The United States imports one-fourth of its raw sugar from Central America, a region known as much for its sandy beaches and lush rainforests as its many acres of sugar plantations.
In Central American countries like Nicaragua, finding employment is a challenge, and many residents begin working in the sugar fields when they are still children, as young as 10 years old.
It's labor-intensive work, requiring long hours of manual labor under hot sun and high temperatures, often with few or no breaks in between.
Now, chronic kidney disease is claiming the lives of many of these young workers -- to the extent that some are labeling the condition "Sugar Cane Kidney Disease" -- and researchers are scrambling to uncover the cause as the death toll steadily rises.
"The Island of the Widows"
In the United States, chronic kidney disease is typically caused by diabetes and high blood pressure, conditions that are generally not impacting the young victims in Central America.
Still, the rate of chronic kidney disease in Nicaragua is 10 times higher than in the U.S.
Furthermore, while the condition is considered treatable if detected early, in rural Central America access to medical care such as dialysis or kidney transplants is limited, and so the kidney disease advances quickly and is almost always fatal.
Daniel Brooks, a professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health, who has been investigating the mystery, told Fox News Latino:i
"Once someone gets it, it's basically a death sentence."
According to an analysis of health data by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, more than 2,800 men have died from kidney failure in Central America each year from 2005-2009. As iWatch News reported:ii
"In El Salvador and Nicaragua alone over the last two decades, the number of men dying from kidney disease has risen fivefold. Now more men are dying from the ailment than from HIV/AIDS, diabetes and leukemia combined.
? The surge of kidney disease is overwhelming hospitals, depleting health budgets, and leaving a trail of widows and children in rural communities. In El Salvador, CKD is the second leading cause of death for men. In the province of Guanacaste, Costa Rica, the regional hospital had to start a home dialysis program because it was overwhelmed with so many CKD victims that it began running out of beds to treat patients with other ailments. So many men have died in some parts of rural Nicaragua that ? [one] community, called The Island, now is known as the Island of the Widows ? La Isla de las Viudas."
Why are so Many Young Men Dying from Chronic Kidney Disease in Central America? This is the burning question and also the heart of the mystery, because no one knows for sure. There are several plausible theories, though. In a report by Brooks and colleagues, which reviewed 22 epidemiological studies looking into hypotheses about potential causes of chronic kidney disease in Nicaragua, it's stated:iii
"Taken together, these studies reported fairly consistent positive associations for
(1) agricultural work
(2) pesticide exposure
(3) dehydration
(4) hypertension
(5) lija consumption (lija is a type of rum)
(6) family history of CKD."
To date, no one cause has emerged as a concrete explanation, but the two theories receiving the most attention are exposure to agricultural chemicals and repeated bouts of dehydration. The sugar plantation workers are exposed to toxic pesticides on a daily basis, and it's known that even the so-called inert ingredients in certain pesticides may cause kidney failure.iv Dehydration, also linked to kidney disease, is also a major concern, especially amidst reports that the workers may be subjected to poor working conditions. As ABC News reported:
"Nicaragua's highest rates of chronic kidney disease show up around the Ingenio San Antonio, a plant owned by the Pellas Group conglomerate, whose sugar mill processes nearly half the nation's sugar.
? According to one of Brooks' studies, about eight years ago the factory started providing electrolyte solution and protein cookies to workers who previously brought their own water to work. But the study also found that some workers were cutting sugar cane for as long as 9 1/2 hours a day with virtually no break and little shade in average temperatures of 30 C (87 F).
In 2006, the plantation, owned by one of the country's richest families, received $36.5 million in loans from the International Finance Corp., the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group, to buy more land, expand its processing plant and produce more sugar for consumers and ethanol production."
Why Fructose Combined with Dehydration May be the Deadly Hidden Culprit
Fructose metabolism is quite different from glucose (dextrose) metabolism in that it places the entire burden on your liver, and this accounts for many of its devastating health effects. However, it appears that the Central American workers may be engaging in the "perfect storm" of activities for fructose to cause devastating damage to their kidneys.
As explained by Dr. Richard Johnson, chief of the division of kidney disease and hypertension at the University of Colorado, in his upcoming book The Fat Switch, this mystery illness likely starts with dehydration and is then made worse by the fact that many workers drink sugar-sweetened pineapple or mango juice or soft drinks (all high in fructose) to rehydrate.
Let me explain ...
When you consume fructose, some of it is filtered in your kidneys and taken up into your tubules. Indeed, studies have linked soft drinks and high-fructose diets with kidney disease and accelerated kidney damage. But there is another, even more sinister, effect that appears to be harming young men working in the sugar cane fields.
Your body is capable of converting glucose into fructose via a mechanism known as the polyol pathway. This is especially common among people with diabetes or those who are severely insulin resistant, but the polyol pathway is also activated by dehydration.
So as the Central American workers become dehydrated, the polyol pathway is activated in their kidney tubules, converting glucose to fructose. Meanwhile, the workers take in even more fructose in the form of fruit juice and soda during their workday. This leads to a massive increase in fructose that is, in turn, metabolized by a "killer" enzyme known as fructinase C. This enzyme actually leads to energy loss in the cell and is thought to play a role in numerous diseases, including kidney disease and injury.
