tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91096819353900067412024-02-20T04:37:32.905-06:00Speak the Controversy<i>"Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose."</i> -C. Wright MillsSpeak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-47782522640899170102009-10-29T23:36:00.002-05:002009-10-29T23:41:29.503-05:00Gardasil makes the news againThe opening lines of an article by Susan Brinkmann for The Bulletin, an locally-owned, independent Philadelphia newspaper, read:<br /><blockquote>Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.</blockquote>Please do yourself the justice of reading the entire article <a href="http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/10/25/top_stories/doc4ae4b76d07e16766677720.txt#">here</a>.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-50178777970787266842009-10-29T22:59:00.002-05:002009-10-29T23:23:59.672-05:00Getting Educated: H1N1Because so many others have already stated what I would desire to make clear about H1N1 and the vaccine that has been introduced for it I invite you to visit some of the following links to further your understanding. Please educate yourself and make an informed decision based on fact.<br /><br />-<a href="http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/September-2009-(1)/Mild-Swine-Flu-Over-Hyped-Vaccine.aspx">National Vaccine Information Center</a><br />-<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5237495.shtml">CBS News</a><br />-<a href="http://sortacrunchy.typepad.com/sortacrunchy/2009/10/psa-h1n1-vaccinations-what-you-need-to-know.html">5 Things Parents Should Know About the H1N1 vaccine</a><br />-<a href="http://sortacrunchy.typepad.com/sortacrunchy/2009/10/more-information-on-the-h1n1-vaccine.html">More Information on the H1N1 vaccine</a><br /><br />Here are some facts that I have found:<br /><br />Because H1N1 is already considered a pandemic, the CDC stopped testing for individual cases of swine flu back in August. (Source: <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/reportingqa.htm">CDC</a>)<br /><br />As a result, doctors and clinics are no longer testing for H1N1 specifically but labeling any influenza-like illness (ILI) as probable H1N1.<br /><br />The CDC states (emphasis mine):<br /><blockquote>In an effort to add additional structure to the national 2009 H1N1 reporting, new case definitions for influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths were implemented on August 30, 2009. <u>The new definitions allow states to report to CDC hospitalizations and deaths (either confirmed OR probable) resulting from all types of influenza, not just those from 2009 H1N1 flu.</u></blockquote>Therefore:<br /><blockquote>However, the syndromic reports of all hospitalizations and deaths recorded as either influenza or pneumonia will mean that <u>the case counts are less specific than before and will include cases that are not related to influenza infection.</u></blockquote><br />I don't deny that novel H1N1 flu exists. I don't deny that people (someone's brother, sister, mother, father, daughter or son) have died as a result of the disease. But I do question the accuracy of the information that is being shared via the media. I question the tone and intention in which that information is shared. I question the motive behind the movement for vaccination against this disease. <br /><br />If the government intends to have individuals such as myself support their approach to vaccination, they will need to begin operating on fact and not fear, with full disclosure of specifics not probabilities.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-68162032806494351142009-08-19T21:40:00.003-05:002009-08-19T23:25:25.035-05:00Vaccines: a product marketed for profitI came across an article today regarding the HPV vaccine: "<a href="http://www.kare11.com/news/health/takekare/takekare_article.aspx?storyid=822358&catid=20">New study examines safety of HPV vaccine.</a>" One of many, I am sure, because of new information just released from the CDC regarding Gardasil. <br /><br />I was interested to read the background and findings of this study as I am always in pursuit of new information regarding vaccines, their effectiveness, and their safety. I was shocked to discover that this study was not a careful examination and observation of the cause and effect on a controlled subject but rather a simple review of information reported to <a href="http://vaers.hhs.gov/">VAERS</a>, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.<br /><br />Regardless of the side of the controversy on which you stand, most agree that the accuracy of the information reported to the VAERS system is left wanting. In fact, the <a href="http://vaers.hhs.gov/pdf/VAERS_brochure.pdf">VAERS brochure</a> as published by the CDC and the FDA, co-sponsors of VAERS reads: <br /><blockquote>VAERS is unable to determine that a vaccine caused or did not cause an adverse event.</blockquote><br />Further, the Minnesota Department of Health, in an attempt to quell fears regarding reports to VAERS on Gardasil wrote in a Special Issue of <span style="font-style:italic;">Got Your Shots? News</span> dated July 9, 2008:<br /><blockquote>VAERS data are updated continuously and the number of reports and the type of adverse events will vary depending on the date of analysis.</blockquote><br />While the author of the article I read, Renee Tessman of KARE, was clearly trying to put a positive spin on the findings, it was also clear that members of the medical community were attempting to downplay the legitimacy of VAERS for fear the report may stir up concern regarding the vaccine. Kris Ehresmann of the Minnesota Department of Health is quoted in the article by Tessman saying: "I do think that the data is very useful but we do sort of have to keep it in context." The article goes on to say:<br /><blockquote>Ehresmann, who is division director for infectious disease, says that VAERS is set up so that anybody, a parent, a doctor, anyone, can call in to report a problem. Details of those reports are investigated later. So, she says, its possible problems and deaths reported may not always be a direct result of the vaccine. She says, "Is it really because the child was vaccinated or were they hit by a car?<br /><br />And literally those kinds of things are in that system." </blockquote><br /><br />I won't get derailed on the foolishness of her comments. My question is: How can we, therefore, rely on such dynamic, uncontrolled data as a source for significant information regarding vaccines whether we are looking to the system in favor of vaccines or against them? And therein lies the crux of the issue.<br /><br />There are two parties at play in this controversy - those that are in favor of vaccines and those that are against them. There is truly little room for a middle ground as I, and others, have discovered through this struggle. <br /><br />So ask yourself this, what do those that are against vaccines have to gain by releasing information and studies regarding the concern of a vaccine? And what does the government or Merck, in the case of Gardasil, stand to gain when a study is released regarding the safety of a vaccine? <br /><br />Just like every other product on the market, a company doesn't stay in business if their product doesn't sell. While the CDC, the FDA, and Merck would like to rely on data from VAERS as evidence of the safety, or lack of sufficient evidence regarding concern, of the HPV vaccine they are also quick to shirk off the information as insufficient when numbers and findings start pointing to concerns. But how many deaths is enough? And if the information is unreliable then why isn't the government looking to implement a more effective system? Why? Because when you start asking questions, you start getting answers, and you aren't always going to like what you hear.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-42169638433074255302008-10-15T15:16:00.003-05:002008-10-15T16:47:41.403-05:00National News headline: US infant mortality rate lags behind other developed nationsI came across this article today:<br /><blockquote><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">US infant mortality rate lags behind other developed nations</span><br /><br />The United States ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality. That's far behind other developed countries.<br /><br />Infant mortality measures the number of children who die before their first birthday.<br /><br />According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. rate in 2004 was almost seven infants per 1,000 live births.<br /><br />Rates are generally the lowest, below 3.5, in countries like Sweden, Norway, Japan and Hong Kong.<br /><br />Officials say the increase in the number of preterm births is one reason for the United States' ranking.<br /><br />(Copyright 2008 by NBC. All Rights Reserved.)</blockquote><br /><br />My mind couldn't help but wonder what the vaccine schedule looks like in the countries with the lowest infant mortality, as mentioned in the article, Sweden, Norway, Japan, and Hong Kong.<br /><br />The following information is provided for your education. Please draw your own conclusions.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vaccines administered to children under age 12 months in Sweden</span> (2nd lowest in infant mortality):<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">At birth:</span> None<br />(The Hep B vaccine is only given at birth to infants of mothers positive for hepatitis B. The BCG vaccine (tuberculosis vaccine) is only recommended to children considered high-risk groups. Vaccination is normally given at 6 months or later.)