|
Vacines
Jul 25, 2012 0:06:17 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Jul 25, 2012 0:06:17 GMT -5
Whooping Cough Cases Reaching Record Highs: CDCVaccine appears to wear off, so booster shots are needed, experts say THURSDAY, July 19, 2012, HealthDay News, News for Healthier Living, by: Steven Reinberg, consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=666879"The number of whooping cough cases in the United States may hit a record high this year, federal health officials reported Thursday. Many states are seeing higher than expected cases of pertussis [whooping cough]," Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a noon news conference. Pertussis has already caused the death of nine infants this year, she added. As of Thursday, almost 18,000 cases had been reported, Schuchat said. "That's more than twice as many as we saw last year at this time. In fact, that's more than we've seen in the past five years. We may be on track for a record-high pertussis rate this year." Washington state illustrates the troubling trend. Between January and June, more than 2,500 cases of whooping cough were reported there, a 1,300 percent increase from 2011, health officials said. Most of these cases were seen among teens aged 13 to 14, despite the fact that most of these adolescents were vaccinated as young children, according to the CDC. ...
|
|
|
Vacines
Aug 29, 2012 22:20:39 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2012 22:20:39 GMT -5
Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine MythsDr. Larry Palevsky, November 14 2009 articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspxDr. Larry Palevsky is a board-certified pediatrician trained at the New York School of Medicine, and one of the leading physicians in the country who, from my view, is actually able to compellingly and convincingly provide sound, rational, scientific justification as to why you need to seriously reconsider the wisdom of choosing vaccines as an option to prevent against most diseases. The Difference Between What You Learn in School and What Works Dr. Palevsky says: “When I went through medical school, I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely effective, and I had no reason to believe otherwise. All the information that I was taught was pretty standard in all the medical schools and the teachings and scientific literature throughout the country. I had no reason to disbelieve it. Over the years, I kept practicing medicine and using vaccines and thinking that my approach to vaccines was completely onboard with everything else I was taught. But more and more, I kept seeing that my experience of the world, my experience in using and reading about vaccines, and hearing what parents were saying about vaccines were very different from what I was taught in medical school and my residency training. … and it became clearer to me as I read the research, listened to more and more parents, and found other practitioners who also shared the same concern that vaccines had not been completely proven safe or even completely effective, based on the literature that we have today. … It didn’t appear that the scientific studies that we were given were actually appropriately designed to prove and test the safety and efficacy. It also came to my attention that there were ingredients in there that were not properly tested, that the comparison groups were not appropriately set up, and that conclusions made about vaccine safety and efficacy just did not fit the scientific standards that I was trained to uphold in my medical school training.” Were Vaccines Really the ‘Savior’ Against Past Diseases? Conventional medicine teaches that the polio and the smallpox epidemics went away because of the vaccines, and that most of the diseases that we faced in the 20th century in the United States were brought down because of the power, strength and the implementation of the vaccine policy. Meanwhile, there are a significant number of studies in the medical literature that actually show there were many other reasons that these infectious diseases went away. For example, one article published in 2000 in the Pediatrics Journal describes how, before the World War II, the majority of the infectious diseases the US was faced with – such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, measles, influenza, parapertussis, tuberculosis and scarlet fever – were all reduced before World War II and BEFORE there were antibiotics and vaccinations available to treat or to vaccinate against these diseases. The reasons for the reductions in incidence rates and mortality of these diseases were predominantly due to the implementation of public health strategies, including: · Clean water · Better living conditions · Improved sanitation · Improved nutrition There are many such examples. Have the Proper Safety Studies Actually Been Done? So, why is there such a vast difference among intelligent, scientifically oriented, committed and objective scientists and physicians about the safety and efficacy of vaccines? Dr. Palevsky says: “I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals. But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group. Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied? Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it’s injected into your body? Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? Is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease? More and more studies are coming out to show that: · The proper studies haven’t been done · Antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected · There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection · There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system · There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain, and · There are foreign DNA particles that get into your body For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied.” What we currently have is a one-sided policy; a one way of thinking that is impossible to really allow for the appropriate debate. Science is truly a field where you ask a question, you find an answer, and you don’t have the biases or the influences that change the way an answer or a conclusion is made. We are not seeing that with vaccines. On a personal note, I recently received the Visionary Award at the NVIC conference in Washington DC. In my acceptance speech, I basically broke down in tears when I told the audience how I felt when I came to realize that by routinely vaccinating thousands of innocent children at my clinic, I’d probably caused damage to many of them. It was a very difficult thing for me to accept intellectually and emotionally. How a Conventionally Trained Physician Accepts that Vaccines Can Cause Harm Dr. Palevsky began his investigation in earnest about 10 years ago because parents came to him with complaints, worries, and concerns that something had happened to their children after they were vaccinated. Interestingly, this is the same way that I became enlightened about vaccines -- through the concern of a very patient mother whose family I was taking care of. She gently persisted in showing me the evidence and thank God I listened! Tragically, most doctors are far too arrogant to even consider that there is any possibility that there might be something wrong with vaccines. Most pediatricians are indoctrinated to simply tell parents that anything related to a bad outcome from a vaccine is a mere coincidence. But how come there are so many of these “coincidences”? Says Palevsky, “It is heartbreaking, because I see many of these kids who were developmentally normal, who were doing well, who were speaking, then whose voices and eye contacts were lost, who went into seizures, who developed asthma and allergies, and they had nowhere to go because they’re doctors told them that they don’t know what they’re talking about. These kids are real. The literature is showing that there are changes in the immune system of children who are vaccinated, especially if we vaccinate them before one year of age or even at one day of age. The literature is there. It’s good scientific literature, and it shows that more and more of these kids who are suffering from chronic illness are suffering from impairments of their immune system. Whether vaccines are causative or contributory, the literature is showing that there is a role that vaccines are playing in creating the groundwork for these children’s immune systems to start to show signs of impairment and destruction. … When I look at the studies that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC put out, saying that there’s no correlation between vaccination and autism or vaccinations and asthma, I have to say that the studies just don’t hold up to the scientific standards. You can’t have 25 children in a study and then report that this proves that no children who get autism have any correlation to being injured by vaccines. This is what the media does: they take these conclusions, put it right out in front of the newspapers and say, “Vaccines don’t cause autism.” When you really look at the studies – and there’s not a proper control group and there’s only 25 people – you can’t make a grand, generalized statement about a general population because you’ve studied 25 children.” Attachments:
|
|
|
Vacines
Aug 29, 2012 22:23:06 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2012 22:23:06 GMT -5
Confirmed: India’s Polio Eradication Campaign in 2011 Caused 47,500 Cases of Vaccine-Induced Polio ParalysisAugust 28 2012, Dr Mercola articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/28/polio-eradication-campaign.aspx If you listen to mainstream media news, you'll be told that polio has now been eradicated in India – an accomplishment the Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are attributing to the intense polio vaccination campaign. The Indian government reportedly had 2.3 million vaccine administrators visit over 200 million households, with oral polio vaccinations given to nearly 170 million children 5 years of age and younger;1 health officials are now doubling their efforts to conquer polio in Pakistan as well. What you're NOT learning from the mainstream media, however, is that there's a growing public movement fighting the profound misinformation about the vaccine, mainly because VACCINE-CAUSED polio is maiming and even killing a growing number of children every day, far outstripping the damage done by the wild-type polio that has been supplanted by the manmade form found within the vaccine. The Polio Vaccine is Causing a Deadly Polio-Like Disease in Children A paper published earlier this year in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics should have made headlines around the globe, as it estimated there were 47,500 cases of a polio-like condition linked to the oral polio vaccine in 2011 alone. Researchers reported:2 "…while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere [First, do no harm] was violated." Another way the public is being misled about India's claims to be polio-free is that this is only referring to "wild" polio cases – not vaccine-caused polio, which is occurring on a massive scale every year. The problem is that while the oral vaccine has reined in wild polio, the wild virus is being replaced by vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV), which causes the same symptoms