What's so dangerous about a doctor?

An osteopath, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, from America was set to go to Australia and give a series of informational talks about vaccination. This tour is now in jeopardy because her views are so threatening to those who promote vaccination.

The Australian government may revoke her visa. If the Aussie government concedes to calls to prevent her from traveling to their country it would be the height of hypocrisy in light of the statements of Tony Abbott following the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Statements lauding the necessity of freedom of expression.

Whether it is religious beliefs or medical opinions, the truth has nothing to fear from the lie, so why are vaccine proponents working overtime to keep Dr. Tenpenny (and her views) from coming to Australia? The strenuous objections might lead someone to suspect that the strength of their evidence may not be all that great, otherwise there would be no problem with the airing of a different analysis of the available data.

It is very telling that those who support vaccination do not simply support vaccination - they insist that everyone else conform to this through coercive, manipulative mandates linking vaccination with participation in common activities (work, school) and now are extending this to requiring conformity of thought regarding vaccination by attempting to censor the marketplace of ideas by ensuring Dr. Tenpenny does not speak in Australia.

A good product does not need to be forced on anyone - people voluntarily, individually demand it by seeking it out and asking for it from multiple vendors or venues - more vendors and/or venues being necessary because of the spontaneous popularity of the good thing (whatever it might be).

Good products do not need to be shielded from legal liability by a fig leaf of a law (1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).

Good products are supported by research not tainted by fraud (Thorsen/mumps/Merck,
#CDCwhistleblower - just for starters) and conflict of interest.

Good ideas are not threatened by free and open and public debate.

It seems vaccines may not be a good product.

I'm really not anti-vaccine so much as I am pro-freedom ... those who believe the benefits of vaccination are more than the risks should get them. Those who have more concern about the risks of vaccination than any benefit derived from them should be free to decline.

Do the research and make up your own mind. If you want to learn more about Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and her views, follow her on Facebook or Twitter. Or not! It's up to you. She also has this website: http://drtenpenny.com/

Click here to go to a Change.org petition supporting her visit to Australia (or don't - it's up to you!)

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?

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: http://www.homefirst.com/ and Alan Phillips website is:
http://www.vaccinerights.com/attorneyphillips.html

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".

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.


http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1993/WHO_HRP_WHO_93.1.pdf

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/kenyas-bishops-are-right-to-fear-a-population-control-agenda-from-the-un

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un-denies-secretly-sterilizing-kenyan-women-more-hard-tests-coming

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kenyan-debate-over-lab-results-shows-need-for-new-tests-on-un-tetanus-vacci?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fe73766186-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-fe73766186-326207018

http://www.fiamc.org/bioethics/statement-on-who-sponsored-vaccination-in-kenya/

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).  

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.

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
product:

"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.