By Anna Von Reitz
We are consumers of all the “services” of all these incorporated public-private “governmental service providers”.
By Anna Von Reitz
We are consumers of all the “services” of all these incorporated public-private “governmental service providers”.
By Anna Von Reitz
By Anna Von Reitz
You will all remember that Larry Becraft sent out a screed last week or so, in which he claimed that Rod Class was lying and that the issues in North Carolina never meant anything and were just ignorant dismissed cases that Rod Class pursued and then blew out of proportion. I disagreed and then Larry and his Boy Robin, Bob Hurt, jumped all over me, and tried to discredit me, too.
By Dr. Mercola
Opioids, which kill an average of 115 Americans daily,1 have found their way into waterways where they’re now coursing through filter feeders, including mussels, and possibly other sea life as well. Mussels serve as useful pollution barometers because they absorb environmental pollutants as a matter of course. Researchers with the Puget Sound Mussel Monitoring Program actually move uncontaminated mussels to various locations in Washington’s Puget Sound every two years in order to study pollution levels.
When the mussels were most recently tested, those at three out of 18 locations tested positive for the opioid oxycodone. All of the areas where the mussels contained opioids were highly urbanized, suggesting the drugs may be excreted in toilet water, ending up in wastewater and then finding their way out into the ocean. Pharmaceuticals, including antidepressants, chemotherapy and diabetes drugs, have long been detected in marine life, but the study represents the first time opioids were detected in the Puget Sound area.2
If there were an upside to the finding, it’s that mussels probably don’t metabolize oxycodone, and thus probably aren’t affected by the trace amounts of drugs detected.
However, other marine life, including fish, most likely will be. “Lab studies show that zebrafish will learn to dose themselves with opioids,3 and scientists say salmon and other Puget Sound fish might have a similar response,” according to the Puget Sound Institute.4 The appearance of the drugs in waterways is also a sign of just how pervasive opioid use has become.
In the U.S., 63,600 people died from a drug overdose in 2016, 66 percent of which involved an opioid. Overdose deaths have been on the rise since the 1990s, with those involving prescription opioids increasing sharply since 1999.5
Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50, with the deaths being driven by synthetic opioids like fentanyl.6 Further, the rate of deadly overdoses from synthetic opioids rose an average of 88 percent a year since 2013 and has gotten so bad that the opioid epidemic was declared a public health emergency in 2017.7
In a study on economic well-being, the Federal Reserve even started assessing opioid addiction to determine its role. About 1 in 5 adults was found to personally know someone who has been addicted to opioids, and this rose to 1 in 4 among white adults. “Exposure to opioid addiction was much more common among whites — at all education levels — than minorities,” the report noted.8
In addition, those exposed to opioid addiction assessed economic conditions somewhat less favorably than those who were not exposed. The realities of the opioid crisis are hitting close to home for many Americans, with the uptick in related death rates even making a noticeable rise in organ donation due to drug abuse.
Whereas only 1 percent of adult organ donations were due to drug overdoses prior to the start of the opioid crisis, research published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) revealed that by 2016 this had risen to 14 percent.9 “This shift accounted for much of the increase in organ transplantation activity over the past five years in the United States,” the researchers noted, adding that the organs appear to be as safe for recipients as organ donations from donors who died from other causes.
Attorney Mike Moore, Mississippi’s former attorney general, is perhaps most well-known for a lawsuit he filed against 13 tobacco companies, which resulted in a $246 billion settlement spanning 50 states. He’s now going after Big Pharma, who he believes is responsible for creating the U.S. opioid epidemic and, to date, he’s already enlisted attorneys general from 23 states to take part.
Already 10 states have sued pharmaceutical companies, often Purdue Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures OxyContin. About 80 percent of heroin drug addicts report starting out on painkillers such as OxyContin.10 Purdue Pharma was instrumental in driving sales of OxyContin up from $48 million in 1996 to $1.5 billion in 2002.11 They also released a promotional video in 1998 claiming that the addiction rate is much less than 1 percent. Moore said:12
“When you train your workforce — thousands of salespeople — to go out and tell doctors that there’s less than a 1 percent chance of addiction if you take this drug, and you know that there’s no study that you’ve done, and no reliable study that anybody else has ever done that says that, then of course you’re telling a lie.”
In 2007, Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to charges of misbranding “with intent to defraud and mislead the public” and paid $634 million in fines, which did little to dissuade them from continuing to profit off the deadly drugs. A potential part of the problem is the fact that no specific individuals have ever been charged. The Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, made it onto Forbes’ Top 20 billionaires list in 201513 — in large part due to the burgeoning sales of OxyContin.
Yet, none of the members of the Sackler family was ever charged with any kind of misdeed, and owners and corporate leaders of other drug companies have also walked away scot-free.
