Natural Family Awareness

Here is a form to print out and bring with you to your pediatrician’s office if you are going to refuse vaccinations: http://www.vaclib.org/letters/RefuseVaccines1.pdf

The one they may have there for you to sign is NOT in your best interest. Click here to read why: http://www.vaclib.org/legal/donotsign.htm

http://www.newstarget.com/022479.html

Wednesday, January 09, 2008 by: Mike Adams

(NewsTarget) While the mainstream press is widely reporting a new study “disproving” any link between autism and mercury-containing thimerosal in vaccines, no one has bothered to point out that the study was published in a medical journal stacked full of ads from the very same drug companies that manufacture and market vaccines. The Journal, the Archives of General Psychiatry, is the pro-drug psychiatric arm of the American Medical Association, a pill-pushing organization tarnished by a history of conspiracy against alternative medicine and the promotion of toxic substances like cigarettes with full-page ads in its flagship publication, JAMA.

From the outset, the fact that this study appears in a pro-drug, pro-psychiatry journal should bring pause to any scientific-minded person. There is obviously a serious conflict of interest here, especially if this study is to be taken as “fact” and applied to public health policy. There also need to be a close look at any financial links between the researchers involved in this study and various vaccine manufacturers, as virtually all pro-drug “science” (if you can call it that) being published these days is influenced by Big Pharma money.

The only truly honest, independent, peer-reviewed medical journal operating today is PLoS Medicine, an open-source journal that takes no money from drug companies. Notice that the autism/mercury link study did not appear in PLoS Medicine? No, it had to be published with a home field advantage in a pro-drug publication that maintains a strong bias in favor of pharmaceuticals and chemicals.

Junk science and faulty conclusions
Aside from these obvious and worrisome conflicts of interest, the conclusions being made about autism and vaccines in the mainstream media are simply not supported by the study. The (distorted) logic we’re hearing goes like this:

Yes, vaccines used to contain mercury. And yes, all those little kids were injected with mercury. And yes, autism rates skyrocketed. But then when the mercury was taken out of the vaccines, the autism rates didn’t come back down. Therefore, the logic goes, vaccines are safe!

This is such sloppy cause/effect logic that it makes the idiot CNN Health editors who published a story about “junk foods being good for your waist” look like sheer geniuses!

What’s wrong with the logic? Consider the use of mercury in the vaccines: It was used as a preservative chemical to prevent vaccine spoilage. When the mercury was removed, it was replaced with other preservative chemicals that are also toxic to the human nervous system. Thus, the continuing increase in autism rates following vaccination may be due to the toxic chemicals that replaced thimerosal. While mercury injections probably initiated the increase in autism, the toxic substance has been replaced with other dangerous chemicals that are continuing to increase the risk of autism.

Here’s an example to explain this a bit more:

We all know that sodium nitrite in processed meat causes cancer, right? Well, let’s say that for ten years, somebody feeds all the kids sodium nitrite and cancer rates skyrocket. Then, they take all the sodium nitrite out of the food and replace it with a different cancer-causing chemical that they keep feeding the kids. Guess what? The cancer rates don’t come down. Therefore, the logic goes, sodium nitrite didn’t cause cancer in the first place!

Notice that when mercury was removed from vaccines (which is not entirely true, by the way, bringing into question yet more details about this study), the rates of autism did not drop? This means the vaccines remain dangerous to children. Autism continued to climb right alongside vaccination rates, indicating the possibility that something in the vaccines (or a combination of various chemicals) may very well be responsible for the increase. Based on the fact that thimerosal was replaced with other toxic chemicals in the vaccines, there is absolutely no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any harmful effects. There are too many variables operating now, and no study can isolate one variable (thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be harmless.

The truth is that scientists have no idea what’s causing autism. They acknowledge the alarming increase in the rates of autism now being observed in the population, but with this new study, they claim, “Mercury is safe!”

Let me add this study to the enormous stack of other B.S. studies from modern medical researchers. Let’s see, I have a study here that declares aspartame to be safe. A second study in my database says that Vioxx is safe. Another study says Teflon is safe. And yet another study claims that cigarette smoke doesn’t cause lung cancer or heart disease! In fact, for virtually every toxic chemical created by industry, there’s a B.S. study proclaiming its safety! The history of science is full of such nonsense, all funded or influenced by the corporations that manufacture and sell these toxic chemicals or drugs.

