STOP Read This Before Vaccinating for Anything

STOP! Read This Before Vaccinating for Anything
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
February 09 2010 | 5,499 views


by Barbara Loe Fisher

There are three basic facts you should remember when you are exercising your right to make an informed, voluntary vaccination choice for yourself or your child in America:

1.Informed Consent is a Human Right: The right to voluntary, informed consent to a medical intervention, including use of a pharmaceutical product such as a vaccine that can injure or kill you or your child, is a human right.

While the State may have the legal authority to mandate use of vaccines, nobody has the moral authority to FORCE you to get vaccinated or vaccinate your child without your voluntary, informed consent

2.Vaccine Laws Have Exemptions: In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the legal authority of state governments to pass laws requiring citizens residing in the state to use certain vaccines.

Today, all 50 states have enacted vaccine laws that require proof of vaccination for children to attend daycare, elementary, junior and high school and college.

Vaccine requirements vary from state to state and all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination; 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 18 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

To find out what your state vaccine law says and which exemptions you may take and how to take them, click here.

3.Freedom is Not Free, Become a Vaccine Choice Advocate: Many state governments now require nearly three dozen doses of more than a dozen vaccines to attend school. Medical and religious exemptions are becoming harder to get and exemptions for reasons of conscience are under attack by proponents of forced vaccination.

The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens in states to expand or protect legal exemptions to vaccination.

Six Principles for Protecting Vaccine Choices

First Principle: It's Your CHOICE

When exercising your right to voluntary, informed consent to vaccination for yourself or your child, remember that state vaccine laws contain:

1.Legal requirements that school and health officials are responsible for enforcing

2.Legal exemptions that you have the legal right to choose to exercise. (Public schools must allow vaccine exemptions outlined in state vaccine laws, but private religious or other non-state operated schools may reject vaccine exemptions.)

Most state vaccine laws do not allow unvaccinated students with vaccine exemptions to attend school during confirmed outbreaks of certain infectious diseases for defined periods of time.

Remember: Nobody has the moral authority to force you or your child to be injected with a vaccine without your voluntary, informed consent and you have the legal right to exercise exemptions to vaccination according to the laws in your state.

Second Principle: You Have the Right to KNOW

You have the legal right to know the risks and complications of vaccines BEFORE you make the choice of whether or not to allow your child to be vaccinated.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan in 1986, directed all doctors and other vaccine providers to give parents written information about vaccines BEFORE children are vaccinated.

Remember: All vaccines and other pharmaceutical products carry a risk of injury or death and those risks can be greater for some than others.

Never agree to use a vaccine, drug or other product without fully informing yourself about ALL risks.

The product information insert, which drug companies by law must include with every vial of vaccine provided to public health clinics and private doctors’ offices, includes a description of the vaccine’s reported reactions and precautions.

You can ask for a copy of that vaccine information insert from your doctor or state health department.

Third Principle: Be INFORMED and Prepared

Knowledge is power. Arm yourself with accurate information about vaccination and health. Do your own research and talk to one or more trusted health care professionals before you make any health care decision.

Become an educated consumer and you will be empowered to defend your right to freely make voluntary choices about health, including vaccination, for yourself and your children.

Remember: If you arm yourself with accurate information about vaccines and health, you will be prepared to intelligently and rationally discuss your vaccine choices with your family, friends, colleagues, doctors, elected officials and others in your community.

Fourth Principle: Take RESPONSIBILITY for Your Words and Actions

When you are standing up for your right to know, and freedom to choose, whether or not to vaccinate yourself or your child, how you go about exercising your rights will determine whether or not you will succeed.

In your contact with doctors, school or government health officials, remain calm but politely firm when explaining and defending the vaccine choice you have made.

If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor or government official, do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media if you or your child are threatened.

To publicly post a report of harassment for your vaccine choice, click here.

Remember: Treat others as you want to be treated, even if you are being attacked or harassed for the vaccine choice you have made.

Protect yourself and your family by seeking legal or other expert counsel, if necessary.

Serve as an example for others in your community whenever you defend your right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination, including the right to decline to use one or more vaccines for yourself or your child.

Fifth Principle: Keep WRITTEN Records

Be sure to ask your doctor for copies of your medical records or your child’s medical records, including recorded information about vaccinations and illnesses. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, doctors and other vaccine providers are required by federal law to:

•Write down any serious health problems that occur after vaccination in a child’s permanent medical record

•Keep a permanent record of all vaccines given, including the manufacturer’s name and lot number

•Report serious health problems, hospitalizations injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). (If your doctor won’t report, you have the right to make a vaccine reaction report to VAERS).

Remember: It is wise to keep written records of your interactions with doctors, school and health officials that involve vaccine choices you make, as well as copies of any vaccine exemptions you file with the state. You may have to hire an attorney to defend your informed consent rights when it comes to vaccination and it is important to have written records.

Sixth Principle: Be COURAGEOUS

It is not easy to stand up for the right to make informed, voluntary choices about vaccination when public health officials, the pharmaceutical industry and many medical doctors are putting pressure on all Americans, especially parents, to use every government recommended vaccine.

The fact that the numbers of doses of government mandated vaccines have tripled in the past quarter century, while the numbers of chronically ill and disabled children have also tripled, offers an opportunity to have a long overdue public conversation about the effects of vaccination on individual and public health.

Remember: Freedom of thought and exercise of free speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution.

You have the right to talk privately and publicly about any concerns you have about vaccine necessity, safety and effectiveness, and to work with your elected officials to modify the vaccine laws in your state.

