|(Natural News) As the 2020 elections approach, we have been warned by several insiders and researchers that the social media behemoths are going to do whatever they can to tank President Donald Trump’s reelection bid and take down as many Republicans with him as they can. As NewsTarget reported earlier this month, research conducted by…|
The first statin (lovastatin) was approved for use in the U.S. in 1987.1 Fast forward to 2020, just over three decades later, and it’s estimated that total sales for statin drugs will reach $1 trillion.2 Their usage statistics are staggering. Among U.S. adults aged 40 to 59, lipid-lowering drugs such as statins are the second most commonly prescribed drug, being taken by 13.9% of this population.
When you tailor this to adults aged 60 to 79, lipid-lowering drugs become the most common prescription, being used by 45% of Americans and 34.3% of Canadians in the same age range.3
The drugs were once only offered to people at high risk of heart disease, but in 2013, a joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released new guidelines, which increased the number of adults eligible for statin therapy by 12.8 million people — mostly older adults without heart disease.4
Statins are effective at lowering cholesterol, but whether this is the panacea for helping you avoid heart disease and extend your lifespan is up for debate and a question worthy of closer scrutiny. The pharmaceutical industry is quick to try to discredit any negative press toward the drugs, including, as explained in the video above, an ABC News in Australia segment that revealed the questionable effectiveness of the drugs.
Cholesterol Guidelines Marred by Potential Bias
Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., a former medical scientist with the University of Adelaide, was a reporter for ABC News in Australia. In 2013, she was featured in a two-part series, with the first investigating the science behind the persistent claim that saturated fat causes heart disease by raising cholesterol. The second part focused on cholesterol drug wars and questioned the overprescription of statins and industry influence in statin trials.
Worthy of attention, the authors of the 2013 cholesterol guidelines declared conflicts of interest that should have removed them from either writing or voting on the guidelines, but didn’t. Of the 15 panelists who authored the cholesterol guidelines, six revealed ties to drug companies that produced cholesterol-lowering medications. Of the 10 expert reviewers for the guidelines, five listed relationships with drug makers.5
One of the criteria for people to take statin drugs was based on an algorithm that uses your age, gender, blood pressure, total cholesterol, high density lipoproteins (HDL), race and history of diabetes to predict the likelihood you’ll experience a heart attack in the coming 10 years.
At the time, the recommendation was that those with a risk profile over 7.5% should take statins and those with a profile near 5% should discuss their options with their physician.6 Studies looking into the tool’s accuracy, however, suggested the tool overestimated the number of people who would have a cardiovascular event “substantially.”7
Part of the statin debate also rests on a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR) to amplify what amounts to trivial benefits. Writing in the journal Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, researchers explained:8
“Our opinion is that although statins are effective at reducing cholesterol levels, they have failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes.
We have described the deceptive approach statin advocates have deployed to create the appearance that cholesterol reduction results in an impressive reduction in cardiovascular disease outcomes through their use of a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR), a method which amplifies the trivial beneficial effects of statins.”
Statin News Segment Shut Down
After Demasi’s series aired, it was met with an outpouring of support from viewers, only to be quickly overcome with complaints from health organizations and drug companies, which orchestrated a campaign to discredit the segment. News commentators suggested “people will die” if they watch the program and a Sydney cardiologist went so far as to state, “ABC has blood on its hands,” Demasi said in the video above.
A study published in the Medical Journal of Australia also suggested that the ABC News program led to a reduction in statin usage that could result in up to 2,900 preventable vascular events.9 A gag order was issued, which meant Demasi and colleagues were unable to defend themselves or the program, and ABC ultimately capitulated to the scrutiny and pulled the program.
A similar smear campaign was launched in France against a cardiologist who questioned the value of statins in his book. In this case, researchers looked into what actually happens when statin use is discontinued, concluding, “it is not evidence based to claim that statin discontinuation increases mortality or saves lives” and:10
“On the contrary, one might even conclude that statin discontinuation could save lives. One possible explanation of this apparently paradoxical finding is that statin discontinuers, in the same time they stop statin therapy, likely try to adopt a healthy lifestyle.”
