, for every 100 people that get a flu shot, only one of them will derive any perceived benefit from it — and that one percent is a generous estimate!
The natural result of all these facts, of course, is an overall decline in the number of people willing to get jabbed every single year. And authorities are taking notice of this, which appears to be why they are now attempting to quell the growing wave of dissent towards vaccinations with promises of a scientific breakthrough.
The flu shot is not the answer, nutrition and lifestyle is
The truth, though, is that no vaccine is truly effective at preventing the flu, including any supposed “universal” flu vaccine. Real immunity against influenza is not built by the injection of viral fragments and toxins like formaldehyde and mercury — it is built by being naturally exposed to viruses while maintaining optimal immunity through good health and lifestyle.
Maintaining high levels of vitamin D through natural sunlight exposure and consumption of vitamin D3 is one very effective way in which you can strengthen your immune system and be ready to fight off influenza naturally.
Getting good rest, drinking clean water and consuming immune-boosting superfoods will do wonders for your health, not only in preventing the flu, but also in preventing a myriad of other health conditions.
March 1st, 2011
By: Mara Gay
Teenagers should be barred from tanning salons to help prevent them from getting skin cancer, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
The country’s largest group of pediatric doctors warned today that spending time in the tanning salon greatly increases the chances of getting melanoma, the most aggressive and deadly type of skin cancer. According to the group, melanoma is the second leading type of cancer among women in their 20s.
The new policy makes the American Academy of Pediatrics the latest medical group to campaign for increased regulation of tanning salons. In 2009, the World Health Organization classified tanning as a carcinogen and has also lobbied to bar teens from the popular practice. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology support a ban as well.
Dr. Sophie Balk of Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, the lead author of the new statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the group is singling out teens because tanning has become trendy among teenage girls. According to research cited by Balk, nearly one out of four white women ages 13 to 19 has visited a tanning salon at least once.
“I would try and encourage people to love the skin they’re in,” Balk told AOL News in a phone interview today. She said the Academy is pushing for legislation that would bar teenagers under the age of 18 from using the tanning salons.
But the Indoor Tanning Association, which represents the tanning salon industry, says parents bear the ultimate responsibility for their children’s health. John Overstreet, the association’s executive director, noted that most states already require parental permission in tanning salons and said there is no need for increased regulation.
“I think parents can best determine whether or not their teenager should get a suntan,” he told AOL News by phone today.
He said teens account for about 10 percent of the industry’s clients. A ban, he said, “would definitely push some of these businesses over the edge.”
Overstreet said some studies suggest that tanning in moderation can actually be healthy, by boosting vitamin D levels in the body.
According to the Academy of Pediatrics, however, recommending that teens seek out tanning to achieve healthy levels of vitamin D, which is vital to bone health, is irresponsible. Instead, the authors said, teens should consider taking supplements. “Why should you expose yourself to a carcinogen if you can go outside or take a supplement?” Balk said.
Each year, about 8,500 Americans die from melanoma, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
January 12th, 2011
By: Maggie Fox
Nearly 25 million Americans have asthma, or just over 8 percent of the population, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Wednesday.
Here are some facts about asthma in the United States from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics:
* In 2009, 17.5 million U.S. adults and 7.1 million children had diagnosed asthma.
* Just over 4 percent of the population had at least one asthma attack in the past year, or 12.8 million people.
* Asthma killed 3,447 people in 2007 and 3,395 people in 2008.
* Asthma accounted for 10.5 million lost school days and 14.2 million lost work days in 2008.
* People made 1.75 million visits to emergency rooms because of asthma in 2007, 14 million visits to private doctor offices, and 1.4 million hospital outpatient department visits.
* Females, children, non-Hispanic blacks, Puerto Ricans, people living below the poverty level, and people in the Northeast and Midwest regions are more likely to have asthma.
December 8th, 2010
By: Ethan A. Huff
Recent data presented to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Children’s Vaccines has revealed some shocking information about the effects of the H1N1 / swine flu vaccine on pregnant women. According to the report, the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit — but the CDC denies the truth and continues to insist nobody has been harmed.
According to the CDC, nearly 50 percent of all pregnant women were vaccinated with the H1N1 vaccine during the 2009 / 2010 influenza season. Those whose physicians instructed them to get a seasonal flu shot were three times more likely to get it, while those instructed specifically to get the H1N1 shot were ten times more likely to get it. And the numbers clearly show that along with the rise in vaccinations due to the H1N1 scare came the sharp increase in miscarriages, including a slew of actual reported adverse events.
But the CDC does not seem to care about the facts, as numerous reports indicate the agency has failed to report any of this vital information to vaccine suppliers. In fact, when presented with the data for the third time, Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Vaccine Risk and Assessment Working Group, actually had the audacity to claim that there were no vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women caused by the vaccine.
“This baseless and fallacious assessment by the CDC assessment group has given the green light to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to continue their recommendation to give the 2010/11 flu shot to all people, including pregnant women,” explained Eileen Dannemann, director of the National Coalition of Organized Women, presenter of the information.