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">3 Months:</span> DTap, IPV, Hib (as one combination vaccine)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">5 Months:</span> DTap, IPV, Hib (as one combination vaccine)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">12 Months:</span> DTap, IPV, Hib (as one combination vaccine)<br /><br />Total vaccines received by 12 months of age: 9<br />(Please note that in 2009 the schedule will be amended to include the PCV7 vaccine at 3, 5, and 12 months of age bringing the total vaccines administered by 12 months to 12.)<br />Source: <a href="http://www.ssi.dk/graphics/euvac/vaccination/sweden.html">EUvac.net</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vaccines administered to children under age 12 months in Norway</span> (10th lowest in infant mortality):<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">At birth:</span> None<br />(The Hep B vaccine is recommended for risk groups only. The BCG vaccine is given to children of immigrants from countries outside low endemic countries.)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">3 Months:</span> DTaP, IPV, Hib, PCV7<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">5 Months:</span> DTaP, IPV, Hib, PCV7<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">12 Months:</span> DTaP, IPV, Hib, PCV7<br /><br />Total vaccines received by 12 months of age: 12<br />Source: <a href="http://www.ssi.dk/graphics/euvac/vaccination/norway.html">EUvac.net</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vaccines administered to children under age 12 months in Japan</span> (3rd lowest in infant mortality):<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">At birth:</span> None<br />(The Hep B vaccine is recommended for children whose mothers test positive for Hep B.)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Between 3 and 12 Months:</span> 2 doses OPV, 3 doses DTaP<br />(The BCG vaccine is also administered before 12 months of age but it is unclear from the information if it is given only to certain risk groups or to all infants.)<br /><br />Total vaccines received by 12 months of age: 5 (possibly 6)<br />Source: <a href="http://idsc.nih.go.jp/vaccine/dschedule/ImmEN_050729rev.gif">Infectious Disease Surveillance Center</a> (the most current schedule available is from mid-2005)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vaccines administered to children under age 12 months in Hong Kong</span> (4th lowest in infant mortality):<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">At birth:</span> BCG, Hep B<br />(It appears that both the BCG vaccine and the Hep B vaccine are administered to all infants without regard to risk.)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">1 Month:</span> Hep B<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">2 Months:</span> DTaP, IPV (combination vaccine)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">4 Months:</span> DTaP, IPV (combination vaccine)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">6 Months:</span> DTaP, IPV, (combination vaccine), Hep B<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">12 Months:</span> MMR<br /><br />Total vaccines received by 12 months of age: 11<br />Source: <a href="http://sc.info.gov.hk/gb/www.chp.gov.hk/faq_dtl.asp?lang=en&faq_id=8349&id=117&pid=9">Centre for Health Protection</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vaccines administered to children under age 12 months in the United States:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">At birth:</span> Hep B<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">1-2 Months:</span> Hep B<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">2 Months:</span> Rota, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">4 Months:</span> Rota, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">6 Months:</span> Hep B, Rota, DTaP, PCV, IPV<br />(The Influenza vaccine is also recommended starting at age 6 months on a yearly basis.)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">12 Months:</span> Hib, PCV, MMR, Varicella, Hep A<br /><br />Total vaccines received by 12 months of age: 22 (23 if you include the Influenza vaccine)<br />Source: <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2008/08_0-6yrs_schedule_pr.pdf">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a><br /><br /><br />Source for infant mortality rankings (Note: this source actually lists the US as 41st in lowest infant mortality; I did not find the list that ranked the US at 29th): <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html">CIA World Factbook</a>Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-84130178119058425792008-01-25T15:36:00.000-06:002008-01-25T16:00:34.716-06:00The Myth of ImmunityI got a call from my clinic a few months ago. I am non-immune to Rubella. Not a big surprise. When they tested my blood while I was pregnant it indicated low immunity, which is why I had the follow up test done.<br /><br />According to <a href="http://m-w.com">Merriam-Webster</a>,<br /><br /><blockquote>IMMUNITY: the quality or state of being immune; especially : a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products</blockquote><br />When I typed in <span style="font-style:italic;">immunization</span> it forwarded me to the definition of <span style="font-style:italic;">immunize</span>, which says "to make immune."<br /><br />If I have been immunized, then why am I not immune? Though my child has not received the MMR vaccine, I did, all of them, before I entered junior high, which was only 15 years ago.<br /><br /><blockquote>MYTH:<br />a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society<br /><br />b: an unfounded or false notion</blockquote><br />By purposefully using the words <span style="font-style:italic;">immunize</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">immunization</span> in place of words like <span style="font-style:italic;">vaccinate</span> or <span style="font-style:italic;">vaccine</span> the medical community, the government, and various other "segments of society" perpetuate the belief that vaccines somehow create immunity to dangerous diseases. That may be the goal but it is not a guarantee. And until it is, it should not be spoken of in that way.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-63518616171115681322007-11-17T22:23:00.000-06:002007-11-17T22:35:29.015-06:00Unbelievable<span style="font-weight:bold;">DOCTORS OPPOSE MARYLAND VACCINE ROUNDUP: Expect Dangerous Reactions When Children Are Treated Like Cattle</span><br /><br />WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons today condemned the "vaccine roundup" executed in Prince Georges county Maryland this week, and promised to do everything it can to support parents who refuse to immunize their children.<br /><br />"This power play obliterates informed consent and parental rights," said Kathryn Serkes, director of policy for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the few national physician groups that refuse corporate funding from pharmaceutical companies.<br /><br />In a scenario reminiscent of cattle round-ups, the state's attorney has issued summons to more than 1600 parents of children who have not provided certificates of immunization for their children. But instead of toting a cattle prod, this state's attorney chooses to wield a syringe to keep the "herd" in line.<br /><br />Parents have been told to appear in Court on Saturday, and to subject their children to on-the-spot state-mandated vaccines of up 17 vaccine doses, or face imprisonment. Parents who ignore the court's demands could face a $50 fine for every day their child is out of compliance or up to 10 days in jail.<br /><br />"This campaign of intimidation to brutally enforce blanket vaccine mandates by government agencies and the school district gives no consideration for the rights of the parents or the individual medical condition of the child," said Serkes.<br /><br />Children should be carefully screened, medical records taken and decisions made carefully - not in an ad hoc assembly-line clinic in a county courtroom and under the brutal watch of law enforcement. This is a man-made disaster ready and waiting to detonate. Children could receive a dangerous cocktail of several vaccines without proper examinations. "The procedure is reckless and subjects children to the risk of severe reactions. Physicians would not be allowed to treat children in this way, without individual histories and physical exams - or informed consent," said Jane M. Orient, M.D., AAPS Executive Director.<br /><br />Money and politics may be at the center of the round of threats. The school district will lose a substantial amount of state funding if students do not comply with the vaccine mandate. "Apparently the district wants that money, even if it gets it off the backs of children," said Serkes.<br /><br />Mr. Ivey apparently has no problem invoking his own right to informed consent and parental control. In a radio interview on Thursday, he admitted that he has chosen to refuse the hepatitis B vaccines for his own children. "It's interesting that parents have to ask the state's permission by filing a form if they want to make the same decision for their children that he made for his own," said Dr. Orient.