Posts Tagged ‘Autism’

PUSHBACK: Virtual Interview with HHS Secretary Sebelius and Congressional Response

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

Natural Solutions Foundation
The Voice of Global Health Freedom™
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

Dr. Laibow’s Virtual Interview with HHS Secretary Sebelius

September 16, 2009 – URGENT NOTE: Your Action Required Now to Secure Your Right to Refuse the Swine Flu Vaccine Without Incarceration

skull-vaccine

Health Freedom’s best friend in Congress has responded to our Push Back. We’ve sent more than 2 million emails demanding the right to say “NO!” to vaccines without punishment, incarceration or involuntary quarantine. The Congressman knows how important that is to health, liberty and, we have to imagine, sanity. We have been in discussion with his office about introducing a bill modeled on our Draft Legislation to prevent pandemic vaccination which is mandatory, compulsory or taken under duress of any type.

We received a call today from the Congressman’s office telling us that he is close to introducing a new No Compulsory Vaccine Bill to the House. Given the fact that we have sent well over 2 million emails to our State and Federal legislators, HHS Secretary Sebelius, DHS Secretary Napolitano, President Obama and the Governors of every State in the Union, we anticipate that his bill will garner a good deal of support.

NOW IS THE TIME TO TURN UP THE HEAT. WE NEED 2 MILLION MORE EMAILS IN THE NEXT WEEK. CAN WE DO IT? YOU KNOW WE CAN! WE ARE THE NET ROOTS OF HEALTH FREEDOM!

Have you already sent this Action Item once for every member of your household demanding the right to self shield instead of facing mock-voluntary Swine Flu vaccination with incarceration as the consequence of vaccine refusal? If so, thank you. If not, now, more than ever, we need your help in taking this action right now. We need every bit of support we can muster. Once we get Dr. Paul’s bill number and text, we will publish it and then we’ll ask you to do the same thing again: click on the link we’ll give you to support that Action Item as if your life depended upon it. It will.

Click here once for each member of your family and then disseminate as widely as you can: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275

And don’t forget that we are 100% supporter supported.

Please set up two (2) recurring donations, whether large or small: one tax deductible donation to support our legal challenge of the legality of the FDA’s approval of the vaccines Secretary Sebelius is referring to in her testimony below. That one should end in the number 6 to ear mark it for our legal fund. The other tax deductible donation can end in any number and it keeps the Natural Solutions Foundation keeping-on. Here is the link: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=189

Now, on to the all too real, but still very surreal, testimony authorizing the Pandemic Swine Flu vaccines without any, that’s right, any safety testing. On September 15, 2009, a terrible, tragic and tyrannical event in America’s history took place. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in that testimony, announced the “licensing” of the “Swine Flu” vaccines. Secretary Sebelius, please allow me to remind you that it is a crime to provide false testimony before Congress.

I was not in the chamber when the Secretary announced the approval of several Swine Flu vaccines using a combination of untruth, falsehood, illogic and deceit. But I would like to present my virtual interview of Secretary Sebelius as she reads her testimony before that Committee and I question her about it. Remember that every word following SKS (Secretary Kathleen Sebelius) is her unedited testimony, with nothing altered or changed in context. I guess she is counting on the declining quality of the educational system in the US to see her through.

Watch for the new Youtube.com.naturalsolutions series in which Secretary Sebelius and I have a virtual interview. Here is the text of that virtual interview. Please read and share as widely as you can.

Thanks for your activism.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomusa.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Valley of the Moon (TM) Eco Demonstration Project
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
Valley of the Moon Coffee: Wake Up to Health Freedom! GMO, Pesticide, Toxin Free
www.ValleyoftheMoonCoffee.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org

A virtual Interview with Secretary Sebelius on the “Swine Flu” Vaccine Licensing

My comments are in italics, labeled “REL”
Secretary Sebelius’ comments are labeled SKS.

SKS: Preparing for the 2009-2010 Influenza Season

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

SKS: Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Barton, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to update you on the public health challenges of 2009 H1N1 influenza. I want to assure the Committee that the Administration is taking these challenges seriously…

REL: These challenges do not exist, Secretary Sebelius. They have been manufactured as a kind of, at best, a cynical windfall of unprecedented proportions for Big Pharma. At worst, you and your conspirators are playing Doctor Death with America, starting with our next generation, children and pregnant mothers.

SKS: and has mounted an aggressive plan to address H1N1 throughout this fall and winter.

REL: The challenges you speak of do not exist. Without any challenge, an aggressive plan is totally unnecessary.

SKS: HHS has a leading role because this is a health event, and we are working in close partnership with virtually every part of the federal government under a national preparedness and response framework for action that builds on the efforts and lessons learned from this spring. Working together with governors, mayors, tribal leaders, state and local health departments, the medical community and our private sector partners, the federal government has been actively preparing for possible H1N1 virus outbreak scenarios that may develop over the next few months.

REL: Madam Secretary, you are saying “MAY develop” but your use of the phrase, “MAY DEVELOP” shows there is no sufficient scientific evidence that the so-called “Swine Flu” is a pandemic threat. You have called it a “novel” virus, which is a condition for there to be a pandemic potential, but you are not treating this vaccine as thought it were a novel vaccine, requiring safety testing. Given the costs in human and financial terms, I am afraid that “MAY DEVELOP” is not sufficient for vaccination of the population, starting with our most vulnerable population.

SKS: Since the initial spring outbreak of 2009 H1N1 influenza, the virus has triggered a worldwide pandemic,

REL: Well, no. Actually a world wide pandemic has been declared without any clear evidence that there actually IS a world wide pandemic. There is NO world-wide pandemic; there is a only legally declared pandemic, made possible only because the W.H.O. changed the definition of a “pandemic” for political reasons. The “pandemic” has been declared without any clear evidence that there is any world-wide threat. How has the Secretary ascertained, in the absence of accurate testing, that H1N1 is the “DOMINANT” flu strain? Australian authorities do not confirm your claim.

SKS: and has been the dominant flu strain in the southern hemisphere during its winter flu season.

REL: Just how is this ascertained in the absence of accurate testing, not just testing, mind you, but accurate testing that H1N1 is the “DOMINANT” flu strain? Australian authorities do not agree with or substantiate your claim.

SKS: The evidence to date shows that the virus has not changed to become more deadly.

REL: At last, Madam Secretary, we have common ground. We agree, and therefore, since both WHO and CDC has said that this H1N1 virus causes a disease that is milder than seasonal flu, requiring no medical intervention, why is major medical intervention required for something that poses no dangers and may, MAY, become a problem at some time, somewhere in the future?

I am sorry, Madam Secretary, but this is absurd, unscientific, dangerous and a ferocious waste of money, sort of like TARP and other corporate welfare programs, but this time for Big Pharma.

SKS: Unlike our typical seasonal flu, we continued to see flu activity in the United States over the summer, notably in summer camps.

REL: But since diagnosis is not being carried out, is it Swine Flu? Allergies to GMO junk food fed to children, perhaps, common colds, maybe? How would you know? The best tests we have are wrong 9 times out of 10. WHO and CDC requested countries not to test for the virus and not to keep accurate counts, just to guess – and it is on these guesses that you apparently are making your pronouncements, judgments and decisions.

SKS: More recently, we have seen an increase in 2009 H1N1 influenza activity in several states

REL: Based on what independently verified data? If you have no lab tests, you would have no idea of what you are seeing.

SKS: and expect this to continue across the United States during the coming months.

REL: All respiratory cases are being assigned the unscientific label of “Swine Flu” without testing. No one has any idea if any of these cases are causes by H1N1, except, apparently you, Secretary Sebelius. Assuming, however, that all of them are, there are no deaths which are not caused by underlying disease or treatments with toxic, but approved drugs such as Tamiflu, which killed a pregnant mother and the baby she gave birth to in Mumbai, India recently.

Diagnosis by symptom picture alone. Right. That is not exactly good science and it certainly is terrible medicine. Swine Flu walks like a duck, coughs like a duck and has a fever like a duck. What makes it a swine? Public relations and nothing else!

SKS: As fall begins, we anticipate that even more communities may be affected than those that saw cases this past spring and summer.

REL: Again I ask you, Secretary, based on exactly, precisely, what?”

SKS: In addition, communities may be more severely affected, reflecting wider transmission and causing potentially greater impact.

REL: I am afraid I have to ask again, based on what? You say that communities may be more severely affected, but the truth is that they may also be less severely affected. Where do you get your crystal ball serviced, Madam Secretary? Could it be the same place that Novartis used when they decided to patent a vaccine for the Swine Flu in 2008 when CDC and WHO declare that this is a novel, never-before-seen virus which arose, de novo, like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, in April, 2009? Could the same shop be servicing Baxter’s decision-making Magic 8 Ball so that they were able to apply for a patent for a Swine Flu vaccine in 2007? If so, Madam Secretary, this crystal ball is a national treasure and should be made available to “We the People of These United States.”

SKS: Seasonal influenza viruses may cause illness concurrently with 2009 H1N1 this fall and winter and it will not be possible to determine quickly if ill individuals have 2009 H1N1 influenza, seasonal influenza, or other respiratory conditions based on symptoms alone.

REL: It may. Or, then again, it may not. There is no hard data on which to make these predictions and the consequences of these predictions, including vaccines are dangerous and unwarranted by any level of fact or reality. I repeat, there is simply no hard data, or at least none that you have presented on your websites, public statements, press releases or here today.

SKS: It is also difficult to predict the severity of the disease that we will see in the coming months from either 2009 H1N1 or seasonal influenza.

REL: Right again, Madam Secretary. So why poison the populace for something whose dreadful menace did not materialize and is not showing any signs of materializing. In fact, its dreadful menace is a lot like the bogyman under the bed: a product of your big brother’s desire to scare you witless so that you will do whatever he says. The parallel is uncanny.

SKS: Influenza is an unpredictable disease and we know that things will change and we will learn more throughout the fall.

REL: So unpredictable, in fact, that seasonal flu vaccines are accurate less than 40% of the time although the toxins injected (mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, foreign protein, MSG, etc., fluoride, etc.) are toxic 100% of the time and become more so with more shots, which are increasingly r4commended by conflict-of-interest-laden ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) and others of their stripe. By the way, Secretary Sebelius, what is your financial interest in the medical and pharmaceutical industries?

SKS: Shared Responsibility and Science-Based Guidance Slowing the spread and reducing the impact of H1N1…

REL: From nothing to nothing?

SKS: …and seasonal flu is a shared responsibility…

REL: Exactly what does that mean? There is no meaningful impact from H1N1, but there certainly will be from yet another round of vaccines, even if those vaccines are, as falsely stated, but a strain change variation on a theme. Children vaccinated with attenuated live virus vaccines, specifically influenza vaccines, are many times more likely to be admitted to hospitals for all causes, many times more likely to develop serious asthma, etc. There is nothing trivial about influenza shots but, with the guidance of ACIP they are increasingly passed out as if they were either safe or effective. In fact they are neither and, if it is merely a strain change variation, then H1N1 is also neither safe nor effective. It it is a novel vaccine for a novel virus, it is clearly neither safe nor effective since it has never had any safety testing concluded. Were such safety testing to show that it were not safe or effective, then the sales and administration of it would pierce the veil of liability free manufacture, distribution and use which the Federal government has accorded to itself, its agents and to the manufacturers and distributors of these dangerous vaccines as we.. It is therefore in the ir best interest not to have any safety data (or data showing the lack of safety).

SKS: …and we all need to plan for what would need to be done when the flu impacts our community, school, business or home this fall.

REL: When? Shouldn’t the word be “IF” or “just in case” or “In the unlikely chance that it might, given the lack of evidence that it can”?

SKS: Given that flu already is circulating in the United States this fall, it’s important for every American family and business to prepare their own household and business plans and think through the steps they will have to take if a family member or co-worker contracts the flu.

REL: Tuberculosis is also circulating this fall. So are impetigo, gonorrhea, athlete’s foot, head lice and zits. Is the US Government offering a TARP bailout, at the expense of our lives, to the the very wealthy, very powerful Pharmaceutical Industry?

SKS: CDC has provided specific recommendations for what individuals, communities, clinicians, and other professionals can do.

REL: In the face of trivial disease, if it indeed exists in community distribution, for which there is no evidence that has forensic or scientific credibility, these common sense wash-yours-hands, cover your mouth and nose when you sneeze recommendations are more than sufficient the help out a perfectly unthreatened population. My mother taught me that, too, and it sufficed.

SKS: Individuals can take actions to prevent respiratory infections. We emphasize frequent hand-washing as an effective way to reduce transmission of disease. It is very important for sick individuals to stay at home,

REL: Really? Do employers know that and do they refrain from docking them?

SKS: and for parents to keep children who have a fever or flu-like illness home from school, childcare, the playground, or other places children gather.

REL: Flu is not necessarily Swine Flu.

SKS: Similarly, sick individuals should not get on an airplane or any public transport.

REL:This benign-sounding provision will result in persons who have not been vaccinated being denied boarding privileges on public transport in the United States unless we stop this medical fascism now. There is already talk of stainless steel RFID chipped bracelets at state trooper checkpoints. Where accurate or not, this suggestion illustrates how easily this type of tyranny would be to install. Tyrannical control never presents itself as that. it always wants to help, to take care of, to protect you. This process of constitutional abrogation, so well advanced at the state and federal levels, is receiving another set of supporting members in this document, Madam Secretary, and in this dangerous and unwarranted approval.

SKS: Taking personal responsibility for these things will help reduce the spread of this new virus as well as other respiratory illnesses.

We have issued new guidance from the CDC on www.flu.gov for schools, child care settings, colleges and universities, and large and small businesses that also includes strategies for preventing the spread of flu, especially in the early fall when the 2009 H1N1 vaccine will not yet be ready. These comprehensive guidelines provide advice on how individuals and institutions can guard against the flu and mitigate its spread. The CDC also has issued guidance for healthcare providers about appropriate use of anti-viral drugs to treat patients who are at highest risk from complications from the seasonal and 2009 H1N1 flu.

REL: These guidelines offer dangerous pharmacological usage practices which, like the vaccine approval itself, is not supported by science. In fact, the science of the antivirals suggests very strongly that they should not be used and their use, while increasing the liklihood of serious complications and death, does little or nothing to shorten or minimize the severity of the purported “Swine Flu” infection. Remember, it can only be purported because the laboratory testing is not being done, based on the recommendations of the CDC and W.H.O. Why? Because the testing is so inaccurate. Therefore any suggestion about incidence, prevalence or impact is mere fantasy. Tamiflu and Relenza have not been shown to bring about positive outcomes in this diagnostic fantasy matrix, in fact, quite the contrary.