Dr. Johnson explains:
" ... when fructose is metabolized by fructokinase, the fructose is so rapidly metabolized that there is an initial loss of energy in the cell before energy is produced ... Fructokinase is like a run-away train, or a speeding truck coming down the mountain that is out of control. The degree of cell shock induced by fructokinase will relate to the amount of fructose it sees and the level of fructokinase present in the cell. ... Sugar Cane Kidney Disease may be another disease of fructokinase. Severe dehydration can activate the polyol pathway that will convert glucose to fructose and provide ammunition for fructokinase to cause injury to the tubules."
Are the Central American Workers Just More Victims of the Sugar Industry?
Interestingly, World Bank, which has issued more than $100 million in loans to Nicaragua's sugar industry,v is funding the Boston University project, with Brooks as the principal investigator, to search for causes of the long-term epidemic of chronic kidney disease in Nicaragua. Nicaragua Sugar Estates Limited, the largest employer in the area and owner of many of the plantations where the illnesses are occurring, denies any connection to the epidemic, which isn't surprising.
The sugar industry is a shrewd, savvy, well-oiled machine that is also denying any connection between their product and the obesity and diabetes epidemics going on in the industrialized world. They also have access to immense power and give generously to both political parties in the United States to ensure that their products are protected.
While sugar consumption continues to contribute to premature deaths in the developed world in the form of an untold number of cases of cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and other chronic diseases, the Central American workers on the sugar plantations may be victims in another sense, succumbing to kidney disease from years of hard labor, dehydration, and fructose ingestion -- or a mix of these and other factors combined.
A bill has recently been introduced in the Vermont state legislature that would require food to be labeled as genetically engineered if it is entirely or partially produced with genetically engineered ingredients.
If passed, the bill, H.722, also known as the 'VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act' i, will take effect in 2014.
The bill also forbids any such food from using advertising or promotional material that states or implies that the food is:
"natural"
"naturally made"
"naturally grown"
"all natural," or
Any words of similar meaning
According to the language of the bill, it would require:
"... in the case of a raw agricultural commodity, on the package offered for retail sale ... the clear and conspicuous words, 'genetically engineered' on the front of the package ... [or] on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale.
... in the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package ... the words, 'partially produced with genetic engineering' or 'may be partially produced with genetic engineering'". ii
More U.S. States Starting to Demand Labeling of GM Foods
Finally we're starting to see some real opposition against genetically engineered foods in general, and unlabeled GMO's (genetically modified organisms) in particular, in the U.S.! Aside from this Vermont bill, California, Michigan and Washington are also working on ballot initiatives to get mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods in their states. Vermont takes it a step further though, as the legislation would effectively also end phony "all natural" claims for products that in actuality contain wholly unnatural, GMOs.
Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.
Sheer ignorance on the part of American consumers has allowed Monsanto and other biotech companies to saturate the market with their genetically altered wares. And misuse of the "all natural" label has only made matters worse. According to a 2010 Hartman Group poll, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the "natural" label implies or suggests the absence of GM ingredients, but that is sadly NOT the case... In fact, at the current time, the ONLY label that can protect you against GM ingredients is the USDA 100% Organic label.
After reading the Cornucopia Institutes' 2011 report Cereal Crimesiii, many, including myself, were shocked to discover some of their favorite natural and even some organic brands were using GM ingredients! For example, natural products that contained 100 percent genetically modified grains included:
Non-medical vaccine exemptions are under serious attack across the United States, with the latest assault happening in Vermont.
It is extremely important that Vermont residents, who want to protect their right to obtain a philosophical exemption to vaccination for their children, IMMEDIATELY contact their state representative and senator and ask them to vote "NO" to S. 199 and H. 527.
Legislators in other states may soon follow Vermont's lead and try to restrict your right to make voluntary vaccine choices.
Using the online NVIC Advocacy Portal is free and you are quickly put in touch with your elected state representatives and senators with the click of a mouse or a touch of your Smartphone screen so you can make your voice heard.
Why is Protecting Your Right to Vaccine Exemptions so Important?
As of 2011, all 50 states have enacted vaccine laws that require proof children have received certain vaccines in order to attend daycare, middle school, high school and college.
However, in most states citizens currently have the legal right to opt out of using vaccines. The issue of protecting your right to make an informed, voluntary vaccination choice for yourself or your child in the United States is about defending human rights. As Barbara Loe Fisher, president of NVIC, states:
"While the State may have the legal authority to mandate use of vaccines, nobody has the moral authority to FORCE you to get vaccinated or vaccinate your child without your voluntary, informed consent."
This -- the right to choose what is injected into your body or your child's -- is a decision that is a matter of life and death for some individuals, as the current one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination does not take into account differences among children's genetic profiles or immune responses based on factors such as age, weight, personal and family medical history and overall health status.