Become an engaged, courageous citizen activist and protect your right to make vaccine choices.

Vaccination and U.S. Law: A Brief Summary

•Medical Exemptions: All 50 states allow medical exemption to vaccination.

Medical exemptions to vaccination must be written by a medical doctor (M.D.) or doctor of osteopathy (D.O.) and are usually reviewed annually by school or state health officials.

Since 1986, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have eliminated most officially recognized medical reasons for withholding vaccination (contraindications) so that almost no medical condition qualifies for a medical exemption to vaccination.

In most states, school or state public health officials can question or even deny a medical exemption to vaccination written by a doctor if it does not strictly conform to CDC and AAP contraindication guidelines.

The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens who want to change vaccine laws to prevent state school or health officials from questioning or denying a medical exemption to vaccination written by a doctor.

•Religious Exemptions: All but two states (West Virginia and Mississippi) allow religious exemption to vaccination.

These exemptions are worded differently in different states and require different forms of written documentation that must be submitted to state governments supporting a sincerely held religious belief opposing vaccination.

Some states require a notarized affidavit or letter from a spiritual advisor attesting to the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs about vaccination. The religious exemption is under attack and, in some states like New York, parents are being grilled about the sincerity of their religious beliefs by state officials and denied religious exemptions to vaccination so their partially or completely unvaccinated children cannot attend public schools.

The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens, who want to protect their rights to religious exemptions, to add or re-write the religious exemption in state vaccine laws.

•Conscientious Belief Exemptions: 18 states allow conscientious, personal or philosophical belief exemption to vaccination. These states come the closest to protecting a citizen’s right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination in America. They are:

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin

This exemption, like the religious exemption, is under attack by forced vaccination proponents who want to eliminate non-medical exemptions to vaccination in America.

The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens who want to protect or add conscientious belief exemption in state vaccine laws.

•Vaccine Exemptions for Military Personnel: All branches of the U.S. Armed Services provide medical and religious exemptions to vaccination, but those exemptions must be first declared before enlistment in the military.

If a military recruit does not clearly state a medical or religious objection to vaccination BEFORE joining the military, he or she gives up the right to object to vaccination during active military service. Failure to obey an order to vaccinate while on active military duty can result in demotion, imprisonment and involuntary discharge from the military, including dishonorable discharge.

After enlistment, legal assistance is often required to successfully object to vaccination without being subjected to sanctions.

Family dependents of active military personnel often must obtain approval from military officials to exempt children from vaccination for medical reasons or religious objections, especially if the children are attending military-operated daycare or schools or are deployed to foreign countries or re-entering the U.S. after living in a foreign country.

•Vaccine Exemptions for International Travel: Different countries have different laws requiring vaccines to enter or leave the country.

Most developed countries, including those in Europe, currently do not require visitors to show proof of vaccination. However, some countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere may require certain vaccines to enter or exit. Click here to check the CDC website on travel vaccine requirements.

•Other Vaccine Exemption Issues: Vaccine choices also can affect adoption, immigration, child custody arrangements during divorce proceedings, eligibility for health insurance and government entitlement programs, and medical care.

Children adopted from foreign countries as well as in the U.S. may be required by US law and adoption agencies to receive certain government mandated vaccines.

Immigration laws also contain vaccine requirement provisions.

In cases of divorce, one parent may attempt to gain full custody of a minor child by using the vaccine choice issue as leverage.

Some families have been dropped from medical insurance plans or barred from eligibility for government funded medical care and food supplement programs if children are not given all government recommended vaccines.

Increasingly, pediatricians are refusing to treat children who are not fully vaccinated and, in some instances, medical personnel in hospital emergency rooms and physicians’ offices have reported parents to state child social services agencies for child medical neglect for refusing to vaccinate their children. In these circumstances, you may need to consult to protect informed consent rights.

Legal Options

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was passed by Congress to protect vaccine manufacturers and vaccine providers from liability for vaccine injuries and deaths in civil court.

If a child is injured by a government recommended or mandated vaccine, the child must sue the Secretary of Health for damages under the Act in the U.S. Court of Claims in Washington, D.C.

If the vaccine injured child is turned down for federal compensation or offered too little to provide for the child’s lifetime care, a lawsuit may be filed in civil court against a vaccine manufacturer or negligent doctor with certain restrictions.

By 2009, about $2 billion had been awarded to vaccine victims for brain inflammation and immune system damage leading to permanent injury or death, even though two out of three children are turned away for federal compensation.

The Bottom Line

•When you or your child is injured by a vaccine, the risks are 100 percent, and you will be left to deal with the consequences. Those who make and give vaccines are protected from liability in civil court, and federal vaccine injury compensation is very difficult to get.

•There is no guarantee that a vaccine will, in fact, protect against an infectious disease or that exposure to an infectious disease will cause a complication, injury or death. Good health is about so much more than vaccination and preventing experience with infectious disease.

•Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury or death that is greater for some than others. The right to informed consent to medical risk-taking is a human right. Empowering ourselves with information and taking responsible action to protect the right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination in America is one of the most important actions we can take as citizens to protect our freedom.

•Don’t let anyone force you or your child to take a vaccine without your voluntary, informed consent.

•If a doctor denies you or your child medical care because you want to make vaccine choices, find another doctor.

•If a doctor threatens you, or if a government official denies a medical or religious exemption that you have legally filed, find an attorney to help you.

•If you don’t like the vaccine laws in your state, contact your elected officials and work to change them.

Together, we can educate the public and reform vaccine laws in America to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions for ourselves and our children.