SKS: Additional work is being done on critical guidelines to address infection control and worker safety in healthcare settings. Our recommendations and action plans are based on the best scientific information…

REL: Please refer to what I have said above and my comments below, Madam Secretary.

SKS: …available to help our nation respond aggressively and effectively to the 2009 H1N1 virus.

REL: This may sound awfully familiar by now, Madam Secretary, but why? Where is the justification for aggressive action or the demonstration that effective action is not achieved by the “Personal responsibility” suggestions and by the protection of the collective immune system through avoiding junk foods, chemicals, GMOs and other health degradation substances and processes permitted by your agency, the same FDA which is now so sanctimoniously declaring its benign intent here?

In fact, the same FDA has literally criminalized communications which offer non-vaccine, non-drug options to prevent, treat, mitigate or cure the Swine Flu. It is hard to see how the FDA is working to help our nation respond aggressively and effectively to anything except the need to make the population docile, obedient, sick and profitable in its chronic illness.

SKS: We are working to ensure that Americans are informed and consistently updated with information in clear language. This is a dynamic situation, but it is essential that the American people are fully engaged so they can be part of the response.

REL: Really? To my mind, being fully engaged would require clear, accurate information and, I am very much afraid that your testimony makes it clear that the intention of the FDA is to provide anything but that. You are providing information in easily understood words, but it is distorted and dangerous. If your FDA were interested in that goal, it would be offering abundant information on nutrition, antioxidants, homeopathy, Foods, nutrients, nano silver and supplements designed to support the immune system.

SKS: The federal government, particularly the CDC, will be conducting weekly and, when necessary, daily briefings that will be available at flu.gov to get critical information out to the American people.

Vaccination Campaign The federal government is also preparing for a voluntary national vaccination campaign for the 2009 H1N1 virus starting in October.

REL:The Federal Government has backed off from its earlier stance for mandatory vaccination, which was articulated by HHS on July 23, 2008 and by DHS on the following day in advisory communications.

SKS: With unprecedented speed, we have completed key steps in the vaccine development process — we have characterized the virus, identified a candidate strain, expedited manufacturing, and performed clinical trials.

REL: Clinical trials have not been performed. Brief dose response trials have been initiated, is some cases not even completed before this authorization.

SKS: The speed of this vaccine development was possible due to the investments made through ASPR/BARDA over the past six years in advanced research and development and infrastructure building.

REL: How convenient!

SKS: One-hundred ninety-five (195) million doses of H1N1 vaccine have been purchased from five manufacturers by the U.S. government.

REL:Vaccines have already been purchased, BEFORE their approval? That makes their approval sound very much as if it were pre arraigned. Why the haste? Why the collusion? Your agency declared a national state of health emergency on April 25, 2009, just 11 days after the first so-called death from the so-called novel virus in Mexico. A level 6 pandemic was declared on June 11, just shy of 2 months after the first alleged death. The death toll was reduced in Mexico from 168 to 16, a percentage decrease in mortality of 90.5%. This miracle of biblical proportions was not only ignored, but the decrease in observed mortality was apparently not factored into the response of either WHO or FDA.

SKS: Two types of vaccine will be available: vaccine made from killed virus for injection (flu shot) and vaccine with live, weakened virus administered by nasal spray.

REL: Madam Secretary, our information is that this is simply not correct. We have been informed that there is more than one inactivated live virus preparation. We are checking this out now.

SKS: The vaccines are being manufactured by the same methods used for the production of the seasonal flu vaccines administered every year.

REL: I am afraid that this is simply not true. Conventional influenza vaccines are cultured in eggs. Cell based, rather than egg based, vaccines are not the norm and are not just a simple “strain change” variation of the same old vaccine. MF59, and oil and water adjuvant, is not the norm. The virus is said by both WHO and FDA to be unpredictable and to be a totally novel virus. In that case, there is no possibility that all approved vaccines are merely strain change variations on a well proven, but not particularly safe, theme. FDA can only have it one way or the other, but not both, Madam Secretary.

SKS: NIH is conducting a series of clinical trials on the vaccine to determine the safety and number of doses needed to induce a protective immune response.

REL: Safety trials will not, according to the FDA< be completed until June, 2010. Approval of the novel vaccines before that point constitutes irresponsible dereliction of duty at the very least. Since full disclosure and informed consent are not possible under the conditions of secrecy which prevail in these tests, it is possible that they are illegal and that they constitute crimes against humanity.

SKS: Trials in healthy adults and the elderly began in the first week of August. Complete immune response data from the first trials—those studying two doses in healthy adults—are expected in late October.

REL: The approval of 5 different vaccines was announced today, September 15, 2009. There is no possibility that even the preliminary dosage trials in healthy adults have been completed. No trials in immuno compromised or suppressed people, vaccine injured persons, infants, people with atopic disorders like asthma, eczema, egg allergies, organ transplant recipients, cancer chemotherapy patients or those on steroids, etc., have been conducted. No safety information exists to guide usage or administration. This is consistent with the lack of information which would pierce the veil of liability protection as mentioned before.

SKS: Preliminary data indicate that the vaccines are safe

REL: What preliminary data. Is that sufficient to jeopardize the health of a nation for a non existent threat of a disease?

SKS: and that a single 15-microgram dose induces what is likely to be a protective immune response in healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 64.

REL: We should note that no one says that the dose will be protective since vaccines have never been shown to be protective of diseases for which they are administered. Not a single double blind, placebo controlled study on this question has ever been done. But the antibody production generated by vaccines is assumed, not know, to provide protection. Given the dangerous nature of these novel vaccines for a novel virus, don’t ou think, Madam Secretary, that more information about the conclusive results of carefully designed safety testing, with fully informed consent, would be in order before these vaccines were approved?

SKS: For adults aged 65 and over, the preliminary data indicate that the immune response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine is somewhat less robust, as is the case with seasonal influenza vaccine.

REL: And there is no intermediate or long term safety data on the adjuvanted vaccines whatsoever since no adjuvanted vaccine has ever been approved before in the US. the only two adjuvanted vaccines available in Europe are for patients on dialysis, whose immune function is so suppressed that they are deemed to need the extra “punch” of the squalene adjuvant and, according tot he controlling agency, have such a reduced life span that they are not expected to live long enough to develop side effects and complications from the vaccine and Cervavax, GSK’s competitor to Garadsil, the HPV vaccine.
Parents who continue to state that their daughters were either killed by, or seriously damaged by Cervavax administration are being warned that if they continue to disseminate that information their children will be taken from them.

The suggestions in this data is that although dangerous, the danger is being hidden. Without a good deal of further clarification, the approval of adjuvanted vaccines, or the potential administration of adjuvants by themselves or mixed with unadjuvanted vaccines, as being discussed now by CDC, makes the purchase some months ago of nearly $1/2 billion worth of squalene adjuvants make sense in the limited fashion that injecting a a known poison into large number of humans might be said to make sense.

Squalene, when injected into animals, causes such severe auto immune illness that its use is standard in laboratories where the induction of such disease is desired for research purposes. In that context, it is named after the scientist who discovered that it had that impact and is known as “Freund’s Adjuvant.

SKS: Trials in children began in mid-August, and trials in pregnant women have just begun.

REL:Does that mean that approval for the use of these vaccines for unrestricted use is based on …what? Certainly not science or data.

SKS: Our expectation is that vaccine will be a good match for the virus currently circulating in the United States based on intensive monitoring of the virus.

REL: But the expectation of the FDA and WHO for a “good match” between a circulating influenza virus and the next season’s disease is wrong well over 70% of the time. Secretray Sebelius, you and your Staff’s expectations are less than compelling. The regular administration of the seasonal flu vaccine that ACIP and CDC, both units of FDA, recommend year after year has been shown to increase the incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease by more than 600% while its accuracy in predictng which virus will be circulating is less than 30%.
FDA standards are not very high: according to your official website, the H1N1 vaccine will be considered a success if the anticipated antibody titer response (1:40) is found in 28% of the population. That means that these vaccines are being approved even if the number of people who do not show a robust laboratory antibody response (which is not associated with protection) is as high as 72%. So the risks of these vaccines are not accounted for and the efficacy is not required.

Furthermore, FDA has announced that the unadjuvanted vaccine, the strain change variety, is expected, under the best case scenario, to kill at least 30,000 people. The number who are expected to be maimed and crippled by this is not specified on the offical FDA website. If the 1976 disaster, which Secretary Sebelius says the FDA is looking to for guidance, is any indication, we can expect at least a thousand people sickened and crippled for each person who dies from the Vaccine. The math is hardly conducive to confidence in the FDA.

SKS: We are coordinating this 2009 H1N1 vaccination campaign with the seasonal influenza vaccination campaign, and are working hard with state and local authorities and the clinical community to address the challenges this presents.

From what we know as of today, 2009 H1N1 virus preferentially affects a population different from that affected by seasonal flu. In particular, this virus is infecting more young people including children, younger adults and pregnant women.

REL: What is this data based upon, given the lack of diagnostic specificity and the fact that symptoms are not distinguishable from all other types of colds or flus?

SKS: Typically these groups, particularly young children and pregnant women, are at greater risk of serious complications from any influenza, including the 2009 H1N1.

REL: Again I must ask, Secretary Sebelius, without diagnosis, how can that be ascertainined?

SKS: CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended on July 29 providing initial doses of the new H1N1 vaccine to five groups—approximately 159 million people.

REL: That is over one half of the entire population of the US. Wouldn’t it be more prudent, given that there is no legitimate health emergency, to not vaccinate more than half of the country, specifically the most vulnerable half, with an untested, unnecessary and uninsurable group of vaccines?

SKS: CDC endorsed these recommendations.

REL: Rather than reassuring me, this seems to me to be a clear cause for an overhaul of FDA and CDC with the possibility of criminal charges being investigated.

SKS: These groups are:
pregnant women,
people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age,
health care and emergency services personnel,
persons between the ages of 6 months through 24 years of age, and
people from ages 25 through 64 years who are at higher risk for novel H1N1.

REL: Note your use of the term “Novel”, Secretary Sebelius. As stated above, that precludes the claim that these vaccines are mere strain change variations on a well-worn theme.

SKS: because of chronic health disorders like asthma and diabetes or compromised immune systems.

REL: These are the very groups to whom squalene is the most dangerous and the crops to whom contaminates like leukemia-causing virus SV40, found in the line of monkey kidney cells that the Novartis Vaccine has been cultured.

SKS: The H1N1 virus is particularly dangerous to healthy women who are pregnant. Not only has this virus caused greater numbers of pregnant women to be hospitalized, it has also been fatal in a higher percentage of this population than in other affected groups.

REL: Does squalene cross the placenta. Does it damage the fetus? In what way? At what age? It is known that mercury does cross the placenta and does damage the Fetus. Yet the CDC is advising women to take the H1N1 vaccine(s) regardless of whether it has the preservative known as “Thimerisol” (49.6% mercury by weight). No mention has been made of the dangers of aluminum adjuvants, nor of the fact that polysorbate 80 (also called “Tween 80) is associated with infertility when injected?

SKS: The federal government will be working in partnership with states, territories, tribes, and local communities as well as the private sector to help distribute and administer the new H1N1 vaccine. Thanks to support from Congress, the federal government has allocated $1.444 billion for states and hospitals to support planning and preparation efforts. TARP AGAIN.

The large scale 2009 H1N1 vaccine program will begin mid-October with small amounts of vaccine becoming available the first full week in October. The vaccine itself will be available free of charge to the American people, but some public and private providers may charge an administration fee. It will be distributed to providers and state health departments in a manner similar to how federally purchased vaccines are distributed in the Vaccines For Children program. The CDC and states will work with a contractor to get vaccine to where it needs to go. The number of doses shipped will be reported to the CDC daily, and the number of doses administered will be reported to the CDC weekly.

REL: Where will the adverse relations be reported for the general public to track?

SKS: The fact that vaccine won’t begin distribution until October makes preventing the spread of flu even more critical. Again, we need to remind all Americans about the things they should be doing right now: washing hands, staying home if you’re sick, and taking the necessary precautions to stay healthy and avoid getting sick. Flu.gov has good tips for what you need to do to avoid getting the flu.

While the 2009 H1N1 flu virus has been the focus of attention since the spring, it is important that we do not forget the risks posed by the seasonal flu viruses. More than 36,000 people die each year from complications associated with the flu.

REL: This statistic is totally false and misleading. About 600 people per year from the complications of influenza, but marketing concerns have created this oft-repeated number from which bears little relationship to reality as the swine flu case numbers or death numbers.

SKS: CDC continues to recommend vaccination against seasonal influenza viruses, especially for all infants, children, and people at greater risk for influenza complications. Seasonal flu vaccine already is becoming available in many places.

It is not too early to get a seasonal flu shot as soon as it is available. The protection you get from the vaccine will not wear off before the flu season is over.

REL: There is no evidence that the seasonal flu strain in the vaccines is the one circulating but there is considerable evidence that the vaccines are dangerous, despite insistent government and industry denial.

SKS: Closing Remarks – At HHS, we are simultaneously working hard to understand and control this outbreak…

REL: What outbreak? See above.

SKS: …while also keeping the public and the Congress fully informed about the situation and our response. We are working in close collaboration with our federal partners as well as with other organizations with unique expertise that helps us provide guidance for multiple sectors of our economy and society. It is important to recognize that there have been enormous efforts in the United States and abroad to prepare for this kind of an outbreak and a pandemic.

REL: One would have to wonder why.

SKS: Our nation’s current preparedness is a direct result of the investments and support of the Congress and the hard work of state and local officials across the country. While we must remain vigilant throughout this and subsequent outbreaks, it is important to note that at no time in our nation’s history have we been more prepared to face this kind of challenge.

REL: Or more over-prepared to face a challenge which does exist.

SKS: But the government cannot solve this alone and, as I have noted, all of us must take constructive steps. Taking all of those reasonable measures will help us mitigate how many people actually get sick in our country.

We look forward to working closely with the Congress to best address the situation as it evolves in the weeks and months ahead. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this conversation with you and your colleagues. I look forward to taking your questions.

REL: Thank you Madam Secretary. I do think you have told us quite enough disinformation.

Medicating the Mind of A Child – Mindlessly

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

URGENT! SUPPORT HR 2218 TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM COMPULSORY DRUGGING and PROTECT PARENTAL RIGHTS AT THE SAME TIME
ACTION ITEM: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27246
OPPOSE S 324 TO PROTECT PREGNANT MOTHERS AND THEIR BABIES FROM COMPULSORY SCREENING AND COERCIVE DRUGGING:
ACTION ITEM:http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23065

Children are the latest victims in the Drug Crimes Against Humanity. Let me share my bias with you and then tell you why I believe that babies and children are being assaulted in increasing numbers with a deadly weapon: psychotropic drugs. These drugs kill and maim at the physical, neurological, psychological and emotional levels. They have lethal and sub-lethal side effects but are, astonishingly, handed out like candy as if they were properly tested, safe or effective. They are none of the above. Click here, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27246, to tell State and Federal Legislators to protect parents’ right to make medical decisions for their children and stop the use of government money for unscientific and skewed screening tests to herd kids into the drug pusher’s offices where unnecessary and dangerous prescriptions await them.