Each and every vaccine carries an inherent risk of causing a reaction, injury or death that can be greater for some individuals than others -- and many do not know they are at increased biological risk until it is too late. This is why I often remind readers that, ultimately, it is your responsibility to exercise due diligence and do your own research to decide for yourself which vaccines you do or do not want your child to receive, if any at all. As Fisher continues:
"More than $2 billion dollars has been awarded to children and adults in America, who have been seriously injured by vaccines ? We are not all the same. People are injured or die from vaccination because vaccine risks are greater for some than others and sometimes vaccines fail to work at all. That is a big reason why there are vaccine exemptions in state public health laws for medical, religious and conscientious or philosophical beliefs."
What is a Philosophical Vaccine Exemption?
In Vermont, State Senator Kevin Mullin and State Representative George Till are working with the Vermont Health Commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen and medical trade organizations funded by pharmaceutical companies, to take away philosophical exemption to vaccination with two bills before the state House and Senate -- S. 199 and H. 527.
Vermont parents, including a mother and father whose seven year old daughter died within 92 hours of a routine flu shot, are urging Vermont legislators to oppose the bills that would strip Vermonters of their right to exercise philosophical belief exemption to vaccination (see VIDEO).
As it stands, Vermont is one of 18 states that allows conscientious, personal or philosophical exemptions to vaccination. These include:
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
These states come the closest to protecting a citizen's right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination in America. However, this exemption, like the religious exemption, is under attack by proponents of inflexible one-size-fits all mandatory vaccination laws, who want to eliminate all non-medical exemptions to vaccination in America.
As you are probably well aware, the vaccine industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and it does NOT want you to have the choice to refuse the use of their products! So you can expect that the philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions will remain under attack.
It is shocking, but a fact that, since 1986, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (which, by the way, receives millions of dollars from vaccine manufacturers) have eliminated almost every medical condition that qualifies as an officially recognized medical reason for withholding vaccination (contraindications). Today, almost no medical condition qualifies for a medical exemption to vaccination. In most states, a medical exemption to vaccination written by a medical doctor can be denied by schools and public health officials if the medical reason given does not strictly conform to CDC and AAP contraindication guidelines. Even children, who have suffered previous vaccine reaction symptoms or are vaccine injured can be forced to be re-vaccinated!
So, this is not simply an issue of being for or against vaccination; it's a matter of protecting your legal and human right to abstain from risky medical interventions for yourself and your children. Vaccination is a medical procedure, and virtually every medical procedure comes with risks attached, risks that can be greater for some than others. As a parent, do you really want this decision to be taken out of your hands completely, and forced upon you and your child even if use of one or more vaccines conflicts with your reasonable, sound judgment, your conscience or your spiritual beliefs?
How Many More Vaccines Will Soon be Forced Upon Your Child?
The U.S. government recommends children get 69 doses of 16 vaccines from the day of birth to age 18, most of which are required in order for children to attend public school or daycare. This may sound like a lot, and it is, but it has certainly not reached its upper limit as far as the vaccine industry is concerned. Not even close.
Each new vaccine public health officials add to the government recommended vaccine schedule is a guaranteed cash cow, as it means nearly every child in the United States will be legally forced to use multiple doses of each vaccine. And if all vaccine exemptions are stripped from public health laws, they can push those numbers to nearly 100% of U.S. children. At that point, there will be no unvaccinated populations and it will be impossible to compare the long term health outcomes of children, who remain unvaccinated or use fewer vaccines, with the health of highly vaccinated children. This will eliminate the opportunity to document which populations are healthier ? the highly vaccinated or the unvaccinated.
Just imagine the money at stake ? the base cost for a child to get every government-recommended vaccine in a private pediatrician's office has increased from $80 per child in 1986 to a whopping $2,200 per child in 2011! And it's estimated that by 2013, the global market for vaccines will be worth more than $36 billion.i As it stands, there are hundreds of new vaccines in the pipeline, many of which will be federally recommended to children. As Fisher states:
"In the future, the state of Vermont could add 10, 20, 30 or more vaccinations to state public health laws. Should every vaccine that Big Pharma creates and doctors want legislators to mandate be legally required for all children without parents being informed and allowed to make a voluntary choice?"
Here's an example of just 16 new vaccines being developed. Would you want your child to be forced to receive these, with no say in the matter whatsoever?
"The only barrier left to unlimited vaccine profit-making is the freedom for Americans to choose whether or not to use every new vaccine Pharma creates and wants mandated. Freedom of choice is something Big Pharma and the medical lobby does not want you to have.
They know that many educated consumers in America and around the world are dissatisfied with the old pharmaceutical-based health care paradigm ? And we are questioning why we and our children should be required to get a long list of expensive vaccines that carry serious risks and sometimes don't work at all.
? So Pharma is funding medical organizations profiting from mass vaccination policies to press politicians into quickly passing laws that force Americans to buy and use dozens of doses of vaccines. The goal is to demand that everyone salute smartly and obey doctors' orders to get vaccinated or be barred from getting an education, health insurance, medical care or a job. The goal is to, in effect, brand unvaccinated citizens as enemies of the state, so they can be fined or imprisoned. Can this really be happening in America? Yes, it can."
