Sunday, December 14, 2014

Tag, you're it! Teachers next target ...

First they came for the healthcare workers, now teachers are the next target - who's next?

A daycare/school in College Station, Texas has now mandated its teachers receive annual flu vaccination as a condition of employment (or wear not just a mask, but also gloves through the flu season). Apparently several other area schools have also jumped on this bandwagon. The board maintains they've done their research, but do not list what this research is other than speaking to unnamed health professionals.

Since vaccination in general is so controversial, and healthcare decisions are personal, it seems this should remain a private decision each parent/person makes for themselves and their families. Especially because there is controversy regarding the risks/benefits of vaccination the decision should remain private - the CDC is not the only source for information about vaccination, and given the conflict of interest within the CDC and ACIP it is not surprising their only response is that it is "safe and effective" regardless of research that implies otherwise (let alone the personal experience of many people and parents).

Parents and adults should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.

Healthcare providers should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.

Teachers should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.

Parents are trained to bring their children in for routine vaccinations even though an infants immune system is not able to respond - this is one reason why the antigen needs to be frequently re-presented (ie: re-vaccinated); Vaccines are big money makers, plenty of incentive for pharmaceutical companies to cash in on continuing the practice of vaccination into adulthood. A mandate, minus liability, is big bucks - high reward/low risk (well, at least for the companies making the vaccine and for policy makers/politicians). The overlords (people who know better how to manage other people's lives than the people themselves) started with healthcare workers to see if they could get away with it - and they did. So now they've moved on to teachers. Any guesses as to who will be the next group vaccinators will target?

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Why "mask" the truth?

This blog post was inspired by a discussion on the Dec 10, 2014 "Know Your Rights Hour" podcast of Alan Phillips, JD and Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH - you can subscribe via iTunes. Dr. Eisenstein's website is: and Alan Phillips website is:

Healthcare providers are now required to receive influenza vaccine yearly or risk losing their jobs. This in spite of the fact that "evidence" for the efficacy of this policy is sketchy at best. For those who are successful in obtaining a waiver in declining to be vaccinated are required to wear a mask even though they may be completely healthy and free of symptoms. There is no evidence this protects either patient or healthcare provider (in the absence of symptoms); Adding insult to injury is the fact that the CDC is admitting, very early in the season, that this year's vaccine is a poor match to circulating strains of the virus, so any "efficacy" is expected to be low.

One could speculate as to why a mask is required of those who do not get vaccinated - there is no logical reason to believe it would be helpful in risk reduction to either patient or healthcare provider (especially when the healthcare provider is free of symptoms) as bacteria and viruses are so small that only a specialized respirator with an air tight seal could prevent them from entering (or exiting) the respiratory tract.

But in light of the fact that this year's vaccine is expected to provide very little risk reduction (and according to the Cochrane Database this is generally true even when there is a "good match" between vaccine and circulating strains, see above link) it seems that everyone should be wearing a mask! If the policy of requiring the use of a mask for unvaccinated HCW's is about protecting patients from getting ill it makes sense that a mask would be required of everyone in a year where there is higher odds than typical that the vaccine will not reduce risk of becoming ill. If the vaccine does not protect the recipient how could anyone else (ie: patients and/or co-workers) passively benefit, therefore shouldn't all be wearing masks since that is the goal of mandatory vaccination of HCW's?

To add insult to injury there are articles in press (by vaccine proponents no less) that document receiving flu vaccine on a yearly/consecutive basis may actually lower what little risk reduction it provides!  This may be due to an effect called "original antigenic sin" where exposing the immune system to an antigen may make it less able to recognize a similar antigen (like an influenza virus that has mutated ever so slightly).

Neither policy (mandating masks for unvaccinated HCWs and/or mandating receipt of annual influenza vaccine) is based on solid, significant science. This type of heavy-handed approach is paternalistic and condescending. While many enter the healthcare with noble motives no one gives up their personal, civil rights because they go into healthcare, nor should this be expected of them.

The receipt of any medical procedure should be voluntary - vaccines should not be exempt from this. Those who want a vaccine should get it. Those who do not want a vaccine (regardless of their reason or motivation for declining) should not be forced to get a vaccine, nor wear a mask (or any other token) that makes it easy to identify them as a "refuser".

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Anti-fertility vaccine?

Since March 2014 a controversy has come up over the tetanus toxoid vaccine (provided by the UN/WHO) in Kenya - specifically targeting reproductive-aged females. Catholic bishops allege the tetanus vaccine may also laced with beta-HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin), a hormone the body produces in pregnancy that is critical in maintaining pregnancy, especially early in pregnancy. The concern is that if true, this could cause a woman to develop antibodies against beta-HCG which could cause her to miscarry. Their worries about the possibility of an abortive vaccine being given without the knowledge let alone consent of the women is not unfounded given the history of drug and vaccine development, especially in the third world/developing countries (why are rich/middle class anglo women not ever recruited for these types of drug trials?!). It would seem the issue had been settled, but apparently it is still in flux.

What seems to be unacknowledged is that women (and their unborn babies) need far more than a vaccine to make childbearing safe! Better than a vaccine would be consistent access/provision of safe childbirth for all pregnant women in Kenya - attended by a midwife with at least basic training in a clean area (whether this is home or hospital) who uses sterile instruments to clamp and cut the umbilical cord, and access to a higher level of care if this become necessary (including access to transportation to a higher level of care). Women and babies everywhere deserve at least this much, though providing this kind of care is more difficult, more complex than giving a vaccine. More's the pity.

There's a real need for transparency - and not just in this situation. Let us hope that if there is a hidden agenda it is uncovered, or that if there is no scandal that is confirmed unequivocally.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Death following flu vaccination?

Flu season has officially begun (Oct - March) and flu vaccination is recommended for everyone from age 6 months and up. While there is much debate about efficacy and safety of vaccinations in general a cluster of deaths soon after vaccination should be very attention getting. There is a report of 5 deaths within 1 week of flu vaccination at an assisted living facility in GA.