The fact that industry has managed to create yet another study declaring a toxic substance (thimerosal) to be safe when injected into children is certainly not surprising. This is an industry that is not bound by the rules of logic, ethics or common scientific sense. It simply finds ways to influence researchers, cherry pick studies and distort science to get whatever results it wants. That’s how we’re now hearing things like, “Mercury is safe to inject into children!” — an idea that’s utterly absurd at any dose.

What the mercury / vaccine study actually proves
Even if you believe the results of this study, it only demonstrates that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce vaccine toxicity to children. Autism rates are still on the rise, right along with vaccination rates. Multiple toxic chemicals and substances are contained in vaccines, and the mercury in thimerosal may have simply been one factor among many.

The only reasonable, scientifically-minded conclusion we can draw from the study is that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce autism in children. If removing thimerosal from vaccines made them safer, we should have seen autism rates go down, but we did not! Autism rates continued to climb in direct correlation to vaccination rates, indicating that mercury is not the only toxic substance causing neurological problems in children.

Notice, carefully, that this is nothing close to what’s being reported in the mainstream media, where headlines are blaring junk science nonsense like, “Vaccines pose no risk for autism” (San Jose Mercury News) and “Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism” (Slashdot, which should know better). Even WIRED News got it wrong with: “California Study Finds No Link Between Vaccines, Autism.”

The correct headline should be, “Removal of Mercury From Vaccines Fails to Halt Rise in Autism.”

Or, “Removing Mercury From Vaccines Does Not Make Them Safer.”

Nobody reported that. Apparently, telling the truth about research involving vaccines is not a popular option in the mainstream media (MSM). Businessweek, publishing a HealthDay report by Randy Dotinga, invokes particularly bad logic with this opening statement, “Adding to a growing body of evidence that rejects the idea that immunizations boost autism rates, a new study finds no proof that incidences of the disorder dropped after makers of most childhood vaccines stopped using a mercury-based preservative in their products.”

Huh? How does a study focused only on mercury “reject the idea that immunizations boost autism rates?” Did the author of that report not notice that autism rates continue to increase as vaccination rates go up? Eliminating one chemical from the causative factors does not in any way clear the safety of all the other chemicals or ingredients used in vaccines.

The mainstream media, which repeatedly demonstrates astonishing ignorance on issues of nutrition and health, also seems to have very little ability to interpret scientific studies and reach reasoned conclusions about what those studies do or do not prove.

Was the vaccine study another example of corrupt science?
Besides, this entire discussion is based on the idea that we can trust the research in the first place. If there’s one thing we’ve learned about modern medicine since watching all the Vioxx scandals, Avandia cover-ups and scientific corruption in research circles, it’s that drug companies can help create whatever research conclusions they want.

And let’s face it: Big Pharma will always produce science that protects its profits. Gee, Big Tobacco came up with all sorts of research that said tobacco smoke wasn’t harmful and nicotine wasn’t addictive. Some of that research appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, too. Does that mean the research was scientifically accurate and “conclusive?” Of course not. It was just plain old junk science, hijacked by a powerful corporation with a clear profit motive.

If all that sounds familiar, it’s because drug companies are playing the same game with science today that Big Tobacco played decades ago: Influence the science, bury the bad news and propagandize the good news. It’s the oldest play in the spin book, and Big Pharma has patterned it perfectly from Big Tobacco.

You see, the relevant question in this discussion is not simply whether mercury-containing vaccines cause autism. The question at hand is whether we can even trust the “science” being conducted on this subject. Do the researchers who conducted this study have any financial ties to the manufacturers of those vaccines? Have they received any speaking fees? Do they own stock in those companies? If so, this completely discredits their research due to obvious conflicts of interest.

Now, I don’t have any direct evidence that the researchers in this particular mercury vaccine study were corrupted or influenced by Big Pharma, but as an honest, independent think who knows the truth about drug companies, the mainstream media and the profit motive behind much of the science appearing in the press today, I maintain a default position of skepticism when it comes to reading these studies.

By default, I distrust the drug companies and any so-called “research” that claims injecting mercury into the bodies of children is harmless. That should be the default position held by any rational person who understands basic human biochemistry. Toxic chemicals and heavy metals must be distrusted from the outset.

The drug and chemical industries, notably, take precisely the opposite approach. To them, all chemicals and drugs are safe until proven dangerous. This is how dangerous drugs get released into the marketplace and only recalled after tens of millions of prescriptions have been written and many thousands of people have died. The drug companies routinely treat the population as drug testing guinea pigs, and the used of vaccines on children is no different.

