It's Flu Season. Let the Fear-Mongering Begin!

Yesterday morning a pediatrician left a comment on my critique of the MMR study, asking pointedly why I chose to critique such a small study. The doctor stated that the study in question was the smallest one he's ever seen. He asserted that there are many more vaccine studies, "some with over a million subjects." He wanted to know why I don't critique them. I asked him to please provide the links because I have not been able to find any such studies. The fact is, it is standard operating procedure for the vaccine makers to conduct studies with very small sample sizes and to then make sweeping declarations of the safety of their products. This is particularly true for the flu vaccine.

Last week I walked into the local CVS pharmacy and asked for the package insert for the flu vaccine they will be using this Saturday at their "vaccine clinic." The girl behind the pharmacy counter didn't know what I was talking about. So I asked if they have the vials on hand. She said yes. I asked to see the box. She retrieved it from the refrigerator. I wrote down the name - "Fluvirin" and noted that it is the multi-dose variety.

Here is the manufacturer's insert:

Each .5 ml dose contains 25 mcg. of thimerosal (ethyl mercury), which means if your child gets two doses, he or she will be getting 50 mcg. of thimerosal.

If you ask your doctor if this is safe, you will most likely be told "Yes." If you ask if the research has been done to prove safety of this particular vaccine, you will most likely be told "yes." I suggest you don't stop there.

On page 10 of the package insert (link above), you will find the information about the clinical studies in the pediatric population. Here it is:

In 1987 a clinical study was carried out in 38 ‘at risk’ children aged between 4 and 12 years (17 females and 21 males). To record the safety of FLUVIRIN, participants recorded their symptoms on a diary card during the three days after vaccination and noted any further symptoms they thought were attributable to the vaccine. The only reactions recorded were tenderness at the site of vaccination in 21% of the participants on day 1, which was still present in 16% on day 2 and 5% on day 3. In one child, the tenderness was also accompanied by redness at the site of injection for two days. The reactions were not age-dependent and there was no bias towards the younger children.

Three clinical studies were carried out between 1995 and 2004 in a total of 520 pediatric subjects (age range 6 - 47 months). Of these, 285 healthy subjects plus 41 ‘at risk’ subjects received FLUVIRN. No serious adverse events were reported.

FLUVIRIN should only be used for the immunization of persons aged 4 years and over.

That's it. The 2010-2011 Fluvirin Vaccine has been deemed safe to administer to ALL U.S. children 4 years and older, and this decision is based on studies of 38 children that were done in 1987, and 326 children studied between 1995 and 2004.

That's not a lot of kids to base the decision that the vaccine is safe for ALL children.

What's even more troubling is that this year's vaccine contains two strains of seasonal flu (A & B) AND it also contains H1N1.

H1N1 did not resurface until 2009. The vaccines that were studied in 1987, 1995, and 2004 did not contain H1N1.

This flu vaccine has NEVER been studied in children. But it has been deemed "Safe for all U.S. children aged 4 years and above."

Yesterday morning I contacted the USI Student Health Clinic to find out what flu vaccine they are giving and to what groups. I spoke with a nurse who told me they are using Fluzone multi-dose vials and they are giving it to "all ages" including pregnant women. The nurse added, "We gave it to them last year."

Here is the package insert for Fluzone:

Page 1: "Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers, or children <6 months of age."

Page 3: "6.1. Clinical Trial Experience - Fluzone - Pediatric Studies: The 2003-2004 formulation of Fluzone was studied in 19 children 6 to 23 months of age and in 12 children 24 to 36 months of age, given in 2 doses one month apart. Local reactions and systemic events were solicited for 3 days after each dose. Most local and systemic reactions were mild. The proportions of local and systemic reactions in children were simliar to the proportions in adults."

This vaccine, which contains mercury, is being recommended for ALL children 6 months and older. It has been deemed "safe" on the basis of clinical trials that included a total of 31 children between the ages of 6-36 months.

