Jun

4

Major Victory as Portland, Oregon Votes NO on Water Fluoridation

Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment

By Dr. Mercola

We are beginning to win the battle. The tide seems to have turned as a major victory was achieved late last month when Portland voted against fluoride - thanks much in part to the national support they received. 

Because of your support, I was able to help fund this effort and took a few lumps in the media as self-serving, as I sell a non-fluoride toothpaste.  Desperate campaigns go to desperate measures, making personal attacks the norm.

It would have been a dangerous victory for the CDC had they won, Portland was a prime target as it is the largest unfluoridated city in the US.

Fluoride, of course, is a toxic substance that is biologically active in the human body. It accumulates in sensitive tissues over time, wreaking havoc with enzymes, and producing a number of serious adverse health effects —including neurological and endocrine dysfunction.  Fluoride should never be ingested intentionally.

Yet despite the scientific evidence against the practice, the United States lags far behind other nations in acknowledging the mistake and ending this tragic “public health” measure.  As usual, the big lie must continue to protect faith in long term public health policies and agencies.

As a result, individual communities around the US have taken up the fight to end water fluoridation in their own local areas. On many occasions, I’ve asked you to support such efforts and today, I’m very pleased to report that the latest fight has ended in victory.  Your hard work to share this information or contribute to the campaign proved essential, and I am so proud and grateful to our motivated supporters.

Science and Integrity Wins in Portland, Oregon

Portland, Oregon gets its water from the Bull Run watershed; a 102-square mile protected watershed that is so pristine and pure the city was even granted a waiver from having to build a water treatment plant.

On May 21, Portland residents voted on whether or not to fluoridate their unusually pristine water supply, with “No” getting 61 percent of the votes.

It’s been a rocky ride for Portlanders who even had to fight for the right to vote on the issue—for the fourth time!

Citizens had already voted 'no' on water fluoridation for Portland in 1956, 1962, and 1980. But after more than a year of secretive planning, fluoride lobbyists finally convinced the Portland city council to begin fluoridating Portland's water supplies. The decision was set to take effect by March 2014.

Luckily, the citizens of Portland stood together by gathering enough signatures to force the decision to a vote yet again. As reported by Fluoridealert.org1:

“'We are proud of our Portland colleagues who used science and integrity to defeat fluoridation and the public relations blitzkrieg that backed it,’ says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN’s Executive Director.

... Fluoride chemicals are the only chemicals added to public water for the purpose of medication. Most western countries, including the vast majority of Europe, do not fluoridate their water.

'Most of Portland’s media falsely reported that fluoridation promoters had science on their side and that opponents used emotion,' says Connett. ‘Those opposed did their homework, relying on recent scientific findings from the National Research Council (NRC) and Harvard that raise serious questions about the safety of current fluoride exposures.’"

Six months ago, fluoridation was also rejected by voters in Wichita, Kansas by a 20 percent margin. In April, Israel announced it will end its mandatory fluoridation program, and Ireland has proposed legislation2 that would make water fluoridation a criminal offense! Canada has also seen a 25 percent drop in fluoridation programs over the past five years as a result of increasing public awareness about the associated dangers.

Coordinated Smear Campaign Lost Out to the Truth

Portland residents did face a very tough battle. The American Dental Association (ADA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the PEW Charitable Trusts spent significant time coordinating their lobbying efforts to the Portland City Council, which eventually led to the Council unanimously voting to force fluoridation chemicals on their citizens.

Fluoridation proponents also spent close to $1 million on their propaganda efforts leading up to the May 21 vote—four times the amount raised by the anti-fluoridation campaign—which they used to flood Portland with misleading ads and editorials touting fluoridation as “an urgently needed tool for solving the dental crisis in the city’s poor neighborhoods3.”

Portland was the largest non-fluoridated city in the US, making it a major target for pro-fluoridation advocates. Fortunately, they failed big time. Portland has now set the tone for other cities’ campaigns to rid themselves of this toxic and unnecessary chemical.

Proper diet, dental practices and access to mercury-free dental services are the solutions to the problem of dental cavities. Since we know that sugar causes cavities, perhaps if the ADA, CDC, PEW and others really wanted the fluoride to go to the right people, maybe they could lobby the junk food companies to add fluoride to their soda and candies, opposed to fluoridating drinking water. That would make more sense if you believe fluoride can solve the problem of tooth decay, wouldn’t it?

Water Fluoridation = Mass Medication Without Prescription

Fluoride is not a nutrient. And while there is prescription-grade fluoride, the fluoride put into drinking water is not a prescription drug but an industrial waste product. However, it is put into the water as a "drug" to help oral health, and it is done without the consent of those receiving it. Even if you accepted the premise that it works systemically, opposed to topically only, there is no justification to force it on people under the premise of slightly lowering tooth decay, as everyone has the option of using it topically as a toothpaste if they so choose...

The fluoride chemical typically added to water is hexafluorosilicic acid (HFSA), which is a byproduct of the fertilizer industry. It is a hazardous material they cannot easily dispose of. In fact, it’s illegal to dump it into rivers and lakes or release the parent gases into the atmosphere. And municipalities that decided to stop fluoridating their water had to keep going until all the chemicals were used up because they couldn’t afford the hazardous waste disposal fees!

Dr. William Hirzy from the EPA has pointed out that if it goes into the air, it's a pollutant. If it goes into the local water, it's pollution. But if the public water utilities buy it and purposely pour it in our drinking water, it's no longer a pollutant. All of a sudden, by some magic sleight of hand, it's a beneficial public health measure... But dilution is not the solution to pollution.

Fluoride Chemicals Also Pollute Drinking Water with Arsenic

A recent study also shows that 90 percent of toxic arsenic in our tap water comes from fluoridation chemicals. As reported by Living Green Magazine4:

“Industrial-grade fluoride chemicals added to US public water supplies contain arsenic that the EPA classifies as a human carcinogen. Switching to low-arsenic pharmaceutical-grade fluoride will save society $1 billion to $14 billion annually, according to research published in Environmental Science & Policy, led by former EPA senior scientists who are experts in chemical risk assessment, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Although never studied for safety or efficacy, hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) is added to public water supplies as a purported cavity preventive. The industry-funded group that regulates water additives, NSF International5, allows several toxins in HFSA, including arsenic.