I find it interesting that genuine scientific skepticism seems to vanish when the topic shifts to pharmaceuticals. Sure, all the skeptics and quack critics will go to town on topics like acupuncture, mind-body medicine or even the efficacy of botanical medicines, but when the discussion turns to things like mercury in vaccines or amphetamine drugs for kids with ADHD, all such skepticism immediately vanishes. They accept the safety and efficacy of such treatments without question. Rational thought is rapidly discarded. Vaccines simply must be safe. Why? Because everybody else in the medical industry says so!

Were the journalists injected with mercury, too?
With this whole charade about a study “disproving” any link between mercury and vaccines, the modern medical industry has once again shown its infantile intellect and its utter lack or scientific integrity or clear-headed skepticism. Is this study really the best they can come up with? A study that shows absolutely no drop in autism rates when ingredients are reformulated in vaccines? A study that didn’t even attempt to take into account the other toxic ingredients in vaccines?

This is the new standard of “conclusive” science in medicine today?

Give me a break. The only thing that can be conclusively derived from observing all this is that mainstream media journalists continue to function at a very low level of scientific literacy, lacking any skills of mental reason by which scientific studies might be assessed. There is no thought that has gone into the media’s reporting of this story; only bandwagon parroting of each other’s bad conclusions of a study that, in reality, proves nothing. It’s yet another hilarious mainstream media circle jerk, and the fact that so many people keep buying this dim-witted reporting just proves that this nation remains woefully deficient in basic science education.

One point worth mentioning here is that there is absolutely no requirement to have any real understanding of science, medicine, chemistry or physics to graduate from a top-notch journalism school. And when journalists have no idea what they’re talking about, they go the default route and simply rewrite whatever was e-mailed to them in the corporate press release! Thus, modern skills of journalism do not require any independent thought whatsoever. They only require the ability to rephrase something already told to them by the spinmeisters at Corporation X.

Correct me if I’m wrong: Is there a single mainstream reporter — even one? — that reported the correct conclusion from this vaccine research?

I challenge you to find one. I’ve looked. There isn’t one.

The dumbing down of the mainstream media is now complete. I can’t wait to see what headlines will come next:

“Prescription Drugs That Killed Patients Found Innocent Since Patients Did Not Come Back to Life After the Drugs Were Removed”

Or:

“Radiation From Mammograms Found Harmless Because Death Rates Continued to Climb Even After Mammography was Halted”

Or my favorite: “Ephedra Herb Banned After Ten Deaths; Drugs Are Safer Because They Only Kill 100,000 Americans a Year”

I’m beginning to wonder if all the journalists have been injected with mercury.

http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=2 (which isn’t there
anymore, naturally)

Urine testing confirms Autism is mercury poisoning
*By Kate Adams
BayToday.ca
Tuesday, October 02, 2007*

US Autism & Asperger Association, Inc.
News Release

********************

WASHINGTON, DC - A new peer-reviewed scientific/medical case study confirms
that many children with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) suffer from
mercury poisoning. The new study, “A Prospective Study of Mercury Toxicity
Biomarkers in Autistic Spectrum Disorders” by Mr. David A. Geier and Dr.
Mark R. Geier has been published in the most recent issue of the Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A (volume 70, issue 20, pgs
1723-1730).

This study utilized urinary porphyrin profile analysis (UPPA) to assess
body-burden and physiological effects of mercury in children diagnosed with
ASDs.

Using UPPA, Geier and Geier (2007) examined 71 children diagnosed with ASDs,
neurotypical siblings, and general population controls. The researchers
studied urinary porphyrin patterns using results reported both by the US
Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) and the French Laboratoire
Philippe Auguste.

Their findings demonstrated that:
* Only the non-chelated patients diagnosed with ASDs had porphyrin patterns
indicative of clinical mercury toxicity.
* Treating ASD diagnosed patients with chelating agents resulted in lower
mercury-specific urinary porphyrins.
* The UPPA patterns reported were consistent between the two labs used.

The results of the present study confirm and extend previous observations by
Nataf et al. (2006) and Geier and Geier (2006) on the use of UPPA profiling
to establish the causal role for mercury in ASDs. Additionally, the current
findings are consistent with those observed by many other physicians who
treat patients diagnosed with both ASDs and mercury toxicity.

Thus, urinary porphyrin profile testing is being successfully used to:
* Demonstrate the role of mercury in ASD populations,
* Identify those children and adults who are mercury poisoned, and
* Track mercury excretion from affected children undergoing treatment.

