Vaccination Information

This letter has been around for a couple years, but it is worth re-posting.  If you want to learn everything you can in order to make an informed decision about vaccines, read on…
~Kristin

Forced Vaccinations, Government, and the Public Interest

By Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D.

December 2009

Those who are observant have noticed a dangerous trend in the United States, as well as worldwide, and that is the resorting of various governments at different levels to mandating forced vaccination upon the public at large. My State of Mississippi has one of the most-restrictive vaccine-exemption laws in the United States, where exemptions are allowed only upon medical recommendation. Ironically, this is only on paper, as many have had as many as three physicians, some experts in neurological damage caused by vaccines, provide written calls for exemption, only to be turned down by the State’s public-health officer.

Worse are the States, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland, where forced vaccinations have either been mandated by the courts, the state legislature, or have such legislation pending. All of such policies strongly resemble those policies found in National Socialist empires, Stalinist countries, or Communist China.

When public-health officers are asked for the legal justification for such draconian measures as forcing people to accept vaccines that they deem either a clear and present danger to themselves and their loved ones or have had personal experience with serious adverse reactions to such vaccines, they usually resort to the need to protect the public.

One quickly concludes that if the vaccines are as effective as being touted by the public-health officials, then why should one fear the unvaccinated? Obviously the vaccinated would have at least 95% protection. This question puts them in a very difficult position. Their usual response is that a “small” percentage of the vaccinated will not have sufficient protection and would still be at risk. Now, if they admit what the literature shows, that vaccine failure rates are much higher than the 5% they claim, they must face the next obvious question – then why should anyone take the vaccine if there is a significant chance it will not protect?

When pressed further, they then resort to their favorite justification, the Holy Grail of the vaccine proponents – herd immunity. This concept is based upon the idea that 95% (and some now say 100%) of the population must be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic. The percentages needing vaccination grows progressively. I pondered this question for some time before the answer hit me. Herd immunity is mostly a myth and applies only to natural immunity – that is, contracting the infection itself.

Is Herd Immunity Real?

In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.

Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done.

That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.

When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity. This is why vaccine defenders insist the vaccines have 95% effectiveness rates.

Without the mantra of herd immunity, these public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations. I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth.

The entire case for forced mass vaccination rest upon this myth and it is important that we demonstrate the falsity of this idea. Neil Z. Miller, in his latest book The Vaccine Information Manual, provides compelling evidence that herd immunity is a myth.

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

Those pushing mandatory vaccination for an ever-growing list of diseases are a mixed bag.   Some are quite sincere and truly want to improve the health of the United States.   They believe the vaccine-induced herd immunity myth and likewise believe that vaccines are basically safe and effective.    They are not evil people.

A growing number are made of those with a collectivist worldview and see themselves as a core of elite wise men and women who should tell the rest of us what we should do in all aspects of our lives. They see us as ignorant cattle, who are unable to understand the virtues of their plan for America and the World. Like children, we must be made to take our medicine – since, in their view, we have no concept of the true benefit of the bad-tasting medicine we are to be fed.

I have also found that a small number of people in the regulatory agencies and public health departments would like to speak out but are so intimidated and threatened with dismissal or destruction of their careers, that they remain silent. As for the media, they are absolutely clueless.

I have found that “reporters” (we have few real journalists these days) rarely understand what they are reporting on and always trust and rely upon people in positions of official power, even if those people are unqualified to speak on the subject. Most of the time they run to the Centers for Disease Control or medical university to seek answers. I cannot count the number of times I have seen university department heads interviewed when it was obvious they had no clue as to the subject being discussed. Few such professors will pass up an opportunity to appear on camera or be quoted in a newspaper.

One must also appreciate that such reporters and editors are under an enormous economic strain, as vaccine manufacturers are major advertisers in all media outlets and for an obvious reason – it controls content. A number of excellent stories on such medical subjects are spiked every day. That means we will always be relegated to the “fringe media” as our media outlets are called. Despite the high quality of the journalism in many of the “fringe” outlets, they have a much smaller audience. And despite this we are having an enormous effect on the debate.