For More Information ...

•Diseases & Vaccines -- A list of diseases that have vaccines, selected stories about the diseases and the vaccines, and other links to find information about them.

•Vaccine Manufacturers’ Product Inserts

•State Laws & Vaccine Exemption Information

•Become a Vaccine Choice Advocate in your state to protect vaccine exemptions

•If you have been harassed for your vaccine choices, make a report here



About the Author

Barbara Loe Fisher is the co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, and the author of "The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines" and "Vaccines, Autism & Chronic Inflammation: The New Epidemic."

Founding NVIC in 1982 with parents of vaccine injured children, she developed strategy for and led a national, grassroots movement and public information campaign to institute vaccine safety reforms and informed consent protections in the public health system.

Her book, DPT: A Shot in the Dark, which she co-authored with Harris Coulter, Ph.D., was the first major, well documented critique of America's mass vaccination system calling for safety reforms and the right to informed consent to vaccination.


She has served as a consumer representative for more than 15 years on vaccine advisory committees and has testified in state legislatures and in Congress, as well as represented consumers in many scientific and other forums as an advocate for vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the mass vaccination system.

She is a consumer voice for vaccine safety and informed consent issues on radio, television and in print and Internet news reports on the science, regulation, policy, and ethics of vaccine policy and law. During the past three decades, she has debated more pediatricians and U.S. public health officials on the subject of vaccine risks and informed consent on television, radio and in other public forums than any other American.




Related Links:

Why We Need a Fearless Conversation about Vaccines


Why Vaccines Aren't Safe


How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Drug/tylenol_linked_to_increased_risk_of_autism_0702101053.html

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Drug/tylenol_linked_to_increased_risk_of_autism_0702101053.html

“It’s important we not turn around and blame mothers,” Dr. Malaspina said. “The evidence is very, very strong that there is a paternal age effect.”

Both Parents’ Ages Linked to Autism Risk Sign in to Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail

Print

Reprints
Share
Close
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: February 8, 2010
Older mothers are more likely than younger ones to have a child with autism, and older fathers significantly contribute to the risk of the disorder when their partners are under 30, researchers are reporting.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Health Guide: AutismIn a study published online on Monday in the journal Autism Research, the researchers analyzed almost five million births in California during the 1990s, and 12,159 cases of autism diagnosed in those children — a sample large enough to examine how the risk of autism was affected when one parent was a specific age and the other was the same age or considerably older or younger.

Previous research found that the risk of autism grew with the age of the father. The new study suggested that when the father was over 40 and the mother under 30, the increased risk was especially pronounced — 59 percent greater than for younger men.

By contrast, for women 30 and older, the risk of autism rose 13 percent when the father was over 40.

Every five-year increase in a mother’s age raised her risk of having a child with autism by 18 percent; a 40-year-old woman’s risk was 50 percent greater than that of a woman who became a mother in her late 20s, and 77 percent higher than that of a woman under 25.

But while the number of California women giving birth in their 40s rose sharply in the 1990s, the researchers said that could not account for the sevenfold rise in autism during the decade.

“The rise in autism is occurring among children of parents of all ages,” said Janie F. Shelton, a graduate student in epidemiology at the University of California, Davis, who was the paper’s lead author. “We can’t say that the shifting trend of maternal age is responsible for the increased rates of autism.”

The new findings appeared to question the conclusions of earlier research suggesting that the risk of autism spectrum disorders increased with advancing paternal age, but not with advancing maternal age.

One such study analyzed a large Israeli military database and found that children of fathers 40 or older were more than five times as likely to have an autism disorder as those whose fathers were under 30.

An author of that study, Dr. Dolores Malaspina, a psychiatrist at New York University Langone Medical Center, said Monday that mothers and fathers were usually so close in age that small statistical differences could appear to shift the effect of advanced age from one parent to another.

“It’s important we not turn around and blame mothers,” Dr. Malaspina said. “The evidence is very, very strong that there is a paternal age effect.”

VACCINES KILL TWO CHILDREN EVERY YEAR

VACCINES KILL TWO CHILDREN EVERY YEAR



Two children a year die after routine vaccinations
Sunday February 7,2010
By Lucy Johnston Have your say(0)
TWO children a year die after routine vaccinations, research has shown.


In some cases the Government has awarded parents up to £100,000 under its Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979. In others, post mortem examin­ations concluded that the injection was the most likely cause of death.

The figures, compiled by vaccine damage support group Jabs, come in the wake of last month’s decision by the General Medical Council that Dr Andrew Wakefield, who sparked the MMR controversy, acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly”. The research also found that it has become more difficult to get compensation for vaccine damage despite no drop in the number of children being affected.

There were 970 payments made between 1979 and 1994, about 65 a year, to parents of damaged children.

Since then there have been only 28 payments, approximately two successful claims a year. Critics say this is because the criteria for making a claim have become so strict. Peter Fletcher, former chief scientific officer for the Department of Health, is demanding an overhaul of the payment system.

He said: “We need to point out in easy language that vaccines have always had a level of adverse effects.

“However, it is hard to meet the standard of proof to win compensation and awards have been miserly.”

Julie Roberts, 40, whose daughter Stacey died after an MMR jab, said: “The Government should take responsibility. It has never given proper warnings of the risk and still doesn’t despite the evidence.”




Two children a year die after routine vaccinations
Sunday February 7,2010
By Lucy Johnston Have your say(0)
TWO children a year die after routine vaccinations, research has shown.


In some cases the Government has awarded parents up to £100,000 under its Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979. In others, post mortem examin­ations concluded that the injection was the most likely cause of death.