<br /><br />But his galling hypocrisy clearly demonstrates that not every vaccine is right for every child, particularly one such as the hepatitis B.<br /><br />In their efforts to help the targeted parents, AAPS is contacting as many of them as possible to educate them about their rights under Maryland law and questions to ask before deciding whether vaccination is appropriate for their child (see below). "We'll do our best to help the parents make an informed decision," said Serkes. Representatives will also be on hand at the courthouse on Saturday, and AAPS is working to set up a legal team to help parents who refuse the vaccinations.<br /><br />AAPS will also work with the National Vaccine Information Center to make sure parents are informed on how to report any adverse reactions to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Such reporting is actually required, but even medical professionals are lax about filing the reports. Don't expect the police to do it. The State's Attorney General, the manufacturers, and the people giving the shots are immune from liability if the shots hurt somebody, however.<br /><br />AAPS is also acting as coordinator for the "Hands Off Our Kids" coalition of parents across the country who were instrumental in overturning Texas Governor Perry's executive order requiring the HPV vaccine for school girls last spring. The coalition is appealing to Gov. O'Malley to intervene in the case and work with the legislature to pass a philosophical exemption provision. (The letter to the governor is posted at <a href="http://www.AAPSonline.org">http://www.AAPSonline.org</a>.)<br /><br />"All eyes are on PG County," said Serkes. "It's not just a local now, and parents across the country are ready to fight."<br /><br />National Vaccine Information Center "8 Questions to Ask Before Vaccinating Your Child":<br /><br /> 1. Is my child sick right now?<br /><br /> 2. Has my child had a bad reaction to a vaccination before?<br /><br /> 3. Does my child have a personal or family history of: vaccine reactions, convulsions or neurological disorders, severe allergies or immune system disorders?<br /><br /> 4. Do I know if my child is at high risk of reacting?<br /><br /> 5. Do I know how to identify a vaccine reaction?<br /><br /> 6. Do I know how to report a vaccine reaction?<br /><br /> 7. Do I know the vaccine manufacturer's name and lot number?<br /><br /> 8. Do I know I have a choice?<br /><br /><br />SOURCE: The Association of American Physicians and SurgeonsSpeak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-9347957688278130092007-11-08T11:20:00.000-06:002007-11-08T11:41:38.867-06:00How Many Children Are Hurt or Helped By Hepatitis B Vaccine?from <a href="http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm">an article</a> by Dr. Joseph Mercola:<br /><br /><blockquote>Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease. In 1996 only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported.<br /><br />Let us put this in simpler terms. For every child with hepatitis B there were 20 that were reported to have severe complications. Let us also remember that only 10% of the reactions are reported to VAERS, so this means:<br /><br />Traditional medicine is harming 200 children to protect one from hepatitis B.<br /><br />Does this make any sense?<br /><br />How Serious Is a Hepatitis B Infection?<br /><br />The numbers speak for themselves.<br /><br />Approximately 50% of patients who contract Hepatitis B develop no symptoms after exposure.<br /><br />However, the exposure ensures that they will have life-time immunity. An additional 30% develop only flu-like symptoms, and again, this group will acquire life-time immunity.<br /><br />Of the remaining 20% exposed to Hepatitis B will develop the symptoms of the disease. 95% of this 20% will fully recover, with life-time immunity.<br /><br />Therefore, less than 5% of people who contract Hepatitis B will become chronic carriers of the infection.<br /><br />The numbers get even smaller: of that 5%, nearly 75% (or 3.75% of the total exposed) will live with an asymptomatic infection and only 25%, (or only 1.25% of the total number of people exposed) will develop chronic liver disease or liver cancer, 10-30 years after the acute infection. (Hyams, K.C. (1995) Risks of chronicity following acute hepatitis B virus infection: A review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 20, 992-1000.)<br /><br />Think of that in terms of probability: the possibility of contracting the disease is exceedingly difficult for children and only 1.25% of those that are exposed will actually develop the most serious complication! </blockquote>Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-9249698513754837492007-11-08T09:19:00.000-06:002007-11-08T11:44:01.901-06:00Even the drug companies give heedFrom Merck's information about their Hepatitis B vaccine Recombivax HB: <blockquote>CONTRAINDICATIONS<br />Hypersensitivity to yeast or any component of the vaccine. </blockquote><br /><br />From GlaxoSmithKline's information about their Hep B vaccine Engerix-B: <br /><blockquote>CONTRAINDICATIONS<br />Hypersensitivity to any component of the vaccine, including yeast, is a contraindication.</blockquote><br /><br />Recommended vaccination schedule for the Hepatitis B vaccine: birth, one-two months after birth, between six and 18 months later for a total of 3 shots by 18 months of age.<br /><br />Note regarding food allergies from Dr. Alan Greene (<a href="http://www.drgreene.com">www.drgreene.org</a>), of which yeast/wheat is among the top 5 most commonly diagnosed food allergies: "Delaying the introduction of solid foods until the latter part of the acceptable window [12 months of age] may prevent some allergies. Delaying particularly allergic foods even long can further reduce the risk of allergies."<br /><br />If both Merck and GSK indicate that a yeast allergy is a contraindication of their vaccines and if almost all pediatricians and sources on raising healthy babies indicate that certain foods such as cow's milk, eggs, peanuts, yeast, etc. should not be given to infants before one year of age, why do we administer the Hepatitis B vaccine two and likely three times before a child is one year old?<br /><br />Furthermore, GSK fact sheet on Energix-B goes on to say: <br /><blockquote>Prior to immunization, the patient's medical history should be reviewed. The physician should review the patient's immunization history for possible vaccine sensitivity, previous vaccination-related adverse reactions, and occurrence of any adverse event–related symptoms and/or signs in order to determine the existence of any contraindication to immunization with ENGERIX-B and to allow an assessment of benefits and risks.</blockquote><br /><br />How many day old infants do you know that have a revealing medical history, a record of vaccine sensitivity or signs that they might be allergic to yeast? When we routinely adminster the Hepatitis B vaccine to children on the day of their birth we are gambling with their health. If nothing else, delaying vaccination should be pursued to allow both parents and doctors to determine over time and with development if there are added risks to the child before they are vaccinated, not to mention the fact that their immune systems and brains will have time to do what they were designed to do rather than fight against foreign invaders (but that's another post in and of itself).<br /><br />For more information about the controversy surrounding the Hepatitis B vaccine read the following articles:<br />-<a href="http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/hepbbelkin.htm">Mindless Vaccination Bureaucracy</a> by Michael Belkin<br />-<a href="http://ffitz.com/nyvic/health/hep-b/tstimony.htm">Michael Belkin: Testimony to Congress</a>, Tuesday, May 18,1999<br />-<a href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/31072.html">Shots in the Dark: Who should decide which vaccinations children receive?</a> by Sue A. BlevinsSpeak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-10087962887414419182007-10-18T17:15:00.000-05:002007-10-18T17:37:10.953-05:00Parents use religion to avoid vaccinesA reader forwarded a link to this article regarding exemptions to vaccines: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_re_us/vaccine_skeptics">Parents use religion to avoid vaccines</a>. The general premise of the article is pro-vaccine, as is evident is statements such as:<br /><blockquote>But public health officials say it takes only a few people to cause an outbreak that can put large numbers of lives at risk.<br /><br />"When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division.</blockquote><br />and:<br /><blockquote>Unvaccinated children can spread diseases to others who have not gotten their shots or those for whom vaccinations provided less-than-complete protection.<br /><br />In 1991, a religious group in Philadelphia that chose not to immunize its children touched off an outbreak of measles that claimed at least eight lives and sickened more than 700 people, mostly children.