We need to end this outdated practice. Adding hexafluorosilicic acid to drinking water to prevent tooth decay is based on politics, not science. Why should a water department be given the power to medicate anyone when they don't take a health history, they don't pass out a listing of side effects, monitor the dose or the effect? This is tantamount to gross negligence. 

According to a 2006 report on water fluoridation produced by the US National Research Council, the benefits from fluoride are topical only, and cannot be achieved through ingestion. It also detailed positive associations between fluoride ingestion and bone fractures, cancer, reduced IQ and dementia.

I predict that water fluoridation will become known as one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated against the public in the 20th and 21st century. In the future, water fluoridation will be compared to tobacco science, DDT science, asbestos science, and thalidomide science—all grossly manipulated to hide an incredibly costly truth.

Why Water Fluoridation Is a Scam

Water fluoridation was invented by brilliant schemers who needed to get rid of toxic industrial waste that would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars for proper disposal. They duped politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements, which is not science, and sold them on a “public health” idea in which humans are utilized to filter this poison through their bodies, while 99 percent simply goes down the drain. Adding insult to injury, they now MAKE hundreds of millions of dollars selling this hazardous industrial waste, rather than having to pay for its disposal.

In his 2012 article "Poison is Treatment—Edward Bernays and the Campaign to Fluoridate America"6, James F. Tracy reveals the PR campaign that created this fake public health measure:

“The wide-scale U.S. acceptance of fluoride-related compounds in drinking water and a wide variety of consumer products over the past half century is a textbook case of social engineering orchestrated by Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the ‘father of public relations’ Edward L. Bernays,” he writes. “The episode is instructive, for it suggests the tremendous capacity of powerful interests to reshape the social environment, thereby prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways that are often harmful to themselves and their loved ones.”

I highly recommend taking the time to read Tracy’s informative expose on how good PR can trump science and keep you in the dark for decades, lest you dig a bit deeper. The oft-quoted phrase that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century was also created by a Public Relations firm, not hard-core facts.

The Health Ramifications of Mass Medicating with Fluoride

Scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity,” and 25 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children—including a recent study out of Harvard, in which the authors noted:

“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment.“

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis—unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. But that's not all. Studies have shown fluoride toxicity can lead to the wide-ranging problems listed below.

Increases lead absorption Disrupts collagen synthesis Hyperactivity and/or lethargy Crippling skeletal fluorosis and bone fractures
Genetic damage and cell death Increased tumor and cancer growth Disrupts immune system and inhibits antibody production Chronic fatigue
Brain damage, and lowered IQ and dementia Gastrointestinal problems and kidney issues Arthritic symptoms Severe eye problems, including blindness
Impaired thyroid function Weakened bones, and fatal bone cancer (osteosarcoma) Inactivates 62 enzymes Muscle disorders

 

This is what the science is telling us about the ramifications of fluoride use. And yet, rather than taking the precautionary approach and stopping fluoridation until we know more, our policymakers continue to blindly forge ahead; refusing to give the scientific evidence the attention it deserves.

Congratulations on Keeping Portland’s Water Safe!

According to the EPA’s local's president, Bill Hirzy, a chemist in the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances, water fluoridation remains a government policy because of “institutional inertia [and] embarrassment among government agencies that have been promoting this stuff as safe.”

This is probably true, yet it’s shameful that the ADA, CDC and other agencies would spend so much money trying to coerce the continuation of this hazardous practice instead of just yielding to the wishes of communities.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So I urge you to join the Fluoride Action Network’s efforts7 and your local anti-fluoridation movements in the US and Canada.

Please remember, people have been misled for generations - be patient with your friends and families who have been improperly educated about fluoridation chemicals.   The tide is turning, we are making a difference when we bring organic consumers, environmentalists, and natural health advocates together.





Related Articles:

  Latest Fluoride News

  10 Facts About Fluoride You Need to Know

  The Fluoride Debate Heats Up and Finally Gets Some Media Attention

 Comments (114)

May

8

Survey Finds Teen Misuse And Abuse Of Prescription Drugs Up 33 Percent Since 2008

Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment

By Dr. Mercola

One in four teens has misused a prescription drug at least once in their lifetime, according to new survey results from the partnership at Drugfree.org and the MetLife Foundation.1

This represents a 33 percent increase in the past five years!

Among one of the most commonly abused class of drugs are stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall, of which one in eight teens (13 percent) said they had taken even though it wasn’t prescribed to them.

Prescription drugs don’t hold the same stigma as illegal recreational drugs, even though they can be just as deadly, leading teens to regard them as a “safe” way to get high.

In many cases, parents only add to this assumption, not only because they may take multiple prescription drugs themselves but also, as the survey reported, because close to one-third of parents believe prescription stimulants can improve their teen’s academic performance.

One in Six Parents Believe Prescription Drugs Give a Safer “High” Than Street Drugs

Another shocking belief held by one in six parents was that using prescription drugs to get high is safer than using street drugs. This might explain why 86 percent of teens said their parents had not talked to them about the risks of abusing prescription drugs. In fact, it’s often the parents’ own medicine cabinets that become their children’s “drug dealers” …

Some teens even describe having “skittles parties,”2 where they combine a mix of pills they took from their parent’s medicine cabinet into one big bowl, then take a few just for fun.

Sadly, some teens pay for this one “bad” decision with their lives. Drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, and these drug-induced fatalities are not being driven by illegal street drugs.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the most commonly abused prescription drugs like OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma now cause more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.3 As written in the Baltimore Sun:4

"According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, prescription drugs are second to marijuana as the drug of choice for today's teens. In fact, seven of the top 10 drugs used by 12th-graders were prescription drugs.

More than 40 percent of high school seniors reported that painkillers are "fairly" or "very" easy to get. They also reported that they believed that if they were to get caught, there was less shame attached to the use of prescription drugs than to street drugs. This mirrors the perceptions of their parents, who when queried said that they felt prescription drugs were a safer alternative to drugs typically sold by a drug dealer."