THe formulation that was studied in 2003-2004 is different from the formulation this year, so this year's flu vaccine has not been studied AT ALL for its effect in infants and young children.

Page 4: "8. Use in specific populations - 8.1 pregnancy: Pregnancy Category C.: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Fluzone. It is also not known whether Fluzone can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Fluzone should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed."

WHY WOULD ANYONE ASSUME IT IS OKAY TO GIVE THIS VACCINE TO PREGNANT WOMEN?
WHY WOULD PREGNANT WOMEN BE LINING UP TO RECEIVE IT?
WHY WOULD PARENTS OF INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN BE LINING UP TO HAVE THEIR KIDS VACCINATED WITH SOMETHING THAT CONTAINS MERCURY AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TESTED FOR SAFETY?

People are afraid of the flu. They are afraid because the CDC tells them to be afraid.

This is the lnk to the CDC's own report of the 2009-2010 flu season:

On pg. 3: "A dramatic increase in hospitalizations in the younger age groups was indicative of the influenza pandemic's impact on children." If you look at the numbers and do the math, the "dramatic increase" in children 4 and under was 83 hospitalizations per 100,000 as compared with 34/100,000 (avg. from the previous 3 flu seasons).

The "dramatic increase" in hospitalizations in kids 4 yrs and under amounts to 6.83 kids per month in a city of 100,000 people, as compared to between 2.62-4.25 kids per month in the same city during each of the previous 3 flu seasons.

Breaking it down by week... during last years "pandemic" flu season, in a city of 100,000 people there was an average of 1.63 hospitalizations for flu (confirmed by laboratory analysis) in children four years and younger.

In the previous three flu seasons, in the same city of 100,000 people, hospitalizations for kids 4 and under were between .63 and 1.01 kids per week.

So, according to the CDC's own document, the "dramatic increase" on the pediatric population (kids four and under, in this case), as measured by hospitalizations for laboratory confirmed flu, amounted to less than one child per week in cities of 100,000 people.

Who is "fear-mongering" now?

Scaring the public with terminology like "dramatic increase" in order to sell more vaccines to pregnant women and parents of infants and toddlers when the vaccines have not been tested for safety in these groups is unethical and unconscionable.

Preparing Your Body for Pregnancy; Preparing Your Child for Vaccination

If you have read much about biomedical interventions and recovery from autism, you may be familiar with the analogy of being hit by a bus. As Stan Kurtz writes, “You cannot be cured of being hit by a bus, but you can recover from it. You might even be able to recover enough that you do not need to park in special parking spaces when you go shopping. If you are fortunate enough you might recover well enough that you gain back so much of your functioning such that no one would know you were ever in an accident.” This is a great analogy, especially for those children who have already received a diagnosis of autism. In many cases, while we may not be able to “cure” the autism, if we address the underlying conditions through appropriated testing and treatment, we may be able to recover the child to the point where he or she no longer meets the diagnostic criteria for autism. In many cases, no one would ever guess the child had been “hit by the bus” in the first place.

But wait…

What if we could prevent your child from being hit by the bus in the first place?

Let’s think about pregnancy. When a fetus is growing in the womb, it is incubating. We have been told for some time now that pregnant women should not smoke and should not drink alcohol, because these behaviors are known to be damaging to a developing fetus. The peer-reviewed medical literature is bursting at the seams with paper after paper, documenting the research findings about the teratologic effects of tobacco and alcohol.

Teratologic: the scientific study of visible conditions caused by the interruption or alteration of normal development

Marci’s note: Teratological effects may well include effects that are not “visible” and which may not become known for a long time after the exposure that caused the damage. Examples:

• Babies who were fed soy formula. Soy is a source of estrogen. When fed as the sole source of nutrition, the amount of estrogen taken in can disrupt the balance between hormones, and may contribute to the early onset of puberty in girls, and delayed onset of puberty in boys.
  