The figures, compiled by vaccine damage support group Jabs, come in the wake of last month’s decision by the General Medical Council that Dr Andrew Wakefield, who sparked the MMR controversy, acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly”. The research also found that it has become more difficult to get compensation for vaccine damage despite no drop in the number of children being affected.

There were 970 payments made between 1979 and 1994, about 65 a year, to parents of damaged children.

Since then there have been only 28 payments, approximately two successful claims a year. Critics say this is because the criteria for making a claim have become so strict. Peter Fletcher, former chief scientific officer for the Department of Health, is demanding an overhaul of the payment system.

He said: “We need to point out in easy language that vaccines have always had a level of adverse effects.

“However, it is hard to meet the standard of proof to win compensation and awards have been miserly.”

Julie Roberts, 40, whose daughter Stacey died after an MMR jab, said: “The Government should take responsibility. It has never given proper warnings of the risk and still doesn’t despite the evidence.”

Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys; A statement by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey

Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys; A statement by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Saturday, February 06, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)




(NaturalNews) When it comes to vaccines, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey get it. They see how the pharma industry is engineering a campaign to silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield in order to suppress the publication of startling new evidence linking vaccines to severe neurological damage.

At great risk to their professional careers, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have found the courage to dare to tell the truth about vaccines and autism. Despite the vicious attacks by the pro-vaccine zealots who will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who challenges conventional vaccine mythology, McCarthy and Carrey have issued a powerful, inspired statement that reveals the truth behind the Big Pharma smear campaign that is intent on destroying the reputation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield before he can publish the final results of this important new study.

NaturalNews reprints that statement here, unedited:



A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.

It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England's General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.

Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield's original paper (http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf...) regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet's retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.

Dr. Wakefield is one of the world's most respected and well-published gastroenterologists. He has published dozens of papers (http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/publ...) since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world. His work documenting the bowel disease of children with autism and his exploration of novel ways to treat bowel disease has helped relieve the pain and suffering of thousands of children with autism.

For the past decade, parents in our community have been clamoring for a relatively simple scientific study that could settle the debate over the possible role of vaccines in the autism epidemic once and for all: compare children who have been vaccinated with children who have never received any vaccines and see if the rate of autism is different or the same.

Few people are aware that this extremely important work has not only begun, but that a study using an animal model has already been completed exploring this topic in great detail.

Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.

The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here (http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/prim...), were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.

Senator McCain Files New Bill That Attacks Your Access to Supplements

McCain's Fascist, Globalist Attacks Supplements
Senator McCain Files New Bill That Attacks Your Access to Supplements
and Repeals Key Sections of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act
2-4-10

TAKE ACTION AND TELL YOUR SENATOR NOT TO CO-SPONSOR THIS BILL

Senator McCain's bill is called The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA). It would repeal key sections of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). DSHEA protects supplements if 1) they are food products that have been in the food supply and not chemically altered or 2) if they were sold as supplements prior to 1994, the year that DSHEA was passed. If a supplement fits one of these two descriptions, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot arbitrarily ban it or reclassify it as a drug.

These protections are far from perfect. They discourage companies from developing new forms of supplements. New supplements may be arbitrarily banned by the FDA or adopted by drug companies in a way that precludes their further sale as supplements.

McCain's bill would wipe out even the minimal protections contained in DSHEA. It would give the FDA full discretion and power to compile a discreet list of supplements allowed to remain on the market while banning all others.

Everyone knows that the FDA is friendly to drug companies (which pay its bills and provide good revolving door jobs) and hostile to supplement companies. Under this bill, this same Agency could quite arbitrarily ban any supplement it wished or turn it over to drug companies to be developed as a drug and sold for multiples of its price as a supplement.

The FDA will like this because it believes that it can more easily control a few industry giants. But isn't it more likely that the industry giants will eventually gain control over the FDA?

The FDA is already misusing the adverse event reporting process that exists. Drugs rack up thousands of adverse event reports without any action. Just recently, the FDA yanked from the market a supplement product based on just a couple of alleged adverse event reports without even allowing the company (an old and respected firm) to provide any counter-evidence or counter-argument.

The bill also allows the FDA to yank a product (at the company's expense) if there is a "reasonable probability" that it is "adulterated" or "misbranded". Let's remember that "adulterated" could mean there is a minor record keeping error on the producer's part and "misbranded" can mean that the producer simply tells the truth about the product. An "adulterated" and "misbranded" supplement in Orwellian FDA speak may actually be both completely safe and effective.

We must prevent this bill from gaining traction! Protect your access to supplements by contacting your senators today and asking them NOT to co-sponsor the Dietary Supplement Safety Act but rather to oppose it.

TAKE ACTION

McCain's Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA) appears to be supported by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) which is funded by major league sports teams including baseball, football and others. The recent suspensions of NFL and other professional sports figures is much in the news, and the goal of the sports industry appears to be to shift the spotlight from their players to the supplements industry. In his comments, Senator McCain cited six NFL players recently suspended for testing positive for banned substances and purportedly exposed to these substances through dietary supplements.

The problem here of course is one of illegal sale and use of steroids. So why dismantle the supplement industry in order to control already illegal substances?

The FDA currently has complete and total authority to stop illegal steroids and, more broadly, to regulate dietary supplements. If the agency were doing its job, it could and would have prevented the sale of illegal steroids. The answer to this problem is not to give FDA more power. The Agency simply needs to do it's job.

