Sunday, December 29, 2013

Dec 29, 2013 - China and Hep B

It's been reported that there have been 8 infant deaths (not sure if they were infants, meaning <1 year of age or neonates, meaning <28 days old) in the last 2 months following vaccination for Hepatitis B; The vaccine had been made by Shenzhen Kangtai (#1). China is an area of the world where the incidence and prevalence of Hep B is much higher than other areas. Hepatitis B can be a transitory infection or it can become chronic. Those who have chronic Hep B are at greater risk for liver cancer and other liver problems, and they can also transmit the disease to others with whom they have sex or share needles. Generally newborns who are born to mothers who are chronic carriers are given Hep B immune globulin and are vaccinated against Hep B (which requires a series of 3 shots - initial injection, 2 months, 6 months). 

The second link (#2) is the testimony before Congress of Dr. Orient (1999) regarding the practice of universal Hep B vaccination of infants and why it might be prudent to re-consider. She makes some excellent points. While her testimony was given 14+ years ago, it remains relevant today, as Hep B is still not so prevalent that universal vaccination makes sense. 

For those who are at high risk (multiple sex partners, injection drug user, infants born to mother who is a chronic carrier, healthcare workers) it would make sense for them to discuss with their healthcare provider if the benefit/risk ratio of vaccination falls in favor of vaccination. But to vaccinate an infant because they MIGHT fall into a high risk group at some point in their life does not make sense. Especially since the risk reduction (of contracting Hep B if exposed) is unlikely to last their entire life (#3). Better to start vaccinating if/when the risk reduction is greater than the risk of the intervention. 

Hep B vaccines have been associated with adverse events/reactions following their use (#4), so a careful assessment of risk vs benefit must be done prior to vaccination. Some may think the risk/benefit ratio does not favor vaccination, even if they are at high risk due to personal lifestyle choices. 

Because vaccination is not risk free, the decision to vaccinate should be both personal, and private - between patient/client and health care provider. Vaccination should not be mandatory, nor compulsory. There needs to be better treatment options for those who do contract Hepatitis B, regardless of vaccination status. 



( 2013 Jan;57(1):37-45. doi: 10.1002/hep.25988. Epub 2012 Dec 28.) 


Thursday, December 19, 2013

Dec 19, 2013 - Conflicts of Interest

Link below to a post by Age of Autism regarding an on-line facet of conflict of interest (COI) ... the allegation of being paid to post comments about a topic as a strategy to influence others.

The article summarizes various professional relationships and how they are linked, and also reviews how these relationships may be part of COI. This piece focuses on Dorit Rubenstein Reiss and two aspects of COI: 1) part of the speculation around the allegation of COI with her multiple posts in response to the issues around Gardasil raised by Katie Couric and 2) how she frames herself as a concerned parent when she is actually involved in vaccines on a professional level as well.

This is only one part of COI issues - there are many more facets to this, so never take a claim for transparency at face value - trust but verify!

Monday, December 16, 2013

Dec 16, 2013 - Mama bear, Papa bear

Some of the most interesting posts I come across are written by parents who have linked health problems in their children with receipt of vaccines. They are finding, and writing on very interesting research regarding the patho-physiology that can happen as a consequence of vaccination ... 

Joel Lord, of Vaccine Resistance Movement, in particular posts articles detailing this phenomena. VacFacts is another good source.

The second link posted is about HPV, and how some people groups are more likely to be infected/exposed to types of HPV not included in the current vaccines - which begs the question, why take on the risk of vaccination when the likelihood of any benefit is even less than the presumed benefit to begin with?  

The third link is to an article discussing the effect of vaccination upon the immune system and how it may lead to an imbalance of the different types of immunity we have. 

The last link is to an article discussing the theory of herd immunity - a theory left wanting as we still have disease among groups that are nearly 100% vaccinated. 

Friday, December 13, 2013

Dec 13, 2013 - why question vaccine (or drug) safety ... here's why

God bless people like Dr. Marciniak ... and may God also protect him, as he is actually DOING HIS JOB as an FDA investigator! What a concept - he actually LOOKS AT THE DATA. He asks very pertinent (and impertinent) questions ABOUT the data ... like why are significant amounts of it missing, and what happened to the REAL PEOPLE the (missing) data represent?

The link below is to an article about this ... it looks like The Refusers are quoting (perhaps copying and pasting) the BMJ article they cite (a link is provided at the end of the article - you must pay for access beyond a brief blurb).