• Terbutaline administration. Terbutaline is a medication given to women to stop preterm labor. It has been linked to later onset of learning disabilities and social deficits in children whose mothers took the drug during pregnancy.
  

By now, everyone has heard that there is an epidemic of autism in this country. There are some people who still want to deny this fact, but the evidence is overwhelming, and it is real. It’s not just because of more inclusive diagnostic criteria. It’s also not purely genetic. There is no such thing as a genetic epidemic. So what’s going on? And why can’t the researchers figure out the cause of autism?

The clue is in the previous question. As long as researchers are looking for “the cause” of autism, they are not going to find it. Why? Because multiple factors working together synergistically is the source of the epidemic. There is no single “smoking gun.” If you are not familiar with the concept of synergism, you need to understand this key concept. Here is the definition:

Synergism: the phenomenon in which the combined action of two things such as drugs or muscles is greater than the sum of their effects individually. In the case of drugs, the result may be dangerous to the patient.

Marci’s note: in the case of toxins (heavy metals, toxic chemicals, pesticides, organophosphates, food additives), the combined action of two (or more) things is greater than the sum of their effects individually. The result may be dangerous to the patient. Alternatively, the synergistic effect of a genetic predisposition and an environmental exposure (to metals, pesticides, medications, etc…) will be more damaging than the effects of either situation (genetic or environmental) alone. The result may be dangerous to the patient. (Remember that in this case, the patient is the infant in the incubator.)

Synergy is an extremely important concept when it comes to autism and other neurodevelopmental disabilities. The concept of synergy is precisely why families who have sought relief through “The Vaccine Court” have not been successful in establishing that their children’s regressive autism was caused by the combination of thimerosal (mercury) and the MMR vaccine. (Note: the basic premise of the argument is that the child’s immune system is compromised by mercury (a heavy metal, which damages multiple systems in the body, including the enzymatic processes, and detoxification pathways), predisposing the child to be more vulnerable to the effects of the MMR vaccine (a vaccination which simultaneously injects three separate viruses into the blood stream, bypassing the body’s primary immune defense mechanisms (gastrointestinal and respiratory), ultimately resulting in a situation which overwhelms the body’s defenses and leads to chronic illness (fever, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, ear infections, respiratory infections, chronic tonsillitis, strep, bronchitis, allergies, asthma, & seizures), which later results in the behavioral and cognitive symptoms that lead to an “autism spectrum disorder” diagnosis.

Please remember that the fever, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, seizures, etc… tend to occur prior to the behaviors that lead, ultimately, to the “autism” diagnosis. This is an important piece of information, especially since most parents I have spoken with report that the “experts” who diagnosed their children with “autism” often state (with considerable authority) that the physical symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, vomiting) the parents are reporting are “just part of autism.” The physical symptoms are therefore ignored. This is PRECISELY why professionals who do not look further than the obvious behavioral and cognitive presentations, can and do state (with considerable authority), that “Autism is a lifelong condition and there is nothing you can do about it.” From where I sit, it looks like the authorities have it backwards. The physical symptoms happen first and the behavioral and cognitive symptoms happen as a result of the physical symptoms. Therefore, the lack of eye-contact, reduced awareness of the environment, inattention, aggression, and poor social skills are “just part of the gastro-intestinal disease” and if we do something to fix the GI problems, the symptoms associated with the child’s “autism” diagnosis will improve. If this sounds like voodoo science to you, let me phrase it differently.

Consider, for a moment, symptoms that you yourself might have had. Have you ever had a migraine? Have you ever had a “stomach virus” with nausea, pain in your gut, diarrhea, constipation, achy joints, headache and ‘brain-fog?’ If you have, please try to recall at this moment what it felt like. Now, imagine you are in a room full of four year-olds – a preschool environment. Do you feel “social?” Can you concentrate? Are you likely to learn and “achieve on par with your potential?”

