Draft Review of: The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism

This review was written by Paul G. King, PhD in response to an article that represents the typical lies and misleading tone of everything published by the mainstream media today. I highly suggest that you take the time to read this and that you urge your friends and loved ones to read this also. WE ARE BEING LIED TO. This review is fantastic and has tons of good sources (see the actual pdf for link to all sources).

The full article can be accessed at: http://dr-king.com/docs/130705_DrftRevu%20TheVeryThickLineBetweenRaisingConcernsAndDenialism_b.pdf

Draft Review of:
“The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism
By Christie Wilcox | June 19, 2013 8:00 am”
THE ARTICLE’S TITLE AND LEAD IN
The writer’s title is an interesting choice of words because the thickness of the “Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism” and its placement are obviously based on subjective assessments — not objective evaluations.
“The real question is, which side of the line are studies that lack scientific rigor on?”
To this researcher, the answer depends upon the nature of the question being asked and is limited to those questions that science can answer.
For the subjects that this writer discusses, this reviewer finds that there are studies that lack rigor with regard to several aspects of the dispute between those who seek to maintain and enlarge the status quo in a given controversial issue for their direct and indirect benefit and those who seek to ensure that the safety (not the often-substituted “lack of proof of harm”) of any disputed practice has been rigorously proven.
THE WRITER’S INTRODUCTION TO, AND FEELINGS ABOUT,
GLYPHOSATE AND GM CROPS
“Recently, Kara Moses asked Guardian readers: ‘Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue?’ Her personal answer was no; that special interest groups should perform and publicize their own findings. ‘I believe they should be given a voice,’ she concluded, ‘not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists.’
Quick to support her was Treehugger writer Chris Tackett. ‘The point here is that scientific proof matters in science, but it shouldn’t necessarily be what determines our actions,’ he wrote. ‘We can intuit that some things are unwise or dangerous or against our values without needing reams of scientific data to back up our concerns.’ While Kara’s piece talked only about the use of glyphosate (the pesticide known by its brand name RoundUp), Chris used it to attack both the pesticide’s use and Monsanto GM crops.
I understand where they are coming from, but the hair on the back of my neck bristled reading those words. I think they’re both getting into very dangerous territory (or, in the case of Chris’ comments later, happily dancing around in it).”
While this reviewer would agree that the writer is entitled to “think” what she chooses, it is not clear that she understands “where they are coming from” or, for that matter, who is “reading those words”.
“The trouble is, it’s one thing to notice a potential danger and raise a few alarm bells to get scientists to investigate an issue — it’s a whole other to publicize and propagandize an unsubstantiated fear despite evidence against it.”
Here, the writer begins by confusing the noticing of “a potential danger and …” that is implicitly associated with “the use of glyphosate” or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” with what the people have a right to do, “to publicize and propagandize” what they perceive as a danger even when there is purportedly “evidence against it”.
Moreover, because this writer makes numerous assertions without providing any citations or footnotes to support or substantiate her views, this reviewer is compelled to discount the writer’s statements when, without any documented proof, they attempt to discredit the views expressed by others.
“The former is important, as Kara suggests, and should occur. I have no problem with non-scientists raising honest concerns, if their goal is to have the concerns considered — so long as they’re actually willing to hear what the evidence has to say.”
Here, the writer attempts to restrict the role of “non-scientists” to that of “raising honest concerns”, when the realities are that:
a. These “non-scientists” are perfectly capable of reading and un-derstanding the published literature and
b. Some who are raising these concerns are scientists who have examined the evidence and/or conducted fundamental studies that have shown serious adverse long-term-ex-posure-related outcomes when “glyphosate” and/or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” have been studied.
Since the writer presents no proof to support her assertion that these individuals have not appropriately examined the evidence, this reviewer must counsel the reader to ignore her caveat about hearing “what the evidence has to say”.
“The latter, on the other hand, is denialism. You see, once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them.”
As a scientist, this reviewer is appalled at the writer’s unqualified claim that “once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them”.
First, unless all of the raw data and supporting information, including models and adjustment factors, used to generate the published results are freely available, no one should listen to the claims made in any study.
Second, unless a truly independent review of the data and supporting documentation or a truly independent rigorous duplication of a given study for which the raw data and all supporting information are available has confirmed a given publication’s findings, the results reported in the initial study should be given no scientific weight in the decision-making process.
Third, the quality of evidence rating (QER) standards1 developed for evaluating the scientific quality of evidence clearly support the skepticism that should accompany any assertion when most all of the studies are not independent2.
Thus, it is not the scientists that should be listened to but rather the results of those truly independent studies of “glyphosate” or “pesticide use or Monsanto GM products” that have an appropriately defined QER rating of “1” or, if the studies are toxicological in nature, an equivalent rating.
PIVOTING TO THE “VACCINES AND AUTISM” ISSUE
“When it was first suggested that vaccines might lead to autism, is” [sic; it] “was a legitimate question to ask. Kids seemed to develop autism around the same age they got their vaccines — and can you imagine if the vaccines were to blame? That would have been huge news! We would have had to revolutionize the vaccine industry, to start from scratch and figure out if we can keep these life-saving shots without screwing up our kids’ brains. One of the core foundations of our children’s public health program would have been forever shaken.”
First, this reviewer finds it odd that the writer abruptly veers away from the agricultural/food issues she has been addressing (“the use of glyphosate” and “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops”) to address an apparently unrelated issue, the putative link between “vaccines” and “autism”, a neurological disorder diagnosed not by some scientifically sound tests but rather by an admittedly somewhat subjective evaluation of the symptoms and the behaviors observed in developing children.
Here, for whatever reason, the writer, Christie Wilcox, begins by laying out an “imagine if” scenario about the established link between the current recommended vaccination program in the USA and the chronic childhood disease epidemics that this ever-growing vaccination program has caused and is causing by focusing on one of these epidemics, the purportedly most-difficult-to-prove epidemic, the epi-demic of “autism”.
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Nonetheless, as one of those truly independent scientists, this reviewer has been continually engaged in the study of the issues surrounding vaccine safety and vaccination effectiveness for about 14 years after having worked in a wide range of capacities in firms that produced biocides (pesticides), brand-name pharmaceuticals, generic pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements for more than two decades.
The results of this reviewer’s studies have clearly established that today’s FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines have not been proven to be “safe” to the standards required by the law3 and, as such, are adulterated drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B).
Moreover, an ever-growing number of independent scientists from around the world are publishing papers that clearly show that today’s vaccines are not as safe as they are represented to be and/or today’s vaccination programs are not effective in preventing disease and/or are not cost effective, especially in the developed countries4,5.
Finally, based on multiple independent vaccination-related surveys comparing the health of never-vaccinated children to the health of the fully vaccinated children have, from 19776,7, consistently found or, for the current on-going survey study8, are consistently finding that, depending upon the chronic diseases studied, the never-vaccinated children are, as a group, 2 to 5 times healthier than the comparison group of fully vaccinated children.
Clearly, the results from these independent studies and other sim-ilar studies have proven that “the vaccines were” and are “to blame” for the epidemics of chronic childhood diseases that we are now confronting9
Yet, this writer apparently remains in denial about these proven realities.
Given the preceding actualities, let us return to the writer’s state-ments.
“So, like they should, independent scientists investigated the concerns. They checked and double checked the safety testing. They ran and re-ran results, but they kept getting the same answer: whatever causes autism, it isn’t vaccines. A cumulative sigh of relief was uttered by doctors, nurses, scientists, parents and children around the world.”
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, including “autism”, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Yet, as far as this reviewer has been able to ascertain in his investigations into articles that claim to have found “no evidence of harm” or assert that the “benefits of vaccination outweigh their theo-retical risks”, the authors of these articles are often not “independent scientists” and/or the studies themselves are often not independent studies.
In at least one instance, this reviewer has been able to prove that an epidemiological study in which the CDC not only participated but also, after refusal by two major high-stature journals, strongly recom-mended that this knowingly misleading study be published in the journal Pediatrics. The CDC made this recommendation although the assertion made in the article10 (“The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism”) was diametrically opposed to the truth, as expressed in internal emails (where, some, if not all, of the authors in the key Danish study cited in this discussion and CDC’s liaison person [Schendel] knew) that “the incidence and prevalence” [of autism] “are still decreasing in 2001”)11.
Moreover, the reality of the decrease in the prevalence and inci-dence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses was confirmed by:
a. The Danish health officials’ not electing to re-introduce any Thimerosal-preserved vaccines into their national childhood vaccination program after this article was published and
b. A 2010 article12 from which the prevalence rate for the incidence of individuals diagnosed with a “Pervasive Devel-opmental Disorder” [“PDD”] (known as an ASD in the USA) was found to be 1 in 1272, when the 2013 estimate in the USA for similar children estimated an ASD diagnosis rate of one child in every 50, 6-to-17-year-old children13.
After reading this review response and verifying its validity, the writer of this article hopefully will listen to the realities that:
a. Vaccination with Thimerosal-preserved vaccines is a casual risk factor for an ASD diagnosis and
b. The current vaccination programs collectively are major causal factors for the current childhood epidemics, at levels in excess of 10% of the vaccinated children in several instances, of many other chronic childhood medical condi-tions, including but not limited to, ADHD, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, epileptic disorders, obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, eczema, food allergies, serious gastrointestinal disorders, solid cancers and lymphomas, and other immune-autoimmune-linked childhood diseases, disorders and syndromes, which were non-existent or vir-tually non-existent in the 1930s through the 1970s.
“Except that some people didn’t listen to the data. They called foul, saying every scientist that disagreed with them was under the thumb of Big Pharma and lying to the public. They released the results of unscientific, pet studies showing how they are right and everyone else is wrong. These anti-vaxers still won’t give up their beliefs, even though scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism.”
Based on the facts presented by this reviewer, the writer appears to be one of those people who “didn’t listen to the data”.
Moreover, the writer fails to provide any factual citations to sup-port her attack on those who have and are critically evaluating:
a. The safety and effectiveness of each FDA-approved vaccine,
b. The validity and data transparency, or lack thereof, for each published vaccine-related study, and/or
c. The effectiveness and cost-effective, or lack thereof, for each of the current CDC universal-inoculation-schedule’s recommendations for these vaccines.
Thus, the writer essentially seems to attack all studies that do not support the vaccination status quo by labeling them as “unscientific, pet studies” even when they were published in peer-reviewed journals and their authors are willing, subject to the constraints imposed by the federal government on data sharing and medical privacy, to share the raw data and ancillary information with those who seek to confirm that the data does support the findings reported by those authors.
In contrast, the datasets and ancillary information for the vaccine studies that “support” vaccination have either been reported as lost (e.g., the datasets for the CDC’s 2003 Verstraeten, et al. study14 and Fombonne’s 2006 study of children in certain Montreal schools15) or access to the data and ancillary information has simply been denied to those seeking to verify that the data does support the reported findings, or not.
Moreover, the writer’s asserting, “scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism” does not make that statement true.
Finally, her attempt to cast the evidence-based concerns of those who question the safety and/or effectiveness of vaccines and/or the cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs as “beliefs” does not reduce the scientific validity of the evidence-based concerns raised.
A JUMBLED MESSAGE: MIXING “CLIMATE CHANGE” AND GMO ISSUES
Again, this time mid-paragraph, the writer changes subjects and begins to speak of “climate change” and of GMO issues.
“We see the same refusal to listen when it comes to climate change. It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists. They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed. They stick their fingers in their ears like children, shouting ‘I can’t hear you!’ — and sadly, the same attitude is found throughout the anti-GMO platform.”