Statin Mafia Hiding Statin Data
Demasi also explains how the U.K.-based Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration is holding all the raw data on statin side effects, then publishing meta-analyses promoting their use. Although they claim to be independent, they’ve received millions in funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, is the author of three books. I’ve previously interviewed him about “Doctoring Data: How to Sort Out Medical Advice From Medical Nonsense” and his latest book is “A Statin Nation: Damaging Millions in a Brave New Post-Health World,” which addresses the challenges with this conventional approach to heart disease prevention. Regarding CTT, he explained:
“They’ve got all the data … from the statin trials. They hold it. They won’t let anyone else look at it, ever. They keep producing these meta-analyses showing how wonderful statins are and that they don’t have adverse effects, and we’re supposed to believe them.
Although they run a clinical trials unit, last time I looked, they earned well over $400 million in funding from pharmaceutical companies almost entirely — those companies that produce cholesterol-lowering agents … [W]e have a completely biased organization paid hundreds of millions to hold all the data, and then tell us, ‘No one else can look at it. By the way, you should believe everything we say.’
… [H]ow on Earth can this be allowed to happen? … [S]omehow, these people have got themselves such a standing and status that we’re supposed to go, ‘Well, you said it. It must be right.’ This is ridiculous.”
The lack of transparency is clearly not in the public’s best interest. Demasi suggests looking to what happened with Tamiflu to learn a lesson, referring to the fact that drug makers hid a significant amount of negative data from the public.
Practitioners Persecuted for Breaking Statin Orthodoxy
Demasi, unfortunately, is not alone in being targeted for speaking out against the medical orthodoxy of using statins as a primary means of prevention against heart disease.
Others, like Dr. Antti Heikkilä in Finland, have also been persecuted for using other tools. In Heikkilä’s case, he’s been using low-carb, high healthy-fat and ketogenic diets to treat and prevent chronic diseases among his patients, with many able to manage their conditions without drugs — and facing attacks on his reputation as a result.11
As Demasi wrote in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, we’re in the midst of a statin war, and it’s the public who is suffering as a result:12
“A bitter dispute has erupted among doctors over suggestions that statins should be prescribed to millions of healthy people at low risk of heart disease. There are concerns that the benefits have been exaggerated and the risks have been underplayed. Also, the raw data on the efficacy and safety of statins are being kept secret and have not been subjected to scrutiny by other scientists.
This lack of transparency has led to an erosion of public confidence. Doctors and patients are being misled about the true benefits and harms of statins, and it is now a matter of urgency that the raw data from the clinical trials are released.”
Statin Side Effects Are Real
More than half of statin users stop using the drugs within a year, with 62% citing side effects as the reason.13 Fatigue, nausea, joint and muscle pain and increases in blood sugar have all been associated with statin drug use. Statins have also been shown to increase your risk of diabetes via a number of different mechanisms.
Researchers with the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands analyzed data from more than 9,500 patients. Those who had ever used statins had a 38% higher risk of Type 2 diabetes, with the risk being higher in those with impaired glucose homeostasis and those who were overweight or obese.14
Further, the World Health Organization (WHO) Foundation Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring receives safety reports associated with statin medications and has noted a disproportionately high number of patients with upper motor neuron lesions among those taking statin medications.15
Statins also deplete your body of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which accounts for many of their devastating results. CoQ10 is used for energy production by every cell in your body. Its reduced form, ubiquinol, is a critical component of cellular respiration and production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is a coenzyme used as an energy carrier in every cell of your body.
The depletion of CoQ10 caused by statins can actually increase your risk of acute heart failure. While this can be somewhat offset by taking a Coenzyme Q10 supplement (if you’re over 40, I would recommend taking ubiquinol instead of CoQ10), statins still come with a risk of other serious side effects, including:
- Musculoskeletal disorders, including myalgia, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, rhabdomyolysis and autoimmune muscle disease18
Statins also inhibit the synthesis of vitamin K2, which can make your heart health worse instead of better, and reduce ketone production. Ketones are crucial nutrients to feed your mitochondria and are important regulators of metabolic health and longevity.
How to Lower Your Risk of Heart Disease
There is far more that goes into your risk of heart disease than your cholesterol levels. The suggestions that follow can help you lower your insulin resistance and restore your insulin sensitivity, among other heart-protective mechanisms:
Avoid environmental pollutants and toxins, including smoking, vaping, heavy metals, herbicides and pesticides, especially glyphosate.
