||I have a two very interesting articles for you to read in regard to vaccines. www.druglessdoctor.com or www.druglessdrs.com
The first is a link for you to read more about "virus shedding", the other is a good read.
I was researching for the event I hosted for the #NoMeds for August and discovered the term "shedding". Go to this link and read page 29. http://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/pdf/Live-Virus-Vaccines-and-Vaccine-Shedding.pdf
Now, this is very significant and it would be interesting to create a movement with the information you will learn; are all of you reading this geared up for the task?
People like you watching and reading this are very typical individuals who have more than likely chosen not get the flu shot or any other immunization. Well we potentially are being exposed to the live viruses by those who have been inoculated, the shedding process may in fact continue for several day and up to two or more weeks; IT IS LIKE SECOND HAND SMOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are unknowingly being exposed to a virus we cannot see or know were the exposure is coming from unlike people who do not smoke; they can at least walk away from a smoker if they choose to. Take into consideration the flu shot was ONLY 19% effective in the winter of 2015.
I have the shedding process occur first hand with someone close to me who shed after one of their immunizations when they were a child and this same persons Aunt got the Chicken Pox!!!!!!
Vaccines and Chiropractic: Evidence-Based Medicine or Medical Dogma?
By Timothy Perenich, MA, DC
Right or wrong, the chiropractic profession has historically been against vaccinations.
The premises of the pro-vaccine movement can be broken into three arguments: 1) Vaccines are safe and effective. 2) Vaccine adverse reactions are rare and no more frequent than a stroke from a cervical adjustment. 3) Physicians do not reject vaccines on a scientific basis, but rather on unscientific dogma.1-3
Examining Vaccine Safety
An interesting study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology demonstrated a positive relationship between the number of vaccine doses given to infants and infant mortality rates.4 In other words, nations with the highest amount of required immunizations had the highest infant mortality rates. For example, nations like the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, and the United States, which require between 24 and 26 vaccine doses, have the highest infant mortality rates. In contrast, nations like Sweden, Japan, Iceland, and Norway that average 12 required vaccine doses for infants have the lowest infant mortality rates.
Ironically, the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates out of 34 nations surveyed, beating out nations like Slovenia, Singapore, Greece, and Cuba. Correspondingly the U.S. also has the most required childhood immunization doses at 26.
A companion study also published in Human and Experimental Toxicology noticed a positive relationship between number of vaccine doses and hospitalizations rates of U.S. children.5 The researchers examined records from the government's own VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Reporting Event System) and found that the more vaccines a child received earlier in life, the more likely the child was to suffer a reaction requiring hospitalization.5
All the post-marketing surveillance of vaccines as it pertains to adverse events is filed voluntarily through the VAERS. Since this surveillance is voluntary, it inherently represents only a fraction of what is actually out there.6 David Kessler, former FDA commissioner, estimated that only 6 percent of all vaccine adverse events are reported.5 This means whatever is reported is a mere fraction of what is going on the real world. Nevertheless, vaccines are assumed to be safe, so even when reports surface that severe adverse reactions are occurring, they are summarily dismissed.
For example, an article by Kulenkampff, Schwartzman and Wilson in the Archives of Disease in Childhood (1974) observed that children receiving the tripartite DPT (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine suffered from severe neurological complications.7 These severe complications included convulsions, spasms, transitional blindness, progressive cerebral degeneration, hemiparesis, cranial nerve palsy, epilepsy unconsciousness and "mental retardation."7 They pointed out that their findings were not new; in fact, studies published between 1955 and 1967 also noticed an association between the DPT and severe neurological symptoms. However, these studies were ignored in favor of a vaccine safety bias.7
Because the association between the DPT vaccine, particularly the pertussis portion, was so strongly associated with neurological damage to children, Kulenkampff, et al., recommended it be delayed;7 and also recommended the initiation of systematic reporting post-vaccination to accurately track the rate of vaccine injuries.7 For whatever reason, these recommendations were ignored.