There’s Nothing “Safe” About Prescription Drug Abuse

If you have a teenager or pre-teen in your life that you care about, please make it a point to sit down and talk to them about the dangers of taking prescription drugs just “for fun.” Far from being “safer” than illegal street drugs, they can sometimes kill in just one pill.

Be sure to let them in on this simple fact: in many cases there's no difference between a recreational street drug and a prescription drug. For example, hydrocodone, a prescription opiate, is synthetic heroin. It's indistinguishable from any other heroine as far as your brain and body is concerned. So, if you're hooked on hydrocodone, you are in fact a good-old-fashioned heroin addict.

Worse, pain-killing drugs like fentanyl are actually 100 times more potent than natural opioids like morphine, making the addictive potential and side effects associated with prescription drug use much higher. Among the most commonly abused prescription medications, along with their risks, which you can share with your teen, include:

Opioids (Painkillers)

Morphine, codeine, oxycodone, hydrocodone and fentanyl all fall into this category. These drugs are not only addictive, they can lead to slowed breathing and death if too much is taken.

Stimulants

These include drugs such as Ritalin, Concerta and Adderall (the latter of which actually contains amphetamine, known and sold on the street as "speed" or "crank"), which are often used to teat ADHD, narcolepsy and even sometimes depression. Along with being highly addictive, stimulants sometimes lead to feelings of hostility and paranoia, along with risks like irregular heartbeat, heart failure and seizures.

When a stimulant is combined with another medication, such as an over-the-counter cold medicine that contains a decongestant, it can cause dangerously high blood pressure or irregular heart rhythms.

Depressants

Used to treat anxiety and sleep disorders, medications such as Valium, Xanax, Ambien, and Sonata are also addictive, and cause side effects like confusion, drowsiness and impaired coordination. This can be especially risky among teens if they then get behind the wheel to drive, as it increases the risk of accidents. Further, if these drugs are combined with alcohol or pain medications, the results can be deadly.

In the Popular Science infographic above,5 you can see rankings of some of the deadliest drugs in the US, according to data from the CDC. What is striking about this graphic is not only the steady rise in drug-related deaths, but also the fact that close to 60 percent of the drug overdose deaths involve pharmaceutical drugs such as opioids (oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone), anti-anxiety drugs, antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs – the very same drugs often preferred by teens for a “safer” high.

Politicians are Worried About Soda … but What About Prescription Drugs?

Soda taxes and other measures to lower soda consumption is a hot topic among politicians. Obviously, helping teens to drink less soda is an admirable and important public health goal, but what about the abuse of prescription drugs? One American dies every 19 minutes from an accidental prescription drug overdose,6 a phenomenon now being described as “the biggest man-made epidemic in the United States.”7 Yet, this is a soaring public health epidemic that receives far too little attention from the media and lawmakers alike.

Unfortunately, we’re living in an era when the drug industry is praised and revered for their “life-saving” medications, when in reality even their proper use often takes lives unnecessarily. Drugs are known to cause well over 125,000 deaths per year in the US when taken correctly as prescribed – and still the FDA allows fast-track approvals and countless new additions of poorly tested drugs to the marketplace that must later be withdrawn due to their lethal consequences.

This “FDA approval” makes teens believe that taking a few pills here and there is no big deal, and parents add to this flawed belief by often giving medications to their kids when they’re not really necessary – a practice that often starts at a very young age.

Nearly Half of Parents Give Cold Meds to Kids When They Shouldn’t

In children under the age of 4, common over-the-counter cough and cold medications can lead to allergic reactions, increased heart rate, slow breathing, confusion, hallucinations, drowsiness, sleeplessness, convulsions, nausea and constipation. This is why, since 2008, labels on these drugs state that they’re not intended for children under 4. Yet, according to a new survey, the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health, more than 40 percent of US parents give these cough and cold medications to their children aged 3 and younger.8

There is a common perception that if you’re coughing, sneezing or have a low-grade fever, you must take a medication to get rid of it. In reality, coughing and sneezing are tools your body uses to get rid of viruses and irritants, and fever also helps to kill bacteria and viruses.

So if you take a drug to stop these natural protections, you are actually stopping your body’s healing process -- and in the long run it will likely take you even longer to feel better. That, combined with the serious risks these drugs can pose to children, makes a strong case against their use … yet many parents still reach for such medications at the first hint of a sniffle. For kids, this sends the message that drugs are necessary to make you “feel better” – a belief they may keep when they reach their teenage years …

Novartis Drug Company Being Sued for Illegal Kickback Scheme

You probably wouldn’t trust that a drug dealer on the street had your best interests at heart … you would assume they’re mostly interested in making a profit. But make no mistake – the leading pharmaceutical companies are also among the largest corporate criminals in the world, behaving as if they are little more than white-collar drug dealers.

In one of the most recent examples, the US government sued the drug company Novartis for giving pharmacies discounts and rebates to switch kidney transplant patients from competitors’ drugs to their own anti-rejection drug Myfortic. Medicare and Medicaid reportedly paid tens of millions of dollars in reimbursements to the pharmacies as a result of the illegal kickback scheme, which has reportedly been going on since 2005.

This is not an isolated incident, either. A 2010 study analyzed trends in criminal and civil actions against drug companies, and revealed that the drug industry is the biggest defrauder of the federal government under the False Claims Act.9 Despite stiffer financial penalties, criminal activity has increased dramatically in recent years. These white-collar criminals are the same ones behind the supposedly “safe” medications sitting in your medicine cabinet; if they’re willing to defraud the federal government, what makes you think they’re not willing to defraud you, too?

12 Signs Your Teen May be Abusing Prescription Drugs

Prescription drug abuse often goes unnoticed by parents until it’s too late, so be sure to keep a close eye out for the following signs that your teen may be abusing prescription drugs:

Changes in sleeping habits or energy level Changes in mood or personality Changes in personal hygiene or appearance
Changes in friends Loss of appetite Changes in grades or dedication to schoolwork
Constricted eye pupils (“pinpoint pupils”), which may be a sign of opiate use Poor decision making Restlessness or impulsive behavior
Missing medications around your home Loss of interest in activities, sports, etc. Sudden weight loss

 

If you notice these signs or otherwise suspect that your teen may be abusing prescription drugs, talk to them immediately about the dangers and seek professional help if necessary.



