My CRYSTAL Clear Stance on Vaccines (which aren't immunizations)
Recently, I asked for feedback with a survey that went out in my email newsletter. If you did it, thank you for your feedback. I want to keep healthcare about health and your feedback helps me do that.
One question I asked was ‘What should I STOP doing?’ Below is a response that caught my attention and feel it’s one that many of you may have questions regarding so I need to address it. This is going to be lengthy but I want to be CLEAR with my response, and hopefully a little fun doing it.
"You should clarify your position on immunizations. If you just totally throw out immunizations because of their toxicity then that's being ignorant and incorrect. I agree that some of the ingredients In immunizations are toxic to our body but so are the diseases they are preventing!! Much more so! Our generation and the ones coming after us have never experienced a loved one who is debilhatated by polio or a disformed baby from a mother who had Rubella while pregnant. So we have gotten ignorant of what the cost is for not having those vaccines and say that he stuff In the vaccines is toxic. Not addressing the toxicity of the disease it's preventing. This makes it hard to take things you say seriously because what else are you leavin out or not being completely honest about. If you want people to trust you on your other points, you need to address everything about the immunizations so that your argument has merit. Like if you say you are lobbying or for a more natural form of immunizations without the toxic elements that would be a more reasonable argument."
After reading it a few times, I’m trying to think who would write this. Remember it’s anonymous but I still like to guess. Usually when I get questions regarding vaccines with the argument they are good because of what happened with polio and many other communicable diseases, it’s usually someone in the Baby Boomer type population. It could also be someone in the medical field. As I mentally scanned my list of clients, email contacts, Facebook friends, and professional organizations, I could only think of one person that fits my assumed social profile.
The only person it could be is my mom. Imagine your mom calling you out like this, questioning your integrity and honesty? Pretty hurtful, right? Therefore I need to make my position on vaccines (not immunizations) crystal clear, just like mom suggested.
This will be lengthy, I don’t want to leave ANYTHING out, but these are the points as to why I will never choose to vaccinate my own son and any future kids my wife and I have. Just to be clear, I’ll go to jail before allowing someone to force a vaccine into my child’s arm.
VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION:
Clarification needs to be created regarding VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION. I’m all for immunization. The problem created by media and pharmaceutical influence is that people equate immunization with vaccination. Vaccination is simply injecting something into your body. This does not create immunity for your body. These are 2 totally separate entities.
Another thing that urks me is my ‘mom’s’ comments about me leaving out stuff and therefore destroying my credibility. I would like to add I make ZERO money off of this blog. I may book some speaking gigs from it but those revenues will come nowhere near the $20 BILLION per year the makers of vaccines cherish. Who do you think has more weight on their shoulders to hide information? Huh, mom? Huh?
With building immunity, it’s a natural process. With that natural process, your body uses many defenses. The first layer of defense is your skin. This blocks out any harmful opportunistic buggers. With a vaccine, this law of nature is totally bypassed by injecting you with a needle full of stuff your skin would never allow past it.
You also have a respiratory system that also aids in defense. You cough, you sneeze, and you blow your nose, in attempt to expel the potential invader. Coughing, sneezing, and snorting are results of your immune system working. Don’t suppress it with fever reducers, anti-histamines, etc. You’re just making it easier for the invader.
You also have your gut-associated lymph system to fight with the stronger stuff. If your system is so deficient to get past these natural defenses, the potential invader, live or dead, enters the blood stream. Once something is in your blood stream, it can be transported any anywhere in your body, not good at all. It’s like open bar at a chiropractic convention.
A vaccine violates all laws of natural immune defenses by taking a potential pathogen along with all the TOXIC ingredients (aluminum, formaldehyde, adjuvants, etc) directly into your blood system. This process would never occur in building natural immunity. That last sentence is kind of an oxy-moron. Immunity is a natural thing. Vaccines are an artificial thing.
The scientific mantra of vaccines is that they are safe and effective based on their research. Their research is flawed and is a double standard from any other drug product studied. The Gold Standard in research design is the double blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT).
This means that people are split into 2 groups randomly and participants are given either the real thing or the fake thing being tested. Then progress is charted on who gets better, who gets worse, and the like. In theory there should be no bias as to reporting because the researchers don’t know who is in the placebo or the real intervention group.
