Category Archives: vaccination

Pet Vaccinations what your vet wont tell you……………

Adverse Reactions to Pet Vaccines

From rashes and behavioral issues, to seizures and even vaccine injection site tumors, the list of adverse vaccine related health complications is long and varied. However, because many people don’t make the connection between the administration of a shot and subsequent symptoms, and because the veterinary industry at large often does not acknowledge such a connection, adverse vaccine reactions often go unreported.

For these reasons and because many people have been erroneously conditioned to believe that vaccines are completely safe and effective, there’s a serious lack of understanding about the issue of vaccine damage among the general population.

There needs to be more awareness about this problem and people need to know that besides acute conditions, the damage caused by vaccines can also be implicated in longer term, chronic ailments.

Some of the more progressive vets who are at the forefront of researching vaccine damage, including Dr. Patricia Jordan, author of the book Vaccinosis: Hidden in Plain Sight, are discovering evidence that vaccines actually cause damage at a genetic level.

If true, this means that vaccine damage not only occurs to those pets that are vaccinated, but that such damage occurs to their DNA, which is then passed onto their offspring and so on down the line, potentially conveying inherited vaccinosis to many more individuals in future generations.

Pet Vaccines a Toxic Chemical Cocktailresearch

One of the reasons why vaccines can cause damage to our pets is because of the toxic ingredients they often contain. Among these are:

  • Thimerosal — Thimerisol is an organic compound often found in pet vaccines and used as a preservative that contains mercury, which is an extremely toxic heavy metal.Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin and is one of the most potent poisons known to man. Mercury has been shown to impair the function of many internal systems including the brain, central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs.
  • Aluminum — Aluminum is another metal used in vaccines that has been implicated in neurological ailments in humans. Aluminum is added to vaccines as an adjuvant, which means its purpose is to enhance or boost the effectiveness of those shots containing killed viruses.
  • Formaldehyde — Formaldehyde is classified by the EPA as a probable carcinogen, and is used as a tissue fixative in some vaccines.
  • Phenol — Phenols are highly poisonous, caustic substances derived from coal tar which are used as preservatives in vaccines.
  • Viruses — Viruses are microscopic infectious agents containing genetic material which can only replicate within the tissues of living organisms.
  • Animal organ tissue — Cell tissue derived from all manner of animals, including monkeys, rabbits, cows, sheep and pigs, are used to culture viruses contained in vaccines.

Huge or Tiny Pet — Same Dosagemorebooks-2

Many pet owners would be surprised to learn that the dosage contained in one vaccine is the same regardless of the size or weight of the pet. This means that a 5 lb Chihuahua is given the exact same dosage as a 100 lb German Shepherd.

Insanity of Yearly “Boosters” for Pet Vaccines

Despite the fact that most all specific vaccines designed for people are generally only administered
once rather than repeatedly year after year, it has become common practice in the veterinary industry to vaccinate pets with the same vaccine over and over again – often on a yearly basis – in the form of what are called booster shots.

Because each individual vaccine triggers a firestorm of activity within the immune system, vaccinating pets repeatedly like this over time can end up eroding the animal’s immune function.

It’s important to understand that routine vaccinations are a source of considerable financial revenue for both veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies. However vaccinating our pets repeatedly year after year is, in my opinion, most definitely not in the best interest of the animals.

Bypassing the Body’s Natural Immunity

Our pets’ bodies are equipped with a very sophisticated array of innate immunological mechanisms that are specifically designed to defend against pathogenic exposure.rgans such as the skin, nose, respiratory system, mouth, and digestive tract are all common pathways through which potentially harmful microbes must pass before they have the opportunity to become infectious. These organ systems work in concert to identify incoming pathogenic threats and either neutralize and/or create effective defenses against them.

However, most all pet vaccines administered by vets are done so via subcutaneous injection. This means that such shots deliver viruses, which are pathogenic materials, along with other toxins directly through the skin into the body’s underlying tissues, unnaturally forcing these substances to bypass some of the body’s most important and effective natural defense systems.

This circumvention and short circuiting of the immune system can trigger chronic autoimmune disorders, including the kind of ongoing inflammatory response present in conditions such as IBD (inflammatory bowel disease), arthritis, skin rashes and others.

Make an Informed Decision on Your Pet’s Behalf

More and more evidence is coming to light these days showing that pet vaccines are a scientific fraud and that they’re little more than a huge money making scam because they are neither safe nor effective.

Due to such evidence, I can’t urge people strongly enough to do their own research in order make an educated decision before choosing to have their pets automatically jabbed simply as a matter of course.

Additional Resources 

http://dr-jordan.com/downloads/
http://www.animaltalknaturally.com/past-programs/ (scroll down page slightly)
http://rawfed.com/vax/vax.html#other
http://www.rawfedcats.org/vaccinosis.htm
http://www.rawfedcats.org/links.htm
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/TruthAboutVaccines/

Advertisements

Hippocratic oath and the Nuremberg code -Every patient should be familiar with these

Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code

Evelyne Shuster, Ph.D.

N Engl J Med

The Nuremberg Codeimg_8866

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research.1-6 The Code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps (the so-called Doctors’ Trial).7 It served as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Because of its link with the horrors of World War II and the use of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps for medical experimentation, debate continues today about the authority of the Code, its applicability to modern medical research, and even its authorship.1,2,4,5,8 The chief prosecutor at the Doctors’ Trial, General Telford Taylor, believed that one of the three U.S. judges, Harold Sebring, was the author of the Code.2 Two American physicians who helped prosecute the Nazi doctors at Nuremberg, Leo Alexander and Andrew Ivy, have each been identified as the Code’s author.5,8-11 A careful reading of the transcript of the Doctors’ Trial, background documents, and the final judgment reveals that authorship was shared and that the famous 10 principles of the Code grew out of the trial itself.

In this article I will explain the important role that physicians had in the prosecution of the Nazi doctors and in the formulation of the Nuremberg Code and summarize how medical researchers have used the Code as a guide over the past five decades.

The Doctors’ Trial

The main trial at Nuremberg after World War II was conducted by the International Military Tribunal. The tribunal was made up of judges from the four allied powers (the United States, Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union) and was charged with trying Germany’s major war criminals. After this first-of-its-kind international trial, the United States conducted 12 additional trials of representative Nazis from various sectors of the Third Reich, including law, finance, ministry, and manufacturing, before American Military Tribunals, also at Nuremberg. The first of these trials, the Doctors’ Trial, involved 23 defendants, all but 3 of whom were physicians accused of murder and torture in the conduct of medical experiments on concentration-camp inmates.7

The indictment of the defendants was filed on October 25, 1946, 25 days after the conclusion of the first Nuremberg trial by the International Military Tribunal. The Doctors’ Trial began on December 9, 1946, and ended on July 19, 1947. The case was heard by three judges and one alternate. Thirty-two prosecution witnesses and 53 defense witnesses, including the 23 defendants, testified. A total of 1471 documents were introduced into the record. Sixteen of the 23 defendants were found guilty; 7 of them were sentenced to death by hanging, 5 to life imprisonment, 2 to imprisonment for 25 years, 1 to imprisonment for 15 years, and 1 to imprisonment for 10 years. Seven were acquitted. The sentences were confirmed by the military governor, and, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, the executions were carried out at the Landsberg prison.

For the United States and its chief prosecutor, Telford Taylor, the trial was a murder trial (and murder had been identified by the International Military Tribunal as a crime against humanity). Nonetheless, as Taylor pointed out in his opening statement, this was “no mere murder trial,” because the defendants were physicians who had sworn to “do no harm” and to abide by the Hippocratic Oath.12 He told the judges that the people of the world needed to know “with conspicuous clarity” the ideas and motives that moved these doctors “to treat their fellow human beings as less than beasts,” and that “brought about such savageries” so that they could be “cut out and exposed before they become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity.”12 One recurring theme was the relevance of Hippocratic ethics to human experimentation and whether Hippocratic moral ideals could be an exclusive guide to the ethics of research without risk to the human rights of subjects. In the trial’s exploration of ideas that shaped medical-research ethics, three physicians had central roles: Leo Alexander, an American neuropsychiatrist, Werner Leibbrand, a German psychiatrist and medical historian, and Andrew Ivy, a renowned American physiologist.