If only more of us adopted the following approach:
“If I, as a federal employee or simply as an ethical individual, see evidence of a threat to public health, I have an obligation to report it regardless of whether the issue is assigned to me or not,” he says.

There are too many people/organizations inserting themselves into the relationship between provider and patient ... guidelines are used not as guidelines, but as billy-clubs to beat providers into submission (kind of hard to provide individualized care to each patient if doing so leads you to stray outside of the "guidelines" - this takes coloring inside the lines to a whole new level!)

While modern, conventional medicine has helped many, there are too many legitimate questions about many of the medications and procedures were are using - and for this reason there needs to be far greater freedom in the decisions providers and patients make about their healthcare.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Dec 12, 2013

Today's first link is an excellent op-ed ... very balanced.

The second link, while from last year, is very thorough in reviewing why there is no justification for making flu shots mandatory - for anyone.

Lastly, an NVIC article ...

From New Hamphire NVIC:

From Sept 2012:

Next up is an article discussing a new flu vaccine that also uses squalene, an adjuvant used
to provoke an immune response - one linked with serious side effects. It begs the question,
if a vaccine requires an adjuvant to cause an immune response how effective could it be?
In other words, if the antigenic response is low without an adjuvant perhaps the concept is
flawed and we need to revisit what we're doing.

Sunday, December 08, 2013

Dec 8, 2013 - focus on flu (but wait, there's more)

Some links are to websites, others to articles or other blogs. As I've stated on previous posts,
because there is so much controversy regarding vaccination I think any/all vaccines should be
voluntary, not mandatory. If an authority can justify violating personal autonomy for one reason,
an authority (whether an employer or a government) can justify violating personal autonomy for
another. The last two links in particular have interesting data that should be reason to wonder why we continue to add more vaccines to the current childhood schedule, and if vaccines are
not necessarily good for children, why are we contemplating expanding the adult "schedule"
as well?

Home page for Health Care Providers for Vaccine Choice:

2012 article regarding mandatory flu vac for healthcare providers/workers:

A 2010 article:
(this is primarily pointing out the conflict of interest of someone who calls for mandatory
vaccination); (part 1) (part 2)

This is not about flu vac specifically, but may be worth a read (long)

And when people say the flu vaccine made them sick ... well they may just be right!

From Age of Autism, a post on "secondary" side effects of vaccination's side effects - it's
not just the recipient of a vaccine who is affected:

And also from Age of Autism, a blurb encouraging those who are in the NYC area to go
to a demonstration against Mayor Blumberg's attempt to force two vaccines on children
in NYC (flu/pneumococcal shot, or Prevnar) ... inserting himself into a decision that should
be left to parents. Where does it end?

I've concluded (from all that I've seen/read over the last several years, long before I
started this blog) that we will not vaccinate our way to good health. Indeed, vaccines
may be contributing to poor health - but here are two important articles with intriguing

Infant vaccination regressed against infant mortality:

As always, please email me if there are links you want posted!

Friday, December 06, 2013

Links Dec 6, 2013 - Gardasil/flu and more ...

I took a few days off over Thanksgiving ... here are links I've come across over the last few days
and today.

Interestingly enough, Utah has made the rational decision to be more neutral regarding Gardasil! I'll start with that - the headline of the article (see link below) is mis-leading though, because the first line of the article makes it clear that the vaccine is not banned, just not recommended, nor stocked by the Utah Dept of Public Health - which means it is still available through private physician offices for those who decide they want it (the article later acknowledges this, though the headline might lead some to think otherwise).

The article quotes Dr. Cosgrove, a pediatrician and vaccine advocate, who makes some strong statements about this development. His statements indicate he is quite worried and
upset about this, though it does not make sense to stock a product parents are not requesting for their children when the benefit from this vaccine is unknown in relation to the risks of the vaccine compared to the risk of cervical cancer. While many people are exposed to HPV,
exposure does not mean one will automatically develop cervical cancer, or warts for that matter. I think Dr. Cosgrove indulges in some hyper-bole in some of what he says.

What is also unknown is if the cost, and risks, of vaccination are worth any benefit as there is no reason to believe receiving the vaccine as a pre-teen or teen will confer lifelong "protection". If people (male or female) need to be re-vaccinated on a regular basis throughout their life to obtain any level of risk reduction against HPV is the cost (in dollars) worth it when women will continue to need paps on a regular basis, and vaccination (of any kind) is not without risk of side effects - both short term and long term.