How many vaccines have ever been studied in this manner? ZERO! The reason? The researchers will say they cannot perform an RCT because it would be unethical to NOT give a child a vaccine because if that child dies of something that could have been prevented, then they don’t want to be responsible. But if someone dies in their trials from taking their anti-depressants, it must be ok.
Hey drug companies, I will volunteer my child to be in the placebo group and compare him to the health and well being of those that have gotten all the recommended vaccines. I’m sure I can gather a few hundred thousand more to be in the placebo group to create a large sample.
Instead of research to see safety and effectiveness, they instead see if the person builds anti-bodies to the antigen (the foreign invader) that is in the vaccine. If antibodies are built, then it’s ‘safe and effective,’ or so they lead us to believe. These studies are rarely, if ever done on kids younger than 4 years old. How can you say it's safe or effective for a baby if it's never studied on a baby?
The 2 populations that have limited production of anti-bodies are infants and geriatrics, the 2 most heavily vaccinated populations. If their ability to produce anti-bodies is low, then the vaccine would be pointless. The whole premise of the vaccine is that you get injected with a foreign invader and you produce anti-bodies against it. If you can’t produce anti-bodies well then what’s the use of injecting something to try and stimulate that reaction?
With kids, their ability to produce any anybodies until after age 6 months is very limited. This is why breast milk is so important to infants. Mom passes the anti-bodies to baby, that usually last about 6 months. The immune system is very primitive that young. The baby needs to spend way more energy in growth phase opposed to protection phase.
A mature nervous system (which controls your immune) system doesn't happen that early. Infants cannot talk, a sign of a mature nervous system. Infants cannot walk, a sign of a mature nervous system. Infants cannot control urination or defecation, a sign of a mature nervous system. Giving a child a vaccine with an adult dose and assume they would react the same way doesn't make sense.
Even if the whole vaccine theory really worked, it would be absolutely pointless to inject a baby of 6 months or less with a vaccine. With a child’s immune system being very immature until age 2, the overload of 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months seems about as logical as drinking from a fire hydrant.
When I bring this point up, I'll get the skeptic asking for specific reference of an infant not producing anti-bodies sufficiently. Honestly, I don't have it, it's my own logic. In the same breath, if I ask them to produce specific reference for an infant that can produce anti-bodies sufficiently, they cannot produce that evidence either. Pro-vaccinators can't attack the vaccine choice crowd as unscientific with arguments that are unscientific.
This is another aspect to the junk science of vaccines that exposes kids only 18 months old to 36 shots. In their research of efficacy (how long something will work), they have no idea. For this reason, we have multiple shots for multiple antigens. Just take the latest HPV vaccine, the 3 series shot given to 12 year old girls to prevent HPV (an STD) which “MIGHT” but has never been confirmed, contribute to cervical cancer.
The manufacturer is only claiming 5 years of efficacy. The problem with this is 2 fold. 1. The average age of cervical cancer is 50. 2. The shot is administered to 12 year old girls.
So we have a system pushing multiple shots (boosters) with a supposed 5 year efficacy timeline onto pre-teen girls, that was never tested on them, for a disease that has an average age of 50. You give it a 12 year old and by the time she’s 17 the effects are worn off and then you claim you can prevent cervical cancer as they get older. And I’m the quack for speaking out against vaccines.
So what are the efficacy rates of other vaccines? Who knows? They don’t study that, they assume and say we need more. Once the vaccine is FDA approved and on the market, there’s no need to put any more money into it to study the effects. Instead, we have a test tube of 4 million new subjects each and every year where they can just sit back, relax and never worry about a law suit because the government has protected them from any and all liability.
Since no studies go into how long the vaccine would last, then there can be an endless recommendation of potential booster shots. The part that really confuses me are the shots that are 4 part series. If the first 3 didn't confirm immunity, how do we know that the last shot was 'the one' that provides lifetime immunity? Why would the 2nd to last shot be good for only a year but the last one be good for an entire lifetime? That's pretty arrogant and sketchy logic.
If I were to ask you what polio looks like, you probably have images of wheel chairs, crutches and kids limping around. You would be absolutely correct…less than 0.5-2% of the time. I want to make it clear that I am not downplaying the devastation of that 2%. The point I’m making, hopefully it’s clear enough, is that I am making decisions based on statistics not emotion. As a parent, it's very hard to separate the two sometimes.