TAKE ACTION

Why would a bill be offered to solve an illegal steroid problem that does not really address the steroid problem but instead gives the FDA complete and arbitrary control over all supplements? The answer is simple.

There are a lot of vested interests which are threatened by supplements. Drug companies do not like them because they represent a low cost, safer, and often more effective alternative to drugs. The FDA does not like them because supplements do not come through the FDA approval process and therefore do not support the FDA budget.

Why not simply require that supplements be brought through the FDA's drug approval process? Wouldn't that create a level playing field?

That is probably the argument that Senator McCain has been sold. But it is a completely false argument. The FDA drug approval process costs as much as a billion dollars. It is not economically feasible to spend such vast sums on substances that are not protected by patent, and natural substances cannot legally be patented.

This is the great "Catch 22" of American medicine. The FDA, which is supposed to guard and promote our health, is hostile to the kind of natural medicine-based on diet, supplements, and exercise-that represents the real future of healthcare. The Agency has either been captured by drug interests or is trapped in a catastrophically expensive, toxic, and ineffective patented-drug model.

Senator McCain has no doubt offered this bill in good faith. But he has been sold a bill of goods by special interests. And he has been naïve enough not to know that he is being used.

TAKE ACTION

This exceptionally bad bill also requires the reporting of all minor adverse events related to supplements. This is in addition to the already existing requirement to report adverse events. This will further stack the deck against small supplement companies by creating new, unnecessary, even more cumbersome, and of course very expensive administrative hurdles. The result: the consolidation of the supplement industry into a few big companies.If passed, this bill will likely result in the disappearance from store shelves of many supplements currently on the market. In addition to fewer supplements, there would likely be much lower doses available. Unbridled authority would be handed to the FDA, an agency that needs a top to bottom overhaul, not ever more power over our lives.

If McCain's bill passes, we can look to Europe for a snapshot of what we may be in for: EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, has sharply reduced the list of available supplements and is in process of reducing potencies to ridiculous levels, such as less beta carotene than can be found in half of a large carrot. Europeans already look to the US to obtain their dietary supplements. If this bill passes, where will we obtain ours?

Please take action immediately. Tell your senators NOT to co- sponsor this legislation and to do everything in their power to defeat it. Then forward this to your friends and family and ask then to do the same!

Gretchen DuBeau
Legal Director, ANH Int.
Executive Director, ANH-USA

The Lancet Slammed by Medical Veritas Editors

The Lancet Slammed by Medical Veritas Editors
Vaccine Science Poisoned By Special Interests In PharmaMedia
By Dr. Leonard Horowitz
2-5-10



The editors of Medical Veritas journal have condemned The Lancet'sretraction of the controversial study byDr. Andrew Wakefield, charging editor Richard Horton with pandering to special interests in a conspiracy to defraud the public about the risks of vaccinations.

In 1998, The Lancet published the contested study linking autism and intestinal problems to the risky MMR triple virus vaccine. Yesterday, following the British General Medical Council's decision that Dr. Wakefield had been "dishonest," The Lancet's editor retracted the article saying the Council's report made it "utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false."






In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of the pro-vaccine industry American Council on Science and Health, wrote, "The retraction . . . comes far too late. Even now, Horton fails to accept responsibility for the human toll he engendered by publishing the Wakefield 'study.'. . ."

"On the contrary," wrote Dr. Leonard Horowitz, Editor-in-Chief of Medical Veritas. "Dr. Horton's delay is best explained by his aversion to self incrimination and conspiring to cover-up iatrogenocide--the medical mass murder of innocent people for profit."

The Winter, 2010 issue of Medical Veritas, evidenced gross conflicting interests undermining the The Lancet's integrity. Following the publication of Dr. Wakefield's controversial study, Reed-Elsevier-ChoicePoint mergers occurred. The mega-company formed has nearly monopolized the medical scientific publishing industry. Previous to this, The Lancet editors protested the "damaging" of medicine and health science by pharmaceutical companies.

"Now it is obvious Dr. Horton's company has been grossly contaminated by special interests as biased as Dr. Ross's 'PharmaCouncil'," Dr. Horowitz said.

Reed-Elsevier-ChoicePoint, it turns out, is directed by Chief Executive Officer, Sir Crispin Davis, according to a Reuter's News Service promotion for GlaxoSmithKline recently published. According to Forbes, Sir Davis was knighted by the Queen of England for his "service to the information industry." He has served as a Non-Executive Independent Director of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC since 2003. Sir Davis spent his early career with Procter & Gamble.





Reuter's News Service, key to the British "information industry," is directed by Editor-in-Chief, Thomas H. Glocer, who serves on the Board of Directors of Merck & Co., which admittedly paid Reed-Elsevier to publish pseudo-scientific articles and fraudulent medical journals, including the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. According to court records, and the New York Times, the Merck-sponsored publication for doctors in Australia came to light during litigation over Vioxx--a pain medication that caused, conservatively, more than 27,785 deaths according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).







The Lancet editor blamed the FDA for faulty oversight for the VIOXX killings, but failed to cite his own parent company's complicity in the iatrogenocide. Dr. Horton wrote, "Without more vigilant drug regulation in the future, doctors will continue to be misled and patients' lives will continue to be endangered. "

So with zero confidence in The Lancet, Dr. Horton, those paying his salary, and those criticizing him for his actions, Medical Veritas editors are inviting Dr. Wakefield to re-publish his controversial paper in their next issue.