This should raise some important questions: 

- Was consent obtained from those individuals who were able to provide their own consent? 
- For those who were not able to provide consent, was their legal guardian contacted and 
  *informed* consent obtained?
- Which flu vaccine was used (brand name/manufacturer/lot number/expiration date)? 
- Has the medical director of the facility made a report to VAERS? 

Let's hope the producer of the vaccine does not resort to the Wyeth method of managing a cluster of bad outcomes following vaccination: 

Vaccines are not a panacea against infectious disease, nor should they be viewed and/or treated as such. 

The only person who bears responsibility for the consequences of vaccination (in particular adverse events) is the person who is vaccinated - neither providers, nor manufacturers bear any liability. This risk-benefit equation is lop-sided, and wrong. 

The primary purpose of this blog is discussing freedom to accept or decline vaccination without being coerced, manipulated, or threatened ... let's hope that no one in this facility felt pressured in any way to be vaccinated (either residents or health care workers).

Update (12.4.2014): the first link above ("report") takes the reader to the Health Impact News story that has updated information contradicting/clarifying the initial report (which was an anonymous allegation of with very little detail).

Here is a report from Italy about deaths in seniors following receipt of flu vaccine ... and the Italian government has taken the step of suspending use of the vaccine until more information is obtained (all the while being very careful to deny a link between the vaccine and the deaths ... the action seemingly contradictory to the statement).  

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Ebola - misplaced priorities

In March of 2014 an outbreak of Ebola, a hemorrhagic viral infection, began in the West African nation of Guinea; It subsequently spread to neighboring countries (Liberia and Sierra Leone); It has a death rate of 50-70%; It is spread primarily through contact with body fluids of any kind. Here and here are links to more technical information about this virus.

Since this is the largest outbreak known to date there have been multiple mis-steps by a variety of people and agencies attempting to address this - not the least is the bone-headed decision of politicians to not close our border or ban in-coming flights from areas of the world that have been the focus of the epidemic. Quarantine can be an effective measure in control of infectious disease and limiting immigration (legal or illegal) and banning travel from affected areas would be forms of this (of course, this does not apply to certain physicians who work as journalists in the MSM).  Oddly enough, while those responsible for protecting the public's health will not ban travel from affected areas nor close the borders, they will consider putting healthcare workers who have cared for patients with Ebola on a "no-fly" list! Go figure. Because this is the most significant outbreak yet experienced the situation is fluid and we are continuing to learn more about Ebola and how best to deal with it.

There is currently no vaccine approved for use, though one is in development. Currently, the treatment is symptomatic and supportive - there are no specific medications targeting Ebola at this time, though zMapp is a treatment/medication in development, as is Brincindofovir or Chimerix.

While the mortality rate is high some do recover. Those who recover are a reservoir of known effective treatment - antibodies. If we're going to send the military to Africa to help manage the Ebola crisis surely we can unleash their brainpower and manpower to organize the collection and use of immune-globulin from those who have recovered. Dr. Brantley has already provided this for several people. Apparently a black market for the blood of Ebola survivors has emerged. While one might survive Ebola, surviving a transfusion reaction from receiving blood of the wrong type can kill you very quickly! Or you may survive Ebola only to come down with HIV (or some other blood borne disease) from unscreened blood.

Since intravenous fluids are standard supportive treatment for those with Ebola why not use Vitamin C as an adjunct? Another nutrient that may be important as an adjunctive treatment of Ebola is selenium, see here also.

With a mortality and morbidity as high as Ebola's why limit treatment options? There is little to lose and lives to gain. What stops us is the prejudice of pride. We're waiting for man-made options (zMapp/Chimerix/vaccines) while there are other God-provided resources that are not considered. Even if they are not "the" answer, why limit ourselves in the face of such a significant threat? The risk of death in Ebola is high, while the risk of these treatment options is low - that's a ratio that favors their use as there is a theoretical basis for potential benefit with low likelihood of harm. These treatments are available for immediate use and are also relatively low in cost and technical complexity (unlike vaccines or the medications that are currently in development).

If the priority is people there is every reason to begin using IV vitamin C, selenium supplementation and use of immune globulin. If pharmaceutical profits and never letting a good crisis go to waste are the priority, then we'll just have to keep waiting.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

EV-D68: Is there a vaccine-link?

First off let me give credit where credit is due - the genesis of this blog post comes from a Facebook post of a friend, Cynthia Janak, who re-posted the information from someone else (I will update this post once I have her permission to be named - Tami Rainmom, updated Oct 10, 2014). I had seen reports linking illness from Enterovirus 68 with vaccines but was personally skeptical of the link primarily because vaccination is so widespread and EV-D68 is common, so linking vaccination with EV-D68 would be difficult. What is new is the virulence of this strain of EV-D68, leading to many children needing to be hospitalized for treatment with reports of some also becoming paralysed.

To be sure, this does not prove anything - it does not link vaccination with EV-D68, but it is intriguing and may well be a smoking gun. At the least it is an avenue that begs further research - the real question is if it will be pursued. I will not be surprised if concerned citizens are told "move along, nothing to see here" ... so as not to disturb the status quo of "there must be a vaccine for that"! So very many are extremely inve$ted in not changing a thing when it comes to vaccination (other than requiring more vaccines).

Also, enteroviruses are not new (nor is the virus implicated in the current outbreak), but what is concerning is the reports of increased virulence. Entero-virus means it can live in the gut and there are many different types, causing many kinds of illness. The virus that causes polio is one of many types of enteroviruses.

Contamination with residual DNA from the culture on which a viral antigen is grown is a known issue in vaccines - it is simply not possible to remove all such contamination from the final product. For that matter, it is not just residual DNA that contaminates vaccines, but also animal viruses as well (depending upon the cell culture used) ... and insects are now also being used as a culture medium too, so add insect diseases and DNA to the growing list of potential vaccine contaminants.

