Monday, December 22, 2014

NATURAL CHILDBIRTH VS. EPIDURAL SIDE EFFECTS AND RISKS



Source Article By Chris Kresser:
Natural childbirth V: epidural side effects and risks
http://chriskresser.com/natural-childbirth-v-epidural-side-effects-and-risks


Before we dive into a discussion of epidural analgesia I’d like to clarify my intention in writing this series in light of some of the comments on previous articles.

The purpose of this series on natural childbirth is to demonstrate that homebirth is as safe – if not safer – than hospital birth for low risk pregnancies, and that medical interventions commonly used in hospital births such as epidurals, induction with synthetic oxytocin and cesarean sections have risks and complications that are often not communicated to pregnant women.

Currently fewer than 1% of births happen at home in the U.S., and I believe this is largely due to misconceptions about its safety. My intention here is to correct those misconceptions.

The purpose of this series is not to condemn the use of these interventions in all circumstances. All of them have their place, and can be very helpful and even life-saving (for mothers and babies) when used appropriately. In fact, I said the following in bold text at the end of the first article in this series:

I want to be clear: no matter where birth takes place, complications may arise that require medical intervention and I am 100% in support of it in these cases.

There is still much we don’t understand about birth, and even more we don’t have direct control over. In some cases, despite a woman’s best efforts to have a natural, undisturbed birth, complications arise that require medical attention (and transfer to a hospital if she started laboring at home). In these circumstances, I absolutely endorse taking advantage of whatever interventions may protect the health and safety of both the mother and baby. At the end of the day, that is far, far more important than the method by which the baby was born.

I also want to be clear that I am not judging women who choose to have hospital births, receive epidurals, induce with Pitocin or end up having a cesarean section. I respect the right of women to choose a method of childbirth that feels safe and comfortable for them.

My purpose, instead, is to tell the side of the story that women are often not told, and to raise awareness of the risks associated with these procedures so that when it comes time to make their own decision, women are adequately educated and informed to do so.
What is an epidural and how common are they?

Dr. Leonard J. Corning, a neurologist in New York, was the first physician to use an epidural. In 1885 he injected cocaine into the back of a patient suffering from spinal weakness and seminal incontinence.

Today, epidurals are by far the most popular method of pain relief during labor in U.S. hospitals. According to the Listening to Mothers II survey (2006), more than 75 percent of women reported that they received an epidural, including 71 percent of women who had a vaginal birth. In Canada in 2005-2006, 54 percent of women who gave birth vaginally used an epidural, and during those same years in England, 22 percent of women overall had an epidural before or during delivery.

In an epidural, a local anesthetic – still derived from cocaine – is injected into the epidural space (the space around the tough coverings that protect the spinal cord). Epidurals block nerve signals from both the sensory and motor nerves, which provides effective pain relief but immobilizes the lower part of the recipient’s body.

In the last decade, a new type of epidural has been developed (called “walking epidurals”) that reduce the motor block and allow some mobility.

Spinal analgesia (a.k.a. “spinals”) are also used for pain relief during labor, but unlike conventional epidurals, they allow women to move during labor. In a spinal, the analgesic drug is injected directly into the spinal space through the dura, producing fast-acting, short-term pain relief.
Epidurals have significant impacts on all hormones of labor

In the last article, Natural Childbirth IV: The Hormones of Birth, we discussed the exquisite orchestration of hormones during birth and the risks of interfering with the body’s natural hormone regulation.

Unfortunately, epidurals interfere with all of the hormones we discussed.

They inhibit beta-endorphin production, which in turn shuts down the shift in consciousness (“going to another planet”) that characterizes undisturbed birth.

Epidurals reduce oxytocin production or keep it from rising during labor. They also blunt the oxytocin peak that would otherwise occur at the time of birth because the stretching receptors of a woman’s lower vagina (which trigger the peak) are numbed.

As Dr. Sarah Buckley explains 1:

A woman laboring with an epidural therefore misses out on the final powerful contractions of labor and must use her own effort, often against gravity, to compensate for this loss. This explains the increased length of the second stage of labor and the increased need for forceps when an epidural is used.

Epidurals have also been shown to inhibit catecholamine (CA) production. Remember that CA can slow or stop labor in the early stages, but it promotes the fetus ejection reflex in the second stage of labor. Thus inhibiting CA production may make delivery more difficult.