The article cites Dr. David Blodgett as the decision-maker for discontinuing the vaccine in UT
Dept of Public Health clinics and implies this is not a new or recent decision, though it does not
say specifically when this vaccine was no longer stocked in their clinics. It is not clear why this is an issue now!

Here's the link to the full article:

This blog is apparently from July 2013, though it would be nice if it were more precisely
dated - very well done, makes some important points.

Katie Couric did a segment on HPV/Gardasil recently that has kicked up some
controversy - I watched video segments posted (I did not watch the show as it
aired) and it seems to me the segments were fairly balanced. The fact that a
mainstream media journalist acknowledged the controversy is unusual in itself,
and Ms. Couric is to be commended (and thanked) for presenting this other

This is a link to an unofficial transcript:

And here's a link to an opinion piece (link provided by, via email)
where Couric and Dr. Harper (a guest who was part of the HPV discussion) were
accused of disinformation and linked to Jenny McCarthy (said link apparently intended
to discredit them):

A graphic (contained in this post) scrolled through my Facebook feed, and with some
cajoling the original poster provided this as the source:

This article (from 2009) by Dr. Blaylock discussing the concept of herd immunity (among
other things):

And this one about animals, and oddly enough, we seem to be a bit more willing to make
rational decisions for the sake of our animals - why won't we do this for our children and
The adverse reactions caused by vaccines is acknowledged, and apparently some vets
are changing their practice because of it! (AVMA says annual vaccination is not necessary).

On flu vaccine (which thankfully, provides refs):

Monday, November 25, 2013

Syria and Polio

There's been a reported outbreak of Polio in Syria leading to a vaccination campaign in the
midst of the civil war - the following link was posted by VINE (Vaccination Information Network) and came across my Facebook feed (my commentary is below, with link following) -

The link also contains a verbal blog/radio show to which this writer did not listen.

The article suffers from a terrible lack of focus as it starts out making the allegation that 10K
children have died in Pakistan as a result of AFP (Acute Flaccid Paralysis, aka: Polio) after
vaccination there due to the use of an untested vaccine distributed by GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) who also partner with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Her article states that polio has not been seen in Syria for two decades and it is speculated
that it was brought in by rebels from Pakistan. The last half of article starts abruptly, discussing
the politics of the Syrian civil war, but does a terrible job of linking it to the cases of polio and
what they are doing about it (other than vaccinating kids with the same vaccine - oral polio
vaccine that is alleged to have caused 10K deaths in Pakistan)? She provided no references
in the article.

A quick google search turned up this from Time magazine:
The title said the polio was from Pakistan, but the body of the article has this:
Genetic sequencing of the virus that spread through Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria, threatening tens of thousands of unvaccinated children, indicates that this particular strain is closely related to samples discovered in the sewage systems of Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Israel and the West Bank late last year.

Read more: Pakistan Infects Syria With Polio, Says the WHO | 
It does not say that this is the strain found in Pakistan, though it could well be.

Wanting to learn more of her allegation that 10K children have died in Pakistan this writer
googled: "polio 10,000 children died from vaccine pakistan"
#6 from the top was this link:
(#2 was the link briefly discussed above)

The vacfacts link has a lot to be explored and quotes the Susanne Posel article as well.
There are many YouTube vids and links to other articles, and this is clearly a vaccine
skeptical site.

As this poster googled to get more information there was this report:

But considering the allegations of damage being done by the vaccine, it is not so
surprising that militants were taking these measures - all the while trying to use it
to maximize their own military objectives ... rather efficient of them, actually - quite
canny (though this blogger certainly doesn't condone this sort of thing!)

As usual, the truth has many facets ...

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Links for Nov 24, 2013

The fun thing about the web is you can follow a trail of links from posts that never end ...

From Facebook: 
National Vaccine Information CenterOn Friday afternoon, FDA announced it had approved an AS03 oil in water emulsion adjuvanted H5N1 bird flu vaccine for the National Vaccine Stockpile. AS03 has been associated with cases of narcolepsy in European children, who got ASO3 adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 vaccines in 2009-2010:
NVIC has opposed the licensure of AS03 and other squalene type adjuvants because they hyper-stimulate the immune system and can cause autoimmunity.AS03 adjuvanted vaccines may be especially dangerous for people with a personal or family history of autoimmunity.
It looks like the FDA approved this experimental H5N1 bird flu vaccine based on a clinical study in a few thousand people and it will not be commercially available at this time but will be stockpiled for use during a future "H5N1 pandemic emergency." However, even if that emergency never occurs, the fact that AS03 is now in an FDA-approved vaccine adjuvant paves the way for it to be included in other new vaccines drug companies are creating and fast tracking to licensure, especially influenza vaccines, without having to demonstrate in placebo controlled clinical trials that it is safe.