Pregnant mothers are up for “protection” from postpartum depression by being “screened” with phony screening tools and then “offered” drugs which the PDR advises doctors to avoid or use with extreme caution in women of child-bearing age. Infants exposed to these toxic compounds can suffer a horrifying range of damage, including being born with their internal organs outside of their bodies and life long brain damage. “Never mind”, says Big Pharma, “pregnant and new moms are an untapped market. Let’s go for it! And just think! Babies with brain damage, diabetes, etc., all require meds for the rest of their lives. Yes, indeed! We will surely go for it.” And go for it they did by getting the bill passed in the House of Representatives whose companion bill, S 324, is now before the Senate. Click here http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23065 to tell your Senators not to pass this dangerous and totally unnecessary bill.

I was graduated from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970 and took my Postgraduate training in Child, Adolescent and Adult Psychiatry, finishing my training in 1975. I am trained in psychoanalysis, group therapy and a host of other modalities. I have run drug and other treatment facilities, worked in inpatient and out patient facilities for children, adults and adolescents and have been in the private practice of psychiatry and medicine for decades.
All without drugs, electroshock or other dangerous, primitive and harmful techniques. I believe that psychoactive drugs, like virtually all other drugs, are dangerous and, unless you are in a surgery suite or an emergency room, unnecessary.

This is a conviction born out of a very long and successful drug free medical and psychiatric practice (during which, unlike most of my medical colleagues, I have never been sued for malpractice).

When I saw the article in the most recent journal of the Schafer Autism Report which is reproduced below, I wrote to congratulate the Report for publishing this outstanding piece decrying the medication of millions and millions of children for little more than mythic disorders.

Representative Ron Paul MD (TX-R) introduced the Parental Consent Act, HR 2218, on April 30, 2009. The bill prevents Federal monies from being used to support mental health screenings which are nothing short of pharma marketing tools for kids. They have no scientific validity, are supported by, and developed by, the greedy folks at Big Pharma. Kids answer trick questions in normal ways and they are “diagnosed” with phony terms and lables. Parents who resist the requirement for medication which almost always follows face enormous pressure, including jail time for “medical neglect” or “child abuse”. This sells pills, all right, but it sure does not protect rights or kids brains and bodies.

As a psychiatrist and physician I can tell you that psychoactive drugs are dangerous. They can cause permanent physical damage, obesity, suicide, homicide, diabetes, neurological damage which is life-long, rob children of their moods and their developmental opportunities and much, much more. Every single school shooting in the US has involved kids either on drugs or coming off them. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no excuse for psychoactive medicines.

Furthermore, parents have the right, and must continue to have the right, to make the life and death decisions for their children with which they have been entrusted. Those rights are fundamentally as the rights we claim for ourselves to make our own decisions about what happens to our own bodies. Absent that, our bodies are owned by others who make decisions about what happens to them and we are, by definition, slaves. I have no wish to be a slave to the government of any country or to its corporations, including Big Pharma. So it is my duty to oppose these pieces of legislation.

This is an invitation to join me in that opposition and bring all of your contacts along.

By the way, the Natural Solutions Foundation is a privately supported not for profit, tax exempt organization and we depend on your donations. Please visit http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=189 to make your donation. Recurring donations are especially helpful. We appreciate your support, whether large of small.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.HealthFreedomRadio.com

Here is the letter I wrote to the Editor of the Schafer Autism Review:
To the Editor:

I am writing to congratulate you on your publication of “The Wholesale Sedation of America’s Youth” By Andrew M. Weiss. As a Child, Adolescent and Adult Psychiatrist who has practiced drug free medicine for my entire career, I found myself reading my own thoughts and writings in this excellent article. Physicians, Nurse Practitioners and others who endorse and enforce medicating children because they have been entrained or constrained to do so win the approval, praise and appreciation of the forces that use them and of their peers, but are, in fact, worthy of scorn and, at best, loss of licenses or, at worst, criminal prosecution for their mindless, damaging and cowardly refusal to think clearly about the needs of the children they are charged to heal, not poison.

Every doctor is trained to think logically and systematically about diagnosis and treatment. If they refuse to use that training because they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed and browbeaten into down and dirty, quick and quality-less medicine, then shame upon each and every one of them. Drug ads, phony science and cheer leader “continuing medical education” seminars are nothing short of cynical organized deceptions designed to accomplish one goal and one goal only: the generation of massive profits.

Who stands between a child and pharmaceutical damage? A doctor. Who steps aside for 8 million American children every year? A doctor. If parents object or refuse to medicate their children, they run the very real risk of being charged with medical abuse or neglect, loosing their children and/or facing criminal charges for trying to protect the vulnerable youngsters in their care. Commonly drug-company-sponsored “screening tools” used by teachers or other school personnel are what got the kids in front of the doctor or nurse practitioner staring at the dangerous end of a prescription pad.

On April 30, 2009 Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the Parental Consent Act, HR 2218, “To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.” The ominously Orwellian-named “New Freedoms Initiative, passed in 2004 during the drug-friendly reign of President George W. Bush, provides for mandatory screening of every child from 0 to 18. In uterine screening is accomplished by “mental health screening” of pregnant women and the compulsory drugging of those women to “protect” the unborn child despite the former cautions urged on doctors to avoid the use of psychotropic medication in women of child bearing age because of the known and unknown dangers inherent in exposing unborn or nursing babies to those drugs.

The New Freedoms Initiative also mandates the screening for “mental problems” of everyone involved in any way with children – parents, grandparents, teachers, policemen and women, merchants who sell children things, clergy, doctors, nurses, etc. In short, everyone.

The madness must stop. Doctors must think about children and childhood as a developmental process, not a disease. Parents must be free to be what the law says they are, “GUARDians” and bureaucrats and administrators, teachers and others involved with children must ask why a child is showing signs of stress or distress and look for ways to solve that problem, not dissolve the child’s mind in a chemical soup of long and short term toxicity.

The Natural Solutions Foundation, www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, of which I am proud to be the Medical Director, supports the right of every person to make their own health decisions and, of course, of parents to make those decisions for their children. And we strongly support the rights of parents and others to say “NO!” to drugs, “No” to compulsory screenings to get kids onto subjective, and profitable diagnostic conveyor belts.

Our Health Freedom Action eAlerts offer action options to concerned parents and other persons to preserve these essential rights.

Medical fascism is facing us all. Soviet Russia was condemned world-wide because it condoned the atrocious use of psychoactive drugs to control its population and prevent behaviors it found disagreeable or unwelcome in vast numbers of people. Are our children our dissidents? Do their discontents require chemical straight jackets and personality-ectomies? Have we become mindless mind-assassins, robbing our children of their emotions and their neurological developmental opportunities because we do not dare to ask the penetrating question, “WHY?” to this drug mania we have been marketed into?

Since graduation from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970 and completion of my Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Fellowship in 1975 I have practiced medicine and psychiatry without resorting to drugs. The results have been nothing short of astonishing for someone trained in the “Medical Model” – my patients got well because the underlying cause of their discomforts, disabilities, distortions and difficulties were uncovered and addressed. Using intensive nutritional strategies, herbology, homeopathy, detoxification, NeuroBioFeedback, frequency medicine and a host of other techniques, each patient was treated individually and their treatment tailored to their realities, including emotional ones. This type of medicine takes time – lots of it – and therefore the cottage industry, piecework compensation which doctors have allowed insurance carriers to impose upon them (insurance carriers which are often co-owned by Big Pharma so that forcing doctors to see more patients in a shorter time is a successful marketing ploy for their shareholders’ interests) make the economics unpalatable to insurance companies. Doctors have, in the main, behaved like good serfs and allowed themselves to be made wage slaves to the interests of the insurance companies, seeing more patients in shorter slots – and writing prescriptions quickly so they can see the next patient and the next and the next.

The solution? If you are a parent, find a health care professional who does not take insurance and pay for treatment so you and the doctor can spend as much time as your child needs. If you are a doctor or nurse practitioner, rethink your slavish devotion to the medicine of convenience – yours – and start doing what you have been expensively trained to do: think about root causes, look for underlying factors and return to your roots as a healer. Yes, you will have to unlearn much and question more. But you were a bright student looking for ways to help people when you fought your way into medical school. You were, after all, the best and the brightest. You may still have the capacity to think and to discern real science from marketing. And, somewhere deep down inside you, perhaps you still have a deep commitment to service and truth.

You will quickly find, if you follow the intellectual path I am advocating, that many of your most cherished believes must be abandoned by the wayside. One of those believes is that you must continue to take insurance payment for your services or you will not make a living. In fact, those doctors who have dared to let go of the insurance teat report that they are making more money, spending less in overhead and serving patients better than they dreamed possible before they took the plunge into service, not serfdom.

Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

And here is the Special Edition article to which I was responding:

