• Resources
    • Videos/Speeches/Articles
    • The Art of Health Freedom
    • Good Books
    • Recommended Videos
    • Recommended Links
    • Radio Show Archives
    • Trustee Interviews
    • Newsletter Archives
    • Internet Links
  • Rave Reviews
    • Testimonials
    • Video Testimonials
  • Take Action
    • Create Pushback
    • Tell Your Friends
    • Become an Organizer
    • Send Letters
  • Wellness Stores
    • Buy our products
    • Valley of the Moon Coffee
  • 5 Big Lies
    • Drugs & Vaccine
    • Chemtrails
    • G.M.O.
    • Radiation
    • Food
  • Home
  • Support
    • Support Health Freedom
    • Coffee
  • Events/Press/Media
    • POD Casts/Radio Shows
    • Webinars
    • Press Release
  • About Us
    • Mission Statement
    • Accomplishments
    • Board of Trustees
    • NSF History/Vision
    • Contact Webmaster
    • Customer Service
  • Dr. Rima’s Blog/Vlog
    • GDS
    • Codex Alimentarius
  • eBook Download

Archive for Privacy – Page 10

Am. Acad. Ped. When Parents Refuse to Immunize Their Children

By Administrator on February 27, 2008 No Comments

This is an official document of the American Academy of Pediatrics discussing what to do about/with/to parents who refuse immunizatin for their children. Note that the document asserts that decision-making about the health care of the child should be shared between the parent and physician and that parents who do not agree with pediatricians to immunize their children are evaluating information less well than doctors. None the less, more than 4% of all pediatricians refuse to immunize their own young children.

CLINICAL REPORT

PEDIATRICS Vol. 115 No. 5 May 2005, pp. 1428-1431 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0316)
* Abstract of this Article
* PDF Version of this Article
* Email this article to a friend
* Similar articles found in:
AAP Policy Online
ISI Web of Science
PubMed
* PubMed Citation
* This Article has been cited by:
other online articles
* Search Medline for articles by:
Diekema, D. S.
* Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
* Download to Citation Manager
CLINICAL REPORT
Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children
Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPH and the Committee on Bioethics

ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE…
COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC…
RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO…
Committee on Bioethics, 2003…
Liaisons
Staff
REFERENCES

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly endorses universal immunization. However, for childhood immunization programs to be successful, parents must comply with immunization recommendations. The problem of parental refusal of immunization for children is an important one for pediatricians. The goal of this report is to assist pediatricians in understanding the reasons parents may have for refusing to immunize their children, review the limited circumstances under which parental refusals should be referred to child protective services agencies or public health authorities, and provide practical guidance to assist the pediatrician faced with a parent who is reluctant to allow immunization of his or her child.

Key Words: immunization • parental refusals • medical neglect • vaccine refusal

Abbreviations: AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics

OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
TOP
ABSTRACT
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE…
COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC…
RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO…
Committee on Bioethics, 2003…
Liaisons
Staff
REFERENCES

The immunization of children against a multitude of infectious agents has been hailed as one of the most important health interventions of the 20th century.1–3 Immunizations have eliminated smallpox infection worldwide, driven polio from North America, and made formerly common infections like diphtheria, tetanus, measles, and invasive Haemophilus influenzae infections rare occurrences. By one account, pediatric immunizations are responsible for preventing 3 million deaths in children each year worldwide.3 Despite this success, some parents continue to refuse immunizations for their children. The number of pertussis cases has increased steadily in the United States over the past 20 years, and Web sites critical of immunization are prominent on the Internet, a source that many parents rely on for health information.4 It is ironic that the remarkable success of vaccine programs has resulted in a situation in which most parents have no memory of the devastating effects of illnesses such as poliomyelitis, measles, and other vaccine-preventable diseases, making it more difficult for them to appreciate the benefits of immunization.

According to a periodic survey of fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) on immunization-administration practices, 7 of 10 pediatricians reported that they had had a parent refuse an immunization on behalf of a child in the 12 months preceding the survey.5 Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine was refused most frequently, followed by varicella vaccine, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccines. Four percent of pediatricians had refused permission for an immunization for their own children younger than 11 years. When faced with parents who refuse immunization, almost all pediatricians reported that they attempt to educate parents regarding the importance of immunization and document the refusal in the patient’s medical record. A small number of pediatricians reported that they always (4.8%) or sometimes (18.1%) tell parents that they will no longer serve as the child’s physician if, after educational efforts, the parents continue to refuse permission for an immunization.5

The AAP strongly endorses universal immunization. However, for universal childhood immunization programs to be successful, parents must comply with immunization recommendations. The problem of parental refusal of immunization for children is an important one for pediatricians. Parents may have many reasons for refusing immunization. Some parents may object to immunization on religious or philosophical grounds, some may object to what seems to be a painful assault on their child, and others may believe that the benefits of immunization do not justify the risks to their child. Many commonly held beliefs about the risks of immunization are not supported by available data, and they frequently originate from the unsupported claims of organizations that are critical of immunization. These antivaccine information sources not only propagate unproven claims regarding vaccines but also may undermine the physician-family relationship by challenging the parents’ trust of the medical profession.

What should the pediatrician do when faced with a parent who refuses to consent to immunizations for a child? The goal of this clinical report is to provide guidance to the pediatrician faced with this difficult situation. The physician faced with a parent who refuses to immunize a child faces 3 important and distinct issues that will be addressed in this report. First, are there situations in which parents who withhold immunizations from their children risk harming them sufficiently that their decision constitutes actionable medical neglect and should be reported to state child protective services agencies? Second, are there situations in which a parental decision to withhold immunization from a child puts other individuals at risk of harm sufficient to justify public health intervention? Finally, how should the pediatrician respond to a parent who refuses immunizations for his or her child?

PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN

Health care professionals and parents are bound by the duty to seek medical benefit for and minimize harm to children in their care. When faced with the decision to immunize a child, the welfare of the child should be the primary focus. However, parents and physicians may not always agree on what constitutes the best interest of an individual child. In those situations, physicians may need to tolerate decisions they disagree with if those decisions are not likely to be harmful to the child.6 Although decision-making involving the health care of children should be shared between physicians and parents, parental permission must be sought before children receive medical interventions, including immunizations.7 Parents are free to make choices regarding medical care unless those choices place their child at substantial risk of serious harm.

Whether parents place their children at substantial risk of serious harm by refusing immunization will depend on several factors, including the probability of contracting the disease if unimmunized and the morbidity and mortality associated with infection. The results of such an analysis will also vary depending on the prevalence of disease in the community in which the child resides or the areas in which the child is likely to travel. The balance between the risks and benefits to a given individual favors immunization most strongly when rates of immunization in the community are low and disease prevalence is high. In most cases, however, as immunization rates increase and disease prevalence decreases, the balance may tip the other way.8,9 Although the benefits of a measles-vaccine program, for example, clearly outweigh the risks at a population level,10 an unimmunized child living in a well-immunized community derives significant indirect protection from herd immunity.11 Even in a community with high immunization rates, the risk assumed by an unimmunized child is likely to be greater than the risks associated with immunization. However, the risk remains low, and in most cases the parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well-immunized community does not place the child at substantial risk of serious harm.

