Several vaccines are linked to dramatically increased infant mortality. Why? Because they are nothing but toxic concoctions

Sayer Ji
GreenMedInfo
Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:29 CST

A new study published in the journal Vaccine has brought to light an extremely disturbing though still virtually unreported dark side to immunization campaigns within low-income countries, namely, the observation that infant mortality sometimes increases when the number of co-administered vaccines increases; a finding diametrically opposed to the widely held belief that vaccination is always a life-saving intervention, and that the more vaccines administered to infants the better.

New Study Links DTP and Yellow Fever Vaccines To Infant Deaths

The new observational study from the West African country Guinea-Bissau titled, “Co-administration of live measles and yellow fever vaccines and inactivated pentavalent vaccines is associated with increased mortality compared with measles and yellow fever vaccines only,”[i] opens with a reference to the already consistent observation in the biomedical literature that the co-administration of inactivated diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine and live attenuated measles vaccine (MV) increases mortality compared with receiving MV only. [ii] [iii]

The purpose of the new investigation was to determine whether co-administration of pentavalent vaccine (PV) with MV and yellow fever vaccine (YF) had similar negative effects. Both PV and YF vaccines were introduced in Guinea-Bissau in 2008, with PV containing 5 vaccine antigens in one shot (DTP-H. Influenza type B-Hepatitis B).

The study findings emerged from a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 2007-2011, where researchers administered vitamin A at routine vaccination contacts among children aged 6-23 months in urban and rural Guinea-Bissau. A total of 2331 children were randomized to placebo, receiving either live vaccines only (MV or MV+YF) or a combination of live and inactivated vaccines (MV+DTP or MV+YF+pentavalent).

When mortality was compared, the adjusted mortality rate ratio (MRR) for co-administered live and inactivated vaccines compared with live vaccines only was over three times greater (3.24 (1.20-8.73). When MV+YF+pentavalent was compared with MV+YF only, the adjusted MRR was almost eight times greater (7.73 (1.79-33.4)) for the combination of the three vaccines versus two.

The researchers concluded:

“In line with previous studies of DTP, the present results indicate that pentavalent vaccine co-administered with MV and YF is associated with increased mortality.”

Pentavalent and Yellow Fever Vaccines Already Linked To Fatalities

This finding takes on a more disturbing light when one considers that by the end of 2013, largely through the efforts of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI), pentavalent vaccines will have reached close to 200 million children in 72 developing countries. GAVI also states that yellow fever vaccines have been administered to 60 million children, “averting an estimated 160,000 future deaths.” Pentavalent vaccines have already created widespread controversy by being linked to clusters of infant deaths in every Southeast and South Asian country where they have been introduced, including Bhutan, Sri LankaVietnam and India. Similarly, yellow fever vaccines have been linked to deaths as far back as 2001, when 7 people were found contracting yellow fever and dying from the vaccine itself. The obvious question then emerges: Could both the pentavalent and yellow fever vaccines actually be increasing mortality despite GAVI’s position that they are a life-saving intervention that presumably should be administered to every at risk child in the developing world?

What adds additional weight to this concern is that there is already a well-established history of DTP (and oral polio) vaccines being linked to increased morbidity and mortality in low-income countries, starting with this 2000 BMJ article also in a population of vaccinated infants from Guinea-Bissau that found recipients of one dose of DTP or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines. A 2011 study of Guinea-Bissau females found DTP vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls.[iv] Clearly the vaccines can cause significant harm. Another far more recent study published this year in the journal Tropical Medicine and International Health found that DTP vaccination is responsible for higher mortality among Indian girls. Another 2005 study on vaccinated female infants in India found that those who receive both the tuberculosis vaccine Bacillus Calmette – Guérin (BCG) and DTP experience significantly higher mortality than those who receive only one of the two vaccines.[v]

Given the multitude of studies showing vaccine-induced harm, including increased infant mortality, especially for DTP vaccines, one wonders how global vaccination campaigns can blatantly promote them as infallibly effective and extremely safe.