Sources:


Related Articles:

  Let's End the Prescription Drug Death Epidemic

  The New Epidemic Sweeping Across America (and it's Not a Disease)

  The Scary Trend Of Boomer Addiction

 Comments (25)

Apr

2

CDC Says 1 in 50 Children Now Have Autism

Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment

By Dr. Mercola

It’s official. Even the conservative US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states the latest stats show one in 50 US kids now has autism.

This is a startling increase from their 2007 data, which showed one in 88 children with the condition. Boys are also four times as likely to be diagnosed with autism as girls, according to the new data. The CDC attributed the steep increase on improved diagnoses, particularly in older kids, noting:

“Children who were first diagnosed in or after 2008 accounted for much of the observed prevalence increase among school-aged children (those aged 6–17).”

Even if this is true (and this is the same rationale they used to explain the last noted increase), the deeper implications behind this rising trend are being downplayed by the media, or worse, entirely ignored. The latest statistics mean that between 3-4 percent of US boys now have autism, and the rate is growing …

Consider that about 15 years ago, 1 in 10,000 kids had autism. Ten years ago it was 1 in 1,000, then 1 in 150, 1 in 88 and now 1 in 50.1 This means there’s one child with autism on just about every school bus (one school bus holds about 50 kids).  This is beyond tragic and a shocking testimony to the accumulated insults that our modern health care system and lifestyle have on the developing fetus.

Are Genes Really to Blame for Autism?

It’s long been known that boys have a greater risk for developing autism than girls, a trend that’s often blamed on mutations in genes on the X chromosome, which only affect boys.

Some have even gone so far as to say that genetics account for 90 percent of a child's risk for autism. However, research from Stanford University using identical twins suggested otherwise.2

Since identical twins share nearly the same DNA, if there were an important genetic component to autism, then if one identical twin has autism, so should their identical sibling in the vast majority of cases.

But, when researchers completed diagnostic assessments on 192 twin pairs, they found fraternal twins were more likely to share an autism diagnosis than identical twins. Fraternal twins share only 50 percent of their DNA, which means something else is probably responsible for the double diagnosis -- and researchers suspect environmental factors are likely to blame.

The majority of autism cases do appear to result from the activation, or "expression," of a number of different genes, along with multiple epigenetic and environmental factors that interact to produce the traits of autism.

What Environmental Factors are Linked to Autism?

Science is increasingly showing us just how malleable our genes are — they continuously respond to their environment, meaning, your body and everything you put into and onto it. The possible environmental factors for autism are incredibly diverse. The following is just a short list of examples:

  • Vitamin D Deficiency: This is a simple and inexpensive factor to eliminate. It is simply inexcusable to be vitamin D deficient when you are pregnant. There is also a link between rampant vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women and the proportionate jump in autism, which has been highlighted by Dr. John Cannell.3 The vitamin D receptor appears in a wide variety of brain tissue early in the fetal development, and activated vitamin D receptors increase nerve growth in your brain. You can only imagine what happens to the fragile, developing nervous system of an infant or young child if insufficient vitamin D is present to support neurodevelopment.
  • Electromagnetic fields: Work by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt suggests there are distinct correlations between a woman's exposure to electromagnetic fields during pregnancy and her child's neurological functioning. He found that if you sleep in strong electromagnetic fields during pregnancy, your child will likely begin to exhibit neurological abnormalities within the first two years of life, such as neurological dysfunction, hyperactivity, and learning disorders.

    • In 2007, this theory received additional support from a study published in the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine.4 It presented the theory that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi devices and other similar wireless technologies may work in conjunction with genetic and environmental factors, becoming an accelerating factor in autism.

    After more than five years of research on children with autism they found that EMR negatively affects cell membranes, encouraging heavy metal toxins, which are associated with autism, to build up.

  • Mercury toxicity: It is already an established fact that exposure to mercury can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions -- all similar to traits defining, or associated with autism. Mercury pollution is widespread from the burning of fossil fuels, but the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines (still used in annual flu shots) and dental amalgams — both of which contain mercury — also cannot be overlooked as major sources of individual exposure to this neurotoxin.
  • Vaccines: A 2011 review of the peer-reviewed published studies on autism (going all the way back to 1943) revealed numerous documented cases of autism caused by encephalitis following vaccination.5 There are many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the use of toxic adjuvants, the presence of human DNA in vaccines, and the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time, any one of which could induce autoantibodies to be formed that may attack self-structures such as the myelin that coats the nerves, disrupting neurological development and function.
  • Phthalates: Research from 2009 discovered that infants who lived in homes with vinyl floors were twice as likely to have autism five years later, compared to those with wood or linoleum flooring. Vinyl floors can emit chemicals called phthalates, which are widely used plastic softeners found in much more than just vinyl flooring. Hairsprays, perfumes, cosmetics, toys, shower curtains, wood finishers, lubricants, certain medical devices and more all contain phthalates. Researchers have suggested the chemicals may contribute to autism by disrupting hormones not only in small children but also in the womb.

The Autism-Gut Connection You May Not Have Heard About

Neurologist Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride recently shared a common thread that may be linking these and other environmental factors together, namely brain toxicity stemming from gut toxicity, otherwise known as Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS). She cured her own son of autism using an all-natural treatment involving dietary changes and detoxification, and her hypothesis is in my view one of the most relevant.

In her research, Dr. Campbell-McBride discovered that nearly all of the mothers of autistic children have abnormal gut flora, which is significant because newborns inherit their gut flora from their mothers at the time of birth. Establishing normal gut flora in the first 20 days or so of life plays a crucial role in the maturation of your baby's immune system. Babies who develop abnormal gut flora are left with compromised immune systems, putting them at higher risk for suffering vaccine reactions.

If your baby has suboptimal gut flora, vaccines can become the proverbial "last straw" — the trigger that "primes" his/her immune system to develop chronic heath problems.

How to Prevent GAPS

In short, there is a close connection between abnormal gut flora and abnormal brain development — a condition Dr. Campbell-McBride calls Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS). The best way to prevent GAPS is for the mother to avoid all antibiotics and birth control pills prior to conception and then by breastfeeding and avoiding the use of antibiotics during (intrapartum) and after delivering. This is because they destroy the balance of gut flora and promote the growth of pathogenic bacteria.

