Is that really what it is all about?
You decide because I, for one am Fed Up!
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Are you Fed Up?
I for one am! Fed up with the food industry and government blaming people that we are overweight and have long term diseases such as diabetes because we don't have any plan to get out and exercise or lose weight.
Is that really what it is all about?
You decide because I, for one am Fed Up!
Is that really what it is all about?
You decide because I, for one am Fed Up!
Monday, September 8, 2014
15 Things We Need to Stop Saying in the Vaccine Debate
I recently came across an article written by Kate Tietje of Modernalternativemomma.com I agree with her 100% and would probably say that this is one of the best posts I have read from her. Here is her opinion of what everyone should be thinking about when they start discussing vaccines. I actually think that she is spot-on.
The vaccine debate is real. And it’s rough.
I, for one, am sick of it. (The ‘rough’ part.) I want all parents to have access to important information on vaccines. I want all parents to know that they have a choice. I want all parents to feel confident with their decision and not be shamed, whether they choose all, some, or no vaccines. It’s your choice. And no one else’s.
Unfortunately, a lot of harsh things are said when people are arguing about vaccines. And it’s not okay anymore. You guys hear me? I’m declaring that over. Right now. Everyone is free to ask questions, share information, and debate respectfully, but no more rudeness. No more shame. Over!!
In that vein, I’m sharing some things that people need to stop saying. (This post is in honor of my live appearance on the TODAY show, which is happening tomorrow in the 9 AM hour, EST. You can watch me talk about why some parents choose to opt out of vaccines and why I believe in choice! We call this movement Vaccine Choice, not anti-vax. Make sure you say it right!)
By the way, many of these things have been said to parents who do vaccinate, too, and that’s not okay either!
#1: “You don’t love your children if you don’t vaccinate.”
Get this straight, right now: all parents, regardless of the decision that they make about vaccines, love their children. All of them only want what is best.
We may disagree on what that means. We will make different choices. But it is never ever okay to say that parents don’t love their children because they made a different choice than you did.
#2: “Shame on you.”
What good is trying to shame someone else, really? Do you think that someone else will listen to you or change their position if you make them feel ashamed enough? Most people will just get angry, and if anything, feel even more set in their ways. They certainly won’t turn to you for information. Plus,it’s downright rude. Just don’t do it.
#3: “You’re putting your child at risk.”
There is no way to eliminate all risk. Choosing to vaccinate is a risk (an immediate one). Choosing not to vaccinate is a risk (a future one). Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk. Anything at all places your child at risk.
Of course, vaccines are not the only way to protect children from serious illness, either. Parents are the ones who are best equipped to know their child, their situation, and choose if or when their children should be vaccinated, or how else they should be protected. Parents make this call, and no one else.
#4: “You’re putting MY child at risk. You should vaccinate to protect babies/elderly/immunocompromised.”
This is really two separate arguments. First, if you believe that not vaccinating places your vaccinated child at risk, then why do you trust vaccines? If they work, then you don’t have anything to fear. Second, babies, the elderly, and immunocompromised people are at risk (potentially) from anyone who is sick. Whether they are vaccinated or not, and no matter which illness they have. It’s up to the parents of those people (or the people themselves) to protect them, not ask everyone around them to do it.
Finally, we don’t ask others to make medical decisions that could be risky to benefits ourselves. We each make the medical decisions we feel are right for us, and take on the risk we feel comfortable taking. We can’t, and shouldn’t expect, to control what others do.
#5: “Mothers in third world countries would be grateful to have vaccines.”
Mothers in third world countries would be grateful to have clean water. Plentiful food. Access to medical care. A safe place to live. And these things are much more necessary to life — especially clean water — than vaccines. A person literally cannot live without safe water. People can and do live without vaccines all the time.
Plus, those mothers in the third world don’t have any way of doing research. They don’t have access to information. All they know about vaccines is what they’re told. If doctors come into their villages and say, “You need these. They’re amazing. They’ll save your child’s life.” Of course they are going to want them! They don’t have access to another viewpoint! (Of course, if their children then come down with the measles caused by the vaccine, or polio caused by the vaccine — which has happened — they won’t exactly feel so grateful.)
I personally feel privileged to have access to science and information, as well as the ability to make my own decisions about my family’s medical care. I wouldn’t want to live in a dangerous third world country and have to accept what I was told because I simply didn’t have options.
#6: “You just don’t really understand science or you would vaccinate.”
This is so unnecessary. It’s an elitist point of view. The only way that a person would opt out or disagree is if they’re too stupid to get it? No.
There are parents on both sides who might have made a choice because they didn’t look into the facts much — maybe their friend or their doctor told them to, so they just went along with it. But there are lots of people who’ve done incredible amounts of research and have come to a careful conclusion.
Saying that their research “doesn’t count” because they don’t have a science background is just insulting — and wrong. People are smart enough to do their own research. They truly are. A piece of paper that says so makes no difference. (Plus, there are lots of doctors and other medical professionals who question vaccines or don’t vaccinate! And they clearly understand the science.)
#7: “You should listen to what doctors tell you; they went to medical school and you didn’t.”