The role of the physician in these situations is to provide parents with the risk and benefit information necessary to make an informed decision and to attempt to correct any misinformation or misperceptions that may exist. For example, in a national survey of parents, 25% believed falsely that their child’s immune system could become weakened as a result of too many immunizations.12 Exploring and addressing parental concerns may be an effective strategy with reluctant parents. Only in rare cases in which the decision of a parent places a child at substantial risk of serious harm may the health care professional be obligated to involve state agencies in seeking to provide the necessary immunization over the parents’ objections. For example, for the situation in which a child has sustained a deep and contaminated puncture wound, it might be justifiable to challenge the decision of a child’s parents to refuse treatment with tetanus vaccine. In these situations, the health care professional would involve the appropriate state child protective services agency because of the concern about medical neglect. It would be up to the state agency to decide whether immunization would be required. Although this role of the state has been recognized as constitutionally valid in the United States, courts have closely examined such actions, showing reluctance to require medical treatment over the objection of parents “except where immediate action is necessary or where the potential for harm is rather serious.”13

COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
TOP
ABSTRACT
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE…
COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC…
RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO…
Committee on Bioethics, 2003…
Liaisons
Staff
REFERENCES

The benefits provided by most vaccines extend beyond benefit to the individual who is immunized. There is also a significant public health benefit. Parents who choose not to immunize their own children increase the potential for harm to other persons in 4 important ways.14 First, should an unimmunized child contract disease, that child poses a potential threat to other unimmunized children. Second, even in a fully immunized population, a small percentage of immunized individuals will either remain or become susceptible to disease. These individuals have done everything they can to protect themselves through immunization, yet they remain at risk. Third, some children cannot be immunized because of underlying medical conditions. These individuals derive important benefit from herd immunity and may be harmed by contracting disease from those who remain unimmunized. Finally, immunized individuals are harmed by the cost of medical care for those who choose not to immunize their children and whose children then contract vaccine-preventable disease.

A parent’s refusal to immunize his or her child also raises an important question of justice that has been described as the problem of “free riders.”14–16 Parents who refuse immunization on behalf of their children are, in a sense, free riders who take advantage of the benefit created by the participation and assumption of immunization risk or burden by others while refusing to participate in the program themselves. The decision to refuse to immunize a child is made less risky because others have created an environment in which herd immunity will likely keep the unimmunized child safe. These individuals place family interest ahead of civic responsibility. Although such parents do reject what many would consider to be a moral duty, coercive measures to require immunization of a child over parental objections are justified only in cases in which others are placed at substantial risk of serious harm by the parental decision.

Compulsory immunization laws in the United States have been upheld repeatedly as a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power in the absence of an epidemic or even a single case.17,18 They also have been found to be constitutional even for cases in which the laws conflict with the religious beliefs of individuals.19

When others are placed at substantial risk of serious harm, the range of choices of the individual may be restricted. With regard to immunization, the key question becomes whether the harms associated with unimmunized individuals are great enough to make restrictions permissible. In times of epidemic disease, when an effective vaccine can end the epidemic and protect those individuals who have not yet contracted the disease, the answer clearly is yes.

In a highly immunized population in which disease prevalence is low, the risk of disease from the small number of children who remain unimmunized does not usually pose a significant-enough health risk to others to justify state action.20 Diseases with very high morbidity and mortality (such as smallpox), however, might create a situation in which even a single case of infection would justify mandatory immunization of the population. For most routine vaccines, less forcible alternatives can be used justifiably to encourage parents to immunize children because of the public health benefit. In the case of vaccines routinely recommended for children, the AAP supports the use of appropriate public health measures, education, and incentives for immunization.7 Because unimmunized children do pose a risk to other children who lack immunity to vaccine-preventable infections, the AAP also supports immunization requirements for school entry.

RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO REFUSE IMMUNIZATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN
TOP
ABSTRACT
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE…
COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC…
RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO…
Committee on Bioethics, 2003…
Liaisons
Staff
REFERENCES

What is the pediatrician to do when faced with a parent who refuses immunization for his or her child? First and most important, the pediatrician should listen carefully and respectfully to the parent’s concerns, recognizing that some parents may not use the same decision criteria as the physician and may weigh evidence very differently than the physician does.21 Vaccines are very safe, but they are not risk free; nor are they 100% effective.22 This poses a dilemma for many parents and should not be minimized. The pediatrician should share honestly what is and is not known about the risks and benefits of the vaccine in question, attempt to understand the parent’s concerns about immunization, and attempt to correct any misperceptions and misinformation.23–25 Pediatricians should also assist parents in understanding that the risks of any vaccine should not be considered in isolation but in comparison to the risks of remaining unimmunized. For example, although the risk of encephalopathy related to the measles vaccine is 1 in 1 million, the risk of encephalopathy from measles illness is 1000 times greater.22 Parents can also be referred to one of several reputable and data-based Web sites for additional information on specific immunizations and the diseases they prevent (see pages 52 and 53 of the Red Book25 for a list of Internet resources related to immunization).

Many parents have concerns related to 1 or 2 specific vaccines. A useful strategy in working with families who refuse immunization is to discuss each vaccine separately. The benefits and risks of vaccines differ, and a parent who is reluctant to accept the administration of 1 vaccine may be willing to allow others.

Parents also may have concerns about administering multiple vaccines to a child in a single visit. In some cases, taking steps to reduce the pain of injection, such as those suggested in the Red Book,26 may be sufficient. In other cases, a parent may be willing to permit a schedule of immunization that does not require multiple injections at a single visit.

Physicians should also explore the possibility that cost is a reason for refusing immunization. For a parent whose child does not have adequate preventive care insurance coverage, even the administrative costs and copayments associated with immunization can pose substantial barriers. In such cases, the physician should work with the family to help them obtain appropriate immunizations for the child.

For all cases in which parents refuse vaccine administration, pediatricians should take advantage of their ongoing relationship with the family and revisit the immunization discussion on each subsequent visit. As respect, communication, and information build over time in a professional relationship, parents may be willing to reconsider previous vaccine refusals.

Continued refusal after adequate discussion should be respected unless the child is put at significant risk of serious harm (as, for example, might be the case during an epidemic). Only then should state agencies be involved to override parental discretion on the basis of medical neglect. Physician concerns about liability should be addressed by good documentation of the discussion of the benefits of immunization and the risks associated with remaining unimmunized. Physicians also may wish to consider having the parents sign a refusal waiver (a sample refusal-to-immunize waiver can be found at www.cispimmunize.org/pro/pdf/RefusaltoVaccinate_2pageform.pdf). In general, pediatricians should avoid discharging patients from their practices solely because a parent refuses to immunize his or her child. However, when a substantial level of distrust develops, significant differences in the philosophy of care emerge, or poor quality of communication persists, the pediatrician may encourage the family to find another physician or practice. Although pediatricians have the option of terminating the physician-patient relationship, they cannot do so without giving sufficient advance notice to the patient or custodial parent or legal guardian to permit another health care professional to be secured.27 Such decisions should be unusual and generally made only after attempts have been made to work with the family. Families with doubts about immunization should still have access to good medical care, and maintaining the relationship in the face of disagreement conveys respect and at the same time allows the child access to medical care. Furthermore, a continuing relationship allows additional opportunity to discuss the issue of immunization over time.

Committee on Bioethics, 2003–2004
TOP
ABSTRACT
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE…
COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC…
RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO…
Committee on Bioethics, 2003…
Liaisons
Staff
REFERENCES

Jeffrey R. Botkin, MD, MPH, Chairperson

Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPH

G. Kevin Donovan, MD, MLA

Mary E. Fallat, MD

Eric D. Kodish, MD

Steven R. Leuthner, MD, MA

Marcia Levetown, MD

Liaisons
TOP
ABSTRACT
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE…
COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC…
RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO…
Committee on Bioethics, 2003…
Liaisons
Staff
REFERENCES

Christine E. Harrison, MD

Canadian Paediatric Society

Marcia Levetown, MD

American Board of Pediatrics

Arlene Morales, MD

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Staff
TOP
ABSTRACT
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE…
COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC…
RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO…
Committee on Bioethics, 2003…
Liaisons
Staff
REFERENCES

Alison Baker, MS

FOOTNOTES

The guidance in this report does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
PARENTAL REFUSALS AND THE…
COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND PUBLIC…
RESPONDING TO PARENTS WHO…
Committee on Bioethics, 2003…
Liaisons
Staff
REFERENCES