As the Public Awakens, the Collectivist Becomes Desperate

John Jewkes, in his book Ordeal by Planning, observed that as the British collectivists began to see opposition rise to their grandiose plans, they became more desperate and aggressive in their reaction.   They then initiated a campaign of smearing their opponents and blaming every failure on the unwillingness of the people to accept the planner’s dictates without question. We certainly have seen this in this debate – opponents to forced vaccinations are referred to as fringe scientists, kooks, uneducated, confused, and enemies of public safety – reminiscent of Stalin’s favorite phrase, “enemy of the people.”

This desperation is based upon their fear that the public might soon catch on to the fact that the entire vaccine program is based upon nonsense, fear, and concocted fairy tales. One special fear of theirs is that the public might discover the fact that most vaccines are contaminated with a number of known and yet-to-be discovered viruses, bacteria, viral fragments, and DNA/RNA fragments. And, further, that our science demonstrates that these contaminants could lead to a number of slowly-developing degenerative diseases, including degenerative diseases of the brain. This is rarely discussed but is of major importance in this debate.

The idea that adults and their children would be forced to submit to being injected with dozens of these organisms and organic fragments is terrifying. No regulatory agency is tracking to see if chronic diseases are rising in the vaccinated, yet we have compelling evidence of a massive rise in all autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and certain cancers since the advent of a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines being mandated.

Of special concern is the finding that many of the contaminant organisms can pass from generation to generation. For example, new studies have found that SV-40, a major contaminant of the polio vaccine until 1963, not only existed as a latent virus for the lifetime of those exposed to the vaccine but was being passed on to the next generation, primarily by way of sperm, something called vertical transmission. This means that every generation from now on will be infected with this known carcinogenic virus. There is also compelling evidence that some polio vaccines manufactured after 1963 may contain SV-40 virus.

What makes the SV-40 contamination disaster of such concern is its association with so many cancers – including mesothelioma, medulloblastoma, ependymoma, meningioma, astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, pituitary adenoma, glioblastoma, osteosarcomas, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, papillary thyroid carcinomas, and anaplastic thyroid carcinomas.

The Federal government has gone to enormous lengths to cover up this association, despite the powerful scientific evidence that this vaccine infected at least a hundred million people worldwide with this carcinogenic virus. And, it took over 40 years just to get this far. Linking vaccine contaminations and immunoexcitotoxicity to the drastic rise in neurodegenerative diseases will probably take even longer because of the widespread growth of entrenched powers high in government and their control of the media, which is equally extensive. The fact that powerful, enormously wealthy foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Rockefeller series of foundations, are supporting forced vaccination greatly enhances the power of governments all over the World.

These foundations operate in the shadows, influencing legislation and government actions through the World Health Organization and individual governmental bodies. Behind every call for forced vaccinations, mandated quarantines, and home invasions, one can find one of these foundations providing the money as well as experts. Remember, the largest of the pharmaceutical-vaccine manufacturers are also providing much of the money for the foundations and serving on the boards of these foundations. The Rockefellers either owned outright or had controlling interest in all of the major pharmaceutical companies. This has given them absolute and extremely powerful access to the reins of power at all levels. Yet, they can be defeated by the truth.

Dr. Blaylock is a board-certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana and completed his internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. For the past 24 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice for 2 years. Retiring from his neurosurgical practice to devote full time to nutritional studies and research, Dr. Blaylock has written and illustrated three books (Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, and Natural Strategies for The Cancer Patient). In addition, he has written and illustrated three chapters in medical textbooks, written a booklet on nutritional protection against biological terrorism, has an e-booklet on radioprotection (Nuclear Sunrise), written and illustrated a booklet on multiple sclerosis, and written over 30 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals.

Other credits include Dr. Blaylock’s DVD Nutrition & Behavior, a CD-ROM on the Truth About Aspartame, and, for the past five years, a health newsletter The Blaylock Wellness Report, published by NewsMax. Since the publication of his first book, he has been a guest on over 100 syndicated radio and television programs and appeared on the 700 Club seven times. He lectures widely to both lay and professional medical audiences on a variety of nutritional subjects.