of acute flaccid paralysis associated with classically-defined polio. (Health officials don't call it polio because it isn't "wild.") Environmental surveillance for VDPV is now being conducted in a number of countries, including Australia, Egypt, Haiti, and Indonesia. In essence, this much-heralded vaccine strategy has replaced one infectious disease with another, more virulent strain... What kind of success is that, really? Third World Countries Using Dangerous and Dated Vaccines While most affluent nations now rely on inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), many third-world countries still use an oral polio vaccine as it's far less expensive and simpler to administer. However, the oral polio vaccine is made from a live polio virus, which carries a risk of causing polio in populations who may not normally even be at risk of infection. The virus in the vaccine can also mutate into a deadlier version, igniting new outbreaks. Genetic analysis has proven that such mutated viruses have caused at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria. Polio outbreaks in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 were also traced to an "attenuated" strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to even greater virulence than wild polio. According to a 2010 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, outbreaks of vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) have been occurring at a rate of once or twice per year, since the year 2000.3 And it's estimated that up to 180 Indian children develop vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year.4 The live polio virus from the vaccine can remain in your throat for one to two weeks, and in your feces for up to two months.5 So not only is the vaccine recipient at risk, but he or she can potentially spread the disease as long as the virus remains in feces – which, incidentally, turns on its head the age-old pro-vaccination dogma that the non-vaccinated represent an infection risk to the vaccinated. Pakistan: Over 3,000 Children Given Expired Polio Drops Over 3,000 children under 5 years old, and some only a few months old, were given expired polio drops in Pakistan earlier this year, resulting in serious illnesses that sent the children to the hospital. While the original story quoting the sick children's parents was pulled from the Internet, a "cache" of the story was still available and follow-up stories reported that some Pakistani health officials had been suspended for providing the expired drops, which were distributed during a spring 2012 vaccination campaign. Side effects reported due to the expired vaccines ranged from high fever to chest infections, and it's said that government officials originally tried to cover up the mishap… Media is Not Giving the Whole Picture on the Oral Polio Vaccine Controversy
|
|
|
Vacines
Aug 29, 2012 22:25:34 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2012 22:25:34 GMT -5
Vaccines Have Serious Side Effects - The Institute of Medicine Says So!
September 27 2011 articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/27/vaccines-are-dangerous-says-the-government.aspx By Dr. Mercola As I have long stated, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) now admits: "Vaccines are not free from side effects, or "adverse effects"" This admission came after a review of more than 1,000 vaccine studies, which was intended to assess the scientific evidence in the medical literature about specific adverse events associated with eight vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella (MMR); varicella (chickenpox); influenza; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; HPV; diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (DtaP); and meningococcal. The adverse events selected for IOM review were ones for which people had submitted vaccine injury claims to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). A convincing causal relationship was found for 14 adverse events and certain vaccines. 14 Dangerous Side Effects Linked to Vaccination, IOM Report Says In the first comprehensive safety review in nearly two decades, the Institute of Medicine found convincing scientic evidence for a causal relationship between certain vaccines and serious adverse health outcomes. This includes: Chickenpox Vaccine · Vaccine strain varicella zoster infection after vaccination without other organ involvement; · Vaccine strain varicella zoster infection and subsequent infection resulting in pneumonia, encephalitis, meningitis or hepatitis in individuals with demonstrated immunodeficiences; Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccine · Measles inclusion body encephalitis · Febrile seizures, a type of seizure that occurs in infants and young children in association with fever · Short-term joint pain (arthralgia) in children and women Other findings revealed: · Six types of vaccines -- MMR, varicella zoster (chickenpox), influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcal, and tetanus-containing vaccines -- are linked to anaphylaxis (severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction). The HPV vaccine was also linked to anaphylaxis in yeast-sensitive individuals. · Injection of any vaccine in general can lead to sudden fainting (syncope) and symptoms of deltoid bursitis, or shoulder inflammation · Two Canadian flu vaccines were linked to oculo-respiratory syndrome characterized by conjunctivitis, facial swelling, and mild respiratory symptoms. · Scientific research suggests that many people, who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines, have individual susceptibility that can make them at higher risk for experiencing acute and chronic health problems after vaccination due to biodiversity (genetic variations) within populations; age at the time of vaccination; immune deficiencies; coinciding infections/illnesses; and other environmental exposures, (such as toxins, traumas). Too Little Evidence Available to Effectively Evaluate Most Side Effects Despite conclusive findings by IOM linking certain vaccines to brain inflammation, febrile seizures and potentially life-threatening infections like pneumonia and meningitis in susceptible individuals, most of the media headlines about the IOM’s 600-page report are spinning the reports conclusions and stating that “few adverse effects are caused by the vaccines reviewed in this report.” The truth is that the IOM Committee came to this startling conclusion, which they admitted openly and that is: "For the vast majority, (135 vaccine-adverse event pairs), the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship." In other words, for the majority of side effects and health conditions that have occurred in conjunction with vaccinations, they simply have no idea whether the vaccine caused the problem or not. In fact, the IOM Committee warned that there should be no misinterpretation of the fact that they DO NOT KNOW whether or not more than 100 very serious reported health problems linked to the eight vaccines they studied are caused by those vaccines. In most cases, the Committee was unable to come to a conclusion because there are no or very few scientific studies investigating the reported vaccine-related adverse event or the studies, which are published in the medical literature, are methodologically flawed in some way. And isn’t this precisely the problem? The current vaccination schedule is a one-size-fits-all approach that has never been proven safe! As Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), stated: "The truth is, nobody knows how many vaccine victims there are in America, how many of the 1 in 6 learning disabled children; or the 1 in 9 with asthma; or the 1 in 100 who develop autism; or the 1 in 450 who become diabetic, can trace their chronic inflammation, disease and disability back to vaccine reactions that have been dismissed by public health officials and doctors for the past century as just "a coincidence."" Or, if they aren’t dismissed as coincidence, they are dismissed on the grounds that there’s not enough data available to establish a “causal relationship.” This is exactly the reason why unbiased vaccine safety studies are so desperately and urgently need. NVIC recently issued a statement regarding IOM's new report, noting this very fact: "The [IOM] Committee was hampered by the same gaps in knowledge regarding vaccine adverse effects that hampered IOM Committees undertaking the same task in 1991 and 1994. For the majority of potential vaccine adverse effects reported to be associated with vaccines, this IOM Committee like those before, came to the conclusion that the biological mechanism and epidemiological evidence published in the medical literature is simply inadequate to accept or reject a causation finding. This is a very important conclusion, because the current state of science holds no answers for parents and doctors, who for many years have reported multiple vaccine injuries to the government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Insufficient scientific evidence to make a call about whether certain vaccines do or do not cause a wide range of serious health conditions, such as encephalitis, encephalopathy, stroke, asthma, autism, SIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, lupus, and blood disorders, is problematical when these vaccines are mandated by law to be used by every child and recommended for many adults. The Committee's clear acknowledgement that there is a lack of adequate scientific understanding about the way that vaccines act in the human body, including how, when, why and for whom they are harmful, is confirmation that more and higher quality vaccine safety science is urgently needed." Why Are So Many Children Receiving Extra Vaccines?Adding insult to injury, a separate review by independent researchers looking at the 1999-2003 National Immunization Survey data found that nearly 10 percent of children aged 19-35 months have received extra vaccinations and the rate was highest for children who received vaccines at more than one facility or from more than one provider. This is the last thing that kids need, considering that just about every year one or more “new” vaccines are added to the already overloaded schedule. As it stands, children are expected to get 48 doses of 14 vaccines by the time they’re just 6 years old – starting with the first vaccine given on the day of birth in the newborn nursery! By age 18, federal public health officials say they should have gotten a total of 69 doses of 16 vaccines. This “prescription” is the same for every U.S. child, even though it’s well known that all children are not the same biologically – as the recent Institute of Medicine report clearly points out - and some children will not be able to survive the currently recommended vaccine schedule without suffering serious harm to their health. And if you take your child to multiple health care providers or facilities, the odds are high that they may be mistakenly given “extra” vaccines on top of the recommended schedule. To avoid this, if you do decide to vaccinate, be sure you keep a detailed record of which vaccinations your child has received, and when – do not rely on your doctor’s office to do that for you. It is also a good idea to have your child’s vaccination history on hand in the event there is a vaccine reaction.