Do You Think the U.S. Vaccine Schedule Has Been Safety Tested?
It would seem like a no-brainer that the federally recommended vaccine schedule would be rigorously safety tested to protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children -- but sadly, it is not.
There is no system of "checks and balances" when it comes to vaccine safety. Vaccines come no where near being adequately tested for safety before they are licensed using methodologically sound scientific studies. The long-term side effects and potential negative impact on individual and community health of using multiple vaccines in childhood remains largely unknown because it has not been fully scientifically investigated. Moreover, the effects of multiple vaccines given simultaneously on the same day have not been adequately tested. And pharmaceutical companies have financed nearly all vaccine research to date, which introduces enormous bias.
Large studies comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children have not been a priority for vaccine researchers. Most vaccine studies are about developing more vaccines for children and adults to use. And many health officials, reluctant to compare the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, claim that studies cannot be done because it would be "unethical" to leave children participating in the study unvaccinated or partially vaccinated in order to do the comparison.
Adding insult to injury, quite literally in this case, vaccine manufacturers are totally shielded from liability and accountability in civil court for vaccine injuries and deaths. In February 2011 - unbelievably - the U.S. Supreme Court gave drug companies making and selling vaccines TOTAL immunity from civil lawsuits- even if it could be shown they could have made a vaccine less toxic ? because the Court said "vaccines are unavoidably unsafe." .
Well, if vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" ? how many people are being hurt by those "unavoidably unsafe" vaccines? Where are the methodologically sound studies to demonstrate that the long term health of highly vaccinated children is superior to the long term health of unvaccinated children? How do we know that the use of many more vaccines in this century than were given to children in the last century is not causing more and more children to become chronically ill and disabled?
In August 2011, an important vaccine safety review was issued by an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee. According to their review of over 1,000 vaccine studies published in the medical literature, the IOM Committee was unable to determine whether or not vaccines are a causative factor in over 100 serious adverse health outcomes reportedly associated with eight routinely used childhood vaccines. In short: the published research presently available is insufficient and cannot be used to confirm or reject causation for many poor health outcomes associated with many vaccines routinely given to children.
Grassroots Efforts, Lawsuits to Protect Vaccine Exemptions on the Rise
About 13 percent of parents are now using an "alternative" vaccination schedule for their young children, and 2 percent of parents are refusing vaccines altogether for their children.ii Parents are losing faith in one-size-fits-all vaccine policies and doctors, who push them. A growing number of vaccine educated parents, both those with vaccine-injured children and those with healthy children, are fed up with the attack on their right to voluntary, informed consent to vaccination -- and now they're fighting back.
It is happening in West Virginia, one of only two states that allows only medical exemption to vaccination (and where regulators are increasingly denying even that). Along with residents spear-heading efforts to pass Senate Bill 50, which would allow philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccinations, a lawsuit has been filed against the state Health Department, alleging the agency's mandating of vaccinations is in violation of constitutional rights.
"Some believe the way the Health Department is mandating vaccinations is violating our constitutional rights. On February 6th, local attorney's from Harris Law Offices filed suit in front of Judge Irene Keeley in Clarksburg, asking for this to be ruled unconstitutional. In 2004 and 2005, the Health Department went to the state representatives and asked to have more immunizations required under statutory code. They were denied both times
"West Virginia code requires six immunizations for children, mandatory to attend school," says Shawn Fluharty, of Harris Law Offices. "The Health Department has bypassed the State Legislature and said 'we need you to have upwards to nine'." Which leaves many asking, how did they do that? "They have been using a thing called interpretive rule," says Grindley. By bypassing that process, Fluharty says "they're really going at the heart of democracy.""
Act Now to Protect Vaccine Exemption in Vermont and Elsewhere
You can help fight for the right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination in Vermont, West Virginia and every state by visiting the NVIC's Advocacy Portal and taking action today. There you will find urgent action items needing to be taken to protect vaccine choices in states across the U.S., from California to New York.
While it may seem "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and legal vaccine exemptions is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.
THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
Signing up for NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community and state, but when national vaccine issues come up, too, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.
Write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. Call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don't let them forget you!
It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what's really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the "real life" experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.
Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and even death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:
NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or government officials for making independent vaccine choices.
Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care
If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.
However, there is hope.
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.
High-risk patients with chronic, underlying health conditions that increase the risk of severe illness and death after influenza infection are among the first of all groups that public health officials target to receive flu vaccinations.
This population is targeted for vaccination despite the fact that very few studies have ever examined the efficacy ? or safety - of vaccinations in this high risk group...
One recent study on the effectiveness of the 2009-2010 season's H1N1 vaccine provides solid evidence against the effectiveness of vaccinating persons at high risk for complications from influenza infection.
The study found that, although hundreds of thousands were vaccinated, hospital admissions due to H1N1 influenza virus did not diminish.
The Danish study included more than 388,000 people under the age of 65 with a diagnosis in the past five years of at least one underlying chronic disease expected to increase the risk of complications and severe illness from influenza infection.