Moore, however, who is representing the states of Ohio, Louisiana and Mississippi against Purdue Pharma, stated he has discovered evidence connecting the Sackler family “directly, and personally, to corporate misdeeds” committed in the ’90s and 2000s, and says he’s “looking really hard” at the possibility of suing certain Sackler family members personally.14 He and others also want Purdue’s owners to fund opioid addiction treatment.15
Nevada, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, North Dakota and Tennessee are the latest U.S. states to join the fight against Purdue Pharma, alleging the company used deceptive marketing practices to drive billions of dollars in drug sales. They join 16 other U.S. states and Puerto Rico, which have also filed suits. While Purdue and other drug companies continue to maintain their innocence, state and local governments are sending a clear message that they’re expecting to hold Big Pharma accountable.
In Texas, the lawsuit alleges Purdue Pharma violated the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act by selling opioids even though they knew of their potential dangers. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said at a news conference, “As Purdue got rich from sales of its opioids, Texans and others across the nation were swept up in a public health crisis that led to tens of thousands of deaths each year to due opioid overdoses.”16 Claims against Purdue include that they:17
A federal court also recently consolidated 433 lawsuits filed by U.S. cities and counties against Purdue Pharma and others, including Johnson & Johnson, Teva and Cardinal Health.18
Despite the growing opioid crisis, many drug companies are still marketing the drugs to doctors and giving them perks like free meals, paid travel expenses and money for speaking and consulting engagements. A recent NEJM study found that although doctors typically receive less than $1,000 a year in such perks, they may still influence opioid prescriptions.
In fact, physicians who received perks from drug companies increased their opioid prescription rates by an average of 9 percent in the year after the payment.19 “[W]hile we see a trend for a small drop in the number of opioid prescriptions now being written by doctors, that is not the case among physicians who receive an opioid marketing payment,” Dr. Scott Hadland, the study’s lead researcher of the Grayken Center for Addiction, Boston Medical Center, said.20 In contrast, their prescribing rates increased.
It’s often assumed, including by doctors, that trivial “gifts” like meals don’t influence physicians’ prescribing habits, but the study found this is not the case. “[E]very meal led to an additional 0.7 percent increase. And many doctors were taken out more than once. So, it can add up,” Hadland said. “So, patients need to be aware that doctors are receiving this marketing, and that when they’re prescribed an opioid, a nonopioid option may be preferable.”21
The researchers wrote in JAMA, “Amidst national efforts to curb the overprescribing of opioids, our findings suggest that manufacturers should consider a voluntary decrease or complete cessation of marketing to physicians. Federal and state governments should also consider legal limits on the number and amount of payments.”22 All together, opioid-related payments to doctors from drug companies amounted to over $9 million in 2014.23
A separate analysis by CNN and Harvard researchers also revealed that, in 2014 and 2015, hundreds of doctors received in excess of $25,000 each from opioid manufacturers, and those who prescribed the most opioids received the largest payments.24
Using the online Open Payments Program from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, you can easily search to find out what (if any) payments your doctor has received from the pharmaceutical industry, along with the nature of the payments. In a previous study by Hadland and colleagues, researchers used Open Payments to reveal opioid-related payments to physicians between August 2013 and December 2015.
More than 375,000 nonresearch opioid-related payments were made to more than 68,000 physicians, totaling more than $46 million. This amounts to 1 in 12 U.S. physicians receiving money from drug companies producing prescription opioids.25 Family physicians received the most payments (close to 1 in 5 family medicine doctors were recipients26), which is “an indicator that opioids are being really heavily marketed for pain,” Hadland told The Washington Post.27
Prescription opioids are considered standard care for treating severe pain following surgery or injury or due to illnesses such as cancer, although they’re now increasingly prescribed for many types of pain, including chronic back pain or pain from osteoarthritis. However, less risky opioid-free options may work just as well.28
If you suffer from chronic pain, there’s a good chance you need to tweak your diet to eliminate grains, sugars and most processed foods while increasing your intake of healthy fats, including animal-based omega-3s. In addition, nondrug remedies and bodywork interventions can often help with pain relief without posing a risk of addiction or overdose death. You may want to consider one or more of the following for safe pain relief:
Kratom (Mitragyna speciose) is a plant remedy that has become a popular opioid substitute. In August 2016, the DEA issued a notice saying it was planning to ban kratom, listing it as Schedule 1 controlled substance.
However, following massive outrage from kratom users who say opioids are their only alternative, the agency reversed its decision. Unfortunately, its legal status is still unstable, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is on a crusade to eliminate kratom.
Kratom is safer than an opioid for someone in serious and chronic pain. However, it’s important to recognize that it is a psychoactive substance and should be used with great care. There’s very little research showing how to use it safely and effectively, and it may have a very different effect from one person to the next.