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Impact of vaccines universally recommended for children—United States, 1990–1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48 :243 –248[Medline]
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ten great public health achievements—United States, 1990–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48 :241 –243[Medline]
3. Bonanni P. Demographic impact of vaccination: a review. Vaccine. 1999;17(suppl 3) :S120 –S125
4. Davies P, Chapman S, Leask J. Antivaccination activists on the World Wide Web. Arch Dis Child. 2002;87 :22 –25[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. American Academy of Pediatrics, Division of Health Policy Research. Periodic Survey of Fellows No. 48: Immunization Administration Practices. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2001
6. Buchanan AE, Brock DW. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1990
7. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995;95 :314 –317[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Pertussis vaccine. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1981;282 :1563 –1564
9. Vaccination against whooping cough. Lancet. 1981;1(8230) :1138 –1139[CrossRef]
10. Hinman AR, Koplan JP. Pertussis and pertussis vaccine. Reanalysis of benefits, risks, and costs. JAMA. 1984;251 :3109 –3113[Abstract]
11. Fox JP, Elveback L, Scott W, Gatewood L, Ackerman E. Herd immunity: basic concept and relevance to public health immunization practices. Am J Epidemiol. 1971;94 :179 –189[Free Full Text]
12. Gellin BG, Maibach EW, Marcuse EK. Do parents understand immunizations? A national telephone survey. Pediatrics. 2000;106 :1097 –1102[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Wing KR. The Law and the Public’s Health. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1990
14. Veatch RM. The ethics of promoting herd immunity. Fam Community Health. 1987;10 :44 –53[Medline]
15. Menzel PT. The pros and cons of immunisation—paper four: non-compliance: fair or free-riding. Health Care Anal. 1995;3 :113 –115[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
16. Ball LK, Evans G, Bostrom A. Risky business: challenges in vaccine risk communication. Pediatrics. 1998;101 :453 –458[Free Full Text]
17. McMenamin JP, Tiller WB. Children as patients. In: American College of Legal Medicine. Legal Medicine: Legal Dynamics of Medical Encounters. 2nd ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book; 1991:282–317
18. Dover TE. An evaluation of immunization regulations in light of religious objections and the developing right of privacy. Univ Dayton Law Rev. 1979;4 :401 –424[Medline]
19. Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905)
20. Ross LF, Aspinwall TJ. Religious exemptions to the immunization statutes: balancing public health and religious freedom. J Law Med Ethics. 1997;25 :202 –209, 83[ISI][Medline]
21. Meszaros JR, Asch DA, Baron J, Hershey JC, Kunreuther H, Schwartz-Buzaglo J. Cognitive processes and the decisions of some parents to forego pertussis vaccination for their children. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49 :697 –703[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
22. Maldonado YA. Current controversies in vaccination: vaccine safety. JAMA. 2002;288 :3155 –3158[Free Full Text]
23. Wilson CB, Marcuse EK. Vaccine safety—vaccine benefits: science and the public’s perception. Nat Rev Immunol. 2001;1 :160 –165[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Pattison S. Ethical debate: vaccination against mumps, measles, and rubella: is there a case for deepening the debate? Dealing with uncertainty. BMJ. 2001;323 :840
25. American Academy of Pediatrics. Parental misconceptions about immunization. In: Pickering LK, ed. Red Book: 2003 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 26th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2003:50–53
26. American Academy of Pediatrics. Managing injection pain. In: Pickering LK, ed. Red Book: 2003 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 26th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2003:20–21
27. American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Termination of the physician-patient relationship. In: Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions. 2002–2003 ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2002:110

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;115/5/1428

Categories : Blog / Vlog, Medical Hazards, Privacy, Vaccination

Vaccines: Hazardous for the Elderly

By Administrator on February 27, 2008 No Comments

Vaccines, Depression and Neurodegeneration After Age 50

By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D., CCN

It has been estimated that 14.8 million Americans suffer from major depressive disorder and of this number 6 million are elderly. If we include anxiety disorders, which commonly accompany depression, the number jumps to 40 million adults. At a cost of $44 billon dollars a year just for care of the seniors, this impacts the national budget as well.

Depression later in life tends to last longer and be more severe than at younger ages. It is also associated with a high rate of suicide.

Previously, it was thought that major depression was secondary to a deficiency in certain neurotransmitters in the brain, particularly the monoamines, which include serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine. While alterations in these important mood-related neurotransmitters is found with major depression, growing evidence indicates that the primary culprit is low-grade, chronic brain inflammation.

In addition, we now know that inflammatory cytokines can lower serotonin significantly and for long periods by a number of different mechanisms.

MSG and Depression

Researchers have also discovered that most people with major depressive disease (MDD) have higher levels of the neurotransmitter glutamate in their spinal fluid (CSF) and blood plasma. This is the same glutamate found as a food additive-for example, MSG (monosodium glutamate), hydrolyzed proteins, calcium or sodium casienate, soy protein isolate, vegetable protein concentrate or isolate, etc.

Much of the free glutamate in the brain of depressed people comes from within, that is it escapes from special cells within the brain itself (microglia and astrocytes). Free glutamate, that is, existing outside the neurons, is very toxic to brain connections and brain cells themselves — mainly by a process called excitotoxicity.

This connection between high brain glutamate levels and major depression was discovered quite by accident, when researchers observed that the anesthetic drug ketamine could relieve depression for a prolonged period. Ketamine is a powerful blocking drug for a class of glutamate receptors (NMDA receptors).

For quite some time it was known that depression could cause a loss of neurons in the hippocampus of the brain-the area most important for recent memory (declarative memory or working memory), the form of memory most affected in Alzheimer’s disease.

This shrinkage of the brain usually occurred with long-term depression, yet it was shown, using sophisticated testing, that even without brain shrinkage, memory could be adversely affected. Some antidepressants could not only reverse the memory loss but could reverse the shrinkage as well.

The implication was that the elevated brain glutamate, via excitotoxicity, was destroying brain connections and later killing brain cells in the hippocampus and that the antidepressants were lowering brain glutamate levels. Subsequent studies have confirmed that drugs that block excitotoxicity also reduce depression and that some antidepressants reduce brain glutamate levels.

The Link Between Elevated Brain Glutamate and Inflammation

A tremendous amount of research has now demonstrated the link between chronic low-level brain inflammation, elevated brain glutamate levels and major depression. We know that as we age, the level of inflammatory immune cytokines increase (such as interleukin-1ß (IL-1), IL-6 and TNF-a). That is, the level of inflammation in our body increases, with high levels being seen at the extremes of life — the 80s and 90s.

This progressive elevation in the body’s inflammation increases our risk of a number of inflammation-linked diseases, such as cancer, arthritis, muscle weakness, fatigue, sleep disturbances, memory loss and confusion. People with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease have even higher levels of these inflammatory cytokines — much higher.

When inflammatory chemicals are elevated in the brain it makes brain cells more vulnerable to a number of toxins, many of which are in the environment. One study demonstrated, using a series of sophisticated techniques, that if brain cells were exposed to low levels of a pesticide there was little toxicity seen and that if you exposed these same brain cells to an immune stimulant alone, little damage occurred.

But if you first exposed the brain cells to the immune stimulant, the same low dose of pesticide could destroy a great number of brain cells.

The importance of this observation was that the vaccine made the brain cells hypersensitive to the toxin so that even in concentrations that normally would do not cause harm, could wiped out most of the neurons. One of the strongest connections between an environmental toxin (pesticides) and a neurological disorder is with Parkinson’s disease.

The reason it is more common in the elderly is that they have the highest levels of inflammatory cytokines. This also explains the high incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, which reaches incidences of 50% after age 80.

The link to depression was also serendipitous

Doctors using immune cytokines to treat patients with cancer or hepatitis found that one third of the patients developed major depressive illness within days of the treatment and that it resolved only when the treatment was terminated. Other studies, in which inflammatory cytokine levels were measured in people with major depressive illness, also found most had high levels of these inflammatory chemicals.

To their surprise, they found that many of the antidepressant medications commonly used lowered inflammatory cytokines levels and that patients who failed to respond had the highest level of the cytokines.

So, how is this linked to excitotoxicity?

Neuroscientists have known for some time that inflammatory cytokines cause the brain to release higher levels of glutamate — the more intense the inflammation, the higher the brain glutamate level. The highest levels are found in the prefrontal lobes and limbic system, the areas most related to mood control. MSG also increases brain inflammation.