Evidence That Vaccines Are Toxic Exposures

It has been hypothesized that this association with DTP vaccines and increased mortality may be due to the Th2-polarising effect of the aluminum phosphate adjuvant in the vaccine, as well as the chronic inflammation caused by the intramuscular administration of the vaccine at the site of injection, [vi] but another obvious explanation is that the vaccines themselves are toxic exposures, with the more vaccines given to infants the higher the likelihood of synergistic toxicity and resultant morbidity and mortality.

Exactly this possibility was raised by a 2011 study published in the journal Human and Experimental Toxicology titled, “Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?”,[vii] which brought to the fore the fact that, “The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year-the most in the world-yet 33 nations have lower IMRs.” The study found that there is a highly statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.

With the ongoing expansion of immunization schedules in the U.S. and globally, justified by the idea that more vaccines, and more vaccine antigens combined within each injection, will confer greater overall benefit to health (that far outweigh the risks of the vaccines themselves), and by ‘vaccine safety’ spokespersons such as Paul Offit claiming as many as 10,000 vaccines can be administered to a child at once safely, this new study indicates quite the opposite is true.

References

[i] Ane Bærent Fisker, Henrik Ravn, Amabelia Rodrigues, Marie Drivsholm Ostergaard, Carlito Bale, Christine Stabell Benn, Peter Aaby. Co-administration of live measles and yellow fever vaccines and inactivated pentavalent vaccines is associated with increased mortality compared with measles and yellow fever vaccines only. An observational study from Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine. 2013 Dec 7. pii: S0264-410X(13)01663-0. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.11.074.

[ii] J Agergaard, E Nante, G Poulstrup, J Nielsen, K L Flanagan, L Østergaard, C S Benn, P Aaby.Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls. A randomised trial from Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine. 2011 Jan 10;29(3):487-500. Epub 2010 Nov 18. PMID:21093496

[iii] Peter Aaby, Sidu Biai, Jens Erik Veirum, Morten Sodemann, Ida Lisse, May-Lill Garly, Henrik Ravn, Christine Stabell Benn, Amabelia Rodrigues. DTP with or after measles vaccination is associated with increased in-hospital mortality in Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine. 2007 Jan 26;25(7):1265-9. Epub 2006 Oct 18.

[iv] J Agergaard, E Nante, G Poulstrup, J Nielsen, K L Flanagan, L Østergaard, C S Benn, P Aaby. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls. A randomised trial from Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine. 2011 Jan 10;29(3):487-500. Epub 2010 Nov 18. PMID:21093496

[v] Lawrence H Moulton, Lakshmi Rahmathullah, Neal A Halsey, R D Thulasiraj, Joanne Katz, James M Tielsch. Evaluation of non-specific effects of infant immunizations on early infant mortality in a southern Indian population. Trop Med IntHealth. 2005 Oct;10(10):947-55. PMID: 16185228

[vi] Mogens Helweg Claesson. Immunological Links to Nonspecific Effects of DTwP and BCG Vaccines on Infant Mortality. J Trop Med. 2011 ;2011:706304. Epub 2011 May 5. PMID: 21760811

[vii] Neil Z Miller, Gary S Goldman. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 May 4. Epub 2011 May 4. PMID: 21543527

Should we hold those vaccinated against pertussis legally liable for whooping cough outbreaks?

whooping cough boy

Toni Bark, MD
Green Med Info
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 01:00 CST

The recent news articles to hit the mainstream media in the past week finally states what public health officials and epidemiologists have known for some time: those vaccinated against pertussis are carrying and spreading the bacteria and are responsible for most of the outbreaks.

This news raises the question:

Should we hold those vaccinated with the pertussis vaccine, legally liable for outbreaks?

And, if you look up scholarly articles about previous outbreaks of measles, you’ll find academic papers on an entity termed “the paradox of measles“; a paradox because those vaccinated are the ones contracting the disease whilst the unvaccinated in many communities with outbreaks, are unscathed.