Dr. Blaylock is a visiting professor of biology at Belhaven College and serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association, the editorial staff of the Fluoride Journal and is on the editorial staff of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He is also a regular lecturer for the Fellowship for Anti-aging and Regenerative Medicine.

Subscribe FREE to the Charis monthly e-newsletter.

Advertisements

When Considering Vaccination, Consider This

According to beloved pediatrician, the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, when deciding which, if any, vaccines your child will receive, you need to consider the following:

1)  the incidence of each individual disease
2)  the severity of each individual disease
3)  the potential side effects of each individual vaccine
4)  the efficacy of each individual vaccine

As responsible parents, Todd and I feel it is our job to make informed decisions concerning our children.  We’re not leaving it up to someone else, jumping on a bandwagon, or blindly following anyone.  Afterall, WE must answer to God for how we care for our children.

Even after pretty extensively studying the immune system and vaccines for the past couple decades, I’m sure there is still much Todd and I don’t know; but with what we DO know, we have made the best decisions we can and are very confident in them.  That’s the best anyone can do.

It is good to have a sound basis for our decisions.  When we are rock solid in WHY we have made the choices we have made, then when those decisions are challenged (and they WILL be challenged by those who disagree), we can remain confident and not become confused.

~Kristin

Subscribe FREE to the Charis monthly e-newsletter.

Quick Facts About Potty Training

Quick Facts About Potty Training

Potty training can be natural, easy, and peaceful. The first step is to know the facts.

♦   The perfect age to begin potty training is different for every child. Your child’s best starting age could be anywhere from eighteen to thirty-two months. Pre-potty training preparation can begin when a child is as young as ten months.

♦   You can begin training at any age, but your child’s biology, skills, and readiness will determine when he can take over his own toileting.

♦   Teaching your child how to use the toilet can, and should, be as natural as teaching him to build a block tower or use a spoon.

♦   No matter the age that toilet training begins, most children become physically capable of independent toileting between ages two and a half and four.

♦    It takes three to twelve months from the start of training to daytime toilet independence. The more readiness skills that a child possesses, the quicker the process will be.

♦   The age that a child masters toileting has absolutely no correlation to future abilities or intelligence.

♦   There isn’t only one right way to potty train – any approach you use can work – if you are pleasant, positive and patient.

♦   Nighttime dryness is achieved only when a child’s physiology supports this–you can’t rush it.

♦   A parent’s readiness to train is just as important as a child’s readiness to learn.

♦   Potty training need not be expensive. A potty chair, a dozen pairs of training pants and a relaxed and pleasant attitude are all that you really need. Anything else is truly optional.

♦   Most toddlers urinate four to eight times each day, usually about every two hours or so.

♦    Most toddlers have one or two bowel movements each day, some have three, and others skip a day or two in between movements. In general, each child has a regular pattern.

♦    More than 80 percent of children experience setbacks in toilet training. This means that what we call “setbacks” are really just the usual path to mastery of toileting.

♦    Ninety-eight percent of children are completely daytime independent by age four.

Excerpted with permission by McGraw-Hill Publishing from The No-Cry Potty Training Solution(McGraw-Hill 2006). 


You are welcome to reprint the article on your website or in your newsletter, provided that you reprint the entire article, including the complete byline with author’s name and book title. Please also send a notice or copy to elizabeth@pantley.com. Thank you.


Subscribe FREE
to the Charis monthly e-newsletter.

UN Treaty Jeopardizes Homeschool Freedom in Britain

UN Treaty Jeopardizes Homeschool Freedom in Britain

The following is a press release published by Home School Legal Defense Association yesterday:

Purcellville, VA – Last week the Children’s Secretary of Britain accepted a report in full by Graham Badman which argues for an end to homeschool freedom.  “While it’s disgraceful that the British government would even entertain this report it’s particularly troubling for American parents because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was used as the justification for this action,” said Michael Farris, Chairman of HSLDA and President of ParentalRights.org.

The Badman report uses Articles 12 and 29 of the UNCRC to justify registering the estimated 80,000 homeschooling families in Britain, forcing them to provide annual reports regarding their homeschool, granting government officials the right to enter the home and interview the children alone as well as reserving the choice of curriculum to the state.