Minimize your exposure to electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation from cellphones, Wi-Fi, routers, smart meters and more, as this kind of radiation has been shown to cause serious free radical damage and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Eat an unprocessed whole food-based diet low in net carbs and high in healthy fats. A ketogenic diet — which is very low in net carbohydrates and high in healthy fats — is key for boosting mitochondrial function.
When your body is able to burn fat for fuel, your liver creates water-soluble fats called ketones that burn far more efficiently than carbs, thereby creating fewer reactive oxygen species and secondary free radicals. Ketones also decrease inflammation and improve glucose metabolism.20
Eat nitrate-rich foods to help normalize your blood pressure. Good sources include arugula, cilantro, rhubarb, butter leaf lettuce, mesclun mixed greens, beet greens, fresh beet juice, kvass (fermented beet juice) and fermented beet powder.
Get plenty of nonexercise movement each day; walk more and incorporate higher intensity exercise as your health allows.
Intermittently fast. After you’ve become accustomed to intermittently fasting for 16 to 18 hours, you can try a stricter fast once or twice a week, when you eat a 300- to 800-calorie meal loaded with detox supporting nutrients, followed by a 24-hour fast. So, in essence, you’re then only eating one 300- to 800-calorie meal in 42 hours.
If you have heart disease, consider enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). To find a provider, see EECP.com.21
If you have heart disease, you may also consider taking g-strophanthin, an adrenal hormone that helps create more parasympathetic nervous system neurotransmitters, thereby supporting your parasympathetic nervous system. It also helps flush out lactic acid. Strophanthus is the name of the plant, the active ingredient of which is called g-strophanthin in Europe, and ouabain in the U.S.
Get sensible sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D status and/or take an oral vitamin D3 supplement with magnesium and vitamin K2.
Implement heart-based wellness practices such as connecting with loved ones and practicing gratitude.
When you think about curbing pollution, taking aim at the clothes in your closet is probably not high up on the list. But the textiles industry is one of the most polluting on the planet. New trends and “ultrafast fashion” has clothing entering popular clothing stores on a weekly or even daily basis.
As a result, Americans have increased how much clothing they buy, with the average person bringing home more than 65 articles of clothing in 2016, according to the “Toxic Textiles” report by Green America.1 Where clothing was once valued for durability and practicality, we’re living in an age where people feel pressured to keep up with clothing trends, at the expense of quality and the environment. Green America noted:2
“[S]ocial media has led to a new trend of ultra-fast fashion — where companies are able to design, manufacture, and sell hundreds of products mere weeks after the initial conception of design, thanks to a large network of local and international factories.
Some ultra-fast fashion companies, such as Fashion Nova, release 600 new items a week — and sell out most of them too. We’ve entered an age where clothing is made to be worn and subsequently discarded, where ‘good-enough’ is the metric for the quality of our clothes.”
Textile Manufacturing Is Polluting the Planet
The textile industry is an often-overlooked contributor to pollution that is destroying the planet. Green America released some sobering statistics, including that textile manufacturing causes about 20% of industrial water pollution and emits 10% of global carbon emissions.
Textile production also uses 43 million tons of chemicals annually,3 and this doesn’t even include the pesticides used to grow cotton (glyphosate, the most used agricultural chemical, is an herbicide used to grow cotton that’s linked to cancer and found in cotton textiles).
Chemicals are used at multiple stages of production when it comes to turning raw materials into clothing and include azo-aniline dyes, which may cause skin reactions ranging from mild to severe.
Even more concerning, azo dyes may release aromatic amines, which are carcinogenic.4 If you’re sensitive, such dyes may leave your skin red, itchy and dry, especially where the fabric rubs on your skin, such as at your waist, neck, armpits and thighs.
Formaldehyde resins are also used in clothing to cut down on wrinkling and mildew. Not only is formaldehyde a known carcinogen, but the resins have been linked to eczema and may cause your skin to become flaky or erupt in a rash.5
Brominated flame retardants, used to stop clothes from burning (although this is questionable), may be found in children’s clothing. These chemicals are neurotoxic endocrine disrupters that may also cause cancer. Polyflourinated chemicals (PFCs), used widely in uniforms and outdoor clothing to create stain-repellant and water-resistant fabrics, are carcinogenic, build up in your body and are toxic to the environment.