Leo Alexander

Leo Alexander, a Viennese-born American physician, had joined the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1942, before being stationed in England at the American Eighth Air Force base. At the end of the war, Alexander was sent on a special mission under the Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee, an intelligence organization with members from several nations, and charged by orders from Supreme Headquarters of Allied Expeditionary Forces to gather evidence for the Nuremberg trials. Two days before the opening of the Doctors’ Trial, Alexander gave Taylor a memorandum entitled “Ethical and Non-Ethical Experimentation on Human Beings,” in which he identified three ethical, legal, and scientific requirements for the conduct of human experimentation.9 The first requirement established the right of the competent experimental subject to consent or refuse to participate in these terms: “the subject should be willing to undergo the experiment of his own free will. . . .” The second focused on the duty of physicians as expressed in the Hippocratic Oath, which Alexander restated in research terms: “the medical Hippocratic attitude prohibits an experiment if the foregone conclusion, probability or a priori reason to believe exists that death or disabling injury of the experimental subject will occur.” The third characterized good research practices.

On April 15, 1947, Alexander gave Taylor a second memorandum.9,11 In it he set forth in greater detail six specific conditions for ethically and legally permissible experiments on human beings. The first stated that

the legally valid voluntary consent of the experimental subject is essential. This requires specifically the absence of duress, sufficient disclosure on the part of the experimenter and sufficient understanding on the part of the experimental subject of the exact nature and consequences of the experiment for which he volunteers, to permit an enlightened consent.

The five other conditions established the humanitarian nature and purpose of the experiment and the scientific integrity and obligations of the investigator to the welfare of the subject.

Werner Leibbrand

On January 27, 1947, Werner Leibbrand, a German psychiatrist and medical historian at Erlangen University, opened the debate on medical ethics at Nuremberg.12 He explained to the court that German physicians at the beginning of the 20th century had adopted a “biologic thinking” according to which a patient was a series of biologic events, and nothing more than “a mere object, like a mail package.”12 Leibbrand insisted that such a view precluded any human relation between physicians and their patients and that it represented a perversion of Hippocratic ethics and “a lack of morality and reverence for human life.”12 He strongly condemned physicians who conducted experiments on subjects without their consent, and testified that this was also the result of biologic thinking.

During cross-examination, defense lawyers asserted that “civilized” nations such as France, the Netherlands, Britain, and the United States had performed dangerous medical experiments on prisoners, often without their consent. They cited American malaria experiments12-14 to argue that Nazi physicians had followed common research practices. Leibbrand replied that this American research also was wrong because “prisoners were in a forced situation and could not be volunteers.”12 Leibbrand insisted that “the morality of a physician is to hold back his natural research urge which may result in doing harm, in order to maintain his basic medical attitude that is laid down in the Oath of Hippocrates.”12 This strong accusation of American research by the prosecution’s first medical-ethics witness created major unanticipated problems for the prosecution. It therefore became necessary to broaden the scope of the trial by defining the conditions under which risky human experimentation is ethically permissible.

Defense lawyers explained that Nazi doctors were ordered by the state to conduct such experiments as the high-altitude, hypothermia, and seawater experiments on inmates at the Dachau concentration camp to determine how best to protect and treat German fliers and soldiers. They contended that these experiments were necessary and that the “good of the state” takes precedence over that of the individual.12 Leibbrand replied that “the state could order deadly experiments on human subjects, but the physicians remained responsible for [not] carrying them out.”12 Once these physiologic experiments became the centerpiece of the trial, reliance on psychiatrists alone was not possible. The prosecution needed a prestigious medical scientist who was an authority on research physiology and whose wartime scientific interests corresponded to those of the Nazi doctor defendants. This expert was Andrew Ivy.

Andrew Ivy

Andrew Ivy was an internationally known physiologist and a noted scientist. He also had first-hand knowledge of the Stateville Penitentiary experiments on malaria12,13 in his home state of Illinois, which the Nazi defendants attempted to liken to those performed on concentration-camp inmates. When the secretary of war, through the surgeon general of the army, asked the board of trustees of the American Medical Association to nominate a medical advisor to the Nuremberg prosecution, Ivy emerged as the natural nominee. On June 12, 1947, Ivy came to Nuremberg for the third time, this time to testify in rebuttal for the prosecution. His testimony, the longest of the trial, lasted four days.12

In direct examination, Ivy presented to the judges three research principles that he had formulated at the request of the American Medical Association and which, he said, reflected common research practices.12 His document entitled “Principles of Ethics Concerning Experimentation with Human Beings,” adopted by the American Medical Association House of Delegates in December 1946, read in part:

1. Consent of the human subject must be obtained. All subjects have been volunteers in the absence of coercion in any form. Before volunteering, subjects have been informed of the hazards, if any. Small rewards in various forms have been provided as a rule.

2. The experiment to be performed must be based on the results of animal experimentation and on a knowledge of the natural history of the disease under study, and must be so designed that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. The experiment must be such as to yield results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods of study, and must not be random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment must be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons and so as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury and only after the results of adequate animal experimentation have eliminated any a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur. . . .15

Ivy explained that these common-sense principles mirrored the understanding shared by everyone in practice in the medical community.12 The first principle was that a physician would never do anything to a patient or subject before obtaining his or her consent. Ivy also asserted that, unlike Leibbrand, he did not consider prisoners to be in an inherently coercive situation and thus unable to give consent, because in democratic countries where the rights of individuals are respected, prisoners can always say yes or no without fear of being punished.12 He testified:

The American malaria experiments with 800 or more prisoners were absolutely justified, scientifically, legally and ethically even if they bring with them danger to human life. To treat malaria was an important scientific problem, and so long as the subjects volunteer and are explained the hazards of the experiments, there is no ethical reason against it. . . . If prisoners condemned to death are volunteers, then it was ethical to do just that.12

During cross-examination, Ivy acknowledged that there were no written principles of research in the United States or elsewhere before December 1946 and that the principles adopted by the American Medical Association were expressly formulated for the Doctors’ Trial.12 Ivy also recognized that the right of the research subject to withdraw from an experiment may not always exist, as in the malaria experiments in which the subjects had already been infected, or in dangerous experiments in which the subjects could be severely injured or fatally harmed. Ivy agreed with Leibbrand that researchers must refuse to conduct experiments on human beings when ordered by the state in order “to save lives,” because in such cases subjects would not be volunteers. He declared that “[t]here is no justification in killing five people in order to save the lives of five hundred” and that “no state or politician under the sun could force [him] to perform a medical experiment which [he] thought was morally unjustified.”12 Ivy also stressed that the state may not assume the moral responsibility of physicians to their patients or research subjects, arguing that “[E]very physician should be acquainted with the Hippocratic Oath [which] represents the Golden Rule of the medical profession in the United States, and, to [his] knowledge, throughout the world.”12 When, finally, defense counsel asked Ivy to reconcile the Hippocratic moral maxim that forbids physicians to “administer a poison to anyone even when asked to do so” with conducting potentially lethal experimental interventions on volunteer subjects, Ivy replied, “I believe this Hippocratic commandment refers to the function of the physician as a therapist, not as an experimentalist, and what refers to the Hippocratic Oath is that he must have respect for life and the human rights of his experimental patient.”12

Medical Ethics and Human Rights

The judges at Nuremberg, although they realized the importance of Hippocratic ethics and the maxim primum non nocere, recognized that more was necessary to protect human research subjects. Accordingly, the judges articulated a sophisticated set of 10 research principles centered not on the physician but on the research subject. These principles, which we know as the Nuremberg Code, included a new, comprehensive, and absolute requirement of informed consent (principle 1), and a new right of the subject to withdraw from participation in an experiment (principle 9). The judges adopted much of the language proposed by Alexander and Ivy but were more emphatic about the necessity and attributes of the subject’s consent and explicitly added the subject’s right to withdraw.