For the past several years there has been a raging controversy as to whether
or not mercury in medicines, especially in vaccines, has caused a dramatic
rise in the rate of children diagnosed with an ASD. Many experts have
insisted ASDs are caused by some yet-to-be-identified genetic cause. A paper
recently published in Nature Genetics described the results of
multi-million-dollar genetics study (which studied a thousand-plus families
with at least two children diagnosed with an ASD using in-depth genetic
screening). Tellingly, the authors reported, “None of our linkage results
can be interpreted as ’statistically significant’.”(The Autism Genome
Project Consortium 2007).

With the current study’s results, public health officials should now
publicly admit what they have been saying in their private transcripts and
memos: Mercury from Thimerosal-containing vaccines and other medicines has
been a major cause of ASD cases, which, based on recent CDC estimates (CDC
2007), may exceed a rate of one in 100 children.

Today, any parent, physician, or healthcare provider can easily confirm
whether a non-chelated child with an ASD diagnosis is mercury poisoned by
having UPPA testing run at either laboratory.

CoMeD’s web site, http://www.Mercury-freeDrugs.org contains:

* Further information on how to order these tests,
* Full copies of the Nataf et al. (2006), Geier and Geier (2006), & Geier
and Geier (2007), and
* Some of the many published papers validating the UPPA test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edikv0zbAlU

Dr. Hilleman, who developed the Mumps, Rubella and Measles vaccines, said: “Vaccines are the bargain basement technology of the 20th century.”

In the taped interview (with about 6 Merck executives in the room, their nervous laughter audible in the tape) Dr. Hilleman explains how in his search for uninfected monkeys, Merck imported green monkeys from Africa. Those monkeys, it turned out, were carrying the AIDS virus: “I didn’t know we were importing AIDS.”

Dr. Hilleman also acknowledged that he discovered that the Sabine polio vaccine (manufactured by Merck) was infected with the SV-40 cancer virus. In the process of developing vaccines Merck scientists are shown to blithely disregarded public safety as they conducted massive tests exposing millions of unsuspecting people to wild viruses. Dr. Hilleman acknowledged that the cancer infected polio vaccine had been tested in massive field trials in Russia, then in the U.S.

The issues raised in this candid interview raise serious doubts about the propaganda the public has been fed about the safety of vaccines. Vaccines that have been promoted as “safe and effective” miraculous cures have been infecting (possibly) millions of people with cancer, leukemia, and AIDS.

The interview was conducted by Dr. Edward Shorter, Professor of the History of Medicine and Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto. I checked the authenticity of the tape with Dr. Shorter who informed me that he did it when preparing a PBS series called “The Health Century.” Doubleday published a companion volume of the same title in 1987.

Dr. Shorter deposited the entire tape of the interview, including portions omitted from the book, along with other interviews in the National Library of Medicine.

The uncovered facts should prompt a reexamination of the advisability of US mandatory vaccine policies–

The person who posted this censored portion of the interview on Youtube is Dr. Leonard Horowitz, a controversial and prolific healthcare expert with multiple academic degrees–including 3 doctorates.

In his forthcoming documentary film, “In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood & Bioterrorism,” Dr. Horowitz examines official directives for national preparedness against outbreaks, nuclear explosions, and other disasters. A critical examination of what officials are saying and not telling that impacts the future of public health and urgent life-saving decisions every American is currently being encouraged to make.

Is medicine institutionally corrupt? Here you will see the UK’s General
Medical Council advising UK medical doctors how to commit fraud on the UK’s
National Health Service for personal financial gain.

The GMC’s role is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of
the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine by
medical doctors. This includes prosecuting UK medical doctors when their
behaviour may bring the medical profession into disrepute. Dishonesty,
financial impropriety and fraud fall within its purview. This link 1] provides an example of a decided case from its website.

The GMC is a statutory body independent (allegedly) of the NHS and of
Government, with responsibility for maintaining the medical register for
the United Kingdom. The GMC has statutory powers under the Medical Act 1983
to take action where there are concerns about the fitness to practise of a
registered medical practitioner. Where the GMC finds that a doctor is not
fit to practise, it has powers to erase that doctor’s name from the medical
register, to suspend the doctor from the register or to place conditions on
the doctor’s practice. These restrictions apply to practice in any sector
of employment in any part of the UK.
http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/partners/national_health_service_counter_fraud_service.asp
2] In the UK if doctors meet target levels for numbers of MMR and other
vaccinations administered they can claim bonus payments for doing so. If they fail, they cannot claim those payments. One way of claiming the payments is to make a false return.

So how can it be that the GMC advises doctors on how to commit fraud? The
GMC pose the question “Can GPs remove some children from their lists,
temporarily, for the purpose of calculating the MMR target payment?” Here
you will see that its currently available advice is to the effect that “it’s OK provided you have patient consent”
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/current/library/targeting_preventative_measures.asp
3],
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/archive/Target_payments_for_preventative_health_measures_2003.pdf
4]. It seems it also happens to be OK if it helps to increase the MMR uptake figures.
The advice does not appear to be offered for other vaccinations.