In addition, the rise in shingles over the past decade or so, is due to the chicken pox vaccine. This link is not denied in academic literature and was even predicted by mathematical biologists and epidemiologists, and was confirmed by another study funded by the CDC.

If vaccinated children and adults are capable of spreading disease, shall we hold them and their parents legally liable for outbreaks? Shall we mandate ‘unvaccination’ as a requirement for public school? Since we can’t ‘unvaccinate,’ shall vaccinated children be kicked out of public school?

While the above statements seem absurd, they are equivalent arguments bioethicist, Art Caplan has and continues to make.

Caplan believes parents of unvaccinated children should be held legally liable for outbreaks of disease.

Mind you, Caplan is no regular academic bioethicist, he is a bioethicist who has made a good deal of money for writing pro-industry speak.

If you read about Art Caplan and his direct financial conflicts of interest, you’ll also read Art believes these financial conflicts can be managed while producing unbiased work. He and his previous institution of employment, the University of Pennsylvania Department of Bioethics received mega fees from major pharmaceutical companies and the department of vaccine bioethics at U Penn was massively funded by the big vaccine producers.

In addition to the DTap rendering recipients colonized with pertussis bacteria, consider the following;

a) Recently vaccinated children must be kept away from cancer patients lest they shed vaccine virus.

b) The oral polio vaccine was the cause of all polio cases in the US for several decades until, finally, the vaccine industry had a vaccine to replace it with.

c) The nasal flu vaccine renders the recipient shedding viruses for several days.

d) The rotavirus vaccine is shed in the recipient’s stool causing diarrhea in other children.

The above examples are just a few of how the recently vaccinated can shed pathogens and hence spread diseases.

So while the mainstream media is waking up to the realities of vaccination and outbreaks, shall we turn on all those who chose to vaccinate and make them pariahs?

I think the freedom to choose the risks vs benefits of vaccinating should be left to the consumer and not dictated by those with conflicts of interest.

Toni Bark, M.D. (LEED AP) graduated from Rush Medical College in Chicago, Illinois in 1986. Dr. Bark has been medical director for various departments and hospitals and has extensive post residency training in aesthetic medicine, nutritional medicine, and classical homeopathy with the top trainers in the various fields. Learn more about her work on her websitehttp://www.disease-reversal.com.

Hypertension Guidelines Can Be Eased, Panel Says

By 

Published: December 18, 2013

New guidelines suggest that people over 60 can have a higher blood pressure than previously recommended before starting treatment to lower it. The advice, criticized by some physicians, changes treatment goals that have been in place for more than 30 years.

Until now, people were told to strive for blood pressures below 140/90, with some taking multiple drugs to achieve that goal. But the guidelines committee, which spent five years reviewing evidence, concluded that the goal for people over 60 should be a systolic pressure of less than 150. And the diastolic goal should remain less than 90.

Systolic blood pressure, the top number, indicates the pressure on blood vessels when the heart contracts. Diastolic, the bottom number, refers to pressure on blood vessels when the heart relaxes between beats.

Essentially, the committee determined that there was not strong evidence for the blood pressure targets that had been guiding treatment, and that there were risks associated with the medications used to bring pressures down.

The committee, composed of 17 academics, was tasked with updating guidelines last re-examined a decade ago. Their report was published online on Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Hypertension experts said they did not have a precise figure on how many Americans would be affected by the new guidelines. But Dr. William B. White, the president of the American Society of Hypertension, said it was “a huge number for sure.” He estimated that millions of people over 60 had blood pressures between 140 and 150. Dr. Paul A. James, the chairman of the department of family medicine at the University of Iowa and co-chairman of the guidelines committee, said, “If you get patients’ blood pressure below 150, I believe you are doing as well as can be done based on scientific evidence.”

The group added that people over 60 who are taking drugs and have lowered their blood pressure to below 150 can continue taking the medications if they are not experiencing side effects.