The chemicals may be mostly washed out, but some can linger in the clothing as you wear it. Some clothing is treated with additional chemicals for water-resistant, wrinkle- and stain-protection as well. However, workers are exposed to the chemicals during manufacturing and when they’re rinsed off the fabrics (a process that uses copious amounts of water), they end up in waterways. Green America explained:6
“Once released into the water, chemicals can also affect the community, through exposure to water sources, but also due to the leaching of chemicals into the soil, which affects the local agricultural system. The chemicals that are commonly used in the manufacturing process pose a variety of health and environmental risks.
There isn’t a lot of transparency about what specific chemicals are used in the manufacturing process, which is especially concerning when it comes to the workers who are directly exposed to the chemicals, sometimes without adequate safety protection.”
Americans Throw Away 70 Pounds of Textiles Every Year
While Americans add dozens of new articles of clothing to their collections annually, they also get rid of others, tossing 70 pounds of clothing and other textiles each year.7 According to the U.S. EPA, textiles made up 6.1% of municipal solid waste in 2015. Only 15.3%, or 2.5 million tons, was recycled while landfills received 10.5 million tons of textiles in 2015, accounting for 7.6% of all municipal solid waste landfills.8
Even when clothing is recycled, Green America notes that “less than 1% of the resources required to make clothing is recaptured and reused to create new clothing.”9 When you donate clothes, it’s also not a sustainable solution.
The fact is, the sheer volume of clothes being donated far outpaces the demand. Charities sell only a fraction of the clothing they receive in donations, and the majority ends up getting sold to textile “recyclers.”
These “recyclers” may sell some of the clothing at that point, but most of it may end up being exported to other countries. There, it will either be sold, made into rags, processed into industrial uses or end up in landfills.
“Although 35% of our clothes are technically being diverted from American landfills, they may end up in a landfill in another country. This means that two of the most environmentally destructive aspects of the apparel production system — the manufacture of textiles and the disposal of unwanted clothing — is happening disproportionately in other, oftentimes developing, countries,” Green America noted.10
“Furthermore, countries that traditionally have imported second-hand clothing are reducing the amount they are importing.”11
Fourteen US Clothing Companies Evaluated
Green America evaluated 14 U.S. apparel companies that are widely available in malls and shopping centers. This includes Target, Nike, Gap, Walmart, The Children’s Place, Carter’s, J. Crew and others. They evaluated each company’s social and environmental practices to create a scorecard, considering such factors as chemical management, factory safety, water management and waste and recycling.
While some of the companies had policies in place for some of the benchmarks measured, including sharing progress toward the benchmarks, most of the companies were lacking. While some stated they had policies in place to manage environmental or labor issues, most did not give details about the policy or reveal measurements to achieve the goal.
“While none of the major brands are true leaders in the field, Green America identified the following companies as having better environmental and labor practices — Target, VF, Nike — and several companies that were clearly laggards — Carter’s, J.Crew, Forever 21,” Green America explained.12 They added:13
“It’s important to note that even if a company has some policies in place to address sustainability within its current supply chain, it does not negate the sheer volume of resources used and lost annually to manufacture new clothes. Furthermore, there is still, unfortunately, no way for us to shop our way to sustainability.”
Why Conventional Cotton Isn’t a Sustainable Option
Cotton is a primary player in the textile industry, accounting for 27% of production.14 It’s often viewed as a natural option, but conventional cotton is a resource heavy crop.
Green America noted that 200,000 tons of pesticides and 8 million tons of fertilizers are used for cotton crops annually, while it takes 2,700 liters of water to grow enough cotton to make a T-shirt (and this doesn’t account for the water used for dyeing and finishing).15
Even organic cotton isn’t perfect, unless it’s certified by GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standards), as it still requires chemical processing in order to become a textile. However, organic cotton certified by GOTS restricts the chemicals that can be used during manufacturing, making them preferable options.
Other materials have problems of their own, including rayon/viscose, wood pulp converted to textiles — which is contributing to deforestation — and polyester, which is made from petroleum, which does not biodegrade and is made with the heavy metal antimony, a possible carcinogen.16
SITO and Dirt Shirts Raise Funds for Regenerative Agriculture
Keep in mind that just because you have a textile that someone tells you is organic doesn’t mean it’s an organic textile. A GOTS-certified textile, on the other hand, is tracked through every single step of the process, from farm to packaging.