Special Edition

The Wholesale Sedation of America’s Youth

By Andrew M. Weiss, Skeptical Inquirer. is.gd/yXAW

In the winter of 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of a study indicating that 200,000 two- to four-year-olds had been prescribed Ritalin for an “attention disorder” from 1991 to 1995. Judging by the response, the image of hundreds of thousands of mothers grinding up stimulants to put into the sippy cups of their preschoolers was apparently not a pretty one.
Most national magazines and newspapers covered the story; some even expressed dismay or outrage at this exacerbation of what already seemed like a juggernaut of hyper-medicalizing childhood. The public reaction, however, was tame; the medical community, after a moment’s pause, continued unfazed. Today, the total toddler count is well past one million, and influential psychiatrists have insisted that mental health prescriptions are appropriate for children as young as twelve months. For the pharmaceutical companies, this is progress.
In 1995, 2,357,833 children were diagnosed with ADHD (Woodwell 1997) — twice the number diagnosed in 1990. By 1999, 3.4 percent of all American children had received a stimulant prescription for an attention disorder. Today, that number is closer to ten percent. Stimulants aren’t the only drugs being given out like candy to our children. A variety of other psychotropics like antidepressants, antipsychotics, and sedatives are finding their way into babies’ medicine cabinets in large numbers. In fact, the worldwide market for these drugs is growing at a rate of ten percent a year, $20.7 billion in sales of antipsychotics alone (for 2007, IMSHealth 2008).
While the sheer volume of psychotropics being prescribed for children might, in and of itself, produce alarm, there has not been a substantial backlash against drug use in large part because of the widespread perception that “medically authorized” drugs must be safe. Yet, there is considerable evidence that psychoactive drugs do not take second place to other controlled pharmaceuticals in carrying grave and substantial risks. All classes of psychoactive drugs are associated with patient deaths, and each produces serious side effects, some of which are life-threatening.
In 2005, researchers analyzed data from 250,000 patients in the Netherlands and concluded that “we can be reasonably sure that antipsychotics are associated in something like a threefold increase in sudden cardiac death, and perhaps that older antipsychotics may be worse” (Straus et al. 2004). In 2007, the FDA chose to beef up its black box warning (reserved for substances that represent the most serious danger to the public) against antidepressants concluding, “the trend across age groups toward an association between antidepressants and suicidality . . . was convincing, particularly when superimposed on earlier analyses of data on adolescents from randomized, controlled trials” (Friedman and Leon 2007). Antidepressants have been banned for use with children in the UK since 2003. According to a confidential FDA report, prolonged administration of amphetamines (the standard treatment for ADD and ADHD) “may lead to drug dependence and must be avoided.” They further reported that “misuse of amphetamine may cause sudden death and serious cardiovascular adverse events” (Food and Drug Administration 2005). The risk of fatal toxicity from lithium carbonate, a not uncommon treatment for bipolar disorder, has been well documented since the 1950s. Incidents of fatal seizures from sedative-hypnotics, especially when mixed with alcohol, have been recorded since the 1920s.
Psychotropics carry nonfatal risks as well. Physical dependence and severe withdrawal symptoms are associated with virtually all psychoactive drugs. Psychological addiction is axiomatic. Concomitant side effects range from unpleasant to devastating, including: insulin resistance, narcolepsy, tardive dyskenisia (a movement disorder affecting 15–20 percent of antipsychotic patients where there are uncontrolled facial movements and sometimes jerking or twisting movements of other body parts), agranulocytosis (a reduction in white blood cells, which is life threatening), accelerated appetite, vomiting, allergic reactions, uncontrolled blinking, slurred speech, diabetes, balance irregularities, irregular heartbeat, chest pain, sleep disorders, fever, and severe headaches. The attempt to control these side effects has resulted in many children taking as many as eight additional drugs every day, but in many cases, this has only compounded the problem. Each “helper” drug produces unwanted side effects of its own.
The child drug market has also spawned a vigorous black market in high schools and colleges, particularly for stimulants. Students have learned to fake the symptoms of ADD in order to obtain amphetamine prescriptions that are subsequently sold to fellow students. Such “shopping” for prescription drugs has even spawned a new verb. The practice is commonly called “pharming.” A 2005 report from the Partnership for a Drug Free America, based on a survey of more than 7,300 teenagers, found one in ten teenagers, or 2.3 million young people, had tried prescription stimulants without a doctor’s order, and 29 percent of those surveyed said they had close friends who have abused prescription stimulants.
In a larger sense, the whole undertaking has had the disturbing effect of making drug use an accepted part of childhood. Few cultures anywhere on earth and anytime in the past have been so willing to provide stimulants and sedative-hypnotics to their offspring, especially at such tender ages. An entire generation of young people has been brought up to believe that drug-seeking behavior is both rational and respectable and that most psychological problems have a pharmacological solution. With the ubiquity of psychotropics, children now have the means, opportunity, example, and encouragement to develop a lifelong habit of self-medicating.
Common population estimates include at least eight million children, ages two to eighteen, receiving prescriptions for ADD, ADHD, bipolar disorder, autism, simple depression, schizophrenia, and the dozens of other disorders now included in psychiatric classification manuals. Yet sixty years ago, it was virtually impossible for a child to be considered mentally ill. The first diagnostic manual published by American psychiatrists in 1952, DSM-I, included among its 106 diagnoses only one for a child: Adjustment Reaction of Childhood/Adolescence. The other 105 diagnoses were specifically for adults. The number of children actually diagnosed with a mental disorder in the early 1950s would hardly move today’s needle. There were, at most, 7,500 children in various settings who were believed to be mentally ill at that time, and most of these had explicit neurological symptoms.
Of course, if there really are one thousand times as many kids with authentic mental disorders now as there were fifty years ago, then the explosion in drug prescriptions in the years since only indicates an appropriate medical response to a newly recognized pandemic, but there are other possible explanations for this meteoric rise. The last fifty years has seen significant social changes, many with a profound effect on children. Burgeoning birth rates, the decline of the extended family, widespread divorce, changing sexual and social mores, households with two working parents — it is fair to say that the whole fabric of life took on new dimensions in the last half century. The legal drug culture, too, became an omnipresent adjunct to daily existence. Stimulants, analgesics, sedatives, decongestants, penicillins, statins, diuretics, antibiotics, and a host of others soon found their way into every bathroom cabinet, while children became frequent visitors to the family physician for drugs and vaccines that we now believe are vital to our health and happiness. There is also the looming motive of money. The New York Times reported in 2005 that physicians who had received substantial payments from pharmaceutical companies were five times more likely to prescribe a drug regimen to a child than those who had refused such payments.
So other factors may well have contributed to the upsurge in psychiatric diagnoses over the past fifty years. But even if the increase reflects an authentic epidemic of mental health problems in our children, it is not certain that medication has ever been the right way to handle it. The medical “disease” model is one approach to understanding these behaviors, but there are others, including a hastily discarded psychodynamic model that had a good record of effective symptom relief. Alternative, less invasive treatments, too, like nutritional treatments, early intervention, and teacher and parent training programs were found to be at least as effective as medication in long-term reduction of a variety of symptoms (of ADHD, The MTA Cooperative Group 1999).
Nevertheless, the medical-pharmaceutical alliance has largely shrugged off other approaches and scoffed at the potential for conflicts of interest and continues to medicate children in ever-increasing numbers. With the proportion of diagnosed kids growing every month, it may be time to take another look at the practice and soberly reflect on whether we want to continue down this path. In that spirit, it is not unreasonable to ask whether this exponential expansion in medicating children has another explanation altogether. What if children are the same as they always were? After all, virtually every symptom now thought of as diagnostic was once an aspect of temperament or character. We may not have liked it when a child was sluggish, hyperactive, moody, fragile, or pestering, but we didn’t ask his parents to medicate him with powerful chemicals either. What if there is no such thing as mental illness in children (except the small, chronic, often neurological minority we once recognized)? What if it is only our perception of childhood that has changed? To answer this, we must look at our history and at our nature.
The human inclination to use psychoactive substances predates civilization. Alcohol has been found in late Stone Age jugs; beer may have been fermented before the invention of bread. Nicotine metabolites have been found in ancient human remains and in pipes in the Near East and Africa. Knowledge of Hul Gil, the “joy plant,” was passed from the Sumerians, in the fifth millennium b.c.e., to the Assyrians, then in serial order to the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Indians, then to the Portuguese who would introduce it to the Chinese, who grew it and traded it back to the Europeans. Hul Gil was the Sumerian name for the opium poppy. Before the Middle Ages, economies were established around opium, and wars were fought to protect avenues of supply.
With the modern science of chemistry in the nineteenth century, new synthetic substances were developed that shared many of the same desirable qualities as the more traditional sedatives and stimulants. The first modern drugs were barbiturates — a class of 2,500 sedative/hypnotics that were first synthesized in 1864. Barbiturates became very popular in the U.S. for depression and insomnia, especially after the temperance movement resulted in draconian anti-drug legislation (most notoriously Prohibition) just after World War I. But variety was limited and fears of death by convulsion and the Winthrop drug-scare kept barbiturates from more general distribution.
Stimulants, typically caffeine and nicotine, were already ubiquitous in the first half of the twentieth century, but more potent varieties would have to wait until amphetamines came into widespread use in the 1930s. Amphetamines were not widely known until the 1920s and 1930s when they were first used to treat asthma, hay fever, and the common cold. In 1932, the Benzedrine Inhaler was introduced to the market and was a huge over-the-counter success. With the introduction of Dexedrine in the form of small, cheap pills, amphetamines were prescribed for depression, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, motion sickness, night-blindness, obesity, narcolepsy, impotence, apathy, and, of course, hyperactivity in children.
Amphetamines came into still wider use during World War II, when they were given out freely to GIs for fatigue. When the GIs returned home, they brought their appetite for stimulants to their family physicians. By 1962, Americans were ingesting the equivalent of forty-three ten-milligram doses of amphetamine per person annually (according to FDA manufacturer surveys).
Still, in the 1950s, the family physician’s involvement in furnishing psychoactive medications for the treatment of primarily psychological complaints was largely sub rosa. It became far more widespread and notorious in the 1960s. There were two reasons for this. First, a new, safer class of sedative hypnotics, the benzodiazepines, including Librium and Valium, were an instant sensation, especially among housewives who called them “mothers’ helpers.” Second, amphetamines had finally been approved for use with children (their use up to that point had been “off-label,” meaning that they were prescribed despite the lack of FDA authorization).
Pharmaceutical companies, coincidentally, became more aggressive in marketing their products with the tremendous success of amphetamines. Valium was marketed directly to physicians and indirectly through a public relations campaign that implied that benzodiazepines offered sedative/hypnotic benefits without the risk of addiction or death from drug interactions or suicide. Within fifteen years of its introduction, 2.3 billion Valium pills were being sold annually in the U.S. (Sample 2005).
So, family physicians became society’s instruments: the suppliers of choice for legal mood-altering drugs. But medical practitioners required scientific authority to protect their reputations, and the public required a justification for its drug-seeking behavior. The pharmaceutical companies were quick to offer a pseudo scientific conjecture that satisfied both. They argued that neurochemical transmitters, only recently identified, were in fact the long sought after mediators of mood and activity. Psychological complaints, consequently, were a function of an imbalance of these neural chemicals that could be corrected with stimulants and sedatives (and later antidepressants and antipsychotics). While the assertion was pure fantasy without a shred of evidence, so little was known about the brain’s true actions that the artifice was tamely accepted. This would later prove devastating when children became the targets of pharmaceutical expansion.
With Ritalin’s FDA approval for the treatment of hyperactivity in children, the same marketing techniques that had been so successful with other drugs were applied to the new amphetamine. Pharmaceutical companies had a vested interest in the increase in sales; they spared no expense in convincing physicians to prescribe them. Cash payments, stock options, paid junkets, no-work consultancies, and other inducements encouraged physicians to relax their natural caution about medicating children. Parents also were targeted. For example, CIBA, the maker of Ritalin, made large direct payments to parents’ support groups like CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) (The Merrow Report 1995). To increase the acceptance of stimulants, drug companies paid researchers to publish favorable articles on the effectiveness of stimulant treatments. They also endowed chairs and paid for the establishment of clinics in influential medical schools, particularly ones associated with universities of international reputation. By the mid 1970s, more than half a million children had already been medicated primarily for hyperactivity.
The brand of psychiatry that became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s did not have its roots in notions of normal behavior or personality theory; it grew out of the concrete, atheoretical treatment style used in clinics and institutions for the profoundly disturbed. German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, not Freud, was the God of mental hospitals, and pharmaceuticals were the panacea. So the whole underlying notion of psychiatric treatment, diagnosis, and disease changed. Psychiatry, which had straddled psychology and medicine for a hundred years, abruptly abandoned psychology for a comfortable sinecure within its traditional parent discipline. The change was profound.
People seeking treatment were no longer clients, they were patients. Their complaints were no longer suggestive of a complex mental organization, they were symptoms of a disease. Patients were not active participants in a collaborative treatment, they were passive recipients of symptom-reducing substances. Mental disturbances were no longer caused by unique combinations of personality, character, disposition, and upbringing, they were attributed to pre-birth anomalies that caused vague chemical imbalances. Cures were no longer anticipated or sought; mental disorders were inherited illnesses, like birth defects, that could not be cured except by some future magic, genetic bullet. All that could be done was to treat symptoms chemically, and this was being done with astonishing ease and regularity.
In many ways, children are the ideal patients for drugs. By nature, they are often passive and compliant when told by a parent to take a pill. Children are also generally optimistic and less likely to balk at treatment than adults. Even if they are inclined to complain, the parent is a ready intermediary between the physician and the patient. Parents are willing to participate in the enforcement of treatments once they have justified them in their own minds and, unlike adults, many kids do not have the luxury of discontinuing an unpleasant medication. Children are additionally not aware of how they ought to feel. They adjust to the drugs’ effects as if they are natural and are more tolerant of side effects than adults. Pharmaceutical companies recognized these assets and soon were targeting new drugs specifically at children.
But third-party insurance providers balked at the surge in costs for treatment of previously unknown, psychological syndromes, especially since unwanted drug effects were making some cases complicated and expensive. Medicine’s growing prosperity as the purveyor of treatments for mental disorders was threatened, and the industry’s response was predictable. Psychiatry found that it could meet insurance company requirements by simplifying diagnoses, reducing identification to the mere appearance of certain symptoms. By 1980, they had published all new standards.
Lost in the process was the fact that the redefined diagnoses (and a host of new additions) failed to meet minimal standards of falsifiability and differentiability. This meant that the diagnoses could never be disproved and that they could not be indisputably distinguished from one another. The new disorders were also defined as lists of symptoms from which a physician could check off a certain number of hits like a Chinese menu, which led to reification, an egregious scientific impropriety. Insurers, however, with their exceptions undermined and under pressure from parents and physicians, eventually withdrew their objections. From that moment on, the treatment of children with powerful psychotropic medications grew unchecked.
As new psychotropics became available, their uses were quickly extended to children despite, in many cases, indications that the drugs were intended for use with adults only. New antipsychotics, the atypicals, were synthesized and marketed beginning in the 1970s. Subsequently, a new class of antidepressants like Prozac and Zoloft was introduced. These drugs were added to the catalogue of childhood drug treatments with an astonishing casualness even as stimulant treatment for hyperactivity continued to burgeon.
In 1980, hyperactivity, which had been imprudently named “minimal brain dysfunction” in the 1960s, was renamed Attention Deficit Disorder in order to be more politic, but there was an unintended consequence of the move. Parents and teachers, familiar with the name but not always with the symptoms, frequently misidentified children who were shy, slow, or sad (introverted rather than inattentive) as suffering from ADD. Rather than correct the mistake, though, some enterprising physicians responded by prescribing the same drug for the opposite symptoms. This was justified on the grounds that stimulants, which were being offered because they slowed down hyperactive children, might very well have the predicted effect of speeding up under-active kids. In this way, a whole new population of children became eligible for medication. Later, the authors of DSM-III memorialized this practice by renaming ADD again, this time as ADHD, and redefining ADD as inattention. Psychiatry had reached a new level: they were now willing to invent an illness to justify a treatment. It would not be the last time this was done.
In the last twenty years, a new, more disturbing trend has become popular: the re-branding of legacy forms of mental disturbance as broad categories of childhood illness. Manic depressive illness and infantile autism, two previously rare disorders, were redefined through this process as “spectrum” illnesses with loosened criteria and symptom lists that cover a wide range of previously normal behavior. With this slim justification in place, more than a million children have been treated with psychotropics for bipolar disorder and another 200,000 for autism. A recent article in this magazine “The Bipolar Bamboozle” (Flora and Bobby 2008) illuminates how and why an illness that once occurred twice in every 100,000 Americans, has been recast as an epidemic affecting millions.
To overwhelmed parents, drugs solve a whole host of ancillary problems. The relatively low cost (at least in out-of-pocket dollars) and the small commitment of time for drug treatments make them attractive to parents who are already stretched thin by work and home life. Those whose confidence is shaken by indications that their children are “out of control” or “unruly” or “disturbed” are soothed by the seeming inevitability of an inherited disease that is shared by so many others. Rather than blaming themselves for being poor home managers, guardians with insufficient skills, or neglectful caretakers, parents can find comfort in the thought that their child, through no fault of theirs, has succumbed to a modern and widely accepted scourge. A psychiatric diagnosis also works well as an authoritative response to demands made by teachers and school administrators to address their child’s “problems.”
Once a medical illness has been identified, all unwanted behavior becomes fruit of the same tree. Even the children themselves are often at first relieved that their asocial or antisocial impulses reflect an underlying disease and not some flaw in their characters or personalities.
Conclusions In the last analysis, childhood has been thoroughly and effectively redefined. Character and temperament have been largely removed from the vocabulary of human personality. Virtually every single undesirable impulse of children has taken on pathological proportions and diagnostic significance. Yet, if the psychiatric community is wrong in their theories and hypotheses, then a generation of parents has been deluded while millions of children have been sentenced to a lifetime of ingesting powerful and dangerous drugs.
Considering the enormous benefits reaped by the medical community, it is no surprise that critics have argued that the whole enterprise is a cynical, reckless artifice crafted to unfairly enrich them. Even though this is undoubtedly not true, physicians and pharmaceutical companies must answer for the rush to medicate our most vulnerable citizens based on little evidence, a weak theoretical model, and an antiquated and repudiated philosophy. For its part, the scientific community must answer for its timidity in challenging treatments made in the absence of clinical observation and justified by research of insufficient rigor performed by professionals and institutions whose objectivity is clearly in question, because their own interests are materially entwined in their findings.
It should hardly be necessary to remind physicians that even if their diagnoses are real, they are still admonished by Galen’s dictum Primum non nocere, or “first, do no harm.” If with no other population, this ought to be our standard when dealing with children. Yet we have chosen the most invasive, destructive, and potentially lethal treatment imaginable while rejecting other options that show great promise of being at least as effective and far safer. But these other methods are more expensive, more complicated, and more time-consuming, and thus far, we have not proved willing to bear the cost. Instead, we have jumped at a discounted treatment, a soft-drink-machine cure: easy, cheap, fast, and putatively scientific. Sadly, the difference in price is now being paid by eight million children.
Mental illness is a fact of life, and it is naïve to imagine that there are not seriously disturbed children in every neighborhood and school. What is more, in the straitened economy of child rearing and education, medication may be the most efficient and cost effective treatment for some of these children. Nevertheless, to medicate not just the neediest, most complicated cases but one child in every ten, despite the availability of less destructive treatments and regardless of doubtful science, is a tragedy of epic proportions.
What we all have to fear, at long last, is not having been wrong but having done wrong. That will be judged in a court of a different sort. Instead of humility, we continue to feed drugs to our children with blithe indifference. Even when a child’s mind is truly disturbed (and our standards need to be revised drastically on this score), a treatment model that intends to chemically palliate and manage ought to be our last resort, not our first option. How many more children need to be sacrificed for us to see the harm in expediency, greed, and plain ignorance?
Schafer Autism Review
http://www.sarnet.org/lib/todaySAR.htm

The Psychology & Physiology of Change… The Brainwashing of the West

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

The Psychology & Physiology of Change…
Rima E. Laibow, MD
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Natural Solutions Foundation
Medical Director

We all learned that Pavlov taught his dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell which they learned to associate with the appearance of food. But Pavlov taught us – and the masters of mass deception and control – much more than that.