So maybe it's not such a good idea to super-charge an baby's immune system with vaccines and adjuvants:

On Gardasil:

Here's the study in question:


Here's a link to the study's abstract:
It's assumed the vaccine was responsible for any decrease in HPV prevalence, but 
other factors could have been variables as well (um, like abstinence?) 

Gardasil is not as well liked outside the US:

And earlier this year Japan took the unusual action of listening to
their people:

Friday, November 22, 2013

Links Nov 22, 2013

I get a lot of my links via Twitter, some from Facebook. I've skimmed most of them, have not read in depth. One of the purposes of this blog is to make them available to others.
Email me at: if you want to share an article ...

Good Op-Ed from 2010, begging for balance in our approach to vaccines:

SCOTUS opinion (2010):

Op-Ed based on Doshi analysis in BMJ:

Here's the Doshi article:

Mercola interview w/Barbara Loe Fisher on herd immunity:

Abstract (1964) from NY Times about use of peanut oil in vaccines - could this be one
factor in the increase of peanut allergies?

Interesting perspective/analogy in this piece:

This is interesting, and also very concerning:

Vaccinating newborns born to moms who are chronic carriers of Hep B (and giving them
immune globulin) seems reasonable ... if it works! But if it doesn't, we need to find out
why (could it be the virus is changing d/t exposure to vaccine?), and we also need to
develop more effective treatments instead.

Blog/editorial about the right to choose/refuse vaccination, love the linkage to Nuremburg
trials - oh, how quickly we forget!

This link on the cancelation of a hearing on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program:

When actually examined, many medical practices don't actually have any value (but they
didn't look at vaccines!):

A follow-up (link to the original post is at the top of this one) of one parent's reasons for
not vaccinating:

Personally, I don't understand how we can get kids vaccinated with a highly technical
product, but we can't seem to be able to feed them (which is the foundation to good
health anyway - vaccines, to the extent that they work, are at best, secondary):

2008 NVIC editorial:

Aluminum as a component of vaccines:

This post disputes official statistics about flu deaths:

An analysis of VAERS data (from 2010):

A link to lots of links:

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Follow-up on Princeton/meningitis

Apparently Princeton is going to make Bexseros (approved in EU, not approved in US) available to their students and employees (1); To their credit, it will not be mandatory, and the school is going to pay for it.

Clinical trials have not been done to establish efficacy ... presence of antibody response is
used in lieu of randomized, double-blind controlled trials. It uses aluminum as an adjuvant
to stimulate the immune system to aid in the production of antibodies.

Here are links to more information:

Interesting that those who believe in vaccines claim they "provide protection", and yet the
package insert/manufacturer's information is careful to state "As with any vaccine, Bexsero may not fully protect all of those who are vaccinated." So which is it?

Adjuvants (ie: aluminum, squalene, etc) will be a topic of discussion in future blog posts ...


Someone from Vaccination Information Network (VINE) posted an article on FB, from Australia, apparently discussing pertussis in the US (1); The writer of the article was very much pro-vaccination and was blaming un-vaccinated for increasing rates of infection. Most of the posted comments were against vaccination for various reasons, and they posted links to various articles in support of their position:

A) Vaccinated persons are a reservoir of disease and are responsible for it's spread b/c
     they contract a milder case, are not recognized as a case, and spread it to others; whereas
     un-vaccinated individuals, if they contract the infection, have more severe symptoms and
     are recognized as a case (2)

B) Even the CDC acknowledges that the un-vaccinated are not necessarily the cause of the
     outbreaks (3); They also acknowledge the limitations of the vaccine in risk reduction (though
     they use the term "protection");

C) From an article about WC in Uinta County, WY (4):
           “In unvaccinated children there were 15 cases,” McClinton said. “Vaccinated children that were not up to date showed five cases. Children that were up to date showed 23 cases, fully vaccinated children showed 10 cases and adults had 11 cases for a total of 64 cases so far this year.”
It's hard to assess this w/o knowing the total population in this county (along with how many
in this county were vaccinated, un-vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and/or had a history of
having had WC whether vaccinated or not - oh, make that WC confirmed by lab testing!);
It is interesting to note that there were more cases among those who had any exposure to
the vaccine ("up to date" may mean recent receipt of vaccine though hx of partial vaccination,
fully immunized may mean receipt of all doses according to schedule, including being up to
date, and depending on their age it is reasonable to believe the adults had a hx of at least
partial immunization and may or may not have been up to date). The does not mention if
there were any deaths associated with WC.