This is an extension of the last point. Having been to medical school doesn’t make you an expert on vaccines (the average pediatrician or family-practice doctor — the doctors most people are getting their advice from — get only a few hours of education on vaccines). Plus, a good doctor should serve as a guide. The doctor should offer his/her opinion, allow the parents to do their own research, ask questions, and ultimately make their own choices.
You are the parent. You make the choice. Not the doctor. Whatever happens to your child — if they’re unlucky enough to be injured by a vaccine, or get sick with a serious illness — who is responsible? You are. Not the doctor.
#8: “Just walk through a graveyard and see all the babies that died 100 years ago because we didn’t have vaccines.”
This is not a factual argument. It’s fear-based, and it’s not even accurate.
Many of those babies died because we didn’t have access to basic medical care. Water could be contaminated and babies could get dysentary or cholera (neither of which we vaccinate for). Doctors didn’t wash their hands before helping a woman in child birth or before treating patients, which spread infection more easily. There are a whole bunch of reasons why babies died more frequently 100 years ago, most of which are not related to vaccines.
(In fact, death rates for most diseases had fallen by more than 99% before the introduction of vaccines.)
#9: “My family member died of/was disabled by __________. They would have loved to have vaccines!”
Any death or disability is tragic. Absolutely.
But. There’s no guarantee that vaccines would have prevented the death or injury. Vaccines themselves don’t come without risks (yes, people can and do die from vaccination, too). I understand it’s really hard if you know someone personally who was disabled or killed by an illness, but this is a purely emotional reaction, not a scientific one.
We need to keep this debate about the available science. There’s always, always, always a small chance of something bad happening (see the part about ‘risk’ above), but we must balance risk vs. benefit.
#10: “Parents who don’t vaccinate are just listening to that debunked 1998 study or Jenny McCarthy.”
I pretty much stop listening when someone says this, honestly. It shows they have no idea what this issue is actually about.
For the record — the 1998 study was on bowel disease in children with autism and had nothing to do with vaccines. They found the MMR-strain of measles in the bowel of some children and noted that some of the parents said that their children “changed” after receiving the MMR. They concluded that the issue should be researched further, to see if there was a possible link. They did not say that the MMR caused autism. Ever. And the original results have been replicated…more than 25 times. (A bunch of us in the vaccine choice movement have actually spoken to Dr. Wakefield…myself included. Trust me, that’s not what the study was about.)
As for Jenny McCarthy, I know her son has autism. I know she believes it was caused by vaccines. I know that she has used biomedical treatments to help him recover. I know that she is a proponent of “green the vaccines.” I know basically nothing else. No mother makes such an important medical decision based on “what celebrities are doing.” Maybe she chooses an outfit for her child or how to style their hair because a celebrity did it, but not something this crucial. This is just a dismissive saying, it’s clearly wrong, and it’s said to shut down the discussion.
#11: “The CDC/AAP/etc. wouldn’t recommend it if it wasn’t safe.”
Eh…I’m just going to mention smoking and cocaine. The medical establishment used to recommend those, too, and we now know they are harmful. Sometimes, the medical establishment is wrong. Maybe they mean well, maybe they are making a recommendation based on how they interpret the available evidence, but our understanding of these issues evolves constantly. Just because they currently recommend it doesn’t make it right.
#12: “Vaccines are the only way to protect your children; without them they WILL die, become deaf, become sterile, etc.”
Vaccines are not the only way to protect your children.
You need to know that whether or not you vaccinate your children, they could get sick. If they’re vaccinated, they could be injured by vaccines. There are no guarantees. These dire outcomes are rare, but they are possible.
But – they are rare.
Young boys can’t become sterile from mumps. Only post-pubescent males can become sterile, and that’s really rare (mumps doesn’t usually go to the testicles at all; if it does, it usually affects just one side; and if it affects both sides, usually there is some fertility remaining, even if it’s reduced. True sterility is exceedingly rare).
Most people won’t go deaf from mumps or measles. 1 in 10,000 or fewer (of cases). And fewer than 1 in 10,000 typically die. To say it “will” happen is absolutely false.
#13: “You have to vaccinate to go to school.”
You do not have to vaccinate to go to school.
48 states (all except MS and WV) offer religious exemptions. About 20 states also offer philosophical exemptions. All 50 offer medical exemptions, but they’re harder to get in some states than others. Most of the time, all you need to do is sign a waiver and your child can attempt public school without some or all vaccines.
It’s your choice, not the state’s.
#14: “Vaccines do not cause autism. End of story.”
Ah, not quite. Or, well, not at all.
It’s recently come out that a key study that the CDC used to “disprove” a link between vaccines and autism was falsified. Statistically significant data was omitted from the results. That data showed a 340% increase in autism among African-American boys when they received the MMR prior to 36 months of age, instead of after. One of the lead researchers, Dr. Thompson, admitted this in a public statement.
It’s also true that a number of other studies show links between ingredients in vaccines and autism, or similar neurological disorders.
It’s also true that we’ve done very few studies on the link, the studies have been (generally) poorly designed, and that we have never done a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study. This question is far from settled, but from the evidence we do have (scientifically and anecdotally)…we can say, yes, vaccines do cause autism.
Not everyone, obviously. Certain people are more at risk than others. But just like we say that cigarettes cause lung cancer (even though many people who smoke do not develop lung cancer), vaccines cause autism.
#15: “We were vaccinated, and we’re all fine.”