This link will take you to a Google doc for a patent that degrades residual DNA from the original cell culture in which a vaccine antigen is grown. According to the patent this
"Specifically, the invention provides an improved method of degrading any residual functional cell culture DNA remaining associated with the cell culture generated product."

Improving the degrading of functional DNA means there may well be some remaining functional DNA left. In other words, this product purportedly leaves less functional DNA remaining than other products (or perhaps previous versions of this product). Functional or no, I do not want to be injected with any DNA! Do you? Do you want your children injected with DNA, human/animal/insect? The issue of residual DNA in vaccines is not new - there are several vaccines produced using cell lines formed from aborted babies (among them, chickenpox vaccines) - see this post.

The document lists the types of antigens for which/on which this product/invention might be used - among the long list is:
"[0037] Enterovirus: Viral antigens may be derived from an Enterovirus, such as Poliovirus types 1, 2 or 3, Coxsackie A virus types 1 to 22 and 24, Coxsackie B virus types 1 to 6, Echovirus (ECHO) virus) types 1 to 9, 11 to 27 and 29 to 34 and Enterovirus 68 to 71. Preferably, the Enterovirus is poliovirus. Enterovirus antigens are preferably selected from one or more of the following Capsid proteins VP1, VP2, VP3 and VP4. Commercially available polio vaccines include Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) and Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV)."
Has anyone examined the vaccine history of those who have come down with EV-D68? Is recent vaccination for polio a common variable? Did they all receive the same vaccine from the same manufacturer? Same lot? Click here to see Wyeth's response to a "hot lot". Is it possible that there has been some kind of synergistic interaction (or recombination) between the polio vaccine (or some other vaccine) and this virus that has lead to the increased virulence and paralysis?

Widespread use of antibiotics has lead to the problem of antibiotic resistance which can make it difficult to treat pathogenic infections (and their widespread use also affects beneficial bacteria as well). There is research linking widespread vaccination with mutations in pathogens that may well be implicated in their resurgence (specifically whooping cough or pertussis). Other mechanisms are also discussed in this brief post.

Interestingly enough, a Dr. Jackson is quoted in this article that the primary strategy (aside from symptomatic treatment of those who are ill) is to let the virus run through the community (also known as "the herd"). This begs the question if perhaps that might not be a reasonable strategy for so many other infections. Why are we spending so much money and accepting risks to our health by vaccinating against infections that are generally mild, self-limiting and seldom result in serious short or long-term sequelae?

Given that vaccines are increasing the possibility of genetic recombinations (both in our own DNA as well as among pathogens) people (parents of children and all other adults) should be able to determine for themselves, free of coercion or manipulation, if they will or will not receive any vaccine.

There are so many unknowns - those who perceive vaccination as providing more benefit than risk should get them, those who believe the risks outweigh the possible benefits should not be punished for declining this invasive medical intervention.

Monday, September 01, 2014

Why do normal (real) science when you can do post-normal science?

Recent disclosures regarding the conduct of studies in vaccine safety by the CDC should lead everyone to ask some pointed questions regarding their safety and efficacy. A whistleblower has come forward alleging studies regarding the MMR vaccine were spiked in order to obtain particular results.

There are links to four articles below, none of which are directly about vaccines, but all of which inform the current controversy.

The concept of "post-normal science" has been developed and discussed since the early 1990's, and this writer wonders if it has been applied (even without intending to be) to studies of vaccines.

This quote of Steven Mosher (#1) describes a "post-normal" situation:
Science has changed. More precisely, in post normal conditions the behavior of people doing science has changed.
Ravetz describes a post normal situation by the following criteria:
  1. Facts are uncertain
  2. Values are in conflict
  3. Stakes are high
  4. Immediate action is required
The first three criteria would certainly apply to many aspects of medicine, including
vaccination - the fourth, not so much. Part of what is so appalling about the concept of "post-normal science" is the assumption that immediate action is required - given the first three
criteria the appropriate response is to slow down until more is known as taking immediate action can result in catastrophe if the intervention is ultimately found to be detrimental.

Here is a diagram (from #2) to explain the difference between traditional science ("applied science" - green area) and "post-normal science" - (red area);

It could well be argued that quality has always been the effective principle in practical research science, but it was largely ignored by the dominant philosophy and ideology of science. For post-normal science, quality becomes crucial, and quality refers to process at least as much as to product. It is increasingly realised in policy circles that in complex environment issues, lacking neat solutions and requiring support from all stakeholders, the quality of the decision-making process is absolutely critical for the achievement of an effective product in the decision. This new understanding applies to the scientific aspect of decision-making as much as to any other.
Figure 1
Post-Normal Science can be located in relation to the more traditional complementary strategies, by means of a diagram (see Figure 1). On it, we see two axes, "systems uncertainties" and "decision stakes". When both are small, we are in the realm of "normal", safe science, where expertise is fully effective. When either is medium, then the application of routine techniques is not enough; skill, judgement, sometimes even courage are required. We call this "professional consultancy", with the examples of the surgeon or the senior engineer in mind. Our modern society has depended on armies of "applied scientists" pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge and technique, with the professionals performing an aristocratic role, either as innovators or as guardians.
Of course there have always been problems that science could not solve; indeed, the great achievement of our civilisation has been to tame nature in so many ways, so that for unprecedented numbers of people, life is more safe, convenient and comfortable than could ever have been imagined in earlier times. But now we are finding that the conquest of nature is not complete. As we confront nature in its reactive state, we find extreme uncertainties in our understanding of its complex systems, uncertainties that will not be resolved by mere growth in our data-bases or computing power. And since we are all involved with managing the natural world to our personal and sectional advantage, any policy for change is bound to affect our interests. Hence in any problem-solving strategy, the decision-stakes of the various stakeholders must also be reckoned with.