The other issue to address is that there are a number of different strains available with different effects. Also, while it may be useful for weaning people off opioids, kratom is in itself addictive. So, while it appears to be a far safer alternative to opioids, it’s still a powerful and potentially addictive substance. So please, do your own research before trying it.
Low-Dose Naltrexone (LDN)
Naltrexone is an opiate antagonist, originally developed in the early 1960s for the treatment of opioid addiction. When taken at very low doses (LDN, available only by prescription), it triggers endorphin production, which can boost your immune function and ease pain.
A primary therapeutic compound identified in the spice turmeric, curcumin has been shown in more than 50 clinical studies to have potent anti-inflammatory activity. Curcumin is hard to absorb, so best results are achieved with preparations designed to improve absorption. It is very safe and you can take two to three every hour if you need to.
One of the most effective oil-soluble antioxidants known, astaxanthin has very potent anti-inflammatory properties. Higher doses are typically required for pain relief, and you may need 8 milligrams or more per day to achieve results.
Also known as boswellin or “Indian frankincense,” this herb contains powerful anti-inflammatory properties, which have been prized for thousands of years. This is one of my personal favorites, as it worked well for many of my former rheumatoid arthritis patients.
This protein-digesting enzyme, found in pineapples, is a natural anti-inflammatory. It can be taken in supplement form, but eating fresh pineapple may also be helpful. Keep in mind most of the bromelain is found within the core of the pineapple, so consider eating some of the pulpy core when you consume the fruit.
Also called capsaicin cream, this spice comes from dried hot peppers. It alleviates pain by depleting your body’s supply of substance P, a chemical component of nerve cells that transmit pain signals to your brain.
Cetyl myristoleate (CMO)
This oil, found in dairy butter and fish, acts as a joint lubricant and anti-inflammatory. I have used a topical preparation of CMO to relieve ganglion cysts and a mild case of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Evening primrose, black currant and borage oils
These oils contain the fatty acid gamma-linolenic acid, which is useful for treating arthritic pain.
This herb is anti-inflammatory and offers pain relief and stomach-settling properties. Fresh ginger works well steeped in boiling water as a tea, or incorporated into fresh vegetable juice.
By Dr. Mercola
Exposure to microbes, or lack thereof, has long been named as a factor in developing diseases ranging from allergies to asthma. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the most common type of childhood cancer, may also have a microbial link, according to Melvyn Greaves of the Institute of Cancer Research in London, U.K.
In a landmark study, Greaves suggests that, among children born with a genetic mutation that can cause ALL, lack of exposure to common infections in the first 12 months of life may increase their risk of later developing a virus or bacteria that triggers ALL.
This “delayed infection” theory thus posits that “priming” the immune system via exposure to a variety of germs, dirt and microbes in early life is essential for its optimal function later. Missing out on this key process, which is becoming increasingly common in developed countries that value regular disinfection and antibacterial cleaning products, could set the stage for the development of ALL.
Greaves’ delayed infection theory is based on an extensive analysis of research, culminating in what he calls “two discrete steps” that cause ALL. First, before birth a genetic mutation occurs that’s actually quite common; prior research by Greaves and colleagues suggests 1 in 20 children may have it. However, only 1 percent of those with the mutation will go on to develop ALL, such that children aged 15 and under have a 1 in 2,000 cumulative risk of developing the disease.1
The trigger for the disease occurs later in childhood, when an infection prompts another genetic mutation that activates the disease process, leading to ALL. This second trigger, Greaves believes, occurs when the immune system hasn’t been adequately primed via exposure to microbes in early life. “Childhood ALL can be viewed as a paradoxical consequence of progress in modern societies, where behavioral changes have restrained early microbial exposure.
This engenders an evolutionary mismatch between historical adaptations of the immune system and contemporary lifestyles. Childhood ALL may be a preventable cancer,” he says.2 Among Greaves’ supporting research is a 2006 study that suggested influenza may trigger leukemia in some children.3 The study followed trends from 1974 to 2000; peaks in ALL diagnoses occurred in 1976 and 1999, both years that had flu epidemics just a few months prior to the ALL peaks.
Further, in mice with the ALL gene mutation, those kept in a sterile environment did not develop the disease but, once moved to an environment rich with microbes, the cancer developed.4 Greaves is now exploring whether exposure to microbes can prevent leukemia in mice, with the hope that the findings can then be investigated in humans. For now, however, Greaves’ study suggests exposure to microbes in early life may be the ticket to preventing ALL, which can be done through:
Past research supports these suggestions, including a 2002 study that found children who spent more time in day care had a significantly reduced risk of ALL.5 Breastfeeding was also associated with a reduced risk of ALL whereas introduction of formula within 14 days of birth was positively associated with ALL, as was exclusive formula feeding to 6 months.6
Researchers are only beginning to tap the surface when it comes to unveiling the complex relationship microbes have with human health and disease. Whereas persistent infections, and their related inflammation, have been shown to promote cancer, other pathogens may ignite an antitumor immune response that can even lead to cancer regression.