According to the study, published in the British Medical Journali:
"... [T]his vaccine ... only offered non-significant protection against influenza related hospital admissions confirmed as H1N1 infection. This finding is of public health relevance because the population of chronically ill people is a major target group for pandemic vaccinations".
H1N1 Vaccine was Not Only Ineffective, But Unusually Dangerous...
As you may recall, the fast-tracked pandemic 2009-2010 H1N1 swine flu vaccine turned out to be particularly reactive?far more reactive than previous seasonal flu vaccines. One of the most disturbing side effects of some of the pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccines marketed in Europe ? which contained squalene adjuvants - was narcolepsy; a very rare and disabling neurological disorder characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness. About 70 percent of narcolepsy cases also involve cataplexy -- the sudden loss of voluntary muscle control ? along with vivid hallucinations and total paralysis at the beginning or end of the narcoleptic attack.
One of the H1N1 vaccines identified as a culprit was GlaxoSmithKline's Pandemrix vaccine, which was licensed by European government regulators and sold in a number of European countries (but not in the U.S.). The Pandemrix package insertii actually states that "somnolence", although not narcolepsy per se, is a known potential side effect of the drug.
This is a perfect example of how dangerous it can be to blindly trust government health authorities and vaccine makers, and how badly things can go wrong. As you know, health authorities around the globe fiercely maintain that vaccines are safe, regardless of what's happening in the real world. Time and again, serious side effects from vaccines are overlooked and swept under the rug as being "coincidental."
Not so in this case.
Here, there's no discussion about whether or not narcolepsy was caused by the vaccine; it's been proven to be a vaccine injury by experts in multiple countries.
For example, according to Swedish findings, children and adolescents vaccinated with Pandemrix during the 2009-10 season had a close to 660 percent increase in risk for narcolepsy. Finland also noticed a dramatic increase in the condition following vaccination with Pandemrix. There, an interim report issued in January of last year found that the pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy by 900 percent in children and adolescents below the age of 19iii. France, Germany and Norway also reported cases of the rare sleeping disorder, causing the EU to launch an investigation as well.
Children Struggle with Vaccine-Induced Narcolepsy
Now, a number of European parents, whose children developed narcolepsy following their Pandemrix swine flu vaccination, say their children are beginning to fall behind at school. According to a recent report in The Herald, an Irish paper:
"So far, 22 children in this country have been diagnosed with narcolepsy after vaccination with Pandemrix and a further nine are waiting for tests and test results. The children and young adults range in age from five to 21 and come from all over Ireland. They developed the condition after vaccination with Pandemrix in late 2009/2010.
... The parents have asked that a centre of excellence be established and that where family doctors see children with day-time sleepiness who had been vaccinated with Pandemrix, they should refer these children to the centre...
The special needs section of the Department of Education responded with a letter "merely setting out supports already in place which parents/schools can apply for on an individual basis"... Much of this letter referred to 'disability' and 'special needs' -- narcolepsy (and cataplexy) is not legally classed as either. ... It is vital for our children's futures that their new needs are accommodated within the school environment, otherwise they cannot hope to have the same future we looked forward to prior to their diagnosis."
This brief article actually highlights the real-life ramifications of a failed vaccination policy promoted by public health officials using an influenza vaccine that was not tested in large clinicial trials before widespread use. The lives of these children have been irrevocably altered and, yet, will anyone be held accountable? In most countries, including the U.S., public health officials recommending vaccines and doctors giving vaccines and vaccine manufacturers marketing vaccines are not held liable in a civil court of law when vaccines injure or kill people. In Europe, parents of children injured by Pandemrix vaccine are now struggling against bureaucracy to receive help for their vaccine-injured children.
Only one country's government, so far, has stepped forward and is taking financial responsibility for the lifelong medical expenses the affected children will accrue. In October of last year, after finding a conclusive link between the Pandemrix flu vaccine and narcolepsy, the Finnish governmentand major insurance companies announced they will pay for lifetime medical care for children stricken with narcolepsy as a result of getting the H1N1 vaccine.
Other Harmful Effects of 2009/10 H1N1 Vaccines Around the World
The 2009/10 pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccines clearly appear to have been more reactivethan past seasonal flu vaccines and different brands had different effects. While Europe saw a dramatic increase in narcolepsy with the vaccines they used, Australia temporarily suspended its seasonal flu vaccine program for children under the age of five after detecting an abnormal number of side effects within 12 hours of vaccination, compared to previous years.
The pandemic H1N1 vaccine in question in Australia was Fluvax, manufactured by CSL Limited. Side effects included high fevers and seizures. One infant also lapsed into a coma. However, after a three-month long investigation, the Australian Department of Health resumed seasonal flu vaccinations for young children, stating that "the higher than usual occurrence of fever and febrile convulsions appears to be confined to the vaccine Fluvax," and advised parents to continue vaccinating their children with another brandiv...
In August of 2010 the Korea Herald also reported that nearly 2,600 side effects had been reported to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in association with the pandemic swine flu vaccine.v There, side effects included fevers, headaches and allergic responses, and 10 deaths.