HSLDA has been warning that the UNCRC could bring an end to homeschool freedom in the U.S., if the treaty was ever ratified by the U.S. Senate because Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says that treaties become the supreme law of the land.

For the UNCRC to be ratified it must gain a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate. If this happens then the UNCRC will automatically supersede all state laws and U.S. judges will be obligated to follow the provisions of the treaty. Currently, family and education laws are state-based; however, ratification of the UNCRC would transfer the jurisdiction for making family and education law to the U.S. Congress. Congress would, in turn, be obligated to follow the UN mandates contained in the CRC.  The only answer at this point would be to add a Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) to the Constitution.

The Badman report is a stark reminder of how government officials in an English-speaking democracy have interpreted the UNCRC. It’s clear that the right to homeschool in America will be negatively impacted if the U.S. Senate ever ratifies the UNCRC.

To read the full United Kingdom report, click here.

To find out more about the Parental Rights Amendment, visit www.parentalrights.org.

Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is a 26 year old, 85,000 member non-profit organization and the preeminent association advocating the legal right of parents to homeschool their children.

In light of this news, we urge you to encourage family and friends to join our email network.

Find this story on-line.

Parental Rights Amendment

Introducing H.J. Res. 42 — Parental Rights Amendment

The introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment in the U.S. Congress (H.J. Res. 42) was announced at a press conference Wednesday afternoon. Below is the body of parentalrights.org president Michael Farris’s powerful speech from that event. If your Congressman or Senator is not already onboard, I urge you to copy and paste that message into an email or letter to send to them, along with your own personal message. (Check the
sponsors list; find contact info.) This message clearly articulates the need for the Amendment; it is imperative that we get it into the hands of all of America’s lawmakers.

There are two basic reasons that the Constitution has been amended throughout our history. Sometimes the need is to preserve our law and traditions from potential threats and erosion of our rights. The Bill of Rights serves as the chief example of amendments designed to preserve the existing rights of the people.

At other times, it is absolutely necessary to change the existing law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were clearly necessary to end the evils of slavery and establish the principle of equal protection for all Americans.

The Parental Rights Amendment follows the pattern of the Bill of Rights-the goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law.

Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment do nothing more than restate the time-honored doctrines of the Supreme Court on parental rights. We are simply changing parental rights from an implied right based on judicial opinions to an express right based upon actual constitutional text.

Section 1 faithfully employs the words and phrasing of the Supreme Court’s decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), to declare that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2 carefully follows the words of the Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), to declare that parental rights, while very important, have limits. The government may intervene when the interest is of the highest order and not otherwise served. This section is a correct statement of current law. Today, when the government has proper evidence of child abuse or neglect, it may and should prosecute a parent who is responsible for such behavior.

Section 2 ensures that this principle remains intact. Parental rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute.

Section 3 preserves the current principle that only American laws govern the relationship between parents and children in this country. The use of international law is a rapidly growing trend in our judicial system. One federal district judge in New York has on two separate occasions ruled that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child already binds the United States under the doctrine of customary international law. An Ohio court ruled on an obviously flawed premise that this treaty had already been ratified by the Senate, and therefore ordered parents to stop smoking because it harmed the health of their children.

Section 3 makes it clear that the only law which can be used in American courts regarding American families is the law made in America by our legislatures or the people themselves. The use of international law for domestic purposes is utterly contrary to the idea that this nation is a self-governing Republic.

This section is necessary especially in the context of international law. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations are of superior rank to national law-even if that law is from the national constitution. However, there is an exception. Article 46 of the VCLT says that when the national constitution makes an exception concerning the power to enter treaties, then the national law still triumphs even in the face of an inconsistent treaty obligation.

Section 3 makes it unconstitutional for this nation to enter into a treaty that gives away our sovereignty on the subject of American parents and American children.

This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, “In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.” Every member of Congress who agrees with the President on this principle should be in favor of this Amendment.

Every member of Congress who believes that Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 1.

Every member of Congress who believes that Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 2.

And every member of Congress who believes that only American legislators should make public policy for American families should be in favor of Section 3.