|
|
|
Vacines
Aug 29, 2012 23:06:33 GMT -5
Post by Virginia on Aug 29, 2012 23:06:33 GMT -5
When my children were given their baby shots they would be paralized for 3 days after. We could not move their legs even to change a diaper without them screaming in pain. When I told my doctor he ridiculed me----saying I was crazy and he never heard of such a thing. I was so upset. He said being a new mother made me over anxious.
Britian never had any cases of autism until they started to give the combination shots and now they are catching up to the u.s. with cases.
Flu shots for adults contain squalene which the gov says they have removed). Squalene added at random causes the imune system to become weak and it is advised that the elderly all get flu shots so if you get sick with pneumonia or some other illness you will probably die. ANOTHER WAY TO CULL THE HERD.
|
|
|
Vacines
Aug 30, 2012 12:10:50 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2012 12:10:50 GMT -5
You are absolutely correct! Vaccines have 4 outcomes: 1. To some degree they might offer protection, if you are exposed to exactly the same bug. However, there are so many stains of each type of bug that it is hard to get that specific of a match. For example: E. Coli is a normal intestinal bacteria, but there are over 6000 types of E. Coli. Some types we cannot live without. Some types have nothing to do with people at all. Yet, E. Coli 0157 causes hemorrhagic diarrhea and can kill you if untreated. Therefore vaccines are made against a wider group of biological markers, losing their individual specificity. 2. So, even though you have been vaccinated against (disease X) you can still get (disease X) if you are expose to a different strain. AND – sometimes you get (disease X) from the vaccine. 3. However, this shotgun approach allows your body to make anti-bodies against a wide group of biological markers than just 1 dangerous bug. As a result, anti-bodies are made to other markers that MIMIC your own body. Now you have an auto-immune condition. The medical machine doesn’t mind this outcome because it will bring you back to your doctor for more and more drug therapies. $$$$$$$$$$$ The current review summarizes case reports attributing autoimmune diseases and phenomena to various vaccines and suggests potential mechanisms. It has to be emphasized that the demonstration of a temporal relationship does not necessarily attribute autoimmunity to a vaccine. The subject is complicated by the fact that one vaccine may cause more than one autoimmune phenomenon, and a particular immune process may be caused by more than one vaccine. Furthermore, vaccines differ in their pathogenic influence on the immune system. (Journal Autoimmun, 1996 Dec; 9 (6):699-703, Vaccine-induced autoimmunity,, Cohen AD, Shoefeld Y, department of medicine B & research, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/91155714. Sometimes these auto-immune anti-bodies just kill you. The point I want to make: Many vaccines today contain Thimerosal (which is a Mercury / Aluminum compound – both poisons to your body). But, if you ask the experts they will tell you that the amount of Thimerosal in any given dose is less than necessary to cause you harm. However, both of these metals accumulate in your neural tissue. Your body cannot excrete them so they just accumulate. Also, if each dose has less than necessary to be dangerous, what about our children that are given multiple vaccinations at once? What is the accumulative effect of getting more and more vaccines year after year (FLU Shots come to mind) Culling the heard I also agree with you on this point. How did we learn that the very beneficial antibiotic Tetracycline caused birth defects? How did we learn that Viox caused heart attacks? Opps! Enough people were harmed to be noticed on a large scale. We are often told about how different drugs cannot be taken at the same time – because together they do things not intended. Just imagine all us good little citizens lining up for our yearly dose of (whatever) and OPPS! Within a year millions of people die, or are left injured and infirm. Wait – isn’t that the plot of the movie – The Stand? – Andromeda Strain? – I am legend?
|
|
|
Vacines
Aug 30, 2012 13:11:39 GMT -5
Post by Virginia on Aug 30, 2012 13:11:39 GMT -5
Where is the gov that is supposed to protect us? Every day we hear about bad drugs being recalled. My husband was on one of those (I don't remember the name now) where there was a class action law suit. When I talked to the lawyers they asked me to get out his death certificate and read his cause of death. Because his death certificate had the word 'CRONIC' on it I was not accepted as part of the law suit.
Drug companies do not worry about law suits because they have already made so much money selling the drug --they still make money.
The CEO from one of the large drug companies was on tv. He said they are working on a combination of 15 drugs for cancer that you would have to take all 15 every day. You would still have cancer but it would not kill you.
OK I was on one cancer drug that costs $525.00 a month. Can you immagine trying to buy 15. Even with perscription D plan it only takes 5 months to use up your $2500 allowance and then the rest of the year you are in the donut hole. Who the hell in congress came up with the donut hole idea anyway?
|
|
Stella
Junior Member
Use me O Lord
Posts: 62
|
Vacines
Aug 30, 2012 13:19:56 GMT -5
Post by Stella on Aug 30, 2012 13:19:56 GMT -5
Dave, when Russell first told me about this blog I was excited to discuss Christianity with you. But now I have to ask, ‘What does any of this have to do with loving and worshiping Jesus Christ?'
|
|
|
Vacines
Aug 30, 2012 17:04:54 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2012 17:04:54 GMT -5
Dear Stella, I would love to discuss Christianity with you. Post a question!
What does all the rest of this have to do with loving and worshipping Jesus? – EVERYTHING! ‘Fee Good Christianity’ (as I call it) goes around saying, ‘God is Good,’ Jesus Loves You,’ John 3:16, Romans 8:28, ‘Eternal life in heaven,’ and ‘All things work for the better for those that believe.’
I totally agree 1000% - ABSOLUTELY!
However, that is not all of the Bible story. There are (at least) 2 sides to our spiritual reality. Heaven and Hell. Good and Evil. Christ and the deceiver. Even the Lord’s Prayer says, “… lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from evil ….” Paul makes it sound like a raging war going on for our souls in Ephesians. Paul tells us to put on our Christian Armor complete with shield and sword. Why?