<br /><br />And in 2005, an Indiana girl who had not been immunized picked up the measles virus at an orphanage in Romania and unknowingly brought it back to a church group. Within a month, the number of people infected had grown to 31 in what health officials said was the nation's worst outbreak of the disease in a decade. </blockquote><br /><br />But the details the article fails to mention are whether or not the people that were infected in both Philadelphia and in Indiana were unvaccinated. It provides the assumption that they were not vaccinated, but do we actually know that? It also fails to properly discuss the statement: "those for whom vaccinations provided less-than-complete protection." The CDC, the writer of this article, Dr. Paul Offit (who is quoted in the article), and all those that are pro-vaccine want us to believe that vaccination is safe, effective, and fool-proof; that vacccines don't also spread the diseases they are designed to prevent; that you are somehow out of harms way when you choose to vaccinate your children.<br /><br />It's true that vaccination effects more than just your child. But vacccinated children can spread disease in the same way that unvaccinated children can.<br /><br />And wouldn't it be interesting to read the quote from Dr. Lance Rodewald in light of the autism-spectrum epidemic and the anti-vaccine approach, then indeed when you choose to not get a vaccine you aren't just making a choice for yourself, but also for the person next to you - by choosing to work to stop an epidemic, by choosing to keep your children from being among those that need the extra attention in schools, the extra tax dollars for specialized education, the potentially life-long care for debilitating reactions.<br /><br />There is a controversy out there and there are people on both sides that are nasty, that haven't done their research, and talk with an air of authority that they do not have the creditials to assume. Seek the answers for yourself. Question your sources, consider the research, and decide what is best for you and your family.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-9467792719957831232007-09-24T14:17:00.000-05:002007-11-08T11:49:34.143-06:00Jenny McCarthy and Holly Robinson Peete speak outThanks to Kate, who posted a comment leading to this information on a recent Oprah Winfrey Show. Maybe if we can get enough Hollywood in the mix something may change regarding vaccinations.<br /><br />From an article recapping Oprah's interview with Hollywood mothers Jenny McCarthy and Holly Robinson Peete:<br /><blockquote>In recent years, the number of children diagnosed with autism has risen from 1 in every 500 children to 1 in 150—and science has not discovered a reason why. Jenny says she believes that childhood vaccinations may play a part. "What number will it take for people just to start listening to what the mothers of children who have seen autism have been saying for years, which is, 'We vaccinated our baby and something happened."<br /><br />Jenny says even before Evan received his vaccines, she tried to talk to her pediatrician about it. "Right before his MMR shot, I said to the doctor, 'I have a very bad feeling about this shot. This is the autism shot, isn't it?' And he said, 'No, that is ridiculous. It is a mother's desperate attempt to blame something,' and he swore at me, and then the nurse gave [Evan] the shot," she says. "And I remember going, 'Oh, God, I hope he's right.' And soon thereafter—boom—the soul's gone from his eyes."<br /><br />Despite her belief, Jenny says she is not against vaccines. "I am all for them, but there needs to be a safer vaccine schedule. There needs to be something done. The fact that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] acts as if these vaccines are one size fits all is just crazy to me," she says. "People need to start listening to what the moms have been saying."</blockquote><br />The recap goes on to say:<br /><blockquote>We contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about whether there is a link between autism and vaccines and they gave us the following statement:<br /><br />"CDC places a high priority on vaccine safety and the integrity and credibility of its vaccine safety research. This commitment not only stems from our scientific and medical dedication, it is also personal—for most of us who work at CDC are also parents and grandparents. And as such, we too, have high levels of personal interest and concern in the health and safety of children, families and communities. We simply don't know what causes most cases of autism, but we're doing everything we can to find out. The vast majority of science to date does not support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. But we are currently conducting additional studies to further determine what role, if any, thimerosal in vaccines may play in the development of autism. It is important to remember, vaccines protect and save lives. Vaccines protect infants, children and adults from the unnecessary harm and premature death caused by vaccine-preventable diseases."</blockquote><br />Read more of this article <a href="http://www2.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200709/tows_past_20070918.jhtml?promocode=ssend20070918TD">here</a>. <br /><br />The CDC is short sited to reference a concern with only a link between thimerosal and vaccines. This has been the primary debate exposed in the public venue regarding vaccines, but there are many other possibilities as to why vaccines may be leading to autism spectrum disorders among other serious effects. As Tim O'Shea writes in The Sanctity of Human Blood: <br /><blockquote>This fragile, unknown universe within the forming infant brain is exceedingly delicate. It is literally struggling its way into existence. If left to itself for the first two years, nature pulls most of us through. But here's the problem. We've stopped leaving the brain to itself, in this most critical period. First with the additives in vaccines like aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, phenol, radiator fluids - proven beyond controversy to be neurotoxic (nerve-destroying.) [(16) Blaylock] As these toxins are allowed to freely circulate in the blood environment of the brain, nerve cells are killed. Half-formed nerve cells stop forming. Connectors never get made. Worse, the damage is random, because every infant brain is unique, developing at its own pace, like flowers in a field. There is no predicting when the damage will show up. Maybe the child drops dead, or goes into shock, or turns autistic 2 weeks later, or can't learn to read at age 5, or has "ADD" in adolescence, or Parkinson's at 28, or any other neurologic disorder. Or maybe is simply a little dumber than his parents. Over and over and over.</blockquote><br />Returning to the Oprah article once more:<br /><blockquote>Holly says the CDC's statement about vaccinations has given her hope that parents and medical professionals can lay down their arms and open the lines of communication. "I would just say to the pediatricians, listen to [mothers] sometimes and give us a little bit more respect," Holly says. "Our gut is really dead on."</blockquote><br />It's true. Follow your gut. Do the research and don't be afraid to stick with your decision. Doctors will treat you like you are an idiot and they will use scare tactics to convince you otherwise, but if you have looked for information on both sides of the issue and have determined your course of action based on research, be confident in that decision.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-87068439007556766352007-09-12T16:13:00.001-05:002007-09-12T16:22:54.852-05:00Did you know...According to the report from the World Health Organization in 2005, children worldwide under 5 years of age are more than twice as likely to die of malaria than measles (853 deaths/1000 from malaria - 8% with 395 deaths/1000 from measles - 4%). Yet we don't vaccinate against malaria.<br /><br />Source: World Health Organization, The World Health Report 2005<br />As published by the CDC in an article titled: "The Impact of Malaria, a Leading Cause of Death Worldwide"<br /><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/index.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/index.htm</a>Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-2461316824616991252007-09-12T15:58:00.000-05:002007-11-08T11:46:02.427-06:00Vaccines and SIDS"We do not have the data that would definitively answer all questions about links between vaccines and SIDS and other forms of sudden, unexpected death in infancy. However, we believe that the data we do have, along with the increasing rarity of these kinds of infant deaths, make a review of the vaccine schedule unnecessary." <br />~Marie McCormick, chair of the committee that wrote the report from the Institute of Medicine and professor and chair, Department of Maternal and Child Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.<br /><br />Excerpts from the report as reprinted in this <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10649">press release</a> read:<br /><br />"...Because the currently used DTaP vaccine has fewer side effects than DTwP, the committee found no reason to suspect any link between DTaP and SIDS. <span style="font-style:italic;">However, without sufficient or adequate evidence available, the committee could not definitively reject a link between DTaP and SIDS. Evidence was also insufficient or inadequate to determine whether relationships exist between other individual vaccines and SIDS.</span><br /><br />...While the number and variety of vaccines infants receive is not linked to SIDS, <span style="font-style:italic;">there is not enough evidence to determine whether exposure to multiple different vaccines is causally linked to SUDI in general.</span> Evidence also is not sufficient or adequate to determine if HepB, the only vaccine given to newborns, is linked to neonatal deaths, the report says."