"Many of our editors have experienced slander and demeaning remarks by mainstream healthcare authorities and the media, Dr. Gary S. Goldman, the Associate Editor of Medical Veritas, wrote to Dr. Wakefield. "Your numerous peer-reviewed journal articles testify to your valuable contribution to the medical and health fields, and your stand against the opponents to scientific reason and common sense is heroic."

Medical Veritas, wherein Dr. Wakefield published a 2006 follow-up study to his 1998 report in The Lancet, is "one of the few remaining journals that places emphasis on the health interests of individuals rather than pursue profits."

"The current climate of vaccine science is very controversial," said Eileen Dannemann. In recent months, the Director of the National Coalition of Organized Women collected and analyzed data of spontaneous abortions following injections of H1N1 vaccines into pregnant women.

"The information that people are given by vaccine authorities, and through the media," Dannemann insists, "is inconsistent with the safety studies conducted that lack placebo controls and long-term surveillance of adverse reactions to these vaccinations."
Contrary to the PharmaMedia's propaganda character-assassinating Dr. Wakefield, he is not the only scientist concerned about vaccinations causing deadly side effects. In recent days, a new study from The Center for Modeling Optimal Outcomes in New Jersey published, "If it hadn't been for so many parents insisting that vaccines were responsible for the condition [of autism], we might never have found the fact that the stabilizer in MMR, and a few other vaccines, is hydrolyzed gelatin--a substance that is approximately 21% glycine. It appears that, based on readily verifiable science, the use of that form of glycine triggers an imbalance between the amino acid neurotransmitters responsible for the absorption rate of certain classes of cells throughout the body. It is that wide-spread disruption that apparently results in the systemic problems that encompass the mind and the body characterized in today's 'classic' autism."


NOTE TO JOURNALISTS

There is a courtesy copy of Medical Veritas, available free for online review for only 2 more weeks: CLICK HERE for Dr. Horowitz's commentary and link to "PHARMAGANDA: A Study of Conflicting Interests."

After February 15, 2010, there will be a $35 charge for accessing the Medical Veritas journal via pdf downloads, with individual articles in this issue available for separate purchase at $15 per download, including Dr. Harold Buttram's important article on the future of human DNA corrupted by the mutagenic viral injections accompanying childhood vaccinations.

Please help alert medical doctors about this report, and this free limited time access. Medical doctors and patients must be informed that their intelligence has been tainted by pharmaceutical special interests. This publication contains urgent life-saving knowledge.

___________________

Tetrahedron, LLC
Health Science Communication for People Around the World
Contact Art Thompson 949-715-2217
Info@healthyworldorganization.com

217 Cedar St, Suite #326
Sandpoint, ID 83864
208-265-8065
tetra@tetrahedron.org
http://www.tetrahedron.org

Autism and Vitamin D

The Vitamin D Newsletter

January 30, 2010.

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you want to unsubscribe, go to the end of this newsletter. If you are not subscribed, you can do so on the Vitamin D Council's website.

This newsletter may be reproduced as long as you properly and prominently attribute its source. Please reproduce it, post it on Internet sites, and forward it to your friends.

This month, I dedicate the entire newsletter to a mother's lengthy case report of her autistic son. Other than name and place of residence, the letter was not edited.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

At age 2.5 years, between December 2007 and January 2008, my son experienced a fairly dramatic onset of symptoms that led to his diagnosis of autism. His symptoms (many of which we did not even know the terminology for at the time they first occurred) included:

--The inability to sleep at night, we would put him to bed at 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. following his normal bedtime routine

--Development of anxiety and refusal to leave the house even to do preferred activities

--Obsessive-repetitive questions and monologuing/run-on speech

--Sensory issues (refusal to wear jeans or any fabrics other than fleece, screaming hysterically at bath time, complaining and covering eyes in sunlight, covering ears for everyday noises that had not bothered him before (toilets flushing, pulling pots and pans from cupboards, etc.)

--Toe-walking

--Flapping and self-stimulating behaviors (repeatedly tapping his cheeks and eyes with all ten fingers, continually twisting up his fingers in pretzel-like configurations, holding objects in his peripheral range of vision and straining to see them from the corner of his eyes)

--Development of an unusual pattern of stuttering/vocal tic at the end of words,he would repeat the last sound/syllable,"I don't want to go to the store-or-or-or-or-or-or. It won't be fun-n-n-n-n-n-n-n." He would make sounds even in his sleep "n-n-n-n-n-n" or "s-s-s-s-s-s-s"

--Loss of muscle tone (stopped walking up and down stairs and began crawling/sliding instead, decline in balance and motor skills)

--loss of handedness (began switching left to right hand, after seeming predominantly left-handed)

--Marked increase in hyperactivity

--Frequent spacing out/unresponsive episodes

Our son and his twin sister were born at 36 weeks, 5 days on March 17, 2005 after four months of bed-rest. As early as their 8 week appointment, I mentioned to our pediatrician that we had concerns about our son's eye contact and social responsiveness (in comparison to his sister). I felt that I was having more difficulty bonding with him. We were told "don't worry, but don't wait" and were referred to our state's Early On intervention program. At the end of June a physical therapist and speech pathologist from our intermediate school district came to our home to evaluate our then 3 month old son and told me that he was doing just fine and that I was worrying too much. I agreed that by the time they saw him he had begun smiling and making better eye contact.

We didn't worry again about our son until fall 2006. He had walked just before his first birthday, but by 18 months+ he still seemed clumsy and prone to falling compared to his sister. We took him back to the intermediate school district for evaluation and were told that all of his development seemed to be in the normal range and that we shouldn't worry. We were advised that we could take him to music and gym classes to work on his coordination and told that we could pay for private physical therapy if we elected. We followed all of the recommendations.