And notice how they fail to make any mention of the financial and moral
impropriety of doing so when they answer the question they pose like this:-
“This must not be done without the parents’ agreement. Parents must be
given a full explanation of what was proposed and why, their child’s rights
as an NHS patient, and the implications for their child’s future care.
Doctors working within the NHS must treat all patients entitled to NHS
services on an equal footing. So temporarily removing a child from a GPs
list must not adversely affect their care, for example in accessing
secondary care and out-of-hours services, or in providing relevant
information to ensure continuity of care and allow effective working with
other agencies. Doctors must act honestly in their financial dealings. So
GPs must ensure that any arrangement to remove a child from their list and
re-register them for immediately necessary treatment’, or on some other
basis, would be in line with their contractual obligations to the NHS.”
Notice that provided the doctor does what the GMC advises and ensures “that
any arrangement … would be in line with their contractual obligations to
the NHS” it is fine as “Doctors must act honestly in their financial
dealings”. Am I missing something or is this starting to look like we need
the “men in white coats” to take away the men in white coats?

Not only that but the GMC advice is that if the evidence is available this
is not contrary to GMC guidance on good medical practice:-
“Are temporary removals from a GPs list acceptable to the GMC? In the
absence of evidence that temporary removals’ satisfy the concerns outlined
at Q5, we cannot give any reassurance that such arrangements would be seen
as consistent with our guidance on good practice.”
GMC advice to UK doctors is that doctors “must not ask for or accept any
inducement, gift or hospitality which may affect or be seen to affect the
way you prescribe for, treat or refer patients.”
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/probity/conflicts_of_interest.asp
7] But it seems the GMC do not mind when it comes to MMR,
even where the inducement is so strong it encourages fraud on the NHS. But
then, the GMC does not seem to mind about that either.

So now you know. If it concerns getting MMR uptake up, fraud is fine. But
you had better make sure you implicate the parents and what better way to
do that than to pressure them into agreeing their children become temporary
patients possibly for emergency treatment only or else be dumped from the
patient roster completely. Naturally, I am not saying that is happening
nor am I saying the GMC advice is taken to suggest that be done - as it
does not, but it could encourage that kind of behaviour. As a lawyer
advising pro bono I have direct experience of patients being removed from
an NHS doctor’s roster after objections to childhood vaccinations.

The GMC has an agreement on cooperating and coordinating with the NHS
Counter Fraud service
http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/partners/national_health_service_counter_fraud_service.asp
5]. And “GMC Today” newsletter carried a Comments Off

Urine Testing Confirms Autism is Mercury Poisoning

http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/07930_PR_UrineTestingConfirmsAutismIsMercuryPoisoningb.pdf

Press Release Contact:
For Immediate Release CoMeD President [Rev. Lisa K. Sykes (Richmond, VA) 804-364-8426]
September 30, 2007 CoMeD Sci. Advisor [Dr. King (Lake Hiawatha, NJ) 973-997-1321]
WASHINGTON, DC – A new peer-reviewed scientific/medical case study confirms that many children with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) suffer from mercury poisoning. The new study, “A Prospective Study of Mercury Toxicity Biomarkers in Autistic Spectrum Disorders” by Mr. David A. Geier and Dr. Mark R. Geier has been published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A (volume 70, issue 20, pgs 1723-1730).
This study utilized urinary porphyrin profile analysis (UPPA) to assess body-burden and physiological effects of mercury in children diagnosed with ASDs.
Using UPPA, Geier and Geier (2007) examined 71 children diagnosed with ASDs, 9 neurotypical siblings, and 5 general population controls. The researchers studied urinary porphyrin patterns using results reported both by the US Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) and the French Laboratoire Philippe Auguste.
Their findings demonstrated that:
• Only the non-chelated patients diagnosed with ASDs had porphyrin patterns indicative of clinical mercury toxicity.
• Treating ASD diagnosed patients with chelating agents resulted in lower mercury-specific urinary porphyrins.
• The UPPA patterns reported were consistent between the two labs used.
The results of the present study confirm and extend previous observations by Nataf et al. (2006) and Geier and Geier (2006) on the use of UPPA profiling to establish the causal role for mercury in ASDs. Additionally, the current findings are consistent with those observed by many other physicians who treat patients diagnosed with both ASDs and mercury toxicity.
Thus, urinary porphyrin profile testing is being successfully used to:
• Demonstrate the role of mercury in ASD populations,
• Identify those children and adults who are mercury poisoned, and
• Track mercury excretion from affected children undergoing treatment.
For the past several years there has been a raging controversy as to whether or not mercury in medicines, especially in vaccines, has caused a dramatic rise in the rate of children diagnosed with an ASD. Many experts have insisted ASDs are caused by some yet-to-be-identified genetic cause. A paper recently published in Nature Genetics described the results of multi-million-dollar genetics study (which studied a thousand-plus families with at least two children diagnosed with an ASD using in-depth genetic screening). Tellingly, the authors reported, “None of our linkage results can be interpreted as ‘statistically significant’…”(The Autism Genome Project Consortium 2007).
With the current study’s results, public health officials should now publicly admit what they have been saying in their private transcripts and memos: Mercury from Thimerosal-containing vaccines and other medicines has been a major cause of ASD cases, which, based on recent CDC estimates (CDC 2007), may, when corrected for under ascertainment, exceed a rate of one in 100 children.
Today, any parent, physician, or healthcare provider can easily confirm whether a non-chelated child with an ASD diagnosis is mercury poisoned by having UPPA testing run at either laboratory.
CoMeD’s web site, http://www.Mercury-freeDrugs.org contains:
• Further information on how to order these tests,
• Full copies of the Nataf et al. (2006), Geier and Geier (2006), & Geier and Geier (2007), and
• Some of the many published papers validating the UPPA test.