Fortunately, it's possible to rather inexpensively identify GAPS within the first weeks of your baby's life, which can help you make better-informed decisions about vaccinations, and about how to proceed to set your child on the path to a healthy life.

The entire process for identifying children who would be at risk for developing autism from a vaccine is described in her book Gut and Psychology Syndrome, but to sum it up, in her practice she starts out by collecting a complete health history of the parents, and their gut health is assessed. Then, within the first few days of life, the stool of the child can be analyzed to determine the state of her gut flora, followed by a urine test to check for metabolites, which can give you a picture of the state of your child's immune system.

These tests are available in most laboratories around the world and cost a very reasonable amount, about $80 to $100 per test -- peanuts compared to the incredible expense of treating an autistic child once the damage is done.

In my view it is absolutely VITAL to perform this analysis BEFORE you consider vaccinating your child. If the test results are normal the likelihood of autism after vaccines is dramatically reduced. As Dr. Campbell-McBride states, she has yet to find an autistic child with normal bowel flora. If you find that your baby has abnormal gut microflora, or begins to develop symptoms of autism a year or two later, the GAPS program should be started immediately, as the younger the child is when you start the treatment, the better the results. The child should not be given any vaccines until their microflora tests normal; that is, assuming you choose to vaccinate at all.

If you want to know what is “normal” behavior for a developing child, and what may indicate signs of autism or another delay, the CDC has a milestone chart online for ages two months to five years.6

Reducing Your Child’s Toxic Burden is Crucial to Preventing Chronic Diseases Like Autism

Autism is a complex condition with many contributing factors and it takes a multi-faceted approach to treat it. We're now also beginning to understand it requires a multi-faceted approach to prevent it. This includes avoiding as many dangerous chemicals as possible, which makes listing the do's and don'ts virtually impossible. As a general rule, eating whole organic foods will go a long way, as that automatically cuts out processed foods and related chemicals, genetically engineered foods and artificial sweeteners.

Also be careful with the personal care products you use, as well as your household cleaning products and home building materials and furnishings ... Opting for "green" and/or organic alternatives will help reduce many of the toxins most people encounter on a daily basis. Do whatever you can to establish a toxin-free environment for your whole family, and then establish a detoxification program. Please remember hidden toxins like mold and fluoride. The book Our Toxic World: A Wake Up Call, by Dr. Doris Rapp, is an excellent resource if you're unsure of how or where to start.  Other helpful tips for tackling autism include:

  • Lower the EMF burden in your home, especially in your bedrooms.
  • Carefully review the vaccination issue, including the conventional vaccination schedule, and know that in most US states you still have the right to opt out of vaccines.
  • Avoid pasteurized milk; it's an absolute imperative to the treatment of autism. Those managing this illness without restricting milk are deceiving themselves. This includes all milk products, such as ice cream, yogurt and whey. Even natural flavorings in food must be avoided unless the processor can guarantee that caseinate is not included.
  • Completely eliminating sugar/fructose, juice, soda, French fries and wheat (pasta, bagels, cereal, pretzels, etc.) is also highly recommended.
  • Get proper sun exposure. It is my personal belief that vitamin D deficiency in conjunction with damaged gut flora may be two of the most significant contributing factors to autism. Optimizing your vitamin D levels and your gut flora during pregnancy may be the most important prevention strategies discovered to date.

Tell the White House It’s Time to Take Action Against Autism

Today the autism rates are one in 50. What are we waiting for to start looking for real answers about this devastating condition? For rates to rise to one in 30 or one in 15?

We must tackle this problem from all angles, and the Autism Action Network has launched a campaign urging the US government to finally take action against autism. You can join in via this Take Action Link to send an email to the President, your two United States Senators and your member of the House, letting them know that it’s time to acknowledge there’s a problem and start taking the autism epidemic seriously.



Sources:


Related Articles:

  The Silent Time Bomb Now Affecting 1 in 54 Boys in the US

  New Report Shows Drug Companies Lied and Overstated Their Drug’s Ability to Treat Autism

  The Simple Test Which May Help Prevent Autism

 Comments (102)

Oct

16

New Evidence Demolishes Claims of Safety and Effectiveness of HPV Vaccine

Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment

By Dr. Mercola

There are currently two HPV vaccines on the market, but if there was any regard for sound scientific evidence, neither would be promoted as heavily as they are.

The first, Gardasil, was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. It is now recommended as a routine vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 9-26 in the US. On October 25, 2011, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also voted to recommend giving the HPV vaccine to males between the ages of 11 and 21. The second HPV vaccine, Cervarix, was licensed in 2009.

Were it to be discovered that the HPV vaccine, in fact, does not effectively prevent cancer, then young women (and now boys) are being exposed to clearly unacceptable health risks. And that's precisely what a recent study has concluded...

Review of HPV Trials Conclude Effectiveness is Still Completely Unproven

Published online on September 24,1 a systematic review of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine by a Canadian team shows that its effectiveness is not only overstated (through the use of selective reporting or "cherry picking" data) but also completely unproven.

The summary states it quite clearly:

"We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications).

Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.

Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).

We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles." [Emphasis mine]

It is truly mindboggling, and a true testament to the conflicts of interest manipulating public health guidelines, that the HPV vaccine has received such robust backing by health officials and legislators alike.

Back in 2007, just a year after Gardasil's introduction to the market, Texas Governor Rick Perry went so far as signing an executive order mandating sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against HPV. Not surprisingly, Perry's former chief of staff was then a Merck lobbyist. Fortunately, the Legislature subsequently overturned his order.

It's important to realize that the HPV vaccine only protects against a small select set of HPV viruses that can lead to cell abnormalities that in some instances can cause cervical cancer, if the abnormalities are not identified and treated. So in reality, it's a misnomer to call it an anti-cancer vaccine. And it's massively misleading, if not a deliberate deception, to claim it "will" save lives.

Today, six years after licensure, we STILL have absolutely no proof, not a shred of actual evidence, indicating that Gardasil actually prevents cancer in the long-term and/or reduces cervical cancer mortality. What we have instead, is tens of thousands of adverse event reports and 122 deaths, as of mid-August.