This is why the diagram has two dimensions; this is an innovation for descriptions of "science", which had traditionally been assumed to be "value-free". But in any real problem of environmental management, the two dimensions are inseparable. When conclusions are not completely determined by the scientific facts, inferences will (naturally and legitimately) be conditioned by the values held by the agent. This is a necessary part of ordinary research practice; all statistical tests have values built in through the choice of numerical "confidence limits", and the management of "outlier" data calls for judgements that can sometimes approach the post-normal in their complexity. If the stakes are very high (as when an institution is seriously threatened by a policy) then a defensive policy will involve challenging every step of a scientific argument, even if the systems uncertainties are actually small. Such tactics become wrong only when they are conducted covertly, as by scientists who present themselves as impartial judges when they are actually committed advocates. There are now many initiatives, increasing in number and significance all the time, for involving wider circles of people in decision-making and implementation on environmental issues.
The financial stakes in vaccination are high - for the companies that make these products, along with those recommending them. The personal stakes are high for all who are required to be vaccinated in order to keep their jobs or participate in public school/daycare - and who must accept the personal and financial consequences of any adverse effects - in other words, accepting nearly all the risk. Increasingly there is reason to believe uncertainty is high in regards to vaccination - uncertainty that the risk/reward ratio may not be as accurate as it has been portrayed.

If one study was thrown, might others have been thrown as well?

What other "irregularities" might have occurred? Paul Thorson is implicated (indicted, actually) in wire-fraud/improper use of funds (#3) and has yet to be extradited from Denmark to answer the charges against him (well, at least for how he used the money entrusted to him for the sake of researching vaccine safety). But if the funds allocated for research can not be accounted for can the findings of the research be trusted? Both issues involve numbers - if you'll fudge one set, might you also alter another?

In 2005 Ioannidis (#4) published an essay titled "Why Most Published Research Findings
Are False" reviewing factors that lead to the publication of findings that are later found to be false or incorrect. In this paper he develops several corollaries regarding the likelihood of true findings in a research paper - two in particular are applicable in vaccine science:

Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28]. 
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
There is tremendous financial COI among those involved in vaccine science and involved in making "recommendations" for vaccination.  The market for vaccination is in the billions (yearly), with little risk of accountability for any adverse effects. Well-paying and prestigious careers are made by many who are beholden to the doctrine of vaccination - in academia, governmental bureaucracies (CDC) and private multi-national pharmaceutical companies.

Lastly, Mr. Patrick Michaels, in a piece for (#5), "The Threat to the Scientific Method", reviews some of the history for how and why the process of science has been undermined - basically how the "publish or perish" phenomenon has impacted how science is done.

Pretense masks arrogance in strutting around trumpeting one's presumed objectivity as a scientist when further, and more objective analysis reveals this to be an abject lie.

The only aspect of "post-normal science" this writer agrees with is that it seems to (more) openly acknowledge everyone has an agenda - the problem is that the agenda is influencing results and driving policy rather than facts and truth ... and few are willing to be patient to wait for facts and truth to be known and understood. There is an abundance of evidence that many are harmed when this is allowed to prevail. History has already shown that, and will no doubt show it again. Because of this we should err on the side of both freedom and caution, allowing each individual to determine for themselves whether they will, or will not, receive a vaccination.






Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Opacity isn't science ...

In theory, science (, the process of discovering factual information and verifying that it is true, must be transparent and open.

On August 25, 2014 the CDC released a statement ( addressing the controversy swirling around a whistleblower who has come forward alleging the scientific process was corrupted in research looking at the relationship between autism and vaccination.

They do not directly address the allegation made by one of the authors of the study in question. It seems they are circling the wagons to protect the status quo. Hopefully this initial response will be followed with one that more completely addresses the issues involved. Since one of their employees is making the allegations they may not yet be at liberty to be more forthright - though if that is truly the case why didn't they say so?!

This statement is very interesting:
 "Additional studies and a more recent rigorous review by the Institute of Medicine have      found that MMR vaccine does not increase the risk of autism."
The whistleblower implies the IOM review was compromised by the results of this study that he alleges was gerry-rigged to arrive at pre-determined results. He further alleges that he informed his co-workers and supervisors of his concerns about the methods of analysis that were being used and the conclusions being drawn.

The selective framing of this statement is also worth looking at:
"Vaccines protect the health of children in the United States so well that most parents today have never seen first-hand the devastating consequences of diseases now stopped by vaccines."
Those sounding the alarm regarding risks of vaccination do not deny that becoming ill from any disease can cause sequelae, sometimes devastating. Yet having seen first hand what can happen as a result of vaccination they simply want to be able to make a medical decision for themselves or their minor children without being harrassed or have receipt of service be tied to vaccination status. They want others to be spared the pain and suffering with which they and their loved ones have had to cope.

Use of the word "protect" is also very telling - a more accurate choice of words would be "reduce risk" - even those who promote vaccines acknowledge they do not work 100% of the time, even when so called "herd immunity" is achieved. The concepts of protection and risk reduction are not equivalent, nor are the inter-changable.

Then there is this:
"The data CDC collected for this study continue to be available for analysis by others. CDC welcomes analysis by others that can be submitted for peer-review and publication. For more information on how to access this public-use dataset please go to the this webpage." 
Obtaining the data is not as simple as this statement may make it seem - ask Dr. Brian Hooker. While access to data should not be without boundries, especially when it may contain sensitive information (ie: personally identifiable records) one wonders why it would require years of FOIA requests? This seems like stone-walling. Here is a link to a story with information about his efforts to obtain other information pertaining to the issue of vaccines and any link to neuro-developmental problems: Please note: it took him 10 years and >100 FOIA requests. Our employees (ie: those who serve the people of the United States who happen to work at the CDC) should not be making it so difficult for us to review their work - WE PAY THEM!!