“This upcoming 2010/11 flu vaccine contains the same elements that are implicated in the killing of these fetuses, the H1N1 viral component and the neurotoxin mercury (Thimerosal). Additionally, it contains two other viral strains — a three-in-one shot for all people.”
Overall, the number of vaccine-related “fetal demise” reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic. Meanwhile, the CDC continues to lie to the public about the vaccine, urging everyone, including pregnant women, to get it.
November 1, 2010
By: Ethan A. Huff
Rates of high blood pressure have remained fairly steady over the past ten years in every category except one: young adults between the ages of 18 and 39. According to a new report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), increasing numbers of young adults are developing high blood pressure, and more young people than ever are now taking blood pressure medication for the condition.
“[I] got upset when I first found out because I automatically associated it with people who are overweight or old,” explained Kristen Pessalano, a 23-year-old woman with high blood pressure, in an ABC News article. “I would have never associated high blood pressure with someone my age, especially when I appeared to be totally healthy.”
And there are likely millions of other young adults like Kristen who think they are safe just because of their age, without taking into account their dietary and lifestyle habits. The modern American diet is loaded with high levels of bad fat, processed sodium, highly-refined sweeteners, and artificial chemical additives, all of which contribute to high blood pressure and heart disease.
“I’m not surprised that more and more young people are being treated for high blood pressure since the incidence of obesity, a contributing cause for high blood pressure, is increasing in this age group,” Dr. Randal Thomas, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., is quoted as saying by ABC News.
According to the American Heart Association, roughly 30 percent of all adults suffer from elevated blood pressure levels, which will likely develop into full-blown high blood pressure and other forms of heart disease if not addressed nutritionally.
August 2nd 2010
Two studies published in the journal Pediatrics highlight that although vitamin D deficiency is widespread among infants in the United States, most pediatricians remain unaware of the problem.
The first study, conducted by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that only 5 to 13 percent of breast-fed infants were receiving at least 400 IU of vitamin D per day, the amount currently recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Human breast milk is actually relatively low in vitamin D, probably because during our evolutionary history most babies got plenty of exposure to sunlight.
Although formula-fed infants were not included in the study, researchers noted that an infant would need to drink 32 ounces of fortified formula per day to get 400 IU of vitamin D, an amount that is probably unrealistic for young children.
The body produces vitamin D when exposed to UV-B radiation from sunlight. The nutrient is essential for the development and maintenance of bones and the immune system, and deficiency can increase the risk of soft or brittle bones, infection, cancer, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants get no direct sunlight at all for the first six months of life, and that they wear protective clothing and sunscreen beyond that age – effectively ruling out the healthiest, most reliable source of this essential nutrient.
Making matters worse, according to the CDC study, only 1 to 13 percent of children under the age of one take a vitamin D supplement.
A second study in the same issue found a lower (but still high) rate of vitamin D deficiency, with 58 percent of newborns and 36 percent of mothers testing deficient. A full 30 percent of mothers who took prenatal vitamins were still deficient in vitamin D.
Although increased sun exposure improved mothers’ vitamin D levels, it did not raise those of their infants. This further suggests that breast milk is a poor source of vitamin D and that infants need to be exposed to sunlight directly in order to synthesize the vitamin for themselves.
July, 19 2010
By: Ethan A. Huff
A group of retired military officials recently expressed concern that school lunches are a threat to national security. According to them, the food being fed to children at public schools is making them “too fat to fight”, leaving a potentially considerable gap in military recruitment.
“Mission: Readiness”, the non-profit group of over 130 retired military leaders that is calling for healthier federal food for children, is expressing support for new legislation that would outlaw junk food from schools so that more children will qualify to enroll in the military.
The group believes that “national security” is America’s top priority, so it is doing everything it can to increase military enrollment, even if that means supporting and passing federal food restriction legislation.
According to the group’s report, roughly 75 percent of all young Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 do not qualify for military service because they do not finish high school, have criminal records, or they are not physically fit enough to serve.
According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics, the number of states with 40 percent or more of the young adult population being overweight or obese has jumped from one to 39 in just ten years. Currently in three states, more than half of the young adult population is overweight.
Mission: Readiness is calling on Congress to amend the Child Nutrition Act to include three new policies:
- Permit the USDA to adopt updated nutrition standards that would eliminate high-calorie, low-nutrition junk foods from public schools.
- Provide additional funding to improve the quality of food at public schools and increase the number of children who have access to it.
- Administer school-based programs to teach parents how to teach their children to adopt better eating and lifestyle habits.
Sadly, the motivation for such legislation does not seem to be for the actual benefit of the children themselves, but rather to fuel the endeavors of the military-industrial complex. And while there are some good proposals for switching to healthier food in public schools, threatening proposals to further increase federal control over people also seem to be present in the push.
Supporting healthier food for children is always a good thing, but it’s important to lead the charge as a free and independent people, rather than simply grant increased power and control to federal bureaucrats. Remember, if they have the power to give it, they have the power to take it away.