If you only consider “autism” – which is a behavioral and cognitive-based diagnosis – and do not look further, the professionals who tell you with so much authority, “There is nothing you can do” are probably correct. If you don’t look beyond the behaviors and the label, it is likely that you are facing a lifelong diagnosis, for which you will not see significant improvement. In other words, your child will most likely never get married or have children, will probably not be able to live independently, will most likely not be able to support himself or herself, and will require full-time support from you until the day you die – which will probably happen prematurely due to all the stress you will endure in the interim. And your marriage? Statistics indicate that the divorce rate among couples with autistic children is 85%. Is this a good time to talk about the economy and the difficulties of single parents raising a child with autism?

I realize I am being brutal. I apologize for that, but not for the need to be honest. Grab a tissue, have a good cry, and suck it up because this discussion is relevant to your life. It is especially relevant if you are considering having children in the future.

“Current Events” time!

On February 12, 2009, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine Court) Special Masters ruled against three families of autistic children, whose histories were chosen as “test cases” in the plaintiffs’ efforts to legally establish causality between thimerosal, MMR, and the children’s regression into autistic symptoms, which happened to occur shortly after receiving the vaccinations.

It was reported that one factor which helped sway the decision against the families is that they claimed their children were “developing normally” prior to the administration of the MMR vaccine. The Masters, upon review of photographs, videos, and medical records of the children in question, concluded that the parents’ claim that their children were “developing normally” was untrue. As I recall, the opinion of the special masters cited things like videos and photographs showing inconsistent eye-contact prior to the MMR administration. This concept of “normal development” hit me like a ton of bricks when I read it.

What does this statement mean, “Developing Normally?”

When I think about this question, the first thing that comes to mind is how shocked I have been and continue to be, when I ask parents the following question, “Did your child have a lot of ear infections during the first four years of life?”

The answer I frequently receive is, “Not a lot. No more than any other children.”
My response: “How many ear infections does your child typically have in a year?”
Typical response: “Three or four.”

What is important about the conversation, as reported above, is that most parents I interview report that their child is having three or four ear infections per year (which are treated with antibiotics) and the parents are also reporting that their child is no different from other children who are “developing normally.”

This is a problem.

Another area where I see a problem involves constipation. My developmental history form specifically asks about constipation and the majority of children I see have had significant problems with the frequency of bowel movements. Several have had to go to the hospital multiple times because their bowels have become impacted. Many parents have told me that they have expressed concerns to their pediatricians or family doctors, regarding their children’s infrequent bowel movements (often once a week or less), only to be told by their trusted physician, “In some children, that’s normal.”

Bowel movements are the body’s way of clearing toxins. (The body also clears toxins through urination and sweating.) Some toxins will ONLY clear the body through bowel movements. If you have toxins building up in the body and the half-life of that toxin is, let’s say 3 days, and the child in question is only having a bowel movement every 7 days, then if that toxin is taken into the body (perhaps through vaccination) and the child does not have a bowel movement for four or five days after taking the toxin it, where do you suppose the toxin goes? It gets stored in the body. Some of it goes into the soft tissues like kidneys and bone marrow. Some of it goes into the brain. Once it’s stored, it’s hard to get it out.

The gist of this is that our children are NOT developing normally if they are having chronic constipation (or diarrhea), or if they are having chronic bacterial and viral infections, upper respiratory infections, bronchitis, tonsillitis, strep, allergies, and asthma. We have an entire generation of children who are more prone to illness than children who are truly “developing normally.” The problem is, we have become so accustomed to this that we now accept this situation as “normal.” This needs to change. (Note: The generation of children who are so prone to infections and gastrointestinal problems coincides with the administration of the Hepatitis B vaccination at birth. For more on this topic, please read the post Vaccines and Autism - Your Child vs. The Greater Good.)