Born in Russia on September 14, 1849, Pavlov, who died in 1936, was so important to Russia’s dictator, Joseph Stalin, that Stalin allowed him to rant and inveigh against the Soviet State without coming to harm. Not many other people escaped the Gulag for the things that Pavlov said about the State and about Stalin. There was a reason.

What did he offer to the Soviet dictatorship which was so important? Not his 1904 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, not his considerable work on the physiology of digestion and the nature of saliva.

No, the contribution which made him so valuable to the State was to establish the scientific basis of brainwashing, allowing ordinary persons to become so altered in their minds and hearts that they would subscribe to absurd, illogical beliefs. Better yet, from the State’s point of view, these absurd beliefs (“We have the best health care system in the world!”, “Our leaders know best and are protecting us.”, “The FDA and USDA can regulate food safely”, “Monsanto ‘s dominance of the food supply does not impact me.” “Despite his appointments of old ‘oparatchniks’ and globalists, Obama really offers us new hope so we should trust him.”) which, once implanted, were nearly impossible to extinguish. And, once implanted, the torturing experimenter (in the case of Pavlov’s dogs) became the object of affection and adoration. That adoration was also nearly impossible to extinguish.

By studying “Transmarginal Inhibition (TMI), which is simply nothing other than the the body’s natural tendency to shut down thought and action completely when exposed to overwhelming stress (including illness), drugs or pain, Pavlov showed how everyone, no matter what their basic temperamental type, could be forced to respond to that stress the same way, He found that individuals with different temperaments would respond on a different time table, but, unless certain mental characteristics were present, all would succumb to brainwashing and loose the ability to resist the ideas introduced to control them.

Pavlov noted that, for him, “that the most basic inherited difference. .. was [not whether but – REL] how soon [individuals of different temperaments] reached this shutdown point and that the quick-to-shut-down have a fundamentally different type of nervous system.” Rokhin, L, Pavlov, I & Popov, Y. (1963) Psychopathology and Psychiatry, Foreign Languages Publication House: Moscow.

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine brought me a book that he thought I would enjoy, Battle for the Mind, William Sargant, first published in 1957, recently republished in 1997. He was more right than he knew. I had found it remarkably interesting when I read it at the time of its first publication, and I found it even more fascinating this time. But on second reading, it was rather horrifyingly appropriate as a paradigm for what is going on in our world today: People who “should” and do “know better” are apathetic, exhausted, complacent, compliant and paralyzed.

Information on the outrages against our health and our freedom is out there. Information on the “False Flag” events of 9/11 is out there. Information on what Chemtrails are and what they are doing to us is out there. Information on the disastrous impact of GMOs, the National Animal Identification System, Conflicts of Interest in FDA, USDA and other government agencies is out there.

Information on the false science called “Virology” and the deadly, literally deadly, impact of drugs, including psychiatric drugs, is out there. Information on the raids on small, ethical supplements companies is out there. Information on the deadly impact of Codex – the under nutrition and toxicity of which will certainly kill billions of people by design – is out there. I could go on and on and on but you already see the impact: you surely get the point: fear mingled with numb helplessness, paralysis through fear and a sense of isolation, being smaller than the problem and not knowing where to turn first.

This is precisely how Pavlov’s dogs were brainwashed and broken. It is also how the great revivalists of the 18th and 19th and 20th century, including Hitler, controlled and shaped the experience of their converts – stimulation, fear, guilt, helplessness and the dizzying madness of the crowd to carry them along to complete obedience, passivity and affiliation.

Consider: Pavlov showed that:

* Every person has a breaking point, after which everyone would become part of the new psychological order and affiliate with the abusers, showing trust, affection and gratitude toward them
* Strong mingled emotions, especially those of fear and helplessness, would lead to the breaking point sooner rather than later
* Repeated, conflicting instructions or requirements lead to physical and psychological paralysis, hastening the breaking point
* Obedience and affiliation are contagious so that group think quickly and effectively replaces individual thought
* Illness, under nutrition, drugs, glandular trauma or disease all make reaching the breaking point easier and faster.

How does this apply to us? Very well. Recall that in July, 1950 a medical directive was issued in Russia which said that all medicine should be reorganized along Pavlovian lines to make the control of the populace that much easier. All news was controlled. All entertainment was controlled and all contact with real information was strictly prohibited.

Now consider us. We are perhaps the most physically ill “developed” nation in the world. We have a wretched, manipulated, scandalously non-scientific and profitable “illness care system”. We are on drugs for conditions prevented and cured by healthy food and healthy life styles: heart disease, diabetes, obesity, immune failure (including cancer) and auto immune disease, depression, obsessive compulsive, bi-polar and other disorders supposedly caused by disordered brain function. 95% of the world’s Ritalin, a drug so addictive and toxic that the World Health Organization has called for its global ban, is prescribed to US kids. The ever increasing burden of toxins injected into us as vaccines damages our immune and nervous systems at increasing, tragic rates.

Zyprexa, Paxil, Neurontin and a host of other drugs are dangerous, have no real curative impact, but poison our brain function and make us both toxic and suggestible. So does the increasingly widely used barbaric – and totally unjustified – ElectroConvulsive Therapy (ECT).

The media appears to me to be designed to function as a WMD, a “Weapon of Mass Deception” with a dizzying and confusing, manufactured news and election hype, bloody snippets of structured deception, wildly over sexed, violent “entertainment” wearing out discrimination and leading to a state of helpless paralysis precisely like the “Transmarginal Inhibition” state reached by people and dogs ready to shed their reason for brainwashed ideas. Remember, once shed, these brainwashed ideas are nearly impossible to remove.

Put that together with the neurological toxicity of fluoride, the poison that was introduced by Stalin’s scientists into the political prisoner’s water in the Gulags to make them tractable, complacent and unable to mount any kind of psychological, and therefore physical, resistance, and you have a pretty good description of the fatigue, irrational ideas and paradoxical affiliation with the aggressor that we see in the US today when we look around and ask why people are not making huge changes despite the fact that the knowledge is there.

But then the question arises, “How does one effectively resist brainwashing and is it true that eventually everyone breaks down?”

Joan of Arc was never tortured by the Holy Inquisition, but she “confessed”, none the less, to crimes that she did not commit. Why? She was taken to the dungeon where the instruments of torture were shown to her. After letting her take it all in, she was advised to “make a true answer to her crimes” in order to spare herself the horror of torture since she would ultimately confess and be burned anyway.

Is that so different from the pictures of the foreign-troop-staffed “detention centers” all over the internet and the shadow of the FEMA cars with their shackles? Is that so different from the specter of police brutality, homelessness or imprisonment among the largest prison population in the world if we raise our voices in protest about what is happening to our society, our food, our rights?

Both animals and people who will not cooperate with the experimenter or manipulator have a much better chance of resisting brain washing. Sargant noted that Pavlov had learned “When a dog sullenly refuses to pay any attention to the flashing lights and other food signals intended for his conditioning, his brain remains unaffected.” He goes on to note that any degree of cooperation leads to uncertainty and breakdown but that “the thing they [would-be brainwashers] seemed to dislike was a cold, dignified sort of air, rather expressing a certain amount of contempt for everything….

The degree of psychological ‘cooperation ‘ or ‘transference’ that can be established between the police examiner and the citizen under questioning, or the preacher and his congregation, or the political speaker and his audience, is vital to the problem [of how soon brainwavshing can be accomplished – REL]. Whoever can be roused either to fear or anger by politician, priest or policeman, is more easily led to accept the desired pattern of ‘co-operation’, even thought this may violate his normal judgment. The obstacles that the religious or political proselytizer cannot overcome are … detached, controlled and continued amusement on the part of the subject at the efforts being made to break him down, win him over, or tempt him into argument. The safety of the free world seems therefore to lie in a cultivation not only of outrage, moral virtue and logic, but of humor: humor which produces the well-balanced state in which emotional excel is laughed at as ugly and wasteful.”

I would add that the future of the free world, and the world of freedoms that we need, lies additionally in the cultivation of the realistic perception of how many we are, how powerful our conjoined voices are together and how weak, although well funded and well-placed, the other side is.

Over and over they come at us, wearing us down. Over and over we push back and they back off. Through personal attack, through lies, innuendoes, disinformation, illegal acts and dishonorable ones, they come at us because of our knowledge, and our ability to see through the lies (“Mercury is good for kids and does not cause autism”, “Herd immunity is real and you are endangering people who are already immunized if you are not”, “GMO ‘food’ is harmless and will save the world”, Fluoride is good for your teeth and has no negative side effects”, “Chemtrails are not even real”, “Nano Silver is dangerous to you and the environment”, “Nutrients have no biological impact and you get all that you need from food” and so on and on and on) is the one profound threat that they cannot overcome with their bullying and their distortion.

When we are calm, informed, disdainful of their strategies and remain aware that we are not alone, we are so powerful that we can, literally, back the other side off.

If we become so fatigued that we are paralyzed and have no energy left to resist, then the other side, like Big Brother in George Orwell’s social control, Pavlovian nightmare, will have won.

Don’t ever lose heart! Just this month [January 2009] we’ve a great victory for Health Freedom by getting our issue into the Top Ten on Change.org (with 12,062 votes). Then we got Health Freedom on the “official” Obama transition site, Change.gov. Yes, Health Freedom went “toe to toe” with all the “hot-button” social issues and made the grade!

Read our congratulatory press release:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=1910

Copyright 2009

CDC and Congress – Secret Vaccine Mercury Report

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

Re-posted by Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
————————————

Tetrahedron, LLC – http://www.tetrahedron.org
Health Science Communications for People Around the World

NEWS RELEASE

Release: No. 18-Thimerosal-6
Date Mailed: Dec. 1, 2008

CDC and Congress Secrets Vaccine Mercury Report:
Experts Expose Lucrative American Genocide

Sandpoint, ID–Congressional investigators and federal health officials have
secreted a report prepared by experts proving vaccine mercury is harming
children far worse than previously known. The “Thimerosal VSD Study: Phase I”
document was secreted in 2000, and subsequent congressional hearings and news
reports neglected it.

The study, conducted by scientists commissioned by the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC), shows statistically significant links between vaccine-injected
mercury and “neurological developmental disorders” including misery,
depression, and suicide. Additional links to autism were strongly suggested by
the data that heavily discourages the use of the drug Thimerosal containing
mercury used for vaccine sterility.

The official documents marked “CONFIDENTIAL . . . DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE” were
obtained by class action attorneys through Freedom of Information petitions
and posted this week on the Internet attached to a filmed commentary by public
health expert, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz. The iMovie is viewable on YouTube.

“This is an obvious vaccination genocide,” Dr. Horowitz said. He called it
“gross criminal negligence and murderous official malfeasance” that the report
was secreted by congressional investigators and public health protectors.
“These traitors have purposefully manipulated and impaired millions of
American children, and the economic burden of caring for their special needs
with be catastrophic.”

The VSD Study data was referenced in 2003 by researchers publishing in the
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons; then rebutted by the American
Academy of Pediatrics commissioned to establish vaccination schedules on
behalf of the drug industry. The rebuttal failed to note the VDS data had been
sequestered, then used its lacking availability to argue inadequacy of data
with which to condemn mercury as the cause of skyrocketing rates of autism.

Genocide is defined as the mass killing or enslaving of people for profit,
politics, and/or ideology. All motives are evident in this vaccination
atrocity with powerful drug lobbyists conspiring with corrupt health officials
to profit by injecting children with mercury. This is why most health workers
and school administrators still believe this practice is safe rather than
dangerous and damaging.

Dr. Horowitz, a Harvard-trained humanitarian knighted for his work in vaccine
risk awareness and consumer protection has asked CDC officials on several
occasions to explain the suppression of vaccine science and side-effects
without a response. Last year he released a documentary film, In Lies We
Trust, to cite to the government’s immunization agenda and ongoing televised
propaganda as “genocidal.”

Regarding another vaccine-administered genocide, President-elect Barack
Obama’s long time minister and spiritual counsel, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, told
reporters at the National Press Club, “I believe our government is capable
of doing anything.” He recommended Dr. Horowitz’s book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS
& Ebola–Nature, Accident or Intentional?, (Tetrahedron Press;
1-888-508-4787 ) as best proving HIV/AIDS came from chimpanzees that were
used by American biological weapons developers to produce the hepatitis B
vaccines given to New York homosexuals and African villagers in 1972 as
reported by CNN.

“Yes, it is genocide,” said Ingri Cassel, regarding the secreted Thimerosal
study. The director of Vaccination Liberation Organization has researched
and written on the mercury accumulating in children from vaccinations for
nearly 20 years. “The government has always been involved with Big Pharma; so
this suppression of scientific evidence condemning vaccine mercury and the
child abusers in government and industry does not surprise me.”

The officials who knew of this study, yet neglected or suppressed its
reporting should be indicted under federal organized crime (RICO) laws for
“conspiring with the vaccine industry to commit mass murder; condemning
children to suffer serious illnesses managed pharmaceutically capriciously and
terminally for profit,” Dr. Horowitz commented.

Health officials have consistently promoted vaccines as central to their ‘War
on Preventable Diseases,’ luring families with children and elders into
serious depression and drug addictions restricting life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Millions of people now must cope with vaccine
injuries–maladies ranging from eczema and allergies to crippling autoimmune
diseases, psychopathologies, and certain cancers.

Given these revelations about Thimerosal, the mind-set of health officials and
vaccine administrators is reminiscent of last century’s doctors who
recommended cigarettes for health. The secreting of cigarette smoking risks
and physical damages done is much like this suppressed “VSD Study:” neglected
by those licensed-to-kill pushing vaccines instead of tobacco.

-end-

NOTE TO JOURNALISTS: For interviews with Dr. Horowitz, please call Jackie
Lindenbach at 1-208-265-8065 . To view “The CDC’s VACCINATION GENOCIDE”
search Google or YouTube.

Flu Vaccine Mandate Examined – and Found Wanting

Saturday, November 8th, 2008

Please pass this article along to anyone who thinks that vaccinations, especially mandated vaccinations, are good sense, good health and good public policy.

To learn more, click here (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=699) to order your highly informative Vaccine Exemption eBook.

Vaccines are profitable only when used in large populations. But are they safe? And are they justified either by disease reduction or by in-use cost? The sober answers may surprise you if you are an advocate of vaccines.