In the traditional Hippocratic doctor–patient relationship, the patient is silent and dutifully obedient to the beneficent and trusted physician.16-18 Obviously, the patient must seek the physician’s help and initiate the therapeutic relationship with the physician.17 But once patients agree to be treated, they trust that the physician will act in their interest, or at least will do no harm.17,18 In research, which is outside the beneficent context of the physician–patient relationship, this trust may be misplaced, because the physician’s primary goal is not to treat; rather, it is to test a scientific hypothesis by following a protocol, regardless of the patient-subject’s best interest. It is therefore only through a conflation of treatment and research that Alexander and Ivy believed they could expand on Hippocratic ethics to protect the rights of subjects in human experimentation.19,20 Their Hippocratic view of medical research may have prevented them from adequately appreciating the risks to research subjects, which are many times greater than the risks to patients who are merely being treated.21 Hippocratic ethics, even when supplemented with informed consent, tend to submerge the subject’s autonomy into what the physician-investigator thinks is best for the subject.

Informed consent, the core of the Nuremberg Code, has rightly been viewed as the protection of subjects’ human rights. The key contribution of Nuremberg was to merge Hippocratic ethics and the protection of human rights into a single code. The Nuremberg Code not only requires that physician-researchers protect the best interests of their subjects (principles 2 through 8 and 10) but also proclaims that subjects can actively protect themselves as well (principles 1 and 9). Most strikingly, for example, in Hippocratic ethics the subject relies on the physician to determine when it is in the subject’s best interest to end his or her participation in an experiment. In the Nuremberg Code, the judges gave the subject as much authority as the physician-researcher to end the experiment before its conclusion (principle 9).

50 Years after Nuremberg

The Nuremberg Code has not been officially adopted in its entirety as law by any nation or as ethics by any major medical association. Nonetheless, its influence on global human-rights law and medical ethics has been profound.6 Its basic requirement of informed consent, for example, has been universally accepted and is articulated in international law in Article 7 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).6,22 Informed consent, with specific reliance on the Nuremberg Code, is also the basis of the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, the most recent guidelines promulgated by the World Health Organization and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (1993).23

The World Medical Association, established during World War II, has been accused of purposely trying to undermine Nuremberg in order to distance physicians from Nazi medical crimes.24 The election of a former Nazi physician and SS member, Hans-Joachim Sewering, to the presidency of that organization in 1992 added credibility to that accusation.24 (Because of public criticism, Sewering later withdrew.) Nonetheless, the various versions of the Declaration of Helsinki promulgated by the World Medical Association since 1964, although attempting to have peer review supplement informed consent and even supplant it as their central principle in the context of “therapeutic research,” all implicitly acknowledge Nuremberg’s authority. Both the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki served as models for the current U.S. federal research regulations, which require not only the informed consent of the research subject (with proxy consent sometimes acceptable, as for young children), but also prior peer review of research protocols by a committee (the institutional review board of the hospital or research institution) that includes a representative of the community.25

The Nuremberg Code focuses on the human rights of research subjects, the Declaration of Helsinki focuses on the obligations of physician-investigators to research subjects, and the federal regulations emphasize the obligations of research institutions that receive federal funds. Nonetheless, by insisting that medical investigators alone cannot set the rules for the ethical conduct of research, even when guided by beneficence and Hippocratic ethics, and by adopting a human-rights perspective that acknowledges the centrality of informed consent and the right of the subject to withdraw, the Nuremberg Code has changed forever the way both physicians and the public view the proper conduct of medical research on human subjects. Fifty years after Nuremberg, we recognize the human-rights legacy of the Nuremberg Code and are better able to face the critical challenge of applying the Code in its entirety and enforcing its human-rights provisions.


SIDS and the DPT vaccine

SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (SIDS)

written by Dr. Mendelson

The dreadful possibility that they may awaken some morning to find their baby dead in his crib is a fear that lurks in the mind of many parents. Medical science has yet to pinpoint the cause of SIDS, but the most popular explanation among researchers appears to be that the central nervous system is affected so that the involuntary act of breathing is suppressed.14537_lores

That is a logical explanation, but it leaves unanswered the question: What caused the malfunction in the central nervous system? My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.

Dr. William Torch, of the University of Nevada School of Medicine at Reno, has issued a report suggesting that the DPT shot may be responsible for SIDS cases. He found that two-thirds of 103 children who died of SIDS had been immunized with DPT vaccine in the three weeks before their deaths, many dying within a day after getting the shot. He asserts that this was not mere coincidence, concluding that a “causal relationship is suggested” in at least some cases of DIPT vaccine and crib death. Also on record are the Tennessee deaths, referred to earlier. In that case the manufacturers of the vaccine, following intervention by the U.S. surgeon general, recalled all unused doses of this batch of vaccine.

Expectant mothers who are concerned about SIDS should bear in mind the importance of breastfeeding to avoid this and other serious ailments. There is evidence that breastfed babies are less susceptible to allergies, respiratory disease, gastroenteritis, hypocalcaemia, obesity, multiple sclerosis, and SIDS. One study of the scientific literature about SIDS concluded that “Breast-feeding can be seen as a common block to the myriad pathways to SIDS.”image4


Important list of Vaccination ingredients your doctor wont share with you

Vaccine Ingredients;image
In the first 6 years of life your child receives the following:
• 17,500 mcg 2-phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
• 5,700 mcg aluminum (a known neurotoxin)
• Unknown amounts of fetal bovine serum (aborted cow blood)
• 801.6 mcg formaldehyde (carcinogen, embalming agent)
• 23,250 mcg gelatin (ground up animal carcasses)
• 500 mcg human albumin (human blood)
• 760 mcg of monosodium L-glutamate (causes obesity & diabetis)
• Unknown amounts of MRC-5 cells (aborted human babies)
• Over 10 mcg neomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 0.075 mcg polymyxin B (antibiotic)
• Over 560 mcg polysorbate 80 (carcinogen)
• 116 mcg potassium chloride (used in lethal injection to shut down the heart and stop breathing)
• 188 mcg potassium phosphate (liquid fertilizer agent)
• 260 mcg sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
• 70 mcg sodium borate (Borax, used for cockroach control)
• 54,100 mcg of sodium chloride (table salt)
• Unknown amounts of sodium citrate (food additive)
• Unknown amounts of sodium hydroxide (Danger! Corrosive)
• 2,800 mcg sodium phosphate (toxic to any organism)
• Unknown amounts of sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate (toxic to any organism)
• 32,000 mcg sorbitol (Not to be injected)
• 0.6 mcg streptomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 40,000 mcg sucrose (cane sugar)
• 35,000 mcg yeast protein (fungus)
• 5,000 mcg urea (metabolic waste from human urine) —

MERCURY- know toxinSyringe vacc


narrative inquiry in bioethics; families are under no obligation to put their children at risk

This article was written by Ginger  Taylor (healthchoice.org)

http://healthchoice.org/2017/01/20/narrative-inquiry-in-bioethics-families-are-under-no-obligation-to-put-their-children-at-risk-by-participating-in-the-corrupt-current-us-national-immunization-program/

 

original link;                        http://healthchoice.org/2017/01/20/narrative-inquiry-in-bioethics-families-are-under-no-obligation-to-put-their-children-at-risk-by-participating-in-the-corrupt-current-us-national-immunization-program/#

 

 

False vaccine safety claims made by CDC, who report to the public that, “Vaccines do not cause autism,” and that, “There is no link between vaccines and autism.” Please see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html for more info. This despite the fact that the vast majority of the applicable research finds multiple links between vaccines and autism, and demonstrates the mechanisms by which vaccines and their ingredients can and do cause autism.14537_lores

Mainstream research has found that vaccines and their ingredients can cause the underlying medical conditions that committed physicians and researchers are commonly finding in children who have been given an autism diagnosis. These conditions include gastrointestinal damage, immune system impairment, chronic infections, mitochondrial disorders, autoimmune conditions, neurological regression, glial cell activation, brain inflammation, seizures, synaptic dysfunction, dendritic cell dysfunction, mercury poisoning, aluminum toxicity, gene activation and alteration, glutathione depletion, impaired methylation, oxidative stress, impaired thioredoxin regulation, mineral deficiencies, impairment of the opioid system, endocrine dysfunction, cellular apoptosis, and other disorders. Please see https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/127-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link for more info………………… to read the full article go to link enclosed


Gardasil HPV vaccine =infertility

Does the HPV Vaccine LITERALLY Mean “One Less”?