Whenever this reviewer observes a writer attempting to speak for those who are opposed to the position that the writer is trying to sell to the reader, the narrative almost invariably degenerates into an attempt to portray that opposition in a demeaning manner as in the writer’s closing statements here.
Ironically, this reviewer does agree with the writer when she states, “It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists”.
In fact, it is not the number of studies, or the number of consensuses, or even the number of scientists that matter.
What matters are the confirmed, scientific soundness of each study and the scientific validity of the consensus.
After all, at one time, the scientific consensus was that the Sun was the center of the universe; the world was flat; when burned, wood lost a substance called “phlogiston”16; and the universe was governed by Newtonian physics.
Moreover, as the reviewer’s introductory remarks clearly state,
“Finally, should anyone find any significant factual error in this review for which they have independent[a], scientifically sound, peer-reviewed-published-substantiating documents, please submit that information to this reviewer so that he can improve his understanding of factual reality and, where appropriate, revise his views and this review
[a] To qualify as an independent document, the study should be published by researchers who have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest from their ties to either those commercial entities who profit from the sale of any product or practice addressed in this review or those entities, academic, commercial or governmental, who directly or indirectly, actively promote any product or practice, the development of any product or practice, and/or programs using any product or practice covered in this review.”
he is open to any independent, scientifically sound, peer-reviewed published documents that refute his understanding of the facts.
Thus, to the extent that this reviewer and his colleagues around the world are scientists, the writer’s allegations, “They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed”, are pure nonsense.
ASSAILING RECENT STUDIES REPORTING HARM FROM GMO FOODS
“Instead of listening to the evidence, campaign groups conduct unrigorous, unscientific and completely biased studies, dig in their heels, and stand their ground. Just look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies which have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry. The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest. I can’t agree with Kara that such studies deserve equal voice. They don’t.”
Here, the writer begins by stating prejudicial claims concerning the basis and intent of studies conducted by groups or individuals who implicitly have problems with the GMOs in food that not only rats and pigs but also humans consume.
Then, she asks us to “look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies”, which she claims “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
However, the links the writer provides are not to peer-reviewed journal publications establishing the validity of the claimed problems, nor to the articles in question so that we may study them, nor to the studies’ authors’ published rebuttals (if there are any) to the published criticisms of the cited studies.
Instead, the links provided are to a posting in an anonymous blog (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-s%C3%A9ralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html?utm_source=feedly), and a personal web site posting (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/), which respectively attacked a long-term rat feeding study and a pig feeding study.
Unfortunately, the first link is an apparently invalid link as at-tempts to access it returned a “HTTP/1.0 404” error.
However, by accessing the web site, http://skeptico.blogs.com/, this re-viewer quickly found the cited entry,
“June 18, 2013
The Seralini Rule
I have a new rule for debating anti-GMO people:
If you favorably cite the 2012 Séralini rats fed on Roundup ready maize study, you just lost the argument.
If you cite this study as demonstrating any dangers in genetically modified food, you are either (a) so clueless as not to have spent 30 seconds checking to see if there are any reported problems in the study, or (b) so dishonest in citing a blatantly fraudulent study, that you are not worthy of any more serious consideration. You just lost the debate and you’re done. (Obviously you don’t lose the if you cite the study to demonstrate its flaws, only if you claim the study’s conclusions are valid.) …”.
Clearly, this intentionally anonymous blogger has an agenda that is highly biased and subjective even though this anonymous blogger claims to be objective.
From the blog entry, one can access the peer-reviewed, pub-lished article (Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov; 50(11): 4221-4231) at,
“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637”.
While this reviewer agrees that a more-robust study design might have been preferable, this reviewer notes that the designs used seem to be a copy of the “accepted” study designs used by Monsanto scientists in similar studies except that, unlike the short-term Monsanto studies, these studies continued feeding the rats for an extended period of time.
Turning to the provided valid “pig study” link, this reviewer was directly connected to http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/, which presents Mark Lynas’ views on this pig study and also provides a direct link to the peer-reviewed, published study at “http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf” (Carman JA, Vliegers HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Cinch-Jones CA, Haynes JI, Edwards JW. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. J Organic Sys. 2013; 8(1), 38-54).
Unfortunately, the information Mark Lynas provides about himself does not list any formal degrees, training or experience in the life or agricultural sciences; indicates that his major interests seem to be climatological and environmental in nature; and states that he is a “Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and the Environment”.
Further, although the writer’s claim that these studies “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”, the articles to which she links and their comments fail to provide any hard evidence that these comment posters “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
In addition, the writer’s claim, “The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest”, lacks the substantive proof needed to justify the allegations that she has made.
Moreover, since the studies seem to be effects studies, designed to identify and evaluate the effects of feeding high-GMO diets as compared to feeding low/no-GMO diets on the overall health of the animals fed an exclusive diet containing one type of feed or another, the studies were not, per se, designed to determine the safety of the different diets.
Thus, the writer’s negative comments about these two (2) studies are, at best, inappropriate and, at worst, defamatory.
GMO FOODS: BIASES AND ABSENT PROOFS OF LONG-TERM SAFETY
“I’m not sure where Kara stands on the GM issue, but Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument shows in the comments. ‘I don’t need scientists to tell me that GMOs are not a good idea,’ he says. There is an astounding level of cognitive dissonance in his statements. Though Chris brings up climate change, he misses his own point. For example, he calls out deniers, saying that ‘once enough peer-review science had been completed, still maintaining disproven beliefs would not be respectable, like in the case of global warming deniers’, then doesn’t even blink when he says ‘I would dislike GMOs whether the scientific community agreed they were bad or not. Likewise, I think we should not use Roundup, whether the scientific community agrees that it is dangerous or not.’ [emphasis mine]. This is exactly the problem.”
Here, the writer is quick to notice “Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument”, while ignoring her own obvious bias.
However, it is inappropriate to use one person’s biases as if they are representative of all persons who oppose GMO crops because: a) the GMO crops have not been proven to be either safe in the long term or nutritionally equivalent to the non-GMO crops previously grown; b) the use of the GMO seed raises the levels of the pesticides used to treat the crops as the weeds and insect pests develop resistance to the pesticides; c) as, contrary to the claim of rapid breakdown in the environment, the levels of glyphosate and other pesticides continue to increase in our drinking water supply and food; and/or d) of some other GMO-related (e.g., bt-corn) or pesticide-related (e.g., intentional promotion of an off-label use) problem.
“GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing — and passed.”
Here, the writer makes an unsubstantiated claim, “GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing”, which is, at best, deliberately vague, and, at worst, patently false.
Factually, GM crops have mostly only undergone short-term toxi-city, metabolism, and residue studies conducted by, or on behalf of, those firms who are marketing these GM crops.
Moreover, in some instances, the GM-crop candidate has been abandoned when it caused serious adverse effects even in the short-term studies typically conducted.
However, when it comes to long-term toxicity, metabolism, resi-due and environmental-impact studies, few, if any independent studies have been conducted.
Furthermore, the few independent, longer-term, feeding and environmental-impact studies that have been conducted have found evidence of serious adverse effects in rats and “unintended” transfer of pesticide resistance and other genetically inserted traits to other plants, principally “weeds” – making these weeds much harder to kill.
Given the preceding realities, this writer’s views are based on other than sound science and are apparently grounded in the pro-GMO propaganda that permeates the mainstream media and academia today.
“The simple fact is our fear of GM technology is based entirely on emotion. There is no science to support it.When it comes to GMOs, the anti crowd are not ‘raising concerns’—they’re denying scientific consensus.”
Continuing her biased attack on those individuals, groups and peer-reviewed studies that raise concerns about the safety of the entire GMO/pesticide paradigm, the writer again makes absolutist claims that, besides being at odds with some of the scientifically sound independent studies, are obviously biased to the extreme.
Further, those who question the Establishment’s GMO and/or pesticide paradigm are not denying any scientific consensus other than that “consensus” bought and paid for by the biotech and pesticide in-dustries and their direct and indirect supporters.
Until there are appropriate, independent, scientifically sound, long-term (greater than half of the life span of the animals studied) studies on the direct and indirect effects on the consumers of the products and their residues at every level – from the microbes, to the plants and the animals, including man – which clearly prove that the GMO/pesticide -containing and -derived products are sufficiently non-toxic17to those non-targeted individuals who are most susceptible to the adverse effects of such products, no one can logically or scientifi-cally assert that such are “safe”.
“There is a plethora of science that supports the safety record of GM foods. As the Skeptico blog pointed out, there are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded) that stand behind the safety record of GM crops.”
Accepting that there “are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded)”, this reviewer notes that the cited blog is admitting that about 80% of these studies are industry-overseen and/or industry-conducted studies – not even “independently funded studies”.
Further, independent funding does not ensure that the study is an independent study.
Given the careful choice of words by the anonymous writer of the cited blog, it would appear that very few of the studies are truly independent studies.
Finally, this reviewer has observed that any study that indicates there may be a problem with the Establishment’s GMO/pesticide paradigm and its authors are attacked by those who are a part of, or favor, the biotech and/or pesticide industries.
Thus, by not stating the number of truly independent studies that address “the safety record of GM crops” and providing a supporting peer- reviewed citation that supports that number, the writer seems to be hiding the scarcity or absence of truly independent safety studies.
“Scientists have been studying GMOs and their potential effects for decades. With every major scientific body saying the exact same thing, I simply don’t know how else to spell it out: there is a scientific consensus that GM foods are safe.”
Here, this reviewer simply reminds the reader that the tobacco industry used similar talking points in its decades-long knowing cover up and suppression of the risks associated with the smoking and/or chewing of its tobacco products, including the use of medical doctors in cigarette advertisements.
Further, making a statement, which is linked to an article that reports “the most important opposition currently facing the worldwide adoption of this technology: public opinion” clearly detracts from the assertion that “scientific consensus”, not propaganda, is being used to prove “GM foods are safe”.
In fact, the writer’s assertion is an implicit admission that the truly independent scientifically sound safety studies on GM foods have not established that they are safe.
Finally, this reviewer notes that one of the prime tactics that propagandists use is the repetition of less-than-truthful statements because such rhetoric eventually leads to increased public acceptance of such statements by those who, for whatever reasons, do not truly study the issues.
“Continuing to act as if the science is mixed or unclear about the safety of genetic modification is not raising a legitimate concern. It’s not even uninformed; it’s denialist. It’s right up there with the claims of anti-vaxers and climate deniers: that is, simply, flat-out, 100%, dead wrong.”
Contrary to the writer’s views, the independent science is clear that the long-term “safety of genetic modification” has not been established just as the “safety” of vaccines has not even been proven to the legal standards for such proofs as required of the manufacturers thereof by the applicable statutes and regulations18.
Moreover, this reviewer does not know of any “climate deniers” – all seem to admit that climate exists.
However, based on the current understanding of the independent sound science, those who have resisted the alarmist claims of “global warming” may have been right.
For a variety of reasons, the local climate is both changing and being actively modified but there is no independent, scientifically sound body of evidence that supports “global warming”.
Further, because most of the energy that warms the Earth comes from the Sun and the Sun’s energy output is currently declining, it would appear that, if anything, we might be entering a global cooling period19
Thus, based on the independent sound science, as he understands it, this reviewer finds that this writer’s assertions here may be, as she put it, “dead wrong”.

Advertisements

regarding tdap and pregnancy..is an autism coverup to blame?

this post is in regards to my previous post on tdap vaccination during pregnancy..

I see no other reason why they are pushing all of these vaccines on pregnant women other than the reason that they are frantically trying to prove to us that autism is a genetic condition that children have had from birth..its criminal!!

seriously though..they “remove” thimerosal from most vaccines but then at the same time as they’re phasing the mercury out, they start to recommend annual flu shots… (most flu shots contain thimerosal..) starting at 6 months of age..and then they say that pregnant women need flu shots (mercury and aluminum do penetrate the placenta..nothing is better for a developing baby than mercury..don’t you know?) and on top of all this they increase the aluminum in vaccines!! now tdap during pregnancy!!? there is just no other explanation (given the history of all this) that would explain why this pregnancy vaccine push along with yearly flu shots for infants and huge increases in aluminum is happening.. lets stroll over to cdc.gov and see what the they have to say about this:

Does thimerosal cause autism? “Research does not show ANY link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. (OHH my lord!! PLEASE see the TACA compilation of over 600 citations that show a thimerosal/autism connection!!!!)

ALTHOUGH thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in 2001, autism rates have gone up, which is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism.”

ARENT THOSE PEOPLE OVER AT THE CDC CLEVER!!??

please dont allow yourself to be fooled. Please hear the other side of this story and think for yourself.

the CDC boldly proclaims that autism rates didn’t drop after thimerosal was phased out in 2001..
– even though they added 4 doses of the aluminum containing PCV and the aluminum containing Hep A vaccine to the schedule in 2001..

– ohh yeah, 2001 was also the year that the CDC started recommending that flu shots be given either during the 2nd or 3rd trimester to pregnant women and their unborn children.

– and THEN if all that wasn’t enough.. we added the thimerosal containing YEARLY flu shot for children – starting at 6 months – to the schedule in 2002.

– and now they want pregnant women to be injected with even more toxic substances like aluminum and formaldehyde via the tdap vaccine given during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy?!!!

“nope vaccines do not cause autism,” says the CDC.

How stupid do they think we are?

I know this may be a jagged pill for some to swallow..but seriously think about it as you would think about anything else when trying to come to a conclusion. Think about this.. What would the ramifications have been if – all the sudden – autism rates would have started to plummet after the thimerosal was removed from most vaccines? This would have caused fingers to point directly at the CDC and their precious vaccine program..can you image the uproar that would have taken place? The publics confidence in the vaccine schedule and the publics willingness to adhere to it would be badly damaged if a scenario such as this ever played out. Soooo much money would be lost!!

I know that some people may be thinking, “this girl is some conspiracy loving crazy..!” but I am not trying to provoke some panic laden thoughts from you right now..i am simply just stating what I see. Look at almost every scandal or cover up that has taken place in this world..what is at the root of them? what is the common theme that connects almost all atrocities together?

the answer is money. throughout history it has been proven time and time again that money has a higher value than people.

link to cdc on thimerosal: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

see this link to see the changing appearance of the vaccine schedule : https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.351985038232728.76132.326568134107752&type=3

also to see peer reviewed studies on aluminum and how it damages the brain..click this link and scroll down to the section on aluminum: https://therefurbishedrogue.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/tdap-and-pregnancy-finding-your-voice-to-say-no/

Hard evidence that vaccines have been used to purposely make women sterile. What has changed?

Many of us have seen the accusations that vaccines are used as population control. Some of you may be hearing about this idea for the first time as you read this. What do you think when you read that this is the sinister reality behind vaccinations? I know the first time that I read this claim..im going to be honest here..i thought that whoever it was out there in cyberspace who wrote it.. was probably a crazy person. Of course, it was before I was awakened to the cold truth that I thought this..but still, the fact that I (being a person that has always questioned things) thought this means that most people probably think these accusations to be far more foolish than I did. How has the state of our society come to think the way that it does about notions that go against the grain? How have we become so programed to automatically brush certain things off as just “crazy” before ever giving any thought to what it is that is being said? It makes perfectly good sense that vaccines could be used as a method to reduce the population. Even after watching the clip of bill gates speaking about this, many people im sure, still just place this idea in the “crazy” category and probably never return to think about it. However, what I write about below.. leaves little room for interpretation – it has been well documented that vaccines HAVE been used to, without consent, end pregnancies, impair fertility and as a population control method.

population-control

I remember reading an article back in February that reported the murders of nearly 10 polio vaccinators in Nigeria. The deadly attacks were done by a group that believed that the polio vaccine was a western plot to sterilize Muslim girls. This seems so shocking of an idea to most of us probably. But after learning about this.. it is not such an outlandish thought. (the thought that polio vaccinations could be used as population control is not that outlandish NOT the thought of taking the lives of 9 innocent women who were just doing a job..i am in NO WAY SAYING THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN NIGERIA IS OK.)

I have heard about what happened to many of the poor women and to their unborn children in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines in the 1990s (and is still probably happening even today..how can we say that it is not happening today? What has changed? What explanation or apology has been issued?) getting back on point here..but until today, I had never really looked into it. what this post discusses has ethical ramifications that mirror even some of the most despicable crimes against humanity that have occurred on this planet. It is a travesty!..and guess what? Few people in this world have ever heard even a whisper about it.

During the early 1990s the World Health Organization (WHO) oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus; These campaigns targeted a number of developing countries.  Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines were three of the countries, among others, that were blessed by the WHO and all of their vaccine glory. Apparently, the thugs at the World Health Organization not only thought these people to be expendable..but they also must have thought that these people were incredibly stupid. It didn’t take long for officials to become suspicious of the vaccinations. Only women between the ages of 15 and 49 were allowed to be vaccinated (why not men and children?) and the vaccination schedule had these women receiving 3 tetanus vaccines within the first 3 months and 5 tetanus vaccines altogether, when it is widely accepted that a single tetanus vaccination will supposedly protect against tetanus for ten years. Because of these suspicions, officials had vials of the vaccine tested. To their surprise, the vaccines contained the pregnancy hormone hCG. The paper that ive learned all of this from explains why this is a negative thing by saying:

“In nature the hCG hormone alerts the woman’s body that she is pregnant and causes the release of other hormones to prepare the uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized egg. The rapid rise in hCG levels after conception makes it an excellent marker for confirmation of pregnancy: when a woman takes a pregnancy test she is not tested for the pregnancy itself, but for the elevated presence of hCG.

However, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies. The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.(1)”

The article goes on to say that after this was discovered,

“HLI reported the sketchy facts regarding the Mexican tetanus vaccines to its World Council members and affiliates in more than 60 countries.(2) Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from Nicaragua, which had conducted its own vaccination campaign in 1993.”

The aforementioned article was originally published in HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8 – see bottom of article for references. also see the additional pubmed article that discusses this in the link I will post below. I will also include one other link for people who would like to read into this further. The article goes on to say:

The Known Facts

Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines: 

* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren’t men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?

* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there

* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)

* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier — the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)

The Anti-Fertility Gang

Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State.(5) The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.(6)

The WHO began its “Special Programme” in human reproduction in 1972, and by 1993 had spent more than $356 million on “reproductive health” research.(7) It is this “Programme” which has pioneered the development of the abortificant vaccine. Over $90 million of this Programme’s funds were contributed by Sweden; Great Britain donated more than $52 million, while Norway, Denmark and Germany kicked in for $41 million , $27 million, and $12 million, respectively. The U.S., thanks to the cut-off of such funding during the Reagan-Bush administrations, has contributed “only” $5.7 million, including a new payment in 1993 by the Clinton administration of $2.5 million. Other major contibutors to the WHO Programme include UNFPA, $61 million; the World Bank, $15.5 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, $2.5 million; the Ford Foundation, over $1 million; and the IDRC (International Research and Development Centre of Canada), $716.5 thousand.

WHO and Philippine Health Department Excuses

When the first reports surfaced in the Philippines of tetanus toxoid vaccine being laced with hCG hormones, the WHO and the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) immediately denied that the vaccine contained hCG. Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid examined, the WHO and DOH scoffed at the evidence coming from “right-to-life and Catholic” sources. Four new vials of the tetanus vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke’s (Lutheran) Medical Center in Manila — and all four vials tested positive for hCG! From outright denial the stories now shifted to the allegedly “insignificant” quantity of the hCG present; the volume of hCG present is insufficient to produce anti-hCG antibodies.

But new tests designed to detect the presence of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of women vaccinated with the tetauns toxoid vaccine were undertaken by Philippine pro-life and Catholic groups. Of thirty women tested subsequent to receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine, twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-hCG! If there were no hCG in the vaccine, or if it were present in only “insignificant” quantities, why were the vaccinated women found to be harboring anti-hCG antibodies? The WHO and the DOH had no answers.

New arguments surfaced: hCG’s apparent presence in the vaccine was due to “false positives” resulting from the particular substances mixed in the vaccine or in the chemicals testing for hCG. And even if hCG was really there, its presence derived from the manufacturing process.
But the finding of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of vaccinated women obviated the need to get bogged down in such debates. It was no longer necessary to argue about what may or may not have been the cause of the hCG presence, when one now had the effect of the hCG. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced into their bodies!
Why A Tetanus Toxoid “Carrier”?

Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring hormone hCG, the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an invading enemy in order to develop a successful anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG antibodies. A paper delivered at the 4th International Congress of Reproductive Immunology (Kiel, West Germany, 26-29 July 1989) spelled it out: “Linkage to a carrier was done to overcome the immunological tolerance to hCG.”(8)

Vaccine Untested by Drug Bureau

After the vaccine controversy had reached a fever pitch, a new bombshell exploded; none of the three different brands of tetanus vaccine being used had ever been licensed for sale and distribution or registered with the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), as required by law. The head of the BFAD lamely explained that the companies distributing these brands “did not apply for registration.”(9) The companies in question are Connaught Laboratories Ltd. and Intervex, both from Canada, and CSL Laboratories from Australia.

It seemed that the BFAD might belatedly require re-testing, but the idea was quickly rejected when the Secretary of Health declared that, since the vaccines had been certified by the WHO — there they are again! — there was assurance enough that the “vaccines come from reputable manufacturers.”(10) Just how “reputable” one of the manufacturers might be is open to some question. In the mid-`80s Connaught Laboratories was found to be knowingly distributing vials of AIDS-contaminated blood products.(11)

Epilogue

At this juncture, evidence is beginning to appear from Africa.(12) HLI has called for a Congressional investigation of the situation, inasmuch as nearly every agency involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine is funded, at least in part, with U.S. monies.”

**This abstract that I found on PubMed from 1995 was published in Vaccine Weekly and can easily be read at the link below..it goes on to further back this up by saying:

“A priest, president of Human Life International (HLI) based in Maryland, has asked Congress to investigate reports of women in some developing countries unknowingly receiving a tetanus vaccine laced with the anti-fertility drug human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). If it is true, he wants Congress to publicly condemn the mass vaccinations and to cut off funding to UN agencies and other involved organizations. The natural hormone hCG is needed to maintain pregnancy. The hormone would produce antibodies against hCG to prevent pregnancy. In the fall of 1994, the Pro Life Committee of Mexico was suspicious of the protocols for the tetanus toxoid campaign because they excluded all males and children and called for multiple injections of the vaccine in only women of reproductive age. Yet, one injection provides protection for at least 10 years. The Committee had vials of the tetanus vaccine analyzed for hCG. It informed HLI about the tetanus toxoid vaccine. HLI then told its World Council members and HLI affiliates in more than 60 countries. Similar tetanus vaccines laced with hCG have been uncovered in the Philippines and in Nicaragua. In addition to the World Health Organization (WHO), other organizations involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine using hCG include the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State universities. The priest objects that, if indeed the purpose of the mass vaccinations is to prevent pregnancies, women are uninformed, unsuspecting, and unconsenting victims.”

Link to pubmed article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346214

Link to the main article mentioned in this post: http://thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm

Additional reading which includes references to other articles that make mention of this:  http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=368716

vaccinationsKill

what excactly is in that?

Below, you will find a link to the cdc table of vaccine ingredients. how many parents have actually looked at this before allowing their kids to be vaccinated? My son Rory received his two month shots, 7 vaccines and 1100 mcg of aluminum at once..i didn’t look before. I am pretty sure that a few things would happen if more parents did:

1. the number of babies receiving 7, 8 or 9 vaccines at one visit would plummet.

2. titer test sells would increase.

3. the number of booster doses administered would fall.

*I could continue with this list for a long, long time.. but i’ll save that for another post. I am just trying to keep this post simple.

**and before anyone tries to add to this list by saying that disease rates would increase, or that infant mortality from disease would increase.. please consider looking into the following things:

– what a titer test is.

– in 1950 (before mass immunization), the US ranked 3rd in the world for having the lowest infant mortality rate.

– in 2012, the US infant mortality rank was 49th.

– today, in a country where pregnant woman are encouraged to receive flu shots that contain mercury and tdap vaccines that contain aluminum and formaldehyde, and starting at birth, children receive 49 vaccines before the age of 6 :

1 in 6 children have learning disabilities
1 in 9 children have asthma
1 in 10 children have ADHD
1 in 12 children have food allergies
3-5 in 100 children are born with Birth Defects
1 in 88 children have Autism
1 in 100 children have Seizures
1 in 450 children have Diabetes
1 in 6,000 children have been diagnosed with Cancer

*** and if anyone would like the sources to the info above.. I can provide them. it will just take me some time to compile them all. but I will do it. just ask for them in the comments

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

imr 1950-2012

the new normal vax schedule

on being spat upon and unethical children

From Dr. Bob Sear’s facebook page (see bottom for link):

“Institute of Medicine Concludes Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Research Not Needed: The Vaccine Schedule is Safe As Is.
The IOM released a report today regarding the safety of the American vaccination schedule. Their conclusion? No new methods of safety research need to be undertaken. The current safety surveillance systems that we have in place are adequate, although they could be improved upon. Undertaking a large study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children is neither ethical nor necessary. The vaccine schedule is safe as it is.”

MoneyTalks

**They could end this whole debate so easily. But they won’t do it. The IOM and the CDC says that to leave kids unvaccinated is “unethical”..and this is the crutch that they lean on, even though millions of parents are so unsure about giving their kids vaccines. Im sure that I am not the only parent that has cried on the way to their babies checkup out of nothing but fear. They may say that since my son has not had a shot since he was 8 weeks old that he is unethical..he is actually quite healthy (praise the Lord) how dare these fools (yes, fools) call my child unethical when they inject 4 million children every year with a vaccine schedule that has grown from 10 to nearly 40 shots, contains known neurotoxins, carcinogens, and poisons that decrease fertility..and this “healthy” schedule HAS NEVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO A PLACEBO CONTROLED SAFETY STUDY! and they wanna call us unethical?! Just like in the bible..we are living in a time when right is wrong and wrong is right! What they are doing to the families and to the future of the world IS WRONG.

There has never been a study conducted that shows the effects that the current vaccine schedule has on a developing body and mind, so the risks of vaccinating my children are unknown. the risks of the sicknesses that vaccines claim to prevent are well known..so i am more comfortable taking the risks that i know. no matter how i look at it, i cannot justify my child being used as a guinea pig. Parents should be outraged! The tone in this country over vaccinations has changed..you cant hide from the glaring truth.. people are down right scared of these things.. our children are suffering..and they simply turn a blind eye to our plight and give us no new research..just a simple, “trust me..vaccines are safe.” Are you kidding me! if vaccines were safe and if the information we were given about them was true..I wouldnt be here writing this..you wouldnt be reading this! Give us truth..that’s all we are asking for.

Give us what we need to be confident in the vaccine schedule! Get two groups of children..one group that is fully vaccinated according to the cdc schedule and the other group not vaccinated at all..and compare the two groups. Have the study conducted by people who will not profit in any way regardless of the results..and publish them. We deserve it! Our children deserve it!

Dr. Sears goes on to say:

 ”A few years ago we all got excited when the Centers for Disease Control announced they were looking into doing more extensive vaccine safety research. Essentially, they were going to research whether or not they should and could do such research. The CDC assigned this task to the Institute of Medicine, a panel of medical experts from various medical and research backgrounds, and this report is the product of this investigation.
Here are my thoughts/disappointments/criticisms of the IOM report:
1. The IOM did not do any NEW research in this report. They did nothing new to examine and conclude that the current vaccine schedule is safe, or that it is safer than an alternative one. What they simply did was examine current available research and determine that there is no evidence that the current schedule is unsafe. There is no NEW information or research findings here.

2. The IOM admits on page 3 of their summary press release that a study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children is “the strongest study design type”. Basically, such a study would give us the most useful information.

3. The IOM and the CDC continue to hide behind the claim that to do a comparative study of unvaccinated versus vaccinated children would be unethical. But as long as they neglect to do this research, many parents will continue to decline vaccines over the concern about lack of safety research.

4. The IOM states that one challenge of an unvaccinated study is that there is an inadequate number of study subjects, as less than 1% of children are completely unvaccinated. I don’t agree with this statistic. It’s more like 5%, and could even be 10%. One brand new international study ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22943300) revealed that 10% of households surveyed had children who were completely unvaccinated. 10%!!! And it was the more educated and wealthier families that were more likely to be unvaccinated. The IOM’s claim that there aren’t enough unvaccinated children to study simply isn’t true. With over 4 million babies being born in the U.S. every year, they would have their pick of about 400,000 unvaccinated children to study each year.

The end result of this IOM report is that nothing has changed. Worried parents don’t have any new research or information to consider. The CDC has declared loud and clear that they won’t begin any new research on vaccine safety, especially involving a comparative unvaccinated control group. The debate over vaccine safety will continue on. “

The IOM report can be downloaded from this link: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

link to Dr. Bob Sears Facebook page..he is awesome and gives balanced information that can be trusted: http://www.facebook.com/ProudChristianParentsOfUnvaccinatedChildren?ref=hl#!/pages/Dr-Bob-Sears/116317855073374?fref=ts

and thank you to my friend at Educate4TheInjured.org for leading me to this… click on name for website or to visit the Educate4theInjured facebook page click here

chalkboard

if you really want to know about vaccines part 2

step 2 – vaccine package inserts

this is also time consuming..but why not read the full report about the vaccine from the vaccine manufacturer before letting your child receive it?

I go to the FDA website and find my way to this page.. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm093830.htm

I go to the first vaccine that I recognize as a pediatric vaccine (I skip the diphtheria and tetanus toxoids adsorbed because it is unlikely that my kid will get this because there is not pertussis included) so I go to the next one that I recognize and i get here.. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm094013.htm

there are three different brands of DTaP and you never know which one that the ped will have in stock so I will read all three of them. The first one is the Tripedia so I click on it and get to here.. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm094013.htm

a few steps that I do once I get on this page are:

1. I CLICK ON VACCINE PACKAGE INSERT and i come to here.. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf 

a few things that I notice while reading through this are:

– I read how the vaccine is made using cow protein and such.. mixing foreign proteins into our body cant be good.. look up research on bovine protein and type one diabetes (thats for another time though.. just in case here is one link for later.. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199207303270502 )

– I read how there is thimerosal, aluminum, formaldahyde, and polysorbate 80 (also called tween 80) if you already did completed step one then you know all about these things. thimerosal neurotoxin and developmental toxin..aluminum being a developmental toxin..formaldehyde causing cancer and fertility problems, and polysorbate 80 negatively impacting female fertility. Also something you may have not come across while researching yet is the finding of Dr. Russell Blaylock..he found that when you mix aluminum and mercury together, even in small amounts, that the combination makes the toxicity of the metals increase in the human body. see this paper to find out more.. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/Aluminum-Blaylock.pdf 

– Next I see the contradictions (i skipped the efficacy trials part for now..we will get back to this later) i notice that some contradictions ( contradictions are the situations that make some people not able to receive the vaccine)

a. Encephalopathy (eg, coma, decreased level of consciousness, prolonged seizures) within 7 days of administration of a previous dose of pertussis containing vaccine that is not attributable to another cause

b. Progressive neurologic disorder, including infantile spasms, uncontrolled epilepsy, or progressive encephalopathy. Pertussis vaccine should not be administered to individuals with such conditions. **my question here is, what about the first dose that my baby is supposed to receive at 2 months? How am supposed to know if my child will have a reaction like this if they have never had a previous shot? (why wont they make vaccines safer!!!?? but thats another story..)

– I read through the warnings and all that which is important..but something that really jumps out at me is the statement,

 ” Tripedia vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.”

how can they recommend that every child have 5 doses of this vaccine before the age the 6 and NOT do these tests? Especially saying that the majority of the ingredients in the vaccine have been shown to impair fertility and play a role in cancer…i would be scared too if my money depended on these things. I wouldnt do the tests either. How the FDA can approve vaccines that are injected into newborns, infants, children, and adults that have not had these tests done blows my mind! babies and children are still growing and developing..how can these tests not be done? You will find that statement written on the vaccine package insert for every vaccine recommended on the pediatric schedule. (on most inserts its around section 13 that you can find this info)

– next I move on to Adverse Reactions. a few things I notice.

a. the safety trials were conducted by the company who makes the vaccine and the NIH. Both groups gain financially from vaccines. Why are they conducting the safety studies? Especially given the fact that pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable for injuries caused by vaccines. Vaccine safety doesnt mess with the money flowing into their pockets..so how careful and transparent will they be?

b. only 1000 children were monitored for adverse events through a fourth dose. Only 580 children were monitored through a fifth dose.

c. in another safety study 673 infants were used. 505 of them received the Tridepia DTaP vaccine. 167 infants received the DTP whole cell pertussis vaccine. Why are they using another vaccine ( a vaccine that was discontinued in the US because it is so unsafe) as the placebo? A placebo is supposed to be saline water or another harmless substance..what are they scared of? I also find it funny how the tests done to show efficacy of the vaccine (how well it works) included infants who received no vaccine..but the safety studies did not. You will find this same pattern for almost every vaccine recommended.

– I could write a book about the things on this insert but you are smart..you can see for yourself. I see that out of 14,971 infants (and also..you will find this out once we move on to the next step but only HEALTHY infants are allowed to participate in these studies..ive read figures as high as 60% of the babies born in the country would not be eligible to participate in these safety studies..they only allow healthy babies to participate but then they recommend the vaccine to all babies…what?) ok..i read that out of 14,971 infants who received the Tripedia vaccine 13 of them died. 7 out of the 13 deaths were SIDS. (research for another time but read up on SIDS and vaccines..it will blow your mind..)

– i read this, ” Adverse events reported during post approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphlactic reation, celulitis, autism, convulsion, encephalopathy, neuropathy..events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.” …but go figure they dont give us any details about the amount of reports. Keep in mind that former FDA Commissioner David Kessler wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that “only about 1% of serious adverse events are reported to the FDA.”  see http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=406452 see this article too for additional reading.. http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/6-times-more-measles-vaccine-adverse-reaction-reports-than-measles-cases-in-2011/

Do this for all the vaccines. having fun yet? 🙂

**this video is awesome for getting a grasp on how the safety studies are done for vaccines. I would watch this before we move to the next step. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG2bfrrgvU4

vax mem truth

If you really want to know about vaccines – part 1

these are the things that your doctor doesn’t think you deserve to know about. This is the first list that I created for a friend of mine who is trying to research vaccines. (the same friend I mentioned in my last post called, on tinfoil hats, population control and vaccines.”

babyshots

the first thing.. 1. RESEARCHING VACCINE INGREDIENTS

– see this PDF from the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

– you can do this however you would like but as an example today, I am going to research ingredients by vaccine. I will do the first few ingredients of the Polio vaccine. The ingredients in the IPV are: formaldehyde.  2- phenoxyethanol , neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B, monkey kidney cells, Eagle MEM modified medium, calf serum protein.

– FORMALDEHYDE

– I google search “formaldehyde msds” (material safety data sheet) and I get this

**before you go on to the next step go down and look at neomycn..i found a better way to do this..you can always come back to these databases if you need to. ( go here and search for formaldehyde.)

– then I go to www.scorecard.com just to get some extra info..then I scroll down and near the bottom on the right hand side i click on  chemical profiles  and it brings me to here . I search for formaldehyde and i get this

– then I go to www.pubmed.com and search formaldehyde and i get this  – next I look over to the left hand side and see the tab called related searches. I click on formaldehyde toxicity. there are so many studies to read that you  could read about formaldehyde toxicity for days..a study catches my eye up in the top left corner under a tab called, titles with your search terms,  with the title,  Reproductive and developmental toxicity of formaldehyde: a systematic review, I click on it and come to this  – I read the abstract and then at the bottom I see , Free PMC article, I click on this so I can read the full text and I come to this

– I could continue reading for hours if I wanted to.. (and just a side note..I have done just what is listed above and I did end up reading for hours..)

– 2- PHENOXYETHANOL

– I google for the msds and I get this 

– the search on http://www.scorecard gives me some problems so I copy and paste the cas# from the msds ( 122-99-6) this search brings me to here

– I entered 2-phenoxyethanol toxicity on pubmed search and got this .I kept on seeing the term Ethylene glycol monophenyl ether in the titles. I looked this word up and it is the same thing as phenoxyethanol and you read my blog to see where all that went. (im talking about the blog I linked above, on tinfoil hats, vaccines and population control) ok 24 hours later I…

NEOMYCIN

google neomycin msds you get this

now that I found that new database during my educational safari last night.. I have cut down on some steps..so life is easy for me. I would still look up the msds for everything too. This database has everything all in one place.. you can find out just about everything in the table of contents on the left hand side.

– go here  and i search for neomycin. on left hand side there will be a table of contents..you can find everything almost. there are medical and scientific studies, reports of toxicology and so on. if this database doesnt have one of the chemicals you can go through scorecard.com again and make sure that you stay on the HSDB database and not to click on one of the other databases. This might sound confusing but you’ll see what im talking about..just use the link above.

so you get the gist of things..to really understand vaccines you need to do this for every single ingredient that could potentially be in a vaccine given to one of your kids. Now that ive found that database..it’s on man..im going to go back through them all again. whats-in-a-vaccine

on tinfoil hats, vaccines, and population control

Today I started working on a list of good research links for my friend who is trying to think through vaccinations for her children. I thought that it would be easy just to put together a list with stuff like the cdc table of vaccine ingredients and links to the vaccine package insert. I decided I would hit up pubmed for a few basic papers..this was a bad idea. I ended up lost in pubmed for hours. I should have done this a long time ago. I am learning more by trying to help someone else than ive learned for myself in a long time. One of the things that I ran into this evening was 2-phenoxyethanol. 2-phenoxyethanol is is used as a perservative in vaccines.

VACCINES THAT CONTAIN 2-PHENOXYETHANOL:

  •  DTaP: * and just a side note.. the only DTaP vaccine that does not contain phenoxyethanol contains thimerosal.

a. Infanrix – 2.5 mg (1)
b. Daptacel – .6% (2)

  •  DTaP-Heb B-IPV: Pediarix- 2.5 mg (3)
  •  Hepatitis A: Havarix- .5% (4)
  •  Poliovirus inactivated: IPV – .5% (5)
  •  Tdap: adacel- .6% (6) * side note..this vaccine is recommended for woman to have during every pregnancy. This shot also contains aluminum, formaldehyde, and glutaraldehyde..there are scientific studies linking every substance that I just listed to fetal and reproductive toxicity. All of these toxic substances are also in the DTaP. If you look at the link at the bottom of the cdc table of vaccine ingredients you will realize that I have only scratched the surface.
  • Td: Sanofi Pasteur- 3 mg (7)

STARTING AT 2 MONTHS, BEFORE A CHILD GRADUATES HIGHSCHOOL THEY ARE RECOMMENDED TO HAVE RECEIVED:

  •  DTAP- 5 doses
  •  POLIO- 5 doses
  •  HEP A- 4 doses
  •  TDAP- 3 doses
  •  TOTAL # OF DOSES BEFORE THE AGE OF 18: 17 (8)

A FEW INTERESTING THINGS THAT I FOUND OUT ABOUT 2-PHENOXYETHANOL

  •  2-phenoxyethanol: cas# 122-99-6
  •  ethylene glycol monophenyl ether: cas# 122-99-6

ethylene glycol monophenyl ether is one of the glycol ethers and is another name for 2-phenoxyethanol. (9) Everytime you see the word “ethylene glycol monophenyl ether” or “EGMP” it is talking about, 2-phenoxyethanol, the preservative that is injected into millions of infants and children every year.

ASSESSMENT OF ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOBUTYL [another of the glycol ethers] AND MONOPHENYL ETHER REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY..

“A continuous breeding reproduction study design was utilized to examine the reproductive toxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (EGPE)(EGPE = vaccine ingredient). continuous breeding reproduction study design was utilized to examine the reproductive toxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (EGPE).. Both male and female mice were dosed for 7 days prior to and during a 98-day cohabitation period. EGBE was toxic at the high (2%) and mid dose (1%) to adult F0 female mice: 13 out of 22 females at the high dose and 6 out of 20 at the mid dose died during the cohabitation period. Both the high- and mid-dose animals produced fewer litters/pair, fewer pups/litter, with decreased pup weight. These effects occurred in the presence of decreased body weight, decreased water consumption, and increased kidney weight. A crossover mating trial indicated that the reproductive effects could be attributed primarily to an effect on the female. This was substantiated at necropsy where testes and epididymis weights were normal as were sperm number and motility. Fertility of the offspring of the 0.5% group was normal in the presence of increased liver weights. With respect to EGPE, there was no change in the ability to produce five litters during the continuous breeding period. There was, however, a significant but small (10-15%) decrease in the number of pups/litter and in pup weight in the high-dose group. A crossover mating trial suggested a female component of the reproductive toxicity of EGPE. While fertility was only minimally compromised, severe neonatal toxicity was observed. By Day 21 there were only 8 out of 40 litters in the mid- and high-dose groups which had at least one male and female/litter. Second generation reproductive performance of the mid-dose group (1.25%) was unaffected except for a small decrease in live pup weight. In summary the reproductive toxicity of EGBE and EGPE was only evident in the female and occurred at doses which elicited general toxicity. EGBE was particularly toxic to adult female mice while EGPE was particularly toxic to immature mice of both sexes.” (10)

** I had to read this about ten times just to make sure that I was reading it right. Did that really just say what I thought it did? Does anyone else notice how the authors try their hardest to play down the results in the group that received EGPE? But if you read it a few times..you will quickly realize that the results for the group that received 2-phenoxyethanol are not good.

  • there was a slow decline in fertility that caused a drop in the weight and health of the next generation.
  •  severe neonatal (infants) toxicity was observed.
  • the abstract never gave the information needed to know how many in the EGPE group died..but it seems more died in the EGPE group than in the EGBE group. Since it never gave the orginal number of pups/liter there is no way to know.
  •  the other ether in the study caused deaths and toxic events to happen to the adult female mice. The glysol ether that is in several pediatric vaccines, 2-phenoxyethanol, was particularly toxic and caused death in the baby and children mice of both sexes.
  • and these results were what happened after the mice ate 2-phenoxyethanol..infants and children are injected with this substance. (17 times before the age of 18, as i mentioned above)

REPRODUCTIVE TOXICOLOGY: ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOPHENYL ETHER

“In summary, ethylene glycol monophenyl ether produced significant reproductive and developmental toxicity..Ethylene glycol monophenyl
ether caused significant toxicity in growing animals, as evidenced by the reduced body weight in neonates in Tasks 2, 3, and 4, and the large increase in postnatal lethality as the animals grew to the age of mating.” (11)

OCCUPATION AND MALE INFERTILITY: GLYCOL ETHERS AND OTHER EXPOSURES

“Conclusions: Glycol ether exposure was related to low motile sperm count in men attending fertility clinics. This suggests that, at the time of the study, glycol ethers continued to be a hazard for male fertility.” (12)

I POSTED THIS ON A FACEBOOK PAGE THAT I STARTED CALLED UNASHAMED CHRISTIAN PARENTS OF UNVACCINATED CHILDREN. THIS IS A COMMENT THAT I RECEIVED FOR THE POST:

The idea of vaccination for population control is ridiculous. You all all privileged enough to live in a country that has been vaccinating for CENTURIES…. This has enabled us to live relatively disease free. What about the people in third world countries who stand in line for hours to get life SAVING vaccinations. Many of these people would die without them. Its your right to choose to vaccinate or not. Don’t spread insane propaganda about some sort of world sterility plan.

MY RESPONSE:

I do understand why you would comment what you did..but did I once mention population control in my post? No I did not, I only said something about it in the comments, and even then I only referenced it as an idea. Look around this page..you will not see postings about population control and aliens. I don’t use tin foil. Aluminum is bad for you. That’s one reason I don’t agree with the vaccination schedule. Did you read the post? Or did you just read the comments and decide to remind everyone that vaccines save lifes? I’m not saying that is not true. Many people in the “anti vaccine” community would highly disagree with me on that..but I am not going to say that vaccines have not saved lifes bc there is data that shows this to be true in some instances. However, there are MANY other natural ways to prevent disease that do not harm the brain and the body and that do not negatively interfere with fertility…these have all been documented as well. Look at the decline in disease rates after sanitation improved..look at the Karachi soap study. Please read the links I’ve included in the post above and then remember that starting at two months, before a child graduates high school they are recommended to receive 17 doses of vaccine which contain 2-phenoxyethanol..and then tell me if it does not make logical sense to question whether or not this could be a factor in the increasing number of fertility clinics that are poping up. everywhere in the US and around the globe.

**do people really not want to know the truth?

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest -but the myth -persistent, persuasive and unrealistic – Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” – John F. Kennedy

“Intuition will tell the thinking mind where to look next.” -Jonas Salk (ohh the irony)

  1.  http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM103057.pdf
  2.  http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm103006.htm
  3.  http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM106897.pdf
  4.  http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM244562.pdf
  5.  http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM218597.pdf
  6. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM142764.pdf
  7.  http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/UCM152831.pdf
  8.   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/
  9.   http://ctdbase.org/detail.go?type=chem&acc=C005398
  10.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2086313
  11.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470243/pdf/envhper00326-0221.pdf
  12.  http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2008/04/16/oem.2007.035824.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=povey&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
  13. *** cdc table of vaccine ingredients:   http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

1923: diphtheria vaccine licensed 1949: Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis (DTP) was licensed.1953: Tetanus and diphtheria toxoids (adult formulation) was first licensed in the U.S 1955: The first polio vaccine was licensed — an inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV)

Why would someone NOT vaccinate their child?! Vaccines are good…right?

I know that the idea of not vaccinating your children, to some, is a shocking idea. Some may think that it is an irresponsible thing to do and some may even think that parents who makes this choice are neglecting their children.  I can understand why some may feel this way because I once felt the same way. I didnt think that parents who didnt vaccinate were bad parents..I just thought that they were crazy. I couldnt understand why someone would not give their children shots that would protect them against deadly diseases. How I once thought is completely reasonable given how we are conditioned from childhood to put our faith in vaccines. One of my favorite books as a child was a Berenstain Bears book about brother and sister bear getting shots at the doctors office. Just the other day, my children and I were watching PBS when a popular childrens program dedicated an entire show to discuss how important getting your flu shot is. As adults we are further conditioned by the media and the medical establishment. We are made to believe that vaccines saved us and that  vaccines are our only option for living healthy lives. This is how I felt when my son was born. Before my son’s 2 month check up,  I remember sitting in the parking lot outside of his pediatrician’s office crying. Something inside of me almost made me leave. But I didnt. I wiped the mascara from underneath my eyes.. “I have to hold my baby down while he gets these shots because I love him..I am doing this to protect him.”  This is what I told myself;  this is what a lot of parents probably tell themselves. 

 

The last time I ever told myself this was at my son’s two month check up. He reacted badly to the 6 shots they gave him and something went off in my mind..”something isnt right here.” That day as I held my screaming son, I got down on my knees before God and I asked him to show me the truth. That simple prayer has sent me down the longest road that I have ever been on..and I am still on it..I learn new things everyday.

One aspect of this whole vaccine debate that drives me to the point of tears is the lack of common sense. I would have came to the same conclusion years ago about vaccines if I would have only thought to look at the right things. All that a person really needs to look at when researching vaccines is the list of vaccine ingredients  (for instructions on how to search through chemical databases and research these ingredients see this post).  If common sense was king then vaccines as they are today would have never happened.  Infants and children receive somewhere around 34 shots by the time they 6 years of age. In 1983, before a child turned 6.. they were recommended to receive 10.  Many of shots are mulit dose vaccines ( like the DTaP is actually 3 vaccines in one and the MMR is 3 vaccines in one) How can we inject the things that are in vaccines into a developing mind and body 34 times, and in many cases, 8 or 9 shots at once.. and expect the results not to be negative?

The most frustrating thing to me is that parents who have made the choice to refuse, delay, or be selective about vaccines are constantly made to look like “the bad guy,” when in reality the we have very sound  reasons for our choices. There is a battle going on for our minds. If you think that I am just another conspiracy theorist please read the following links in detail…after you have done so, I can almost promise that your feelings will have changed. I am going to share a few link for anyone who may be searching to learn more about this topic. Also, if you are reading this and you vaccinate your children.. I want you to know that as long as you are comfortable with the informed decision on vaccination that you have made, I respect that. Hopefully after reading this, you will also respect my decision.

1st thing to consider: MONEY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR HEALTH AND OUR RIGHTS TO KNOW THE WHOLE STORY

example 1: SIMPSONWOOD

In 2000 a secret meeting was held at the Simpsonwood Conference Center in Simpsonwood, Georgia. CDC and other government officials, Pharm reps, and several prominate doctors met to discuss the connection between thimerosal and brain damage..  Thimerosal is a compound that was in many childhood vaccines up until the latter half of 2002 – but is now only in most flu shots — the compound is 49% mercury.  A study conducted by Dr. Thomas Verstraeten of the CDC had indeed found a link between thimerosal and brain injury and this meeting was called to figure out what to do about it. The simpsonwood transcript was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and what can be read is shocking.

the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are  linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They  are linear. They are statistically significant.” – Dr. William Weil, American  Academy of Pediatrics. Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000 —

 the issue is that it is impossible, unethical to leave kids unimmunized, so  you will never, ever resolve that issue [regarding the impact of mercury].” –  Dr. Robert Chen, Chief of Vaccine Safety and Development, Centers For Disease  Control, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000 —

 Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an  emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first  male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a  Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will  probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably  implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that  grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines. – Dr. Robert Johnson,  Immunologist, University of Colorado, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7,  2000 —

 But there is now the point at which the research results have to be  handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and  that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of  information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond  the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that  it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and  what they say…My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end  of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible  Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be  with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative  is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe. – Dr. John Clements,  World Health Organization, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000 —

Shockingly, the CDC received letters in July and September 1999 from Merck and SmithKline Beecham, respectively, letting CDC know that full  production of Thimerosal-free vaccines for Hepatitis B and DTaP could be made  available almost immediately. To SmithKline, CDC responded with a tepid letter thanking them for the offer,  but not taking them up on it. Thimerosal would remain in the vaccines on the  Childhood Immunization Schedule for three more years, it would be late 2002  before Thimerosal-free vaccines were finally available for all vaccines. They were well aware that this toxic substance was hurting our children, but they chose to wait.  How many children were damaged during those 3 years simply because money means more to our government?

– pdf for the simpsonwood transcript obtained through FIOA –  http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/2.9.pdf

– to read an depth summary including links to any documents mentioned above that I did not already link,  please see –   http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html

– a summary of simpsonwood written by Russell Blaylock, M.D. – http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm

example 2: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

What is it that you hear constantly in the media about vaccines? The answer to that question is that vaccines are safe and this newly released study proves it. As mentioned above, the study written by the CDC’s Dr. Verstraeten that was the main reason for the simpsonwood conference was released in 2003, three years after the simpsonwood incident. Of course the data had been “handled” by then and the results showed no connection between thimerosal and brain injury (even though there are many peer reviewed studies that do show a connection – see the bottom of this entry for a few links to thimerosal studies). How is it that this significant linear relationship between the two simply disappered? The study was written by the Centers for Disease Control, the federal agency in charge of the vaccine program. The lead author, Thomas Verstraeten, left to take a job with Glaxo SmithKline — a vaccine manufacturer — after the study was written and before it was published. The U.S. Congress later cited this as an ethical violation.

Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Safety Research, an article published in  2012 in the peer reviewed journal called Accountability in Reseach had this to say:

Conflicts of interest (COls) cloud vaccine safety research. Sponsors of research have competing interests that may impede the objective study of vaccine side effects. Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals may have financial and bureaucratic reasons for not wanting to acknowledge the risks of vaccines. —

 Vaccine  manufacturers have a COl related to the tension between making profits and studying the negative side effects of their products. Vaccines are a big and growing business: Worldwide sales of pediatric vaccines in 2009 were about $11.5 billion, and sales are expected to reach close to $20 billion by 2014 (Sahoo, 2010). Once manufacturers have met the expensive regulatory hurdles of vaccine approval, they have little incentive to research the safety of their products. Although postlicensure analyses are typically undertaken to ensure the safety of the products, such analyses in the United States, for example, are performed by the same regulatory agencies that initially approved the vaccines (Salmon et al., 2004). Moreover, vaccine manufacturers do not face the threat of lawsuits that might motivate other industries to seek to improve safety. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 protects vaccine companies in the United States from being sued. The protection was deemed necessary, because vaccine manufacturers were facing increasing tort litigation and an adequate supply of vaccines at stable costs was considered essential for public health (Supreme Court, 2011). One implication of the legislation was to provide incentives for the development of new vaccines, which typically earned smaller profit margins per dose than other drugs. Citizens in the United Kingdom may sue vaccine manufacturers, but no plaintiff has ever been successful (Hanson, 2007).

 Compounding the COls inherent in the business of manufacturing vaccines is the fact that vaccine manufacturers sponsor research. The influence of industry is wide-spread: It affects individuals as well as institutions and study outcomes as well as research initiatives. In a survey of faculty at top U.S. medical research institutions, Tereskerz et al. (2009) found over two-thirds of researchers (338 out of 506) received some support from industry. Studies show that the financial interests of researchers are positively associated with outcomes favorable to the sponsor in medical studies (Friedman and Richter, 2004; Jefferson et al., 2009; Yank et al., 2007). Not only individual researchers, but also research institutions can be influenced by industry sponsorships such as grants, endowed chairs, and other gifts (Tereskerz, 2003). Industry sponsorship can influence not only outcome, but research initiatives as well: The Tereskerz et al. (2009) survey mentioned above also found 35% of respondents knew of industry-sponsored researchers who compromised their research agenda because the researchers were sponsored by industry. Where industry support was important to the research unit, over half of respondents knew of researchers who compromised their research initiatives. The same study noted that industry support tended to go to senior or well-established researchers, so industry influence on research agenda could reach younger researchers who work with or for their more established mentors. —

 The U.S. FDA faces at least three COls when it considers sponsoring research into the possible link between vaccines and autism. The first is the mission of the FDA, which is to protect “the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs …. The FDA also helps the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health” (FDA, 2009). The FDA evaluates and approves vaccines for safety and efficacy. Sponsoring research that finds a link between autism and vaccines that the FDA has approved could greatly damage the Administration’s reputation and reduce public trust in the FDA.  A second major COl in the FDA lies in the way the Administration is funded. In 1992, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act was adopted whereby pharmaceutical companies paid fees to have their drugs evaluated. The intent of the legislation was to enhance the resources of the FDA and thereby speed up evaluations. However, industry funding could result in industry influence (Angell, 2004). While the Act refers only to prescription drugs and not vaccines, many vaccine manufacturers also produce prescription drugs. The user fees paid by drug manufacturers provide incentives for the FDA to be more friendly to the industry since it is dependent upon industry funding. —

 After a vaccine receives approval from the US. FDA, the US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decides whether to add a vaccine to its recommended schedule for the US. civilian population. The CDC also sponsors research on vaccine safety. It has at least three major COls that could hamper its ability to provide objective research about vaccines. The first is the nature of the CDC’s mandate, which is to prevent and control disease, injury, and disability (CDC, 2012). Thus, the CDC is obligated to prevent disease, which it does largely by promoting vaccination. It is also charged with controlling disabilities. If the research it sponsors were to identify vaccines as being hazardous and if the vaccination schedule it recommends is associated with autism, it would be forced to concede that its policies did not support its goals and actually promoted disabilities. Since the CDC is charged with promoting vaccination programs as well as assessing vaccine risks, it might be reluctant to sponsor research that uncovers risks it may have created. —

 An example of the CDC being concerned about research into a problem it may have created occurred in 2000, when the CDC commissioned the Institute of Medicine (lOM) to evaluate vaccine safety, particularly the possible links between the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine and the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal with autism. In a discussion concerning the proposed study (lOM, 2001), Dr. Marie McCormick, then Chair of the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the lOM, said (p, 33), “[The CDC] wants us to declare, well, these things [vaccines] are pretty safe on a population basis.” Later in this planning discussion, Dr. McCormick decided (p. 97), “[W]e are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect [of vaccines] … “, thereby declaring a conclusion before the study was undertaken. In its final report, the IOM stated that although a link between vaccines and autism was possible theoretically, epidemiological studies favored no causal link and suggested funds be channeled to more promising areas of research (lOM, 2004). Other researchers who receive grants from the CDC may also be leery of investigating problems their benefactor may have created. —

 Finally, officials at the CDC may see working for the government as a stepping stone to employment at a vaccine manufacturer. A year after leaving as director of CDC in 2009, Dr. Julie Gerberding took a position as president of Merck Vaccines. During her tenure as CDC director from 2002 to 2008, Dr. Gerberding supported the above-mentioned IOM study as well as other studies that concluded no link between vaccines and neurological disorders could be found (see CDC, 2010, for an overview of the studies). Another former CDC employee, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, began working for GlaxoSmithKline when he was in the process of completing a major study on the potential negative side effects of thimerosal at the CDC (Verstraeten, 2004); the study found no consistent significant associations between thimerosal and negative neurological outcomes (Verstraeten et aI., 2003). While the studies may have been good analyses, the COl regarding research emphasis or conclusion is unavoidable when a public official takes a lucrative position in the industry that she/he previously regulated. — 

 While U.S. Congressional committees have undertaken a few investigations into the possible link between vaccines and autism (US HR, 2000 a,b, 2003), they have not actively pursued the issue. Members of Congress may be reluctant to sponsor research into vaccine safety for at least two reasons: contributions and prospects of future employment. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical/health products industry spent over $2.3 billion between 1998 and 2011 to lobby elected officials and candidates, more than any other industry (CRP, 2011). CRP also reports that the number of lobbyists increased steadily from 729 in 1998 to a peak of 1,803 in 2008, declining to 1,612 in 2010 (CRP, 2010). Since 2005, the industry employed at least three lobbyists for every member of Congress. Additionally, a revolving door exists between Congress and the pharmaceutical industry. Over half of the lobbyists employed by the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 had worked in Congress or another branch of the federal government, and 35 had been former members of Congress (Beckel, 2009). Mandating a study that could hurt major contributors or future employers could result in fewer contributions or no offers of employment or both. —

This article goes far deeper into this subject and is a must read. I linked the pdf file to this article above but if you would like to read the article without having to download the pdf see – http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/conflicts-of-interest-in-vaccine-safety-research-article-from-peer-reviewed-journal/

This issue goes much deeper. It is hard for me to be brief when discussing it. I will share just one more example.

In August of 1998 the RotaShield vaccine (a vaccine for rotavirus) was approved for use by the FDA. By march of 1999 the RotaShield vaccine had been recommended by the CDC for universal use. 7 months later, in October of 1999, the vaccine was pulled from the US market because the vaccine was causing serious intussusception (bowel obstruction) in children. on June 15, 2000 at the

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND VACCINE DEVELOPMENT–PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION, Rep. Dan Burton had this to say in regards to the Rotashield vaccine:

“So the question is, was there evidence to indicate that the vaccine was not safe, and if so, why was it licensed in the first place?How good a job did the advisory committees do? We reviewed the minutes of the meetings. At the FDA’s committee, there were discussions about adverse events. They were aware of potential problems. Five children out of 10,000 developed bowel obstructions. There were also concerns about children failing to thrive and developing high fevers, which as we know from other vaccine hearings, can lead to brain injury. Even with all of these concerns, the committee voted unanimously to approve it.”

5 children out of 10,000 suffered bowl obstruction during the clinical trials for Rotashield. That is an intussusception rate of 1 in 2000! The high occurance of adverse reactions during the clinical trials were not the only thing ignored. Rep. Gilman speaks of this when he said:

“Rotashield was developed to combat rotavirus, which symptoms are vomiting, diarrhea, low grade fever. However, it was pulled from the market following reports of serious illness in over 100 babies. The Rotashield vaccine intended to cure these symptoms, instead, caused 2 deaths, 53 cases of surgery and 47 cases of required medical care, all in babies.

The FDA and its advisory committee approved the vaccine in 1999, overlooked the 1989 tests of a similar vaccine in China in which a number of babies suffered identical bowel problems to those caused by rotashield known as intussusception, a bowel obstruction so severe that the intestine swallows itself. Moreover, at least one of the researchers involved in that China test is now working at the CDC, was also involved in Rotashield. Therefore, the data from the earlier China test was available to the advisory committee members who approved the Rotashield vaccine but was overlooked or ignored.

Regardless of the reason why this information was disregarded, American babies suffered, underwent surgery and some even died. The FDA and CDC advisory committee members do have the responsibility of abiding by all regulations to ensure the safety of our public health. Human life should not be undermined or compromised for personal or financial ties that advisory members may have to the pharmaceutical industry.”

and what financial ties and conflict of interest might these FDA and CDC advisory committee members have? Rep Burton gives a summary to answer this question:

“Families need to have confidence that the vaccines that their children take are safe, effective and very necessary. Doctors need to feel confident that when the FDA licenses a drug, that it’s really safe and that the pharmaceutical industry has not influenced the decisionmaking process. Doctors place trust in the FDA and assume that if the FDA has licensed a drug, it’s safe for use. Has that trust been violated? How confident in the safety and need of specific vaccines would doctors and parents be if they learned the following:

1. that members, including the chair of the FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies that make the vaccines.

2. that individuals on both advisory committees own patents for vaccines under consideration, or affected by the decisions of the committees.

3. that three out of the five of the members of the FDA’s advisory committee who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived.

4. that 7 individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory committee were not present at the meeting. Two others were excluded from the vote, and the remaining five were joined by five temporary voting members who all voted to license the product.

5. that the CDC grants conflict of interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time, and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member, whether they have a financial stake in the decision or not. So they’re discussing it, influencing other members possibly, whether they have a financial stake or not.

6. that the CDC’s advisory committee has no public members, no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the childhood immunization schedule. The FDA’s committee only has one public member.

How confident can we be in the recommendations for the Food and Drug Administration when the chairman and other individuals on their advisory committee own stock in major manufacturers of vaccines? How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the number of experts is so few around the country that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers must be granted? It almost appears that there is an “old boys network” of vaccine advisors that rotate between the CDC and FDA, at times serving simultaneously. Some of these individuals served for more than 4 years. We found one instance where an individual served for 16 years continuously on the CDC committee. With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 16 years?”

If you read the document in full, Rep Burton goes into great detail about specific advisory members and the financial ties that they have to pharm companies. The things that you will read will make you sick. If you have the time, I would definitly read this in full. I am sick of these people being the jurors deciding so many children’s lives. In closing, I’ll leave you with one more thing that Rep. Burton had to say:

“Now, I don’t know how the bureaucracy in Washington feels, but I think I can speak for an awful lot of parents around the country who want to have confidence that the vaccinations their kids are getting have been tested, and that there’s been an unbiased judgment made as to whether or not they’re going to be safe as well as effective. And the problem with the bureaucracy is, you keep saying, well, we can’t do this because we might not be able to attract people to these advisory committees. Look, there are 700,000 doctors. There must be somebody else out there in that vast mass of humanity that has the expertise to be able to be on these advisory boards. And if a parent knew that there was a financial interest, possible conflict of interest from the person making the decisions on the vaccination, especially if we find out after the fact that kids died or are ruined for life, then I think the parents would say, you know, maybe we ought to make absolutely sure there’s no conflict before we allow these people to be on these advisory panels making these decisions. Now, you know, you may disagree because you serve in a position in the bureaucracy where these decisions are made, and you think that that’s the way it ought to be. I speak from a little bit of experience. I have two grandchildren, two. One got a hepatitis B shot and within 3 hours she was dying. She wasn’t breathing any longer. They had to rush her to the hospital and she survived. Now, there’s a lot of parents who have had that kind of problem with other drugs and other vaccinations. My grandson got nine shots in 1 day. He was a perfectly normal child. And within about 3 or 4 or 5 days, a week, he became autistic. Now, it may be a coincidence. A lot of people say that’s coincidental. But the one thing I want to make sure of as a grandparent or as a parent is that the guys making these decisions or the ladies making these decisions, these doctors, these experts, don’t have some kind of a conflict of interest that skews their judgment in one direction or the other. And the American people, well, you can say, we shouldn’t be making this stuff public. Let me tell you something. Everybody in American who has a child who’s had this kind of a problem wants this stuff made public, because they want to know if the people making these decisions do have a conflict of interest. We go to the doctors and we get these shots for our kids, and we do it believing that the health agencies are above reproach, that there’s no danger to our children, or at least it’s minimal. And we put great confidence in CDC and FDA and all of our health agencies. And if we find out after the fact that our child has had a terrible, serious problem, and then we find out after the fact that people on that advisory committee that made those decisions did have a conflict of interest, it will weigh on us very heavily, because we’ll wonder, always wonder, if that conflict of interest led to the problem that we have in our family. And that’s why the people on these advisory committees need to be above reproach. They need to be above reproach. If they have a conflict of interest, if they’re a paid consultant for a company that has an interest in that product, if they have a large amount of stock in that company, and they’re going to benefit from that product, or if they have some other reason to be tied to that company, they’re getting grants from that company for scientific research, whatever it might be, they should not be on those advisory committees. And if they are, it should be made known at the outset so that people can make a decision based upon information, total information. And I just think it’s wrong. You may shade this one way or the other, based upon what you feel is being with the Department of Ethics in this country. But if that’s the way it is right now, I think the law should be reviewed and changed. There’s got to be people out there that can serve on these advisory panels that don’t have conflicts, who may have their judgment skewed in one direction or another. And there’s got to be people out there that are going to make decisions based upon what’s best for the people of this country and the kids of this country without any bias whatsoever. And that’s what the American people, I believe, want.

For a transcript of the hearing click here.

also see this website that digs in deeper concerning the conflicts of interest for specific studies. Most of these studies were blasted across the media to show that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. Every one of them has huge flaws and were written or funded by people who gain financial profit from vaccines – http://www.14studies.com/

 This is just the first step in understanding how some one could possibly question vaccines. Once you get past the feelings that the government and medical establishment would never do anything to hurt you and realize that there have been times when we have been lied to..it becomes easier to approach this whole issue with a more balanced perspective.

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. – Gandhi 

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge – Hosea 4:6

my thoughts on why God doesnt like fluoride

An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. – proverbs 18: 15

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.. – Hosea 4:6

this weekend was wonderful. my parents, my brother and his family, and my family went to myrtle beach for a family vacation. now, i am not going to say that it was all peaches and splendidly creamy..WOW, the beach becomes a whole new playing field when children are involved. All the diapers, sunscreen, bottles and baby whatnot that has to be dragged around makes that sun and sand a bit more annoying. needless to say, we still had a great time and I really enjoyed getting to take a break. Spending time with my family is something that, in the past, I have loathed..but now, it is something that I treasure.

In past K (i wont say my whole last name..im not trying to get killed by some internet crazy person) family vacations things have sometimes been a struggle..to say the least. The last big vacation that we took.. my brother and I ended up having a full blown fight at a rest stop. We were almost home..and that last bathroom stop proved to be our breaking point. My dad had to pull the van over to the side of the rest stop exit ramp so me and Lee could duke it out. The scene of me and Lee rolling around on the ground is something that brings my family great laughter now..but still, the same scenario could very much so happen again. that same spirit of who gets the remote..or who gets to sit in the good chair can still come out when there are siblings involved no matter how old you are.

everything went smoothly as possible during our vacation..until today at lunch. We all met for lunch right before parting ways to go home. For a brief moment my brother and I almost got into it. Thankfully, we worked it out and a disaster was avoided. Throughout the whole vacation, everywhere that we went..my actions of avoiding water with fluoride was obvious and unavoidable. Fluoride is not good for us. I will flat out say it..I really dont care what people think of me because I know that if they did their own research they would most likely come to the same conclusion. Now you may have different opinions on it..but., most likely, you probably dont have an opinion on it at all.  I mean who thinks about fluoride? who cares? ummm..this girl does. im not really sure why my brother and I butted heads about it today..but,I guess that my opinionated ways just got a little annoying to him. (i am not surprised by this because I am pretty obnoxious) I dont even remember how it started..but, I got upset because members of my family were saying things that belittled my opposition to fluoride.. things that I took as trying to make me feel stupid for going the extra mile to drink water that was fluoride free. What upset me was really not the fact that they did not agree..what upset me was the fact that they so easily brushed off  about something that I feel so strongly about..something that I want them to know as well, for the benefit of their health. The fact that so many people do not care about something as obviously negative and medically wrong as the forced medication that our government pushes upon us through putting fluoride (a drug) into our water is something that drives me insane..and my family not supporting my feelings is just hard for me to swallow.  Family is supposed to be a support system..and it just upset me that I could not even be taken seriously by the only people in this entire world who i have to really fall back on. Now, dont get me wrong..my family loves me, that is something that I do not question. I just wish that they would believe me enough to take my viewpoint into consideration instead of joking about it at my expense. One thing my brother ( who i really do love dearly 🙂 said to me today was, “have you come to this conclusion by doing more research than watching one video.” I can understand were he is coming from because fluoride being in our water is something that most of us do not question. I mean, it is in our water because the powers that be put it there. Well tonight.. as I searched around trying to figure out how I could make my viewpoint a little more relevent I found exactly what I was looking for. I have sent my family emails containing my findings and I hope that what I sent will be enough to cause concern so that they will do some serious research on their own.  Hopefully it will make sense to you as well.

His divine power has given us everything we need for life.. – 2 peter 1:3

All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – john 1: 3-4

But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus – Philippians 4:19

How wonderful is breast milk? Breastmilk is a miracle substance that even modern science cannot copy. God created breast milk..that is why science cannot duplicate it. Science cannot touch God. Do you know that human breastmilk contains a very small amount of fluoride? The fact that the body of a nursing mother filters fluoride from reaching her milk speaks volumes to me..I would hope it would to any christian who understands that all good things come from God. God isn’t going to hurt us. As a study published by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (click here for the article) says..

“The mean concentration of fluoride in breast milk obtained from 32 women consuming drinking water that contained < 0.16 ppm was 0.004 ppm, whereas breast milk obtained from 112 women consuming drinking water containing 1 ppm reportedly was 0.009 ppm.8 Similar levels of fluoride concentrations of breast milk and colostrum (0.008 ppm) have been reported by Spak et al.1 However, Spak et al1 found no significant difference in breast milk fluoride concentrations of mothers living in areas with low and high drinking-water fluoride concentrations.”

so what does that show us? No matter how much fluoride that a nursing mother may consume.. her body will filter it and keep it away from her breastmilk. Some may say that fluoride naturally occurs in nature so it is from God..however, the chemicals in our water are not the element that naturally occurs in nature..as the Salt Lake Tribune shares in the following..what is in our water is by no means natural..

“Even the Davis County residents who voted for water fluoridation two years ago should be happy that opponents are close to forcing the issue back onto the ballot this fall. The additive most people assumed they would be getting — the pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride found in toothpaste, pills and dental treatments — is not the stuff flowing from taps today in the county’s southern end. Instead, the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District took a more economical path and bought fluorosilicic acid. Those who had visions of sterile white laboratories when they voted for fluoride weren’t thinking of fluorosilicic acid. Improbable as this sounds, much of it is recovered from the scrubbing solution that scours toxins from smokestacks at phosphate fertilizer plants. Water fluoridation has turned a tremendous hazardous waste disposal expense into a multimillion-dollar profit for fertilizer manufacturers”

if that isnt enough..will you please allow me to go on and share more about the dangers it may cause. this is from an article I found on PRNewswire. The second link at the bottom of the this entry will take you to the article if you would like to read the entire thing.

The research team reports, “It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride.” (1)

“Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident,” they write.

Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water.

“Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF.  “We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children’s teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can’t see the harm it’s doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking,” says Beeber.

Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain’s physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological  and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.

“Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth,” they write.*

Animal studies show fluoride’s toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, Valdez-Jimenez’s team reports.

A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that “A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ.” (Biological Trace Element Research)  (2)

In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council’s (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, “It’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” And, “Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” (3)

On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.” (4)

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 (5) and then was fired for doing so.(6)

Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.

Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years  – the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska.  This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC.

ok..so are you starting to see anything wrong with this picture..or at least seeing this as something to feel some concern about? All that said, the only point that I wanted to make here..was that God created our bodies to remove fluoride from what we feed our children. Does that say anything to you? I am so passionate about all this because I truly believe that this stuff is hurting our bodies..our God given temples. The list goes on and on about why this stuff is not good for us but I will just end this with some links and you can do some research on your own if you feel the need to do so.

He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. -Job 36: 27-28

http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm (50 reasons to oppose fluoride)

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-fluoride-can-damage-the-brain—avoid-use-in-children-124299299.html

http://fluoridation.com/censor.htm (info on the fluoride cover up)

http://www.fluoridation.com/calgaryh.htm (risks and benefits)

http://www.nofluoride.com/ (what doctors are saying about fluoride)

http://www.cottagecountrynow.ca/opinion/letters/article/1014683–more-scientific-evidence-against-water-fluoridation