In over 95% of the time, polio presents with the following symptoms: slight fever, malaise, headache, sore throat, and vomiting. These start 3-5 days after exposure and recovery is 24-72 hours with a result of lifetime immunity. Bet you never heard that from your pharma influenced media or doctor?
In fact, if you went to your doctor with those symptoms and you were told you had polio, you would leave his office laughing and write bad reviews on his Google Places page.
The remaining 3% was non-paralytic polio. This presented for 2-10 days as high fever, severe headache, stiff neck, hyperesthesia/parasthesia in extremities and some asymmetrical limb weakness. Take this list of symptoms to your doctor and you will probably get a label of meningitis, not polio.
But Dr. Kurt, the vaccine saved all those people from getting the paralyzing version. If you look at the charts below, you will see that Polio was already massively decreasing prior to any vaccine ever introduced. I would also like to add that the highest incidence came at a time our country was in despair (poor sanitation, hygiene, nutrition) during the depression.
Polio was already on the way out prior to any introduction of vaccines.
It was a time where sanitation was poor, hygiene was poor, and nutrition was poor. These are the reasons that third world countries have problems with communicable diseases, not lack of vaccines. As the Great Depression was clearing up, people were living cleaner and healthier and there was also the introduction of a drug class called antibiotics that was given for any sniffle, cough, or fever.
The last natural case of polio in the US was 1979, yet we still give kids 4 rounds of this vaccine at 2, 4, 6-12 months, and 4-6 years. But the fear tactics continue of, “it can come back or you don’t know about the destruction it caused.” I’m not being ignorant to history. I’m being reasonable about the present.
What about Typhoid and Scarlet Fever? They had just as much devastation and with no vaccine, they are not a problem. Nature took its course and with the advent of better sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition, they wiped themselves out.
Notice no vaccine for Typhoid of Scarlet Fever, yet they naturally decreased?
This was another scary moment for women back in the middle part of the last century, as stated by my ‘mom’s’ criticism above. You may be more familiar with this being called German measles. Symptoms for Rubella are a mild rash, fever of 99+, and joint soreness.
There was a big scare back in 1964-65 with 12.5 million cases diagnosed, with 20,000 of those cases or 0.16% of them being newborns. As a result there were 11,000 or 0.088 % abortions (surgical and spontaneous) as well as 2,100 or 0.017% neonate deaths. Again, having a child die is something I hope I or you never have to experience. I can’t even imagine that experience but when I look at the actual chances of my child being infected or dying from this illness, there’s not much cause for concern in present day.
Here’s the thing with Rubella. It’s the mom that is in danger, not the child. The problem is if mom gets infected with Rubella in her first 4 months of pregnancy then she can pass it along to her fetus. The child is born with it.
So why even give the shot to kids? There’s no concern about them getting pregnant. My only concern is that the easiest place to contract a communicable illness in our country is the hospital or OBGYN’s office, the places you're going to bring your child for the 'Well Baby Check.' If you really are concerned about the Rubella, why not wait until you are planning on getting pregnant to get the shot as an adult?
I know, because that would deplete a massive piece of the market away from the drug companies. It just decreased that market from a potential 4 million babies each year to about ½ of that by just targeting women. As a man, why would I worry about German measles? The market would be decreased even more because not all women want kids.
But Rubella is tied into a vaccine that includes regular measles as well as mumps. Name a day in history that anyone got all three infections, measles, German measles, and mumps ALL on the same day. It doesn’t happen. Then why create vaccines like this?
This is getting lengthy so let me throw in some charts for your viewing pleasure.
The only stat I could find for deaths from measles in the US was in 2003 we had 2 deaths. 1 death was attributed to post bone marrow transplant surgery and the other was a 75 year old with pneumonia. Media loves to report when there are measles outbreaks but what you'll never hear in their reports is that anyone died from it.
Even at its peak around 1920, with a mortality of 15 per 100,000, the chance of death was 0.014%.
Again, around 1918, the death rate for PERTUSSIS was about 17 per 100,000 or 0.017%. By the time the pertussis vaccine was widely used, the rate of death was around 0.002%.