Marketing geniuses are known to play on words and create slogans with quirky double meanings, and if you’ve been tracking the concerns raised about the potential hazards of Gardasil and Cervarix, the potential for these HPV vaccines to cause infertility – whether purposely or inadvertently – is being heard with ever increasing frequency.

The federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received over 9,000 reports of problems since the vaccine’s introduction in 2006, which include at least 28 spontaneous abortions, and 27 deaths. 14537_lores

Is it possible that Gardasil’s cry to fame, ‘One Less’, is turning out to be nothing but a sick, ironic play on words?

Anti-Fertility Vaccines

The World Health Organization (WHO) and its subsidiaries have been actively researching and funding the development of contraceptive / anti-fertility vaccines that prevent full-term pregnancies to take place, for over 20 years. There’s even a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO!

However, no anti-fertility vaccine has ever been placed on the market and promoted as such as of yet.

Instead, as described in a 1993 journal paper published in The British Medical Bulletin, anti-fertility vaccines were being engineered “incorporating tetanus or diphtheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides.”

The authors of this article state,

“The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”

Free tetanus vaccines that were offered to young women of childbearing age for years in countries such as Tanzania, Nigeria, Mexico, and the Philippines, were found to contain human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG), which causes spontaneous abortions if the woman becomes pregnant.

While the woman is not technically sterilized, once injected with hCG, she may never be able to carry a child full term thereafter.

HCG-containing anti-fertility vaccines have also been pursued for more than two decades by the Indian National Institute of Immunology, and The Population Council of the Rockefeller University, among others.

In fact, there are no less than 50 research papers detailing research on “contraceptive vaccines” in the PubMed database.

One disturbing paper published in the FASEB Journal in 1993 states:

“… we initiated studies relating to possible mechanisms of action and potential side effects of this vaccine, which should be relevant to world-wide regulation of population growth.”

So again, why the frantic push for the HPV vaccine, created for young, fertile women, when there’s NO solid, rational basis for its use?

Massive Brazilian Vaccination Program Raises Suspicions of Covert Sterilization Plans

A much more recent case of illogical mass vaccinations against a minor health problem is that of the massive, mandatory vaccination program in Brazil, which has raised suspicions among international pro-life activists, who note that the program is similar to other vaccination programs in recent years that have included a hidden sterilizing agent in the vaccines.

The campaign to “annihilate rubella” began in early August this year, mandating rubella vaccinations for all women ages 12 to 49, and 12 to 39 for men; a total of 70 million people, despite the fact that only 17 Brazilian children per year suffer birth defects from the disease.

Adolfo Castañeda of Human Life International notes that just two years ago, researchers found that the rubella vaccine used in a similar campaign in Argentina was laced with human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG).

“The suspicion that brought about the investigation [into the rubella vaccine] was caused by the fact that there were very few cases of the disease in Argentina, which didn’t merit a large-scale campaign,” Castañeda said, adding, “The ages for women are the same as those who received the vaccines in Nicaragua, where they included a hormone that sterilizes the woman who receives it, and similar to the age of those who received another sterilizing hormone in the Philippines.”

Polysorbate-80 – One Less Mouse, Researchers Found

Now, let me state clearly that there’s no proof of hCG being present in any of the current HPV vaccines.

I am merely playing devil’s advocate as I examine the similarities between these other irrational vaccination programs in other countries for relatively minor public health concerns — that turn out to have far more sinister agendas than mere greed – compared to the fervent, irrational push behind the HPV vaccine here in the U.S.

However, Gardasil does contain Polysorbate-80 – a surfactant used in pharmacology to deliver certain drugs or chemical agents across the blood-brain barrier — which has been linked to infertility in mice.

Researchers Gajdova et.al. found that administration of Polysorbate-80 decreased the weight of the uterus and ovaries, and caused chronic estrogenic stimulation. The ovaries of the mice were also without corpora lutea (a mass of progesterone-secreting endocrine tissue that forms immediately after ovulation) and had degenerative follicles.

So what might the estrogenic effects of Polysorbate-80 be on pre-adolescent girls and pregnant women?

Anti-Fertility Vaccine Ingredient Also Has Clinical Application in Cancer Vaccines…

A potential coincidence I find most disturbing is some of the more recent research detailing the use of hCG, and other molecules, in vaccines against hCG-producing cancers, such as – certain cervical cancers.

One 2005 paper titled, Recent advances in contraceptive vaccine development: a mini-review published in the journal Human Reproduction concludes:

“At the present time, studies are focused on increasing the immunogenicity and efficacy of the birth control vaccine, and examining its clinical applications in various HCG-producing cancers.”

But research published just a few months ago in the journal Molecular Cancer states that the free ?-subunit of hCG (hCG?) – which was originally considered biologically non-functional — has recently been shown to stimulate tumor growth, and lead to more aggressive tumors that are more resistant to therapy.

Again, I’m mentioning all of this because it just goes to show that pharmaceutical companies have little or no clue of the extent of harm these vaccines might cause, especially long-term. Something believed to be completely non-functional or harmless can turn out to be a MAJOR cause for concern after more thorough investigation.

For example, Gardasil also contains L-histadine, and histamines have been found to increase clot production five-fold when combined with, guess what? Surfactants! (L-histidine can also pass through your placental wall to your fetus.)

Granted, this laboratory investigative report titled Surfactants Attenuate Gas Embolism-induced Thrombin Production used surfactants like Perftoran, not Polysorbate-80, in their trials, but could Polysorbate-80 have a similar effect?

Could this explain why death from blood clots within hours or days is the MOST COMMON form of death after receiving Gardasil?

The HPV vaccine clearly has a lot of questions left to be answered. And those questions should be answered BEFORE pushing Gardasil on an unsuspecting public at the rate that it’s being done.

Be One Less to Get Gardasil

I think this would be a more appropriate message to send out to young women: There is absolutely no reason to risk the serious side effects of this vaccine to prevent an infection that goes away on its own 90 percent of the time. And there’s no guarantee that you’ll be protected anyway, since you can still get HPV once you’ve had the vaccine. It’s really a no-win situation for those who receive it.

Of course, you can radically reduce your risk of getting HPV in the first place if you follow safe-sex practices, or wait to have sex until you’re in a committed relationship. Then, keep your immune system in tip-top shape, and it will be more than able to shake any HPV virus that comes its way.


Infant Vitamin K shots important warnings

Vitamin K given to infants-what you may not know…..