In the US, the pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccine has been statistically linked with abnormally high rates of miscarriage and stillbirths. As reported by Steven Rubin, PhD, who developed and operates MedAlerts on NVIC.org, the U.S. pandemic H1N1 flu vaccine was 60 times more likely to be reported to VAERS to be associated with miscarriage than previous seasonal flu vaccines!vi
Why Do Vaccines Cause Reactions?
It is very clear that vaccines do not cause problems for everyone who receives them but, when they do, it can be an unmitigated disaster. Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride has identified a brilliant strategy to help assess children who may be at higher risk for developing side effects from vaccines of all kinds. In her clinical experience, vaccine complication risks are often related to gut flora, which is typically transferred from the mother who was compromised due to poor diet, antibiotics and/or birth control pills. She maintains that children with compromised gut flora are at the highest risk for developing vaccine complications and suffering neurological damage.
Dr. Campbell-McBride suggests there are simple tests that can be done to evaluate whether a child has compromised gut flora or other risk factors BEFORE they are vaccinated. If they are at risk, then a comprehensive protocol may help reverse the problem before any vaccines are administered (although even perfectly healthy children can suffer vaccine reactions or injuries). Dr. Campbell-McBride's protocol is carefully described in her wonderful book Gut and Psychology Syndrome: Natural Treatment for Autism, Dyspraxia, A.D.D., Dyslexia, A.D.H.D., Depression, Schizophrenia.
Flu Vaccines Proven Ineffective for Seniors Again and Again
When you start looking around, you'll realize that the lack of evidence that flu shots are effective and safe is actually fairly robust, and rapidly mounting. In recent years, we've seen a number of studies published in the medical literature that debunk the myth that the influenza vaccine actually prevents the flu but most of these studies have been completely ignored by mainstream media, of course.
Below is a sampling of studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of flu vaccines in the elderly, which is another group heavily targeted for seasonal flu vaccination. Some of these studies also explain that earlier positive results appear to have been due to various types of bias and, when the bias is removed, the touted benefits of getting annual flu shots disappear.
This is not an exhaustive list of influenza vaccine studies. For additional studies demolishing the claim that the flu vaccine is an effective prevention strategy, see this previous article about the Flu-Zone High Dose vaccine. (In it you will also find a comprehensive list of alternative therapies that can help you combat colds and common respiratory infections without drugs.)
Functional status is a confounder of the association of influenza vaccine and risk of all cause mortality in seniors. Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):345-52 According to the authors: "... disability indicators tended to be associated with both a higher risk of death and a decreased likelihood of vaccination. Consequently, adjustment for the functional status indicators moved the estimate of the association of influenza vaccination and risk of death closer to the null..."
Influenza vaccination and risk of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent elderly people: a population-based, nested case-control study. Lancet. 2008 Aug 2;372(9636):398-405.
The authors concluded that "... influenza vaccination was not associated with a reduced risk of community-acquired pneumonia during the influenza season"
Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors. Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):337-44 The authors concluded that, "The reductions in risk before influenza season indicate preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors. Adjustment for diagnosis code variables did not control for this bias. In this study, the magnitude of the bias demonstrated by the associations before the influenza season was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed during influenza season. "
Benefits of examining influenza vaccine associations outside of influenza season
Comment on: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008 Sep 1;178(5):527-33. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008 Sep 1;178(5):439-40. The authors explain how their approach "show that the lower risks of all-cause mortality and pneumonia hospitalization consistently observed in studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated community-dwelling seniors during influenza season are largely, or perhaps entirely, due to bias..."
Mortality benefits of influenza vaccination in elderly people: an ongoing controversy. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 Oct;7(10):658-66 According to the authors: "Recent excess mortality studies were unable to confirm a decline in influenza-related mortality since 1980, even as vaccination coverage increased from 15% to 65%... We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits. The remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive from the vaccination programme."
Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review. BMJ. 2009 Feb 12;338:b354 According to the authors: "Evidence is of poor quality, and studies with conclusions in favor of vaccines are of significantly lower methodological quality. Influenza vaccines studies sponsored by industry are published in journals with higher impact factors and are cited more but are of similar size and quality to the others."
Final Thoughts
It's worth keeping in mind that scientists and doctors are regularly shocked and confused when they are faced with new complications of licensed drugs, vaccines and chemicals in consumer products they recommend people use. These days, unforeseen consequences seem to be more the norm rather than the exception when it comes to the dangers of prescription drugs and vaccines.
Here's a perfect example:
According to recent research published in JAMA, the more children are exposed to perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), the less likely they are to have a good immune response to vaccinationsvii. The finding suggests that these chemicals can affect children's immune system enough to make them more vulnerable to infectious diseases. Isn't that something! Who knew?! PFCs can be found in nonstick coatings, stain-resistant fabrics, and food packaging, and are known to persist in the environment for many years. According to a January 24 NPR reportviii:
"Normally, a vaccine causes the production of lots of antibodies to a specific germ. But ... the response to tetanus and diphtheria vaccines was much weaker in 5-year-olds whose blood contained relatively high levels of PFCs ... The health effects of PFCs are still poorly understood. But in the past decade, government scientists have become increasingly concerned about possible links to developmental problems in children."