For a year, we didn't notice any other changes until the sudden onset of symptoms listed above when he was 2.5 years. With the sudden onset of symptoms above, we took our son to see a number of specialists during the winter of 2008 including a neurologist (who diagnosed him with Asperger Syndrome), a psychologist (who diagnosed with autism), and a second psychologist who specialized in the treatment of autism (who diagnosed him with Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not-Otherwise-Specified). All three diagnoses are on the autism spectrum. He also began seeing an occupational therapist, a speech therapist, a behavioral specialist, and a DAN! (Defeat Autism Now!) doctor for dietary interventions. We saw a dramatic improvement by April/May of that year. Nearly all the symptoms on the list above had resolved. We assumed the improvements were due to diet but he started to go into the sun around that time. Our son slept well and spent many peaceful, happy and anxiety-free months during the spring and summer after turning three.

In mid-November 2008, I sent the following e-mail to the DAN doctor who had been helping us with our son.

"You saw our son Jonathan Switzer a few times regarding his autism diagnosis and diet issues, etc. He had a regressive period last winter from about December through April when his autism was diagnosed, then did pretty well all summer. Nursery school started off okay, too, but now he seems to be having another regression.

Main symptoms:

--Great difficulty getting to sleep (fidgets for 2 plus hours most nights while he had been falling asleep easily for several months prior to that)

--Marked increase in anxiety (again refusing to leave the house even to do things he loves, frequently shaking/clenching and telling us "I'm scared)

--Onset of OCD-like behaviors (afraid to get hands dirty, get extremely upset if he gets even tiny drips of water on himself)

--Increase in self-stimulatory behaviors (flapping, fidgeting, noise-making)

--Frequent crying jags and telling us he's just giving up on everything

We have had other parents tell us that their kids on the spectrum have a worsening of symptoms during the winter months and we feel like we are observing this same pattern. We've done some reading about light therapy for depression/anxiety and to help correct disturbed sleep patterns and would like to give it a try for Jonathan.

Wondering if you have ever prescribed a light therapy box for pediatric patients before. Our insurance told us they will cover it with a diagnosis of Seasonal Affective Disorder, but I don't even know if that is something that can be diagnosed in children. Guess we're willing to try anything at this point. Do you know much about this type of therapy?"

Neither the DAN Doctor nor our pediatrician would write a prescription for a therapy light, so we purchased one on our own and found it made no discernible impact on his symptoms.

By December, our son's symptoms had worsened further and we decided to put him in a very expensive and intensive autism treatment program through our local hospital. He made slow progress during his participation in the program from January through April. He was also involved in speech and occupational therapy during the winter months. At his IEPC meeting at school in March, we were encouraged to put him in the district's program for children with developmental delays. We instead elected to register him for regular pre-school for the following year.

During that winter, I was crying to some friends about my son and describing his seemingly seasonal pattern of symptoms. We had just seen a second neurologist searching for help, and I was extremely frustrated when, after listening to my son's symptoms and history, he told me bluntly, "There is nothing seasonal about autism," then suggested that we put our son on an anti-depressant. We refused the medication. One of the friends I was crying to is a research librarian and the other is a medical researcher. After our conversation, they located and e-mailed me a few journal articles they thought might help, one of the articles was by Dr. Cannell and discussed his vitamin D theory of autism. Reading the article was one of those "Aha!" moments and I felt hopeful that Dr. Cannell was on to something.

By June our son was released from both speech therapy and occupational therapy and we were told that he no longer showed any delays for his age. When he had begun occupational therapy in January, the OT had been astonished at our son's lack of muscle tone. She recommended that he also receive Physical Therapy services, so we went on a long waiting list. Our initial OT was in a car accident, and in May we were transferred to a new OT. When the new OT first saw our son, she said could not believe he was the same child described in the notes. By May the low muscle tone, hyperactivity and distractibility noted in his file, were no longer evident. His turn came up for physical therapy and we were told he no longer needed it.

Our son has always spent a lot of time outdoors in the summer, without sunblock. He had a happy and relaxing summer. As fall/back-to-school approached, I began to fear the onset of another regression and again read the article by Dr. Cannell my friend had sent. I visited his website and decided we would try a vitamin D supplement. Our pediatrician did not encourage any dose higher than 400 i.u. (that found in a typical multivitamin) but did write a script to have his 25-hydroxy level tested. In August his level was 37, so we started him on 5,000 iu daily and had his level retested on October 21st. By October his level was 96. The pediatrician was concerned that this was too high and told us he should not have more than 400 iu per day.

Knowing that Nov-March are typically his worst months, we reduced the dosage down only to 3,000 iu from October through mid-December. At an appointment in December our son was doing wonderfully (none of his usual fall/winter symptoms yet evident) and the pediatrician told us 3,000 iu was too much and that we should be giving no more than 400 iu. In mid-December we reduced the dose to 1,500 iu. By the beginning of January we noted a marked loss of eye contact. We also noted that our son was again interchanging his right hand for writing and eating (after using his left hand exclusively for 8+ months). We increased his vitamin D level to 4,000 iu daily in early January. On January 11 we had his 25-Hydroxy level checked on January 11 and found that it was 89. By the end of January, we and his grandparents noted improvement in his eye contact.

In January 2010 we attended his preschool conferences. The teacher had marked cards with the following code (1=age appropriate, 2=developing, 3=area of concern). Our son received 1s in all areas with the exception of hopping on one foot and balance beam where he received 2s. We were told that he is on par with or ahead of his peers in all areas (academic, fine motor, etc.), and that his teacher had noted no unusual symptoms or concerns.