http://sayingnotovaccines.blogspot.com/2007/09/home-schoolers-beware-vaccinators-are.html

Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Home Schoolers Beware: Vaccinators Are After Your Kids
by Dr Sherri Tenpenny

Parents choose to home school their children for many reasons. One reason is to avoid vaccinations required by school systems prior to attendance. The push to vaccinate home schooled children started several years ago; it appears that legal papers are now being prepared to force parents to shoot up their children, even if they are not attending public schools.

The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics published a new article pushing law makers to vaccinate all children. Look what’s being planned:

“To protect public health, states require that parents have their children immunized before they are permitted to attend public or private school. But for home schooled children, the rules vary. With the spectacular growth in the number of home schooled students, it is becoming more difficult to reach these youth to ensure that they are immunized at all.

These children are frequently unvaccinated, leaving them open to infection with diseases that are all but stamped out in the United States with immunization requirements. States should encourage parents to get their home schooled students vaccinated through enacting the same laws as those used for public school students.

This could be done by enforcing current laws through neglect petitions or by requiring that children be immunized before participating in school sponsored programs. As most states require some filing to allow parents to home school their children, it would be easy to enact laws requiring that home schooled children be immunized or exempted before completing registration.”

COMMENT: The wild-eyed vaccinators will stop at nothing to inoculate every child across the country with their concoctions in the name of “health.” In June, 2007, Generation Rescue published the results of a survey that showed unvaccinated boys are healthier than vaccinated boys. The study compelled the CDC to complete a nationwide health survey of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. It has been suggested that home schooled children be the source of subjects for that study. To date, the CDC has refused to undertake this study. Why? In my opinion, government officials are afraid of what they will find. Many home schooled children are unvaccinated.

The new article suggests that petitions should be filed against parents who do not vaccinate their children, charging them with “medical neglect.” This means the State could seize your children because you have not vaccinated them and have chosen to educate them at home. Those who want to vaccinate their home schooled children are free to do so. Those who want to refuse should have the same right.

This new article should be a rallying cry for home schoolers to join forces and rebel to defend their rights.

I learned today that the Vitamin K shot has been linked to leukemia. Yikes!

Research carried out by Dr. Louise Parker, of the Sir James Spence Institute of Child Health in Newcastle upon Tyne, produced the most startling results. Dr. Louise Parker was quoted in the British Medical Journal in 1998 as stating, “It is not possible, on the basis of currently published evidence, to refute the suggestion that neonatal IM vitamin K administration increases the risk of early childhood leukemia.”

The British Journal of Cancer published “Factors associated with childhood cancer” by J. Golding, et al, in 1990. The report indicated that universally administered IM vitamin K injections significantly increase our children’s chances of developing childhood cancer. A follow-up study published two years later in the British Medical Journal (Golding J, Paterson K, Greenwood R, Mott M. Intramuscular vitamin K and childhood cancer. BMJ 1992; 305:341-346.) reinforced the findings of the previous study. The authors’ comments, in keeping with scientific style, are conservatively stated, but parents who are concerned about the health of their babies will read “danger” between the following lines: “The only two studies so far to have examined the relation between childhood cancer and intramuscular vitamin K have shown similar results and the relation is biologically plausible. The prophylactic benefits against haemorrhagic disease are unlikely to exceed the potential adverse effects from intramuscular vitamin K…”

The chance of your child developing leukaemia from the Vitamin K shot is estimated to be about one in 500 (MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, Vol 2 #3, September 1992)

Thankfully, we gave Ariana the oral dose. Whew!