Writing in the journal Clinical Cancer Research, researchers explained, “Infectious agents and their products can orchestrate a wide range of host immune responses, through which they may positively or negatively modulate cancer development and/or progression.”7
Whereas certain viruses, for instance, are known to directly promote cancer, it’s likely that other viruses and other microbes act indirectly by way of modulating the immune response, although how this occurs remains a mystery. It seems, however, that infections during early life can be especially impacting.
You’ve probably heard of the hygiene hypothesis, which is the notion that a child raised in an environment devoid of dirt and germs, and who is given antibiotics that kill off all of the bacteria in his gut, is not able to build up natural resistance to disease and becomes vulnerable to illnesses later in life.
Your immune system is composed of two main groups that work together to protect you. One part of your immune system deploys specialized white blood cells, called Th1 lymphocytes, that direct an assault on infected cells throughout your body. The other major part of your immune system attacks intruders even earlier.
It produces antibodies that try to block dangerous microbes from invading your body’s cells in the first place. This latter strategy uses a different variety of white blood cells, called Th2 lymphocytes. The Th2 system also happens to drive allergic responses to foreign organisms.
At birth, an infant’s immune system appears to rely primarily on the Th2 system, while waiting for the Th1 system to grow stronger. But the hygiene hypothesis suggests that the Th1 system can grow stronger only if it gets “exercise,” either through fighting infections or through encounters with certain harmless microbes. Without such stimulation, the Th2 system flourishes and the immune system tends to react with allergic responses more easily.
The hygiene hypothesis posits that children and adults not being exposed to viruses and other environmental factors like dirt, germs and parasites results in their not being able to build up resistance, which makes them more vulnerable to illnesses. The so-called cancer hygiene hypothesis suggests that cancer is one of these illnesses. Even mumps, once a common childhood illness, may play a role in later cancer prevention, according to a study published in BMC Cancer:8
“Infections occur as early as the first year of life and may impact the immune system and cancer risk. The increase in antigenic exposure, after birth through viral/bacterial infections, may be essential for newborns to switch from a Th2 biased to a balanced Th1/Th2 immunity as well as to develop immunological memory.
Also, childhood diseases may activate specific antitumoral responses. For instance, mumps may lead to immune recognition of TAA present on ovarian cancer cells, resulting in an effective immunosurveillance.”
It seems that not only the type of infection you’re exposed to but also the timing shape how your immune system functions as well as your susceptibility to diseases like cancer.
“Some experimental evidence may also support the cancer hygiene hypothesis, that is, the antitumorigenic role of several inflammatory components, the ability of some commensals and benign gastrointestinal parasites like helminths to downregulate inflammation, as well as the ability of pathogens and their products to stimulate anticancer immunity,” according to researchers writing in Clinical Cancer Research,9 who continued:
“Both protective and detrimental effects of microorganisms have been observed, many of them linked to various immune components. Overall, their effect may depend on the fine orchestration between induction and suppression of cancer-promoting or antitumorigenic immunity as well as on the level of pathogen load and the timing between infection and cancer initiation.
In this regard, cancer may be associated with the increased hygiene/decreased exposure to specific microorganisms, similar to what is known for autoimmune diseases and allergies.”
Aside from the way microbial exposures affect your immune system, microbes may also play a role in cancer via those that exist in (and on) your body. For instance, beneficial bacteria known as probiotics can help boost activity of immune cells that fight off cancer cells. Certain gut bacteria also have shown potential for treating colon cancer,10 as well as boosting immune system health and reducing inflammation.
Carcinogen metabolism / detoxification
Apoptosis (programmed cell death)
In fact, fermented foods, prized for their role in supporting gut health, may be a key part of an anticancer diet. For example, butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid created when microbes ferment dietary fiber in your gut, has been shown to induce programmed cell death of colon cancer cells,13 and cultured milk products may reduce your risk of bladder cancer by about 29 percent.14
So eating fermented foods, including lassi, grass fed kefir, natto (fermented soy) and fermented vegetables, preferably homemade, is one of the best ways to nourish your gut health and reduce your cancer risk.
Getting your hands dirty in the garden can also help reacquaint your immune system with beneficial microorganisms on the plants and in the soil. Even washing your dishes by hand, instead of in the dishwasher, may actually leave more “dirt” on the plates and thereby decrease your risk of allergies by stimulating your immune system. It’s possible this immune stimulation could play a role in cancer risk as well.