During the fall/winter 2009-2010 our son has been free from nearly all of the most troubling symptoms that plagued him the previous two winters. The following example may demonstrate the improvement in his daily life since last winter.

One of our son's low points was a Christmas party we attended in December 2008. Before leaving the house to attend the party our son screamed and yelled about having to take a bath and because we would not let him wear sweatpants to the party. He then begged us not to make him leave the house. During the 40 minute trip to the party our son asked us repetitive questions and talked incessantly. Upon arriving at the party, he immediately walked into an unoccupied room adjacent to the room where the party was occurring, and put his face into the corner. Despite much coaxing by my husband and me, he refused to come out of the corner.

After approximately 45 minutes of standing in the corner we managed to get him out through the promise of some food rewards. He proceeded to walk around and around the perimeter of the living room where all of the other kids were playing. He rubbed himself along the walls and covered his ears as he walked. He finally settled into playing alone in a corner of the room. All of the kids at the party participated in a book exchange. Our son refused to come to the area where the other kids were gathered. We coaxed him over only to have him throw the book he received and refuse to thank the parent who had purchased it for him. He spent much of the evening in time-outs for that and other inappropriate behavior.

In June of 2008, after playing in the sun for several months, we met for a picnic with the same group of friends at a local park. Our son ran up to the other children and joined right in playing bulldozers in the sand with them. He behaved and interacted in a completely appropriate and typical way during the picnic which lasted several hours.

This year (2009) we attended the same Christmas party at the same house. Our son got ready and left for the party without anxiety or incident. He chatted normally during the drive to the party. He walked into the house, said, "Hey, check out my new train," to some of the kids already playing and settled in to playing happily with the other kids. During the book exchange, he received a book, smiled and gave a big hug to the person who gave it to him.

In December of 2008, I took a leave from my job so I could get my son to the intensive behavioral treatment program he was in and to all of his other therapy appointments. I dedicated 40-60 hours per week to my son's various appointments and home therapy program.

This winter (January 2010), a former colleague asked me what Jonathan's current therapy program consists of. I told her I spend about 30 seconds each day opening the jar of vitamins and giving him his chewable vitamin D. In my opinion, the 3 minutes or so I spend each week giving him his vitamin D have been much more effective, and much less expensive, than any other treatment we have pursued.

Thank you.

Jeannette, Wisconsin

Dear Jeanette:

You're welcome. Several things need comment. First, the symptoms are typical of autism. Second, the seasonality of symptoms suggest a vitamin D deficient disease. Third, the treatment in the spring of 2008 seemed effective but, in hindsight, it was simply due to spring sun exposure. Fourth, as you may now know, light boxes for seasonal affective disorder make no vitamin D. Fifth, your pediatrician knows little about Vitamin D other than what committees tell him; your decision to ignore his advice probably saved your son's brain from further injury, as autism is a progressive inflammatory destruction of brain tissue. Sixth, the fact that you needed bed rest and gave birth prematurely suggests you were Vitamin D deficient during your pregnancy.

Seventh, his twin sister has never had autism, despite the same intrauterine environment. This is consistent with my theory, that autism is caused from a quantitative, not qualitative, variation is one of the enzymes that metabolize Vitamin D. That is, there are no structural differences in these enzymes in autism, only a genetically determined difference in the amount present. These enzymes are responsive to estrogen; estrogen protects the brain from being damaged by low Vitamin D, probably by increasing the amount of activated Vitamin D present, explaining why boys are four times more likely to have the disease.

The report that your son deteriorated when his dose was reduced from 3,000 to 1,500 IU suggests autistic children need adult doses of Vitamin D. When you reduced the dose from 3,000 to 1,500 IU/day he worsened although his level on 1,500 IU/day was probably still greater than 50 ng/ml. This makes me think that dosage needs to be stable and suggests that Professor Reinhold Vieth's theory of a detrimental seasonal resetting of the intercellular metabolism of Vitamin D may even be true at levels above 50 ng/ml, where the body is storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in muscle and fat.

His current dose of 4,000 IU per day is perfectly safe and will give him a level of 80-100 ng/ml, inside the reference ranges of American laboratories. Toxicity (asymptomatic high blood calcium) begins somewhere above 200 ng/ml. Generally speaking, autistic children should take 2,000 IU per every 25 pounds of body weight for six weeks, then have a 25(OH)D blood test and adjust the dosage to get into the high end of the reference range, 80-100 ng/ml.

Although I first published the Vitamin D theory of autism theory 3 years ago, few autistic children are currently treated for their Vitamin D deficiency. This is due to several reasons. One, those who think, correctly, that autism is a genetic disease, stop thinking after that, reasoning that genetic diseases are untreatable. Such thinkers do not understand epigenetics (upon the genome). Vitamin D is probably the heart of epigenetics, as nothing works upon the genome like vitamin D.

Secondly, the "all autism is caused from vaccinations" crowd cannot accept the Vitamin D possibility as it threatens their core beliefs. They simply cannot change their minds.

Finally, as you now know, organized medicine would say you should stop the vitamin D and watch your son deteriorate, which is why slavery to evidence based medicine is fine for scientists and unethical for practitioners.

John Cannell, MD

Executive Director

Vitamin D Council

This newsletter may be reproduced as long as you properly and prominently attribute it source. Please reproduce it, post it on Internet sites, and forward it to your friends.

Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on your donations to publish our newsletter, maintain our website, and pursue our objectives. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council

1241 Johnson Ave., #134

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401