Even hang tags have to comply with recycling standards. In other words, for a textile to be certified GOTS, each and every step of the supply chain must be certified to GOTS standards, not just one or two of the steps.
The organic clothing industry is still rather small, and it’s not always easy to find sustainably grown organic clothing. Dirt Shirt will eventually expand to provide GOTS-certified underwear and other types of clothing, in addition to T-shirts.
At present, I’ve chosen to carry SITO (Soil Integrity for Textiles Organically) brand socks and underwear, as SITO supports our global mission for improving fabric production and putting an end to fast fashion. To learn more about our Dirt Shirt and SITO brand products, see the video above — 100% of the profits from every Dirt Shirt sold on our site will support the regenerative agricultural movement.
Why I’m Paying Farmers to Convert to Biodynamic
The Mercola-RESET Biodynamic Organic Project is currently working with 55 certified organic farmers in India, with a mission of converting them to biodynamic and planting biodynamic cotton on 110 acres of land this season. Biodynamic farming is organic by nature, but it goes even further, operating on the premise that the farm be entirely self-sustaining.
In the U.S., biodynamic farms use the USDA organic standard as a foundation but have additional requirements, encompassing the principles of regenerative agriculture and more. For instance, biodynamic farms must produce at least 50% of their own organic animal feed, and 100% of the farm must be biodynamic (on the contrary, an organic farmer may raise only one crop as organic). In addition:17
- Crops and livestock are integrated
- Animals are treated humanely, and all have access to the outdoors, free-range forage and plenty of space to move around
- At least 10 percent of farm acreage is set aside for biodiversity
- The farm must uphold standards of social responsibility
Biodynamic farming brings animals and plants together to form a living web of life, a self-sustaining ecosystem that benefits the surrounding community. RESET (Regenerate, Environment, Society, Economy, Textiles) will pay all organic biodynamic farmers in our project a 25% premium over conventional cotton prices, which will be paid directly to the farmers.
How to Opt Out of Fast Fashion
Biodynamic farming is urgently needed in the textile industry to offset the polluting practices of conventional cotton growing. When shopping for clothing, make sure it’s organic, biodynamic and/or GOTS-certified. However, ultimately the best choice for the environment is to purchase less clothing overall.
When you do purchase clothing, choose high-quality pieces and use them until they wear out. If you no longer need an item, try to give it to a friend or family member who can use it. Also, choose to buy or swap used clothing items online or via thrift stores, and opt out of the fast-fashion mindset of buying excessive amounts of low-quality, “throwaway” clothes.
“It’s clear that continuing with business as usual is unsustainable — for people, for planet, and, in the long run, for profits,”18 Green America stated. You can be a model for change by choosing your clothing with a purpose and suggesting your friends and family do the same.
The pharmaceutical industry is now the most distrusted and poorly regarded industry in the U.S. This according to the latest Gallup Poll1 published September 3, 2019, which assesses Americans’ views of 25 industry sectors on an annual basis. A mere 27% have a “totally positive” view of the drug industry, while 58% have a “totally negative” view; 15% are neutral.
It’s an unexpected turn of events, surely, as signs of growing distrust have become more readily evident. Big Pharma distrust was also blamed for “fueling the anti-vaxxer movement and playing a role in the measles outbreak” in an April 2019 article in USA Today.2
Quoted in the article, vaccine profiteer and patent holder3 Dr. Paul Offit also capitalizes on the recent revelation that the FBI now views conspiracy theories as a “significant domestic terrorism threat.”4
“‘In order to believe vaccines are hurting you means your doctor is lying to you,’ Offit says. To believe that, ‘on some level you have to be a conspiracy theorist’ who believes the industry is ‘directing the government and the health care industry to lie about vaccines.'”5
In other words, if you have doubts about vaccine safety and would like to see more evidence, you’re a conspiracy theorist, placing you in the category of a domestic terrorist threat. At least that’s what Offit would like you to think. The fact is, lies are being told about vaccines.
As just one example, and an egregious one, in a January 2019 interview with CBS News,6 Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), flat-out denied that vaccines can cause injury or death. That is not only misinformation, it’s an outright lie.
Since 1988, the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 has paid out about $4 billion in awards to vaccine injured victims, and that’s just 31% of the petitions filed for compensation.7
Doctors Routinely Withhold Risk Information
Misinformation about the safety of vaccines is being pushed front and center, and evidence of harm is not only being swept under the proverbial rug, those sharing that information are vilified, harassed and threatened in not entirely subtle ways.