Please share this careful analysis of the current vaccination mandates and practices in use nationally (and here examined through the lens of New Jersey vaccine policy, including opposition to conscientious exemption by parents) with everyone who is a vaccine adherent or supporter. Whether you share this important document with your child’s pediatrician, other parents, your local civil rights lawyer or others currently supportive of the unfounded myths that vaccines are safe and effective, please urge them to read this document carefully. Unlike the unthinking parroting or slick “junk science” praise of the supposed merits of vaccines and vaccinations, this article takes the allegations of safety and social use for vaccines on point by point and examines each of them using science and logic, not emotion, to look at each of the points raised by the Department of Health and Senior Services in New Jersey to justify their staunch opposition to allowing exemptions to vaccination on the basis of conscience.

The result is a very important article Dr Dr. King, a consultant who examines pharmaceutical options and evaluates them. Please reproduce it and send it electronically or in hard copy to everyone concerned, either pro, con or undecided, with the vaccination debate, including State legislators and Federal ones as well. And remember, these issues are NOT just about children. They are about vaccines and freedom concerning each and every one of us. Remember that on July 23 and 24, 2008, respectively, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security announced that their intention was to vaccinate every man, woman and child in America against Avian Flu, “…starting with those who want it.”

Vaccines and freedom can only co-exist if their use is totally voluntary. Anyone determining what you -or your children MUST – allow to be introduced into your body is abridging your freedom so deeply that you literally have none since if your autonomy does not include what happens to your body, your autonomy no longer exists.

The article is a detailed review of the response of the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) to the possibility of a law offering conscientious exemption opportunities to parents and others who do not wish to participate in vaccine programs.

The Natural Solutions Foundation takes the issue of vaccine safety very seriously. And it takes the issue of health freedom and vaccine autonomy equally seriously. We know you do, too. If you find the following article useful, please donate (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) generously to help us keep on keeping health freedom free.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv

‘The Position of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJ DHSS) on: The Pending New Jersey Conscientious Exemption Legislation’ (NOTE: ALL RESPONSES OF THE DHSS ARE IN BOLD FACE IN THE FOLLOWING REVIEW OF THEIR POSITION ON THIS LEGISLATION – REL)

**************************************************************************************************

Should anyone reading this draft find any significant factual error for which you have published substantiating documents, please submit that information to this reviewer so that he can improve his understanding of factual reality and appropriately revise his views and the final review.

A Draft Response To: “The Position of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJ DHHS) on: The Pending New Jersey Conscientious Exemption Legislation”, as transcribed by the reviewer, Paul G. King, PhD, on 5 November 2008 ….

This response to the NJ DHSS’ position on NJ S1071 addresses the “genuine concern” side for the safety and effectiveness of NJ’s mandated vaccination program as well as the observed impacts of the conscientious and/or philosophical exemptions on the observed background rates for some vaccine-covered diseases in the 18 states with such exemptions as compared to the USA as a whole.

Thus, this response presents factual information that exposes the weaknesses in, and/or the apparent problems with, the broad generalizations made in the NJ DHSS’ position statement.

Lest any take this reviewer’s remarks as those of someone who is anti-vaccine, this reviewer again reiterates that, given the scientific information available to him, he currently supports national vaccination programs for those vaccines that have truly been proven to be both generally safe and at least societaly cost-effective, provided the individual parent’s constitutional right to “due process of law” is not abridged or ignored.

Having made his position as an advocate for:
a. Banning the use of mercury compounds in medicine to safen vaccines,
b. Vaccine safety, and
c. Societaly cost-effective vaccines
clear, this reviewer will now assess the statements made in: “The Position of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJ DHHS) on: The Pending New Jersey Conscientious Exemption Legislation”.

S1071 – Conscientious Exemption to Mandatory Immunizations

The New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services is opposed to S1071, which provides for a conscientious exemption to mandatory immunizations.

Obviously, the NJ DHHS has made it clear that it “is opposed to S1071” and A260, legislation to provide New Jersey citizens with a limited conscientious exemption to New Jersey’s mandated vaccination programs.


Public health care and medical communities consider vaccinations one of the most important measures in improving the public’s health over the past 100 years.

While there is no dispute that “(p)ublic health care and medical communities consider vaccinations one of the most important measures in improving the public’s health over the past 100 years”, the facts are that, in the industrialized world, vaccines have been a <10% factor in the reduction of the common contagious diseases (where sanitation, hygiene, clean water, safe food, adequate housing account for 90-plus % of the decrease in childhood diseases before vaccines were mandated). Moreover, in less developed countries (e.g., India), repeated vaccination campaigns for diseases such as polio have failed to provide the reductions in polio cases and/or the "elimination" of polio seen in the USA and other industrialized nations). Currently, the evidence in today's USA is: our current vaccination programs have succeeded in reducing several acute childhood diseases and, increasingly, some other diseases - at the cost of creating epidemics of chronic disorders, syndromes and diseases that have a strong autoimmune/immune-system-disruption component (e.g., asthma, type 2 diabetes, childhood MS, neurodevelopmental disorders, and food allergies). Yet most of those "(p)ublic health care and medical communities" continue to: · Deny the preceding realities, · Actively suppress the scientific research establishing these realities, · Attack the character and credibility of those independent scientists who dare to publish the truth about these health realities, and · Publish articles: a) which are based on "junk" science, b) which use knowingly "perverted" study de- signs, or c) which rely upon easily manipulated epidemiological reviews where independent access to the data sets used is blocked or the data sets are "lost" - preventing independent researchers from verifying the soundness of the: · Data sets evaluated, · Study designs used, · Results reported, and/or · Conclusions drawn from those findings. New Jersey has historically only permitted religious and medical exemptions to school entry vaccine requirements.

Here, the NJ DHSS states what has been the New Jersey history without addressing the reality that an exemption for a “sincerely held religious belief” is: a) in essence, a “conscientious” exemption for those who adhere to any religion and b), therefore, an exemption that discriminates against those who are religiously agnostic or atheists – a probable violation of the equal protection guarantees for all Americans.

Were the State of New Jersey to enact this statute, which provides a general conscientious (philosophical) exemption, this statute would end this seemingly illegal form of discrimination.

Broad exemptions to mandatory vaccination weaken the entire compliance and enforcement structure mandating vaccines for school entry and continued attendance.

First, taking this statement at face value, the NJ DHSS is advocating for a position that borders on a
health dictatorship where the “health police” and not the constitutions of the United States of America (USA) and the State of New Jersey control the lives of New Jersey citizens.

Thus, the NJ DHSS appears to be advocating for a society in which the rights to bodily integrity and
informed consent are either non-existent or trampled under by the health care establishment for a “greater good” that essentially benefits the healthcare establishment and ignores the physical, financial, mental and spiritual health of the public that it claims to protect.

Given the wording used, “weaken the entire compliance and enforcement structure”, the NJ DHSS is apparently more concerned about strengthening their control over our children than it is about the overall and individual health of our children.

Second, in other “democratic” nations (e.g., Canada, UK, and Japan), high rates of vaccination compliance have been attained and, provided less-safe vaccines have not been knowingly supplied (e.g., the less expensive MMR vaccine the UK used even though it contained the dangerous Urabe strain of the mumps), these rates have been maintained without any need for general mandatory vaccination programs for their citizens.

Moreover, the flexible Japanese approach to vaccines and vaccination programs has been so successful that the first-year infant mortality rate (IMR) in Japan (2.80 deaths per 1,000 “live births” [all values are CIA 2008 estimates]) is less than half the IMR in the USA (6.30 deaths per 1,000 live births [IMR-UK = 4.93; IMR-Canada = 6.08]), and significantly, chronic childhood disorders and diseases (e.g., childhood asthma, childhood type 2 diabetes, childhood obesity) are not at the epidemic levels seen in the USA.

In fact, on average, the Japanese life expectancy is 4 years longer than the average life expectancy in the USA and, unlike the USA, the life expectancy in Japan is not beginning to decline.

Finally, in the 18 states with a general conscientious/philosophical exemption to vaccination, there is no substantiation of the claim that having “(b)road exemptions to mandatory vaccination” has greatly reduced vaccine uptake rates or led to higher average background disease rates for those vaccines that are apparently safe and at least societally cost-effective in actuality.

If vaccination requirements can be waived by a parent, one may argue that this dissolution sets precedent for other mandatory health screenings (e.g., hearing, lead, tuberculosis) or services to become optional.

In a democratic society that recognizes bodily integrity as a fundamental right, there should be no mandatory health screenings or services unless these is a compelling actual “communicable disease outbreak” reason for such and, even in such instances (e.g., a TB outbreak in a school), the parents should be given the choice of a non-invasive alternative (e.g., a chest x-ray for the TB example) or a definitive blood test (and, in this example, the cheap but problematic and, for some, medically dangerous TINE test should be banned).

Currently, the religious exemption already provides a means by which “vaccination requirements can be waived by a parent”.

Finally, since when is a person’s exercise of any granted legal option a “dissolution” of anything?

No highly or densely populated states in the Eastern United States permit a philosophical exemption to school vaccination requirements.

First, the states with an children-of-all-ages conscientious (philosophical) exemption are (in alphabetical order): 1) Arizona, 2) Arkansas, 3) California, 4) Colorado, 5) Idaho, 6) Louisiana, 7) Maine, 8) Michigan, 9) Minnesota, 10) New Mexico, 11) North Dakota, 12) Ohio, 13) Oklahoma, 14) Texas, 15) Utah, 16) Vermont, 17) Washington State, and 18) Wisconsin.

In addition, Missouri and Nebraska have a conscientious/philosophical exemption for child care entry only.

Though only 5 states [Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Vermont and Wisconsin] of the 18 provide a full “philosophical exemption” in the Eastern United States, one could argue that one of them, Ohio [11.5 million], which has a population one-third larger than New Jersey [8.7 million], is a “highly or densely populated state”.

However, California, the most populous state [36.5 million], and Texas, the second most populous state [23.9 million], both have philosophical exemptions with no evidence of a significant excess of disease cases in children for those vaccines that are vaccines against the disease (e.g., measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis B) or for vaccines against bacterial toxoids and/or toxins (the diphtheria and tetanus toxoid components and the toxic substances in the acellular pertussis preparations) in the diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus combination vaccines (see Table “1” in the published article or the abbreviated version that follows).

[Note: The cases data was taken from the Florida Department of Health’s April 2008 “Task Force Requests to the Florida Department of Health” report to the Florida Governor’s Task Force on
Autism Spectrum Disorders. The population numbers used are based on the published population data at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population.]

Abbreviated Table “1”: 2006 Comparison of Vaccine-Preventable Disease Cases, Among States with Philosophical Exemptions for Immunizations, Florida andU.S.

State Measles* Mumps** Rubella*
or USA (incidence/ 100,000) (incidence/ 100,000) (incidence/ 100,000)

——— ———————– ———————- ———————-
Arizona 0 40 (0.63) 0

Arkansas 0 8 (0.28) 0

California 6 (0.016) 31 (0.085) 1 (0.003)
[12% of US]
%of US Total 10.9 0.471 9.09
[% of 12%] [90.9] [3.93] [75.8]

Colorado 1 (0.021) 51 (1.04) 0

Idaho 0 7 (0.47) 0

Louisiana 0 3 (0.07) 0

Maine 0 0 0

Michigan 1 (0.001) 84 (0.079) 1 (0.001)

Minnesota 1 (0.019) 180 (3.46) 0

New Mexico 0 3 (0.152) 0

North Dakota 0 14 (2.19) 0

Ohio 0 45 (0.392) 0

Oklahoma 0 10 (0.276) 0

Texas 0 58 (0.243) 0
[7.8% of US]
% of US total 0.88%
[% of 7.8%] [11.4%]

Utah 0 5 (0.189) 0

Vermont 0 0 0

Washington 2 (0.031) 42 (0.649) 0
State

Wisconsin 0 842 (15.0) 0

Total of 18
states 11 (0.008) 1,423 (1.09) 2 (0.0015)
% of US Total 20.0 21.6 18.2
[% of 36%] [55.6] [60.0] [50.5]
{% of 42.5% {47.1} {50.8} {42.8}
est. pop % of the 18 states}

Florida 4 (0.022) 15 (0.082) 1 (0.005)
[6% of US]
% of US Total 7.3 0.23 9.1
[% of 6%] [122] [3.8] [152]

U.S. Total 55 (0.180) 6,584 (2.15) 11 (0.004)

* Confirmed Cases **Confirmed and Probable Cases

In contrast, Florida, the fourth most populous state and one that has no philosophical exemption, shows some evidence that not having a philosophical exemption has led to more than expected cases of measles and rubella cases but a less than expected mumps and pertussis cases (two diseases not well-controlled by the vaccines [the MMR and DTaP/Tdap vaccines] containing components for these two diseases).

Thus, for those diseases well-controlled by their vaccines and for which low levels of cases are still
being reported, it would seem that the states with “philosophical exemptions” have, on average, a lower disease incidence rate than: a) the overall average for the USA and b) the rate for Florida, the fourth most populous state.

Thus, the two most populous states as well as 16 other states have a conscientious/philosophical exemption and less than expected disease levels for those diseases that are well-controlled by vaccines.

Therefore, based on the preceding realities, every state should have a conscientious/philosophical
exemption.

Moreover, like New Jersey, the citizens of New York, the third most populous state [19.3 million], are
also seeking legislation providing this exemption to its citizens.

Based on all of the preceding realities, the evidence favors having a “philosophical exemption” in New Jersey, the eleventh most populous state [8.7 million].

New Jersey has numerous characteristics that make it particularly vulnerable to vaccine-preventable disease, which include a high population density, past history of multiple vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks affecting children, a highly mobile population, high numbers of recently arrived immigrants, and its “corridor state” nature.

As long as there is good sanitation, hygiene (including personal hygiene and hot-water washing for soiled undergarments and bedding), clean air, clean water, and adequate nutrition and housing, none of the cited factors make New Jersey “particularly vulnerable to vaccine-preventable disease”.

When it comes to high population density, the much higher population density in Japan, a nation with less than half the infant mortality as the USA, clearly shows that this factor is not significant unless the aforementioned basics are compromised.

Since there is no post-vaccine-adoption history of any vaccine-preventable epidemic in New Jersey for any disease for which the current mandated vaccine is truly long-term protective, localized sporadic disease outbreaks are:
· A red herring or
· A clear indication that the available vaccines are
not in-use effective in some instances.