Epidurals limit release of prostaglandin F2 alpha, a lipid compound that stimulates uterine contractions and is thought to be involved with the initiation of labor. Prostaglandin F2 alpha levels should naturally rise during an undisturbed labor. However, in one study women with epidurals experienced a decrease in PGF2 alpha and a consequent increase in labor times from 4.7 to 7.8 hours.
Epidurals interfere with labor and have side effects for mothers

Epidurals have been shown to have the following effects on labor and laboring mothers:

They lengthen labor.
They triple the risk of severe perineal tear.
They may increase the risk of cesarean section by 2.5 times.
They triple the occurrence of induction with synthetic oxytocin (Pitocin).
They quadruple the chances a baby will be persistently posterior (POP, face up) in the final stages of labor, which in turn decreases the chances of spontaneous vaginal birth (see below).
They decrease the chances of spontaneous vaginal delivery. In 6 of 9 studies reviewed in one analysis, less than half of women who received an epidural had a spontaneous vaginal delivery.
They increase the chances of complications from instrumental delivery. When women with an epidural had a forceps delivery, the amount of force used by the clinician was almost double that used when an epidural was not in place. This is significant because instrumental deliveries can increase the short-term risks of bruising, facial injuries, displacement of skull bones and blood clots in the scalp for babies, and of episiotomy and tears to the vagina and perineum in mothers.
They increase the risk of pelvic floor problems (urinary, anal and sexual disorders) in mothers after birth, which rarely resolve spontaneously.

One important thing to note about these studies: in most of them, the women in the “control” groups were given opiate painkillers, which are also known to disrupt the natural hormonal processes of birth. We can assume, then, that a comparison of women using no drugs during labor would have revealed even more substantial differences.
Epidural also have side effects for babies

It’s important to understand that drugs administered by epidural enter the baby’s bloodstream at equal and sometimes even higher levels than those present in the mother’s bloodstream.

However, because babies’ immune systems are immature, it takes longer for them to eliminate epidural drugs. For example, the half-life of bupivacaine, a commonly used epidural analgesic, is 2.7 hours in an adult but close to 8 hours in a newborn. 2

Studies have found detectable amounts of bupivacain metabolites in the urine of exposed newborns for 36 hours following spinal anesthesia for cesarians.

Some studies have found deficits in newborn abilities that are consistent with the known toxicity of drugs used in epidurals.

Other studies have found that local anesthetics used in epidurals may adversely effect the newborn immune system, possibly by activating the stress response.

There is evidence that epidurals can compromise fetal blood and oxygen supply, probably via the decrease in maternal blood pressure that epidurals are known to cause.

Epidurals have been shown to cause fetal bradycardia, a decrease in the fetal heart rate (FHR). This is probably secondary to the decrease in maternal CA caused by epidurals which in turn leads to low blood pressure and uterine hyper-stimulation.

Epidurals can cause maternal fever, which in turn may affect the baby. In a large study of first-time moms, babies born to mothers with fever (97% of whom had epidurals) were more likely to be in poor condition (low APGAR scores) at birth, to have poor tone, to require resuscitation and to have seizures in the newborn period, compared to babies born to mothers without fever.

Older studies using the more exacting Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS, devised by pediatricians) rather than the newer, highly criticized Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Score (NACS, devised by anesthesiologists – can you say “conflict of interest”?) found significant neurobehavioral effects in babies exposed to epidurals.

In one such study, researchers found less alertness and ability to orient, and less mature motor abilities, for the first month of life. These findings were in proportion to the dose of bupivacaine administered, suggesting a dose-related response.
Epidurals may interfere with mother-baby bonding and breastfeeding

Some studies suggest that epidurals may interfere with the normal bonding that occurs between mothers and babies just after birth.

In one study, mothers given epidurals spent less time with their babies in the hospital. The higher doses of drugs they received, the less time they spent.

In another study, mothers who had epidurals described their babies as more difficult to care for one month later than mothers who hadn’t had an epidural.

It’s important to note that neither of these studies prove that epidurals were the cause of the behavioral changes observed. However, if epidurals were at fault, the effects are most likely caused by their interference with the natural orchestration of hormones we discussed in the previous post, and may also be influenced by drug toxicity and the complications associated with epidural births: long labors, forceps and cesareans.

There is also evidence that epidurals may decrease breastfeeding efficiency.

In one study, researchers used the Infant Breastfeeding Assessment Tool (IBFAT) and found scores highest amongst unmedicated babies, lower for babies exposed to epidurals and IV opiates, and lowest for babies exposed to both.

A large prospective study found that women who had used epidurals were more than 2 times as likely to have stopped breastfeeding by 24 weeks compared with women who used non-pharmacological pain relief.
Conclusion

Epidural analgesia is a highly effective form of pain relief and a useful intervention in certain circumstances.

However, epidurals and spinals also cause unintended side effects in both the mother and baby, and interfere with the natural birth process and bonding between mother & baby.

