It's that time of year again!

Cold and flu season has become synonymous with vaccine season (at least in the sense of heavy advertising...unfortunately, vaccine manufacturers and public agencies consider every season to be vaccine season.) Here's a letter I recently wrote and sent to the corporate offices of Lifetime Fitness. If you feel similarly motivated, I would encourage you to do the same thing - to Lifetime, or any other establishment that is promoting vaccines. Let me know if you need contact info.

I joined Lifetime Fitness because I was under the impression that it was a health club, a "healthy way of life company." Imagine my shock and dismay when I passed by the "flu fighters clinic" on the way to drop my kids off at the child center today. As I passed by again I stopped to ask one of the women at the table if they were administering only shots, or if Flu-Mist nasal spray was available as well. She confirmed that both were being given. I told her I was surprised by this, considering the fact that it's a live virus vaccine which can then be spread when recipients cough, sneeze, or breathe. She acknowledged this and shrugged her shoulders.

What is the normal physiological response when an irritant enters the nasal passages? A sneeze. It seems that a large facility filled with people, especially a gym atmosphere where people are exercising and breathing deeply, is not an ideal venue for this sort of risk.

I find it incredibly irresponsible of Lifetime clubs to not only promote flu shots and nasal spray, but also to offer the vaccines in the health club setting. It's not unlike secondhand smoke, in that my family and I could be harmed just by breathing in the vicinity of a Flu-Mist recipient; we pay for membership here and deserve a safe and truly healthy environment. Furthermore, allowing these "clinics" to take place on LTF premises insinuates endorsement by LTF.

Risks aside, efficacy ranges anywhere from 48% to 90% (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm), depending on whether scientists correctly guess which 3 strains will be in circulation the following year. Increasing the amount of toxins in your body impairs the immune system and actually causes you to become more susceptible to illness. I recommend looking up the ingredients in the influenza vaccines, and reassessing whether this is truly a healthy addition to your event schedule (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf). For more information regarding the risks, I recommend browsing the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database. This is a government program run by the CDC and FDA to keep track of, and compensate victims of, vaccine reactions. (http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/data/)

This is a very controversial and political subject, one that Lifetime should not become involved in promoting. I am urging you to shut these clinics down immediately for the safety of your members, and the credibility of your establishment.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I would appreciate somebody following up with me as soon as possible.

(I didn't include this picture, but thought it was an appropriate addition to this post. Click to enlarge it - it's a good one)

Bogus Vaccine Studies

The following was written by Neil Z. Miller, ThinkTwice.com

Many “scientific” studies are literally nonsense. This is not a conspiracy theory. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a paper showing that one-third of “highly cited original clinical research studies” were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies. The supposed effects of specific interventions either did not exist as the original studies concluded, or were exaggerated.

Vaccine studies are often funded by the vaccine manufacturer. Lead authors of important studies that are used to validate the safety or efficacy of a vaccine are often beholden to the manufacturer in some way. They may own stock in the company or are paid by the manufacturer to travel around the country promoting their vaccines. Lead authors may receive consultation fees, grants or other benefits from the drug maker. Although many people consider this unethical or corrupt, in the world of immunizations this is acceptable practice, condoned by the FDA and other governing health authorities.

Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not unusual to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine’s apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. The media is reluctant to publish anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program. Newspaper articles about vaccines, and reviews of vaccine studies that are published, merely mimic the original spurious conclusions.

In some instances, study results may be preordained. For example, when the vaccine-autism link became a public concern, vaccine proponents hastened to produce authentic-appearing studies that contradicted genuine data. Years ago, tobacco companies used this very same ploy. They financed numerous bogus studies ostensibly “proving” that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. The real studies got lost in the muddle. Sadly, it’s all too easy to obfuscate truth and deceive the public. At the infamous Simpsonwood conference held in Norcross, Georgia, experts knew that mercury in vaccines was damaging children. They had irrefutable proof—the very reason for convening the meeting. However, instead of making this important information public, they hatched a plan to produce additional “studies” that denied such a link. In fact, vaccine proponents had the audacity to claim in some of these papers that mercury in vaccines not only doesn’t hurt children but that it actually benefits them! In the topsy-turvy world of overreaching vaccine authorities, the well-documented neurotoxic chemical mercury somehow makes children smarter and more functional, improving cognitive development and motor skills. Of course, this is absurd. Numerous real studies document mercury’s destructive effects on brain development and behavior.

Another ploy used by vaccine proponents is to design studies comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people. Honest studies would compare them to an unvaccinated population. In addition, vaccine control groups rarely receive a true placebo, which should be a harmless substance. The scientific method has always been predicated upon removing all potentially confounding influences. However, many vaccine studies do not conform to this integral component of valid research. This is an important concept to grasp. For example, when the safety profile of a new vaccine is being tested, one group may receive the experimental vaccine containing aluminum while the “control” group receives an injection of aluminum as well (rather than water or another harmless substance). When vaccines are compared in this way, that is, to other substances that are capable of causing adverse reactions, the vaccine appears safer than it really is. Whenever this deceptive tactic is utilized, officially acknowledged adverse reactions to a vaccine may represent only a fraction of the true potential risks to the recipient.