The results were actually quite striking. According to the study:
"In a structural equation model, a 2-fold greater concentration of major PFCs in child serum was associated with a difference of ?49 percent in the overall antibody concentration. A 2-fold increase in PFOS and PFOA concentrations at age 5 years was associated with odds ratios between 2.38 and 4.20 for falling below a clinically protective level of 0.1 IU/mL for tetanus and diphtheria antibodies at age 7 years."
What that means, in plain English, is that when you double the presence of these nasty fluoride chemicals in your blood, the effectiveness of the vaccine (tetanus/diphtheria) was reduced, on average, by 350 percent. You and your children are exposed to literally thousands of artificial chemicals, most of which have been introduced into the environment only in the last 70 years or so. The vast majority of people have no idea that very few of these chemicals have been tested for safety, and that almost none have been tested to see how they interact with all the other chemicals.
With all of those untested interactions occurring, it's inevitable that there are going to be adverse effects. Yet public health officials have not stopped to consider the synergistic effects of chemicals and other toxins in the environment interacting with vaccines and prescription drugs. In this case, chemicals that children are commonly exposed to are interfering with vaccine effectiveness. In the case of the pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, the insistence by European public health officials that the vaccine was proven safe before licensure did not prove to be accurate.
Vaccine Choices
Let's face it, the more vaccines you are injected with, the more drugs you take, and the more synthetic chemical products you use, the more likely it is that some of them are going to interact with each other in unknown and harmful ways.
So please, do your homework. Weigh the risks against the benefits for each and every drug and vaccine you take. Remember, knowledge is power. Arm yourself with accurate information about vaccination and health. Do your own research and talk to one or more trusted health care professionals before you make any health care decision.
Become an educated consumer and you will be empowered to defend your right to freely make voluntary choices about health, including vaccination, for yourself and your children. If you arm yourself with accurate information about vaccines and health, you will be prepared to intelligently and rationally discuss your vaccine choices with your family, friends, colleagues, doctors, elected officials and others in your community.
If you conclude that you want to avoid certain vaccinations, then fortunately 18 states allow personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination, and 48 states allow a religious exemption. Barbara Loe Fisher gave the best discussion of how to obtain a religious exemption that I have ever heard, and if that is something that interests you I encourage you to view the following video.
Unfortunately, vaccine exemptions are currently under attack in a number of states. This should be of great concern to Americans everywhere. Non-medical exemptions to vaccination, including the religious and conscientious belief exemptions, are necessary because one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates, such as the flu shot mandate currently being proposed for all health care workers, violate informed consent rights. The ethical principle of voluntary, informed consent to medical risk-taking is a human right.
Ultimately, our goal is to change the health paradigm so that everyone has the unobstructed freedom and legal right to make informed, voluntary choices about medical procedures, pharmaceutical product use and options for healing and staying well.
What You Can Do to Make a Difference
While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the legal right to informed consent to vaccination and expand vaccine exemptions in state public health laws, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.
THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you access to practical information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. When national vaccine issues come up, you will have the latest information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.
With one click of a mouse on your computer or touch on your Smart phone screen, you can be in touch with YOUR state legislator IMMEDIATELY when NVIC emails you an Action Alert about threats to vaccine exemptions and choices in your state. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
Contact Your Elected Officials
NVIC will help educate you about how to write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. You might even want to call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don't let them forget you!
It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what's really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the "real life" experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I also encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:
NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or government officials for making independent vaccine choices.
Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care
Last but not least, if your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care for making independent vaccine choices is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment. Never stay in an abusive doctor/patient relationship.
If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor (or government official), do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media if you or your child are threatened.
However, there is hope.
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.
If you're like many Americans, when you think of farm subsidies you think of rolling green pastures, fields of golden wheat and corn, and a hillside full of cattle peacefully meandering through the grass.
The farmer, a "salt of the earth" type with weathered skin, depends on his farm subsidy to keep food on his table and, more importantly, to keep his farm afloat, allowing for the rest of the population to put food on their tables too.
This is how it should be -- but this is not reality.
Millionaires Receive the Majority of Farm Subsidies
A more accurate picture, as summarized concisely in the Organic Consumers Association video above, is this: those "real" farmers, the ones who truly need it, receive only a few thousand dollars a year, maybe less, while the rest serves to line the pockets of the millionaire "farmers" who own massive factory farms and who have probably rarely spent a day with their hands in the dirt.
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG),i between 1995 and 2010:
10 percent of farmers collected 74 percent of all subsidies, amounting to nearly $166 billion over 16 years
62 percent of U.S. farmers did not collect subsidy payments
The bottom 80 percent of recipients averaged just $587 a year
Now, if you look at the leading recipients of commodity subsidies, you'll see the highest earners received payments numbering in the hundreds of millions from 1995-2010 for the top three! Unfortunately, the USDA is far from transparent with their subsidy data, and EWG was not able to track down who is actually receiving this money, as recipients of payments made through most cooperatives, and the amounts, have not been made public.
