Dr. Erdem Cantekin, a medical researcher, is one of the nation's leading experts on earaches. "It [Prevnar] is an ineffective and toxic vaccine," he said ----[2001] News 8 Investigates: Prevnar


Well, the mercury and aluminum is not toxic enough, so they added Sodium cyanide to the Prenvnar.

Vaccine Approved for Child Infections

.Vaccine Approved for Child Infections
By DUFF WILSON
Published: February 24, 2010
The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday approved Prevnar 13, an expanded version of a vaccine to protect children against more forms of bacterial infections that can cause meningitis, pneumonia and other diseases.

Skip to next paragraph

The new vaccine protects against a virulent subtype called strain 19A, a growing threat.
Health officials say such infections cause a million deaths a year in developing countries and dozens of deaths in the United States, along with ear infections in millions of infants.

Prevnar 13, from the drug giant Pfizer, adds protection against six types of bacteria to a current product, Prevnar 7, increasing its coverage to more than 90 percent of pneumococcal disease rather than the current product’s 80 percent coverage.

Prevnar 7 had worldwide sales approaching $3 billion, making it one of the Pfizer’s best-selling drugs, and Credit Suisse analysts predict Prevnar 13 will exceed $5 billion in sales by 2014. Pfizer is counting on it to become the company’s top revenue generator after its flagship drug, the cholesterol fighter Lipitor, loses patent protection next year. In recent months Prevnar 13 has been approved in 38 other countries.

While Prevnar 13, like Prevnar 7, is approved only for use in children, Pfizer is testing it on adults in two clinical trials that could lead to its use to vaccinate older people against bacterial infections, the company said. Pfizer may ask the F.D.A. to approve adult usage of Prevnar 13 by the end of the year, Geno Germano, president of Pfizer’s specialty care unit, said in an interview.

As with the older vaccine, Prevnar 13 is given by intramuscular injections at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months and between 12 and 15 months of age.

Pfizer said Prevnar 13 would be available within weeks to replace the older product. An immunization advisory committee for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, meeting in Atlanta on Wednesday, recommended that all children younger than 5 who received the Prevnar 7 vaccine get a supplemental dose of Prevnar 13 the next time they visited a doctor.

Pfizer told the committee it would charge $108 a dose for the new product, 30 percent higher than the $83 a dose it charged for Prevnar 7.

Vaccine products were the major attraction for Pfizer in its $68 billion purchase last year of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which developed the Prevnar vaccines. Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, is scrambling to diversify as patents of older products expire.

Testing of Prevnar 13 in adults includes an 85,000-person trial in the Netherlands to protect against pneumonia acquired outside of hospital settings, one of the most common infectious illnesses, particularly among older people, Dr. Emilio Emini, Pfizer’s chief vaccine officer, said in an interview.

Approval for adult use, said Mr. Germano of the specialty care unit, “would open up essentially hundreds of millions of additional patients who could benefit from the vaccine.” Pfizer has estimated it could add $1.5 billion in sales.

The new Prevnar vaccine protects against a virulent subtype of the Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria called strain 19A, a growing threat to health that accounts for about 10 percent of the bacterial diseases. It became resistant to antibiotics about five years ago, Dr. Emini said, and is the major new strain attacked in the new product.

A competing vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline, Synflorix, is approved in Europe and some other markets but not in the United States and does not include the strain 19A. Prevnar is the only such vaccine approved for infants in the United States. Merck and Lederle Laboratories make pneumococcal vaccines approved for some adults and children ages 2 and older but not for the younger group, which has the highest rates of the disease.

The F.D.A. twice extended its review time for Prevnar 13, which Pfizer said was the most complex biological product ever submitted for regulatory review. An F.D.A. panel voted 10 to 1 in November to approve it, with one member expressing concern about safety, especially about adverse reactions like redness at the injection site and occasional fever.

The illnesses caused by the Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria include meningitis, an inflammation of the brain covering; sepsis or bloodstream infection; pneumonia and ear infections. The bacteria have evolved, frustrating efforts to wipe them out.

Pfizer plans to expand the childhood vaccine usage in other markets, including developing countries, through the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, at a much lower price, Mr. Germano said.