So, going back to the concept of teratology – things that disrupt normal development … In order to prevent more children from being “hit by the bus,” we need to pay closer attention to the things that may disrupt “normal development,” starting before conception even occurs. We need to prepare the incubator. For those children who are already here, we need to assess the status of their overall health and development BEFORE we inject them with multiple viruses simultaneously, and BEFORE we allow anyone to inject them with substances (thimerosal, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc.) that are KNOWN to have teratologic effects. Remember, the first rule of vaccinations is “do not vaccinate a sick child.” The problem is that when we view children with chronic conditions (viruses, bacterial infections, etc.) as “normal,” our perception of what constitutes “a sick child” has been skewed. Those are the children who are being “thrown in front of the bus.” My point: If we identify (accurately) those children who ARE sick, and get them healthy BEFORE administering vaccinations, we are likely to decrease the numbers of children who subsequently regress and end up receiving an autism diagnosis.

Back to the main question at hand – what do you need to do to increase your chances of having a healthy baby – one who stays healthy and does not become part of the estimated 1 in 67 American children with an autism spectrum disorder?

1. Don’t wait until you are pregnant to start preparing your body. Remember, you are the incubator. Imagine for a moment that you have just delivered a baby that was born premature, and had to be placed in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) of the hospital. When your precious infant is taken from your womb and placed in the incubator in the NICU, you expect that the incubator will be a healthy environment for your fragile infant. By healthy, I mean, you expect that the incubator is free from bacteria (strep, staph, clostridia), viruses (Herpes, Measles, Varicella [Chickenpox], Human Papilloma Virus, Epstein-Barr, Cytomegalovirus), yeast (candida albicans and others), and parasites. You also expect that the incubator your infant is placed in will not be contaminated with heavy metals (lead, mercury, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum [not technically a ‘heavy metal’]), and that the incubator will not be sprayed with pesticides or contaminated with organophosphates. In essence, what you expect, is that your precious baby will be placed in a pristine environment, in which he or she will be able to develop, to his or her full potential.
   

If you expect strangers to care for your baby this way, shouldn’t you do everything you can to care for your future child with the same concern?

This entire thought process should start at least one to two years before you become pregnant.
If you live in the Tri-state (Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois), you should know that you live in the coal-burning power plant capitol of the world. If you have lived here for any length of time, you have been exposed to heavy metals (from coal-burning power plants), pesticides and organophosphates (from farming). If you get annual flu shots and have not specified that you want thimerosal-free flu shots, you have had a yearly dose of mercury injected directly into your bloodstream.

If you live in an area where you are regularly exposed to heavy metals and other environmental toxins, you owe it to your future children to find out what toxins have built up in your system, before you make it an incubator for your future child. You would not want your child to be placed in a hospital incubator contaminated with bacteria, viruses, and toxins (metals, pesticides, organophosphates), so why would you allow your child to spend the most important growing stage in just such an environment. If you do not pursue primary intervention that assesses your own body stores of these toxins, that is exactly what you are doing. The incubator is contaminated.

Clean it up before you trust it with the future of your precious baby.

2. If you are the parent of a young child and you are concerned about whether or not to vaccinate him or her, you need to become informed about your options as a parent. One of those options I would encourage is to have your child evaluated first to determine if there are physical problems that should be addressed, prior to vaccination. This may be especially important if your child has gastrointestinal problems, or recurrent viral and/or bacterial infections.

To learn more about assessment for genetic vulnerability and toxic exposures before you get pregnant, or before vaccinating your child, contact Marcella Piper-Terry, M.S.; Biomedical Consultant; marcellaterry@hotmail.com

The Flu Vaccine - Is It Worth It? A Cost-Benefit Analysis

A few weeks ago I posted an article on this blog entitled, "Is There Thimerosal in the Flu Vaccine." At that time, it had just been announced in the media that the CDC was stepping up efforts this year "like never before" to ensure that every man, woman, and child (including babies and the as-yet unborn) receive the flu vaccine. As I wrote then, this is extremely concerning, especially when it comes to vaccinating pregnant women in the second trimester, and vaccinating babies and children with something that contains mercury. I cannot understand why, after the CDC finally agreed to remove thimerosal from the childhood vaccine schedule, they would now recommend vaccinations for babies and children that still contain this extremely toxic heavy metal.