Media Reports on Merck Study, But Ignores Canadian Review

What makes this issue so infuriating is the complete lack of transparency about the potential risks of the vaccine. Just days after the online release of the featured Canadian review, which obliterates claims of both safety and effectiveness, the Wall Street Journal2 reported that:

"A new study of Merck and Co's Gardasil cervical-cancer vaccine showed it was associated with fainting on the day of inoculation and skin infections two weeks afterward, but no link with more serious health problems was found. ...The Gardasil study – led by the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, California – was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to provide an additional look at the vaccine's safety in a large group of people. It was funded by Merck.

...More than 200 categories of illnesses such as asthma, diabetes, nervous-system disorders and medical conditions such as attention deficit disorder, back pain and other injuries were reviewed. In most cases the condition existed before the vaccine was given. There were 14 deaths recorded among girls and women in the study but the causes, including car accidents, congenital heart problems, suicide, lupus and pneumonia, weren't linked to the vaccine..."

There's not a single mention of the Canadian review. Likewise, WebMD's HPV page,3 which was reviewed by Kimball Johnson, MD on August 13, 2012, plainly states:

"No serious HPV vaccine side effects have been found, although fainting spells following injection have been reported in teens and young adults. Sometimes soreness occurs at the injection site."

This kind of blatant hiding of potential adverse effects leaves me speechless... Where is the journalistic integrity and accountability? WebMD is the second most visited health web site on the entire web (Mercola.com is fourth), so to say they have an influence over the health choices made by the average US citizen would be an understatement. The general belief is that it's a first-rate, trustworthy source of "independent and objective" information about health, but as I reported two years ago, the site is in fact heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.

The HPV Vaccine Risks You're Not Being Told About

As of August 13, 2012, VAERS has received 119 reports of death following HPV vaccination,4 as well as:

  • 894 reports of disability
  • 517 life-threatening adverse events
  • 9,889 emergency room visits
  • 2,781 hospitalizations

And WebMD had the gall to misinform the public by stating that there have been NO serious side effects associated with HPV vaccination! What parent would not consider even the remote potential for permanent disability and/or death worthy of at least a brief mention?

Recent data pulled by VAERS research analyst Janny Stokvis5 also show a dramatic and recent increase in abnormal pap smears, cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer following HPV vaccination.

Bear in mind that cervical cancer typically does not strike until your late 40's. According to 2005 -2009 data by the National Cancer Institute,6 the median age at diagnosis for cervical cancer in the US is 48. Only .2 percent of those diagnosed with cervical cancer were under the age 20, so it's quite rare in this age group. It is estimated that 12,170 American women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2012.7 Because we're dealing with relatively low numbers to begin with, it makes the rapid increases detailed below all the more worrisome – especially when you consider that the vaccine is supposed to REDUCE cancer incidence.

The following data is for girls ages 14 to 26.8 According to Stokvis, some of the reports of cervical abnormalities are occurring four to five years after HPV vaccination, so we're just now starting to see some of the longer-term ramifications, since the vaccine has only been on the market for six years.

March 2011 March 2012 % increase in 12 months
Abnormal pap smear 384 479 24.74 %
Cervical dysplasia 138 190 37.68 %
Cervical cancer 41 50 21.95 %

 

This new data supports previous suspicions that the HPV vaccine might actually increase your risk of cervical cancer. I wrote about this two years ago. The information came straight from Merck and was presented to the FDA prior to approval.9 According to Merck's own research, if you have been exposed to HPV 16 or 18 prior to injection and take the vaccine, you increase your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6 percent...

Additionally, since Merck's research indicates Gardasil may also 'provide cross-protection' against other strains of HPV that are closely related to HPV 16 and 18 (two of the four strains included in the vaccine), this would mean prior exposure to these additional strains (which are not included in the vaccine itself) may pose an additional increased risk for cervical cancer when combined with vaccination.

As of August 13, 2012, more than 27,023 adverse event reports10 have been filed with the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS),11 including 918 reports from boys and men between the ages of nine and 44, who were given HPV shots. Keep in mind that it is estimated that only between one and 10 percent of serious events, which occur after vaccination, are ever reported to VAERS.12, 13

In addition, FDA researchers revealed in 2009 that nearly 70 percent of Gardasil vaccine adverse events reported to VAERS came from Merck, which indicates that the majority of doctors are reporting vaccine-related injuries and deaths directly to Merck instead of to VAERS.14 Who knows how many of the Gardasil-related injuries and deaths never make it from Merck's files to the VAERS database.

Adverse events reported to VAERS post-HPV vaccination include:

Bell's Palsy Guillain-Barre Syndrome Seizures
Paralysis Blindness Pancreatitis
Speech problems Short term memory loss Ovarian cysts
Blood clotting and heart problems Miscarriages15 and fetal abnormalities Cardiac arrest16 and sudden death

Large-Scale Study Shows HPV Vaccine is Ineffective and Increases Rate of Carcinogeic HPV Types in Vaccinated Women

The featured study alone is big news, but that's not all. Other damning studies have also been completely ignored by media and public health officials alike. As reported by menstruationresearch.org in June:17

"In January 2012, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published the ATHENA HPV study18 announcing the results of a large cervical cancer screening trial, enrolling 47,208 women 21 years of age or older at 61 clinical sites throughout the United States. The authors reported that in a sub group of 12,852 young women, the HPV vaccine reduced HPV-16 infections only 0.6% in vaccinated women vs. unvaccinated women.

Most disturbing are the data that showed other high-risk HPV infections were diagnosed in vaccinated women 2.6% to 6.2% more frequently than unvaccinated women. In fact, the study reported that the increased rate of infections by carcinogenic HPV types in vaccinated women (other than those targeted by Gardasil®) is four to 10 times higher than the reduction in HPV 16/18 infections."

Yet another recent British study19 published in the journal Vaccine on May 14, 2012, states:

"Estimates of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine impact in clinical trials and modeling studies rely on DNA tests of cytology or biopsy specimens to determine the HPV type responsible for a cervical lesion. DNA of several oncogenic HPV types may be detectable in a specimen. However, only one type may be responsible for a particular cervical lesion.