An article on the site addresses a variety of issues with WC vaccine (and then
veers off on to a couple of related vaccine tangents), (5):

I think the last half of this quote (Dr. James Cherry's comments) is most interesting, and
quite honest -

Surprise! Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly through Vaccinated Populations
In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years occurred in California. Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in the California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials and national media, targeting people opting out of receiving pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the outbreak.
However, research published in March of this year paints a very different picture than the one spread by the media2.
In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated.
According to the authors3:
"This first detailed analysis of a recent North American pertussis outbreak found widespread disease among fully vaccinated older children. Starting approximately three years after prior vaccine dose, attack rates markedly increased, suggesting inadequate protection or durability from the acellular vaccine." [Emphasis mine]
The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is included as a component in "combination" shots that include tetanus and diphtheria (DPT, DTaP, Tdap) and may also include polio, hepatitis B, and/or Haemophilus Influenza B (Hib). CDC data shows 84 percent of children under the age of three have received at least FOUR DTaP shots—which is the acellular pertussis vaccine that was approved in the United States in 1996—yet, despite this high vaccination rate, whooping cough still keeps circulating among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
So, as clearly evidenced in this study, the vaccine likely provides very little, if any, protection from the disease. In fact, the research suggests those who are fully vaccinated may in fact be more likely to get the disease than unvaccinated populations.
Why Do Pertussis Vaccines Fail Despite Claimed Efficacy?
Interestingly in a recent article published in the journal Pediatrics4, author James D. Cherry, MD, reveals that estimates for pertussis vaccine efficacy have been significantly inflated due to the case definitions adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1991, which required laboratory confirmation and 21 days or more of paroxysmal cough. All less severe cases were excluded.  He states:
"I was a member of the WHO committee and disagreed with the primary case definition because it was clear at that time that this definition would eliminate a substantial number of cases and therefore inflate reported efficacy values. Nevertheless, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration accepted this definition, and package inserts of the US-licensed DTaP vaccines reflect this....For example, Infanrix... and Daptacel... have stated efficacies of 84% and 85% respectively. When less severe cough illness is included, however, the efficacies of these 2 vaccines decrease to 71% and 78% respectively. In addition, even these latter efficacies are likely inflated owing to investigator or parental compliance with the study protocol (observer bias)." Dr. Cherry lists eight potential reasons for why the efficacy of pertussis vaccines are overestimated:
Overexpectation of efficacy because of case definition.                                       Inflated estimates of efficacy because of observer bias.                                      Other Bordetella sp are the cause of similar cough illnesses.                            Lack of initial potency.                                                                                                    Decay in antibody over time.                                                                                Incomplete antigen package.                                                                                   Incorrect balance of antigens in the vaccine.                                                         Genetic changes in B pertussis
Whooping Cough is Cyclical Disease
B. pertussis whooping cough is a cyclical disease with natural increases that tend to occur every 4-5 years, no matter how high the vaccination rate is in a population using DPT/DTaP or Tdap vaccines on a widespread basis. Whole cell DPT vaccines used in the U.S. from the 1950's until the late 1990's were estimated to be 63 to 94 percent effective and studies showed that vaccine-acquired immunity fell to about 40 percent after seven years.
In the study cited above, the researchers noted the vaccine's effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-125.
With this shockingly low rate of DTaP vaccine effectiveness, the questionable solution public health officials have come up with is to declare that everybody has to get three primary shots and three follow-up booster shots in order to get long-lasting protection6—and that's provided the vaccine gives you any protection at all! 

Those who promote vaccination use the term "protection" - in this writer's estimation this
is too strong a term to be accurate. "Risk reduction" is more factual. The terms "protection"
and "risk reduction" are not inter-changable, they are not synonymous.

It seems that some vaccines may provide a measure of risk reduction, both in terms of not contracting the disease (if exposed), and/or contracting a milder case (if exposed). The question then becomes is the reduction in risk of disease worth the trade-off of possible long-term chronic disease associated with vaccination. Or, is it worth the unknown long-term safety profile of vaccines, since follow-up of adverse events if largely voluntary and there are few, to no, studies comparing the health of vaccinated populations with unvaccinated populations.