Because the other side – the dark side – the evil – are attacking us daily - causing us to doubt - causing us to become wrapped up in issues and problems that take away our focus on the Lord. Sure some of us go to church on Sunday Mornings, possibly even on Wednesday nights. In a 168 hr week, just how many hours do they spend focused on the Lord? 4-6hrs? Ok, some people are really into their religion. Prayer at meal time, prayer before bedtime, some even do some work for the church. BUT – most of the time they are dealing with the matters of the world – work – money – health – hobbies – vices – and TV.
If the dark powers came out and attack openly, the choice between God and Devil would be obvious. The Devil does not need people to worship him directly. He only needs to side track the population so there are too busy to focus on the Lord. How many men don’t go to church with their wives and children because the GAME is on TV? What happens to Christians when they lose a loved one by trauma. War, a mad man with a gun, a drunk driver – often times, they become angry with God. Ask WHY? WHY ME O LORD?
Or perhaps they have lost their job and the house is getting repossessed? Or they are sick and strung out on medications that have side effects that could possibly kill them. Or they need medication they cannot afford!
What power is at work that has forced the end to school prayer and the 10 Commandments being displayed in a courtroom? What power is it that is driving the global society toward war and pestalance?
Sun Tzu said it best --- KNOW YOUR ENEMY!
|
|
|
Vacines
Sept 6, 2012 21:22:06 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Sept 6, 2012 21:22:06 GMT -5
Mounting Evidence Shows Many Vaccines are Ineffective and Contribute to Rise of Outbreaks Caused by Mutated Viruses
July 30 2012 By Dr. Mercola 0145http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/30/whooping-cough-vaccine.aspx
In the middle of July, NBC News reported:
"The U.S. is on course for a record year for whooping cough, health officials said this week. And while vaccinating kids is clearly the most important defense, health experts say adults may not realize they're supposed to be getting regular shots, too."
The article goes on to hype what are actually predictable pertussis (whooping cough) increases and promote the ineffective pertussis vaccine—basically giving the media their marching orders for this fall's propaganda campaign, which centers on blaming increases in pertussis on parents who file non-medical exemptions for their kids, which is pure nonsense.
Surprise! Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly through Vaccinated Populations
In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years occurred in California. Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in the California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials and national media, targeting people opting out of receiving pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the outbreak.
However, research published in March of this year paints a very different picture than the one spread by the media2.
In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated.
According to the authors3:
"This first detailed analysis of a recent North American pertussis outbreak found widespread disease among fully vaccinated older children. Starting approximately three years after prior vaccine dose, attack rates markedly increased, suggesting inadequate protection or durability from the acellular vaccine."
The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is included as a component in "combination" shots that include tetanus and diphtheria (DPT, DTaP, Tdap) and may also include polio, hepatitis B, and/or Haemophilus Influenza B (Hib). CDC data shows 84 percent of children under the age of three have received at least FOUR DTaP shots—which is the acellular pertussis vaccine that was approved in the United States in 1996—yet, despite this high vaccination rate, whooping cough still keeps circulating among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
So, as clearly evidenced in this study, the vaccine likely provides very little, if any, protection from the disease. In fact, the research suggests those who are fully vaccinated may in fact be more likely to get the disease than unvaccinated populations.
Why Do Pertussis Vaccines Fail Despite Claimed Efficacy?
Interestingly in a recent article published in the journal Pediatrics4, author James D. Cherry, MD, reveals that estimates for pertussis vaccine efficacy have been significantly inflated due to the case definitions adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1991, which required laboratory confirmation and 21 days or more of paroxysmal cough. All less severe cases were excluded. He states:
"I was a member of the WHO committee and disagreed with the primary case definition because it was clear at that time that this definition would eliminate a substantial number of cases and therefore inflate reported efficacy values. Nevertheless, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration accepted this definition, and package inserts of the US-licensed DTaP vaccines reflect this
....For example, Infanrix... and Daptacel... have stated efficacies of 84% and 85% respectively. When less severe cough illness is included, however, the efficacies of these 2 vaccines decrease to 71% and 78% respectively. In addition, even these latter efficacies are likely inflated owing to investigator or parental compliance with the study protocol (observer bias)."
Dr. Cherry lists eight potential reasons for why the efficacy of pertussis vaccines are overestimated:
1. Overexpectation of efficacy because of case definition.
2. Inflated estimates of efficacy because of observer bias.
3. Other Bordetella sp are the cause of similar cough illnesses.
4. Lack of initial potency.
5. Decay in antibody over time.
6. Incomplete antigen package.
7. Incorrect balance of antigens in the vaccine.
8. Genetic changes in B pertussis
Whooping Cough is Cyclical Disease
B. pertussis whooping cough is a cyclical disease with natural increases that tend to occur every 4-5 years, no matter how high the vaccination rate is in a population using DPT/DTaP or Tdap vaccines on a widespread basis. Whole cell DPT vaccines used in the U.S. from the 1950's until the late 1990's were estimated to be 63 to 94 percent effective and studies showed that vaccine-acquired immunity fell to about 40 percent after seven years.
In the study cited above, the researchers noted the vaccine's effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-125.
With this shockingly low rate of DTaP vaccine effectiveness, the questionable solution public health officials have come up with is to declare that everybody has to get three primary shots and three follow-up booster shots in order to get long-lasting protection6—and that's provided the vaccine gives you any protection at all!
Why "Cocooning" Vaccines Does Not Work
Additionally, in a futile effort to address the outbreak, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) started directing physicians, particularly pediatricians, to offer Tdap vaccine to parents and close family members of babies under age 2 months, who are too young to receive a pertussis-containing vaccine themselves. In a recent study on this topic the researchers concluded:
"... the parental cocoon program is inefficient and resource intensive for the prevention of serious outcomes in early infancy."
"Cocooning," is a controversial practice and is being promoted by the AAP and government health officials as a way of protecting babies from whooping cough and other infectious diseases like influenza by vaccinating their parents and other adult caregivers. However, there is little evidence to show that this works. In fact, research from Canada has demonstrated just the opposite. Published last year, this Canadian study investigated how many parents would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent infant hospitalizations and deaths from pertussis using the cocoon strategy7, and the results were dismal. They found the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for parental immunization was at least one million to prevent ONE infant death; approximately 100,000 for ICU admission; and >10,000 for hospitalization.
Also Confirmed: U.S. Varicella Vaccination Program is a Total Flop
In related vaccine news, a recent review of the US varicella (chickenpox) vaccination program published in May in the journal Vaccine8 concluded the vaccine has:
· Not proven to be cost-effective
· Increased the incidence of shingles
· Failed to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets―chicken pox―and
· Is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population before the vaccine
Here, vaccine efficacy is again questioned as the efficacy of the varicella vaccine was found to have declined well below 80 percent by of 2002. The information was gathered from a review of chicken pox and shingles statistics in the years since the vaccine was introduced. The researchers point out that although statistics showed shingles rates increased after the vaccine, "CDC authorities still claimed" that no increase had occurred.
The authors also state that the CDC not only ignored the natural boost in immunity to the community that occurred with wild chickenpox, as opposed to the vaccine, but also ignored the "rare serious events following varicella vaccination" as well as the increasing rates of shingles among adults:
"In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased herpes zoster [shingles] morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease." [Emphasis mine]
Ridiculous Claims about Herd Immunity Achieved by HPV Vaccine
According to a report in the journal Pediatrics9, which has been praised in major media like Discover Magazine10, the quadravalent vaccine for HPV, Gardasil, appears to be protecting young people that haven't even been vaccinated with it. Not only that, Gardasil has accomplished this amazing feat in just four years―long before most vaccines begin to show any sign of what's known as "herd immunity."
The study looked at rates of HPV infection in a small group of teens and young women at two primary care clinics, and found that infections from the cancer-causing HPV strain had declined. Apparently, they also observed that infections in women, who had not been vaccinated, had also declined. The team concluded the overall decline in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated must have been due to the vaccine! As per Discover Magazine, if the news pans out to be true in further research, it will be "pretty exciting." Indeed, if this is true it would be an outright miracle, considering the fact that this theory is beyond ludicrous.
Consider that claim in light of these facts:
· In the study, 59 percent of participants at two primary care clinics received the HPV vaccine
· According to 2008 survey statistics, an estimated 25 percent of American adolescents 13 to 17 years old had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine, and a mere 11 percent had received all 3 doses11
· By 2010 the vaccine uptake estimates had nearly doubled, with 48 percent of girls between the ages of 13 and 17 having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine12
It is typically taught that the vaccine acquired herd immunity threshold is anywhere between 80-95 percent of the population, depending on the disease. So, HOW could the HPV vaccine confer herd immunity when, on a nationwide basis, less than half of teens and young women have received the vaccine (and the vast majority of those have only received one-third of the recommended number of doses)?
Whenever an outbreak of disease occurs, government health officials are always quick to point the finger at those who are unvaccinated, stating that it's because of them that vaccine induced herd immunity was not achieved, thereby allowing the disease to flourish (although they rarely if ever offer an explanation for why so many vaccinated people get sick when they should theoretically be immune). For most diseases, vaccine-induced herd immunity cannot be achieved unless 80-95 percent of the population is vaccinated against the disease in question. So truly, for the HPV vaccine to suddenly confer herd immunity at less than 50 percent coverage would be nothing short of a miracle.
This "study" is nothing but marketing masquerading as science.
Discover magazine also didn't mention the fact that at least five individuals on the seven-member team making these over-the-top claims are paid speakers and consultants for Merck, or have received research funds from Merck to develop this vaccine―meaning this wasn't exactly an independent, outside group with no conflicting interests in the outcome. Please also note that the president of the Merck Vaccine Division, Julie Gerberding, is the former head of the CDC.
Discover also didn't mention that the rates of the rates of sexual activity—the primary way HPV is spread—had also declined during the years of the study period, which could indicate that the reason HPV infection rates went down was not "herd" immunity acquired from the vaccine, but rather that fewer young people were having sex.
What You Need to Know about "Herd Immunity"
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes vaccine-induced herd immunity, also labeled "community immunity" by public health doctors as follows13:
"When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as "community immunity."
The problem is that there is in fact such a thing as natural herd immunity. But what they've done is they've taken this natural phenomenon and assumed that vaccines will work the same way. However, vaccines do not confer the same kind of immunity as experiencing the natural disease, and the science clearly shows that there's a big difference between naturally acquired herd immunity and vaccine-induced herd immunity. To learn more, I urge you to listen to the following video, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity.
|
|
|
Vacines
Sept 6, 2012 21:28:01 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Sept 6, 2012 21:28:01 GMT -5
Measles Vaccine Likely Caused Death of Four Infants in Nepal, Authorities SaySeptember 04 2012 By Dr. Mercola articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/04/measles-vaccine-kills-infants.aspxFour infants between nine and 14 months of age recently died within 24 hours of receiving their measles and DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccines in the Doti area of Nepal, a small country between India and China. The children allegedly began vomiting profusely just hours after the vaccination, and "developed a deathly pallor." Two more children were hospitalized following their shots. According to a recent report in The Himalayan1, the Doti District Public Health Office (DPHO) has stated the primary investigation suggests the measles vaccine was the cause of death. Other infants who received other vaccines, but not the measles vaccine, have not developed any life-threatening side effects. "The vaccines that were administered to infants were not expired though, said DPHO, adding that the vials of measles vaccines had labels showing expiry date of September 2013," The Himalayan reports. "...Kadamandau locals ...staged a sit-in in front of the hospital demanding a thorough investigation and punishment to the guilty. Doti-based human rights organizations also demanded that a probe be launched immediately." In response, the Child Health Division under the Ministry of Health and Population has formed a committee to investigate the deaths. This case is reminiscent of a story from 2010, when nine-month-old twin girls in Ghaziabad, India died approximately 15 minutes after receiving a measles vaccine. Similar deaths in two other regions in the country were also reported at the time. Vaccine-Related Deaths are Not Limited to Third-World Countries A quick search of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)2 reveals nearly 5,100 vaccine-related deaths have been reported in the U.S between 1990 and August 2012, as of this writing. The vast majority of deaths – nearly 60 percent – occurred in children under the age of three. Just over 360 of the reported vaccine-associated deaths in the US have been related to any of the measles-containing vaccines. With adverse event information on over 70 vaccines included in the VAERS database, it is a phenomenal tool that can help you easily identify which vaccines are significantly associated with specific side effects. It is important to know, though, that what is included in VAERS is only a tiny fraction of the vaccine-related serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that have actually occurred in the U.S. Studies have estimated that less than 10 percent, to as little as ONE percent, of vaccine side effects are ever reported, so the true side effects and deaths are easily FAR higher than the reported statistics represent. This means there may have been anywhere from 3600 to 36,000 deaths that have occurred in the US alone after children or adults received measles containing vaccines. The truth is that, while vaccines may be touted as safe, ALL vaccines and other pharmaceutical products carry a risk of injury or death. This is something that the media or nearly every health professional fails to make clear. Most take the position that everyone should be forced to have mandatory vaccines to help eliminate disease, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support this one-size-fits-all strategy. Last month, I interviewed Dr. Larry Palevsky, a former fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and trained at the New York University School of Medicine, about childhood vaccinations, in which he shares the dire truth about the lack of safety of many childhood vaccines. There are so many unanswered questions that it really boils down to a roll of the dice as to whether the vaccine will ultimately protect you or harm you.