The 1980s schedule and the 2014 schedule aren’t even remotely the same.
Most of the vaccines in the 1980s contained quite a few more antigens and no adjuvants (aluminum). Most of them have been removed from the market (OPV polio and DTP definitely have). The schedule consisted of MMR (1 dose), DTP (5 doses), and OPV (4 doses). All in all, children received around 10 shots in their first 6 years, covering just 7 diseases. Up to 4 different diseases are addressed at just one visit (DTP + OPV).
Today, vaccines contain aluminum. Children receive up to 6 shots in one visit. They receive 36 shots in their first 6 years, covering 14 different diseases. Up to 8 different diseases are addressed at one visit.
These are just not the same! Saying “we were fine” does not mean our kids will be fine, with this vastly increased schedule.
Plus, honestly? We’re not fine. Many people have autoimmune disorders. Many people are overweight. A lot of people have allergies. A lot of people have learning disabilities. A lot of people (1/3) have cancer! I don’t know about your definition of “fine,” but it’s not mine. We don’t fully know if these things are related to vaccines or not, but I’d investigate that a lot more closely before we declare they’re not related and keep vaccinating so heavily. No other country does it, and no other country has rates of these chronic illnesses quite as high as we do.
I’m not here to tell you that you shouldn’t vaccinate. Any choice comes with its own set of risks. I am here to make sure that I share accurate information, including the information that isn’t easy to find. I want parents to know what’s out there before they make this very important decision.
Improve Your Family’s Health…Naturally
I shared yesterday about an awesome opportunity that is coming…which can bless you, as well as our family. (See what we’re up against right now, plus the full details right here.)
Next Wednesday, the Ultimate Healthy Living Bundle goes live, for just 6 days. It’s a collection of over 80 ebooks, plus ecourses, and bonus products (like herbal remedies, meal planning services, fitness instruction, bath and body products, and so much more). It’s worth over $1000 — no joke, not exaggerating — and it’ll cost you only $29.97.
Sign up right here to be the first to know when it goes live!
Plus, you can earn rewards by sharing about the sale. Refer 1 friend and get a $5 off coupon. Refer 5 friends, and earn a free ticket to the Coffee Table Conversations. Refer 10 friends, and get the whole bundle for FREE! Your friends don’t even have to buy anything — they just have to sign up for the list (and then they can refer friends and earn rewards too!).
I hope that this package blesses you as much as it has already blessed me. (As a participating author I got early access to some of the ebooks!)
What things do you think we should stop saying in the vaccine debate?
GMOs: The Walking Dead of the Food Industry
This pretty much says it all.
GMO: Genetically Modified Organisms engineered from DNA of different species of plant, animal, bacterial, and viral genes.
- Global Area of GMO crops:170.1 million hectares
- Area of Alaska: 171.7 million hectares
*In case you don't know how big a hectare is 1 hectare = about 2.47 acres so that
170.1 million hectacres is really about 420.15 million acres. Comforting, I know.
- 70% of items in American food stores contain GMOs
- 0% of items in American food stores containing GMOs prior to 1996
- 50: nations (including all EU countries) restricting or banning GMO production/sales
- In the US: FDA ruled GMOs not significantly different from naturally occurring foods
- Approval based on studies conducted by GMO manufacturers themselves
- 87% of consumers who want foods containing GMOs to be labeled
- 53% of Americans who would refuse to buy genetically modified food
- 80% of conventionally processed food containing GMOs in the US - labeling not required
- GMOs are manufactured for herbicide tolerance, particularly to glyphosate (RoundUp). Some negative effects:
- Glyphosate builds up in the soil, contaminating it.
- Weeds resistant to glyphosate develop, spawning super weeds.
- 1: breeds of weeds resistant to glyphosate (ryegrass found in Australia) prior to 2010
- 6: US states where glyphosate-resistant weeds have been reported in the past three years
- 1500%: increase in herbicide production since GMOs introduced
- Signing of "Monsanto Protection Act" prevents government restrictions on GMO food found to cause health risks
- One corn GMO type threatened to wipe out Monarch butterfly larvae by contaminating milkweed
- "None of the genetically modified food crops currently on the market offer benefits to consumers in terms of price, nutrition, or new products." Ucsusa.org
- Over 40 genetically modified crops are allowed to be sold in the US.
- GMOs make it possible for allergens in one food type to emerge in a completely different species.
- GMOs found to transfer genetically altered DNA into the DNA of bacteria living in the human stomach, reproducing indefinitely.
- GMOs can contaminate existing species being grown organically.
- GMO producers can actually sue farmers whose crops are infected by GMO contaminates for intellectual property theft.
- As evidenced by the percentage of crops containing GMOs, producers like Monsanto have a virtual monopoly on the US farming industry.
- Sugar Beets (95% of US crop)
- Soy (94% of US crop)
- Canola (90% of US crop)
- Cotton (90% of US crop)
- Corn (88% of US crop)
- http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/what-is-gmo/
- http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/pdf/Brief%2044%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20-%20English.pdf
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2012/11/03/gmo-food-debate-in-the-national-spotlight/
- http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/gmo-farming-crops-more-popular-than-ever-world-charts
- http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
- http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/gmo-toxicity-affects-animals-plants-and-soil-336742.html
- http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/environmental-effects-of.html#monarch
- http://www.naturalnews.com/038792_GMO_toxicity_digestion_cancer.html
- http://grist.org/food/monsanto-flirts-with-disaster-owns-the-world-anyway/
GMO: Genetically Modified Organisms engineered from DNA of different species of plant, animal, bacterial, and viral genes.