Most on either side of this divide (vaccinate or don't vaccinate) are passionate about their
positions ... because so many questions remain about effectiveness and/or safety, vaccination
should be voluntary, not mandatory.

Likewise, we should be determining how best to treat those who become ill in order to decrease morbidity and mortality.



3) (when accessed as of the date of
    this post, it had been updated as of Aug 28, 2013);



Monday, November 18, 2013

Links to various other posts/articles/websites regarding vaccines

Not much commentary today ... just lots of collated links to various other articles/blogs, etc ... though I especially like the first one! The graphs in the first link provide an interesting perspective on trends of infectious diseases prior to the widespread use of vaccination, and also afterward!

1) Vaccination has been controversial from its inception.
2) It remains controversial to this day.
3) Agendas and conflicts of interest are seldom disclosed.
4) The benefit/risk ratio is not clear.
5) Vaccination is expensive. (see #3)
6) The risks are real, and seem to strike randomly (or there is not always a good way
     to screen for them prior to initiating vaccination).
7) Health decisions, consent should not be coerced (or forced).

For all of the above reasons, and more, vaccination should be voluntary.

Okay - I copied and pasted the first graph to whet your appetite

Regarding HPV:

Editoral from Sept 2012 regarding parental rights:

Formaldehyde is an ingredient in some vaccines ... this link takes you to an abstract of a
study on rat liver cells:

Being a secure blogger, here is a link to an editorial/blog regarding vaccine choice:

Brief blurb from Sept 2013 about how the UK govt will now compensate families injured by
Swine Flu vac:

Link to .pdf from CDC about pertussis in Israel despite good coverage of vaccination (published in 2000):
(This sort of thing begs the question about effectiveness).

But wait, what about polio?
(so vaccines can be effective, for CAUSING the disease?!)

When there's no money, there's no vaccine ... but when there's money, there's a NEED for
a vaccine!

2011-2012 flu vac - a crap shoot (and health professionals are obligated to participate
in a crap shoot)?

Vaccine ethics (or lack thereof), from 2011 - they seem to like to test stuff on poor
brown people:

Dr. Blaylock does not like flu shots, or vaccines of any kind - here's a short article explaining

While smallpox is no longer on the vaccination schedule, it would be good to know this:

While smallpox is no longer on the vaccination schedule for children, some adults get it
(primarily military), and can pass the disease to others:
Vaccination as a cause of disease, vaccinated as a reservoir of disease ...

This article doesn't address the missing elephant in the cowshed (please pardon my
mixing of metaphors):
Sure, it could be the exposure to lots of different germs (as the article suggests); but there
are lots of other factors in the Amish lifestyle that could also be factors - like not vaccinating?!
Interestingly, the article gives raw, unpasteurized milk a pass - mainstream peeps (especially govt peeps, pun intended) tend to diss this as being incredibly dangerous. While it can (like many things) be dangerous, I wish it were more available, without fear of the law. I do think it's something you should only obtain from someone you know VERY well, and whom you trust.

Link to SafeMinds info about mercury/thimerosal:

Excellent article by Barbara Loe Fisher of the NVIC:
I think she's very balanced and reasonable.

This blogger makes some salient/important points about VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events
Reporting System):

Lastly, a article about vaccine exemption (btw, if you're a health professional,
this doesn't always work!)

Please feel free to send me links that you think should be shared!

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Links to various articles/posts/pages Nov 17, 2013

This link is to a 2009 post of the Alliance for Natural Health discussing a presentation at a conference hosted by the National Vaccine Information Center ( about the different approach Japan takes to vaccination:

It would be interesting to know if there has been any comparative research done between Japan and the USA ... what are their rates (prevalence/incidence) of diseases that are targeted by vaccines compared to the US;

This next link is an editorial, almost a rant, but the writer makes some valid points:
The post is not dated that I can see, but inferring from the date stamp on the comments it is
from Nov 17, 2013

1) Don't settle for just the VIS (Vaccine Information Sheet), read and research as much as you
     can prior to receiving any vaccine.
2) Post-marketing studies amount to participating in research which may subsequently
     demonstrate the presumed benefit was not as great as previously thought from
     pre-marketing clinical trials.
3) Post-marketing studies may show risks that were not demonstrated in clinical trials
    done prior to approval. Wider use (ie: after FDA approval) in greater numbers of
    people may be necessary before un-desired side effects are revealed.
    (consider Vioxx, among others);


There has been a cluster of cases of meningitis (7 cases in since March 2013) at Princeton, leading to talk of recommending mass vaccination with a vaccine (Bexsero) that is not approved in the US.