|
|
|
Vacines
Sept 6, 2012 21:35:06 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Sept 6, 2012 21:35:06 GMT -5
Food And Water, Nope. Vaccines, Yep.August 06 2012 By Dr. Mercola articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/06/healthy-foods-not-vaccines.aspxAs one of the world's most well-known and respected voices, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has a unique opportunity to call attention to important social issues and make a huge impact worldwide. Unfortunately Gates, through his foundation, has been partnering with not only biotech giant Monsanto to hoist genetically modified seeds on third-world countries, but also with Big Pharma, to whom he pledged $10 billion to provide vaccinations to children around the world. This is billed as a humanitarian effort to save lives, but what children in developing countries need is healthy food, clean water and better sanitation. These are the keys to preventing the spread of infectious disease, and they are being wholly ignored by the likes of Bill Gates and other vaccine proponents – at the children’s expense! The Aftermath of a Bill Gates Vaccine Campaign … An American family, the Gianelloni’s, visited a village in Uganda shortly after a Bill Gates vaccine campaign swept through and discovered what Bill Gates’ money does for hungry, sick children – essentially nothing. The family found that the children were starving, living on one meager meal a day. Their only water source was the same stagnant stream that they bathed in. They had no sewage or sanitation. But, thanks to Gates, they were now vaccinated against measles and polio. Never mind that the most pressing epidemics in the area were actually Yellow Fever, malaria, HIV/AIDs and diarrhea … Worse yet, one little girl who had received a measles vaccine two weeks earlier was now suffering with the measles as a result! After this blogger left, thanks to her and the mission group that arrived with her, the village had a water tank and clean water system, a cow, and a year’s worth of rice and beans. You can probably understand why the blogger made this comment about Gates’ “philanthropy”: “I don’t care who you are or what side of the vaccine philosophy you fall under, there is no logic in the world that can explain that going into a remote village and giving children who only eat one meal a day and have never had clean drinking water, a vaccine. Seriously? Think about it. Can you imagine walking up to this precious little girl and saying ”I know you are starving, but here is a measles vaccine instead. I promise this will make you much healthier than food or water”. It’s a scary day when simple logic no longer exists. Food & Water, nope. Vaccines, yep. And innocent children suffer the consequences. It’s absurd."
|
|
|
Vacines
Sept 6, 2012 21:43:27 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Sept 6, 2012 21:43:27 GMT -5
Collusion Between Pharmaceutical Industry and Government DeepensAugust 02 2012 By Dr. Mercola articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/02/merck-flu-vaccine-conflicts.aspxThere's no shortage of stories detailing conflicts of interest—so many in fact that you may be getting sick and tired of hearing of them. However, this is a truly important issue that must be tackled, and one of the ways of doing that is by exposing it to the harsh light of day. As long as people remain unaware, or turn a blind eye, it will continue unabated. The price we pay for not paying attention is the loss of health, as the information disseminated by grossly compromised health agencies is skewed in favor of various industries, with Big Pharma leading the pack as one of the most powerful political and governmental influences. Here, I will review two important revolving-door cases, and while neither is recent news, many of you may still be unaware of them. Former CDC Director Now President of Merck's Vaccine UnitIn the summer of 2011, Merck president Julie Gerberding said in a news interview1 that she's "very bullish on vaccines," as she recounted the various ways she helps Merck sell its products. What she didn't divulge was her motivation for leaving her job as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—an agency charged with overseeing vaccines and drug companies—and join Merck in the first place, back in January 2010. If you don't see the enormity of the influence her former high-level ties to the CDC can have, just consider the fact that Merck makes 14 of the 17 pediatric vaccines recommended by the CDC, and 9 of the 10 recommended for adults, and while vaccine safety advocates are trying to rein in the number of vaccines given to babies, safety concerns keep falling on deaf ears. The vaccine industry is booming, and it's become quite clear that profit potential is the driving factor behind it. One of the reasons for this is because vaccine patents do not expire like drugs do, so each vaccine adopted for widespread use has the potential to make enormous, continuous profits for decades to come. Vaccine makers also enjoy a high degree of immunity against lawsuits—and in the case of pandemic vaccines, absolute immunity—so the financial liability when something goes wrong is very low, compared to drugs. Gerberding has a Long History of Disregard for Vaccine SafetyJoining a parade of other high-ranking government officials who pass through the revolving doors between government and Big Pharma, Gerberding left a trail of controversy behind her when she left the CDC. While a 2009 article by the Institute for Southern Studies lists a number of them2, I believe they left out the most important ones, namely her misinformation campaign about the pandemic swine flu vaccine, as well as her naive stance on vaccine safety issues in general. The CDC disseminated extremely exaggerated data on the 2009 H1N1 "pandemic" and urged almost everyone in the U.S. to take the new, untested vaccines. When questions arose, they blocked CBS's requests for samples of the swine flu cases and added obstacles to getting information. Despite the many dangers that have since been linked to the hastily developed vaccine—including the confirmed link to narcolepsy—the H1N1 vaccine is now part and parcel of the "regular" seasonal flu vaccine, although most people are completely unaware of this fact. And the CDC is now, for the first time ever, urging the seasonal flu vaccine on everyone in the country, from six months' of age until death. Even more disturbing, the CDC withheld data on miscarriages from the H1N1 vaccines under Gerberding's lead, while insisting that pregnant women be put first in line to receive it. This was a dramatic reversal of its own recommendations. More than 3,500 post-vaccination miscarriages may have simply been ignored by the CDC. One of Merck's potentially most dangerous vaccines right now is Gardasil; a vaccine that so far has been linked to thousands of adverse events and at least 49 unexplained deaths. It's a situation that the FDA and CDC have repeatedly denied, even as the adverse reports mount. Gerberding's 2004 report to Congress, 'Prevention of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection'3 likely played a significant role in getting the controversial vaccine approved in the first place. Needless to say, the approval of this questionable vaccine guaranteed her future employer billions of dollars-worth of profits. Gerberding has also been a staunch defender of thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative used in many vaccines, and has consistently denied any links between vaccines and autism. All in all, Gerberding has repeatedly demonstrated that safety is nowhere on her list of priorities or concerns when it comes to vaccines. It's easy to see why Merck would want her to head up their vaccine unit. For the rest of us, however, her blatant disregard for proven vaccine safety is bad news indeed. Former NIH Director Now Heads Sanofi Research LabsAnother former government official who's switched sides is Elias Zerhouni, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—one of the world's foremost medical research centers, and an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Zerhouni is now head of Sanofi-Aventis' research labs4. He also is a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; a member of the Board of Trustees at the Mayo Clinic; and is a senior fellow for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Global Health Program5. As pointed out in a recent article by Forbes Magazine6, Zerhouni is no stranger to controversies over conflicts-of-interest. In the fall of 2003, the NIH with Zerhouni at its head faced grave accusations when it came to light that hundreds of its scientists had financial ties to the medical and pharmaceutical industries. According to a 2004 article in the NIH Record7, over 100 scientists did not get approval for their industry activities, even though the rules were so loose virtually all requests to conduct outside work were approved by the agency, without any limits on compensation or hours worked for outside entities. In one case, an academic scientist was found to have a financial interest in a therapy that ended up killing a patient. The case served as a potent warning of how dangerous such conflicts of interest can be. While Zerhouni managed to emerge from the 2003 debacle looking like a good crisis manager, the following paragraphs from the NIH Record8 are quite telling. Essentially, Zerhouni dissuaded Congress from doing the right thing, which is ban all outside activities of those working for the NIH, limiting the restrictions for conflicts of interest to upper level management only: "[Zerhouni] disclosed that "initially, Congress truly wanted to ban [all outside activities], and the members of the committee have been very public about that...I was fortunate to be able to make contact with legislators and to help them understand what happened, how it happened, and why might not be the right thing to do."
Zerhouni said that over the course of long discussion, a good consensus emerged that formed the basis of NIH's approach to the issue: stewards of public funds should never be vulnerable even to the perception that their activities could result in private gain. The top concern, he said, is, "How do you keep a true firewall and separation between the public trust — the money the public has given us in trust — and the activities of those who manage that resource?"
He doesn't think it was well appreciated outside of NIH that the agency "has a dual nature — number one, we are a granting agency, but number two, we are also one of the most advanced, most capable biomedical research institutions in the world.