As always -
Those who perceive vaccination to be beneficial should get whatever vaccine they want.
Those who believe vaccination is risky should not be penalized for declining vaccination, nor should they be manipulated into acceptance.

link to original video:

CDC Statement:

Snope doggy-dog ... snooping, not reporting

The rumor-debunking website has waded into the controversy surrounding the CDC whistleblower with this post:

The bias in what they have written is palpable.

Snopes derides concerns about the link between vaccines and neurological problems (primarily autism) as a "conspiracy theory" - the only conspiracy is the concerted effort to dismiss these concerns ... concerns the whistleblower's allegations absolutely validate.
The whistleblower's allegations are themselves validation of the conspiracy so many want to deny - all the more so if his statements are proved to be true. His allegations are validating because he was involved - he was part of the "conspiracy" and he is coming forward admitting as much! He is a witness as well as a whistleblower - he should be commended for his honesty and protected while further investigation is done (just not by Snopes!)

They cite the iCNN source - but that is secondary at best, as it is the whistleblower who made the allegation and first disclosed this to Hooker/Wakefield.

They allege Wakefield's original Lancet study regarding GI issues associated with autism first planted the "seed of fear" about the link between vaccines and autism - um, no. It was moms and dads who know and love their children who first correlated loss of skills and other neuro-developmental changes/degenerations with receipt of vaccines. (Silly mommies and daddies, what do they know - they are not scientists!) There was no need for any scientific paper to cause concern about undesired consequences of vaccination - indeed that has been brewing since Jenner first proposed it as a medical intervention. Controversy about vaccination is nothing new, nor is the use of fear and manipulation to force it upon those who do not want it.

The Snopes peice states "anyone can submit content" to iReport on CNN - as if any story not having the blessing of an officially sanctioned outlet isn't valid? Kudos to CNN for having this platform and making it available - others can do their work for them and alert them to developing stories and give them the chance to have first crack at what may well develop into something important - if CNN recognizes it! Does Snopes think crowdsourcing is only valid if it's promoting ALS fundraisers?

This writer doesn't pretend to be unbiased. Neither should Snopes. Ronald Reagan could not have been more correct in saying "trust, but verify"!

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Blowing the whistle on the MMR ...

Over the last week the news that a whistleblower from the CDC disclosed the use of post-normal science (ie: a gerry-rigged study that obtains pre-determined results) to create a study providing results that could be used to justify the status quo for vaccination.

The first link below is to a video recording the confession of the whistleblower to Brian Hooker (apparently made by Dr. Andrew Wakefield). Link #5 is to Brian Hooker's re-analysis of the data from the original study (link #6, abstract only);

The video makes some alarming comparison's to the infamous Tuskegee Syphillis experiment as Dr. Hooker's re-analysis shows a significant corelation between MMR vaccination and autism in black male children - especially if they receive the MMR "early" (before 36 months).

The study in question is about the MMR - there may be something unique about it which impacts autism/ASD, but given the complexity of human life, autism/ASD is likely multi-factoral. It may not be just the vaccine antigen which is problematic - many other ingredients in vaccines could be contributing to adverse effects of vaccination (not just autism ... ) - mercury, aluminum, human and animal dna, viruses, among others.

But if the allegations are true, it could lead many to question the legitimacy of many studies proporting to show the safety of other vaccines - indeed there is already reason to question vaccine safety as many studies do not use a true, inert placebo (like saline) in comparison to a vaccine - vaccine A is compared to vaccine B and if the results of side effects are similar vaccine A is declared "safe";

Given the amount of money involved in the whole vaccination paradigm this type of scandal is not surprising. Many people have rea$on to maintain the vaccine $tatu$ quo.

Given the cozy relationship (technically referred to as CONFLICT OF INTEREST) between those responsible for vaccine policy (and by extension those doing studies to support said policy) this is not surprising.

What would be downright SHOCKING is if someone actually did something about it:

  • Made changes to eliminate conflicts of interest (in other words - stopped the revolving door between the companies that make the vaccines and benefit from government policy regarding vaccines and those setting government policy regarding vaccines). If you work for pharmaceutical companies you would be prohibited from working for government agencies directly or indirectly involved in vaccines and vice versa. Not a token 1 year waiting period either. 

  • Another practical suggestion would be to remove the legal liability shield from the companies that make vaccines. 

  • Does the ACIP (Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices) have full access to safety studies? Are they allowed to see this "proprietary" information? Perhaps they could develop a policy that they will not review a vaccine for addition to/inclusion in the vaccine schedule unless they have complete and full disclosure of ALL data from which safety studies draw their conclusions (not just the "results" of said safety studies). This, of course, is only relevant once the ACIP has been purged of those with conflict of interest! 

  • Schools and workplaces could scale back on draconian mandates regarding vaccination status for students and employees. Even if results of studies regarding vaccination are not compromised the case for mandatory vaccination is still weak - simply from a civil and human rights standpoint.

Hopefully more information will come out, more details about they workplace culture in which the whistleblower worked and how that impacted the results of their studies.

The impact of money and politics upon science has a long history - just ask Galileo, Copernicus, Sammelweis, Pasteur (among others). Consensus isn't science, nor is it necessarily a guide to what is true. Far too often and for far too long medicine has made pronouncements about this or that treatment/procedure/medication only to find out after the fact that their initial enthusiasm (ie: recommendations/mandates/guidelines) was not warrented.

Good ideas, good products do not need mandates or manipulation to create demand. It is long past time for vaccines to live or die in a free marketplace of ideas and products. Those who want them should get them. Those who do not should not be penalized.

#5) - reanalysis of original paper
#6) - original paper
#7) - critique of Hooker's re-analysis

Friday, August 01, 2014

Breath of fresh air ...