Although the mechanisms are still not well understood, the accumulation of research showing health benefits from early, and continued, exposure to microbes in your environment suggests it’s a key health strategy to take to heart. If you’re healthy, exposure to bacteria and viruses may serve to strengthen your immune system and provide long-lasting defense against disease.
If you don’t get this healthy exposure to germs in your environment, it may end up making you sick. Health problems already associated with the hygiene hypothesis include:
Even depression has been connected to early exposure to pathogens, via an inflammatory connection,16 so there are many reasons to avoid an overly sterile environment in the early years of life, even aside from potential cancer prevention.
As mentioned, giving birth vaginally, breastfeeding and allowing your children to be exposed to other children (either siblings or at day care) are prime ways to increase their microbial exposure in the first few months of life. You can also avoid being overly “sterile,” and thereby bolster your body’s healthy immune function, by:
• Letting your child get dirty. Allow your kids to play outside and get dirty (and realize that if your kid eats boogers, it isn’t the end of the world).
• Not using antibacterial soaps and other antibacterial household products, which wipe out the microorganisms that your body needs to be exposed to for developing and maintaining proper immune function. Simple soap and water are all you need when washing your hands. The antibacterial chemicals are quite toxic and have even been found to promote the growth of resistant bacteria.
• Avoiding unnecessary antibiotics. Remember that viral infections are impervious to antibiotics, as antibiotics only work on bacterial infections.
• Serving organic grass fed meat and dairy products that do not contain antibiotics.
By Dr. Mercola
According to a recent national survey1,2 by the American Society for Microbiology and Research!America, public confidence in vaccines is waning — a trend blamed on “people either in insular communities or those who are able to connect with like-minded individuals online,” according to U.S. News & World Report.3
The percentage of American adults who believe it’s “very important” to vaccinate their children has declined by 11 percent over the past decade, from 82 percent in 2008 to 71 percent in May of this year. The percentage of those expressing “confidence in the system for evaluating the safety of vaccines to determine their proper use” declined by 8 percent, from 85 to 77 percent in that same time frame.
An even greater decline was found among those who believe they’ve benefited from the development of vaccines over the past five decades. A mere 59 percent now believe they’ve benefited, compared to 75 percent in 2008.
On the other hand, the percentage of people who now agree with the idea that parents who decline vaccination for their children put other children and communities at risk has risen by 10 percent. This is likely due to widespread propaganda about this grossly flawed point, which is being used to justify forced vaccination policies, and has been hammered home again and again in media reports. According to U.S. News & World Report:
“Public health officials find the polling data troubling because vaccines work not only by inoculating individuals from being able to contract a disease but also by creating what is known as ‘herd immunity,’ which occurs when a large enough percentage of a population is immune that, in the event it is introduced, a virus is unable to spread.
Herd immunity protects those who are unable to be vaccinated: the ill, or the very young or very old. Experts calculate that in order to achieve herd immunity, between 80 and 95 percent of a population need to have been vaccinated, depending on the disease.”
The idea that vaccines confer herd immunity if a high-enough percentage of people in a population are vaccinated, is repeatedly used as a selling point for strict enforcement of mandatory vaccination policies and laws. However, vaccines do NOT work in the same way as natural immunity, and there is evidence that vaccine-induced herd immunity is largely a myth.
It’s important to understand that vaccination and experiencing and recovering from a given infectious disease produce two qualitatively different types of immune responses. This is part of the reason why vaccines, such as pertussis vaccines, only confer a temporary artificial immunity that wanes and makes it likely for vaccinated persons to become infected and transmit infections, sometimes with few or no symptoms.4
In his soon to be released book, “Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness,” Dr. Thomas Cowan explains how vaccines cause a distortion in the two branches of your immune response — the cell-mediated immunity (innate) and the humoral immunity (adaptive). This, in turn, radically increases your risk of immune dysfunction, including development of autoimmunity and even cancer.
In a nutshell, when you get a viral childhood disease, the virus enters your body and infects your cells. The subsequent disease process involves your cell-mediated immune response, which activates white blood cells and chemicals that attract them to the site of infection, where the white blood cells basically chew up and spit out the infected cells. The function of that is to clear the virus and rejuvenate the gel-like water inside the cells.
During recovery, your humoral immune system kicks in and starts generating antibodies against the virus to help prevent the same kind of disease process and symptoms from occurring again, should you be exposed to the same viral disease later on.
As long as the cell-mediated immune system is activated first, and the humoral immune system is activated second, you will have a longer-lasting, qualitatively superior immunity against that disease. Naturally acquired herd immunity in a population comes into play when a very high percentage of individuals have gone through this sequence of cell-mediated and humoral immune response.