The World Health Organization says at least a million children worldwide die each year of pneumococcal disease, most of them very young children in developing countries, making it the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death.

Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against children?

Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against children?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)






(NaturalNews) This article refers to the parody cartoon found at (http://www.naturalnews.com/028211_v...). This parody cartoon grew out of the idea that vaccines are "shots" that are being increasingly forced upon children and teens. At times, these vaccines are enforced at gunpoint or with the presence of vicious guard dogs -- as happened in Maryland two years ago when a court judge ordered thousands of parents to bring their children to court for vaccination or face gunpoint arrest and possible jail time. (http://www.naturalnews.com/022267.html)

Most modern vaccinations are, of course, a form of chemical violence against children. If they were all formulated without chemical preservatives (like thimerosal) and dangerous adjuvants (which can harm the nervous system), that might be a different story. But far too many of today's vaccines are chemical concoctions that are entirely unnatural to the human body. To force them into the bodies of innocent children is an act of medical violence.

The method of introducing the vaccines is unnatural and highly interventionist: These chemicals and DNA / RNA fragments are injected directly into the tissues and blood, bypassing the skin (a normal protective defense) and bypassing the digestive system, too. An injected mandatory vaccine dumps foreign material directly into the bloodstream of children without the consent of either the child or the parents -- that's what qualifies mandatory vaccines as "chemical violence" against children.



The Mad Doctor is in
The doctor in this parody cartoon was intentionally created to depict a "crazed" mad doctor because nothing turns an ordinary doctor into a mad man faster than an argument about vaccines. While he may seem to be a reasonable person on all other subjects, once you challenge him on the dangers of over-vaccination of children, all reason gets thrown out the window and he morphs into a raging lunatic of unscientific emotion.

The complete lack of scientific evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines makes no difference to him. "Vaccines need no science," he'll say, "Because everybody knows they work!"

My offer of $10,000 to anyone who can produce a scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of H1N1 vaccines remains utterly unclaimed: http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H...


Vaccine failures are common
Meanwhile, in the real world vaccines are failing miserably. A recent outbreak of mumps in the New Jersey / New York area occurred almost entirely among children who had already been vaccinated against mumps. I covered this story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028142_m...

Clearly if vaccines really worked, then an outbreak should have only occurred among those who were NOT vaccinated against mumps, right? But as I reported here on NaturalNews, 77 percent of the children who got infected had already been vaccinated!

A similar truth emerges when you look at H1N1 deaths: Thousands of those who were vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu had already received the vaccine shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H...). We still don't know the exact number of how many vaccinated people died because the CDC is hiding that data from the public, making sure the mainstream media doesn't learn the truth that even many of those who were vaccinated still died.

What the CDC and its Big Pharma cohorts want people to mistakenly believe is that vaccines always offer protection against infectious disease. (100% protection). But this is blatantly false. In fact, because vaccines introduce a weakened virus into the body, they may hamper the normal immune response, creating systemic weakness that makes people more vulnerable to future infectious disease. In essence, weakened viruses create weakened immune responses, "training" the immune system to be more passive against future threats. That's why people who received vaccines in the past are far more likely to die of infectious disease in the future.

What May Be the Single Biggest Threat to Your Health?

What May Be the Single Biggest Threat to Your Health?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
February 20 2010 | 34,582 views




The UK Government is seeking to rid itself of a billion pounds worth of unwanted swine flu vaccine -- because the “deadly” H1N1 epidemic never materialized. Major drug companies may have pushed the World Health Organization (WHO) to warn that swine flu could be a worldwide 'pandemic' killing tens of millions.

But even more shocking is the fact that the scandalous waste of public money, and the wild overreaction which gave rise to it, were both entirely predictable. It has long been clear that governments all over the world, led by the WHO, were in the grip of a hysterical panic over swine flu.

In the early days of the panic, the BBC Today program brought in a WHO 'expert' to predict that 40 percent of Britons would catch swine flu, while citing another unnamed 'expert' as predicting that up to 1.2 million could die.

Yet eight months later it was being reported by scientists that swine flue is only a tenth as virulent as ordinary flu, and only one 100th as virulent as that Spanish flu at the end of World War I.