There is a revolving door between people who work for U.S. federal health agencies and then go to work for the pharmaceutical industry and the other way around.8,9
This means that Big Pharma, which over the past decade has spent $2.5 billion lobbying the federal government, is having a tremendous influence on vaccine regulation, policymaking and law.10 These are not theories. They’re provable facts.
Yet in recent times, we’ve seen vicious public attacks against anyone who questions vaccine safety, policy and law, or vaccine science. There have been extreme calls for public shaming, identification, criminal prosecution, quarantine and imprisonment of those criticizing vaccine safety and/or refusing to get government recommended vaccines.
One doctor who develops vaccines and lobbies for “no exceptions” forced vaccination laws has referred to parents of vaccine injured children as a “hate group,” and one prominent newspaper suggested vaccine critics should be physically harmed.11,12,13, 14
Most providers of vaccine information on the internet are also now being censored by Google and other platforms, effectively preventing people from finding what could be life-saving information15 that, indeed, most are never given by their pediatrician.
The withholding of information about potentially life-threatening side effects and long-term injury is unlikely to be maliciously intended, but when a child is injured, parents will surely feel like they were lied to all the same.
Vaccine Injuries Are a Fact, Not a Conspiracy Theory
That children suffer brain injury, long-term health effects and death is a reality, not a conspiracy theory.
In the emotional video above, Rachel Ortiz testifies in opposition of Maine’s bill LD 79816 (which would remove religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions) and in support of LD 98717 (which would expand medical vaccine exemptions), sharing the story of how a routine childhood vaccination caused irreversible brain damage to her son.
One of the things you typically hear from parents sharing their stories of how a vaccine injured their child is the tremendous weight of guilt. They trusted the doctors, who didn’t warn them there were risks, and their ignorance injured (or worse, killed) their beloved child. A 2015 article by Yahoo Parenting featured Susan Lawson and her daughter Julia:18
“When … Lawson … hears parents declaring, unequivocally, that everyone should vaccinate their children because it’s perfectly safe, she says it feels ‘like a punch in the gut.’
That’s because she’s seen another side of the story: Her daughter Julia, now 9, was left with permanent brain damage — an injury acknowledged by a federal court payout — after receiving her MMRV (measles-mumps-rubella-varicella) shot when she was a year old.
Lawson, a veterinarian who had the utmost faith in medicine, had never before questioned vaccinations, and had always inoculated Julia right on schedule. But now she began to wonder. Hospital doctors dismissed any thought of a connection.
But when Lawson asked a pediatrician about it, she was told it could be a possibility. Every family featured in this story received a payment by the United States Court of Federal Claims, which concluded that their rare injuries were caused by the vaccines.
‘I felt shocked, bewildered, and guilty,’ Lawson recalls. ‘We were trying to protect her, and instead I destroyed her. The guilt is huge.'”
However, firsthand testimony and billions in VICP payouts aren’t the only evidence available that vaccines are causing debilitating harm and not just temporary soreness at the injection site. There are scientific studies raising red flags as well. For example, a pilot case-control study19 published in Frontiers in Psychiatry in January 2017 found that:
“Subjects with newly diagnosed AN [anorexia nervosa] were more likely than controls to have had any vaccination in the previous 3 months [hazard ratio 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.21–2.68].
Influenza vaccinations during the prior 3, 6, and 12 months were also associated with incident diagnoses of AN, OCD [obsessive compulsive disorder], and an anxiety disorder. Several other associations were also significant … (hepatitis A with OCD and AN; hepatitis B with AN; and meningitis with AN and chronic tic disorder).
This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuro-psychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals. These findings warrant further investigation …”
A Pattern of Clear Concern
Another example is “Deaths Reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, United States, 1997-2013,”20 published in 2015. In this report, it’s stated that of the 1,469 child death reports, 79.4% had received one or more vaccines on the same day they died.
The most common cause of death, based on autopsy records, was sudden infant death syndrome, accounting for 44% of cases, followed by asphyxia (6%), septicemia (4.9%) and pneumonia (4.6%). In adults, the vaccine associated with the greatest number of deaths was inactivated influenza vaccine, which featured in 51.4% of adult deaths reported to VAERS.