<br /><br />Yet organizations such as the <a href="http://sids.org/nmontharticle.htm">American SIDS Institute</a> go on to report that: "The report of the Institute of Medicine once again confirmed that there is no reason to believe that vaccines routinely given to infants during their first year of life contribute to an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, sudden unexpected death in infancy, or neonatal death."<br /><br />That statement was never made in the report. In fact, if anything, the report should show that there is greater reason for concern because of the inability of the committee to rule out a link between vaccines and SIDS. Confirmation of a lack of risk would be the ability to show that SIDS is conclusively unrelated to vaccines. The report explicitly states that there is not enough evidence to make that statement.<br /><br />As Dawn Winkler, former Vice President of Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety, points out, "The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has even compensated 93 families whose infants' deaths were labeled SIDS because the parent had the evidence in the autopsy to prove the vaccine caused it. Yet, the cause of death listing as "SIDS" was never changed on the death certificates of these 93 babies." (Winkler 2000)Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-8789915165948675372007-09-12T15:53:00.000-05:002007-09-12T20:43:41.400-05:00A follow-up to the last postFrom <a href="http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/general/body/fact_myth_immunizations.html">Kids Health</a> by the Nemours Foundation:<br /><br />"<span style="font-weight:bold;">Will the immunization give my child the very disease it's supposed to prevent?</span><br /><br />This is one of parents' most common concerns about vaccines. However, it's impossible to get the disease from any vaccine made with dead (killed) bacteria or viruses or just part of the bacteria or virus.<br /><br />Only those immunizations made from weakened (also called attenuated) live viruses - like the chickenpox (varicella) or measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine - could possibly make a child develop a mild form of the disease, but it's almost always much less severe than the illness that occurs when a person is infected with the disease-causing virus itself."Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-60089717316004672232007-09-06T15:08:00.000-05:002007-09-06T15:20:01.293-05:00MMR gave this child the measlesThis is a true story and is rewritten with permission of the mother:<br /><br />"...Some of you know I'm one of the parents who's always been freaked out by vaccinations. Aluminum as a preservative in them, questions about links to autism, rare cases of paralysis, neurological disorders & even death. I don't like it at all. I also understood the only reason it might be safe for me not to vaccinate my kids was b/c for so many years U.S. children have been vaccinated. The almost complete eradication of these diseases from the U.S. is what makes me able to consider not getting them for my kids. Last year when we moved we finally decided to get the boys vaccinated. Each time at least one of the boys has run a high fever w/malaise afterwards. Each time I call my oldest sister and get calmed down. "No, it's not an early sign of neurological damage." "No, that's perfectly normal." "No, probably not a first symptom of autism." When I called her yesterday about my youngest (18 months) she calmed me down again and told me to watch him. Give him Benadryl to see if it's an allergic reaction. Watch him. Trust my guts, she said. If it really seems abnormal take him to the doctor and if nothing else it'll reassure me. So when I got home from church to find my youngest standing in his crib screaming, and his rash full-bodied and bright red I decided to check the internet for photos of rubella, mumps and measles. The rash looked exactly like all the pictures of the measles and his symptoms were textbook: about 8 days after exposure he got a cough, runny nose & high fever; fever dropped and he began to get a rash on his face and some diarrhea; as the fever rose and fell off and on the rash spread from the face down to the torso and finally to the arms and legs. I was pretty convinced and took him to a clinic down the road to get the diagnosis confirmed. Yup, the doctor says, he has measles. "This is just extremely rare," he says. He just wasn't very informative. They sometimes treat it with vitamin A, which is easy to overdose on and which they don't have at the clinic. He told me to wait and call our pediatrician. They'll definitely want to document it and keep track of him. 'Kay. And until then I'm making phone calls to my friends who have been with us the last week, one of whom has an unvaccinated, not nursing eight month-old. So, there you have it. There were 44 cases of measles in the U.S. in 2004. Of course one of the very few kids who get it from the vaccine is the child of a mom freaked out by them anyway..."<br /><br />Then this update came...<br />"Our pediatrician's office called us back and said basically they didn't need to see him and that what he has isn't the measles, but a "reaction" to the measles. What the Physician's Assistant told me was this: He gets the fever, diarrhea, runny nose, cough & rash exactly like those who have the "real" measles. But it's not the measles. Apparently the difference is the level of something in his blood such that he is (supposedly) not contagious nor do we need to worry about the complications that make the measles so scary (blindness, death. . .). The difference is obviously academic to my poor son but allows me to now leave the house w/out worrying about starting a Measles Outbreak of 2007 and causing birth defects in my neighbor's unborn baby. I still have my doubts and remain skeptical as to what kind of research has been honestly conducted regarding the difference b/twn "real" measles and the "reaction". I wonder if anyone out there has an opinion on why this case is called a "reaction". Re: It seems to play better to the public and allay fears to call something like this a "reaction" rather than the "real" measles."<br /><br />As I searched all over the Internet looking for a description of this so-called measles reaction, I found nothing. In fact, I found nothing that even listed a measles-like reaction as a possible side effect of receiving the MMR vaccine. Has anyone else ever heard of this reaction? What is the difference between real measles and a measles-like reaction? It seems a bit fishy to me.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-30599471434960326782007-09-06T14:50:00.000-05:002007-11-08T11:46:28.642-06:00New Edition of The Sanctity of Human BloodDid you know?<br /><br /> * that there are now some 36 vaccines mandated by the time your child is 18 months old? And 68 by age 18?<br /> * that the 2007 Mandated Schedule contains the Rotateq and Human Papilloma Virus vaccines in multiple doses?<br /> * that U.S. children are the most vaccinated group not only in the world, but in all of history?<br /> * that vaccines are not thoroughly tested before they are put on the market?<br /> * that most infectious diseases had already declined 90% by the time vaccines became mandated?<br /> * that only one country in Europe still has mandatory DPT vaccination, whereas the U.S. requires five separate shots?<br /> * that Hepatitis B vaccine was halted in France after 15,000 citizens filed a class action suit against the government?<br /> * that there is a simple exemption form in most states, which when signed by a parent exempts the child for life?<br /> * that all 696,000 Gulf War personnel were inoculated with three completely untested vaccines, resulting in 80,000 of them contracting a permanent disease known as Gulf War Syndrome?<br /> * that many pediatricians will not inoculate their own children?<br /> * that vaccines are a multibillion dollar business in the U.S.?<br /> * that vaccination is not immunization?<br /> * that mercury in vaccines is dozens of times in excess of EPA safety levels?<br /><br />To learn more about these and other topics related to vaccination, read <span style="font-style: italic;">The Sanctity of Human Blood</span> by Tim O'Shea. To find out more about how to order your copy, send us an email and we'll get you the info.<span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-11563976769346826782007-09-06T14:44:00.000-05:002007-09-12T16:19:10.502-05:00Building the BrainExcerpt from <a href="http://thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.php?page=articles/charlie.php">http://thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.php?page=articles/charlie.php<br /></a><br />VACCINES<br /><br />These vaccine topics are covered in the 9th edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood by Tim O'Shea. Even if vaccines did what they're advertised to do, they should never be given before 2 years of age. A 4 month old infant simply has not had enough time to build defenses that can prevent the additives in vaccines from damaging the formative systems, especially<br /><br /> * the blood<br /> * the digestive tract<br /> * the brain<br /> * the immune system<br /><br /><br />BUILDING THE BRAIN<br /><br />These systems are struggling to organize themselves for the very first time into smooth-running programs that must last for a lifetime. [(1) Guyton p 426 ff, 565 ff, Colborn (2)] The way each system evolves is mostly unknown to medical science. Terms like "the wisdom of the body" or "genetics" or "nature" or "evolution" have been used to describe how the body knows exactly how to assemble and organize its new operating systems.