ASK YOUR PEDIATRICIAN

DTaP

1.. How much thimerosal is in this vaccine?
2.. How many cases of tetanus do you encounter?
3.. Can you give me a 100% guarantee that giving my child diphtheria, tetanus and Pertussis will give them immunity to the diseases?

Hepatitis B

1.. How is my child at risk if I’m not infected with hepatitis b?
2.. How many cases of this disease have you seen in which the patient was not immunized and did not recover?
3.. How much thimerosal is in this vaccine?
4.. Isn’t there human aborted fetal tissue in this vaccine according to the package insert?

Hib

1.. Isn’t there 25 mcg of thimerosal in this vaccine?
2.. Isn’t this the virus that CDC says is known to cause bacterial meningitis in children?
3.. Can you guarantee me that my child will not come down with bacterial meningitis from this vaccine later down the road?

Pneumococcal

1.. Isn’t there 25 mcg of thimerosal in this vaccine?
2.. Can you guarantee me that my child will not come down with Pneumonia after the vaccination?

Polio

1.. Isn’t this the vaccine known to carry the herpes virus which also causes bacterial meningitis?
2.. Can you guarantee me that this does not have any thimerosal in it?
3.. Can you guarantee me that the cancer causing SV40 monkey virus is not a contaminant of this vaccine?
4.. Can you guarantee me that there are absolutely NO contaminants in the vaccine?

Meningococcal

1.. I read in a package insert for the Prevnar, that of children inoculated with this vaccine for the controlled study, 21+ died of SIDS. Can you guarantee me that this vaccine did not contribute to those SIDS cases or is not a threat for my child after this inoculation?
2.. Can you guarantee me that this vaccine will not contribute to meningitis later down the road for my child?
3.. CDC says meningitis has resulted in encephalitis (an infection of the brain).� Can you guarantee this will not be a future case as a result of this vaccine?

MMR

1.. What is the guarantee that the MMR will not contribute to any future onset of autism?
2.. The vaccine measles, mumps and rubella strains are found in the spinal fluid, blood brain barrier and colon of autistic children.� Can you guarantee me that this will not be a problem?
3.. CDC says mumps contribute to bacterial meningitis.� What’s the guarantee this will not be a future case after the vaccination?
4.. CDC says the MEASLES is grown on chicken embryos known to carry the avian leukemia.� What’s the guarantee this will not be an introduction to future leukemia?

Influenza

1.. Aren’t the 3 viruses in this vaccine mutations of years past?
2.. Will this keep away infection of the this year’s influenza virus?
3.. Does this vaccine have 25 mcg of thimerosal?
4.. CDC says the viruses in this vaccine were grown on chicken embryos known to carry the avian leukemia. What’s the guarantee that this vaccine is not an introduction to future leukemia?

1.. Isn’t thimerosal used in the manufacturing and left in the vaccine so that the vaccine does not have to be produced in a sterile environment? � Isn’t this also to keep any possible contaminants from multiplying and or mutating?
2.. You must know what the safe level of thimerosal injection is for my child, WHAT IS IT?
3.. Can you guarantee me that all the thimerosal in the vaccines will not contribute to any neurological diseases in the future?
4.. Do you have the studies proving that the human aborted fetal tissues in the vaccines will not hybridize and or mutate, thus cause further health consequences later in life?
5.. What is the guarantee that my child will not suffer anaphylactic shock or cardiac arrest after vaccination?
6.. What is the guarantee that my child will not suffer seizures or convulsions at any time after vaccination?
7.. Can you give me a 100% guarantee of the safety and efficacy of these vaccines for my child?
8.. Who will be held responsible if my child is to suffer cardiac arrest, anaphylactic shock, seizures, convulsions, epilepsy and some of the other known adverse reactions to vaccines stated by CDC?� Will I be able to hold you legally responsible?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Vaccines—Why-Fear-Sells&id=610035

Vaccines - Why Fear Sells
By Sherri Tenpenny, DO

It’s interesting how a discussion about vaccination can quickly become
heated and sometimes even hostile. Would the same debate rage over an
antibiotic or an antihypertensive medicine if there was evidence the drug
was causing harm? When it becomes obvious that thousands have been injured
by a drug such as Vioxx, it is removed from the market. We stop the use of
drugs until they are proven safe. And we sue.