Fast forward 12 years to 1986 when the landmark case Graham v Wyeth was decided, awarding the plaintiff $15 million for permanent neurological damage sustained from the DPT (mostly pertussis portion) vaccine.8 The jury found that the drug company knew or should have known that the DPT vaccine caused neurological damage in children, making their product unsafe.
Ironically, had doctors been willing to look at the evidence, they might have protected their patients from vaccine-induced neurological damage. However, pro-vaccine bias was too strong and it was not until successful lawsuits such as this one, approximately 30 years after some of the first reports of adverse reactions were published, that drug companies and the allopathic medical community took notice.
Alarmed by the emerging evidence against vaccination safety, the pharmaceutical industry lobbied Congress, who in turn passed the NVICP (National Vaccination Compensation Injury Program), which shields vaccine producers and doctors from legal liability while putting children in families of the injured into a special court, making recovery difficult. The NVICP is not funded by the drug companies, but rather by a tax on vaccine consumers. This money is placed in a fund that pays out damages to parents of injured or deceased children. Payouts average between $80-$200 million per year.9
One has to wonder, if vaccines are so safe and effective, why would drug companies need special legislation to shield them from the "few" injuries caused by their products?
Addressing Risk vs. Benefit
Some may suggest the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of not vaccinating. Therefore, in order to ensure access to vaccines, the government must protect drug companies from financially crippling lawsuits. Conversely, a study on the pertussis vaccine done in Britain as the first wave of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers began in the U.S. (~1978-1986) demonstrated the risk of suffering permanent neurological damage from the vaccine was greater than contracting wild pertussis and suffering complications from the disease.10
After looking at the data from the pertussis vaccine, G.T. Stewart, a medical professor and researcher, concluded that "the risks of pertussis vaccine during the period 1970-83 exceeded those of whooping cough."10 Speaking of the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine on British subjects, Stewart wrote:
"The truth which these harder data show is that pertussis vaccine is only about 50-60% effective and that about half of the child population in Britain is getting along quite well without it. The harsher truth which they evade altogether is that morbidity and death in this infection are associated far more strongly with susceptibilities which accrue from unfavorable living conditions than with low levels of vaccination."10
Indeed, the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine, along with many others, is still questioned today. For example, James D. Cherry, MD – a pro-vaccine consultant for drug companies – admitted that the pertussis vaccine fails to offer protection more often than doctors expect.11 And a recent study from Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) demonstrated that primates vaccinated with the acellular pertussis vaccines were actually possible vectors of pertussis transmission, which may be a reason for publicized whooping cough outbreaks.12
Nevertheless, because vaccines are assumed to be safe and effective, reports of vaccine adverse reactions and failure are usually summarily dismissed. Commenting on the bias as it pertains to vaccines and the general assumption they are safe, one researcher wrote: "Research into immunization has been based on the theory that the benefits of immunization far outweigh the risks from delayed adverse events and so long term safety studies do not need to be performed."13
In some instances, this bias leads to outright falsehoods in disseminating pro-vaccination information to physicians. For example, the following talking points were provided by Merck in a continuing medical education course designed to increase the vaccination rates among children:14 1) HPV vaccines are among the safest (vaccines); and 2) 46 million doses (of the HPV vaccine) have been distributed in the United States with no serious safety concerns.
"Safe" and "Effective"?
Apparently the CME team at Merck designing the pro-HPV vaccine "education piece" was not concerned with the facts when making such statements. They clearly ignore a number of reports of neurological disease and death associated with the HPV vaccine. While many of these reports still retain a vaccine safety bias, they all indicate the paucity of post-vaccination surveillance and the need for heightened awareness of vaccine-induced disease.
Tomljenovic and Shaw published a paper investigating the histopathology of two teenage females, 19 and 14 ye
Learn more at: www.druglessdoctor.com, www.druglessdrs.com
Rate This Video: 0
Share this video on your site or blog. Just copy & paste one of the following:
Is there something wrong with this video or viewer comment? Please let us know:
Viewer Comments (0 total)
Be the first to comment on this video.
Related NaturalNews Articles
Related articles being calculated...
Advertise with NaturalNews...
Support NaturalNews Sponsors:
Advertise with NaturalNews...