In an article by Dr. Tenpenny:
1. This is not an epidemic: Only 7 cases of have occurred since March (9 months). The media needs to stop spreading hysteria. This is the definition of an epidemic:
Widely prevalent; Spreading rapidly and extensively by infection and affecting many individuals in an area or a population at the same time;  An outbreak of a contagious disease that spreads rapidly and widely.”
The bacteria is not spread through the air and it doesn’t live outside the human body for very long. You cannot get meningitis from casual contact. The infection occurs randomly and will not spread rapidly across the campus to other students. (1) 

While it is good to be aware of the risks of this illness in this (well, any) population, it is
equally important to know the risks of vaccination. Parents and young adults who are faced
with deciding whether or not to take a vaccine need to be able to weigh the risks/benefits,
pros/cons of taking or not taking a vaccine.

More from Dr. Tenpenny's post (link to original article is available below):
3.  There has been no approved vaccine for serotype B for many years. Why? Meningitis vaccines for strains A, C, Y, and W-135 are made from a fragment of the bacteria’s cell wall. In the event the bacteria gets past the body’s external barriers of defense and into the blood stream, the vaccine-induced antibody seeks out the fragment sequence on the surface of the bacteria and “kills it” by a process called lysis.
Manufacturing a similar cell-wall antigen vaccine is not possible for serotype B bacteria. The sugar sequences on the surface of this bacteria are very similar to the sugar sequences on the surface of human brain and nerve cells. Therefore, vaccine-induced antibodies can attack the brain and the nerves, causing a debilitating, life-long, autoimmune reaction. (1) 
Since there is so much similarity between the sugar sequences on the serotype B
bacteria and sugar-structures in the cell walls of our neural cells it is understandable
that vaccine-makers have been hesitant to attempt to produce a vaccine with this
type of target for antibody production.

It is not in us in the United States, but the FDA has approved the import of Bexseros
as their Investigational New Drug Application program. (3)

Those who choose to take this vaccine should be informed that it is not FDA approved
and that it is only available through the Investigational New Drug program - they may then infer
that any use of this vaccine is essentially post-marketing surveillance - another way of saying
a clinical trial that occurs after a medication is in wide-spread use.

Bexsero, the vaccine in question has been approved in the European Union, but not in the United Kingdom. Their reasons for not accepting it into their schedule included lack of data for efficacy (point 10), and not meeting cost effectiveness criteria (point 16); (2)

As Dr. Tenpenny noted, presence of an antibody response following administration of a vaccine is **presumed** as "protective"; It seems using the term "risk reduction" might be a bit more accurate. Protection is not the same as risk reduction. This blogger wonders if/when vaccines will be tested in the real world with double-blind randomized controlled trials (with saline as a placebo, not another vaccine!)

Because of the questions surrounding efficacy and safety, vaccination should be voluntary, not mandatory. 

The beauty of a free market is that it reflects the collective wisdom of individual choices. Let the demand for vaccination be determined by the free market, and the pharmaceutical companies can, and will adjust. This will require more and better data for clinicians to be able to discuss risk/benefit ratios with their clients who can then decide if they want the product. 

Here's a link to another story (not related to Princeton) about use of texts messages to increase vaccination rates among the poor in Guatemala: 

Ultimately we will not vaccinate our way to good health, and the dear people of Guatemala (and elsewhere) deserve the same benefits and resources that have helped so many in the developed world achieve good health: economic development and education, both of which lead to better living conditions that help decrease disease through access to clean water and better sanitation. 


Saturday, November 16, 2013

Mengele would be proud ...

This is just wrong on so many levels:

1) The exposed population is being used in a clinical trial without their consent.

2) Once released there is no way to control what happens ... Murphy's Law and the law of
     un-intended consequences suggests that the result may well be undesirable.