Since:
· There are other states, including California and Texas (the two most populous states) that have a
“philosophical exemption” and “a highly mobile population” and a “high numbers of recently arrived immigrants” (including much larger numbers of illegal immigrants),
· Three of these 18 states, Arizona, California, and Texas, are also conscientious/ philosophical exemption states that are also corridor states for the majority of illegal immigrants entering the USA,
and
· None of these states have overall disease rate averages (for those diseases that are truly vaccine-preventable diseases) that are significantly higher than the overall rates for the USA, all of these factors are “red herrings” in today’s USA.

Particularly in light of New Jersey’s special traits, the highest number of children possible must receive vaccines to protect them and others.

Given the data for the states that have conscientious/philosophical exemption and special factors similar to those raised in this NJ DHSS statement, the data do not:
· Support the NJ DHSS’ assertion that “the highest number of children possible must receive vaccines”,
or
· Provide evidence that the mandated vaccines “protect” the implicit children who receive these vaccines or the unidentified “others”.

Vaccines not only protect the child being vaccinated but also the general community and the most vulnerable individuals within the community, including those too young to be vaccinated, the elderly, the immunocompromised, and those who have medical contraindications to vaccination – this fact is well-documented in scientific literature.

The NJ DHSS’ unsupported assertion that “Vaccines not only protect the child being vaccinated but also the general community and the most vulnerable individuals within the community”, is at odds with the reality that inoculation of children with the currently recommended live-virus vaccine components (measles, mumps, rubella, herpes varicella zoster, 3 bioengineered strains of human influenza, and 5 strains of human-cow hybridized rotavirus or a human rotavirus) puts all of the uninoculated and unprotected individuals with whom these recent inoculees have contact at risk of contacting these viral diseases that those inoculated shed after they are inoculated.

For example, although the CDC asserts that all children become “immune” to the human rota virus by the time they are five years of age, the studies on the human-hybrid rota virus reported that up to one-third of “supposedly rota virus-immune” adults who come into contact with a child recently inoculated with this rota virus vaccine (Merck’s RotaTeq®) may contract a case of rota virus – a possibility that some parents have reported experiencing as an all-too-real reality.

Moreover, the use of vaccines that clearly do not protect the children inoculated (the influenza vaccines that offer no real protection to children under 2 years of age and marginal protection to children under 5 years of age) based on a claim that this practice will protect the elderly is not only not supported by the published science on the epidemiology of human influenza but also, if it were true, would amount to an abnormal society where, to “protect” the health of the elderly:
· Children are knowingly put at risk (see the influenza-vaccine-related adverse events, including death, seen for all influenza vaccine formulations, that are reported in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database) and
· The healthcare establishment supports the knowing mercury poisoning of children, which clearly occurs when Thimerosal-preserved influenza vaccines are given to children, pregnant women and nursing mothers and probably occurs when any Thimerosal-containing influenza vaccine is given to pregnant women and/or children because, though the safe dose for Thimerosal in any vaccine has never been established:
· Mercury poisoning has been established in young children who have been given toxic doses of
Thimerosal-preserved serums and/or vaccines, indirectly (in the womb) and directly (in early
childhood), and have subsequently been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder in the autism spectrum [1] where the mercury bolus doses from the serums and vaccines represent not less than
50% of the mercury dose received by an effected child from conception to age 3, and
· Persistent Thimerosal-derived mercury toxicity has been seen in monkeys [2] (and other mercury-sensitive animals [3]) given just the doses of Thimerosal or one of its ethyl mercury metabolites that, in some instances, mimicked the Thimerosal doses that children given Thimerosal-preserved vaccines at 2, 4 and 6 months would receive under the vaccination schedules recommended in the USA from 1999 through 2001.

Finally, for influenza, the epidemiological evidence is that human influenza viruses are neither highly contagious [4] nor, as discussed in the same reference, easily transmitted from those infected to those who are well – even in close communal groups, including families.

[1] a. Geier DA, Kern JK, Garver CR, Adams JB, Audhya T, Nataf R, Geier MR. Biomarkers of environmental toxicity and susceptibility in autism. J Neurol Sci. 2008 Sep 24. [Epub ahead of print]
b. Geier DA, Mumper E, Gladfelter B, Coleman L, Geier MR. Neurodevelopmental disorders, maternal
Rh-negativity, and Rho(D) immune globulins: a multi-center assessment. Neuro Endocrinol Lett.
2008 Apr; 29(2): 272-280.
c. Nataf R, et al. Poryphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: implications for environmental
toxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2006; 214: 99-108.
d. Geier DA, Geier MR. A prospective assessment of porphyrins in autistic disorders: a potential marker for heavy metal exposure Neurotox Res. 2006; 10: 57-64.
e. Young HA, Geier DA, Geier MR. Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. J Neurol Sci. 2008 Aug 15; 271(1-2): 110-118. Epub 2008 May 15.
[2] Burbacher TM, et al. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methyl-mercury or vaccines containing Thimerosal. Environ. Health Persp. 2005; 113(8): 1015-1021.
[3] a. Laurente J, Remuzgo F, Ávalos B, Chiquinta J, Ponce B, Avendaño R, Maya L. [Neurotoxic effects of thimerosal at vaccines doses on the encephalon and development in 7 days-old hamsters.] An Fac Med Lima 2007; 68(3): 222-237.
b. Shiraki H, Nagashima K. Essential Neuropathology of Alkylmercury Intoxication In Humans from the Acute to the Chronic Stage with Special Reference to Experimental Whole Body Autoradiographic Study Using Labeled Mercury Compounds. Neurotoxicology 1977; 1: 241-260.
c. Tryphonas L, Nielsen NO. Pathology of chronic alkylmercurial poisoning in swine,” Am J Veter.
Res. 1973; 34(3): 379-392.
d. Takahashi T, Kimura T, Sato Y, Shiraki H, Ukita T. Time-Dependent Distribution of 203Hg-Mercury Compounds in Rat and Monkey as studied by Whole Body Autoradiography. Eisei Kagaku [Japanese: J Hygienic Chem.] 1971; 17(2): 93-107.
[4] Cannell JJ, Zasloff M, Garland CF, Scragg R, Giovannucci E. On the epidemiology of influenza.
Virol J. 2008 Feb 25; 5: 29. [Among the issues this paper addresses, this recent electronically published review article reports the lack of high sick-to-well infectivity for human influenza.]

As an example, in a Journal of the American Medical Association study published in 2000, investigators found that children who did not receive measles and pertussis vaccines for philosophical or religious reasons were 22 times more likely to contract measles and 6 times more likely to get pertussis; also, schools with higher numbers of exempted children were associated with more outbreaks that had community wide-implications.

First, the referenced, but not cited, article’s text appears to be more self-serving propaganda than it is important information because the locations, time periods, and diseases chosen seem to have been knowingly chosen to result in the preordained outcomes that the study was “designed” to find.

Second, the locations in which the researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) chose to do this study (in some counties in Colorado) were areas with relatively small populations as compared to the population of the USA (some percentage of Colorado’s population that overall is only about 1% of the population of the USA) that were/are not representative of the population of the USA or the U.S. population’s overall risks of contracting “vaccine-preventable” diseases.

Though the NJ DHSS fails to cite the study reference, based on a search of “PubMeD”
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez), the abstract of the study apparently referenced states (with CAPITALIZATION added for emphasis):

“1: JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3145-50. Links Comment in:
JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3171-3.
JAMA. 2001 Mar 28;285(12):1573-4.
JAMA. 2001 Mar 28;285(12):1573; author reply 1574.

Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization. Feikin DR, Lezotte DC, Hamman RF, Salmon DA, Chen RT, Hoffman RE. Respiratory Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, MS-C23,
Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. drf0@cdc.gov

CONTEXT: The risk of vaccine-preventable diseases among children who have philosophical and religious exemptions from immunization has been understudied. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether personal exemption from immunization is associated with risk of measles and pertussis at individual and community levels. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based, RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY USING DATA COLLECTED on standardized forms REGARDING ALL REPORTED MEASLES AND PERTUSSIS CASES AMONG CHILDREN AGED 3 TO 18 YEARS IN COLORADO DURING 1987-1998.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risk of measles and pertussis among exemptors and vaccinated children; association between incidence rates among vaccinated children and frequency of exemptors in Colorado counties; association between school outbreaks and frequency of exemptors in schools; and risk associated with exposure to an exemptor in measles outbreaks. RESULTS: Exemptors were 22.2 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.9-31.1) more likely to acquire measles and 5.9 times (95% CI, 4.2-8.2) more likely to acquire pertussis than vaccinated children. AFTER ADJUSTING FOR CONFOUNDERS, THE FREQUENCY OF EXEMPTORS IN A COUNTY WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INCIDENCE RATE OF MEASLES (RELATIVE RISK [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) AND PERTUSSIS (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1) IN VACCINATED CHILDREN. Schools with pertussis outbreaks had more exemptors (mean, 4.3% of students) than schools without outbreaks (1.5% of students; P =.001). AT LEAST 11% OF VACCINATED CHILDREN IN MEASLES OUTBREAKS ACQUIRED INFECTION THROUGH CONTACT WITH AN EXEMPTOR. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of measles and pertussis is elevated in personal exemptors. Public health personnel should recognize the potential effect of exemptors in outbreaks in their communities, and parents should be made aware of the risks involved in not vaccinating their children.”

Apparently, since none were reported, there were no severe adverse outcomes in any group of children based on the reported 2006 data.

In addition, though this study did report these relative risks for disease as: “Exemptors were 22.2 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.9-31.1) more likely to acquire measles and 5.9 times (95% CI, 4.2-8.2) more likely to acquire pertussis than vaccinated children.” it also reported: “After adjusting for confounders, the frequency of exemptors in a county was associated with the incidence rate of measles (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) and pertussis (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1) in vaccinated children”, indicating that, after the confounding factors were removed, neither of these relative risks was statistically significant (requiring a RR of 2.0 or larger) and, because no other diseases were mentioned, there was no “exemption” effect for the other diseases covered by the MMR vaccine (mumps and rubella) or the DTaP vaccine (diphtheria and tetanus).

Though not mentioned by the NJ DHSS here, the most important fact in this article was: “At least 11% of vaccinated children in measles outbreaks acquired infection through contact with an exemptor” – indicating that, unlike having the measles once, the MMR vaccine is not effective in protecting all those given the MMR vaccine from subsequently contracting measles when exposed to the measles virus.

In the final analysis, there was/is really no statistically significant risk associated with exemptors (religious and medical) and, apparently, the CDC had/has no interest in conducting such studies in the more populous, densely populated, highly mobile, “corridor” states like New Jersey.

All vaccines currently licensed in the United States are safe and effective.

First, the NJ DHSS neither provides nor cites any studies that establish the validity of the preceding
statement.

Second, as cited in previous reviews [5], there is a large and growing body of evidence that some of the current FDA-licensed vaccines are neither truly population safe nor, in some cases, in-use effective even when the effectiveness criterion is loosened to only require that the vaccine be societally cost-effective including:

[5] These reviews are freely available for download from the “Documents” web page of the CoMeD Internet website: http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org/. For example, the most recent 2-part review, “A Draft Review of: ‘Florida Governor’ Task Force on Autism Spectrum Disorders- Task Force Requests to the Florida DoH’, Part 1 (17 October 2008; 68 pages)” and “A Draft Review of: ‘Florida Governor’ Task Force on Autism Spectrum Disorders- Task Force Requests to the Florida DoH’, Part 2 (17 October 2008; 77 pages)” [along with the report that was reviewed, “Florida’s Governor’s Task Force on Autism Spectrum Disorders – Task Force Requests to the Florida DoH (16 Sept. 2008; 49 pages)”], contains a detailed analysis of the current childhood vaccination programs that dispassionately assesses the in-use medical cost-effectiveness of the current vaccines and their associated vaccination programs.

The Current Recommended National Human Influenza Vaccination Program

Published studies have clearly established that the influenza vaccination program is not in-use effective in children, adults and the elderly for a variety of reasons.

Moreover, the majority (greater than 75 %) of the available doses contain a level of Thimerosal that has not been proven safe to administer to either children or adults.

Therefore:
· New Jersey’s mandate for vaccination of young children should be rescinded,
· The current recommended national program for influenza should be abandoned,
· The human influenza vaccines should be removed from the list of vaccines covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), and
· All petitions filed with the NVICP from the time the influenza vaccines were added to the list of compensable vaccines until 3 years after the vaccine was recognized to be not effective and removed from the national vaccination program should be automatically paid, with the government assessing the manufacturer of the putative causal human influenza vaccine for the costs of that compensation because the human influenza vaccines are not effective drugs.

The Current Recommended National Herpes Varicella Zoster Vaccination Program

Since:
· The recommendations for a national varicella vaccination program were based on an unfulfilled promise of marginal societal cost-effectiveness PROVIDED: a) one dose would produce lifetime protection, b) the vaccine was assumed to cause no serious side effects, and c) the vaccination program would not increase shingles cases,
· The CDC is now recommending 2 doses because one dose has failed to control “wild” chickenpox cases,
· Shingles cases in both children and adults have increased and
· The vaccine has not only the highest level of VAERS- reported adverse side effects of any single-component vaccine but has also been shown to cause serious conditions in some who are vaccinated, it is obvious that the chickenpox vaccination program is not societally cost effective.

Thus,
· The recommendation for inclusion of “varicella” (chickenpox) in the national vaccination program should be rescinded,
· New Jersey should remove it from its list of mandated vaccines for children,
· Varicella should be removed from the list of NVICP-covered vaccines, and
· All petitions filed with the NVICP from the time the varicella vaccine was added to the list of compensable vaccines until 3 years after the vaccine was recognized to be not societally cost-effective and removed from the national vaccination program should be automatically paid, with the government assessing the manufacturer of the varicella vaccines for the costs of that
compensation because, though all drugs, including vaccines, are required to be by U.S. law to be both safe and effective, the varicella vaccines are not effective.

The Current Recommended National Rotavirus Vaccination Program

Because:
· The current rota virus vaccination programs have not significantly reduced the risk of severe adverse
effects (intussusception, Kawasaki’s, and pneumonia) in the inoculees as compared to the unvaccinated,
· The vaccines are live virus vaccines that not only infect those inoculated but also, at a high rate,
those who come into contact with recent inoculees or their fecal waste and
· The costs of the vaccine and its administration greatly exceed the societal cost-effectiveness
level established in the 1990s even after correcting for inflation, it is obvious that the rota virus vaccination programs are not societally cost-effective in the USA.

Thus,
· The recommendation for inclusion of rotavirus in the national vaccination program should be rescinded and rota virus removed from the list of NVICP-covered vaccines,
· New Jersey should not add rotavirus to its list of mandated vaccines, and
· All petitions filed with the NVICP from the time the rota virus vaccine was added to the list of
compensable vaccines until 3 years after the vaccine was recognized to be not societally cost-effective and removed from the national vaccination program should be automatically paid, with
the government assessing the manufacturer of the offending rota virus for the costs of that compensation because, though required by law to be both safe and effective, the rota virus vaccines are clearly not in-use effective.