So we're both sort of an academic, scientific research place, and yet next to that we're also a government agency with its own rules and regulations...I said, look, we need to build a firewall around those who have fiduciary responsibility relative to the government, and those who do not. And that's where we came up with these much more stringent rules for directors, deputy directors, and people who have those authorities, versus those who do not."
Conflicts of Interest Affect Your Life and Well-Being...
When it comes to medicine, mere disclosure of conflict of interest is not nearly enough. Patients need unbiased advice when it comes to making decisions that can impact their very life, and physicians and scientists with financial ties to the drug industry should not be allowed to participate in broad policy and public-health recommendations in the first place. Likewise, while it's perfectly legal to engage the revolving door and switch jobs from government agencies to private industry and vice-versa, this practice has become so widespread it has undermined the entire system of checks and balances.
Conflict of interest is rampant not only within the field of medicine, but the revolving doors between government and industry has effectively led to a situation where it's now extremely difficult, if not impossible, to trust conventional health advice from the federal government—which is supposed to be independent due to this massive collusion between government and industry. Here are a few more examples of the many revolving doors between the pharmaceutical industry and the US government:
· The American Cancer Society has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide, petrochemical, biotech, cosmetics, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer
· Drug companies pay seven-figure amounts into FDA coffers to gain approval of their drugs. FDA staff knows that the cash means higher salaries and more perks in the agency budget. (Incidentally, the FDA's commissioner Margaret Hamburg came straight from the boardroom of America's largest seller of dental amalgam, Henry Schein, Inc.)
· Conflicts of interest are also rampant in a mass vaccination infrastructure that has the same people who are regulating and promoting vaccines also evaluating vaccine safety.
· The vaccine industry gives millions for conferences, grants, and medical education classes sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The vaccine industry even helped build AAP's headquarters.
· President Obama's nominee at the Department of Homeland Security overseeing bioterrorism defense, Dr. Tara O'Toole, served as a key advisor for a lobbying group funded by a pharmaceutical company that asked the government to spend more money for anthrax vaccines and biodefense research9
There are countless others—so many, in fact, I'm sure you could fill an entire book with examples. These types of blatant conflicts should simply not be tolerated, but they most certainly are. For now the majority still does not understand the pharmaceutical industry's power and influence over government, and the field of conventional medicine itself, but the tide is beginning to turn, and will continue to do so as more and more people get informed.
What Can You do to Take Control of Your Health?
The good news is that increasing numbers of people are now waking up to these harsh realities, and you, being among those who are informed, can help share this knowledge with others. Remember that the definition of fascism is a government system that has complete power in regimenting all industry and forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. What we have here is a hybrid—a sort of corporate fascism, where industry has powerful control over government, and forcefully suppresses anything that threatens their monopoly on profits.
|
|
|
Vacines
Sept 6, 2012 21:49:14 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Sept 6, 2012 21:49:14 GMT -5
Merck Accused of Lying about Vaccine EffectivenessJuly 10 2012 By Dr. Mercola articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/10/merck-lying-about-vaccine-effectiveness.aspxThings aren't going so well lately in the litigation department for Merck, which stands accused of lying according to not just one, but two class-action lawsuits. In the first case, two former Merck virologists accuse their former employer of overstating the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in Merck's combination MMR shot, which may have cost the US government hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decadei. Merck's mumps vaccine was originally licensed 45 years ago. Since the 1970s, it's been part of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which is part of the recommended childhood vaccination schedule. The case, which was initially filed in 2010, was unsealed late last month. As reported by the Courthouse News Serviceii: "... Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski were Merck virologists who claim in their unsealed complaint that they "witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings." ... As the largest single purchaser of childhood vaccines (accounting for more than 50 percent of all vaccine purchases), the United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck's fraud," according to the 2010 False Claims Act complaint." According to Nasdaq.comiii:"Merck--which stressed that none of these allegations relate to the safety of its product--said the lawsuit is "completely without merit", and that it plans to "vigorously defend itself." It's quite interesting to note the chosen language in Merck's rebuttal. It in no way addresses the issue of the vaccine's effectiveness, which is the core issue of the lawsuit and the allegation by the two former Merck employees that the drug company purposefully used improper testing methods and falsified data to make the mumps vaccine appear highly effective when the opposite was true. Instead, Merck responds by saying that none of the lawsuit's allegations relate to the safety of its products. Such evasive maneuvering certainly gives the appearance of an admission of guilt. Second Lawsuit FiledA mere week after the first case was unsealed, a federal antitrust class action lawsuit was filed by Chatom Primary Care. According to Courthouse News Serviceiv: "Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is "far less effective" than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of "questionable efficacy," flooding and monopolizing the market, a primary caregiver claims in a federal antitrust class action. ... Chatom says in its antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective. That claim "deterred and excluded competing manufacturers," who would enter the risky and expensive vaccine market only if they believed they could craft a better product... Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked losing its lucrative monopoly... That's why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states. And, Chatom claims, that's why Merck went to great lengths, including "manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the test results," to prop up the bogus figure, though it knew that the attenuated virus from which it created the vaccine had been altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that the quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result." According to these two lawsuits, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990's to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to "report efficacy of 95 percent or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy." This program was initially referred to as "Protocol 007," the Chatom claim states, and instead of testing the vaccine's efficacy against a wild mumps virus, as is the norm, Merck used its own attenuated strain of the virus—the identical strain with which the children were being vaccinated! That's as brilliant as it is devious, and a perfect example of how medical research can be manipulated to achieve desired results. Suzanne Humphries recently wrote an excellent summary for GreenMedInfo.com, explaining in layman's terms how the tests were manipulated (see Sources). The two virologists bringing the lawsuit against Merck claim they witnessed firsthand this deception and were asked to directly participate in it. As reported by the Courthouse News Servicev:"That "subverted" the purpose of the testing regime, "which was to measure the vaccine's ability to provide protection against a disease-causing mumps virus that a child would actually face in real life. The end result of this deviation ... was that Merck's test overstated the vaccine's effectiveness," Chatom claims. Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life ... virus neutralization in vaccinated people," according to the complaint. Chatom claims that the falsification of test results occurred "with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior management." Health versus ProfitsConsidering the extent of the allegations here, it is really shocking that the conventional media has not picked up on this story. About the only major media source reporting on it was Forbes Magazinevi Interestingly, Forbes stated that this case gives "vaccine foes" new ammunition for their argument that drug companies are more interested in money than protecting consumers' health. And rightfully so. While I do not advocate indiscriminately abstaining from all vaccines—I strongly advise and encourage exercising due diligence because vaccines can cause serious reactions that can have such devastating consequences. I believe in informed consent and the freedom to choose. There can be little doubt anymore that drug companies are in it for the profits, and virtually no price seems too high for them when it comes to protecting their profit-making. I've written extensively about the many criminal and ethical wrongdoings of Big Pharma, and this is certainly not the first shocking allegation of pharmaceutical product manufacturing fraud that involves launching or keeping an inferior and/or dangerous product on the market. While vaccine makers often claim there's not a lot of profit to be had in vaccines, you have to remember that vaccine patents do not expire like drugs do. Vaccines continue to make profits as long as they're in use, so risk of future losses due to competition is virtually nonexistent. So of course there's profit in vaccines—especially once it's placed on the childhood vaccination schedule because that guarantees the vaccine will have a stable, guaranteed annual market as a new cohort of babies are born every year. And of course vaccine makers will protect those huge profits—even, apparently, when it means putting children's health at risk. There is also the issue of immunity from prosecution. Merck lost many billions when their drug, Vioxx, killed tens of thousands of people and was taken off the market in 2004. If any of their vaccines killed similar numbers, or even more, they would not be held liable in damages for a single cent because Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have completely shielded big drug companies like Merck from civil liability for vaccine injuries and deaths. Also you need to remember that IF a vaccine is indeed highly effective, and avoiding the disease in question is worth the risk of the potential side effects from the vaccine, then it could be said that the benefits outweigh the risks. However, if the vaccine is ineffective (and/or the disease doesn't pose a great threat to begin with), then the vaccine may pose an unacceptable risk... At the very least, an ineffective vaccine will certainly skew the benefit to risk ratio toward greater risk, unless the vaccine is guaranteed harmless, and this, I'm afraid, cannot be said for the MMR. This, I believe, is one of the most important points to remember in this discussion. It's not so much about determining whether or not the reduced effectiveness of this vaccine allowed the mumps outbreaks of 2006 and 2009 to occur, both of which occurred in highly vaccinated communities, but rather it's a question of: "Have millions of children taken an unnecessary health risk by being injected with an ineffective vaccine?" "Nothing Matters More than Safety," Merck Says "Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety and effectiveness of our vaccines and medicines and the people who use them," Forbes quotes a Merck spokesmanvii. Really? Then WHY did they heavily promote Vioxx and keep it on the market until it had killed more than 60,000 people? I warned my readers that this pain killer might be a real killer for some people, five years before Merck made its $30 billion recall! Five years they let it go, and they undoubtedly would have kept it on the market longer had the lethal dangers not become so shockingly obvious to other scientists. After Vioxx came the HPV vaccine Gardasil—perhaps the most unnecessary vaccine ever created, and likely one of the most dangerous to boot. Merck claims their main concern is safety... They must be speaking about some parallel Universe, because ever since Gardasil's approval in 2006, reports of life-altering side effects and sudden deaths of otherwise healthy teenagers have stacked up into the thousands, yet Merck steadfastly refuses to acknowledge or address these health risks. Gardasil appears to have one of the highest risk to benefit ratios of any vaccine on the market, and India even halted Merck's post-licensing trials of the vaccine after four young participants died, yet Merck has the gall to claim that nothing is more important to them than safety. Give me a break... Actions speak louder than words, and Merck has a long paper trail of litigation highlighting the company's questionable ethics. Did Ineffective MMR Vaccine Promote Mumps Outbreaks?In 2009, more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York came down with mumps. At the time, questions arose about the effectiveness of the vaccine as 77 percent of those sickened were vaccinated. No vaccine is ever 100 percent effective, of course, and according to the CDC, the MMR was estimated to be somewhere between 76-95 percent effective. In fact, the second MMR dose is necessary because up to 20 percent of individuals do not develop measles immunity after the first dose. The second dose is intended to provide a "second chance" for the vaccine to work, which is further evidence of this shot's ineffectiveness. A similar scenario occurred in 2006, when mumps infected more than 6,500 people in the US. Most of those cases also occurred among the vaccinated population, primarily among college students who had received two doses of MMR vaccine. About the only people who were truly immune to mumps were older Americans who had recovered from mumps as children, and therefore had received natural, lifelong immunity. But just how and why did these outbreaks occur? Typically, vaccine promoters will stress the importance of compliance with the vaccine schedule that requires multiple doses of a vaccine in order to create and maintain vaccine induced "herd immunity," because a vaccine is never 100 percent effective. However, they never quite seem to be able to explain why the majority of outbreaks occur in areas that are thought to HAVE herd immunity status, i.e. where the majority of people are vaccinated and "should" therefore never get the disease. What You Need to Know about "Herd Immunity"The problem is that there is in fact such a thing as natural herd immunity. But what they've done is they've taken this natural phenomenon and assume that vaccines will work the same way. However, they do not, and the science clearly shows that there's a big difference between naturally arising herd immunity and vaccine-induced herd immunity. To learn more, I urge you to listen to the following video, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity.
|
|
|
Vacines
Sept 6, 2012 21:54:12 GMT -5
Post by Dave on Sept 6, 2012 21:54:12 GMT -5
Double-Whammy! Doctors Demonize Vaccine Choices as FDA Licenses New Combo VaccineJuly 24 2012 By Barbara Loe Fisher articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/24/new-vaccines-for-babies.aspxOn June 13, 2012, a study conducted by government health employees working at the Oregon Health Authority and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was published in Pediatrics, a medical journal owned by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).1 Using electronic vaccine records tracking systems, public health doctors concluded that about 10 percent of parents living in Portland, Oregon are making independent decisions about how many vaccines their babies should get and when they should get them. Those parents are rejecting the CDC's aggressive vaccination schedule2 promoted by the AAP that directs pediatricians to give 2- to 6-month-old babies between seven to nine vaccines on the same day, without exception. Doctors Demonize Parents Making Informed Vaccine Decisions Public health doctors are slapping the label of "shot limiters" on parents giving their babies fewer vaccines. It has become fashionable in medical journals and media circles3 to demonize these parents, who engage in critical thinking about vaccination and follow their conscience instead of saluting smartly and doing what doctors tell them to do – no questions asked. Can an attack on the legal right for Oregon parents to exercise religious exemption to vaccination be far behind?4 FDA Licenses New Combo Vaccine for Babies Ironically, on June 14, the FDA awarded GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) a license to sell MenHibrix, a new vaccine that combines two meningitis vaccines into one shot.5,6 The FDA had rejected the license in 2010 and 2011 because, reportedly, the British drug company giant was having trouble proving the vaccine actually worked. 7 This time, FDA staff did not bother to ask for an opinion from the agency's own vaccine advisory committee before giving GSK the green light to market MenHibrix in the U.S. for babies as young as 6 weeks old. In a letter, FDA official Marion Gruber, PhD, told the company that: "We did not refer your application to an additional VRBPAC [review] because our review of information submitted in your BLA, including the clinical study design and trial results, did not raise particular concerns or controversial issues which would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion."8 Really? Sounds like some FDA officials didn't want Advisory Committee members to ask the drug company lots of questions about this new vaccine, just like CDC and AAP officials don't want parents to ask lots of questions about ANY vaccine. Nine or 10 Vaccines Given on Same Day: Where's the Science?
MenHibrix has not yet been studied in combination with every one of the other vaccines already given to babies simultaneously.9 But that is not likely to stop pediatricians from assuming safety and throwing MenHibrix into the mix, for a grand total of nine or 10 vaccines given to tiny babies on the same day.10 Even premature babies weighing less than four and a half pounds are subjected to the mindless one-size-fits all "no exceptions" vaccine schedule.11,12 Where is the solid scientific evidence that it is safe or effective to give eight or nine vaccines to an eight or nine pound newborn? Where is the solid evidence that babies, who get more than two-dozen doses of vaccines by age six months, are healthier as they grow up than those, who get fewer vaccines or fewer vaccines on one day? No large, prospective studies have been done comparing the long-term health outcomes of children, who are vaccinated according to the CDC schedule, with those, who are not.13 It is no wonder that smart parents – like the ones in Oregon - are challenging the wisdom of the bloated and expensive vaccine schedule and are telling doctors and legislators: "Show Us the Science, and Give Us the Choice."
|
|