Despite these shocking findings, the report concludes that “No concerning pattern was noted among death reports submitted to VAERS during 1997-2013.” How can the fact that 79.4% of infant deaths occur on the same day that they’re vaccinated be a pattern of no concern? It’s those kinds of illogical conclusions that give rise to suspicions of conspiracy, because little else makes sense.
Even some of our health officials have at times been pressed enough to let the truth slip out. In a BMJ response21 to “Measles: Europe Sees Record Number of Cases and 37 Deaths so Far This Year,”22 published in 2018, U.K. editor of AgeofAutism.com, John Stone, cites papers highlighting the questionable safety of vaccines.
Included in his citations are three Cochrane reviews, one of which concluded “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate,” and “The evidence of adverse events following immunization with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.”23
Government Admissions Are on the Record
In his response, Stone also points out that the question of whether vaccines can cause autism has been acknowledged in the affirmative by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) on various occasions. He writes:24
“The HHS HRSA told journalists Sharyl Attkisson and David Kirby on separate occasions: ‘The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines.
We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.’
And CDC director Julie Gerberding admitted to CNN following the Hannah Poling settlement:25 ‘Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines.
And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism…’
An investigation into U.S. vaccine injury court in 2011 found 83 cases of compensated vaccine injury in which autism is mentioned, but which because they are sealed cannot be used as precedents.”
Needed Studies Can Be Done, but Aren’t
While working for CBS News in 2008, Attkisson also interviewed Dr. Bernadine Healy, “the most well-known medical voice yet to counter the government” on the claim that vaccines cannot cause autism.26
Healy, a former head of the National Institutes of Health, claimed that once she began looking at the vaccine-autism question, “she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association,” Atkisson writes, adding:27
“She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.
The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer … Healy says the government has a long way to go to even do basic research that could get at the heart of what she believes is an open question.
For example: why in the past decade hasn’t the government compared the autism/ADD rate of unvaccinated children with that of vaccinated children? If the rate is the same, it tends to point away from vaccines. If the rate is markedly lower in unvaccinated children, it tends to point toward vaccines.
The government has a dataset of unvaccinated children available. It has published more than one survey of parents of undervaccinated and unvaccinated children (to find out why the parents are choosing not to vaccinate).
It would seem simple to use those same families to measure their rate of autism/ADD. Also, why hasn’t the government used vaccine court as a resource to ask the autism/vaccine question?
There, nearly 5,000 families have self-selected as believing their children’s autism was caused by vaccines. Many have expressed willingness to let their children’s medical records be released and studied; but nobody in the government has been interested.”
Two other examples of published studies that put a dent in the armored wall of denial that vaccines can cause harm are:
• A 2006 study in the journal Pediatrics, which found 18% of toddlers experienced an adverse event following their first dose of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Of those, high fever occurred in 6%.
The authors concluded that “Vaccination-associated adverse events occur in ?1 of every 6 toddlers receiving measles-mumps-rubella vaccine dose 1, with high fever occurring in 1 of 20.”
• Similarly, a 2010 paper28 in Pediatrics “assessed seizures and fever visits among children aged 12 to 23 months after MMRV [mumps-measles-rubella-varicella] and separate MMR + varicella vaccines” and “compared seizure risk after MMRV vaccine to that after MMR + varicella vaccines.” The authors reported that:
“Seizure and fever significantly clustered 7 to 10 days after vaccination with all measles-containing vaccines but not after varicella vaccination alone. Seizure risk during days 7 to 10 was higher after MMRV than after MMR + varicella vaccination (relative risk: 1.98…) …
Vaccination with MMRV results in 1 additional febrile seizure for every 2,300 doses given instead of separate MMR + varicella vaccines. Providers who recommend MMRV should communicate to parents that it increases the risk of fever and seizure over that already associated with measles-containing vaccines.”
Bureaucrats Take Over Medical Decision-Making in California
While Californians have already been stripped of their religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions, matters are about to get even more serious with the expected implementation of SB 27629 and SB 714.30
SB 276 — which California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law31 September 9, 2019 — will further limit parents’ ability to get a medical exemption for their child by requiring all medical vaccine exemptions written by doctors to be approved by a state health official,32 and SB 714 places new restrictions on which physicians are eligible to issue medical exemptions.