Viral and bacterial vaccines, however, circumvent the possibility of creating robust herd immunity in a population, as they often avoid a cell-mediated immune response. Instead, vaccines provoke a humoral response. In other words, vaccination triggers the creation of vaccine strain antibodies, but since vaccination skips the cell-mediated response, it only confers an artificial temporary immunity.
This is also why most vaccines, especially inactivated vaccines, require booster shots to try to extend artificial immunity. (Live attenuated viral vaccines, such as measles vaccine, are thought to more closely mimic the natural disease process, but even live virus vaccines confer an artificial immunity that is not identical to natural immunity.)
No vaccine is 100 percent protective. Some vaccines fail to give even temporary immunity to vaccinated persons and may not prevent the spread of infection. If vaccinated individuals can act as asymptomatic carriers of the disease, the idea of achieving vaccine-acquired herd immunity in a population is a total illusion.
Over the years, public health officials and pediatricians have become increasingly aggressive in their insistence that all children receive all federally recommended vaccines, without exceptions, but using bullying, harassment and insults rarely inspires trust and confidence. If you ask me, it’s far more likely that public confidence in vaccines is declining due to more people experiencing firsthand that vaccines carry significant risks and often fail to work as advertised. They are figuring out that:
As just one example of the latter, in 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics tried to strong arm CBS News into banning a 15-second NVIC public service message from airing on the CBS Jumbotron on Times Square in New York City. You can read that whole story in “They Want to Ban Our Times Square Billboard Message.” The message simply encouraged everyone to make informed vaccine choices.
Why is making an informed vaccine choice so important? It’s really just common sense to want to make an informed choice about a medical procedure like vaccination that carries a risk of injury or death for you or your child.
Importantly, by being aware of what a vaccine reaction looks like, and being cautious about revaccinating children who have already had a reaction to a previous vaccine, many severe vaccine injuries and deaths could potentially be prevented. Unfortunately, most pediatricians will not tell parents what to look for, or that there’s even a possibility of a serious vaccine reaction.
Then, when something does happen and the child becomes ill after vaccination and regresses into chronic poor health, the timing is typically written off as “coincidental.”
If you are still unclear about what a vaccine reaction might look like, be sure to download the brochure “If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions” from the National Vaccine Information Center’s website, www.NVIC.org. It contains a list of vaccine reactions to look for, such as high pitched screaming, collapse, shock and seizures. This information is also presented in the video below.
In a recent newsletter,5 Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the nonprofit charity, National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) — which is, unquestionably, the best resource for well-referenced vaccine information on the internet — addressed the horror that many parents of vaccine injured children now face, namely bullying and public shaming.
There have even been suggestions in the mainstream media that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, and people who allegedly spread “lies about vaccines causing autism,” should be put to death.
Now, if a public health policy is truly safe and effective and in the best interest of everyone — without exception — why is there a need to threaten anyone with execution? That kind of extreme authoritarianism has no place in a free and democratic society where freedom of thought and conscience and minority rights are supposed to be respected and protected, along with the health and safety of ALL citizens.
The main focus of Fisher’s article is Dr. Peter Hotez, a pediatrician vaccine developer, director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development and former president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute.
At a health lecture at Duke University, he attacked politicians “from the ‘peace, love, granola’ political left, who believe that ‘we have to be careful what we put into our kids’ bodies,’ and politicians from the political right, who tell doctors like him ‘you can’t tell us what to do with our kids.’” Fisher wrote that the “bulk of his venom” was, however, reserved for parents of vaccine injured children:
“Like a schoolyard bully who engages in name calling when he can’t come up with anything intelligent to say, he slapped the label ‘anti-vaccine’ onto parents of vaccine injured children speaking about what happened to their children after vaccination. Then, he … viciously accused those parents of hating their children: ‘Anti-vaccine organizations camouflage themselves as a political group, but I call them for what they really are: a hate group,’ Hotez said.
‘They are a hate group that hates their family and hates their children.’ In an email, he expanded on his personal feelings about the nonprofit charity, the NVIC, founded by parents of DPT vaccine injured children, who have worked for 36 years to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to secure informed consent protections in vaccine policies and laws.
He said: ‘The National Vaccine Information Center, is the National Vaccine Misinformation Center. It’s a phony website designed to intimidate and spread false and misleading information about vaccines. The NVIC is an important driver of the antivaxer movement and one that places children’s [sic] in harm’s way to perpetuate its twisted ideology’ …
Hotez is a doctor with a lot of titles who brings a lot of prestige, power and money to any academic setting in which he works or appears. He is also the father of a daughter with autism, who he insists is not vaccine injured.
Regardless of the cause of his daughter’s brain and immune system dysfunction, as the parent of a developmentally disabled child, Hotez should know better than to vent his anger and frustration by striking out at other parents with children requiring special education and lifelong care.”