You can see from the charts above that pertussis or Whooping Cough was virtually wiped out prior to any vaccine ever introduced. Whooping cough gets a lot of media attention with outbreaks happening in California. What gets failed to mention is that the overwhelming majority of the kids that have been diagnosed have been fully vaccinated.
I'm just waiting for an onslaught of media that people need to get MORE booster shots of DPT. It's already given at 2, 4, and 6 months (useless due to no way of building anti bodies). It's also given at 15-18 months and then boosters at 4-6 years. Seriously? If 5 shots aren't working, how many more until it does?
Why does pertussis travel so well in communities? Poor sanitation, poor hygiene, poor nutrition.
This seems to be a very emotional issue as no parent enjoys hearing the awful cough and wheezing associated with Pertussis. But is the shot safe? According the research of the last 50 years, the vaccine is safe. But what test showed it was safe?
It's called the Mouse Weight Gain Test. "Researchers" would vaccinate mice at their stomachs. If the mice continue to gain weight and don't die right away, it's considered safe. I wish I could make this stuff up.
And if you haven't heard, adults should the shot because it will protect the young. In 2012, Australia stopped this adult vaccine program all together because there was no proof that it was protecting the young. The US pushes on with commercials, celebrities, and PSAs about how adults should get the shot to protect the young. Follow the money trail.
Should I go on? After all, I don't want to leave anything out.
You should only be scared of this illness if you have sex with an infected person, have multiple sex partners, have other STDs, you are a man that has sex with other men, inject drugs (isn't that a vaccine?), or share needles, syringes, or other drug equipment.
I'm failing to see the need for 3 shots of this into a baby at birth, 1-2 months, and then again at 6-18 months. I could be wrong. Maybe there are IV drug using, prostitute babies out there.
The symptoms that warrant 4 shots of this vaccine before the age of 15 months are: sore throat with a low grade fever with an adherent membrane at the back of the throat. The weird thing is that in order for the toxins to be released, a specific strain of bacteria has to be infected with a specific virus called a B phage. In other words, a certain bacteria has to make out with a certain virus. In any case, it's nothing a simple antibiotic can clear up, no need for a vaccine.
TRICKED by TETANUS
One thing I would like to point out is the ridiculousness of giving a tetanus shot AFTER you have a puncture wound. Why get a puncture wound that definitely contains tetanus after a puncture wound that might not contain tetanus? It's sketchy enough to say you're immune from tetanus from the regular vaccine schedule but to say there are curative powers by getting the vaccine AFTER the puncture wound is pretty ballsy, yet many line up to get injected after they think they might have tetanus.
Let's look at who is at risk for tetanus? Is it babies?
In 23 years, there were only 1,277 cases of tetanus, with close to 1000 of those being people over the age of 40. I'm not too concerned about my baby.
After all, where do you find tetanus? It's in soil and the intestines of animals and humans. I want my son to experience nature but I draw the line at playing in the intestines of animals or humans.
Pneumococcal disease is caused by Streptococcal pneumonia bacteria. The interesting thing is that there are more than 90 subtypes but the vaccine only contains 7 subtypes. Are the other 83 subtypes not important or am I playing roulette with another shot? I got accused of leaving out stuff, what about this vaccine?
It's estimated based on population studies (estimates), not actual stats that there are 40,000 cases of pneumococcal disease each year. There is also an estimated (not confirmed) about 4,400 deaths (0.0014% chance of death) each year, with the highest mortality rate being in the elderly with underlying conditions (deficiency and toxicity).
With the shots given at 2, 4, 6, and 15-18 months, what chance does a baby have of developing anti-bodies against this disease? Next to nill.The first 3 shots are pointless.
Rotovirus is responsible for diarrhea. It's estimated that 55,000 children are hospitalized each year in the US. There's an estimated 527,000 deaths worldwide due to rotovirus.
How many die in the US? The only stat I could find was from 1996 Journal of Infectious Disease where less than 40 kids died of rotovirus. Again, any death from anything for a child is devastating. But let's compare rotovirus to lighting strike deaths. Lighting strikes kill about 60 people each year. You have a greater chance of dying from lightning than you do rotovirus.
Not to mention the rotovirus shots are administered at ages 2, 4, and 6 months, a time where a baby cannot develop antibodies against the antigen.