In other words, swine flu -- just like the bird flu which a senior WHO official said in 2005 was going to kill 150 million people worldwide (the true death toll turned out to be barely 200) -- has predictably turned out to be yet another example of that all-too-familiar and very dangerous disease of our time, the 'scare phenomenon.'

These scares consistently follow an identifiable pattern.

They invariably begin with some misreading of the scientific evidence, which then gets picked up and inflated into some major threat to human health or well being. But the tipping point of any scare, the moment when it begins to create serious damage, is when politicians and governments get involved, buying the exaggerated threat wholesale and responding with a deluge of measures which end up costing billions.


Sources:

The Daily Mail January 12, 2010






Dr. Mercola's Comments:



The world has been subjected to a stunt for the greedy interests of the drug companies. Tens of billions of dollars were WASTED on the H1N1 vaccines, but the actual cost of the vaccines is almost a moot issue in light of the TRILLIONS of dollars that are being mismanaged on the financial crisis.



The more significant, and I believe the real, issue at hand here is not the money lost, but the damage that is being done to the population by injection of these vaccines. And now the precedent has been set for the government to institute vaccines for future fake or manufactured pandemics.

A ‘Fraudulent' Pandemic

As you can see in this report I wrote in December, from Europe to Australia, to Canada to Asia, as well as in the US, the story was the same: people were reporting adverse events to the H1N1 vaccine in growing numbers.

Then, on January 4, 14 members from 10 countries in the Council of Europe stunned the world by calling H1N1 a FAKED pandemic!

In this motion asking the council to investigate the declaration of H1N1 as a pandemic, these members accused pharmaceutical companies of faking the pandemic and farming it out to the world, so they could fill their pockets with the proceeds:

“In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide.

They have made them squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”

The motion, spear-headed by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), goes on to say:

“The "bird-flu“-campaign (2005/06) combined with the ‘swine-flu’-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability of important international health agencies. The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.

The member states of the Council of Europe should ask for immediate investigations on the consequences at national as well as European level.”

As this intelligently written article in the Daily Mail has pointed out:

“Swine flu -- just like the bird flu which we were told by a senior WHO official in 2005 was going to kill 150 million people worldwide (the true death toll turned out to be barely 200) -- has predictably turned out to be yet another example of that all-too-familiar and very dangerous disease of our time, the 'scare phenomenon.'”

Yes, the scare phenomenon … the scare machine … the fear mongering that took hold of much of the world last year as government officials spread panic in the form of inaccurate swine flu statistics and worst-case scenarios has turned out to be a major scam.

The panic spread not only through the United States, but also much of Europe. In the UK, chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson estimated that 65,000 could die, a prediction that sent the media into a frenzy. Wrote journalist Simon Jenkins in The Guardian:
“If anyone dared question this drivel, they were dismissed by Donaldson as "extremists". When people started reporting swine flu to be even milder than ordinary flu, he accused them of complacency and told them to "wait for next winter"... It was pure, systematic government-induced panic – in which I accept that the media played its joyful part.”

When all was said and done as of January 2010, 360 people died from swine flu, while that is tragic - it's a far cry from the 65,000 originally projected.

Paul Flyn, Vice Chairman, Council of Europe Health Authority even said in news report reported by American Chronicle that “the world has been subjected to a stunt, for the own greedy interests of the pharmaceutical companies.”

Writes journalist Christina England in the same American Chronicle article:

“He [Paul Flyn] feels that this has caused mass panic and the stocking up of a vast quantities of needless vaccines. It is now believed that the drug companies have deliberately mislead Governments to the seriousness of Swine flu, to make them stock pile vaccines, this has caused them to buy billions of dollars worth of vaccines from pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Glaxo Smith Kline and Sanofi Pasteur.”

Why Did WHO Change the Definition of a Pandemic?

As I have said from the very beginning, this so-called pandemic was never a genuine pandemic in the true sense. It only became a “pandemic” because the WHO decided to change the definition in May last year to make it no longer necessary for an enormous amount of people to have contracted an illness or died before a pandemic could be called.

Instead, under the new definition, it doesn’t matter how many, or how few, people are affected. All a disease has to do to be labeled a pandemic is move beyond a few countries’ borders.

By changing the definition, nations were compelled to implement pandemic plans and to purchase H1N1 flu vaccines, enabling drug companies to pocket billions of dollars on fast-tracked, untested vaccines.

Millions of Needlessly Vaccinated People

This pandemic not only is NOT a pandemic, but is causing a great deal of damage to some vaccinated people, as well as to the credibility of our worldwide, public health officials.

Angry that the World Health Organization could allow itself to be influenced into declaring a pandemic that wasn’t, Dr. Wodarg is lashing out in interviews, and promising a full probe into the cozy relationships that appear to exist between drug companies and the WHO.

On his website and in this interview in PharmaTimes, Dr. Wodarg speaks out against the WHO, accusing the agency of causing panic about the non-pandemic, and of forcing nations to waste money on needlessly vaccinating millions of people:

“The WHO’s ‘false pandemic’ flu campaign is one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century,” Wodarg said. “The definition of a pandemic must not be under the influence of drug sellers.

The ‘false pandemic’ campaign began last May in Mexico City, when a hundred or so ‘normal’ reported influenza cases were declared to be the beginning of a threatening new pandemic… (when) WHO, in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies and their scientists redefined pandemics.

These new standards forced politicians in most states to react immediately and sign marketing commitments for additional and new vaccines against swine flu. … In January we will arrange an emergency debate about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the WHO.”

According to an article in Bloomberg, these plans are moving forward. The WHO is planning to conduct a review of its response to the swine flu, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has confirmed that “false pandemics, a threat to health” will be a major theme of its next plenary session, with a debate slated for January 28.

Here in the US, Iowa state Senator Chuck Grassley issued a letter on January 12 to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which he too is demanding answers about the H1N1 vaccines.

In my mind, there’s only one more question to ask: If they faked this pandemic, and the rules were changed just to satisfy drug companies, would that set aside the companies’ immunity to litigation under the national Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, and allow lawsuits and possible prosecution for deaths or injuries because of this vaccine?

Government Reported Side Effects Data Through the Roof

Around the world, people who believe that they, or someone they know, have been injured by the H1N1 vaccine are forming support groups and posting blogs like this one in an effort to share their stories and have their voices heard about what happened to them.

Their stories include everything from miscarriages to tumors to fainting spells and neurological problems.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports are now beginning to show the disturbing truth about the 2009 H1N1 vaccines, which health officials swore were safe, or at least as safe as any other seasonal flu vaccine.

You can read them here on the VAERS website or here on the CDC’s website.

Or, you can go here, to medalerts.org, where Steven Rubin, who has a Ph.D. in Computer Science, has charted the numbers in an understandable graph comparing flu vaccine adverse events for 20 years and highlighting the months of September, October and November.

According to the CDC and FDA, an adverse event is a health problem that is reported after a person gets a vaccine or medicine. As of January 24, 2010, the VAERS database showed 5,400 adverse event reports in connection with the H1N1 vaccine.

Any Way You Look at it, Vaccine Side Effects are Extraordinarily High

“You will see that November's numbers aren't very high, but that is because this graph shows the month in which the vaccination was given, and many of the people injured by vaccinations given in November have not yet filed a report," Dr. Rubin says.

“Since not everybody reports their injuries right away, and because the posting is always behind, the numbers for November will continue to grow through the coming weeks. But any way you look at it, the numbers are huge. They’re through the roof.”

When you look at Dr. Rubin’s graph below, keep in mind that the numbers are fluid – meaning they are constantly changing. Since the government updates ALL of its data weekly, going back to the beginning of when it started keeping adverse events records in 1990, Dr. Rubin re-calculates the events each week, too.

“I have been tracking seasonal flu reports (not H1N1) since August, and they show a flu season that started early and did more damage (in adverse event reports) than ever before,” Dr. Rubin said. “The November results confirm this.”



“There is an alarming red line on the right side that shows a terrible month in September 2009,” Dr. Rubin said. “This bar is nearly six times higher than it has ever been during September (2,203 events this year, as opposed to the previous high of 356 last year).”

To create the graph, Dr. Rubin combined the reports from both seasonal and H1N1 flu shots. That is because of the way the seasonal and H1N1 shots were offered this year, with the CDC advising not to get both at the same time. Also, it was impossible to compare H1N1 to anything because this was the first year for it.