PHYTONDIONE VITAMIN K INJECTION14537_lores

Aqueous solution containing fat-soluble vitamin K

An aqueous solution containing fat-soluble vitamin K is prepared by adding vegetable oil(s), gycerol fatty acid ester(s) or sorbitan fatty acid ester(s) in an amount of 0.004 to 5% by weight, based on the whole aqueous solution, to an aqueous solution containing menatetrenone (vitamin K2) or phytonadione (vitamin K1) and hydrogenated lecithin.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5021570.html

 

MULTTVITAMIN PREPARATION AND METHOD
US Pat. 2980588 – Filed Jul 18, 1957 – Les Labora
120; 100 mg. vitamin BI, 100 mg. of acetylated vitamin K This is brought up
to exactly 100 cc. by the addition of gelled peanut oil.

 

STABILIZATION OF FAT-SOLUBLE VITAMIN
US Pat. 2973266 – Filed Feb 5, 1958 –
vitamin E in an edible oil solvent, and vitamin K in an edible Limpid
peanut oil 94 Hydrogenated cottonseed oil Hydrogenated soybean oil 35 43 70 68

Aqueous solution containing fat-soluble vitamin K
US Pat. 5021570 – Filed Jul 7, 1989 – Eisai Co., Ltd.
ing fat-soluble vitamin K, which solution contains speci- The term “residual
peanut and corn oils, thin is used together with an adjuvant (cf.

Oxidative stabilization of omega-3 fatty acids in low linoleic acid …
US Pat. 7344747 – Filed Apr 29, 2004 – GFA Brands, Inc.
19 20 Percentage Flax Oil Added to Peanut Butter 10 The blend of 8 percent flax
oil and vitamin K, and a carotenoid that is a carotene or a xanthophyll.

METHOD OF MAKING SAME
US Pat. 2937091 – Filed Jul 2, 1953 –
vitamin E in an 10 15 oe- 40 70 edible oil solvent, and vitamin K in an
edible .oil vehicle or in crystalline form. Hydrogenated peanut oil 45 55.

 

Vitamin K –Is this really safe and necessary?  Bronwyn Hancock October 2003

…The vitamin K injections administered by hospitals and manufactured by Merck and Roche and Abbott contain benzyl alcohol as a preservative. … Roche’s vitamin K product KONAKION contains ingredients such as phenol (carbolic acid-a poisonous substance distilled from coal tar), propylene glycol (derived from petroleum and used as an antifreeze and in hydraulic brake fluid) and acetic acid (an astringent antimicrobial agent that may drastically reduce the amount of natural vitamin K that would have otherwise been produced in the digestive tract). As reported in the PDR and as published in the IM vitamin K packet inserts for Merck, Roche and Abbott, “Studies of carcinogenicity, mutagenesis or impairment of fertility have not been conducted with Vitamin K1 Injection (Phytonadione Injection, USP).” · The Vitamin K injection can be in a base of polyethoxylated castor oil. · Vitamin K injections also contain hydrochloric acid and lecithin. Effects of Vitamin K administration · The manufacturers warn on the product insert: “Severe reactions, including fatalities, have occurred during and immediately after intravenous injection of phytonadione even when precautions have been taken to dilute the vitamin and avoid rapid infusion..” …· According to the product insert, adverse reactions include hemolysis (or hemolysis – American spelling) (meaning breakdown of red blood cells), hemolytic anemia (a disorder characterized by chronic premature destruction of red blood cells), hyperbilirubinemia (too much bilirubin in blood) and jaundice (yellow skin and eyes resulting from hyperbilirubinemia), and allergic reactions include face flushing, gastrointestinal upset, rash, redness, pain or swelling at injection site and itching skin. ...

As early as April 17, 1977, an article in one of the world’s most esteemed medical journals, the Lancet, discredited the policy of routine vitamin K injections. “We conclude that healthy babies, contrary to current beliefs, are not likely to have a vitamin K deficiency.. the administration of vitamin K is not supported by our findings..” Van Doorm et al stated in the Lancet article. VKR cited 21 peer-reviewed reports that had been published in prominent medical journals. All of them concur that policies that mandate the universal injection of newborn babies are not based on sound science. There has been much peer-reviewed evidence generated which questions the efficacy of routine vitamin K injections as sound public health policy. ·

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/VitaminK.html

From the July 1999 Idaho Observer: National standard mandates newborn vitamin K injection

Ignorance becomes tacit consent for the questionable neonatal procedure by Don Harkins In cooperation with a “national standard,” most, if not all states have mandated that U.S. hospitals routinely administer to all newborns a synthetic, fat-soluble vitamin K injection (generic name phytonadione) that exceeds an infant’s recommended daily dietary intake of the vitamin by 100 times…

Five post partem nurses from hospitals in Idaho, Washington and Oregon stated that they “routinely administer vitamin K injections to newborns,” as if all of them were reading from the same script. According to a seasoned Sacred Heart Medical Center (Spokane, WA) Birthplace nurse named Terri, “Routine vitamin K injections are in cooperation with the federal standard.” She also said that Washington hospitals are mandated by state code to provide the injections to all newborns. Terri acknowledged that parents who wish to refuse the shot must present the refusal to the hospital in writing before the baby is born.

…Babies who have been identified as being at risk for vitamin K deficiency include those born to mothers who took drugs or antibiotics during pregnancy, premature babies and babies who are born cesarean. Mothers who had maternity diets low in high vitamin K foods or had diets that were low in fat have also been identified as being more likely to bear vitamin K deficient babies.

…Commonsensically, VKR poses the question, “…how could God (or nature) have erred so badly as to give all newborn babies only an infinitesimal fraction of their required vitamin K? Surely the human race could not have survived to this point if all newborns were born with this deficiency and none being administered at birth until very recently.”

…The body less readily utilizes synthetic vitamins and minerals. The vitamin K administered by hospitals to newborns is the synthetic phytonadione.

…The purpose of this article is to alert expectant parents that their ignorance of federally-suggested, state mandated hospital policy is enough assent to authorize health care professionals to administer what may be a lethal or damaging overdose of a synthetic substance that comes with the following warning from the manufacturers: “Severe reactions, including fatalities, have occurred during and immediately after INTRAVENOUS injection of phytonadione even when precautions have been taken to dilute the vitamin and avoid rapid infusion…” Please pass the preceeding information onto anybody you know who is expecting a baby. Afterall, we have the right to know what substances are being injected into our babies within the first hour of their lives. If we feel that a substance may be injurious to our baby, we have the right to refuse it.

 http://proliberty.com/observer//19990710.htm

Phytonadione Therapy in a Multiple-Drug Overdose: Adverse Effects of Vitamin K Severe adverse effects are associated with intravenous phytonadione, such as cardiac irregularities, chest pain, cyanosis, decreased level of consciousness, circulatory collapse, rapid weak pulse, hypotension, and cardiac or respiratory arrest.[13] It is not known if these reactions are due to the drug or the injection vehicle.[13] Earlier reactions to vitamin K were thought to be due to polyoxyethylated castor oil (cremophor).[29-32] The literature contains numerous cases of anaphylactic reactions[29, 30, 32-38] as well as fatalities[34, 35] with parenteral phytonadione. The recommended infusion rate of vitamin K is no faster than 1 mg/minute[13]; however, anaphylactic reactions have occurred with slower infusion rates[33, 37] as well as with repeated exposure to intravenous vitamin K.[30, 33, 34, 37] Dermatologic reactions were reported after intravenous, subcutaneous, and intramuscular administration of vitamin K.[39] Two distinct types of local cutaneous reactions have been described. The more common one is a pruritic, erythematous, eczematoid, indurated plaque measuring 6-20 cm around the site of injection.[39-52] The acute reaction may resolve in 2-4 weeks with treatment with high-potency corticosteroids (e.g., fluocinonide, betamethasone dipropionate). The second type appears as a scleroderma or morphea-like reaction.[53-56] The onset can be weeks to months, and the skin change may last for years.[39] Dose does not appear to bear a relationship to the onset of these reactions. Liver disease was associated with most reports of vitamin K cutaneous hypersensitivity,[39, 41] but the pathophysiology is unclear.