- Global Area of GMO crops:170.1 million hectares
- Area of Alaska: 171.7 million hectares
*In case you don't know how big a hectare is 1 hectare = about 2.47 acres so that
170.1 million hectacres is really about 420.15 million acres. Comforting, I know.
- 70% of items in American food stores contain GMOs
- 0% of items in American food stores containing GMOs prior to 1996
- 50: nations (including all EU countries) restricting or banning GMO production/sales
- In the US: FDA ruled GMOs not significantly different from naturally occurring foods
- Approval based on studies conducted by GMO manufacturers themselves
- 87% of consumers who want foods containing GMOs to be labeled
- 53% of Americans who would refuse to buy genetically modified food
- 80% of conventionally processed food containing GMOs in the US - labeling not required
- GMOs are manufactured for herbicide tolerance, particularly to glyphosate (RoundUp). Some negative effects:
- Glyphosate builds up in the soil, contaminating it.
- Weeds resistant to glyphosate develop, spawning super weeds.
- 1: breeds of weeds resistant to glyphosate (ryegrass found in Australia) prior to 2010
- 6: US states where glyphosate-resistant weeds have been reported in the past three years
- 1500%: increase in herbicide production since GMOs introduced
- Signing of "Monsanto Protection Act" prevents government restrictions on GMO food found to cause health risks
- One corn GMO type threatened to wipe out Monarch butterfly larvae by contaminating milkweed
- "None of the genetically modified food crops currently on the market offer benefits to consumers in terms of price, nutrition, or new products." Ucsusa.org
- Over 40 genetically modified crops are allowed to be sold in the US.
- GMOs make it possible for allergens in one food type to emerge in a completely different species.
- GMOs found to transfer genetically altered DNA into the DNA of bacteria living in the human stomach, reproducing indefinitely.
- GMOs can contaminate existing species being grown organically.
- GMO producers can actually sue farmers whose crops are infected by GMO contaminates for intellectual property theft.
- As evidenced by the percentage of crops containing GMOs, producers like Monsanto have a virtual monopoly on the US farming industry.
Top foods containing GMOs
- Sugar Beets (95% of US crop)
- Soy (94% of US crop)
- Canola (90% of US crop)
- Cotton (90% of US crop)
- Corn (88% of US crop)
Sources
- http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/what-is-gmo/
- http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/pdf/Brief%2044%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20-%20English.pdf
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2012/11/03/gmo-food-debate-in-the-national-spotlight/
- http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/gmo-farming-crops-more-popular-than-ever-world-charts
- http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
- http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/gmo-toxicity-affects-animals-plants-and-soil-336742.html
- http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/environmental-effects-of.html#monarch
- http://www.naturalnews.com/038792_GMO_toxicity_digestion_cancer.html
- http://grist.org/food/monsanto-flirts-with-disaster-owns-the-world-anyway/
Take Your Shots and Shove 'Em!
Now that school is back in session, the vaccine industry is beside itself.
Highly educated parents are refusing shots for their children at an accelerating rate, especially in California.
And, as any trends potter knows, lifestyle trends that take hold in California typically spread to the rest of the country over time.
How strong is this trend?
Estimates are that only 20% of children that attend some private schools in the Los Angeles area are vaccinated.
You read that right. Privately educated children in LA are unvaccinated up to 80% of the time!
How about public school?
Still shockingly non-compliant with the egregious CDC childhood vaccination schedule.
One public elementary school in affluent Malibu, just north of Los Angeles , reports that only 58 percent of its students are immunized. Health department authorities “recommend” 90+ percent immunization rates for school going children.
Nina Shapiro, a professor at UCLA medical school and mother of two who wrote an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times recently about her growing concern with the anti-vax movement, sneered:
Nice, huh?
A UCLA doctor publicly chooses to bully mothers who use their common sense and critical thinking skills by refusing to allow a lethal cocktail of chemicals, heavy metals, animal DNA/viruses and other highly toxic ingredients into their child’s body.
Sorry honey. Your white coat and fancy degree don’t mean anything to a Mom who smells a rat and is acting to protect her child from a lifetime of vaccine induced, auto-immune related health problems and a greedy and deceitful pharmaceutical industry.
This heartening trend of vaccine refusal by society’s most educated women is not new. It’s been known for some time that the anti-vax movement is being led by college educated, affluent mothers.
The American Journal of Public Health reported in 2007 following a study of 11,860 families from the National Immunization Survey, that children of mothers who had not completed high school were 16 percent more likely to have up-to-date vaccinations than children of college graduates.
But why affluent mothers in particular? There are plenty of middle and lower class Moms who care about this issue passionately.
Could it be because the typical Malibu Mom doesn’t have to worry about where the next meal is coming from or how to make the mortgage payment? This freedom from financial worry would give them time that other mothers don’t have to think and thoroughly research issues that impact the health of their children.
Moms who are overwhelmed with work/family balance issues might possibly tend to go along with what the pediatrician says without as many questions.
Incidentally, AB499 was sponsored by political lackeys in the pocket of Merck who are either on the take (legislator Toni Atkins who lied about the money she received) or own a significant stake in the company (CA assemblywoman Sally Leiber who was forced to remove her name on the bill when her conflict of interest was revealed).
Then, the childless Governor Brown signed into law AB2109 introduced by Assembly Member Dr. Richard Pan MD which requires parents to obtain the signature of a MD, nurse practicioner, or physician’s assistant before exercising their philosophical exemption for opting out of vaccination for their children. Conveniently, chiropractors are not permitted to sign although the final version of the bill did include naturopaths.
Despite legislation giving adolescent children the “freedom” to go around their parent’s medical decisions and making it highly inconvenient to exercise the legal right under California law for a philosophical exemption, mothers are continuing to opt out of vaccination for their children in droves.
Not even scare tactics are working by the pharmaceutical industry funded mass media which is reporting ad nauseum about “outbreaks” of measles, mumps, and whooping cough around the country - outbreaks which have always happened periodically but have been widely reported only recently.
The vaccine industry is nothing short of desperate to contain this trend. What will work? How to stop these college educated Moms from, (gasp,) thinking for themselves?
The short answer?
Nothing.
For a growing segment of society, particularly college educated mothers, the jig is up. The reliable, residual income for the vaccine industry known as the CDC childhood immunization schedule is coming to an end. More and more parents have come to the realization that well baby and well child check-up's are uneccessary for their healthy child. Why take their child to their pediatrician if their child is not ill? Well, ironically, well baby and well child check-ups are scheduled around the vaccination schedule. Dr's offices are for sick kids, correct?
The standard well child check up these days are as follows:
Vaccines. If you missed a vaccine, you need to catch it up, ( green) If you need it, it's on the schedule, (yellow.) If you are in a 'high-risk' group, you need to get the vaccines within the 7-18 yrs in adolecence, (purple).
Ironic isn't it. Well check-up's are for vaccinations but Dr's offices are for sick people, not for healthy kids to make sure that they get their vaccinations, on schedule, every month or every year. See a pattern here? I do, and it isn't confusing.
Highly educated parents are refusing shots for their children at an accelerating rate, especially in California.
And, as any trends potter knows, lifestyle trends that take hold in California typically spread to the rest of the country over time.
How strong is this trend?
Estimates are that only 20% of children that attend some private schools in the Los Angeles area are vaccinated.
You read that right. Privately educated children in LA are unvaccinated up to 80% of the time!
How about public school?
Still shockingly non-compliant with the egregious CDC childhood vaccination schedule.
One public elementary school in affluent Malibu, just north of Los Angeles , reports that only 58 percent of its students are immunized. Health department authorities “recommend” 90+ percent immunization rates for school going children.
Nina Shapiro, a professor at UCLA medical school and mother of two who wrote an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times recently about her growing concern with the anti-vax movement, sneered:
“Yes, that’s right: Parents are willingly paying up to $25,000 a year to (LA) schools at which fewer than 1 in 5 kindergartners has been immunized against the pathogens causing such life-threatening illnesses as measles, polio, meningitis and pertussis (more commonly known as whooping cough).”
“It’s that whole natural, BPA-free, hybrid car community that says ‘we’re not going to put chemicals in our children. It’s that same idea: ‘I’m going to be pure and I want to keep my child pure.”
Nice, huh?
A UCLA doctor publicly chooses to bully mothers who use their common sense and critical thinking skills by refusing to allow a lethal cocktail of chemicals, heavy metals, animal DNA/viruses and other highly toxic ingredients into their child’s body.
Sorry honey. Your white coat and fancy degree don’t mean anything to a Mom who smells a rat and is acting to protect her child from a lifetime of vaccine induced, auto-immune related health problems and a greedy and deceitful pharmaceutical industry.
This heartening trend of vaccine refusal by society’s most educated women is not new. It’s been known for some time that the anti-vax movement is being led by college educated, affluent mothers.
The American Journal of Public Health reported in 2007 following a study of 11,860 families from the National Immunization Survey, that children of mothers who had not completed high school were 16 percent more likely to have up-to-date vaccinations than children of college graduates.
But why affluent mothers in particular? There are plenty of middle and lower class Moms who care about this issue passionately.
Could it be because the typical Malibu Mom doesn’t have to worry about where the next meal is coming from or how to make the mortgage payment? This freedom from financial worry would give them time that other mothers don’t have to think and thoroughly research issues that impact the health of their children.
Moms who are overwhelmed with work/family balance issues might possibly tend to go along with what the pediatrician says without as many questions.
Trend of Vaccine Refusal Continues Despite Legislation to Stop It
The real story from where I sit is that the trend of vaccine refusal continues despite legislation designed to stop it. In October 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB499 which allows children as young as 12 years old to decide whether or not to accept the Hepatitis B jab or any other sexually transmitted disease vaccine without parental knowledge or consent.Incidentally, AB499 was sponsored by political lackeys in the pocket of Merck who are either on the take (legislator Toni Atkins who lied about the money she received) or own a significant stake in the company (CA assemblywoman Sally Leiber who was forced to remove her name on the bill when her conflict of interest was revealed).