Misattribution of the causal HPV type for a particular abnormality may give rise to an apparent increase in disease due to non-vaccine HPV types following vaccination ('unmasking')... There could be an apparent maximum increase of 3-10% in long-term cervical cancer incidence due to non-vaccine HPV types following vaccination...Unmasking may be an important phenomenon in HPV post-vaccination epidemiology, in the same way that has been observed following pneumococcal conjugate vaccination." [Emphasis mine]

Talk to Your Kids about HPV and Gardasil

There are far better ways to protect yourself or your young daughters against cervical cancer than getting Gardasil or Cervarix vaccinations, and it's important you let your children know this. Remember, in more than 90 percent of cases, your immune system can clear up the HPV infection within two years on its own, so keeping your immune system strong is important.

In addition, HPV infection is spread through sexual contact and research20 has demonstrated that using condoms can reduce your risk of HPV infection by 70 percent, which is far more effective than the HPV vaccine! Be sure your kids know that this infection is sexually transmitted, so the risk of infection can be greatly reduced by lifestyle choices, including the use of condoms. Also let them know that, even if they get vaccinated, it is important that girls and women are screened every few years for cervical changes that may indicate pre-cancerous lesions because there is little guarantee that either Gardasil or Cervarix will prevent cervical cancer..

Jerry Brown Signs Bill Requiring Signatures for Those Opting Out of Vaccinations

Last year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that allows minor children as young as 12 years old to be given Gardasil, Cervarix, hepatitis B vaccine and future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases without a parent's knowledge or consent.

Last month, the Sacramento Bee21 reported that Governor Brown signed legislation (AB2109) that requires parents seeking a personal belief exemption to vaccination for their children to pay for an extra office visit to obtain the signature of a medical doctor or other state designated health care worker that confirms the parents have reviewed information about risks and benefits of vaccines. The new law will take effect in January 2014. Wouldn't it be nice if parents choosing to vaccinate their children were given truthful information about vaccine risks and benefits rather than complicating the process for those, who have already done their homework and have decided a vaccine is not in the best interest of their child?

According to the Sacramento Bee:

"Democratic Assemblyman Richard Pan of Sacramento proposed the measure, Assembly Bill 2109, which requires the statement to be signed by the parents and by a health care practitioner.

In signing the bill, Brown said that he will direct the state Department of Health to provide a way for people whose religious beliefs preclude vaccinations from having to seek a health care practitioner's signature. Brown noted that AB 2109 does not eliminate parents' current right to exclude their children from vaccinations but attempts to ensure that they have important health information in making that choice."

Why We Must Protect Vaccine Exemptions

Your right to vaccine exemptions is increasingly under threat. All across the United States, people are fighting for their right not to be injected with vaccines against their will. These threats come in a variety of guises like California bill AB499,22 which permits minor children as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines like Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent!

In light of the evidence that HPV vaccines have not been proven safe or effective, how wise is it to allow a young child to be vaccinated without her parents even knowing about it? It's nothing short of insanity.

I cannot stress enough how critical it is to get involved and stand up for your human right to exercise informed consent and your legal right to obtain non-medical vaccine exemptions. This does not mean you have to opt out of all vaccinations if you decide that you want to give one or more vaccines to your child. The point is, everyone should have the right to evaluate the potential benefits and real risks of any pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, and opt out of any vaccine they decide is unnecessary or not in the best interest of their child's health. Every child is different and has a unique personal and family medical history, which may include severe allergies or autoimmune and neurological disorders, that could increase the risks of vaccination.

It is your parental right to make potentially life-altering health decisions for your own children. Why wouldn't you want to keep that right – even if you want your child to receive most or all vaccinations currently available? Tomorrow there might be a vaccine you don't want your child to receive, but if you've failed to support informed consent rights and the legal right for all Americans to take medical and non-medical vaccine exemptions, you've given away your own freedom to choose in the future...

What You Can Do To Make a Difference

While it seems "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. 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 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, but when national vaccine issues come up, 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.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

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 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.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors, employers or school 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.





Related Articles:

  Latest Vaccine News

  Tell Your Doctor: If You Don't Show Me This, You're Breaking the Law

  Dr. Palevsky on Childhood Vaccinations

 Comments (93)

Apr

17

Big Surprise - Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly through Vaccinated Populations

Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment

By Dr. Mercola

In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years reportedly occurred in California.

Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in the California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials and national media targeting people opting out of using pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the then-current whooping cough outbreak.

But new research released last month paints a very different picture than the one being spread by the media.

In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine.

81 Percent of Whooping Cough Cases Occurred in People Who Were Fully Vaccinated

CDC data shows 84 percent of children under the age of 3 have received at least FOUR DTaP shots?which is the acellular pertussis vaccine that was approved in the United States in 1996?yet, despite this high vaccination rate, whooping cough still keeps circulating among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

More likely than not, the vaccine provides very little if any protection, and this was evidenced very clearly in a study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.i

Researchers reviewed data on every patient who tested positive for pertussis between March and October 2010 at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

Out of these 132 patients:

  • 81 percent were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine
  • 8 percent had never been vaccinated
  • 11 percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series

What?s wrong with this picture? Could it be that children and adults, who have received all the government-recommended pertussis shots, can still get the disease? Yes, of course. And this study suggests they may in fact be more likely to get the diseases than unvaccinated populations. Researchers noted:

?Despite widespread childhood vaccination against Bordetella pertussis, disease remains prevalent. It has been suggested that acellular vaccine may be less effective than previously believed. Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis.?

That is clearly stating the obvious, as B. pertussis whooping cough is a cyclical disease and natural increases tend to occur every 4-5 years no matter how high the vaccination rates in a population using DPT or DTaP vaccines on a widespread basis. Whole cell DPT vaccines used in the U.S. from the 1950?s until the late 1990?s were estimated to be 63 to 94 percent effective and studies showed that vaccine-acquired immunity fell to about 40 percent after seven years.