It should also be noted that some clinical studies that are used to license vaccines exclude people in certain groups. For example, they may be too young, too old, pregnant, ill, or have other preexisting health ailments. However, once the vaccine is licensed, it may be recommended for people in these groups. Much like using false placebos, this unethical practice artificially inflates the vaccine’s safety profile and places more children at risk for adverse reactions.

Although some studies are mere propaganda, part of a larger disinformation campaign designed to promote a vaccine agenda, other studies link vaccines to debilitating and fatal diseases. For example, the British Medical Journal published data correlating the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine to rising rates of type 1 diabetes. The hepatitis B vaccine has been linked to autoimmune and neurological disorders. Guillain-Barré syndrome—a serious paralytic disease—is a well-known adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. These are just a few of the many scientifically documented correlations between vaccines and incapacitating ailments that are documented in the medical literature.
_________________________________________________________________

For more information about vaccines, read the Vaccine Safety Manual by Neil Z. Miller (I highly recommend this book; I will warn you, it's hard to put down!)
Become a fan on Facebook

Vaccine rant

I started this entry on Wednesday, and it's taken me this long to wrap it up. Work and Claire have kept me insanely busy!


Claire is "pre-teething". She'll be 10 weeks on Friday, so it's a little on the early side. I don't expect to see teeth any time soon, but things are definitely moving around underneath her gums causing her some pain. Poor baby :(

In a moment of desperation, I called our pediatrician's office to see if we could give her infant acetaminophen if things got really bad. The pain seems to come and go, but when it's bad she gets so frantic; she gnaws on her fists, her entire body stiffens up, and her face turns bright red. So after a sleepless night I was starting to anticipate a rough day ahead.

I got an emphatic "NO" to the infant Tylenol, or any other medication for that matter. The nurse went on to explain that babies under three months are in an especially high risk category and cannot take any medications.

So then let me ask why it's ok to inject babies with up to 5 shots, most of them containing 3 vaccines each, at the 2 month "well baby" visit? I know why they do it: because parents bring babies in for regular visits so it's a convenient mass-coverage plan. Parents don't normally bring older kids in regularly, when they could possibly better handle the overload to their immune system. Knowing why they do it this way is one thing, understanding why they think it's OK is another.

The fear that Thimerosal (mercury, a neurotoxin), a preservative in some vaccines, causes autism is just the tip of the iceberg. They may be phasing it out of vaccines now, but what about the chemicals that are still used? What harm are they causing? Aluminum, known to cause brain damage (and has been linked to dementia and Alzheimer's disease); formaldehyde, a known carcinogen; chick embryo cells, which are commonly contaminated with avian leukosis viruses. You may be thinking that an avian virus can't transfer to humans, but I just read that early Polio vaccine experiments in Africa may have transmitted an AIDS -related monkey virus to humans, beginning the AIDS epidemic. You just never know.

Viruses can only be detected in vaccines if researchers know what they're looking for...I don't want my child to be part of an experiment - which is what vaccines are - only to find out down the road that "oops, we didn't know X was in it and happens to be harmful to humans." That's what happened to me with my Rheumatoid Arthritis after I received MMR, DT, and flu shots. I won't put Claire through what I've been through these last 5 years.

Instead of mass vaccinations, why not teach and encourage better nutrition? A strong and healthy immune system is the best defense against illness. In high risk populations where the possible benefits of a vaccine outweigh the risks, it makes sense to utilize them as long as parents have informed consent. But it makes me so mad when doctors make parents feel like they MUST vaccinate according to schedule, and that side effects NEVER happen. Many states, including Minnesota, allow parents to decline vaccinating their children with some or all of the recommended doses; parents also have the option of delaying the schedule. We declined the HepB vaccine when Claire was born because neither of us have Hepatitis and the chances of exposure are incredibly slim. It would have been like putting casts on her legs "just in case she breaks them". No thanks.

I also wonder about the chickenpox vaccine. It is not guaranteed to guard against the disease, and it only lasts up to 8 or so years, max. So what happens after that? It surely doesn't give immunity in adulthood, when chickenpox become serious and sometimes life-threatening. So why prevent kids from getting it when complications are rare and they're in turn guaranteed lifelong immunity?

I better end this entry now, or I'll go on forever. Long story short, I'm interested to see how our pediatrician reacts when we take Claire in on Thursday for her 2 month visit - the visit she's supposed to be getting her first round of shots at. I've already told our doc that we're not interested, and he was respectful (unlike other pediatricians I interviewed when I was pregnant) but he did ask me to do extra research on a few in particular. I did, and am armed with reasons why I'm still not interested. I'm sure I'll have another long-winded entry after the appointment. Aren't you lucky!