Then, the childless Governor Brown signed into law AB2109 introduced by Assembly Member Dr. Richard Pan MD which requires parents to obtain the signature of a MD, nurse practicioner, or physician’s assistant before exercising their philosophical exemption for opting out of vaccination for their children. Conveniently, chiropractors are not permitted to sign although the final version of the bill did include naturopaths.
Despite legislation giving adolescent children the “freedom” to go around their parent’s medical decisions and making it highly inconvenient to exercise the legal right under California law for a philosophical exemption, mothers are continuing to opt out of vaccination for their children in droves.
Not even scare tactics are working by the pharmaceutical industry funded mass media which is reporting ad nauseum about “outbreaks” of measles, mumps, and whooping cough around the country - outbreaks which have always happened periodically but have been widely reported only recently.
The vaccine industry is nothing short of desperate to contain this trend. What will work? How to stop these college educated Moms from, (gasp,) thinking for themselves?
The short answer?
Nothing.
For a growing segment of society, particularly college educated mothers, the jig is up. The reliable, residual income for the vaccine industry known as the CDC childhood immunization schedule is coming to an end. More and more parents have come to the realization that well baby and well child check-up's are uneccessary for their healthy child. Why take their child to their pediatrician if their child is not ill? Well, ironically, well baby and well child check-ups are scheduled around the vaccination schedule. Dr's offices are for sick kids, correct?
The standard well child check up these days are as follows:
- 2 to 5 days - usually before baby is released from hospital after birth
- 1 month - HepB vaccination
- 2 months - Rotovirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV and HepB if not given at 1 month visit
- 4 months - Rotovirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV and IPV
- 6 months - HepB, Rotovirus, DTaP, Hib, PCV and IPV, Influenza
- 12 months - If not given at 6 months, HepB, Hib, PCV, IPC, Influenza, MMR, Varicella and HepA
- 15 months - DTaP, and any vaccines not given between 6 month and 12 month visit
- 18 months - any vaccines not given between 12 and 15 month visit
- 2 years old (24 months) - Influenza
- 2 ½ years old (30 months) - Influenza if not given at 2 year appointment.
- 3 years - Influenza
- 4 years - DTap, IPV, MMR, Varicella and Influenza
Vaccines. If you missed a vaccine, you need to catch it up, ( green) If you need it, it's on the schedule, (yellow.) If you are in a 'high-risk' group, you need to get the vaccines within the 7-18 yrs in adolecence, (purple).
Ironic isn't it. Well check-up's are for vaccinations but Dr's offices are for sick people, not for healthy kids to make sure that they get their vaccinations, on schedule, every month or every year. See a pattern here? I do, and it isn't confusing.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
The Safety and Efficacy of Gardasil
Having a teen daughter, I really took to researching the vaccine Gardasil, after all it came out in 2006 and was touted that it could make your daughter 'One Less' for cervical cancer. I was still vaccinating at that time and wasn't aware of the testing or risks of Gardasil. I really wanted to know how Gardasil could make my daughter 'One Less'. I researched far and wide and found that there are over 120 different strains of the HPV virus, at least 15 of those that can cause cancer. Was this really going to protect my daughter at making her 'One Less'?
What I found was a lot of misinformation on making my daughter 'One Less'.
I found that Gardasil only has 4 different strains that it 'protects' against. Four, that's it. Why only those four? The four strains of HPV in the Gardasil vaccine are 6, 11, 16 & 18. Four. Apparently, those 4 strains are the highest risk in most women. Two causing cancers, 2 causing genital warts. Genital warts are caused by sexual activity - an STD.
What about minority women and girls, African Americans for example. Are those same strains in the highest risk categories for AA women? Nope.
This is important to understand since the rate of infection for Black women is the second highest, after Latinas and it is still 39 percent higher than their White counterparts.
In other words, Gardasil had no impact on the number of infected Black women. How is that helping prevent cancer in Black women?
Adverse Events
This is disturbing to me. Gardasil has been on the CDC vaccine schedule since 2006. The following adverse events have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, (VAERS)
More than 34,240 adverse events, many of them serious, disabling, requiring trips to the ER, hospitalization, life threatening and even causing cancer. Considering Gardasil is given to only 9-26 year old women to help prevent cervical cancer and the median age at diagnosis is 48 years old, 77 of those who have been given Gardasil within the 17 year age difference it is highly unlikely that those women would have ever had cervical cancer at that age.
Gardasil has not even been tested for efficacy over an extended period of time. To date, Gardasil has only been on the vaccine schedule for 8 years, how are we to know the efficacy over time that 9 or even 26 year old women and men that were given Gardasil will even be effective when they are in their near 50's - 60's+? There is no way to prove that it is effective that long.
•48 years for HPV-associated cervical cancer.
•66 for HPV-associated vulvar cancer.
•69 for HPV-associated vaginal cancer.
•68 for HPV-associated penile cancer.
•60 among women and 56 among men for HPV-associated anal cancer.
•61 among women and 58 among men for HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.
Dr. Diane Harper explains the progression of HPV related cervical cancers in women infected with HPV.