I know this is a topic I already covered, but it is one that is so important it's worth expanding on.

Today was one of those rare days when, having attended the Health Fair at USI, I found myself at home with my feet up when the news came on. One of the stories covered by Ann Komas, anchor for WFIE News, reported on a "Drive-In Flu Clinic" that took place today in Indianapolis. People are lining up in their cars, simultaneously rolling down their windows and rolling up their sleeves to get the flu vaccines they have been so fervently advised to receive.

I wonder how many of them know about the thimerosal.

As my 8 year-old watched the news report she screwed up her face and said, "EEEWWWW! Gross!!!" I was very relieved to be able to tell her that she didn't have to worry about that because she is not getting a flu shot.

The government has GREATLY over-stated both the severity of the threat to healthy individuals from the flu, and the efficacy of the flu vaccine in preventing flu-related deaths. If you would like to read a fascinating article, written by research-physicians that will help you to make an informed decision about whether or not to submit to the government's push, click here.
If you don't care to read the entire article, here are some things to consider:

This information is taken directly from the article, "A Shot of Fear," written by By Steven Woloshin, Lisa M. Schwartz and H. Gilbert Welch, published in 2005 in The Washington Post.

• According to the CDC, 90 percent of flu-related deaths occur among people age 65 years and older. Based on this information and the age distribution of the population, the chance of a flu-related death for people in that age group is about one in 1,000. Another way of saying this is that the chance of not dying from flu for those 65 and older is about 999 out of 1,000. (For context, the chance of a flu-related death is slightly lower than the chance of dying from a fall or other accident.)
• For people younger than 65 (including children), the chance of a flu-related death is much smaller -- about one in 100,000.

The authors of the above-reference article point out that the wording of papers published in some highly-regarded, peer-reviewed, medical journals is misleading and overstates the effectiveness of the flu vaccination.

• For example, a 2003 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine observed that the flu vaccine was associated with a 50 percent reduction in the overall death rate (that is, death from heart disease, stroke, cancer and all other causes combined). To attribute an effect of this magnitude solely to the flu vaccine is ludicrous: Flu-related deaths make up less than 2 percent of all deaths. If the claim were accurate, the vaccine's power would dwarf that of any other medical intervention.

The authors go on to point out that for some, it is not necessarily the concern of death from the flu that drives them (now, literally) to get the vaccination. Many Americans roll up their sleeves and hold their screaming children down to receive the flu shot because they don't want to be sick and don't want to miss work or school.

• The authors write, "Many may get flu shots simply to avoid getting sick. The Cochrane Collaboration identified more than 20 randomized trials addressing this question. The overall chance of developing "clinical" flu was 19 percent in those chosen, again by chance, to receive the recommended flu vaccine vs. 23 percent in the control groups."

If I'm interpreting this correctly, having received the flu vaccine conferred a 4% advantage when it came to actually getting sick, when compared to those who did not receive the flu vaccine.

Read on:

• Studies have also measured another outcome: how vaccination affects days lost from work. On average, there are about 0.16 fewer days lost from work per person vaccinated. Another way of saying this is that about 5 percent of those vaccinated avoid missing about three days of work because of the flu. (That is, 0.16 days divided by the 5 percent who benefited from vaccination equals 3.2 days.) The other 95 percent vaccinated got no benefit.

For anyone who is concerned about injecting mercury into yourself or your child, PLEASE ask yourself, "Is it worth it?" before obediently and blindly rolling up your sleeves. For pregnant women and parents of small children, PLEASE, JUST SAY "NO."

Marcella Piper-Terry, M.S.