But, it cautioned, although efforts to lower blood pressure have had a remarkable effect, reducing the incidence of strokes and heart disease, there is a difference between lowering blood pressure with drugs and having lower pressure naturally.

Medications that lower blood pressure can have effects that counteract some of the benefits, said Dr. Suzanne Oparil, a co-chairwoman of the committee and director of the vascular biology and hypertension program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine. For that reason, maximum benefits may occur with less intense treatment and higher blood pressure.

“The mantra of blood pressure experts in the past has been that lower is better,” Dr. Oparil said. “Recent studies don’t seem to support that.”

For example, two Japanese studies in older people found that those who reduced their systolic pressure to less than 140 fared no better than those who reduced it to between 140 and 160, or between 140 and 149.

“We have this notion that if we can get blood pressure to normal, we will have the most health benefits,” Dr. James said. “That’s not necessarily true.”

For people younger than 60, the goal remains blood pressure under 140/90. The panel decided to keep that target because it could not find rigorous studies that established systolic blood pressure goals for younger people.

When blood pressure guidelines were first formulated in 1977, the committee only looked at diastolic pressure. “People thought systolic should be 100 plus your age,” Dr. Oparil said. “That was old folk medicine.”

Observational studies then found that systolic pressure was a better predictor of consequences like strokes. Researchers began to test the effects of lowering systolic blood pressure, but their studies excluded younger people because they were looking for outcomes, like strokes or heart failure, that are more common in older people. As a result, there are no good studies showing that younger people benefit from taking drugs to achieve a particular systolic pressure.

Some experts not on the committee said that the blood pressure guidelines were based on limited science — studies did not specifically test the effects of getting blood pressure below 140/90 — but that this did not mean the goal should be abandoned.

“When I discuss this with my colleagues and friends in the community, most are pretty livid,” said Dr. George Bakris, the director of the hypertension center at the University of Chicago. “Is this the golden age of Sparta? What is going on?”

The old blood pressure targets made a huge difference in patients’ health, said Dr. Marvin Moser, a hypertension expert, who was the chairman of the first blood pressure guidelines committee in 1977 and a member of the six committees after that, but not of the most recent one.

“The thing about hypertension is that it is a dull disease, but the results of treatment are spectacular,” he said. The incidence of strokes has fallen by 70 percent since 1972, and heart failure rates have fallen more than 50 percent.

“It used to be that every third or fourth hospital bed had someone with hypertension in it,” Dr. Moser said. “Today it is very rare to find someone with malignant hypertension” — that is, dangerously high and uncontrolled blood pressure.

It is inexpensive now to treat the disorder, Dr. Moser added, because 90 percent of blood pressure drugs are available as generics.

But, Dr. James said, some people may be better off taking fewer drugs or lower doses. Many older people take multiple medications, which can interact and potentially cause harm, he said.

Some people, too, end up with blood pressures so low when they stand that they get dizzy.

“A lady who gets dizzy and falls and fractures her hip — that’s a terrible thing,” Dr. James said.

The guidelines committee’s paper is accompanied by three editorials, two of which praise the process and note the rigor with which the group assessed evidence.

The third — by Dr. Eric D. Peterson of Duke University, Dr. J. Michael Gaziano of the VA Boston Healthcare System and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Dr. Philip Greenland of Northwestern University — said the committee should have considered evidence that fell short of randomized, controlled clinical trials.

“We’re not starting from square one,” Dr. Gaziano said in a telephone interview. “We’ve got a history of how to manage patients. The bar for changing that should be pretty high.”

Dr. Bakris said that the committee was merely proposing guidelines, and that doctors should continue to use their judgment.

“These are not stone tablets of Moses,” he said.

But, the writers of the critical editorial noted, doctors today are expected to follow performance measures.

Half of people taking drugs do not achieve the current goal of blood pressure under 140/90, and the writers expressed concern that with the new, more lenient target, patients’ blood pressures would edge even higher.