 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/409632_7

Anaphylactoid Reactions to Vitamin K

Louis D. Fiore1, Michael A. Scola1, Colleen E. Cantillon1 and Mary T. Brophy1 (1) Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02130

Abstract

Anaphylactoid reactions in patients receiving intravenously administered vitamin K have been reported in the literature. To summarize the known data on anaphylactoid reactions from administration of vitamin K, we reviewed all published and unpublished reports of this adverse reaction. Published reports were obtained through medline (1966–1999) and EMBASE (1971–1999) searches of the English language literature and review of references from identified case reports. Unpublished reports were obtained using the Spontaneous Reporting System Adverse Reaction database of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between August 1968 and September 1997. All adverse drug reactions to vitamin K were categorized by route of drug administration, dose and standard adverse reaction code. In the FDA reports, we defined anaphylactoid reactions as any adverse drug reaction coded as either anaphylaxis, allergic reaction, apnea, dyspnea, death, heart arrest, hypotension, shock or vasodilatation. Additionally, all fatal and life-threatening FDA reported reactions were reviewed to determine if they could represent an anaphylactoid reaction missed by the above definition. The literature review uncovered a total of 23 cases (3 fatal) of anaphylactoid reactions from intravenous vitamin K. The FDA database contained a total of 2236 adverse drug reactions reported in 1019 patients receiving vitamin K by all routes of administration. Of the 192 patients with reactions reported for intravenous vitamin K, 132 patients (69%%) had a reaction defined as anaphylactoid, with 24 fatalities (18%%) attributed to the vitamin K reaction. There were 21 patients with anaphylactoid reactions and 4 fatalities reported with doses of intravenous vitamin K of less than 5[emsp4 ]mgs. For the 217 patients with reactions reported due to vitamin K via a non-intravenous route of administration, 38 patients had reactions meeting the definition of anaphylactoid (18%%), with 1 fatality (3%%) attributed to the drug. The absolute risk of an anaphylactoid reaction to intravenous vitamin K cannot be determined by this study, but the relatively small number of documented cases despite widespread use of this drug suggest that the reaction is rare. Anaphylactic reactions and case fatality reports were found even when intravenous vitamin K was given at low doses by slow dilute infusion. The pathogenesis of this reaction is unknown and may be multifactorial with etiologies including vasodilation induced by the solubilizing vehicle or immune-mediated processes. We conclude that use of intravenous vitamin K should be limited to patients with serious hemorrhage due to a coagulopathy that is secondary to a relative or absolute deficiency of vitamin K.

 http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16l551682716431/

Neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, shares the science on how particular vaccine ingredients lead to convulsions, seizures, ADD, ADHD, autism…etc.

Vitamin K and Hepatitis B are mandated in most states to be given to newborns before they go home with mom. This has been proven to be a dangerous procedure at best. Potentially lethal.

Vitamin K

The marketed purpose of the Vitamin K injection is that newborns have very little to begin with. Vitamin K is essential for the ability of blood clotting should any injury occur. Another marketed purpose is the prevention of hemorrhagic diseases of the newborn (HDN). HDN is a bleeding disorder associated with low levels of vitamin K in newborn babies. It was first defined in 1894 by Townsend as spontaneous external or internal bleeding occurring in newborn infants. Diagnosis was based solely on the opinion of the attendant medical personnel because there was no criteria in determining the cause of hemorrhaging. Townsend did not label hemophilia as a cause of HDN. The vaccine is also marketed to be essential prior to surgery. Thus, supposedly prevents excessive bleeding. Vitamin K is naturally stored and metabolized by the liver. The cell division that rapidly continues after birth depends on precise amounts of vitamin K to proceed at the proper rate. Introduction of levels that are 20,000 times the newborn level, the amount usually injected, can have devastating consequences. Nursing naturally raises the infant’s vitamin K levels very gradually after birth so that no disregulation occurs that would encourage leukemia development. This is the way the Creator designed it to be. The clotting system of the healthy newborn is well planned, and healthy breastfed infants do not suffer bleeding complications, even without any supplementation. While nursing infants demonstrate lower blood levels of vitamin K than the “recommended” amount, they show no signs of vitamin K deficiency. This can only lead to the question of how and where the “recommended” amount was brought about….

The only known reported cases of vitamin K toxicity result from having used the synthetic inoculated form. Vitam K inoculations can cause possibly fatal allergic reactions even during injection. The risks of injecting vitamin K into a newborn baby are nerve or muscle damage because it is injected deeply into the muscle, not subcutaneously under the skin. wpe49F.jpg (16360 bytes)

On the product insert, some reactions are listed:

You may notice pain, swelling and tenderness at the injection site for a few days. Notify your doctor if you experience any of the following while taking this drug: chest pain, flushing, strange movements, rapid pulse, tightness of the chest, cramps. In the unlikely event you have an allergic reaction to this drug, seek medical attention immediately. nerve and muscle damage as the Vitamin K injection must be given deeply into the muscle. However, should a newborn experience any of these, it is incredibly difficult for them to “notify” anyone, difficult for the parents to see or understand the reason behind a newborns cries, and difficult for physicians to see these signs in infants. Majority of physicians are not educated or trained to fully examine an infant in discomfort for vaccine related symptoms. Instead, they are most likely to dismiss any vaccination link.

The following are from the vaccine product insert:

* Clinical Pharmacology: “little is known about the metabolic fate of Vitamin K”. * Contraindication: “Hypersensitivity to any component of this medication”. * Precautions: “Studies of carcinogenicity, mutagenesis, or impairment of fertility have not been conducted with phytonadione.” * Pediatric Use: “Hemolysis, jaundice, and hyperbiliruminemia in newborns, particularly in premature infants, may be related to the dose of phytonadione.” * Adverse reactions: “Deaths have occurred after intravenous administration…The possibility of allergic sensitivity should be kept in mind…Hyperbilirubinemia has been observed in the newborn following administration of phytonadione…” Newborns are not pre-screened for allergic hypersensitivity….

 http://poisonevercure.150m.com/vaccines7.htm

Update, new information. Added 2/16/2015

The rise in life-threatening food anaphylaxis in children coincided with significant changes to the pediatric injection and vaccination schedules of the affected countries: injection of the Vitamin K1 prophylaxis (containing legume oil) became routine in the mid-1980s; the novel conjugate vaccine Hib B that was soon rolled into an unprecedented 5 vaccines in one needle and delivered to babies without benefit of long term study.  The injected adjuvants and toxoids and food proteins designed to provoke the immune system also increased the risk of provoking allergy.  Allergy is an evolved defense against acute toxicity.

 http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73%3Avaccine-induced-allergies
http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73%3Avaccine-induced-allergies

 

This information was taken from Merck vaccine manufacturer, who also make this injection.

Ingredients: Phytondione 2 or 10mgs, polyoxyethylated fatty acid 70mgs (the data sheet didn’t say where the fatty acid was derived from, but one type of oral brand has bovine gall bladder fatty acid in it, so I assume similar here), dextrose, benzyl alcohol and water.

Other brands such as the one by Roche Pharmaceuticals, may have varying ingredients. Roche’s also contains hydrochloric acid.

Hospira Inc’s version contains aluminium.

Warnings: This injection should be administered subcutaneously (just under the skin) because severe reactions including fatalities have occurred immediately after intramuscular (deep muscle) and intravenous injection (via a drip). Those reactions include hypersensitivity, anaphylactic shock, and cardiac and respiratory arrest.

Benzyl Alcohol as a preservative as been associated with toxicity in newborns (Writer’s comment: why are they then using it in an injection meant for newborns?)

 

Adverse Reactions: Deaths have occurred after intramuscular and intravenous injection, ‘flushing’ sensations, dizziness, rapid and weak pulse, profuse sweating, hypotension, dyspnea, cyanosis, pain, swelling at the injection site, allergic sensitivity, scleroderma like skin lesions that persist for long periods. Hyperbilirubinemia has occurred in newborns following the administration of vitamin K injection (jaundice).