However, as EWG explained, it is clear that many of the recipients are not exactly losing their shirts over a dip in market prices for grain:ii As critics have put it, this is essentially giving "welfare to millionaires."
" ? despite lawmakers' boasts of enacting major reforms in the 2008 farm bill, the new data clearly show that wealthy absentee land owners and mega farms awash in record income are once again the main beneficiaries of federal farm programs ? while struggling family farmers go begging.
And once again, the database shows that many farm subsidy recipients get those fat government checks at addresses in New York City, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles ? not exactly farm country, and a far cry from the programs' original intent. ? The database revealed, for example, that Florida real estate developer Maurice Wilder, reportedly worth $500 million, was pulling in almost $1 million a year in farm subsidies for corn farms he owns in several states."
And Then There are the Recipients Who are Not Even Farmers at All ?
The absurdity of federal farm subsidies gets worse still, as even non-farmers who moved into residential areas that once were farmland have received farm subsidy payments from the government, as have wealthy farmers who have received annual payments even when they are no longer growing the subsidized crop.
In 2008, the "actively engaged" rule was put forth specifically to nip this type of fraud in the bud. As its name implies, only those who are "actively engaged" in farming are supposed to be receiving the subsidies. But, alas, when EWG released its updated database in 2011, they found no changes to the status quo:iii
"Despite this rule, subsidies still line the pockets of absentee land owners and investors living in every major American city. In 2010, 7,767 residents of just five Texas cities ? Lubbock, Amarillo, Austin, San Angelo and Corpus Christi ? collected $61,748,945 in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Residents of Lubbock booked $24,839,154 in payments, putting it at the top of cities with 100,000+ populations that are home to farm subsidy recipients. The phenomenon of urban residents receiving federal farm payments remains widespread and coast-to-coast."
Mega-Farms Receive Fixed Annual Cash Payments, Whether They Need Them or Not
You may also be surprised to learn that while farm subsidies initially were created to protect staple crops during times of war, reduce crop surpluses and provide monetary support to farmers when crop prices fell, today mega-farms receive subsidies whether they need them or not.
The transition away from a needs-based system came in 1996, when lawmakers developed a "market transition" payment system for farmers. The idea was to phase out the subsidies over a seven-year transition period, during which farmers would receive an annual fixed cash payment based upon the number of acres on the farm (these direct payments were given as long as the land was not developed -- even if nothing was planted).
Of course, this ensures that the largest farms also receive the largest payments, and contrary to its original intent, the payments have not declined annually nor has the program gone away. It still exists today. EWG reported:iv
"Farm programs turned into a cash crop for big agribusinesses, which co-opted federal policy and turned it into a perennial giveaway that disproportionately benefits large landowners and wealthy farm operations. And that remains the reality today.
The industrial agriculture lobby has been defending the controversial "direct payment" form of taxpayer-funded subsidies ever since they were first authorized. These fixed, automatic checks go out every year to the largest growers of commodity crops, such as corn and cotton, whether farmers need them or not and despite the fact that farm household income has eclipsed average U.S. household income. Farm income for the largest operations, in particular, has soared sky high."
Subsidies Support Junk Food Diets, Chronic Disease and Environmentally Devastating CAFOs
The farm subsidy program is upside down not only in which farmers it chooses to support, but also in which foods it funds. Have you ever noticed that it's often cheaper to buy a loaf of bread than a pound of broccoli or even a pound of ground beef than a similar amount of green peppers? Or have you wondered how you can get a value meal at numerous fast-food restaurants for far less money than it takes to purchase foods to make a healthy meal, such as organic chicken and fresh veggies, for your family at home?
Perhaps this disparity has struck you as odd. After all, what makes vegetables more expensive than bread or meat? It's clearly nothing inherent to their growing requirements. Instead, it's the direct result of government farm subsidies, which favor the very foods you should eat less of if you want to stay healthy.
The top four most heavily subsidized foods? Corn, wheat, soybeans and rice.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle ? all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
Many of these subsidized grain crops are also used for animal feed, animals raised on confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). As it stands, 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals,v and these large, corporate-owned CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses (beef is also the seventh most heavily subsidized food). In reality, it has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without serious consequences:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables, which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
A classic video on the U.S. government's fatally flawed agricultural subsidy programs, and how they affect your nutritional choices and health, is "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying" with Peter Jennings. Although it's several years old and Peter has passed away, the video still speaks the truth because virtually nothing has changed. If anything, the situation has actually worsened.
Help Prompt Change by Supporting Small Organic Farmers
It may be tempting to buy the cheap foods that the government is "paying you" to eat ? but this choice will come back to haunt you in the form of health problems and increased medical bills later on. Try as they may, industry lobbyists still cannot force you to buy subsidized junk foods and foods raised in unhealthy "agribusiness" conditions. The choice is entirely yours, and consumer demand will always win eventually, so the more you demand healthy, unadulterated foods, the more they must produce, one way or another.
I strongly encourage you to support small family farms in your area, especially those that are embracing organic and traditional farming practices. These are the real farmers who need your support, and who are growing food that will nurture your health instead of harm it.
The Hidden Story of Big Sugar