On this last point, a post-election Zogby poll (sponsored by WorldNetDaily) makes it clear that virtually every sector of the American public agrees with this last proposition.

When asked if they wanted American judges to use American law alone or to also consider international law in making decisions, by an overwhelming margin, the American public rejected the idea of using international law for these purposes.

The majority of Republican voters reject international law.

So do the majority of Democratic voters.

Those who voted for McCain reject international law.

A majority of those who voted for Obama reject it as well.

Union members reject international law.

NRA members reject international law.

Every region of the nation rejects international law.

Every age group rejects international law.

Every racial group rejects international law.

This is a bipartisan issue in America among voters, and I truly hope and believe that it will become a bipartisan issue on the Hill. The gap between the values of Capitol Hill and the values of the American people has grown too large on too many issues. This is the very best place to show the American public that we all can work together for shared values.

Both political parties say they are for family values. And this will demonstrate meaningful support for the family.

This Amendment preserves two essential values: the value that good families, not government, have the right to make decisions for children; and that America, not the UN or any other nation, gets to make our public policy to govern the critical relationship between parents and children.

Statement of Michael Farris
President of ParentalRights.org
March 31, 2009

http://parentalrights.org

Subscribe FREE to the Charis monthly e-newsletter.

Schedulers vs. Huggers

Schedulers vs. Huggers

Reproduced from the Guardian: Family Features Dec 13, 2008

When a baby is small, particularly if it’s the first one, parents tend to verge on the doctrinaire regarding the best parenting approach, falling into two camps: strict routine (the schedulers) or infant-led (the huggers).

Holidaying friends with conflicting methods risk lifelong schism, yet hardly anyone bases their view on science. So what do the studies show?

The most definitive was done recently by British and Danish psychologists. They identified a sample of pregnant London mothers who intended to follow a parent-led, scheduled routine. For example, many hoped to get the baby into a cot as soon as possible, feeding and sleeping to a timetable, and planning to delay responses to crying, to teach self-soothing.

By contrast, another sample was also studied, who adopted the hugger approach. They would be keeping the baby in the bed rather than a cot, and feeding on demand. There was also a sample of Copenhagen mothers who fell between these two nurturing plans. The samples were followed until three months of age. Compared with the hugger mothers, the schedulers spent half as much time holding their babies and were four times less likely to make contact with it when fussing or crying. Twice as many schedulers had given up breastfeeding when the baby reached three months of age (85% v 37%). The results for the Copenhagen mothers generally fell between the two, though veering towards the huggers.

The consequences of this differing care were considerable. At all three ages when studied (10 days, five weeks and three months), the babies with scheduler mothers spent 50% more time fussing or crying. For example, at five weeks, the scheduler babies fussed/cried for 121 minutes of the 24 hours, compared with 82 minutes for the hugger babies.

If you take the view that persistent fussing and crying are undesirable for a baby – because they are signs of distress – then this is evidence that the scheduler regime is bad for a baby’s wellbeing. If the method really does cause a 50% greater prevalence of fussing and crying in three-month-olds, innumerable other studies suggest that such distress often presages emotional insecurity, hyperactivity and conduct disorders in later childhood.

However, if scheduling was bad news for the babies, it was not all bad for their mothers. At three months (although not before that age), scheduler babies were more likely to sleep for five or more hours a night without waking or crying – significantly longer than among the huggers. However, this scheduling benefit may have been illusory. If the scheduler babies were sleeping in cots in another room, how confident could their mothers be that their babies had not woken up? Nearly all the hugger babies (84%) were in bed with their mothers and waking or crying would rarely be missed. The researchers concluded that the scheduled babies were probably waking more than their mothers realised, casting doubt on the finding.

It is pathetic that this is the only serious study of the question. We also need to know what the consequences of different regimes are in later life. For there is good evidence that as the child gets older, scheduling is increasingly effective for creating good sleep. So it may be helpful to encourage such “self-regulation” when the child is one or two, not at all good to do so at three months. But it is also possible that children who keep getting into the parental bed until middle childhood are ultimately more secure and creative. Why is this issue not at the top of the psychology profession’s research agenda?

 Subscribe FREE to the Charis monthly e-newsletter.