Leave it to our northern neighbors to come to some common sense conclusions - three Canadian physicians have published an OpEd calling for health care workers to be able to accept or decline flu vaccination rather than imposing a mandate for an intervention with dodgy "evidence" for support (and they extend this to the alternate "choice" of wearing a mask for at least 6 months of the year).

They acknowledge that the over-hyped efficacy and under-stated risks of flu vaccination has eroded the public's trust. The writers of the article chose to get vaccinated because they believe it provides them with some benefit and they encourage others to do so as well - but they don't believe others should be forced to receive the vaccine if they do not want it (regardless of the reason).

I wonder if Canada's ACIP (or its equivalent) has members with conflict of interest issues?
Apparently Canada does not tie payments to healthcare providers/facilities to vaccination status of their employees (another conflict of interest linked to vaccines).

Kudos to Canada - if only the USA would import this kind of common sense.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Work with anthrax, why get vaccinated?

The phrase "safe and effective" is frequently used in regards to vaccination. An increasing number of vaccines is "recommended" (in a mandatory sort of way) for an ever larger number of people by the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) own Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Last week more than 80 people who work at the CDC in Atlanta were possibly exposed to Anthrax. It's unknown how many of this group may already have been vaccinated against anthrax, but 27 of them were vaccinated (in addition to taking antibiotics) in an attempt to reduce their risk of actually becoming ill. Fortunately, no one seems to have come down with
any form of the illness, and hopefully no one will.

In reviewing the CDC's own statement about this unintentional exposure of their lab personnel to anthrax, it is surprising that there is no affirmation indicating said personnel were already vaccinated against the pathogen with which they were working.

It seems that vaccination against anthrax is not mandatory for at least some of those who are involved in actually working with live cultures of this bacteria. Why? After all, vaccines are "safe and effective" and there is an anthrax vaccine available. Why? This is the very agency whose recommendations for all manner of vaccines is taken as gospel truth and implemented with the force of law. Many people are unable to keep their jobs or go to school unless they are vaccinated against a variety of pathogens - yet it seems that at least some of the people who are actually handling (and thus at higher risk of exposure ... as clearly demonstrated by recent events) are not vaccinated against the very germ to which they are at risk of exposure? Huh? Many in the military are not at such direct risk of exposure, yet are required to be vaccinated against anthrax - and the package insert states that yearly "booster" shots are necessary.

Perhaps those working in the lab involved with this incident were given the choice to decide for themselves which risk/benefit ratio they were willing to accept (either when they began working in the lab or when this risk of contamination was discovered) - if only this were the case for all.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Measles mortality - Pakistan

The following link scrolled across my Facebook feed, the writer lamenting the fact that parents in Pakistan are questioning the use of vaccines in the midst of a measles epidemic - no link to an original article, though.

The writer states there have been 100 deaths so far, out of 15,000 cases in 1 province (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) - a death rate of 0.66% based on the information in this letter to the editor.

But it isn't measles that is killing Pakistan's children - their newborns and neonates die at alarming rates from prematurity, birth asphyxia and birth trauma, and sepsis ... problems that are symptoms of systemic problems - problems that are amenable to trained midwives, prenatal care and good nutrition during pregnancy, and a higher level of care, when necessary.

If they survive their first year of life, it isn't measles that kills them (not directly, anyway) - it is acute lower respiratory infections, diarrhea, other non-communicable diseases, and injuries.

But looking at UNICEF data it seems that Pakistan has made great strides in improving their
child mortality stats:

And perhaps the high coverage of Vit A dosing is why their measles deaths are (relatively) low!

The question that is left begging, is why do we spend huge sums of money, time, and talent on vaccination instead of raising the standard of living - education and economic development has a huge impact on health - as then people are able to afford a healthier lifestyle - like electricity or gas so they aren't using cow dung to cook their food inside their dwelling, like electricity so they can have a refridgerator to keep food from spoiling, like access to clean water, and indoor toilets so their waste is kept separate from the source of their drinking water, money to buy higher quality and more nutritious food.  

Perhaps the reason people are avoiding vaccination is because it has been used as a ruse (in Pakistan no less!) to obtain DNA in an effort to identify terrorists and their locations.

Regardless, vaccination should be accepted freely by parents or adults - not forced upon people for any reason. Doing the right thing, in the wrong way, makes the right thing wrong - it doesn't make the wrong means/method right!

Monday, June 16, 2014

Whooping Cough - let's hack at facts ...

The following link scrolled through my FB feed today:

Whooping cough is not fun - I had it as a child and remember a house call from our family physician and steam treatments in an effort to help me breath (I was likely 3-5 years old at
the time). I'm not sure if I had received the vaccine. I don't blame parents (or anyone else)
who wants to avoid getting ill - and there is reason to believe that vaccines reduce risk of
disease. But even the best intended interventions can have unintended consequences (many
of which are discovered after the fact) - and for this reason we should be free to determine
whether or not to receive, or decline, vaccination for anything.

In Cali, of those for whom they had a vaccination history (almost 3/4 of peds cases), only 9% had never had a pertussis containing vaccine, so at least 2/3 of cases had had at least 1 dose of pertussis vaccine.
This link was provided in the article above:

If most cases have been vaccinated (to one degree or another) it begs the question of effectiveness (see below about b. parapertussis) - but there is also research implying that any risk reduction (I won't call it "protection" - we try to consider these two, different concepts equivalent when they are not) wanes farely quickly (within a few years of receipt of the vaccine) so it may be necessary to re-vaccinate frequently in order to maintain whatever benefit of risk reduction you may obtain from vaccine use. 

There is research linking pertussis vaccine with the rise of b. parapertussis, a related organism producing nearly identical symptoms;  I suspect this is like anti-biotic resistance, a lessen we are only beginning to learn. 