This drug has not been tested to see if it is carcinogenic (causes cancer),whether it mutates or if it impairs fertility. It is not known whether it can cause fetal harm or whether it is excreted in human milk.

 

Contraindication

 

Hypersensitivity to any of the injection’s ingredients. (Writer’s comment: how would they know, since they give it to newborns with no medical history?).

It is interesting to note that vitamin K injections are given intramuscularly even though some manufacturer’s such as Merck say this is dangerous.

Hospira’s data sheet also says this:

‘Benzyl alcohol has been reported to be associated with a fatal “Gasping Syndrome” in premature infants.

WARNING: This product contains aluminium that may be toxic. Aluminium may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration if kidney function is impaired. Premature neonates are particularly at risk because their kidneys are immature, and they required large amounts of calcium and phosphate solutions, which contain aluminium.

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminium at greater than 4 to 5 mcg/kg/day accumulate aluminium at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.’

 

Childhood Leukaemia

 

In 1970, a study was undertaken to see what the risk factors were for childhood cancers. 16,193 babies were studied who had all been born in April 1970. 99 children developed cancer by the age of 10 in the control group and 33 children in the other group. The researchers found that when babies had received vitamin K in the first week of life, their risk of cancer increased three fold. They had not been looking at vitamin K specifically and did not expect to see such an association, so they approached Roche Pharmaceuticals, asking them to do a further trial. They initially refused, until stories about vitamin K and cancer forced them into a corner, and, determined to prove the safety of their product, they began a new study.

588 healthy children and 195 children with cancer were studied. All of these children had been born at one of two hospitals in Bristol. One hospital used oral vitamin K drops and the other used the injection. The researchers found a two fold increase in childhood Leukaemia among those who had received the injection and stated that as many as 980 cases of childhood Leukaemia were caused by the vitamin K injection every year in the UK alone.

Newer studies have been done as recently as 1998 which seem to confirm this. Two studies in the British Medical Journal in that year found that there was a two fold risk of Leukaemia among 1-6 year old’s who had been given the injection at birth, and that there was a ‘significant risk’ of all cancers after the shot.

 

An Alternative View Of Vitamin K Deficiency

 

Some medical professionals question whether newborns are actually deficient in vitamin K or whether in fact this is their normal level. Levels have been described as low due to the comparison with adult levels of the vitamin, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense, since newborns and adults are not compared in other areas. For instance, in weight and nutritional requirements. Drugs are also measured differently with lower amounts given to babies.

All babies have this universally ‘low’ level of vitamin K, so surely that would point to it being normal? Normality is based on what is seen in the majority of cases. Perhaps babies need less vitamin K than we do?

According to Archives of Disease in Childhood, 1997, a baby given a vitamin K injection receives 300 times more vitamin than is recommended for an adult and has a 9000 times higher blood plasma level. This may be why some babies then develop jaundice, as an overdose effect of the drug. Bilirubin is a natural by-product which is formed during the body’s normal break down of red blood cells. It is excreted by the liver. Jaundice happens when there is an excess of bilirubin and the liver is unable to properly cleanse the blood, i.e. liver overload. As babies receive such a huge dose of vitamin K, combined with other toxic ingredients in the shot, this liver overload isn’t surprising.

In turn, jaundice can cause kernicterus (brain damage from high bilirubin levels) and haemolysis (destruction of red blood cells), as reported in journals such as the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1996.

 

The Truth About Breast Milk

 

Breast milk undoubtedly gets a bad press in the vitamin K deficiency argument, with doctors and drug manufacturer’s both suggesting that breast milk is ‘too low’ in vitamin K. Just as with vaccines, it is another step to undermine the mother, by suggesting that she is not good enough for her baby, and in ensuring reliance on drugs from birth.

There are many other factors to consider, such as whether the baby has fed and how often he has breast fed, what his overall condition is like, whether he has been exposed to antibiotics.

 

Studies have shown that:

• Breast fed babies whose mothers ate leafy green vegetables while pregnant, did not get VKDB

• Breast fed babies whose mothers were supplemented with vitamin K tablets while pregnant did not get VKDB

• There are higher levels of vitamin K in colostrum, the baby’s first milk, so it is really important that he gets to drink colostrum as soon as possible. A study in the British Medical Journal in 1992 showed that babies who had unrestricted access to the breast immediately after birth, and who had breast fed before they were 24 hours old, did not get VKDB.

 

Protecting Your Baby From Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding

 

To summarise:

1. Don’t take medications while pregnant. If you are epileptic and on anti-seizure medication, talk to your doctor to see if it is possible to alter your drugs. Don’t take antibiotics unless there is a life threatening emergency.

2. Don’t drink alcohol during pregnancy.

3. Eat plenty of leafy green vegetables and fresh foods.

4. Avoid junk foods, and in particular, fats and margarine. Margarine contains butylated hydroxytoluene, which is an inhibitor of vitamin K.

5. Opt for a natural birth. Drugs in childbirth can make the baby unwell or drowsy, interfere with breast feeding and increase the risk of VKDB. Say no to a forceps delivery. You don’t have to have them, even in difficulty, there are other ways to help the baby into the world.

6. Delay the cord clamping. Leave your baby attached to his cord until it has stopped pulsing, or longer.

7. Breast feed your baby immediately after he is born. If he won’t feed, keep offering. If he is ill and cannot suckle, ensure he gets breast milk through a tube soon after he is born.

8. If you have a son, DON’T circumcise him! Research has shown that circumcision can cause heavy bleeding and lead to VKDB.

9. If you are considering giving artificial vitamin K supplementation, choose an oral brand rather than the injection. It is less stressful for the baby and it hasn’t been linked to cancer. Check ingredients carefully. Some may contain animal products, phenols or aluminium.

10. Consider having a natural vitamin K supplement in pregnancy and while you are nursing your child, as this won’t have the same risk of side-effects as the ones manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Sources used for this article:

Information on VKDB came from source 1.

1. Joint statement and recommendations on

Vitamin K administration to newborn infants to prevent vitamin K deficiency bleeding in infancy.

National Health and Medical Research Council

Paediatric Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners

Australian College of Midwives Inc

 

2. Merck and Co. Manufacturers data sheet for Aquamephyton vitamin K injection, dated February 2002. http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2003/03Jun_PI/AquaMEPHYTON_PI.pdf

3. Hospira Inc manufacturer’s information http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=1448

4. Roche Phrmaceutical’s Manufacturer’s data sheet, dated July 2006. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcmed.nsf/pages/rockonmm/$File/rockonmm.pdf

5. Golding J, Paterson M and Kinlen L. Factors associated with childhood cancer in a national cohort study. Brit. J Cancer 1990;62:304-8.

6. Greenwood R. Vitamin K and childhood cancer. MIDIRS 1994;4(3):258-9.

7. Greer F, Marshall S, Cherry J and Suttie J. Vitamin K status of lactating mothers, human milk, and breast-feeding infants. Pediatrics 1991;88(4);751-6.

8. British Medical Journal, 316:189-193, Jan 17, 1998

9. Passmore S, Draper G, Brownbill P, Kroll M. Ecological studies of relation between hospital policies on neonatal vitamin K administration and subsequent occurrence of childhood cancer. BMJ 1998;316:184-9

10. Meyer T and Angus J. The effect of large doses of Synkavit in the newborn. Arch Dis Child 1956;31:212-5 in, Ruby, C. Vitamin K: a historical perspective. MIDIRS 1997;7(3):362-4.

11. New Ethicals Compendium; 3c: 303-304.

12. Hall M. and Pairaudeau P. The routine use of vitamin K in the newborn. Midwifery 1987;3(4):170-7

13. O’Connor M. and Addiego J. Use of oral vitamin K1 to prevent hemorrhagic disease of the newborn infant. J Pediatr 1986;108:616-9.