Vaccination and Brain Inflammation

A great number of studies have shown that when you vaccinate an animal, the body’s inflammatory cytokines not only increase dramatically, but so do the brain’s inflammatory chemicals. The brain has its own immune system that is intimately connected to the body’s immune system. The main immune cell in the brain is called a microglia. Normally, these brain cells are lying throughout the brain in a resting state (called ramified).

Once activated, they can move around, traveling between brain cells like amoeba (called amoeboid microglia).

In the resting state, they release chemicals that support the growth and protection of brain cells and their connections (dendrites and synapses). But when activated, they secrete a number of very harmful chemicals, including inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, complement, free radicals, lipid peroxidation products, and two excitotoxins — glutamate and quinolinic acid.

In essence, these brain immune cells are out to kill invaders, since the body’s immune system sent an emergency message that an invasion had occurred. With most infections, this phase of activation last no more than a few days to two weeks, during which time the immune system successfully kills off the invaders.

Once that is accomplished, the immune system shuts down to allow things to cool off and the brain to repair what damage was done by its own immune system.

What researchers knew was that during this period of activation, people generally feel bad and that what they experience closely resembles depression — a condition called “sickness behavior”. Most of us have experience this when suffering from a viral illness — such things as restlessness, irritability, a need to get away from people, trouble sleeping, fatigue and difficulty thinking.

Studies have shown that there are two phases to this “sickness behavior”; one in which we have the flu-like symptoms and a later onset of depression-like symptoms that can last awhile. They have also shown that all of these symptoms are due to high levels of inflammatory cytokines in the brain, which come from activated microglia.

A number of studies have also shown that after age 50, people have exaggerated and prolonged “sickness behavior”, much more so than younger people. This is one of the reasons why many elderly hang onto flu symptoms for months after exposure.

There is also another immune phenomenon that plays a major role in vaccine-related brain injury. Researchers discovered that when you vaccinate an animal, the brain microglia immune cells turn on partially (called priming), that is, they are in a state of high readiness. If the immune system is activated again soon after (days, weeks to months), these microglia explode into action secreting levels of their destructive chemicals far higher than normal. This overreaction can be very destructive and make you feel very depressed.

Stimulating your immune system with a vaccine is far different than contracting an infectious illness naturally. Vaccines are made of two components — the agent you wish to vaccinate against — for example, the measles virus; and an immune system booster called an immune adjuvant.

These adjuvants are composed of such things as aluminum compounds, MSG, lipid compounds and even mercury. Their job is to make the immune system react as intensely as possible and for as long as possible.

Studies have shown that these adjuvants, from a single vaccine, can cause immune overactivation for as long as two years. This means that the brain microglia remain active as well, continuously pouring out destructive chemicals. In fact, one study found that a single injection of an immune activating substance could cause brain immune overactivation for over a year. This is very destructive.

Flu Vaccines and an Expanding Vaccine Schedule for the Elderly

Public health authorities and physician societies are in an all out campaign to have every elderly person vaccinated every year with the flu vaccine as well as a growing number of newer vaccines. When I was practicing neurosurgery, the hospitals had an automatic written order on all older patients’ charts mandating a flu vaccine, unless it was countermanded by the physician, which I always did.

Now, they are giving the shots in malls, tents and every available site they can muster. And worse still, using lies and scare tactics to frighten the elderly into getting the shots (such as the bold lie that 36,000 elderly die of the flu every year).

As you age, your immune system, including that special immune system in your brain, releases significantly more inflammatory immune cytokines than when you were younger. This serves to prime the microglia, as discussed. So, when you get your first flu shot your microglia overreact and does so for a very long period — perhaps years.

Many elderly report that the flu shot gave them the flu. Proponents of vaccines, retort with a condescending laugh; that it is impossible because the flu vaccine contains killed flu viruses. In truth, what these people are reporting is a prolonged, intense “sickness behavior” response to the vaccine. To the body, it is worse than getting the flu.

Remember, no one is recording the number of elderly who die after getting the flu shot, especially if they die months later, which can happen with sickness behavior, especially if they have a preexisting chronic illness or are infirm.

The Shocking Truth

With the elderly already having increased inflammatory cytokine levels both systemically and in their brain, stimulating these primed microglia so that a chronic overstimulation of the brain’s immune system is triggered, will not only increase their risk of developing one of the neurodegenerative diseases, but will also substantially increase their risk of developing major depression. Remember, this also increases their risk of suicide, and even homicide, dramatically.

Anxiety is a major problem with depression, and vaccinations will greatly worsen the condition. In fact, vaccination, especially multiple vaccinations, will maintain the brain in a state of inflammation that will be self-perpetuating, because the excess release of glutamate in the brain, as well as glutamate in the diet, will further enhance microglial activation and excitotoxicity.

Those who are prone to developing one of the neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease will be at a drastically increased risk as we have seen experimentally when even animals exposed to subtoxic concentrations of environmental toxins and vaccinated develop neurologic worsening.

Most people use pesticides in their home, and studies have shown that the concentrations in homes are sufficient to trigger Parkinson’s disease in susceptible people. Vaccinations, as these studies have shown, will greatly increase that risk. Most doctors are completely unaware of this important research.

You must keep in mind that “health authorities” urge the elderly to get the flu vaccine each and every year. This will keep the microglia in a primed and even activated state continuously. Recently, neurologists announced that the incidence of neurodegenerative disease had been grossly underestimated and that neurological diseases of aging were increasing at a frightening rate. They have no explanation.

Over the last three decades the number of elderly receiving yearly flu vaccines has risen from 20% before 1980 to over 60% today.

If this were not depressing enough, now the public health authorities and medical specialty societies are adding a whole new set of vaccines for those above 50 years of age, including the pneumococcal and meningiococcal vaccines. What is being completely ignored by the promoters of these vaccines is the effect of multiple doses of immune adjuvant that accompany each of these vaccines.

Let’s say you see your doctor and he talks you into getting the flu vaccine, the pneumococcal and meningiococcal vaccine all during the same office visit. That way, he can save you extra office visits. What your doctor ignores is that he is giving you three doses of powerful immune adjuvant all in one sitting, which means that your body and brain are assaulted by a massive dose of powerful immune activators, which have been proven to activate the brain’s immune system to dangerous levels, even when given as a single dose.

Proof of this mechanism exists not only in animal studies, but in humans as well.

Mercury and Aluminum

There are other ways that vaccines can cause havoc in the brain. Most vaccines contain aluminum compounds. A multitude of studies have shown that aluminum, especially if combined with fluoride, is a powerful brain toxin and that it accumulates in the brain. With each vaccine injection, a dose of aluminum is given. These yearly aluminum inoculations accumulate not only at the site of the injection, but travel to the brain, where it enters neurons and glial cells (astrocytes and microglia).

A number of studies have shown that aluminum can activate microglia and do so for long periods. This means that the aluminum in your vaccination is priming your microglia to overreact. The next vaccine acts to trigger the enhanced inflammatory reaction and release of the excitotoxins, glutamate and quinolinic acid.

You must also appreciate that any infection, stroke, head injury or other toxin exposure will also magnify this inflammatory brain reaction initially triggered by your vaccines. Studies have now indicated that the more one’s immune system is activated the more like he or she will suffer from one of the neurodegenerative diseases.

Mercury is also a powerful activator of brain microglia and can do so in extremely low concentrations — in nanomolar amounts. Because of its numerous reactions with sulfhydral compounds in the body (which are ubiquitous), mercury can poison a number of enzymes, both systemically and in the brain. Of special concern is the ability of mercury, especially ethylmercury (the kind found in vaccines called thimerosal) to inhibit the regulation of brain glutamate levels. (It does this by inhibiting the glutamate transfer proteins that control the removal of glutamate from outside the neuron, where it does its harm.)