At best, all that the rota virus vaccines do is give clinical cases of the rota virus strains in the vaccines to those inoculated with no significant reduction in either the number or severity of cases of
rota virus compared to the unvaccinated population, even in the carefully contrived clinical trials where the lack of reduction in life-threatening outcomes in the vaccine arm over the unvaccinated arm was perversely turned into positive because, although some of those inoculated had these life-threatening side effects, the elevation in their level was not statistically significant.

Thus, the licensing and approval of the human-bovine rota virus vaccine rests on a knowing perversion of the reality that, to be effective, the vaccine should have produced a statistically significant reduction in the level of cases for these life-threatening adverse effects.

However, like the previous vaccine, Wyeth’s RotaShield®, the current live-virus rotavirus vaccines, Merck’s RotaTeq® and GlaxoSmithKline’s Rotarix® did not significantly reduce the incidence of the following life-threatening adverse outcomes:
· Intussusception (for either of these vaccines).
· Kawasiki’s [6] (for the RotaTeq vaccine), or
· Pneumonia (for the Rotarix vaccine,
even though the test populations for the Phase 3 clinical trials were selected to be in areas where the back-ground rate of disease was significant to mask the level of harm caused by vaccination so that it would not produce a statistically significant increase in life-threatening outcomes.

[6] Geier DA, King PG, Sykes LK, Geier MR. RotaTeq vaccine adverse events and policy considerations.
Med Sci Monit. 2008 Mar; 14(3): PH9-PH16.

The Current Recommended National Vaccination Programs For Other Vaccines

For discussions of other vaccines, the reader should study the prior applicable posts on the
CoMeD website: http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org/.

The Department only mandates vaccines licensed by the FDA and recommended for universal use by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, American Academy of Pediatrics, and other government and professional organizations.

While the preceding states what the NJ DHSS is doing vis-à-vis setting vaccination mandates, one should note that these actions are seemingly at odds with the NJ DHSS’ constitutional duty to only support the use of preventive medicines, including vaccines, that are proven to be effective in protecting the health of New Jersey citizens – a duty that the NJ DHSS and elected state officials, including the governor, have obviously failed to discharge in those instances where vaccines, which have been proven to be in-use ineffective, are being mandated for New Jersey’s children.

The Department, medical experts and practitioners believe that using available vaccines is highly preferable to control individual cases and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.

Here, it is unambiguous that the “Department, medical experts and practitioners believe” in what they are doing.

Unfortunately, public health policy should not be based on what the NJ DHSS, “medical experts and
practitioners believe”.

Public health policy should only be based on proof that the mandated vaccines are safe and in-use cost-effective when all the costs (including the costs of the adverse events associated with the vaccination program for them) are accurately assessed and included.

Thus, the NJ DHSS should:
· Abandon its unsupported belief-based policies, which have elevated vaccination to quasi-religious prominence, and
· Return to mandating only those vaccines that, based on in-use outcomes that include the costs
of the adverse reactions to a given vaccine or vaccine component and the need for “boosters” and their risks, are proven safe and at least in-use societally cost-effective for New Jersey’s children.

For many of these diseases, effective therapies are not available to treat sick individuals or are ineffective when given at the time of diagnosis.

Since the mandated childhood vaccines are supposedly intended to “protect against” “native” diseases by giving the children:
· “Weakened” strains of the disease (e.g., the live-virus measles, mumps, rubella, varicella,
rotavirus and influenza vaccines),
· Inactivated strains of the disease (e.g., the inactivated-virus polio and influenza vaccines),
· Manufactured components derived from superficial components of the disease organisms (e.g., the hepatitis B, hepatitis A, meningococcal, pneumo-coccal, and HPV vaccines), or
· The modified toxins (“toxoids”) or toxic components produced by the disease (e.g., the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines), the NJ DHSS’ broad “(f)or many diseases” generalization here is, at best, problematic.

Moreover, for those diseases for which the available preventive vaccines have not been shown to be
truly in-use cost-effective, it is wrong to waste public health dollars vaccinating our children because, at best, the vaccine only postpones the age at which our children contract the disease – a move that, for some of the contagious viral childhood diseases, only increases the probable severity of the disease as well as the costs to treat that disease in those instances where our children finally contract that disease.

In addition, the NJ DHSS’ statement ignores:
· The potential long-harm to our children’s developing immune system that injecting them with
vaccines containing not only the disease-related components but also other immune-system-reactive components may cause in some of those injected,and
· The long-term immune-system imbalance that occurs when our developing children are abnormally exposed to disease components by injection rather than by the “natural” exposure routes.

Furthermore, though it is clear that aluminum-based adjuvants may over-stimulate the macrophagic portion of the immune system and, for some, lead to autoimmune disorders and increased susceptibility to some chronic medical conditions, vaccine formulations containing such aluminum-based adjuvants (or other adjuvants that are known to be capable of causing immune-system dysfunction) continue to be approved when, by increasing the level of the disease-related antigens or making other formulation changes, it is, or should be, possible to make an effective vaccine without adding any adjuvant.

Finally, even though the vaccine makers have, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the vaccine makers have repeatedly admitted [7], failed to prove that the Thimerosal in Thimerosal-preserved vaccines is safe to the explicit “sufficiently nontoxic …” standard required by law in 21 C.F.R. §610.15(a) and such Thimerosal-preserved drugs are “deemed adulterated” drugs under 21 U.S.C. §351(a)(2)(B), the FDA and the vaccine makers have colluded to continue to approve and market these adulterated vaccines to the American public.

[7] Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, “Mercury in Medicine Report – Taking Unnecessary Risks,” Washington, DC, as published in the Congressional Record, pgs. E1011- E1030, May 21, 2003.

Thus, the NJ DHSS’ decision to be an active party to the preceding collusive actions that expose our children to adulterated vaccines is particularly egregious in the case of the inactivated influenza
vaccines given to our children, where:
· Several publications, including: Geier DA, King PG, Geier MR. Influenza Vaccine: Review of
Effectiveness of the U.S. Immunization Program, and Policy Considerations, Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons, 2006 Fall; 11: 69-74, have established that the influenza vaccines are
not in-use effective,
· Several studies have clearly established that Thimerosal is not an effective preservative in
any vaccine formulations that contains proteins or other sulfur-containing compounds,
· More than a dozen recent studies have established that injection of Thimerosal-preserved vaccines mercury poisons all of those injected to varying degrees,
· Most of the available doses of these inactivated influenza vaccines are still unnecessarily pre-
served with Thimerosal or contain a lower level of Thimerosal that has been proven to be toxic to
our children, and, worse,
· Studies have shown that daily supplementation with vitamin D-3 [8] apparently protects almost all
adults who take daily 2000-IU vitamin D-3 supplements during the influenza season against most all
strains of influenza while, at best, the current influenza vaccines only provide limited protection:
· For a few of the probable circulating influenza virus strains,
· To only some of those inoculated with them.

[8] Preventive dietary supplementation with vitamin D-3 (1,000 to 5,000 IU per day depending on the child’s or adult’s size, skin color, age, sun exposure, and overall health) has been proven to protect against contracting all strains of human influenza (while the vaccines, at best, only protect against a few strains of influenza) as well as to have other health benefits. [Note: The short-duration administration of high-doses of vitamin D-3 (ca. 50,000 IU per day) has also been shown to be effective in treating influenza cases. References: a. Cannell JJ, Hollis BW. Use of vitamin D in clinical practice. Altern Med Rev. 2008 Mar; 13(1): 6-20. b. Cannell JJ, Vieth R, Umhau JC, Holick MF, Grant WB, Madronich S, Garland CF, Giovannucci E. Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiol Infect. 2006 Dec; 134(6): 1129-1140.]

Thus:
q IF the NJ DHSS were truly interested in preventing cases of influenza, as this statement asserts,
q THEN the NJ DHSS would be mandating that all children and the elderly be: a) appropriately tested for their level of vitamin D-3 and b), based on the test results, given an appropriate added daily dose of vitamin D-3 during the “flu” season, which the NJ DHSS would then supply for each child whose family could not afford the cost.

Though diseases still occur among the vaccinated, many more vaccine-preventable illnesses would occur if fewer persons were vaccinated.

Here, the NJ DHSS’ statement is a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak – a statement that begins with a muted truth, “diseases still occur among the vaccinated” – which embodies the reality that even multiple doses of the current vaccines do not provide either short-term or long-protection to all those who have been vaccinated against contracting these diseases when those fully (multiply) vaccinated with them are exposed to the actual disease – and connects that truth to an unclear statement, “many more vaccine-preventable illnesses would occur if fewer persons were vaccinated”, that falsely speaks of “more vaccine-preventable illnesses”.

However, for “vaccine-preventable illnesses”, the truth is:
· There could only be more cases of the illnesses that are claimed to be “vaccine-preventable” – not more “illnesses” (diseases) and
· The evidence is clear that the current USA recommended vaccination programs are, for whatever reasons, major causal factors for the current epidemics of chronic childhood medical conditions (e.g., asthma, severe food allergies and intolerances, type 2 diabetes, MS, certain leukemias, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDCM), obesity, and neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders) that were either rare or non-existent in our children before 1980.

The return and resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases translates to significant economic and human costs related to time lost from work, medical care, and public health interventions.

Since, except for smallpox, the diseases of which the NJ DHSS speaks have not been reduced to laboratory specimens in every nation on the Earth, it is false to speak of the “return and resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases” when all that is happening in the USA today, for those diseases where the vaccines seemingly provide effective “long-term” protection, are sporadic isolated outbreaks.

Moreover, except for the disease cases caused by herpes varicella zoster, most of these outbreaks in the USA are being triggered by exposure to recentlyinfected carriers coming from countries where, for whatever reason,
· The native disease is still endemic, or
· A recent live-virus-vaccine inoculee was sheddingthe vaccine’s live viral components and infected
the carrier just before their return to the USA, and
· Those exposed to these returning outbreak initiators:
· Were not vaccinated or,
· If vaccinated, were not adequately protected from contracting the disease by the vaccinations they received.

Second, the actual data for those diseases that the federal government and the NJ DHSS have labeled
“vaccine-preventable diseases” fails to show any nationwide disease resurgence for those few diseases for which the vaccines apparently are at least in-use societally cost-effective.

Third, the “economic and human costs” from the chronnic illnesses that the USA’s current vaccination programs have engendered are orders of magnitude greater than the short-term “economic and human costs” for the current levels of these acute childhood diseases (e.g., measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis [whooping cough], rota virus and pneumonia).

The more exemptions we allow, the more difficult it will be to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases from affecting our communities.

The data presented by the Florida Department of Health along with the added information provided to address incidence levels and relative disease levels to address the “philosophical exemptions” issue (see Abbreviated Table “1”) does not support the NJ DHSS’ assertion that the “more exemptions we allow, the more difficult it will be to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases …” in today’s America in the 18 states, including the two most populous states, California and Texas, that have a “conscientious/philosophical exemption” option.

Hopefully, after reviewing this response and the referenced and cited publications, the NJ DHSS will not only drop its opposition to S1071 (and A260) and support the passage of this legislation, but also immediately revoke its mandates for influenza vaccination and, after reviewing the in-use effectiveness data for each of the currently mandated vaccine components, adjust the vaccination mandates to eliminate those other vaccines that are not in-use cost effective, starting with the current vaccines for herpes varicella zoster and rota virus.

Finally, after reviewing this response and all of the cited publications, if the NJ DHSS ignores any of the factual realities set forth in this review, then the people of the state of New Jersey should, in mass, rise up and demand that the New Jersey State Legislature pass and the Governor of the State of New Jersey sign into law a statute that:
q Repeals all vaccination mandates, and
q Simply states that:
All vaccination programs shall be voluntary, and
For those vaccines that are truly provably cost-effective:
· The state will provide the vaccine doses for all of it residents, vaccination programs where vaccination is provably societally cost-effective by truly independent investigators, and
· The NJ DHSS will initiate and support programs for all of the alternative disease-preventive measures, including:
· Better hygiene and sanitation,
· Dietary supplementation and healthy diets, which have been proven to reduce the risk of the initiation and spread of communicable-disease outbreaks,
· Setting the state’s recommendation for daily intake of vitamin D-3 to no less than 1,000 IU (25 micrograms), and
· Requiring:
o All school-related health-screening blood tests include an assessment of serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels, and
o The healthcare provider to furnish or prescribe appropriate vitamin D-3 supplement levels when the measured level is below 45 ng per milliliter (mL) of serum with appropriate follow- ups to ensure that the child’s serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels exceed 45 ng per mL.

Concluding Remarks

As a supporter of vaccines and vaccination programs that are reasonably safe and at least societally cost-effective, the author understands that the current New Jersey mandated vaccination programs have severe problems, which the NJ DHHS should immediately address.

Moreover, the NJ DHSS should address the problems with its vaccination program mandates in a manner that is:
· Truly public-health cost-effective and
· Free of the pernicious influence of those who directly and/or indirectly profit from:
· More vaccines and/or
· Expanding mandated vaccination programs that are intentionally blind to the rise in, and the costs of, the chronic childhood diseases, which the affected children and their families must bear for the rest of their lives.

If the NJ DHSS fails to act in the responsible manner being recommended, then the NJ DHSS should be prepared to be the proverbial “last straw” that will trigger a movement to repudiate all vaccination mandates because it will be knowingly ignoring the actual fiscal and physical harm that its scientifically indefensible vaccination mandates have caused, are causing and will cause.

Finally, in conjunction with this response, the NJ DHSS should carefully study the in-depth two-part review of the September 2008 report issued by the Florida Department of Health, and the report itself, as posted in the “Documents” section on the CoMeD Internet website: http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org (see footnote 5).

About the Reviewer:

Information about this reviewer, Paul G. King, PhD, can be found on the Internet at:
http://www.dr-king.com/.

This reviewer received no compensation for this review; and, other than his advocacies, has no
conflicts of interest.

*It is not medical advice and it does not require any specific action or actions.*

*While the information is thought to be accurate, no representation is made as to the accuracy of the information posted other than it is my best understanding of the facts on the date that this email and any attachments thereto are posted. Everyone should verify the accuracy of the information provided for themselves before acting on it.
**************************************************************************************************

Dr. King http://www.dr-king.com

**************************************************************************************************
FAIR USE NOTICE: The following review may contain quotations from copyrighted(©) material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance reader’s understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, social justice and other issues. It is believed that the author’s quoted statements are a ‘fair use’ of this copy- righted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US intellectual property law. This material is being distributed without profit.