3) Cholera does not need a vaccine ... areas and populations that are vulnerable need the
     infra-structure and development that eliminate the risk of cholera ... plumbing, clean water
     systems, etc; Even if a natural disaster occurs that increases risk of cholera there is no
     need for a vaccine, as clean water can be imported until the infra-structure is repaired.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Stories/Other Posts/Links from Nov 15, 2013

Today's list of links to various stories/posts/links that I've come across:

Here's an excellent editorial with good concrete suggestions for correction: 

This link was embedded in the above editorial and is a bit longer:

From 2012 - about the danger of peer pressure and conformity within science, how this
impedes progress and the quest for true truth:
His closing sentence is spot.on!

From down under ... while this is regarding a med error (child given an adult med) it begs
the question of synergistic toxicity of giving multiple vaccines to anyone at one time. It is
unknown what caused this child's reaction - was it the larger dose of antigen, or was it one
or more of the other ingredients, or a combination of it all. But might a similar mechanism
be happening when children are given multiple vaccines in the same visit? There are no
good studies (ie: double-blind, randomized controlled trials) of this practice, for either
children or adults).

This is from the NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center)  archives (2011), and it discusses problems with analyzing data from VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System);
One of the primary problems with VAERS is that it is voluntary self-reporting, so we really do
not know the extent of problems people may be having post-vaccination. We wouldn't expect
people to report the lack of problems, so that's why under-counting or under-reporting would be
more likely.

This is from Australia 2011 ... may be another version of the effect of simultaneous exposure
to multiple antigens (or some other cause) -
Here's an interesting quote from the above article:
""The TGA said yesterday different manufacturing processes could explain why only CSL's vaccine caused such widespread side-effects in children last year.
"While the different brands of seasonal influenza vaccines use the same strains of virus, there are differences in manufacturing processes that may result in differences in the biology of the vaccines," an administration spokeswoman said.""

This article from March 2013 reviews effect of peer pressure on a researcher who was reluctant to publish his findings of a undesired side effect of a vaccine. He had observed how another clinician was treated who had published research regarding untoward effects of vaccines (Dr. Andrew Wakefield) and he, oddly enough, did not want to go through that! Certain findings will not be tolerated, even if they are factual. 

This article is also from March 2013, discusses adverse reactions linked with Hep B vaccination: 
It notes: "For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B." 
This begs the question, why are we giving this vaccine routinely to infants who are not at risk?
It's not even rational - what infant is having sex and/or injecting him or herself with drugs using needles? Using this vaccine only makes sense if mom is a known chronic carrier of Hep B. 

From July 2013, also about Hep B: 

From the Federal Register, adverse reactions from flu vaccination is compensable 
under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - 

This article alleging fraud regarding vaccine efficacy (at Merck): 

This article about how vaccination does not equal protection: 

From 2010 ... conflicts of interest - 

Babies with higher than expected mercury levels (2012): 
It's assumed to be d/t fish and coal power plants, but many vaccines still 
contain mercury. Assumption isn't science. 

Baby dead hours after vaccination (UK, 2007): 

From NVIC, information about Thimerosal: 

1995 - from NVIC about detecting adverse reactions from vaccines - 

This article (published in 2009) discusses what may have contributed to the high
mortality and morbidity of the 1918 flu pandemic - 

Many links here with the Cochrane Database: 

From 2012: A rare moment of honesty from a pro-vaccine insider: 

From NVIC, not dated that I could see - about adjuvants: 

From Aug 2013, baby dead after multiple vaccinations (occurred in 2012): 

Wednesday, November 13, 2013


This link takes you to a story that explains one of many concerns I have about vaccines - contamination with various unintended and/or undesired substances that may have unintended harmful consequences.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The Adventure Begins

A bit about me and why I started this blog:
I'm a certified nurse-midwife (since 2000), now unemployed (since July 2013) due to non-compliance with flu shot policies and worldview issues. When yearly flu shots became mandatory several years ago red flags went up and I began researching flu shots and vaccines in general. The more I learned the more disturbed I became.

My goal is for this to become a clearinghouse for vaccine information, much like Climate Depot by Marc Morano ( - I am as skeptical about climate change as I am now about vaccines.

At this point in time I think there may be some temporary benefit from some vaccines in terms of risk reduction for the targeted disease/infection; however, I also have serious concerns about the risk - benefit ratio as I think vaccines, for various reasons, are implicated, as a factor or variable in many chronic diseases (more on that later). I think we need to develop better treatments for the diseases rather than vaccines.

Because vaccines are so controversial, and because there are so many legitimate questions about them, I think people should be free to make decisions about whether they receive them or not, and this decision should not be compelled nor coerced, either by their healthcare provider or by law.

Please remember that any ads are courtesy of Google.