In essence, mercury, in the concentrations being injected with vaccines, triggers excitotoxicity, increases brain free radicals and lipid peroxidation products, inhibits critical brain enzymes, inhibits antioxidant enzymes and impairs DNA repair ability. The flu vaccine contains enough mercury to do all of these things. You must keep in mind that each flu vaccine adds to the mercury supplied by your last vaccine — that is, it is progressively accumulating in your brain.

In addition, the aluminum in the vaccines also primes microglia, and when combined with mercury is infinitively more toxic to the brain. Now, if this is not enough, we also have to consider the contamination of vaccines with foreign viruses and viral components. Studies have shown that this is not a rare occurrence, with up to 60% of vaccines being contaminated in one study of several major manufactured vaccines.

When confronted with this fact, vaccine proponents just shrug their shoulders and say — “We don’t think these things are harmful.”

Yet, the studies say otherwise.

It has been found that insertion of viral fragments, not even the whole virus, is sufficient to trigger the brain’s microglial system and subsequent excitotoxicity, leading to progressive brain degeneration. This is accepted to be the mechanism by which the HIV virus causes dementia in a great number of AIDS victims. Fragments of the virus (gp140 and Tat) are engulfed by the microglia and this triggers chronic brain inflammation and excitotoxicity. The herpes virus and measles virus can do the same thing.

Danger of Live Virus Vaccines

A number of studies have shown that live viruses used in vaccines can enter the brain and reside there for a lifetime. One such study, in which autopsied elderly were examined for the presence of the measles virus, found that 20% of the brains had live measles viruses and 45% of other organs were infected. These viruses were highly mutated, meaning that they could be just as potent as other measles viruses, but could be even more virulent.

Worse, is that in most cases they cause a smoldering destruction of tissues without the obvious symptoms of infection, which has been shown in a number of studies.

Live virus vaccines are made using a process to attenuate the pathogenic or disease-causing virus by passing it through a series of cultures. The problem is that the reverse can also happen within the body. A number of studies have shown that when we produce free radicals in our body (and we produce tons of such radicals over a lifetime), it mutates the viruses residing in our tissues. This is what was found in the autopsy study I referred to above.

Likewise, these viruses can trigger brain inflammation and degeneration, which has been shown in a number of studies — that is, there exist a chronic degeneration of the brain over years or decades. Because it is so far separated from the time of the original vaccine, physicians just attribute it to old age or heredity. Anything but the vaccines.

Virologists are also concerned that such mutated live viruses can also infect other people, leading to outbreaks of disease totally unsuspected by health authorities.

Conclusion

Current recommendations by the CDC for adult vaccinations include a total of 14 separate inoculations with infectious agents and powerful immune adjuvants. To be fair, some of these are for special medical risks and conditions, such as high-risk behaviors, illegal drug use and HIV infected individuals.

If we eliminate these, women will be exposed to 10 inoculations and men 7, should they follow CDC guidelines, which doctors follow.

According to CDC recommendations, multiple vaccinations for a single disease are separated by no more than 4 weeks, which is close enough together to produce priming and subsequent hyperactivation of brain microglia. We have seen that this can trigger a smoldering process of brain inflammation and excitotoxicity that can not only result in depression, anxiety and high suicide rates, but can increase one’s risk of developing one of the neurodegenerative diseases as well.

We have also seen that in many cases a person will be injected with several vaccines during a single office visit and that this means their body is exposed to a very large dose of immune adjuvant. Compelling studies, using many animal species as well as humans, have shown that this overactivates brain inflammatory mechanism that can last for years.

In addition, several additives to vaccines, such as mercury and aluminum, are powerful brain toxins that are known to accumulate in the brain over years and can trigger brain inflammatory/excitotoxic mechanisms. Vaccine contaminants, such as bacteria, mycoplasma and viral fragments can also produce prolonged brain inflammation and neurodegeneration.

Because the elderly already have high levels of inflammatory cytokines, they are at a special risk. The very young (babies and small children) are at a high risk because their brains are undergoing the most rapid development at the very time they receive the greatest number of vaccinations — the first two years of life. In fact, they receive 22 vaccines during the first year of life, one of which contains a full pediatric dose of mercury.

Like adults, they receive many inoculations (up to 9 inoculations) in one office visit. This is insane and in my estimation, criminal.

Nasal flu vaccines are even worse, because they introduce a live virus into the nasal passages, which can then travel along the olfactory nerves, which leads to the very part of the brain first and most severely affected by Alzheimer’s disease. A number of studies have shown that viruses and bacteria can pass along this route to the brain.

In fact, in one study scientists sprayed a bacterium into the nose of mice and observed a rapid development of Alzheimer’s type plaques in the mouse’s brain.

So What Should Older People Do?

First, studies have shown that the primary cause of immune deficiency in the elderly is purely dietary. The carotenoids, such as beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, canthaxanthin, lutein and lycopene significantly enhance the immunity of the elderly. Zinc, magnesium and selenium are also essential. One should also avoid omega-6 oils (the vegetable oils: corn, safflower, sunflower, canola, soybean and peanut oils), since they greatly enhance inflammation and depress immunity. The EPA component of fish oils (omega-3 oils) is also a powerful immune suppressant. DHA is not.

A healthy immune system means that you can fight infections efficiently and rapidly.

Regular exercise, such as brisk walking or weight exercises three to five times a week also boost immunity, while extreme exercise suppresses immunity. Sugar and refined carbohydrates also suppress immunity and inflame the brain. Exercise protects the brain from aging effects and from degeneration.

Adequate sleep is also vital to both brain health and good immune function.

Pubic health officials and spokesmen for the major medical societies are lying to the public concerning vaccine safety. We now possess sufficient information from a great number of studies to halt this disastrous vaccine policy. We are facing a medial disaster in this country, which is already well on its way.

1.

McGeer PL and McGeer EG. Local neuroinflammation and progression of Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurovirology 202; 8: 529-538.
2.

Tavares RG, et al. Quinolinic acid stimulates synaptosomal glutamate release and inhibits glutamate uptake into astrocytes. Neurochem Int 2002; 40: 621-627.
3.

Eastman CL, et al. Increased brain quinolinic acid production in mice infected with a neurotropic measles virus. Exp Neurol 1994; 125; 119-124.
4.

Glass JD and Wesselingh SL. Microglia in HIV-associated neurological diseases. Microsc Res Tech 2001; 54: 95-105.
5.

Turowski RC and Troozzi PL. Central Nervous System toxicities of cytokine therapy: In: Plotnikoff NP, et al, Eds. Cytokines, Stress and Immunity. Boca Raton, CRC Pres, 1998, pp 93-114.
6.

Mrak RE, et al. Glail cytokines and Alzheimer’s disease: Review and pathogenic implications. Human Pathol 1995; 26: 816-823.
7.

Klatschmidt C, et al. Stimulation of inotropic glutamate receptors activates transcription factor NFkB in primary neurons. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1995; 92: 9618-9622.
8.

Gao HM, et al Distinct role for microglia in rotenone-induced degeneration of dopaminergic neurons. J Neurosci 2002; 22: 782-790.
9.

Dyatlov VA et al. neonatal lead exposure potentates sickness behavior by Listeria monocytogenes infection in mice. Brain Behav Immun 2002; 16: 477-492.
10.

Nakai Y, et al. Apoptosis and microglial activation in influenza encephalopathy. Acta Neuropath (Berl) 2003; 105: 233-239.
11.

Anderson T et al. NMDA-receptor antagonist prevents measles virus-induced neurodegeneration. Eur J Neurosci 1991; 3: 66-71.
12.

Conner TJ, et al. Depression stress immunological activation: the role of cytokines in depressive disorders. Life Sciences 1998; 62: 583-606.
13.

Renault PF, et al. Psychiatric complications of long-term ineterferon-alpha therapy. Arch Internal Medicine 1987; 147: 1577-1580.
14.

Adams F et al. Neuropsychiatric manifestations of human leukocyte interferon therapy in patients with cancer. JAMA 1984; 252: 938-941.
15.

Broderick PA, et al. Interleukin-1a alters hippocampal and norepinephrine release during open field behavior in Sprague-Dawley animals: differences from the Fawn-Hooded animal model of depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biology 2002; 26: 1355-1372.
16.

Katayama Y, et al. Detection of measles virus nucleoprotein mRNA in autopsied brain tissues. J General Virology 1995; 76: 3201-3204.
17.

Nicolson GL et al. High frequency of systemic mycoplasma infections in Gulf War Veterans and civilians with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Clin Sci 2002; 9: 525-529.
18.

Blaylock RL. Interaction of cytokines, excitotoxins, and reactive nitrogen and oxygen species in autism spectrum disorders. JANA 2003; 6: 21-35.
19.

Blaylock RL. Central role of excitotoxicity in autism. JANA 2003; 6: 7-19.
20.

Blaylock RL. Food additive excitotoxins and degenerative brain disorders. Medical Sentinel 1999; 4: 212-215.
21.

Blaylock RL. Chronic microglial activation and excitotoxicity secondary to excessive immune stimulation: Possible factors in Gulf War Syndrome and Autism. J Amer Phys Surg 2004; 9: 46-51.
22.

Pilc A, et al. Mood disorders: regulation by metabotropic glutamate receptors. Biochem Pharmacol 2007; (Epub ahead of print)
23.

Palucha A, Pilc A. The involvement of glutamate in the pathophysiology of depression. 2005; 18: 262-268.
24.

Paul IA, Skolnick P. Glutamate and depression: clinical and preclinical studies. Ann NY Acad Sci 2003; 1003: 250-272.
25.

Pittenger C, et al. The NMDA receptor as a therapeutic target in major depressive disorder. CNS Neurol Disorders Drug Targets 2007; 6: 101-115.
26.

Magaki S et al. Increased production of inflammatory cytokines in mild cognitive impairment. Exp Gerontol 2007; 42: 233-240.
27.

Gao H-M et al. Synergistic dopaminergic neurotoxicity if the pesticide rotenone and inflammogen lipopolysacchride: relevance to the etiology of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurosciences 2003; 23: 1228-1236.
28.

Holmes C et al. Systemic infection, interleukin 1ß, and cognitive decline. J Neurol Neurosurgery Psychiatry 2003; 74: 788-789.
29.

Godbout JP et al. Exaggerated neuroinflammation and sickness behavior in aged mice after activation of the peripheral innate immune system. The FASEB J 2005; 19: 1329-1331.
30.

Perry VH et al. The impact of infection on the progression of neurodegenerative disease. Nature Rev Neuroscience 2003;4: 103-112.
31.

Feiring B et al. Persisting responses indicating long-term protection after booster dose with meningococcal group B outer membrane vesicle vaccine. Clin Vaccine Immunology 2006; 13: 790-796.
32.

Vaccine Excepients and Media Summery Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (also the source for recommended vaccines for adults and children).

Categories : Blog / Vlog, Medical Hazards, Miscellaneous, Privacy, Vaccination

Polio Vaccination Compulsory in Belgium: Parents Jailed for Refusing Jab

By Administrator on February 27, 2008 No Comments

Here is where we are going if we do not act together to stop it.
The Polio vaccine is known to carry the CMV-40 virus which is a proven cause of leukemia. it also confers huge dangers (http://thepowerhour.com/news/polio_dangers.htm) including paralysis and death (http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.html#CHAPTER%20X:%20THE%20HIDDEN%20DANGERS%20IN%20POLIO%20VACCINE). In fact, authorities examining the results of Polio vaccination concluded in 1955

“The interval between inoculation and the first sign of paralysis ranged from 5 to 20 days and in a large proportion of cases it started in the limb on which the injection had been given. Another feature of the tragedy was that the numbers developing polio were far greater than would have been expected had no inoculations been given. In fact in the state of Idaho, according to a statement by Dr. Carl Eklund, one of the Government’s chief virus authorities, polio struck only vaccinated children in areas where there had been no cases of polio since the preceding autumn; in 9 out of 10 cases the paralysis occurred in the arms in which the vaccine had been injected.” (News Chronicle, May 6, 1955)

According to the Daily Telegraph (June 18, 1955) Mr. Peterson, State Health Director of Idaho, stopped further inoculations and stated: “We have lost confidence in the Salk Vaccine.” He also stated that he “holds the vaccine, together with the instructions for its manufacture, directly responsible for the outbreak of polio and the deaths that had occurred.”

Nonetheless, Polio vaccination is a huge business and, despite the well documented dangers associated with it, mandatory vaccination has become an item of public health dogma in many places around the world. In fact, in Belgium, polio vaccination is compulsory and is taken so seriously that two parents who refused the infection for their child have been fined and jailed. Here is the story as reported in the British Medical Journal.

If this is not an acceptable public health policy, now would be a good time to act since State ordered (as well as school and college ordered) compulsory vaccination scenarios are becoming more common by the day in the US. The US government has given itself the authority to institute compulsory vaccinations without proof, scientific input or medical review. Frighteningly, it has announced that it has stock piled enough Avian Flu vaccine for every man, woman and child in the US.

Of course, virologically, that is impossible if, as they maintain, the pandemic form of the H5N1 virus does not exist yet since a vaccine cannot be made against a virus that does not exist. So just what is in that vaccine? And why is this such a vital issue to the US government and the World Health Organization (WHO)? Could the Health Minister of Indonesia be correct? Could it be true that the WHO gave Indonesian Avian Flu samples to a bioweapons laboratory at Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico? And could her belief be accurate that the US and WHO are manipulating the alleged dangers for their own political and economic gain?

And, oh, by the way, just what is in that vaccine (or any other, for that matter)? Would it contain the material to stimulate antibodies to the hormone that women make when they are in early pregnancy, HCG, (Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin) so that woman become sterile? That technology was used by the WHO in Africa by mixing it with other vaccines, according to Dr. William Deagle, to “eliminate 150 million excess sub Saharan Africans” since it rendered woman receiving it sterile. The same technology was used, under the support of the US, the Norwegian Government and the WHO in South and Central America when women of child bearing age got tetanus shots (which also contained this material, although they were not informed that they were receiving a vaccine against getting pregnant.) Significantly, men and boys did not receive this vaccine although they are probably just as likely to step on a rusty nail as a woman or girl.

Or might it have a new virus, or an old one like the one allegedly disseminated in small pox vaccinations in Africa? Might it have the double dose of thimerisol (compared to US vaccines) that the vaccines so generously supplied to the children of the developing world by high profile philanthropies are reported to contain. Perhaps a new genetically engineered plague? Who knows. Without public comment and scientific review, the harm done by new vaccinations will only emerge later, perhaps much later. And in that context it would be well to recall that the FDA has removed your right to sue the manufacturer of any drug or vaccine for any damage it causes if it has been approved by the FDA for any purpose at all. So if you roll up your sleeve (or your child’s sleeve) for that “jab” as they call them in the UK, you are accepting whatever risks and damage comes your way without recourse or recompense.

if that does not work for you, now would be a very good time to take action to make it clear to our legislators that we do not accept the notion that our health freedom can be tossed aside at the whim of a government or school official and that we will not accept compulsory vaccination. Visit the home page of the Natural Solutions Foundation at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org to take the action steps listed there to stop compulsory vaccinations. And while you are there, take a moment to sign up for the Health Freedom eAlerts and make a tax deductible donation (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to keep health freedom free! Recurring donations are especially helpful.
And don’t forget to join the No Forced Vaccination Forum on Yahoo.com (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NSF-Panama/join) to share information and become part of an active community of like-minded activists.

Thanks for your activism.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Two parents face jail for refusing polio jab
21 February 2008
Two sets of parents in Belgium have been sentenced to prison after they refused to vaccinate their children against polio. The vaccination is compulsory in Belgium.

The parents have been fined £4,100 ($8000) and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment.

They failed to appear in court, and the judge sentenced them on the basis of police evidence. He suspended the prison sentence, and has given the parents a second chance to have their children vaccinated.

Belgian law allows exceptions to the vaccine only if parents can prove that their child would have an adverse reaction to it.

(Source: British Medical Journal, 2008; 336: 348).

Categories : Activism, Blog / Vlog, Compulsory Drugging, Medical Hazards, Miscellaneous, Privacy, Vaccination

US Compensating Child with Autism for Vaccine Injury in Ground Breaking Settlement

By Administrator on February 27, 2008 No Comments

Vaccine Case Settled by US With Admission that Vaccine Injury Associated with Autism

In a striking admission, the US government has finally agreed to the fact that vaccines can cause autism, at least in one landmark case. In a Federal Vaccine Court case, the Department of Health and Human Services, the parent body for the FDA (and the CDC and the other organizations which impact and control vaccines in the United States) acknowledged that a little girl who collapsed into autism within days of simultaneous vaccination against 9 different diseases was, in fact, damaged by the vaccines. Although they asserted that the child had an underlying disorder of the mitochondria (the energy producing organelles upon which we rely for cellular energy) they did concede that “The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD.”

The other 4900 pending cases in which vaccine damage is alleged will, according to our legal sources, probably be settled the same way. In this case, the little girl will receive the life-long care she will need because of this settlement. Nothing the government does, of course, can restore her life, or her family’s normality, to her. In my experience as a physician, there are ways to retrieve autistic people, but they do not involve drugs. They involve nutrition, detoxification, frequency therapies and other non-pharmaceutical approaches. But they are all long, arduous and demanding. And not every autistic child has access to these methods. For most, the risk of vaccination is not only the risk of infection with the disease supposedly being “protected” against, but a collapse of the immune system, neurological damage or death, cancer and other potentially lethal consequences. When do we, as a people, say “NO” to the uninsurable risk presented by vaccines?

Insurance companies refuse to insure vaccine risk because the risk is simply too great. But the US and the individual States in the Union continue to insist on more, and more dangerous, vaccines. According to Barbara Fisk, a New Jersey Health Freedom advocate fighting against compulsory vaccination, by the time a child reaches adolescence in New Jersey (which is not much different from the rest of the US), he/she will have received 74 vaccinations! Remembering that each one contains cumulative poisons like formaldehyde, heavy metals like mercury, toxins like aluminum, dangerous adjuvants like squalene (thought to be responsible for Gulf War Syndrome in soldiers vaccinated with the required Anthrax vaccine and present in most modern vaccines), neurotoxins like MSG (also toxic to the pancreas), cancer-causing viruses like CMV-40, bits of foreign protein and stealth viruses, the wonder of our modern, and somewhat insane, age is that there are any children left who are NOT autistic. Of course, given the numbers of children diagnosed with neurological and psychiatric disorders and the number of children with diabetes (MSG puts the pancreas into overdrive) and cancer, as well as auto immune diseases, perhaps that is too optimistic an assessment. Perhaps the only really healthy children are those who have never been vaccinated at all!

So vaccination benefits the manufacturers of vaccines in several ways: first, through direct profits from the huge sales of ever more vaccines and second from the drug sales engendered by the many diseases precipitated by vaccination. By the way, according to FDA documents, that would include cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated with the HPV vaccine since the vaccine is associated with a four fold increase in cervical cancer BUT the types of HPV which it supposedly protects against are self-limited, benign viruses which do not cause cancer.

If you do not want to be forcibly vaccinated, you need to take action now and ask everyone in your circle of influence to become active in protecting your rights and theirs at the same time as well. Here’s how:
1. Forward this article to everyone you know
2. Ask them to go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the secure, free Health Freedom eAlerts so they can stay current on health freedom issues like this one.
3. Ask them to “Ride the Freedom Mouse” and tell their legislators that they do not want compulsory vaccinations by clicking here (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21833)
4. Let them know that they can sign the Tiburon Declaration (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=460) against forced drugging of any kind (including vaccination) and become part of the growing number of grass roots voices taking charge of our own health decisions
5. Ask them to help prevent schools from enforcing drugging in kids when their parents do not agree by supporting S. 891, the Child Medication Safety Act (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=18970), which prevents schools from forcing parents to drug their children or face charges of child abuse, having the child removed from the home or barred from school and other abuses designed to force parents to consent to drugging their children with dangerous psychoactive medication.
6. Join the No-Forced-Vaccination Forum (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join) and become part of a vigorous and highly informative community of people determined not to permit compulsory vaccination for themselves and their loved ones.
7. And, of course, let them know that health freedom is not free and ask them to help support the Natural Solutions Foundation (www.HealthFreedomUSA.org) with a tax deductible donation (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189). Recurring donations help us a great deal because then we know what we can budget on a monthly basis.

Our solutions are natural and they work! We are the most effective grass roots voice of health freedom in the US and globally.

Please pass this information along as widely as you can. Thanks for your activism.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Read David Kirby’s article on this land mark settlement:

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court – Now What?

Posted February 25, 2008 | 12:42 PM (EST)

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff’s identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal “Vaccine Court,” was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the “defendant” in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child’s claim against the government — that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism — was supposed to be one of three “test cases” for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and “concluded that compensation is appropriate.”

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of “relatedness;” insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and “watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination.”

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children’s Hospital Neurology Clinic, with “regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.” The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was “aggravated” by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

“The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder,” the concession says, “which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD.”

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government’s concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called “oxidative phosphorylation.” If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

The authors — who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court — noted that “children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.”

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in “classic” cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease — and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:

“DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not “cause” autism, but instead aggravated a condition to “manifest” as autism, isn’t that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury “manifested” as autism in only one case, isn’t that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely “mimics” autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as “autism,” are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined “look-alike” syndrome that merely presents as “features” of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let’s say the government does determine that these kids don’t have actual “autism” (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn’t the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see “autism” cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like “Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?”

And if this child was technically “misdiagnosed” with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren’t Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child’s Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn’t that have manifested as “ASD features” anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a “single nucleotide change” in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested “features” of autism.

While it’s true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What’s more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of “disorder” at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn’t they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of “autistic features?”

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the “sporadic” form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? “Medicines or other toxins,” says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal’s introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn’t HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl’s vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for “aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?” Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn’t these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn’t children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It’s too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is “absolutely no link” between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government’s Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it’s simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way — and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are “aggravated” and “manifested.” Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don’t say “his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death.”

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

David Kirby is the author of “Evidence of Harm – Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy” (St. Martins Press 2005.

Categories : Activism, Blog / Vlog, Medical Hazards, Miscellaneous, Privacy, Promising Developments, Vaccination

Now For A Little Pharma Phun: How About Some Mother/Baby Abuse

By Administrator on February 17, 2008 No Comments

“Thirty years ago…Merck’s aggressive chief executive Henry Gadsden told Fortune magazine of his distress that the company’s potential markets had been limited to sick people. Suggesting he’d rather Merck to be more like chewing gum maker Wrigleys, Gadsden said it had long been his dream to make drugs for healthy people. Because then, Merck would be able to “sell to everyone.” Three decades on, the late Henry Gadsden’s dream has come true.”
Alliance for Human Research Protection

Mothers, unborn babies and infants are the next group to “sell to”. If Congress has its way, every pregnant mother and her unborn baby, every new mother and her (perhaps) nursing infant in the US would be someone to “sell to”, not just by Merck, but by the entire pharmaceutical industry. Click http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23065(http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23065) to tell your Senators and Representatives that pregnant and new moms do not need drugging with meds that increase suicide and homicide and harm babies. Let them know that mental health decisions – like all health decisions – are a private matter, not a government one.

A new and shameless market ploy called “The Mother’s Act”, S 1375 IS (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=527), would make them the next market success by compelling screening and “offering” “appropriate” treatment which includes, as the bottom line, drugs. The bill was originally proposed in response to the death by suicide of Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep.who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground. Contrary to popular understanding it was not post-partum depression that killed Melanie, but the numerous antidepressant drugs she was taking, which the FDA confirmed double the suicide risk.

In my professional opinion as a Child, Adult and Adolescent Psychiatrist and in my opinion as a health freedom advocate, the so-called “Mother’s Act” represents an act of aggression against mothers, babies and liberties, all at the same time. Pregnant woman and infants, along with new mothers and their babies, are an untapped market for psychoactive drugs like anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. There is an excellent reason that they are an untapped market for these drugs. Because they are so dangerous for these groups of people, these drugs, like most others, have been strictly off limits for pregnant and nursing moms and their babies.

But no longer. If Senators MENENDEZ (D-NJ), DURBIN (D-IL), SNOWE (R-ME), BROWN (D-OH), DODD (D-CT), and LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) have their way, pregnant mothers will be “screened” for tendencies toward “postpartum blues”, “depression” and “psychosis” and offered medications if they show any such tendencies. Another new market opened for the Pharma Pholks!

To my knowledge, this would bring to eight the number of pieces of Federal Legislation which make it possible to compel people living in the United States of America to take medication or set the stage for state compulsion to take those meds. The mis-named Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, BioShield, BioShield II, BioShield III, New Freedoms Initiative, No Child Left Behind and now the “Mother’s Act”.

Picture this scenario: a mother to be confesses to being nervous, worried, anxious or concerned about the impact of the coming baby (Signs of mental health in my book, by the way). A nurse, social worker, “counselor” or doctor turns her concern into pathology on a “screening tool” called a piece of paper (or computer screen). Mom’s public medical record (there are no confidential medical records in the US any longer unless you go to a physician who has exempted him/herself from HIPAA, [Health Insurance Privacy and Accountability Act] and pay for the services yourself) now states that she has a mental illness. Next, she will be “offered” drugs to “help her” with her normal feelings. These are the proverbial drugs for the worried well. What happens if they decide not to take them? Could mothers be forcibly imprisoned or held in a psychiatric facility? Of course they could. How about moms who have already given birth: could the same happen to them or could they loose custody of their children if they decided not to take the advice of the screener and take meds? You bet. Consider the invasive and unconstitutional losses of parental rights when parents do not medicate their kids. Consider the cases where chemotherapy or Ritalin (c) or Zoloft (c) or whatever have been forced upon kids and grown ups. Consider the forcible vaccination – and re-vaccination – of 2,700 Prince George’s County (MD) poor, mostly black children (1100 of whom had already been vaccinated fully but whose records had been lost by the school (according to its own admission).

Consider this fact: the March of Dimes advises against the use of these drugs in pregnant women since they can cause birth defects. Consider, too, the fact that the numerous psychiatric drugs which the woman who killed herself in the post partum period, Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep. (who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground) doubled her risk of suicide according to the FDA while being a post partum mom did no such thing.

According to the officers of “Unite”, an organization opposing this legislation and the use of all other psychiatric medications,

“To simply screen women for post-partum mood disorders and ensure that they get “treatment,” we would be setting families up for the expectation of tragedy and increasing the chances of that actually happening when we refer them to medical “professionals” who are oblivious to the negative mind-altering effects of psychiatric drugs. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that “post-partum mood disorders” must be a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance and would be corrected with drugs.

Current drugs used on post-partum women include SSRIs, atypical antidepressants, and even antipsychotic drugs. These pose a significant risk to the immediate safety and health of women as well as their children and families. SSRIs carry a black box warning for suicide and the most popular one, Effexor (the same med. Andrea Yates was taking when she drowned her 5 children), has the words “homicidal ideation” listed as a side effect. “Nearly every recent case of infanticide which has made news can be clearly linked back to a psychiatric drug. These drugs endanger babies and mothers.”

Additionally, the drugs can be extremely addictive and also pose a risk to nurslings or babies exposed in subsequent pregnancies. Some babies have died from SIDS linked to drug exposure from pregnancy or nursing; others have experienced coma, seizures, GI bleeding, heart defects, lung problems, and many babies died before reaching full term or soon after birth” when their moms have been exposed to these drugs.

The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this. Also, some babies are being born with organs outside their bodies, requiring immediate surgery.”

Never mind that these drugs are untested in large scale use during pregnancy and are listed as drugs to avoid while pregnant and nursing. Never mind that the March of Dimes and the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) advise avoiding these drugs during those time. Never mind that the American Academy of Pediatrics cites an article which says, “Our knowledge [of the impact of psychiatric drugs on the fetus] will remain limited because prospective, randomized, and well-controlled investigational studies on the risks of exposure to psychoactive drugs during pregnancy are neither feasible nor ethical” in its Policy Statement on the Use of Psychoactive Medication During Pregnancy and Possible Effects on the Fetus and Newborn.

They also state, “Potential adverse effects for the fetus and the neonate include: 1) structural malformations, 2) acute neonatal effects including intoxication and neonatal abstinence syndromes, 3) intrauterine fetal death, 4) altered fetal growth, and 5) neurobehavioral teratogenicity. Neurobehavioral teratogenicity encompasses long-term central nervous system defects that result in delayed behavioral maturation, impaired problem solving, and impaired learning. Physical malformations do not necessarily accompany the functional deficits. Chronic in utero exposure to drugs may result in intoxication or tolerance postnatally. Neonatal drug withdrawal symptoms may occur when drug exposure ceases at birth. Specific and supportive therapy may be required if the newborn displays signs of continued drug effects or withdrawal. Long-term developmental and neurologic follow-up is appropriate, including consideration for referral to centers for national databases (eg, Teratology Information Services and Motherisk Program).” But never mind. A market is a market and this one is nearly virgin since the drugs in question have had posted warning advising their avoidance in pregnancy and nursing.

And what a market it is! The text of the bill states that although “The causes of postpartum depression are complex and unknown at this time” (which means that treatment designed to suppress the symptoms without dealing with the cause is a poor way to go), the market is vast since, ” Baby blues afflicts up to 80 percent of new mothers, postpartum depression occurs in 10 to 20 percent of new mothers, and postpartum psychosis strikes 1 in 1,000 new mothers.”

I am a Psychiatrist. I am trained in Child, Adolescent and Adult Psychiatry and I have a bias. I believe that drugs are dangerous and, in the case of psychiatric drugs, outstandingly dangerous, often causing long-term damage to the nervous system and other organs which are then treated with more drugs since the signs of drug toxicity are virtually identical to the reasons the patient was given the drug(s) in the first place, only more so. These drugs, increasingly used on the vulnerable nervous systems of younger and younger children with no deep understanding of their impact on the developing brains and bodies are poorly tested, vastly oversold and represent a huge profit center. Their only problem, from the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, is that there are large markets which are currently untouched. Once these drugs are administered, for whatever reason, they tend to become a legal habit supplied by your friendly pusher, your doctor. Although your pusher may be well-intentioned, his/her information about the safety and efficacy of these toxins (and make no mistake: they are known brain and liver toxins with a hefty dollop of endocrine disruption, pancreatic destruction and liver damage throw in for good measure) comes from the very people who make a profit from his/her use of these substances.

There is now, following nearly endless revelations in Congressional hearings, leaked information, legal actions against drug companies, etc., a clear patter of corruption and collusion to place dangerous drugs on the market and keep them there between the FDA and the manufacturers of these compounds.

With the collusion of the FDA, information on the dangers of these drugs, their tendency to increase suicidal and homicidal behaviors and their addictive impact are suppressed or minimized while new markets are sought out to allow the dream of Henry Gadsen to come true.

I think not! Remember, if we all think not, then we need to create a strong and effective grass roots organization to take this message to Congress (that’s what your emails do and what our Congressional education program does) and to the rest of America. That’s where your support comes in. Send this blog to your list. Ask them to visit the Natural Solutions Foundation website, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the free, secure and informative Health Freedom eAlerts (http://www.healthfreedomusa.
org/index.php?page_id=187
).

And don’t forget donations: we really need your financial help. Your tax deductible donations make our work possible. Please consider making a generous recurring donation (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) right now.

Natural Solutions Foundation and You: Together We are More Than Just Talk!

Yours in health and freedom,

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Categories : Blog / Vlog, Compulsory Drugging, Get Involved, Hall of Shame, Legislation to Oppose, Privacy
« Previous Page
Next Page »