Not so with vaccines. Vaccines are promoted with fanfare until they are
statistically proven to cause harm to a large number of persons. The
thousands of individuals who suffer from vaccine reactions in proportion to
the millions who have been vaccinated are not considered to be a
mathematically significant statistic. However, the more than $1billion that
has been paid to vaccine-injured persons shows that safety is not all that
is it promoted to be. Why the double standard?

Vaccination is built around a “belief system.” We believe vaccines are
safe; we believe vaccines are important to health; we believe the stories
that vaccines are solely responsible for the elimination of smallpox and
polio. And we really want to believe that our doctors have read all the
available information on vaccines–pro and con–and are telling us the
complete truth about vaccines.

However, belief is based on faith, not necessarily on fact. For example, we
want to believe that vaccinating our children will keep them from getting
sick with measles or chickenpox. However, there is a plethora of
information documenting this is not necessarily so.

Why is there an almost desperate need to defend the current belief–and
trust–in vaccines? The public’s view of disease seems to be similar to our
current view on terrorism: Random attacks that are potentially deadly. The
media hawks this view of childhood illnesses and the need for vaccines.
Pharma sells it, doctors push it, and educational institutions reinforce
it. They keep selling it because most readily buy into it, without
question. There is a “just in case” or “better be safe than sorry”
mentality when it comes to vaccination and illness with children.* After
nearly 200 years of use, fear still sells vaccination.

What do we really know about vaccines? A review of the literature and the
CDC documents reveals the following:

1. Vaccine safety studies are relatively small and include only healthy
children. However when a vaccine trial has been completed, vaccines are
given to ALL children, regardless of the condition of their health, family
history or genetics.

2. Vaccine safety studies are short. Most clinical trials monitor for side
effects a paltry 21 days, sometimes, it is only for 5 days. It can take
months before immune system complications appear. This arbitrary deadline,
established by the FDA, precludes associating vaccines with chronic health
disorders. “Safe” is a designation given based on limited information.

3. Vaccine safety studies do not use a true placebo.One of the Gold
Standards in medical research is the “placebo-controlled” trial. An
inactive substance such as a sugar pill is given as a placebo to one group
of participants, while the treatment group is given the new drug. The data
is analyzed to compare the number of side effects that occurred in those
given the drug compared to the numbers of side effects that occurred in
those given the placebo. However, the “placebo” used in vaccine research is
not an inert substance such as sterile water; it is another vaccine. Inert,
sterile water doesn’t cause a reaction; as substitute vaccine can. If both
groups of babies in a trial have the same number of reactions, the study
reports that the vaccine “is as safe as a placebo.” This is deceptive science.

4. Vaccine-induced antibodies do not correlate with protection. In fact,
the esteemed journal, Vaccine stated this clearly “…It is known that, in
many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with
protection.” The full reference can be found at PMID: 11587808

Vaccination has been accepted as safe, effective and protective. The shots
can be described as a medical “sacred cows,” by definition, “a medical
procedure unreasonably immune to criticism.” The strong response is the a
reaction to a suggestion that the “cow” should be “sacrificed.” It is
heresy to suggest that the status quo is wrong.

When Copernicus insisted that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the
solar system, it went against the philosophical and religious beliefs held
during the medieval times. When two other Italian scientists of the time,
Galileo and Bruno, embraced Copernican theory their comments were
considered blasphemous. Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned
and burned at the stake in 1600. Thirty years later, Galileo was brought
forward and in front of his “Betters,” was forced to renounce his beliefs
under the threat of torture and death. Even after his confession, he was
sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.

The more one investigates vaccination and studies the adverse effects that
have been attributed to vaccines, the more one becomes a Copernican
heretic, speaking out against the status quo can have deadly consequences.
I have personally invested more than 8,000 hours in revealing the truth
about vaccines. If the result of this inquiry and exposure is to be called
a heretic, than I am in wonderful company.
____________________________

*My thanks to Judy Converse for these insights.

Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny is respected as one of the country’s most
knowledgeable and outspoken physicians regarding the negative impacts of
vaccines on health. Through her education company, NMA Media Press, she
spreads her vision of retaining freedom of choice in healthcare, including
the freedom to refuse vaccination. Her three hour DVD, Vaccines: The Risk,
The Benefits and The Choices , her new book FOWL! Bird flu: It’s Not What
You Think, and many other books, tapes and materials are available at
http://www.osteomed2.com