Specifically, any doctor who has faced disciplinary action in the past will not be allowed to issue medical exemptions, and any exemption written by an ineligible doctor would be rendered null and void with the enactment of this law. As reported by the Los Angeles Times on September 6, 2019:33
“[T]he governor will sign SB 276 once the Legislature passes SB 714 … [Orange County pediatrician Bob] Sears, who is currently subject to a 35-month probation order issued by the medical board in a vaccine case that did not involve school medical exemptions, expressed disbelief over the amendments …
‘[This bill would] mean that any exemption written by a doctor who has been disciplined by the board for any reason, even one unrelated to vaccination, will be subject to revocation,’ Sears said.
‘So the hundreds of patients I’ve written exemptions for over the past four years after having a severe vaccine reaction will lose their exemptions. This seems like a broad overreach from a government that is supposed to protect its medically fragile children.'”
The new amendments also narrow the scope of medical conditions that qualify for an exemption, limiting exemptions to those having suffered severe anaphylaxis, encephalopathy (coma), one rare immunodeficiency disorder, and in the case of the rotavirus vaccine only, cases of intussusception (twisted bowel).
Doctors Who Write Exemptions Must Work for Free
Under the revised law, doctors issuing medical exemptions will be monitored, and they will no longer be allowed to charge for the service of issuing a medical exemption. In other words, any doctor who writes a medical exemption must do so for free. As reported by PR Newswire on June 18, 2019:34
“Attorney Leigh Dundas believes the amendments go too far, and that no licensed physician will remain willing to author a valid exemption under the new statutory framework.
‘Any American, let alone a licensed professional, who is told they will have to work for free, told they will be monitored and tracked for doing their work — and further told a simple accusation will make them guilty until proven innocent — would quit their job,’ Dundas said. ‘SB 276 bill targets the very professionals who save our children’s lives.'”
Many California Pediatricians Refuse to Write Exemptions
Dundas’ prediction appears to have come true already. According to Advocates for Physicians’ Rights, pediatricians in California have already stopped issuing medical exemptions en masse. The group claims to have called 882 California doctors asking to receive “a medical exemption for a child who suffered an anaphylactic reaction after [his] 12-month shots.”35
They were repeatedly told the doctor was not issuing medical exemptions for any reason — and requires a complete vaccination history for all patients. A video featuring several of these calls was posted on the organization’s Facebook page on August 30, 2019.36
If this accurately mirrors the current state of affairs in California, this means children who have already suffered a severe and potentially life-threatening vaccine reaction not only may have a very difficult time finding a doctor who will write them a medical vaccine exemption, they also may not be able to get basic health checkups and medical attention unless fully vaccinated. This could well turn into a life-threatening Catch-22 for many families.
Remember, this is not about protecting the public from measles. It’s about enforcing a full vaccination schedule from cradle to grave, one slippery-sloped step at a time. Eventually, you won’t be able to go to school or work in a public building without every single vaccine recommended on the adult schedule. It’s just a matter of time.
Driving this agenda are millions of dollars of donations. The palms of California lawmakers were greased in 2015,37 which led to the revocation of the religious and philosophical belief exemption.
So far in 2019, health and pharmaceutical lobbyists have doled out $155,174,705 to push their various agendas forward,38 and one of those agendas is a mandatory cradle to grave vaccination schedule for everyone.
It stands to reason that people have different biological weaknesses, and the push for a one-size-fits-all regimen means a lot of children will be sacrificed “for the greater good.” But how can a public health program simply slaughter the vulnerable rather than taking measures to protect everyone?
“Public health” by definition includes everyone. Yet when it comes to vaccination, this inclusivity and right of everyone to pursue optimal health doesn’t seem to apply anymore. It’s imperative that we continue to fight for the right to life and health of all children, not just those who can survive vaccination.
By Anna Von Reitz
|(Natural News) Cannabidiol (CBD) is a compound in marijuana that offers a wealth of health benefits without causing the “high” traditionally associated with cannabis. CBD oil is quickly becoming one of the most in-demand natural supplements on the market, and with good reason: Scientific studies have confirmed that it provides pain relief, reduces inflammation, improves…|
|(Natural News) What if getting your teens to eat healthier was as easy as teaching them more about junk food and its marketing tactics? If you’re thinking that would never work, think again: A new study has shown that educating teens about junk food and how ads influence them can cut their junk food buying habits…|
By Anna Von Reitz