All those worldwide deaths? Those are coming from the same reasons we had a polio epidemic, poor sanitation, poor hygiene, poor nutrition.
In 2004, there were 350 deaths due to mumps. 312 were from Egypt. 2 were from the US, leaving you with a 0.00000065% chance of dying from mumps.
Mumps never posed a threat to the health and vitality of the American public. In regards to the incidence of mumps, even the CDC states, "before vaccination, mumps was a common illness in children, infants, and adults." Why create a vaccine? There's big money in vaccines. The vaccine industry has 4,000,000 potential new clients every year that will be repeat buyers until the age of 18.
From 1990-1994, there was about 100 deaths each year due to chicken pox split between kids and adults. Your chance of death by chicken pox is 0.000032%. I'll take my chances by not giving this shot to my child. My decision. You have to do what's best for your family. If my kid does get chicken pox and your kid is vaccinated, then you shouldn't worry about it, right? Your child is protected.
How do you contract Hepatitis A? Eat food that someone else pooped in that is infected with Hepatitis A. There are no statistical reports of deaths from Hep A, just a 0.0098% chance of contracting it. The solution is good sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition. Eating out is going to be a risk but again, I'll take my chances of eating food prepared by other people. I have a greater chance of dying from a lightning strike.
This series of 4 shots are given at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months. Again, if a baby cannot develop antibodies until after 6 months, what's the point of giving a child any shot this early? HiB is a common cause of bacterial meningitis. If it's bacterial than a simple antibiotic should do the trick. There's no need to add more shots that contain heavy metals into a child's ecosystem.
FLU and H1N1 HOAX
Do I even have to discuss these? Even people pro vaccine think these are ridiculous.
The TRUE COST.
The cost of vaccinating is WAY larger than the cost of not-vaccinating. Check out this German study. I wish someone in the states would do this. It will probably never happen because there is too much lobby money going into the Sacred Cow of Vaccines. If this were done in the US, I would throw in rates for Autism (1 in 88 or 1.14% chance), Type-1 Diabetes, and childhood cancer.
In the US, 1/4 of children have a chronic illness. Any nation that adopts our style of healthcare sees similar results.
Other costs are not just the chronic illness rates but the actual costs of vaccine damages. In 1986, President Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act into public law (Public Law 99-660).
On October 1, 1988, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. The government also set up the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Since 1991 $1.8 BILLION has been awarded to those vaccine injured. 75% has been awarded for reactions to the DPT shots.
To clarify my position on vaccines, I am not, nor will not ever lobby for cleaner ingredients for vaccines. If vaccines had organic ingredients, I still would choose to not vaccinate.
I will lobby and help those that lobby for vaccines to be a parental decision, not a state or federal mandate.
I will not kick anyone out of my practice that chooses to vaccinate but I will welcome the masses of those parents that choose to NOT vaccinate with open arms or a homey hug.
I will continue to educate and support those that educate in the name of choice. There are some great organizations and doctors out there that do it much better and bigger than I can.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE:
National Vaccine Information Center
Dr. Tim O'Shea
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky
The Gianelloni Family
I keep harping on the poor sanitation, poor hygiene, and poor nutrition aspect of why communicable diseases spread but you're probably wondering about the poor nutrition. In our infants, breast milk is going to be the absolute best form of nutrition. Antibodies get passed from mom to baby until baby can start forming some on his/her own.
I know there are some women out there having trouble breast feeding. There are options like buying breast milk from other nursing moms. This may sound gross but genetically, it's a heck of a lot saner than giving a child milk from a cow, a totally different species.
There are also ways to make your own infant formula that aren't full of cow's milk, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavorings, etc. Just Google it.
But mom needs to get good nutrition. By good nutrition, I'm not talking about the food pyramid/plate garbage pushed by the government that includes all the foods subsidized by the government. I'm talking about genetically compatible nutrition. Read more on my thoughts regarding nutrition. I want to be clear.
I sincerely hope my point is clear. Obviously there are 2 sides to the story and I presented the one less known, hardly ever heard, and greatly ignored. You can take it and choose to not vaccinate, get extra vaccines or pick and choose certain ones, it doesn't affect me one bit. Just make sure you look at both sides to make an informed decision.