Hotez was one of the people who, last year,6 called on the U.S. government and G-20 nations to “snuff out” — meaning to crush or kill — the antivaccine movement. “Hotez chose to use the word ‘hate’ four times in two sentences when he defamed the NVIC by calling it a ‘hate group.’ Branding an organization a ‘hate group’ is not an inconsequential action, morally or legally,” Fisher pointed out.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center,7 hate groups “vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity — prejudices that strike at the heart of our democratic values and fracture society …” Similarly, according to the FBI,8 a hate crime is “[A] criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity.”
Based on these definitions, Hotez is behaving like a “hate group” in his own right, instigating hatred toward parents who have already suffered tremendously and who are speaking out about what happened to their children after vaccination to prevent the same tragedy from striking others unaware.
Fisher also wrote in 2017 about how, for years, physicians and lawyers in academia have been systematically whipping up fear and prejudice against parents who dissent from one-size-fits-all government vaccine policies that put children’s lives in danger:
“In a July 2017 commentary, ‘Class and Race Profiling in the Vaccine Culture War,’9 I described how some physicians and lawyers in academia have been systematically fomenting fear, hatred and prejudice against any parent or physician who talks about the reality of vaccine injuries and deaths and defends the informed consent principle, which has been the ethical standard for the ethical practice of medicine since World War II,” Fisher wrote.
“A child health advocacy group that points out vaccine science research gaps, criticizes paternalism in medical practice, and challenges the use of utilitarianism as the moral foundation for public health policy does not qualify as a ‘hate group.’
Prestigious universities like Baylor and Duke, which receive substantial funding from government health agencies to develop and test new vaccines, should have a minimum standard of conduct for professors, whether they are employed to teach students or perform research.
Engaging in defamatory speech and using violent imagery to call on governments to ‘snuff out’ people for exercising freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religious belief does not meet even a minimum standard for civil conduct.”
As noted by Fisher in an October 2017 article,10 [P]rotecting informed consent is a matter of tremendous importance. The human right to informed consent to medical risk taking — established at the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg in 194711 — is being aggressively undermined in the U.S. and must be protected lest we lose it.
Who in their right mind would want to live in a society where the population at large can be exploited by pharmaceutical corporations and authoritarian government agencies without the knowledge or voluntary consent of citizens? Yet, that’s where we’re headed. In some respects, we’re already there. As noted by Fisher:
“Informed consent means you have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of a medical intervention and the freedom to make a voluntary decision about whether or not to accept those risks without being coerced or punished for the decision you make. Informed consent applies not just to risks taken by participants in scientific experiments, but also to risks taken by patients under the care of physicians12,13,14,15 …
There is no liberty more fundamentally a natural, inalienable right than the freedom to think independently and follow your conscience when choosing what you are willing to risk your life or your child’s life for. Vaccination must remain a choice because it is a medical intervention performed on the body of a healthy person that carries a risk of injury or death.16,17 And while we are all born equal, with equal rights under the law, we are not born identical.”
While a great deal of lip service is paid to “science-based medicine,” government health officials now direct pediatricians to vaccinate 99.99 percent of children, without regard for known and unknown risks.18,19 It’s important to realize that reports published by physician committees at the Institute of Medicine have in fact confirmed that vaccines, like infections, can injure and kill people, and that:
Indeed, this is the crux of the problem with a one-size-fits-all vaccine policy. Most drugs have indications for use, and doctors will not administer certain drugs to certain patients based on contraindications such as age or medical history. Not so with vaccines, even though some people are more susceptible to vaccine damage than others.
For example, research suggests the makeup of your gut microbiome can affect how you respond to a vaccine.28,29 This is the premise of Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride’s Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS) program.
Her work shows that children with impaired microbiomes tend to be more prone to vaccine damage, and that by optimizing a child’s microbiome before vaccination, the risk of having a vaccine reaction could be reduced for some children. Now, if everyone does not have identical responses to vaccines, it means the risks are not being borne equally by everyone.
Despite that, there’s been a forceful push to eliminate any and all ways of opting out of vaccines, even for those with suspected biological vulnerabilities, including a previous vaccine reaction, which is a very strong indicator that subsequent vaccinations might trigger even more serious problems.
Without informed consent and the right to choose, the lives of those vulnerable to vaccine complications are clearly devalued and their sacrifice is brushed off as inconsequential. I fail to see how this passes as high moral ground.
Given the furor that erupts when anybody publicly questions vaccine safety, you would assume the U.S. government considers vaccines completely safe, and has the data to back that up. That’s not the case though.