In the recent DTaP vaccine study, researchers  noted the vaccine?s effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-12. With this shockingly low rate of DTaP vaccine effectiveness, the questionable solution that public health officials have come up with is to declare that everybody has to get three primary shots and three follow-up booster shots just to get the vaccine to give long-lasting protection?if any protection is provided at all.ii

Whooping Cough Vaccine Protection Fades in Three Years

The featured study also suggests that the acellular pertussis vaccine loses much of its effectiveness after just three years. This is much faster than previously believed, and could also help explain the recent whooping cough outbreaks in the U.S.

Unfortunately, stacking on additional booster shots is likely to make matters worse rather than better, especially in light of the fact that the mass use of existing pertussis vaccines has already led to vaccine-resistant strains that are still evolving and could become much more virulent.

The new mutation, which some researchers are calling "P3," is a strain that produces more pertussis toxin (PT).iii

Pertussis toxin is the part of B. pertussis bacteria that is most responsible for the neurological complications of both pertussis disease and DPT and DtaP pertussis vaccines, and is also most responsible for stimulating an immune response. The acellular pertussis vaccines, which were developed and tested in the late 1980's and early 1990's, do not include the mutated strain.

Another reason why whooping cough cannot be entirely eradicated is the fact that there's another Bordetella organism ? parapertussis ? that can also cause whooping cough. The symptoms of B. parapertussis, while often milder, can look exactly like B. pertussis, but doctors rarely recognize or test for parapertussis. And, there is NO vaccine for it.

One difference between recovering from B. pertussis whooping cough and getting the vaccine is that recovery from whooping cough confers a naturally-acquired immunity that is stronger and longer lasting than the artificial immunity induced by the vaccine. Vaccination requires more and more booster doses to try to extend the artificial vaccine immunity.

Many Doctors Now Pushing Ineffective ?Cocooning? Whooping Cough Vaccines

The Tdap vaccine, which is recommended for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults, is also a combination vaccine that is supposed to protect against tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough (pertussis). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is now directing all physicians, particularly pediatricians, to offer Tdap vaccine to parents and close family members of babies under age 2 months, who are too young to receive a pertussis-containing vaccine themselves. (The other vaccine being promoted to parents and close contacts of babies is the flu vaccine).

Known as "cocooning," this controversial practice is being promoted by the AAP and government health officials as a way of protecting babies from whooping cough and other infectious diseases like influenza by vaccinating their parents and other adult caregivers. However, there is little evidence to show that this works! In fact, research from Canada showed just the opposite.

The Canadian study investigated how many parents would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent infant hospitalizations and deaths from pertussis using the cocoon strategy, and the results were dismal. They found the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for parental immunization was at least 1 million to prevent 1 infant death, approximately 100,000 for ICU admission, and >10,000 for hospitalization.iv Researchers concluded:

"... the parental cocoon program is inefficient and resource intensive for the prevention of serious outcomes in early infancy."

There are Risks Attached to the Whooping Cough Vaccine

Whooping cough can be serious, especially for newborns and babies, whose tiny airways can become clogged with the sticky mucus produced by the toxins in B. pertussis bacteria. These babies can suffer life-threatening breathing problems that require hospitalization and use of suctioning and re-hydration therapies. However, the vast majority of children and adults get through a bout with whooping cough without complications and it is important for them to get proper nutrition, hydration and rest to support the healing process.

Similarly, while some children and adults get pertussis-containing vaccines and experience no complications, others do suffer serious reactions, injuries, or have died after getting vaccinated. According to Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC):v

"Of all the vaccines which have been routinely used by children in the past century, the brain damaging effects of the pertussis (whooping cough) portion of DPT vaccine is among the most well documented in the scientific literature.

Created in 1912, the crude pertussis vaccine basically consisted of B. pertussis bacteria killed with heat, preserved with formaldehyde, and injected into children. In the early 1940's, aluminum was added as an adjuvant and later the mercury preservative, thimerosal, was added when pertussis was combined with diphtheria and tetanus vaccines to create DPT. Pertussis vaccine was never studied in large clinical trials before being given to children in the first half of the 20th century or after it was combined into DPT and recommended for mass use by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1947."

Children who are particularly high-risk for brain injury or death after getting a pertussis-containing vaccine (DPT, DTaP or Tdap) include those who have suffered previous vaccine reactions, such as:

  • High fever
  • High pitched screaming or persistent crying
  • Convulsions (with or without fever)
  • Collapse/shock (also known as hypo-tonic/hypo-responsive episodes)
  • Brain inflammation and encephalopathy

Most of the adverse effects are believed to occur from the effects of the pertussis toxin itself, which is one of the most lethal toxins in nature. It's a well-known neurotoxin that is so reliable for inducing brain inflammation and brain damage that it's used to deliberately induce experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) in lab animals.

In the video profile of pertussis vaccine injury below, Barbara Loe Fisher interviews a Houston family with a history of vaccine reactions that spans three generations. Now, a 12-year-old child in the family has become permanently disabled from a reaction to the DTaP vaccine that was given to her, along with 6 other vaccines, at age 15 months.

Either way, getting whooping cough or getting a pertussis vaccination entails a risk. But, remember, the vaccine carries with it two risks: the risk of a serious side effect AND the risk that the vaccine won't work at all or will only work for a short period of time. What happened to this family is a potent reminder of just how important it is to make well-informed decisions about vaccinations.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand your rights under the law to make voluntary vaccine choices, 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 will 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, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen you will be put in touch with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard.

NVIC is using the Advocacy Portal to warn citizens about legislative threats to strip vaccine exemptions from state vaccine laws. NVIC staff and volunteers are on the ground in Vermont, California, Arizona and other states training activists to fight the wealthy and powerful Pharma/Medical Trade lobby that is trying to eliminate the religious and conscientious or philosophical belief exemption to vaccination in America.

Watch a Public Service Message about a bill now threatening the personal belief exemption to vaccination in California.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

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

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.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or state officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Find a Doctor Who will Listen to Your Concerns

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 punish those patients and parents, who become truly educated about health and vaccination and want to make vaccine choices instead of being forced to follow risky one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.

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 and connect with a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

References:



Sources:


Related Articles:

  The Prescribed 'Preventive' That Labs Use to Induce Brain Damage in Animals

  Red Alert: The Vaccine Responsible for Half the Awards for Injury and Death

  What?s Really to Blame for California?s Whooping Cough Epidemic?

 Comments (54)

Next Page →