14. Hathaway W. New insights on Vitamin K. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1987;1(3):367-379.

15. Golding J, Greenwood R, Birmingham K. et al. Childhood cancer, intramuscular vitamin K and pethidine given during labour. BMJ 1992;305 (6849):341-6.

16. Henderson-Smart, D. Giving vitamin K to newborn infants: a therapeutic dilemma. MJA 1996;165:414-5.

 

Written by Joanna Karpasea-Jones.


I interviewed dr Isaac Golden   

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-interviews/dr-isaac-golden/ My interview with dr Isaac Golden for Hpathy.com

GT: Greetings Isaac and congratulations on your new book, “Vaccine Damaged Children”. Why did you focus on vaccine damage?

IG: I have worked in the field of homoeopathic disease prevention since 1985. One of my daughters was vaccine damaged, and then when I eventually discovered homoeopathy I was amazed to find that homoeopaths had been preventing infectious diseases since 1798 when Hahnemann used Belladonna to prevent scarlet fever, and later used Cuprum as a preventative in the Cholera epidemics.

When I began practicing as a homoeopath I wanted to give parents a choice between vaccines and homoeoprophylaxis (HP), and so developed my own 5 year program in 1985. I saw that we had a lot of clinical evidence but very little hard data, and having a background in economics and figures, I started collecting data from people using my program.

As my work became known in Australia, due to my articles and books, I began to get a lot of referrals to treat vaccine damaged children. So prevention of vaccine damage is where it started, but assisting with treating vaccine damage once it has happened, is the next logical step and homoeopathy has a great deal to offer in both cases.

GT: I have great admiration for you and the work you’ve done researching vaccine adverse effects and homeoprophylaxis. What was the timeline on this work?

IG: As mentioned above, I developed my first 5 year preventative program in 1985, and the data started coming in late in 1986. I continued that series of data collection until 2004, and used it as part of my Doctoral research at Swinburne University in Australia. This data was about the effectiveness and safety of the HP program which parents were giving their children. I really didn’t start collecting data on vaccine damage treatment until the late 1990s which is a shame because if I had been more careful with my treatment files early on I would have been able to present much more data.

GT: From what background did you evolve to your present work?

IG: My early professional training was in economics, company finance and financial accounting. I lectured at universities in Australia in the early 1970s in these subjects. I then disappeared for 7 years pursuing esoteric studies, and when I emerged I took up studies in Natural Medicine. When I came across homoeopathy I knew I had found my dharma in healing.

GT: In your opinion does the homeopathic community fully acknowledge this massive problem with vaccines?

IG: No, but there are many reasons why, and they are not always in the control of individual practitioners. To begin with, many Colleges do not teach their students about vaccination and its potential adverse consequences. Some Colleges do not teach their students about HP, or alternatively give very limited and therefore misleading information. Most Colleges do not comprehensively address the treatment of vaccine damaged children.

What this means is that many practitioners have to educate (or re-educate) themselves following graduation in one or all of the above three issues, and this is not an easy task. For example, there is considerable debate within the homoeopathic community regarding HP. Some homoeopathic associations are uncomfortable about critically analyzing vaccination. There is very little information concerning vaccine damage treatment.

So we face a situation where the quality of available information about all aspects of this topic is very uneven. I have seen my task as being one of trying to provide factual information about the history and use of HP, its philosophical foundations with the Law of Similars, its effectiveness and safety, as well as some options regarding the treatment of vaccine damaged children, of which there are many more than anyone (myself included) ever realises.

GT: What are the first few “Red Flags” that go-up when you see a new patient and suspect a vaccine adverse reaction?

IG: Because I work so much in the vaccination area, I have tended to avoid making an immediate diagnosis of vaccine damage unless there is an unambiguous never-well-since symptom picture relating to vaccine damage. This of course does happen, and when it does then the need to deal with it becomes very clear.

The research I have done in compiling my latest book, Vaccine Damaged Children, has shown me that this was excessively cautious to the detriment of some of my patients. In other words, a more prompt and more targeted focus on vaccine damaged would have progressed their treatment considerably more than happened.

In the new research, I have tried to map symptom profiles of different vaccines, using profiles of successful treatments with vaccine potencies. This work has much further to go, but we can get an idea of the broad symptom picture of damage caused by different vaccines. If a practitioner sees these symptom profiles, especially in patients where well indicated treatments have not worked, then the possibility of vaccine damage being a cause should be explored.

This is the main problem with recognising and treating vaccine damage; there is no one or two unique symptoms that point to it, but more a general symptom profile. This can readily be lost in the patient’s symptom totality where the practitioner is focused on other aspects of the case, depending both on the uniqueness of the patient, and the type of approach(es) the practitioner generally uses.

GT: What’s been your experience in teaching the allopathic community about vaccine reactions and the use of homeopathic remedies?

IG: Nothing positive. Unfortunately most allopaths, in Australia at least, are not well educated when it comes to non-pharmaceutical approaches. We follow the American rather than the European model, to our detriment. So unless the GP is one of the small but growing number who choose to educate themselves about other healing methods, their response to any information, however factual, is minimal.

As well, vaccination is an issue where most GPs simply stop thinking and slip into some pre-programmed space where everything about vaccines is good, and any potentially negative comments are hysterical attacks. Of course this closed-minded approach is totally non-scientific, and yet we are lectured about failing to adequately comply with the science. I find it galling to use the most polite term possible.

GT: What effect do you hope your research will have on the homeopathic community?

IG: I hope it will make individual practitioners aware that there is an immense problem out there in heavily vaccinated communities. Hopefully they will think of another strategy when well indicated remedies fail to act, and they can see symptom profiles which are consistent with the possibility of vaccine damage. I really hope they will objectively examine the data regarding HP, because if a child uses HP instead of vaccines then there will be zero possibility of vaccine damage.

GT: In your book you speak of short term damage and long term damage, why is this important?

IG: Short-term damage usually is obvious, and usually self-limiting. However long-term vaccine damage is by definition not self-limiting, and it is often not obvious. This is why it goes unreported, is frequently unrecognised, and therefore untreated.

GT: Your book covers the subject of removing obstacles/blocks (vaccine toxins) by using a protocol also followed by Dutch homeopath Dr. Tinus Smits. Can you elaborate?

IG: This is probably not the place to go into the suggested protocols at length. Dr. Smits’ work is reviewed on his web site, and I would prefer that your readers saw his information for themselves. I would like to say here that I have tremendous respect for the work Dr. Smits has done over many years. He has made a great contribution. We met over the internet 8 years ago, when a student of mine who was reviewing some of my files came across his work and discovered that the two of us had been working totally independently of each other on opposite sides of the globe, yet had developed very similar symptom profiles of general vaccine damage. It was an exciting moment for me.
But addressing the question of blocks and layers in general, I believe they exist and are a major reason why well indicated medicines sometimes do not work particularly well. They derive from many possible causes, of which one is vaccine damage. It is almost certainly a more significant issue than any of us ever imagined.

By targeting specific causes with cause-specific remedies, we can help move a case forward which otherwise may have stalled. We can reach and treat areas which other modalities and even other types of homoeopathic treatment cannot deal with.I believe there is flexibility in how we deal with these blocks/layers, PROVIDED always that we do it within the Law of Similars.

One thing which my latest research suggested is that we need to be flexible, and in cases of vaccine damage that it is unlikely that only one remedy will be sufficient. Thus we will probably need constitutional, anti-miasmic, drainage as well as the layer remedies, along the way.

I’m old fashioned and prefer one remedy at a time in most situations, with infrequent doses. I learned from the latest research that there were times when I almost certainly under-prescribed. I try to share these lessons in the new book. The whole experience was a real learning experience for me.

 


%d bloggers like this: