Health & Fitness

While the drug industry is quick to claim that anyone questioning its integrity is part of a “war against science,” the evidence of industry malfeasance is simply too great and too disturbing to ignore.

From my perspective, the drug industry itself is to blame for the public’s dwindling confidence in scientific findings. Loss of confidence is a natural result when lie after lie is unearthed, and there’s been no shortage of scientific scandals to shake public confidence in recent years.

One researcher who has helped expose industry bias in research is professor Peter Gøtzsche, a Danish physician-researcher who in 1993 co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

Cochrane publishes hundreds of scientific reviews each year, looking at what works and what doesn’t, and was for decades considered the gold standard for independent scientific meta-reviews.

The organization’s reputation remained remarkably unblemished all the way up until 2018, when Gøtzsche and Cochrane-affiliated researchers Lars Jørgensen and Tom Jefferson published a scathing critique of Cochrane’s review of the HPV vaccine,¹ pointing out methodological flaws and conflicts of interest.

Gøtzsche was subsequently expelled by the Cochrane governing board (although the board insists his removal from the board was due to “repeated misuse of official letterhead to espouse personal views” and had nothing to do with his criticism of Cochrane’s HPV review²). Four board members (Gerald Gartlehner, David Hammerstein Mintz, Joerg Meerpohl and Nancy Santesso) resigned in protest of Gotzsche’s removal from the Cochrane governing board.³

In a three-page letter⁴ to the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Gøtzsche addressed his expulsion and questioned the path Cochrane’s leadership has chosen in recent years, noting “the central executive team of Cochrane has failed to activate adequate safeguards … to assure sufficient policies in the fields of epistemology, ethics and morality.”

Cochrane Founder Highlights Corrupted Flu Vaccine Research

In a February 9, 2020, tweet, Gøtzsche wrote:⁵ “Cochrane corruption. A Cochrane review did not find that flu shots reduce deaths … ‘After invitation from Cochrane,’ a financially conflicted person ‘re-arranged’ the data and vaccines reduced deaths. They don’t …”

This information, he says, is included in his new book, “Vaccines: Truth, Lies and Controversy.” Indeed, in years’ past, Cochrane has repeatedly found flu vaccinations are ineffective and have no appreciable effect on influenza-related hospitalizations and mortality. For example:

Its 2006 systematic review6 of 51 studies involving 263,987 children, which sought to “appraise all comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in healthy children; assess vaccine efficacy (prevention of confirmed influenza) and effectiveness (prevention of influenza-like illness)” found: “Live vaccines showed an efficacy of 79% and an effectiveness of 33% in children older than two years compared with placebo or no intervention. Inactivated vaccines had a lower efficacy of 59% than live vaccines but similar effectiveness: 36%. In children under two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo.”

Cochrane’s 2010 review7 of 50 influenza vaccine studies found that: “In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms … Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions … Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations … There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” This review also included the following notice: “WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

Cochrane’s 2010 review8 of 75 studies of vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly concluded that: “Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.”

Cochrane’s 2018 review9 of 52 clinical studies on vaccines for preventing influenza in adults, including pregnant women, found only 15% of the studies were well-designed and conducted. Based on 25 studies that looked at inactivated influenza vaccines, Cochrane concluded they have only a minor protective effect against influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI), noting: “Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% … 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI … We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% in mothers (NNV [number needed to vaccinate] 55), and 49% in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56). No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41%.”

In its 2018 review10 of 41 clinical trials on live and inactivated vaccines for preventing influenza in children, they found: “Compared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4%, and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% … Seven children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 20 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one child experiencing an ILI … Compared with placebo or no vaccination, inactivated vaccines reduce the risk of influenza in children aged 2 to 16 years from 30% to 11%, and they probably reduce ILI from 28% to 20%. Five children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 12 children would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI … Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardized approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed.”

Two States Rejecting Big Pharma's Vaccine Mandates

In recent years, medical freedom has come under intense attack. In state after state, vaccine makers and their lobbyists have rammed through legislation that implements forced vaccination by eliminating vaccine exemptions. People in California, New York, Washington and Maine all lost vaccine exemptions last year, as detailed in the National Vaccine Information Center’s annual state legislation report “Vaccine Exemptions Under Attack in 2019.”

Although 4 states lost vaccine exemptions last year, exemptions were protected from removal in 22 other states by the active participation of vaccine choice advocates who educated legislators about why it is important to have flexible medical, religious and conscience exemptions in vaccine laws.

In New Jersey, bill S2173 was halted in the Senate, both in December 2019 and again in January 2020, due to persistent public protests against the bill proposing to eliminate the religious belief vaccine exemption.^11,12,13

The fact that New Jersey managed to thwart this broad attack on freedom is an encouraging sign. Never underestimate the power of the people! The key is numbers — you have to actually take action by contacting your legislators ahead of time to communicate your concerns about a bill you oppose (or support) and showing up at public hearings and on days when votes are taken in your state Capitol.

Thousands of individuals gathered in hallways and outside the Capitol building in Trenton in protest of S2173 on multiple occasions, and it was undoubtedly the sheer size of the opposition that greatly helped to defeat the bill that many considered to be an attack on religious freedom.

Another ray of light shines brightly in Maine. While the state legislature repealed the religious and philosophical belief vaccine exemptions in May 2019 by passing LD 798, residents rapidly succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures of registered voters to get an opportunity to repeal the new vaccine law, and it is now referendum Question 1 on the March 3 ballot.¹⁴

So, March 3, 2020, residents will have the opportunity to go to the polls to repeal LD 798 and reinstate religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions by voting YES on referendum Question 1.¹⁵ As noted by RejectBigPharma.com:¹⁶

Why Everyone Needs to Support Maine’s ‘Yes on 1’

It’s important to realize that a victory in Maine would be a victory for all states, as it would set a crucial precedent. The good news is that it’s far easier to win in a state with a small population like Maine because there are fewer people to educate, which means less money is required for advertising.

Maine has an advertising saturation point of about $3 million, meaning if you spend $3 million, you will reach a majority of residents and further advertising will not make a significant difference.

Since Maine will be the first state to put government vaccine mandates and repeal of exemptions to a popular vote, it’s important to support Maine’s Yes On 1 campaign regardless of where in the United States you live. By helping them succeed, they will set a precedent for other states to follow.

As of February 6, 2020, the “Yes on 1 Reject Big Pharma” campaign had raised just over $300,000.¹⁷ The campaign needs to raise at least $1 million to stand a chance against the vaccine industry’s deep pockets. So, please, make a donation to this campaign today!

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Of course, if you’re a registered voter in Maine, you can cast a YES vote on March 3, 2020, to restore vaccine exemptions in your state.

Also remember to register to become a user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal, operated by the National Vaccine Information Center, to stay up to date on vaccine-related bills that are moving in your state this year, including bills proposing to take away (or expand) your right to obtain a vaccine exemption for yourself or your child.

The NVIC Advocacy Portal also provides access to bill analyses and talking points that you can use to educate your legislators about what the bills will mean to you and your family.

Pharma-Led Opposition Cranks Out Misleading Ads

To win, it’s crucial we make sure Maine’s Yes on 1 campaign gets the funding it needs. Make no mistake, the opposition has no financial constraints, as it is led and supported by the drug industry itself.

Ironically, the opposition is accusing the “Yes on 1: Reject Big Pharma” campaign of misleading voters, saying the drug industry has nothing to do with the removal of vaccine exemptions, and doesn’t make any money on vaccines.

In reality, vaccines are a primary profit driver for the drug industry.¹⁸ Merck, which is just one of several vaccine makers, reported over $6.1 billion in sales of their childhood vaccines during the first three quarters of 2019 alone.¹⁹

A January 2020 vaccine market report²⁰ states the global vaccine market was worth $41.7 billion as of 2019, and is estimated to hit $58.4 billion by 2024. One of the factors attributed to this rapid growth is “the rising focus on immunization.” Anyone thinking this focus isn’t manufactured by the drug industry itself is fooling themselves.

What’s more, as reported by Yes on 1 at a February 11, 2020, press conference, “No on 1” has already spent $476,000 on just three weeks’ worth of television ads. Yet the opposition — which claims to be a grassroots organization without any pharma funding or connections — report raising only $56,000 in donations. So, where did the rest of it magically come from? At the press conference, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 1 campaign revealed the obvious truth:

“As reported in the Bangor Daily, Bobby Reynolds, spokesman for the ‘No’ campaign … answered this question when he announced that the massive ad buys were funded by — wait for it — vaccine manufacturers.²¹ Let that sink in.

After months of denying any connection to Big Pharma, the No on 1 campaign yesterday admitted that they were funded by Big Pharma themselves — the very vaccine manufacturers whose products would be mandated under this law.”

Eliminating Exemptions Is a Big Pharma Business Strategy

Of course, vaccine makers have enormously deep pockets, which is how many of these laws are getting passed in the first place. One of the reasons they have so much money to spend on lobbying for the removal of vaccine exemptions is because they don’t have to pay for the damage their products cause.

As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass in a February 11, 2020, post on CentralMaine.com, in support of referendum Question 1:²²

“Pharmaceutical companies face no lawsuits for vaccine injuries, so long as their vaccine has been added to the childhood schedule by CDC. Pharmaceutical companies don’t need to advertise required vaccines, since the government mandates them and 94% of Maine children already receive them.

But the industry wants 100% guaranteed uptake, because it is about to roll out a number of new vaccines. The 21st Century Cures Act, passed in 2016, abbreviated the process for testing, licensing and adding vaccines to the childhood schedule. Over 200 vaccines are currently in development.

How many of those vaccines will be required over the next few years is anybody’s guess. There is a huge financial incentive to having your vaccine placed on the childhood schedule by the CDC: no liability for injuries. The right to choose which vaccines your child receives will disappear unless referendum Question 1 passes.”

No-Liability Industry Has No Right to Influence Policy

At the press conference (see video above), Yes on 1 also clarified the opposition’s deceptive message that Yes on 1 would “repeal Maine’s vaccine law.” This is a wildly inaccurate statement.

Yes on 1 simply repeals LD 798, i.e., the law that removes religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions, thus restoring Maine’s vaccine law to what it was before. In other words, certain vaccines will still be required for school attendance, but you will have the right to opt out by claiming a religious or philosophical exemption to one or more of those vaccines — just as you did before LD 798 was written into law.

“The Yes on 1 campaign is, and always been, about speaking truth to power … The truth is that mandate laws like this one have nothing to do with public health, and everything to do with Big Pharma profit, Big Pharma control, and Big Pharma deception,” Yes on 1 says.²³

“While this law [LD 798] masquerades as a public health issue, there’s no evidence it would do anything to improve outbreaks of vaccine targeted disease in schools. Countless cases across the country have shown that these diseases occur in fully vaccinated populations …

Why do we care about Big Pharma’s involvement? Because, a hated industry with no liability, no reason to improve the safety of its products, and an ever growing and aggressive schedule, should not be allowed to influence policy to mandate these very products.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/2vbWhJe
via IFTTT

In February 2020, a 4-year-old boy from Colorado tragically died from complications from influenza. NBC News then posted a defamatory news piece about the boy’s death, full of false allegations against the boy’s mother.¹

Outrageously, the NBC News piece, written by Brandy Zadrozny, does not include any direct quotes from the family, and it’s reported that she did not interview the boy’s parents, but rather relied on Facebook postings and a GoFundMe page for the details.

In fact, the NBC News article states “the mother did not respond to a request for comment,” and added, “NBC News verified the posts by cross-referencing them with a fundraising page set up by the family, along with published news reports quoting the family.”² The problem with this is that Zadrozny’s article blames the boy’s grieving mother for his death because of posts she made on Facebook relating to the drug Tamiflu.

“On Facebook, anti-vaxxers urged a mom not to give her son Tamiflu. He later died,” NBC stated, adding, “Online groups that routinely traffic in anti-vaccination propaganda have become a resource for people seeking out a wide variety of medical information,” and “Boy dies after anti-vaxxers urge mom not to give him Tamiflu.”³

These statements are misleading on many levels and, as CNS News noted, it’s possible the news outlet could be facing a defamation lawsuit as a result.⁴

NBC News Uses Boy’s Death to Slam ‘Anti-Vaxxer’ Groups

The focus of the NBC News article are posts made by the boy’s mother to a Facebook group called, “Stop Mandatory Vaccination.” There, she reportedly asked for advice, stating her doctor had prescribed the influenza medicine Tamiflu (oseltamivir) for everyone in her household because two of her four children had been diagnosed with flu.

The posts suggest that she decided not to pick up the prescription, but no further reporting was done to find out if she did or did not ultimately give the medication.

Posts from the Facebook group’s members included suggestions of natural remedies, but as Zadrozny wrote, “None of the 45 comments on the mother’s Facebook post suggested medical attention. The child was eventually hospitalized and died four days later,” which implies there was somehow a connection between the Facebook comments and the boy’s death — a grossly misleading journalistic leap.⁵

Not only did Zadrozny’s article incite death threats and calls for prison time and execution against the boy’s mother, but, as CNS News reported, “Lost in all of these crazed point-and-sputter diatribes were some pertinent, pesky facts.”⁶ This includes the glaring omission of not interviewing the family.

It’s unclear whether or not the family chooses to vaccinate their children and what type of medical interventions occurred before the boy’s death. However, it’s stated on the family’s GoFundMe page that the boy seemed normal, but suddenly passed out after a bath.

After calling 911, he was airlifted to a children’s hospital. A GoFundMe post that has since been deleted originally said the child had “an anoxic brain injury related to a seizure that may have occurred from a fever or from him losing his airway.”⁷ Only once he was in the hospital was the boy tested for influenza and found to be positive for influenza B and parainfluenza.

Still, the NBC News article focuses on Tamiflu and suggests the mother chose not to give it based off Facebook posts. However, when speaking with the local CBS Denver news station, the boy’s mother stated, “We called the doctors. We called the hospital. We gave them the medicine we were instructed to give. We did everything.”⁸

Tamiflu Shortens Flu by Only 16 Hours

Painting Tamiflu as the solution to stopping deaths from influenza is also misleading, as the drug has been found to shorten the duration of flu symptoms by less than a day, specifically, by just 16.8 hours, and did not affect the number of hospitalizations, according to a BMJ review.⁹

What’s more, the drug is said to inhibit the replication of the influenza virus, acting as an antiviral medication, but a Cochrane Review of the data on both Tamiflu and Relenza (zanamivir), another antiviral drug, noted that the drugmakers’ proposed mechanism of action, which suggests the drugs work via a multisystem and central action, does not fit with the clinical evidence they reviewed.

Any beneficial effects of the drug may have occurred due to lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines or via depressing the central nervous system, the review found.¹⁰

It should be noted, too, that a whistleblower lawsuit has been filed against drugmaker Roche, alleging the company made false claims and misrepresented studies, causing the U.S. government to stockpile $1.5 billion of its influenza medicine Tamiflu (oseltamivir).¹¹

The lawsuit, which was unsealed in September 2019, alleges Roche duped the U.S. government into stockpiling Tamiflu while mispresenting its effectiveness. According to the Houston-based Lanier Law Firm, which filed the suit:

“The lawsuit claims the drugmaker’s scheme involved publishing misleading articles falsely stating that Tamiflu reduces complications, severity, hospitalizations, mortality and transmission of influenza. The company then used those articles to aggressively market the drug to the government for pandemic use.”¹²

In a BMJ editorial, Mark Ebell, professor of epidemiology at the University of Georgia, even described a multisystem failure that allowed Tamiflu to become a blockbuster medication.¹³

Examples of systemwide failures that let Tamiflu slip through regulatory cracks included a failure to publish all available evidence and make that data available at the individual patient level, along with a failure of recognizing the limitations inherent to observational data.

Considering the long-standing studies questioning Tamiflu’s effectiveness and safety, implying that a mother is at fault for her child’s death from influenza complications because she did not give Tamiflu is not only cruel but illogical.

Teen Girl Dies After Receiving Tamiflu

In deciding whether or not to take a medication, or give it to your child, the benefits must outweigh the risks. With Tamiflu, this is highly questionable. In exchange for reducing the duration of flu symptoms by 16.8 hours, Tamiflu causes nausea and vomiting and increases the risk of headaches and renal and psychiatric syndromes.¹⁴

Further, the NBC News article blatantly suggests that the Colorado boy died from flu because the mother, at the behest of “anti-vaxxers,” did not give the boy Tamiflu. But taking Tamiflu is not a guarantee of survival.

In Virginia, a 16-year-old girl died after being diagnosed with influenza B and going into cardiac arrest. She had received a flu shot¹⁵ and taken Tamiflu, vomited several times over the course of a few days, likely due to Tamiflu’s side effects, but sadly succumbed to the flu anyway.¹⁶

A 16-year-old girl from Ohio also died from influenza B in December 2019 despite taking Tamiflu.¹⁷ Others have also died due to psychiatric symptoms caused by the drug itself. Tamiflu and Relenza are part of a group of anti-influenza drugs called neuraminidase inhibitors, which work by blocking a viral enzyme that helps the influenza virus to invade cells in your respiratory tract.

The problem is that your nervous system also contains neuraminidase enzymes essential for proper brain functioning, and when blocked with these dangerous drugs, severe neurotoxicity may ensue, especially in the infants and children whose blood-brain barrier has not yet developed sufficiently.

One 6-year-old girl in Texas had hallucinations while taking Tamiflu and even tried to jump out of a second story window.¹⁸ A 16-year-old boy with no prior suicidal thoughts or depression committed suicide less than 24 hours after taking the drug, which his parents believe is what caused the suicide.¹⁹

Japan banned the use of Tamiflu in children and teens in 2007, after cases of teenagers trying to jump from apartment building windows while taking the drug. In 2018, the country lifted the ban, but still said the relationship between Tamiflu and the unusual actions is unclear and patients should be warned of such side effects.²⁰

Natural Methods for Flu Prevention

It’s undeniably tragic when a child dies from any disease, including complications from influenza. While health officials state that getting vaccinated is your best defense against this infection, during the 2018-2019 flu season, the vaccine failed to offer any protection more than half of the time, and for adults over 50, it was more or less useless, offering a mere 24% effectiveness rate against all influenza types.²¹

During the 2019-2020 season as well, the flu vaccine is not a perfect match. A survey of early season infections in Louisiana revealed unusual influenza B activity.

Eighty-three influenza B viruses were sequenced from 198 patients, revealing that 98% belonged to influenza B/Victoria V1A.3 subclade, while only one of the viruses belonged to subclade V1A.1, which, according to the CDC, “is the subclade of the influenza B/Victoria component (B/Colorado/06/2017) found in the 2019 to 2020 Northern Hemisphere vaccine.”²²

Everyone should strive to bolster their health during flu season to stay healthy, and one way to do this is by eating a keto diet, which reduced the number of times flu symptoms appeared in an animal study.²³

The association between low vitamin D levels and influenza has also been recognized for some time,²⁴ so be sure to optimize your levels to between 60 and 80 ng/mL (150 and 200 nmol/L). Vitamin D testing and optimization has been shown to cut your risk of respiratory infections, including colds and flu, in half if you are vitamin D deficient.^25,26

Nutrients that support healthy immune function include zinc and vitamin C, so make sure to include these in your diet on a daily basis. Should a cold or flu strike, you may be able to significantly cut its duration and severity using either high-dose vitamin C or D (or a combination of both, short-term) and/or zinc lozenges. Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) is also a powerful antiviral that “exhibits multiple modes of therapeutic action against influenza infection.”²⁷

Following other basic tenets of health, like eating right, getting sound sleep, exercising and addressing stress are also important, as is regularly washing your hands. Even simple interventions like changing the humidity levels in your home can reduce the survival of influenza virus in the air.²⁸

During flu season, and all year long, following a healthy lifestyle will support your immune system — your body’s best defense against infections like influenza. Meanwhile, remain vigilant when hearing sensationalized stories surrounding the flu like the once posted by NBC News — and be sure you have all the facts before making a judgment one way or the other.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2w0Usir
via IFTTT

Delaware is the first state in the U.S. to pass a bill that would allow titers to be given in lieu of rabies vaccines for certain dogs, cats and ferrets. An antibody titer measures the concentration of antibodies in the blood produced after an inflammatory response to vaccination. Measuring the number of antibodies present is used to certify that a person or animal is immune to a specific antigen or virus.

If enough antibodies are present after recovering from the natural disease or being previously vaccinated, it can be used as “proof” of immunity to that disease. The Delaware bill — Maggie’s Vaccine Protection Act, formally known as House Bill 214 — was initiated by Al Casapulla, a businessman who lost his shih tzu, Maggie, due to over-vaccination.¹

Rabies vaccine requirements vary by state, but many require mandatory vaccinations, regardless of the health status of the pet. Although a few states, such as Illinois, Maine and New Hampshire, allow animals to be exempted from rabies vaccines if it would compromise their health, many other states have no exemptions to vaccinations.²

Once the bill is signed into law, Delaware will become the first state to accept a rabies titer in lieu of the shot. It will allow veterinarians to complete a titer on their pet patients and decide whether or not a rabies vaccination is necessary.

The bill reads, “This Act enables licensed veterinarians to exempt an animal from the mandated rabies vaccination, if the veterinarian determines, based on their professional judgement, that the vaccine would endanger the animal's health and a titer test may be administered to assist in determining the necessity of the vaccine.”³

Pet Vaccine Bills Aims to Protect Dogs From Over-Vaccination

Maggie’s Vaccine Protection Act passed the Delaware General Assembly by a unanimous vote.⁴ Casapulla told Coastal Point that the bill’s passing is the culmination of years of work aimed at protecting animals from the harms of over-vaccination:⁵

“I have been working on this bill since she [Maggie] died … My passion to see this through was more than the passion I had when I started my business, because I knew if this gets passed we would be saving the lives of so many innocent animals and allowing vets to use their discretion on making legal, educated exemptions … Maggie will be saving lives long after I am gone.”

The support for the bill was strong among legislators, including state Rep. Ruth Briggs King, who said pet owners and veterinarians should have the ultimate say on whether pets need vaccines, instead of them being forced into it due to the law.

“These are responsible pet owners,” she told Coastal Point, “so we are hopeful this time it’s going to move through. This is the second session for it, on the second legislature it’s been through.”⁶ Similarly, Sen. Gerald Hocker stated:⁷

“I feel it’s a good bill. It corrects something I wasn’t aware of. Vaccinations will be based on the health of the dog. Who better than the veterinarian to decide, depending on the health of the dog? Constituent Al Casapulla, who lost his dog, spent several hours working with vets.”

The Irony of Granting Pets Greater Rights Than People

The passage of Delaware’s House Bill 214 is excellent news for frequently over-vaccinated pets — something veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker writes about often — but the irony is glaring. Why can state legislators recognize the risks of applying one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates to pets, but overlook the same risks when applying vaccine schedules to people, especially infants and children?

Today we know, for instance, that some children, like those with mitochondrial disorders, are at increased risk from vaccinations, but efforts aren’t being made to identify these children to prevent unnecessary harm. Further, an individual’s response to a vaccine is influenced by many factors.

Gut microbes may help determine immune response to vaccines, for starters. In one study, infants who responded to the rotavirus vaccine had a higher diversity of microbes in their gut, as well as more microbes from the Proteobacteria group, than infants who did not mount the expected immune response.^8,9

Likewise, in a study by Nikolaj Orntoft and colleagues, researchers looked into changes in gene expression after diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccination in African girls to see which genes might be upregulated or downregulated (basically “turned on” or “turned off”).¹⁰ What they found is that there's really no way to predict which genes will be affected.

So, not only will each individual have a unique response to any given vaccine based on their age, current health status and microbial makeup, but each is also epigenetically predisposed to respond differently in terms of the side effects they might develop. You can see, then, how vaccine mandates may turn out to be health disasters for some children and adults, just as they are for some pets.

Combo Vaccines Risk Highest Reactions

Also at odds with human medicine are discussions by veterinarians suggesting that giving pets multiple vaccines at once may be dangerous, especially for smaller animals. Dr. W. Jean Dodds, founder of Hemopet Blood Bank, told Veterinary Practice News all the way back in 2009 that the frequency of vaccinations is heavily debated, with some suggesting that giving core vaccines every three years or every year is outdated.

“Few veterinarians are proactive about discussing the options clients have in protecting their pets against disease,” Dodds said. “The industry promotes more vaccines and veterinarians feel comfortable telling clients they’re necessary. Often, technicians have vaccines prepared before the doctor even examines the animal. Many vets don’t know how to handle titers or don’t want to bother with them.” What’s more, she noted:¹¹

“When vaccines are needed, they shouldn’t be given at the same site or at the same exam. Banfield Animal Health released two papers on this topic saying animals weighing less than 20 pounds and receiving combo vaccines are at the highest risk of vaccine reaction, yet few DVMs arrange separate visits as a precaution.”

In humans, however, multiple vaccinations are regularly given at the same time to infants and children — including multiple combination vaccines in one visit.

The fact is, all vaccines need to be carefully evaluated not only individually for long-term safety, but also for synergistic toxicity when the vaccine is given in combination with other vaccines and given repeatedly over a period of time, as well as given to people of varying ages and sizes — premature infants included.

For instance, among unvaccinated premature infants, no link to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) was found. However, a significant link between vaccinations and NDD was detected, regardless of whether the child was premature or full-term.

The combination of preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 660% increased odds of NDD,¹² suggesting a synergistic effect and a need to fully research whether it’s safe to vaccinate premature infants.

‘Individual Situations’ Taken Into Account for Livestock

Again in the case of livestock, discussions are underway into whether or not to vaccinate very young calves, as many factors influence the outcome.

An article in Beef magazine, for instance, suggested that age and colostrum intake should be taken into account when deciding when to vaccinate, as calves that get colostrum may have higher levels of maternal antibodies. Chris Chase, Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, South Dakota State University, told the magazine:

“In the 2-week old calf, there are two things you need to be concerned about. One is age, the other is colostrum intake.

Typically, even in a calf that got no colostrum [and no maternal antibodies to interfere with building its own immunity], the response for making antibodies [when vaccinated early] is not great under 3 weeks of age. If they have higher levels of maternal antibodies than the older calves, they also may not respond [to vaccination].”¹³

Chase went on to explain that when calves were vaccinated at two or three days old, then challenged with disease seven months later, 20% still got sick. But waiting to vaccinate until the calves were three to four weeks of age led to a better outcome, with less than 5% getting sick. Even then, however, age is only one factor, and he stressed the need to look into individual situations:¹⁴

“Age at vaccination is a big factor, but it all goes back to individual situations. If someone is having trouble with summer pneumonia, we’d have to say the vaccine at a young age [several weeks old] probably doesn’t hurt them, but how much good it actually does those calves may be minimal.

Then it goes back to colostral intake and whether it was low, and we still have the issue that they are young when you are giving the vaccine. A person can work with their own herd health veterinarian and take a look at what is going on in their particular situation, and figure out what to be most concerned about.”

Why Are Livestock and Pets Treated Better Than People?

Animals deserve to have their health put first when it comes to medical procedures like vaccinations, but people deserve to be able to exercise a more precautionary approach to vaccination as well. Unfortunately, these same commonsense approaches that are sometimes afforded to animals, in terms of evaluating individual risk factors when choosing whether or not to vaccinate, are not typically given to people.

Today, many doctors are not just strongly promoting vaccination, they are threatening to deny medical care to children and adults if all vaccinations recommended by health officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not given on the federally recommended schedule.

Children may be vaccinated when sick, for instance, or kidney patients on dialysis given vaccinations upon arrival at a hospital, even before a diagnosis had been given or a doctor had approved of the shots.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries, author of “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” is a nephrologist who has raised similar concerns, suggesting that vaccines may not be safe for people with chronic conditions like kidney failure, or for babies, who have reduced kidney function compared to adults.

As Humphries said in a video, "We're very careful as nephrologists when treating babies because the kidney functions of babies isn't the same as adults — it's vastly reduced. But when it comes to vaccines, this reduced kidney function in infants is always left out of the discussion."

It’s no wonder why, in an online survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults, conducted on behalf of the American Osteopathic Association, 45% said they had doubts about vaccine safety.¹⁵ Unfortunately, vaccine exemptions are increasingly under attack.

The ability to make informed, voluntary vaccine choices for yourself and your children must be protected, because vaccines are not a one-size-fits-all-solution, nor is the U.S. public as a whole a one-size-fits-all population. It’s time that this became widely accepted for humans, just as it’s starting to be acknowledged for pets and livestock.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2v4aloo
via IFTTT

These pre and post filming photo comparisons of the 2020 MAFS brides might surprise you.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2TgkbeE

George Hood could possibly have abs of steel after officially breaking the Guinness World Record for longest abdominal plank held.

from Fitness | body+soul https://ift.tt/3cf7E42

With National Tidy Day quickly apporaching, IKEA Australia has launched their first-ever ASMR video to trigger your tingles. 

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2TbjuU7

Did you know 1 in 3 people don’t get enough of this all-important nutrient? Dietitian Melissa Meier reveals the foods that prevent magnesium deficiency.   

from Nutrition | body+soul https://ift.tt/38XXClw