“It is likely that many people stopped getting seasonal flu shots in October (when H1N1 became available) and switched to H1N1 vaccinations,” Dr. Rubin said. “So the right thing to do is to combine H1N1 and seasonal flu reports into a single graph.”

Doing this, Dr. Rubin showed that the damage from any kind of flu vaccines is through the roof, dwarfing all previous years.

“Critics will find two fallacies with my doing this,” Dr. Rubin noted. “One is that more people than ever before got one or both of the shots. The other is that, of course, combining the two will produce higher numbers.”

The point is, according to Dr. Rubin, that flu vaccines are represented here in total, regardless of whether they were H1N1 or seasonal. And I agree – after all, the CDC in August announced that it wasn’t keeping track of which flu was which, anymore, when it ordered medical providers to count every influenza-like illness as H1N1.

So it makes sense to combine the adverse events, as well. And those numbers are massive.

Reactions reported shortly after receiving the H1N1 vaccine range from a lung infection and swelling to miscarriages in pregnant women, along with at least one case of meningitis.
Ron Paul Eloquently Addresses the REAL Issues Here



“The more significant, and I believe the real issue at hand here, is the damage that is being done to the population by injection of these vaccines and the precedent that has been set for the government to institute vaccines for future fake or manufactured pandemics.

Is this a dream or a nightmare? Is it my imagination or have we lost our minds? It is surreal. It is just not believable. A grand absurdity. A great deception. A delusion of momentous proportions based on preposterous notions and ideas whose time should never have come …

Insanity passed off as logic.…Evil described as virtue. Ignorance pawned off as wisdom. Slavery sold as liberty. The philosophy that destroys us is not even defined. We have broken from reality, a psychotic nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom..

Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press that escalates deficit that are being spent on a failed warfare and welfare system. A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy without restraint.”


The GOOD NEWS!!!


The reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means, and fortunately the number of those who care is growing exponentially.

Finally, leaders of entire nations are recognizing how insidious Big Pharma’s influence is on the world’s policy makers, and are joining together to demand an accounting!

Until the umbilical cord between Big Pharma and the government is cut, healthcare/health policy reform will remain a dream. Until then, take what your government and your physician tell you with a grain of salt, and always read between the lines to find out the true motives behind any public health recommendations … especially those that are built upon fear.




Related Links:

Another Shocking Warning About Swine Flu Vaccine


Mounting Debilities and Deaths from H1N1 Vaccine


Do Drug Companies Secretly Favor a World Flu Pandemic?

Women who take certain antidepressant drugs while pregnant may double their child's risk of being born with a certain variety of heart defect

Taking Antidepressants During Pregnancy Doubles Heart Defect Risk of Newborn
Friday, February 19, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer




(NaturalNews) Women who take certain antidepressant drugs while pregnant may double their child's risk of being born with a certain variety of heart defect, according to a study conducted by researchers from Aarhaus University in Denmark and published in the medical journal BMJ.

"Anyone who is pregnant or considering becoming pregnant and has any concerns about the treatment for depression should speak to their doctor," said Cathy Ross of the British Heart Foundation.

Researchers compared the risk of birth defects in 1,370 children born to women who took at least one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) while pregnant with the risk in 400,000 other children whose mothers had not taken any SSRIs while pregnant. They found that the drugs fluoxetine (marketed as Prozac), sertraline (marketed as Zoloft) and citalopram (marketed as Celexa) all significantly increased the risk that a child would be born with a defect in the septum, which separates the right and left halves of the heart.

Septum defects include a variety of conditions from minor blood vessel problems to outright holes in the heart. The researchers found that one extra septum defect would develop for every 246 pregnant women taking an SSRI during the time period from 28 days before through 112 days after conception.

Taking more than one SSRI drastically increased the risk of septum defects. While the risk of the defects was 0.5 percent in mothers not taking the drugs and 0.9 percent in those taking one drug (an 80 percent increase), it was 2.1 percent in mothers taking two or more (a more than 300 percent increase).

Sertraline appeared to increase the risk more than citalopram or fluoxetine did.

The study is not the first linking SSRIs to birth defects. Previous research has found a link between the drugs and defects of the heart and of other bodily systems.

Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.telegraph.co.uk.

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