<br /><br />An excellent analogy is buying a brand new computer. Until you install an operating system, like Windows 98 or XP, the screen is blank. It takes a certain amount of time to install the operating system onto the hard drive. Only after the operating system is installed may other programs be loaded in.<br /><br />So imagine that as you are going through the install process of Windows XP in your brand new computer, you spill some battery acid onto the keyboard. Or perhaps some iron filings or silicon dust -- some contaminant that gets into the brain of the computer at the exact time when you're installing its very first operating system. What is likely to happen? Corruption of the hard drive. Which may cause incorrect loading and operation of any subsequent program you ever decide to add later on. Permanent defects which cannot be repaired.<br /><br />This is exactly what is going on in the formative infant brain. The infant is born with about 70% of its brain cells. By age one, the infant brain will contain some 100 billion neurons, which must last a lifetime. [Schmidt p 104 (3)] So in the first year of life, at least 60% of the baby's total energy is expended growing the brain. [(7) Farquaharson p 198] Nature prioritizes: if you want to survive, first get your brain and nervous system up and running. Make it past age one, then we'll talk.<br /><br />So in addition to adding that other 30% of brain cells in the first year, the brain is also developing its individual sections, each of which has its own specialty: hearing, memory, sight, intuition, apperception, balance, coordination, judgment, etc. [ (1) Guyton p 565] The sections of the brain form from the inside outward, like layers of an onion. Of critical importance is the formation of the connectors between the individual sections, which are called interneurons.<br /><br />These sections of the brain must develop at certain precise weeks of age. And so must the interneuron connectors between the sections. Windows of opportunity. [2] For many of these tasks, the brain only gets one shot, one opportunity. Miss it, and the hard wiring will never be correct. The brain might figure out some secondary patch job later, but it will never operate the way it was supposed to.<br /><br />STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL<br /><br />This fragile, unknown universe within the forming infant brain is exceedingly delicate. It is literally struggling its way into existence. If left to itself for the first two years, nature pulls most of us through. But here's the problem. We've stopped leaving the brain to itself, in this most critical period. First with the additives in vaccines like aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, phenol, radiator fluids - proven beyond controversy to be neurotoxic (nerve-destroying.) [(16) Blaylock] As these toxins are allowed to freely circulate in the blood environment of the brain, nerve cells are killed. Half-formed nerve cells stop forming. Connectors never get made. Worse, the damage is random, because every infant brain is unique, developing at its own pace, like flowers in a field. There is no predicting when the damage will show up. Maybe the child drops dead, or goes into shock, or turns autistic 2 weeks later, or can't learn to read at age 5, or has "ADD" in adolescence, or Parkinson's at 28, or any other neurologic disorder. Or maybe is simply a little dumber than his parents. Over and over and over.<br /><br />No amount of medical propaganda can obscure these basic laws of human physiology.<br /><br />MY KID WILL MAKE IT<br /><br />I know, I know - you don't think all this is a big risk. You think your child will be the one who makes it through OK... In 2004 in the USA, 1 child in 6 has a neurodevelopmental disorder! [17, Geier] The CDC itself estimates that only 10% of vaccine injuries ever get reported. And there have been over 200,000 serious adverse reactions to vaccines accounted for. [19] No pediatrician may talk about these statistics.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-45337518429778038182007-06-11T21:07:00.000-05:002007-06-11T21:12:17.022-05:00What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children’s Vaccinationsby Stephanie Cave (reviewed by Speak the Controversy)<br /><br />Overview/General Premise<br />The book represents the author’s own intent to explore the pros and cons of vaccination. It is divided into three sections discussing (1) the background and basic information about vaccines as well as medical conditions associated with them, (2) the benefits and risks of individual vaccines and the diseases they are designed to prevent, and (3) tools for parents in making an informed decision about vaccines. As the author, Stephanie Cave, concludes in the introduction to this book, “Vaccines have accomplished more than we ever dreamed they would. But we must not get so caught up in the dream that we refuse to wake up to certain realities about those vaccines when it comes to safety and effectiveness. All children deserve a healthy, safe childhood, and parents should be allowed to make informed decisions about their children’s vaccine needs.” (p.xx)<br /><br />Bias<br />Stephanie Cave is in the private practice of family medicine. Together with her clinic partner they care for over 700 children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. This book is pro-vaccination in that Dr. Cave does not suggest that children should not be vaccinated, but the book is also anti-vaccination in that it questions the current immunization schedule, the administration of compound vaccines like MMR over individual vaccines, and the blanket approach to vaccination of all children without regard to family history.<br /><br />Points of Review<br />Cave dedicates an entire chapter to The Autism Debate. The correlation between the characteristics of autism and those of mercury poisoning cannot be debated, but with recent legislation requiring the removal of thimerosal from vaccines would Dr. Cave still express concern about the link between autism and vaccines? (According to the CDC thimerosal is now only used in the manufacturing of flu vaccines though vaccines once made with thimerosal have not been pulled from the market and may still be administered.) Her primary concern is the removal of mercury from vaccines, which dates the book (published in 2001), and limits the concern between autism and vaccines to this one matter.<br /><br />Though Cave points out many things to question about vaccination and gives several reasons to decline certain vaccines or postpone vaccination she never makes a direct anti-vaccine sentiment. In general Cave’s perspective appears to be that as long as there isn’t a family history of autoimmune disease and/or a compromised immune system, and if vaccines are given individually at separate appointments the risk from vaccination is limited. Though I agree that the risk of adverse effects is greatly reduced as a result of these considerations, I still question whether the benefits outweigh the risks. There is growing research and concern regarding the correlation between Alzheimer’s Disease and the flu vaccine in the elderly, and chronic arthritis and the rubella vaccine in women that make me question when, if ever, it really becomes beneficial to administer vaccines.<br /><br />Conclusions<br />This book may offer the middle ground that neither those that are strongly pro-vaccination support nor those that are strongly anti-vaccination support. I would recommend this book to every parent, especially those that do not realize that there is a controversy surrounding vaccination. This book approaches the topic of vaccination in a manner that recognizes the correlation between vaccination and the reduction of disease but also questions the correlation between vaccination and the risks associated with it. It presents many concerns about the current vaccination schedule and suggests practical alternatives for those that choose to vaccinate their children that will hopefully reduce the risks associated with vaccination. Though the book is somewhat out-of-date future editions (if written) will easily clarify the information that is no longer current.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-48604869376790589952007-05-29T22:27:00.000-05:002007-05-29T22:34:38.486-05:00A word from Walter Spitzer, M.D.Dr. Walter O. Spitzer (1937-2006), Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology at McGill University and Editor Emeritus of the <i>Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</i>, when commenting on vaccine safety said, "There is no problem if you do not look."Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-47760507218207266622007-05-13T21:22:00.000-05:002007-11-08T11:45:19.762-06:00Vaccines: What Every Parent Should Knowby Paul A. Offit, M.D. and Louis Bell, M.D. (reviewed by Speak the Controversy)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Overview/General Premise</span><br />The intention of this book is to discuss vaccination of children, to provide parents with information about the vaccines that children receive, state the side effects of vaccines and weigh the risks against the benefits. The book was published in 1999 so it is somewhat out of date with the current vaccination schedule and as a result does not discuss in depth some of the vaccines that are currently administered to children.