So what about the study done on Gardasil? Was it an independent study, not done by the vaccine manufactuer or the CDC? A vaccine or clinical drug study is done by the manufacturer because the information must be approved by the FDA before any kind of treatment or prevention of a health condition can be marketed. The manufacturers need to have everything perfect to present to the FDA for final approval. Everything must be perfect, especially when attempting to fast track a vaccine after only a few years and has been given to girls and women. Studies like this take time, time to thoroughly address any kind of health issue such as autoimmune disorders that can manifest after 10 or 15 years. Gardasil was fast tracked in 2 months.
If you are still 'one the fence' about getting the HPV vaccine for your daughter or son please watch this trailer for the documentary One More Girl. The documentary will be out soon and will be available for purchase at the time of distribution.
Please, educate before you vaccinate.
What I found was a lot of misinformation on making my daughter 'One Less'.
I found that Gardasil only has 4 different strains that it 'protects' against. Four, that's it. Why only those four? The four strains of HPV in the Gardasil vaccine are 6, 11, 16 & 18. Four. Apparently, those 4 strains are the highest risk in most women. Two causing cancers, 2 causing genital warts. Genital warts are caused by sexual activity - an STD.
What about minority women and girls, African Americans for example. Are those same strains in the highest risk categories for AA women? Nope.
"An article published on October 28, 2013 on the NIH's MedlinePlus website reported on a study, which found that Black women may get less protection than whites from the vaccines recommended for preventing human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer.”
"researchers found that White participants carried strains 16, 18, 33, 39, and 59, whereas Black participants carried strains 31, 35, 45, 56, 58, 66, and 68. Note that these two sets of strains are completely different. Thus, Black women who are vaccinated with Gardasil are vaccinated against the wrong strains. This is like taking an antibiotic medication against a viral infection. It won’t work."
This is important to understand since the rate of infection for Black women is the second highest, after Latinas and it is still 39 percent higher than their White counterparts.
In other words, Gardasil had no impact on the number of infected Black women. How is that helping prevent cancer in Black women?
Adverse Events
This is disturbing to me. Gardasil has been on the CDC vaccine schedule since 2006. The following adverse events have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, (VAERS)
More than 34,240 adverse events, many of them serious, disabling, requiring trips to the ER, hospitalization, life threatening and even causing cancer. Considering Gardasil is given to only 9-26 year old women to help prevent cervical cancer and the median age at diagnosis is 48 years old, 77 of those who have been given Gardasil within the 17 year age difference it is highly unlikely that those women would have ever had cervical cancer at that age.
Gardasil has not even been tested for efficacy over an extended period of time. To date, Gardasil has only been on the vaccine schedule for 8 years, how are we to know the efficacy over time that 9 or even 26 year old women and men that were given Gardasil will even be effective when they are in their near 50's - 60's+? There is no way to prove that it is effective that long.
•48 years for HPV-associated cervical cancer.
•66 for HPV-associated vulvar cancer.
•69 for HPV-associated vaginal cancer.
•68 for HPV-associated penile cancer.
•60 among women and 56 among men for HPV-associated anal cancer.
•61 among women and 58 among men for HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.
Dr. Diane Harper explains the progression of HPV related cervical cancers in women infected with HPV.
So what about the study done on Gardasil? Was it an independent study, not done by the vaccine manufactuer or the CDC? A vaccine or clinical drug study is done by the manufacturer because the information must be approved by the FDA before any kind of treatment or prevention of a health condition can be marketed. The manufacturers need to have everything perfect to present to the FDA for final approval. Everything must be perfect, especially when attempting to fast track a vaccine after only a few years and has been given to girls and women. Studies like this take time, time to thoroughly address any kind of health issue such as autoimmune disorders that can manifest after 10 or 15 years. Gardasil was fast tracked in 2 months.
If you are still 'one the fence' about getting the HPV vaccine for your daughter or son please watch this trailer for the documentary One More Girl. The documentary will be out soon and will be available for purchase at the time of distribution.
Please, educate before you vaccinate.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Data Reveals Measles Outbreaks Have Nothing to Do With Non-Vaccination Trends
Whatever we might each think about the decision to not vaccinate ourselves or our children, one thing is clear: vaccination is a heated topic and debates about it often result in polarization. Maybe another thing is clear too: most opinions about vaccination (for or against) are influenced more by editorials on the subject, than by data itself. Thus, here is one more editorial on the subject, albeit one that does not pass judgment on vaccinations, for or against. It is, instead, intended as a call to research, and a reminder of the scientific maxim: correlation is not causation. That goes for both sides of this debate.
On the anti-vaccination side, there are many claims made that are often based on things that the data might imply, but is far from proving. This results in many ideas that are later discredited being circulated as fact.
On the pro-vaccination side, every time there is a measles outbreak, it seems mainstream news outlets trip over themselves to implicate “the growing trend to opt out of vaccinations” as the cause (read: causation). Again, “correlation is not causation”. Here’s why…
If the measles outbreaks in California, and particularly in and around Orange County, as well as New York City are because of non-vaccinators, then why aren’t we seeing outbreaks of everything not being vaccinated for? Why just measles and why all of a sudden, when the number of people opting out of vaccinations has actually steadily dropped in the last few years – after an initial wave of people not doing it?
Non-vaccinators in NY are .1-1% of the population. In California we are talking 1.1-2%. Why aren’t we seeing increases in outbreaks in Vermont, Michigan and Oregon where the rate is over 6%? Correlation (or worse yet, public perception of correlation), is not causation: whether it’s vaccines and autism, or whether it’s a tiny number of people not vaccinating, and a few places having measles outbreaks.