Also, the recently vaccinated may well be reservoirs for infection (and so they may also play a role in the spread of the infection, not just the unvaccinated) - here's a link to a study that showed this in baboons: 

Lastly, there are reports (both anecdotal and in the medical/scientific literature) of the use of high doses of Vit C as a treatment modality for pertussis ... seems to have a direct action against the bacteria as well as against the toxin it produces. It's been given either orally or intravenously.

Vaccination isn't without risks ... the decision to vaccinate (or not) should be made freely, without coercion or manipulation. Each parent/adult should decide for themselves which risk/benefit ratio they wish to accept.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Mostly measles ...

The headline states that we are in the "post-elimination" era, but clearly we are not!

The record setting pace of measles cases in the US is a grand total of 288 (for a population of almost 300 million). No deaths. 195/288 (67%) cases were unvaccinated, 32% were vaccinated (though it is unknown how much time elapsed between their vaccination and
exposure to measles) - there is also a chart detailing where most of the exposures come from and they types of measles most common there ... it would be relevant to know which types of measles the US vaccine is most effective against.

In the Philippines they've had 32,000 cases in the last 6 months (41 deaths):
41/32,000 = .13% rate of death (I make no claims to be a statistician - these are raw numbers based on the information available in the WaPo article). Regardless, it hardly seems to be a deadly disease.

43/288 (in the US) have been hospitalized for treatment of secondary infections (presumably pneumonia for most) = 14.6% rate of hospital admission;

I wonder how many were treated with high doses of Vit A?

Also from the article:
122,000/20 million infections (combined - Europe/Asia/Africa) = .61% rate of death; Not exactly an infectious terror.

The article does note that 1/10 with measles can get an ear infection (which could possibly lead to deafness), and 1/20 pneumonia (which can kill), and there is also the risk of encephalitis or brain inflammation, though this more serious sequelae is also far more rare (1/1,000 - 3,000 cases);

From the CDC Measles FAQ:

Q: How common was measles in the United States before the vaccine?

A: Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis. 
500 deaths/3,000,000 cases of measles = .0123% risk of death (pre-vaccine)
48,000 hospitalizations/4,000,000 cases of measles = 1.2% risk of hospitalization
1,000 measles encephalitis/4,000,000 cases of measles = .025% risk of encephalitis

Risks of MMR vaccine:

MMR vaccine side-effects 
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)

What are the risks from MMR vaccine?

A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
  • Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
  • Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
  • Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
  • Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
  • 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)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
  • Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
  • Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
    • Deafness
    • Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
    • Permanent brain damage
    These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.
This information was taken directly from the MMR VIS
(This information taken from MMR VIS dated 4/20/12. If the actual VIS is more recent than this date, the information on this page needs to be updated.)

Spontaneous infection and recovery from measles provides such robust immunity that those born earlier than 1957 are presumed to be immune, while those who are vaccinated "can lose their immunity over time"; This is a tacit admission of the superior efficacy of spontaneous infection - perhaps because the infection is acquired through normal means - being first presented to the body, and the immune system, through the mucous membranes, rather than being directly injected into the blood stream through the skin (via the capillary network).

Measles, especially severe cases that result in secondary infection and/or complications may be a marker for nutritional compromise, as high doses of Vit A are the recommended treatment. Why is this acknowledged as the preferred treatment for this infection, but the use of nutritional supplements as a risk reduction tool (ie: Vit D3) is scorned in favor of vaccination?
If short-term high doses of Vit A are efficacious for this infection, could this also be true of other vitamins for other infections?

Life is risky ... we should all decide what risks we are willing to live with.
Some prefer the risk of spontaneous infection.
Others prefer the risk of vaccination (ie: not efficacious, and/or independent risk of
vaccines as listed above);

Regardless, we should all choose which risks to accept - so vaccination should be
accepted or declined freely.

Update May 30, 2014:

The authors of the above report acknowledge that underreporting is a likely and limits the accuracy of the report - but also implies that the risks discussed may be overstated due to

Here is a link with lots of technical and detailed information regarding the genetics of
measles vaccine strains:

MMR Package Insert:

Monday, May 19, 2014

We don't know what we don't know ...

The vaccine issue is much bigger than children and vaccines - adults are the next "target" so to speak -- in other words, the focus is on compliance with an ever growing schedule of vaccines for adults - many of which are currently only "recommended" which is a hairsbreadth away from being required (except of course for flu vaccine for anyone doing anything in anyway with/for healthcare). 

>200 vaccines are currently in development. 

There is reason/plausibility to wonder how much of a variable are vaccine adverse effects in contributing toward a variety of chronic health issues in children (regardless of the system involved - ie: neuro/autism, endocrine/diabetes, immune/allergies, etc ... ) BUT - if vaccines and/or their adjuvants/excipients are contributing to these types of health issues in children might they also be a variable in chronic health issues in adults? It may not be as apparent in adults as we are not as "plastic" as children - but this also means recovery/repair takes longer if it happens at all. 

We don't know what we don't know - and I think there is a GREAT deal we don't know about vaccines and the consequences of using them. 

While vaccines likely do play a role in suppressing some infectious diseases, the fact that outbreaks are occurring among highly vaccinated populations demonstrates that the risk reduction is limited at best. The strategy of continuous re-vaccination ("booster" shots) may ultimately end up backfiring much like the over-use of antibiotics has led to resistant bacteria. For that matter, have we considered that there might be a synergistic effect - many who have whooping cough (either B. pertussis or B. parapertussis) are also treated with antibiotics - and many of them are/were vaccinated prior to coming down with the illness. 

I'd rather not have to deal with bacteria/viruses that are both vaccine and antibiotic resistant!! We may be better off dealing with the problem of infections in childhood that yield a more substantial/robust protective immunity rather than suppressing (deferring?) infections through vaccination. Part of the problem with suppressing/deferring/delaying contraction of these illnesses is that they are more severe when/if they occur later in life. 
Especially because there seems to be an alarming lack of curiosity regarding the possibility that vaccination may be a variable in a variety of chronic health problems. 