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bias</span><br />The general slant of the book is pro-vaccination. Both of the authors are employed in the Department of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia. Louis Bell received a grant from the CDC to enhance pre-school vaccination. Paul Offit received a grant from the pharmaceutical company, Merck, for the development of a Rotavirus vaccine and shares a patent with the company on the vaccine currently in development. He also serves as a consultant to Merck.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Good Point</span><br />The book considers the question, “Are vaccines safe?” The authors pose the following three questions to consider, which they attempt to answer in each chapter about specific vaccines: “(1) What are the chances of catching a particular infection? (2) What are the risks of side effects from a particular vaccine? (3) How effective is the vaccine in preventing disease?” (see page 24). These are definitely important questions to be asking about vaccinations. The additional question that needs to be considered is: What is the source of my information? As Offit said in an interview on 60 Minutes in October 2004, “I think questioning vaccines is perfectly reasonable. But I think that when one looks at the data, and sees that vax are safe and effective and...still...says, 'Well, I think there's a conspiracy to sell vaccines' or 'I think my doctor's lying to me,' I think that's when you cross some sort of critical line. What I'm asking is that people trust their experts. And that's sort of a hard thing to politically accept." This quote (in which Offit is indirectly referring to himself as an expect on vaccines), however, along with the paragraph above about the bias of the authors, brings me to my list of things to question about the information in this book.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Things to Question</span><br />Each chapter begins with a fictional story of a child and the disease for which a vaccine is available. Chapter 2 opens with a story of Ed and Emily, one of whom is vaccinated and the other of whom is not. The story makes claims as to the outcome of the children being infected with measles and their immunity. The story, as is the case with other stories in the book, is written to show the extreme experiences of the disease causing fear in the reader (this is further evidenced on page 111 in the discussion of natural immunity versus vaccinated immunity). In the end, the story claims that the vaccinated child was immune as a result of receiving the vaccine while the unvaccinated child risked death and had to endure the pain of disease in order to develop natural immunity. The question is: If vaccines always lead to immunity why was there an outbreak of mumps in Iowa in which 65% of those who received the disease were fully vaccinated against it? <br /><br />Speaking further on the issue of immunity, on page 29, the authors outline two examples of the right to refuse vaccines and the effect on the community. In a recount about the spread of measles in the early nineties in Philadelphia, the authors write: “Unfortunately, people in the surrounding community did not have a chance to participate in that decision” (speaking of the decision of parents in two churches who refused vaccination and were infected with measles). Didn’t the members have “a chance to participate in that decision” when they chose whether or not to have their own children vaccinated? If the authors claim immunity from vaccines, then no member of a community should have to worry about an outbreak of a disease if they are vaccinated. But the reason that people do become infected even after being vaccinated is because vaccines are not a guarantee of immunity. This is an inaccurate claim that the authors state many times as fact. <br /><br />However, in the chapter on MMR the authors admit that 5% of children will not develop immunity from the first dose of the MMR, which is part of the reasoning for giving two doses. But the primary reason that the authors give for receiving two doses of MMR is because “only about 87 to 90 percent of children actually receive the measles vaccine. Therefore, a recommendation for a second dose provides many children with a second chance to receive their first dose of the vaccine (p. 66).” It seems to me that what the authors are stating is that my child really only needs one dose of the MMR vaccine for a 95% chance of immunity but because some kids miss the first dose we might as well give everyone two. That logic doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me and in many ways supports the “conspiracy theory” that vaccines are just another moneymaker for big business and the government.<br /><br />There are many additional claims made in this book that I question including the authors repeated statements that “the xxx vaccine does not cause serious side effects” when even the CDC and the government is willing to admit that there are potential serious and even deadly side effects from vaccines (see information on the National Vaccine Compensation Program on page 20 or <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/vis/">http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/vis/</a>), but for the sake of space I will skip to one final question that I have for the authors. In the last chapter of the book titled <span style="font-style: italic;">Vaccines for Adults</span> the authors write: “So whereas about 500 children die every year from diseases that are clearly preventable by vaccines, between 50,000 to 70,000 adults die from these same diseases (p. 208).” Yet we have implemented a vaccination schedule for children that includes at least 24 vaccinations by the age of 2. Is this really because of the threat of disease and its consequences to children or because we can better guarantee the “sale” of vaccines to parents than to adults themselves? The greatest risks of almost all vaccine preventable diseases is in later adolescence and adulthood, so why do we choose to threaten our children’s quality of life with the input of foreign matter and chemicals (see references throughout the book to monkey DNA, cow DNA, chicken DNA, mouse DNA, and formaldehyde) through the administration of vaccines in excess during the most crucial years of their development?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion</span><br />This book is helpful is stirring up questions about vaccination but I am afraid that many people will “trust their experts” as Paul Offit desires and not question the research on both sides of the issue that have led to the discussions covered in this book. It is clear that this book is biased and uses broad, inflammatory, and unsupported statements to scare the readers into believing that vaccines are the best option for their children without adequately or honestly representing the risks involved with that choice.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-69666771426379918162007-05-02T11:34:00.000-05:002007-05-02T11:48:19.200-05:00"He will have to be vaccinated eventually."A commonly held misconception about vaccination is that if one chooses to decline vaccination of his/her infant the child will need to be vaccinated once they are school-age. This is not true. Many states, if not all, require that children must have an immunization record on file in order to enter school or daycare. However, an immunization record can consist of a statement of exemption. There are three primary exemptions to vaccination accepted throughout the United States: medical, religious, and philosophical. All 50 states offer medical exemption, 48 states offer religious exemption, and 18 states offer philosophical exemption. Religious, medical and philosophical exemptions are worded differently in each state. To use an exemption for your child it is important to know specifically what the law says in your state. For a list of exemptions by state and links to further information about claiming an exemption, visit the <a href=http://www.909shot.com/state-site/state-exemptions.htm>National Vaccine Information Center</a>.Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9109681935390006741.post-59183526776552382432007-04-22T16:55:00.000-05:002007-11-08T11:46:51.694-06:00Why we've declinedMy son is 4 months old. At this point in his life he should have received 13 inoculations according to the 2007 immunization schedule released by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He hasn’t received any, however, because my husband and I have chosen not to have him vaccinated. The short answer as to why we have made this decision is because we believe that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. We continue to research and formulate our opinion on vaccination but thus far continue to find further evidence to support our decision and have not found reason to reverse it. What follows are some of the reasons that we see vaccination as a greater risk than a benefit. <br /><br />According to the CDC fact sheet on the DTaP vaccine (which children are to receive 4 times before age 18 months), your child has a 1 in 14,000 chance of experiencing seizures caused by fever as a result of receiving that vaccine; and a 1 in 3,000 chance from the MMR vaccine (which a child is to receive twice before age 6)—that means your child is more likely to experience a convulsion from either of these vaccines than that they would die in a motor vehicle accident or by drowning (see childstats.gov). We do everything we can to prevent our child from dying in this manner (wearing seat belts and life preservers, only playing by the water when supervised, etc.) and yet we are willing to risk our children experiencing convulsions, which could potentially lead to life altering illnesses? According to a study on febrile convulsions published on pubmed.gov: “The results of this study indicate that even a single experimental febrile convulsion during infancy can exert a long-lasting, if not permanent, enhancement in seizure susceptibility.” Recurrent, unprovoked seizures are what define epilepsy, a chronic neurological condition that cannot be cured. <br /><br />Additional potential side effects of the MMR vaccine include (as taken from the CDC Fact Sheet on the vaccine): fever (up to 1 person out of 6); mild rash (about 1 person out of 20); swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck; temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4); temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses); and serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses). The Fact Sheet goes on to say: “Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine but this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include: deafness, long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage.” It is important to note here that though the CDC makes the statement that “experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not” (referring to the most life-altering side effects listed) there is apparently enough of a correlation that the CDC feels they should include the possibility in the list of side effects. That alone gives me great pause. In addition, many of the mild side effects that occur frequently such as fever or rash, are symptoms that are generally considered cause for visiting a doctor because they indicate illness, not something that should be considered temporarily “normal.” If the body is responding to a vaccination in the same way that it responds to illness, is the presence of the foreign material found in the vaccine really to the body’s benefit?<br /><br />This question leads me to another primary reason that I question the benefit of vaccination specifically in regards to its role in causing immunity. As Tim O’Shea writes in The Sanctity of Human Blood, “We're programmed to think of immunization and vaccination as synonyms…In actuality, there's a big difference. Immunization means to make someone immune to something. Vaccination, by contrast, just means to inject something into the bloodstream…True natural immunity happens only after one recovers from the disease itself. With the actual disease, the microorganism had to pass through many of the body's natural immune defense systems in the nose, throat, lungs, and digestive tract before it ever gets as far as the bloodstream.” By bypassing the body’s natural immune response we are risking creating strains of disease resistant to the body’s natural defenses and compromising a healthy system with the injection of foreign material including but not limited to: disease strains from animals and other toxins such as formaldehyde, aluminum, and mercury. As Tim O’ Shea goes on to write, “The thinking behind vaccination is that if the person gets a "minor" case of the disease under the "controlled" conditions of vaccination, he will produce his own antibodies to the disease agent, and this will confer immunity, since his immune system will remember what the "bad bug" looks like. The next time the bug shows up, immune defense cells will be ready to kill it. Unfortunately there is no general agreement that this is what vaccination really does.” <br /><br />I also have concerns to the validity of vaccines serving to protect the population. According to a publication in Pharmaceutical News in May 2005: “The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, estimates there were almost 20,000 pertussis (whooping cough) cases in 2004 - the highest number of reported cases in more than 40 years.” And yet the pertussis vaccine has been around since the mid-1940’s and the DTaP vaccine specifically has been used readily since 1991. Other evidence also comes directly from the CDC in an article related to the mumps outbreak in Iowa in 2006. According to the article, of the individuals whose vaccine records could be assessed, 65% had been fully vaccination against mumps, while only 6% had not been vaccinated at all. How can one claim that vaccines are eliminating these diseases or at minimum, immunizing against them, with statistics like these direct from the primary proponent of vaccination?<br /><br />Finally, I question whether it is the responsibility of my child to protect the population from diseases that result from lifestyle choices such as Hepatitis B and HPV? According to the CDC fact sheet on the Hep B vaccine, Hepatitis B is spread by “having unprotected sex with an infected person, sharing needles when injecting illegal drugs, being stuck with a used needle on the job, or during birth when the virus passes from an infected mother to her baby” and yet we administer this vaccine to children 3 times before the age of 6 months. I don’t know about you, but my four month old is not having unprotected sex or using illegal drugs. And the newly released HPV vaccine is another example. According to the CDC website: “Abstaining from sexual activity (i.e., refraining from any genital contact with another individual) is the surest way to prevent genital HPV infection. For those who choose to be sexually active, a monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections.” Perhaps instead of spending tax money passing laws that require all women to have the HPV vaccine we should spend our money educating people about the risks of risky behavior? We cannot eliminate immoral behavior or the consequences of that behavior by vaccinating an entire population.<br /><br />As I mentioned earlier, these thoughts are gathered from the research that we have begun in earnest regarding vaccination. We intend to continue seeking information for and against vaccination and will continue to formulate our opinion as we grow more educated.<br /><br /><font size="1"><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">References:</span><br /><br />Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006). MMWR Weekly: Mumps Epidemic --- Iowa, 2006. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5513a3.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5513a3.htm.</a><br /><br />Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2001). Diphtheria, Tetanus, & Pertussis Vaccines: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved16 February 2007 from <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-dtp.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-dtp.pdf.</a><br /><br />Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2001). Hepatitis B Vaccine: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-hep-b.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-hep-b.pdf.</a><br /><br />Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2007). Human Papillomavirus [Electronic version]. Retrieved 24 April 2007 from <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hpv.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hpv.pdf.</a><br /><br />Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2003). Measles, Mumps & Rubella Vaccines: What You Need To Know [Electronic version]. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf.</a><br /><br />Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Program (2007). Recommended Immunization Schedule for Ages 0-6 Years, United States, 2007 [Electronic version]. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from <a href="http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule_Childhood.pdf">http://www.cispimmunize.org/IZSchedule_Childhood.pdf.</a><br /><br />Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2006). America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2006 - Child Mortality. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from <a href="http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/hea8.asp">http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/hea8.asp.</a><br /><br />McCaughran JA Jr, Schechter N. (1982). Experimental febrile convulsions: long-term effects of hyperthermia-induced convulsions in the developing rat. Retireved 16 February 1007 from <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7075572&dopt=Abstract">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/</a><br /><br />O’Shea, Tim. (2001). The Sanctity of Human Blood excerpted from the third edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination Is Not Immunization by Tim O'Shea. Retrieved 22 April 2007 from <a href="http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/30/vaccine_safety.htm">http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/30/vaccine_safety.htm</a><br /><br />Pharmaceutical News. (2005). Vaccine for whooping cough in teens. Retrieved 16 February 2007 from <a href="http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8476">http://www.news-medical.net/?id=8476.<br /></a></font>Speak the Controversyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08612295427875329290noreply@blogger.com2