Not only is there a void where safety studies ought to be, there’s also the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), where victims of vaccine injury can apply for federal compensation. The VICP has awarded nearly $4 billion to vaccine victims since it began operating in 1988, even though 2 out of 3 vaccine injured plaintiffs are denied compensation.30
While it’s a tremendously flawed program, the fact remains that since its inception in 1986, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice and the Federal Vaccine Court have been quietly settling cases of brain inflammation and permanent brain damage (encephalopathy) that have included symptoms of autism. Meanwhile, the official line by federal health officials is that vaccines are safe and never cause autism.
The VCIP was established in 1986 when Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which restricted product liability lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and medical malpractice lawsuits against vaccine providers for injuries and deaths caused by federally recommended and state mandated vaccines.
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court majority ignored the act’s legislative history and effectively eliminated all vaccine product liability from vaccine manufacturers — even if there was evidence a vaccine could have been made less harmful (design defect). If vaccines are safe for everyone, why did Congress create a federal vaccine injury compensation program specifically designed to compensate those who are permanently harmed or killed by them?
In the 1980s, kids received 23 doses of seven vaccines. Today, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends 69 doses of 16 vaccines, starting the day of birth through age 18. Fifty of these 69 doses of vaccines are given before the age of 6. This regimen deals a heavy blow to your child’s developing immune system, raising his or her risk for brain abnormalities and autoimmune dysfunction.
Although neurotoxic mercury preservatives were removed from many vaccines in the late 1990s, other heavy metals are still used, such as aluminum which, like mercury, is a powerful neurotoxin. There are many other reactive ingredients in vaccines that have not been systematically studied to prove safety, especially for synergistic effects when given in combination.31
Unexplained increases in the numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability demand our attention and action. Just last month, the CDC admitted that the estimated prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among children in America has increased to 1 child in 59.32 In the 1990s, the estimated prevalence of ASD was 1 child in 1,000.33
Pretending that the science on vaccines is settled and that concerned parents are simply crazy or, worse, actually hate their children and wish them to die and take others with them, is beyond irresponsible. It is immoral and dangerous.
Contrary to what Hotez claims, parents who decline one or more government recommended vaccines for their children typically do so out of an overwhelming concern for their child’s health and welfare. Many have good reason to believe their children are genetically or biologically more susceptible to suffering vaccine injury and death. They’re simply unwilling to play vaccine roulette and put their children’s long-term health at risk, even if public health officials and pediatricians insist the risk is very small.
Distrust of public health officials and pediatricians is magnified by their obstinate refusal to admit there are both known and unknown vaccine risks and their aggressive insistence that preventing infectious diseases is more important than preventing vaccine reactions. Why? Childhood diseases, such as chickenpox and mumps, are rarely deadly. Yet, every “vaccine-preventable” disease on the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule is now described in terms on par with the plague.
So, while a decline in public confidence in the vaccine industry is blamed on parents of children for whom the risks of vaccination were 100 percent, and on parents taking steps to prevent their healthy children from become vaccine victims, the waning public trust in vaccination is far more complicated than that.
It is more likely due to the public’s desire for good old fashioned honesty and transparency in government; the need for open dialogue by physicians about what is and is not known about vaccine risks and failures; and a recognition that the legal right to informed consent to medical risk taking, which includes vaccine risk taking, is a human right that must be protected.
In light of the gaping holes that exist in vaccine safety science, especially with respect to the safety of multiple vaccines given in combination to children within the first few years of life, it is time for authoritarian mandatory vaccination proponents to stop scapegoating vaccine victims and look at themselves in the mirror.
Contrary to what Hotez claims, parents of vaccine injured children are not part of a hate group. They do not threaten or discriminate against people who want to follow government recommendations and vaccinate their children. On the contrary, the main reason they’re speaking out about what happened to their children is because they were NOT antivaccine.
They DID choose to vaccinate their children, who then paid the ultimate price. These parents speak up out of love for humanity and children in general, to help prevent the same tragedy from befalling others who might not be aware that there’s a real choice to be made. In closing, Fisher wrote:34
“Regardless of what vaccine developers and forced vaccination proponents like Hotez choose to do, the NVIC will continue to publish well referenced information on NVIC.org, anchored with links to the CDC, FDA, NIH, National Academy of Sciences, vaccine manufacturer package inserts, articles published in the medical literature, state vaccine laws and other information resources to assist those making educated decisions about vaccination for themselves and their minor children.
We will continue to provide a forum for Americans to testify about their personal experiences with vaccination,35,36 and we will continue to defend the legal right to exercise freedom of thought, speech, conscience, religious belief and informed consent, all of which have been recognized internationally as human rights …
The doctors operating the mandatory vaccination system with an iron fist, who refuse to acknowledge or address the suffering of people for whom the risks of vaccination turned out to be 100 percent, would do well to reflect upon the primary role they have played in the crisis of public trust in the safety of vaccines and doctors forcing everyone to use them.”