This is why vaccination, like any other medical procedure/intervention, should be fully informed, and freely chosen by those involved - taken without any coercion or manipulation. 

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Marketplace of ideas - freedom works

Vaccines evoke strong opinions, pro and con. There are some in the pro-vaccine camp who are proposing that those who don't agree with them not be allowed to express their views - for the sake of protecting the public, of course. At best this is condescending, at worst just plain dangerous because of the precedent that is set - don't agree with an opinion, silence the opposition. Hmmm ... our current administration has already set this precedent in using the IRS as a political tool against certain groups, so unfortunately, and example has already been set. 

It's condescending as it is a paternalistic attitude that assumes people cannot think for themselves and examine evidence and draw their own conclusions, make up their own minds about a matter (whether it is about vaccines or anything else). 

It's dangerous because if this is permitted regarding vaccines (silencing those who question the conventional wisdom of vaccination), then what other opinions or thoughts might be targeted next, simply because they do not conform to prevailing patterns crafted by the thought police? 

We are designed to live in freedom, and this is why more humans have flourished under free market capitalism than any other economic model. It expresses the collective wisdom of individual economic choices (bottom up), rather than the imposition of the will of a few from the top (a model that has failed spectacularly -- a model in which millions wait in lines for bread whereas in capitalism, bread waits for millions); 

Even as things are the market for vaccines is not free ... those who manufacture and deliver the product are shielded from liability, while the product in question is required by law or fiat before individuals can obtain employment (flu shots for healthcare workers) or schooling (children); If the market for vaccines were free(er), there would be no mandates, nor any liability firewall. If the product in question is so safe and effective as its supporters insist that it is, such things (mandates/liability limits) would not be needed as there would be a groundswell of demand for the product. 

Those who create the mandates have conflicts of interest in doing so ... 

Science is not settled - about vaccines and many other things. The marketplace of ideas benefits from the free exchange of ideas, so silencing anyone, about any issue, is foolish and unspeakably arrogant. 

What are those who are suggesting this so afraid of? If they are so confident in the concept of vaccination, why would it matter if those who question vaccination are wrong? 

We trust women to make life and death decisions regarding their children's lives (ie: they can determine whether or not to have an abortion) because "we trust them" and/or "they have the right" ... but we can't trust mommies to determine whether or not their child gets a vaccine - another life and death decision?! Parents/people can't have the right to determine whether or not they get a vaccine? 

Yet another eerily similar parallel between vaccines and abortion: pro-aborts want to limit the amount of information women get (lest they change their mind and not have the abortion ... and the abortionist not get the filthy lucre), while those who are pro-life/oppose abortion want women to have as much accurate information as possible prior to making their decision so they can make a fully informed decision! 

So the pro-vaccine camp wants to limit people's ability to obtain information (well, any information that might question vaccination), while those who do have questions want people to get as much information as possible prior to making the decision to vaccinate. 

Truth has no fear of the lie - it is quite telling that those who question vaccination do not shirk from the debate, nor are they (to the knowledge of this blogger at the time of this post) insinuating that those who are pro-vaccine be silenced. 

Our Creator designed us with free will, and even He respects our freedom to chose even when it causes us, and Him, great grief. He detailed reasonable boundaries in His word, the Bible, to help us not take freedom to far (like slaughtering innocent unborn human life for the sake of personal autonomy) -- but if He respects our freedom to choose, shouldn't we also respect one another's? 

Those who want vaccines should get them. 
Those who do not want vaccines should not be forced or manipulated to do so. 

Everyone should be free to speak their mind, and fellow citizens should be able to listen, unfettered by censorship.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Bexsero, again ...

In the last year there have been a handful of cases of Meningitis B at several college campuses (previously discussed on this blog, see links below);

The Today Show aired a segment this morning about a mom who is taking a group of young adults to Canada to be vaccinated with Bexsero - motivated by the death of her daughter from MenB in January of this year. (;

My heart breaks for her - I can only imagine her pain. It's tragic that her daughter died - MenB is indeed a serious infection.

Bexsero is approved in the EU ( and now is also approved in the UK (as of March 2014 - though it is not yet available - the hold up being negotiations on price. Bexsero is not yet approved by the FDA in the US (though it was given a provisional approval for use on Princeton and UCSB campuses in response to the cluster of cases of MenB); Novartis plans to submit an application for formal approval by the FDA

While MenB is a serious infection and can cause death and/or serious sequelae it is also not very common - according to the CDC there are less 200 cases/year of MenB out of a total of 500 cases of all types of meningitis (2012 data -;

The efficacy of Bexsero is unknown - it is simply assumed to work because antibodies are
generated in response to receipt of the vaccine:

The efficacy of Bexsero has not been evaluated through clinical trials. Vaccine efficacy has been inferred by demonstrating the induction of serum bactericidal antibody responses to each of the vaccine antigens (see section Immunogenicity).
From:  (page 7);

Aluminum is used as an adjuvant to help stimulate the immune response - .5mg/dose (see page 19 of the above link), 2 doses are recommended.

Some believe strongly in the necessity of vaccination, and believe the benefits outweigh the risks - they should be vaccinated if they so choose.

No one should be required to be vaccinated as we no so little about the long-term consequences of repeated exposure to these products.

We know that use of antibiotics changes the microbiome - and not always for the better, is it possible that use of vaccines is also a factor in this?

We think we can achieve "herd" immunity via vaccination ... perhaps we just need to take better care of one another - not "herd" the "herd" into cramped, high-density living quarters - this is a known risk factor for virtually any disease, let alone MenB. We've barely begun to recognize that CAFO produce unhealthy food/meat ... besides animals deserve better - that is not stewardship, it's abuse - no creature deserves to be treated in that manner, even if it's destiny is death for the sake of feeding humans! If this is true of a lower order of creation, it is all the more true of the pinnacle of creation - humans, made in the Imagio Deo!