What does the data show on measles in the states where opting out of vaccination trends the highest? There was an instance in Oregon last year, and one this year with a 6% rate of opting out in the state. A child in Washington County, Oregon who developed measles on an overseas trip and exposed hundreds of people in the Portland area. Add to that one case in Oregon this year where a child contracted measles from a vaccinated adult.
Shouldn’t the state be the worst off? And where are Vermont’s outbreaks at 6% non-vaccination?
Measles has been trending down, but in the past year it has spiked in the U.S. in spite of the trend of non-vaccination dropping a bit. Measles outbreaks have been happening all over the world in the past year, even and especially where there is no significant increase of anti-vaccination trends (Turkey, Vietnam, Philippines and several countries in Europe). It’s up in California which likely is accounted for by the fact that there is so much travel in California from abroad. The 2013 case in Oregon? That was a traveller too, who had been in and out of international airports before contracting the disease. Same thing with New York City where outbreaks have been happening at a rate higher than the statistical norm.
States with the highest non-vaccination rates have not seen an increase in measles outbreaks that are statistically significant. News websites like to run with headlines that will get people to share, and vent outrage. But that doesn’t make such articles a good source of scientific data.
Remember, if you take nothing else away from this: correlation is not causation. Just because you heard on the news that there are a lot of people not vaccinating their children (an exaggerated statement, to be sure), does not mean that the rise in measles globally is due to families in Utah refusing vaccinations across the board. This is all the more so when the correlation does not even overlap the places where vaccine refusal is the highest.
Do some research. Use the search field on the CDC website. Hit your local University library up and search scholarly journals and databases. The data on these issues is not hiding, but it will not deliver itself to your email inbox without a little work. When you do the research you’ll find that the facts are not quite as sensational as many headlines might have you believe. There has been a recent spike in measles. That much is clear. But it is happening all over the world and it is actually not happening in places where people are refusing vaccinations the most. Whatever your position is on vaccinations, get the facts and don’t spread assumptions made by lazy writers. Again, that goes for both sides of the vaccination issue.
On the anti-vaccination side, there are many claims made that are often based on things that the data might imply, but is far from proving. This results in many ideas that are later discredited being circulated as fact.
On the pro-vaccination side, every time there is a measles outbreak, it seems mainstream news outlets trip over themselves to implicate “the growing trend to opt out of vaccinations” as the cause (read: causation). Again, “correlation is not causation”. Here’s why…
If the measles outbreaks in California, and particularly in and around Orange County, as well as New York City are because of non-vaccinators, then why aren’t we seeing outbreaks of everything not being vaccinated for? Why just measles and why all of a sudden, when the number of people opting out of vaccinations has actually steadily dropped in the last few years – after an initial wave of people not doing it?
Non-vaccinators in NY are .1-1% of the population. In California we are talking 1.1-2%. Why aren’t we seeing increases in outbreaks in Vermont, Michigan and Oregon where the rate is over 6%? Correlation (or worse yet, public perception of correlation), is not causation: whether it’s vaccines and autism, or whether it’s a tiny number of people not vaccinating, and a few places having measles outbreaks.
What does the data show on measles in the states where opting out of vaccination trends the highest? There was an instance in Oregon last year, and one this year with a 6% rate of opting out in the state. A child in Washington County, Oregon who developed measles on an overseas trip and exposed hundreds of people in the Portland area. Add to that one case in Oregon this year where a child contracted measles from a vaccinated adult.
Shouldn’t the state be the worst off? And where are Vermont’s outbreaks at 6% non-vaccination?
Measles has been trending down, but in the past year it has spiked in the U.S. in spite of the trend of non-vaccination dropping a bit. Measles outbreaks have been happening all over the world in the past year, even and especially where there is no significant increase of anti-vaccination trends (Turkey, Vietnam, Philippines and several countries in Europe). It’s up in California which likely is accounted for by the fact that there is so much travel in California from abroad. The 2013 case in Oregon? That was a traveller too, who had been in and out of international airports before contracting the disease. Same thing with New York City where outbreaks have been happening at a rate higher than the statistical norm.
States with the highest non-vaccination rates have not seen an increase in measles outbreaks that are statistically significant. News websites like to run with headlines that will get people to share, and vent outrage. But that doesn’t make such articles a good source of scientific data.
Remember, if you take nothing else away from this: correlation is not causation. Just because you heard on the news that there are a lot of people not vaccinating their children (an exaggerated statement, to be sure), does not mean that the rise in measles globally is due to families in Utah refusing vaccinations across the board. This is all the more so when the correlation does not even overlap the places where vaccine refusal is the highest.
Do some research. Use the search field on the CDC website. Hit your local University library up and search scholarly journals and databases. The data on these issues is not hiding, but it will not deliver itself to your email inbox without a little work. When you do the research you’ll find that the facts are not quite as sensational as many headlines might have you believe. There has been a recent spike in measles. That much is clear. But it is happening all over the world and it is actually not happening in places where people are refusing vaccinations the most. Whatever your position is on vaccinations, get the facts and don’t spread assumptions made by lazy writers. Again, that goes for both sides of the vaccination issue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)