In some cases epidurals may be beneficial, but the evidence suggests that they should not be used as routinely as they currently are in the U.S. and other industrialized countries.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

RETIRED VACCINE RESEARCHER SAYS "IF I HAD A CHILD NOW, THE LAST THING I WOULD ALLOW IS VACCINATION"



Source Article:
Retired Vaccine Researcher to Jon Rappoport: "If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination."
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/rappoportinterviewvaccineresearcherjan2002.shtml

[Editor's Note: This interview was posted by Jon Rappoport in early January 2002. You will discover by reading it that the very issues we now face of FORCED vaccination of a laboratory-created vaccine to "protect" us against a laboratory-created "disease" (Swine Flu, Bird flu, etc.) was set into motion a long time ago. The vaccine researcher quoted here flat out says that the World Homicide Organization, WHO, is driven by a DEPOPULATION agenda, and that many African leaders know full well that the explosive spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa was caused by WHO-sponsored vaccinations of the 1970s. This former pharmaceutical insider also debunks the widespread ASSUMPTIONS of vaccine "safety" promoted by orthodox medicine, the CDC, the National Institute of Health, state health departments, and their compliant media propagandists who are all parroting SUPERSTITIONS, rather than FACTS. ..Ken Adachi]

From Jon Rappoport (www.nomorefakenews.com)
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/rappoportinterviewvaccineresearcherjan2002.shtml
January 2002

Retired Vaccine Researcher to Jon Rappoport: "If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination." (Aug. 6, 2009)

Jon Rappoport (Q) Interviews a Retired Vaccine Researcher (A) (given the pseudonym of "Dr. Mark Randall")

Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.

Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.

A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important.

A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.

Q: And that happens?

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn't it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.

US SOLDIERS RAPE YOUNG BOYS IN FRONT OF THEIR MOTHERS AND VIDEOTAPE THE RAPES


TEHRAN (FNA)- Now, over a decade later the evidence of these events are beginning to surface, but the Department of Defense is still doing their best to keep it under the radar.

Source Article:
Classified Evidence: US Soldiers Rape Boys in Front of Their Mothers
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930929001304


To all those who are busy "supporting our troops" -- WAKE THE FUCK UP TO THE EVIL YOU ARE SUPPORTING!! These men and women are not even human. Saying they are worse than animals is an insult to all animals. No animal would ever behave in the way these disgusting excuses for men and women behave. Let them reap what they have sown. They all deserve to be executed.
According to a number of global mainstream media sources, the Pentagon is covering up a disturbing video that was never made public with the rest of the recent torture report.

According to various well respected journalists, including Seymour Hersh, the appalling video was recorded at Abu Ghraib, the notorious US torture dungeon in Iraq that made headlines roughly a decade ago, when the inhumane tactics being used at the prison were exposed.

Sadly, it seems that the evidence released years ago was only scratching the surface.

While the video has remained under wraps thus far, Hersh says it is only a matter of time before it comes out.

Giving a speech at the ACLU last week after the senate torture report was initially released, Hersh gave some insight into what was on the Pentagon’s secret tape.

In the most revealing portion of his speech he said that:

“Debating about it, ummm … Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

“It’s impossible to say to yourself how did we get there? Who are we? Who are these people that sent us there? When I did My Lai I was very troubled like anybody in his right mind would be about what happened. I ended up in something I wrote saying in the end I said that the people who did the killing were as much victims as the people they killed because of the scars they had, I can tell you some of the personal stories by some of the people who were in these units witnessed this. I can also tell you written complaints were made to the highest officers and so we’re dealing with an enormous massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there and higher, and we have to get to it and we will. We will. You know there’s enough out there, they can’t (Applause). …. So it’s going to be an interesting election year.”

Put into context with another speech that Hersh gave earlier this year, it becomes clear that the women who witnessed these young boys being raped were actually their mothers.

At a speech in Chicago this past June Hersh was quoted as saying:

“You haven’t begun to see evil… horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.”

Other stories at the London Guardian also talked of young Iraqi detainees getting violently raped by US soldiers.

Ten years ago when the initial Abu Ghraib scandal was in the news, the Guardian published the testimony of an Abu Ghraib detainee who allegedly witnessed one of these brutal attacks.

Former detainee Kasim Hilas said in their testimony that:

“I saw [name blacked out] fucking a kid, his age would be about 15-18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [blacked out], who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid’s ass, I couldn’t see the face of the kid because his face wasn’t in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures.”

Now, over a decade later the evidence of these events are beginning to surface, but the Department of Defense is still doing their best to keep it under the radar. That is why now more than ever, it is important to keep the pressure on and force the release of this evidence, while the torture report is fresh in the minds of the general population.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

VACCINES, SCIENTIFIC FRAUD, AND THE AUTISM COVER-UP AT THE CDC



Source Article:
Scientific Fraud and Vaccines
http://www.thinktwice.com/fraud.htm

Here is a recent letter written by Congressman Dave Weldon, MD, to Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, regarding a fraudulent CDC-sponsored study purporting to show no link between mercury-laced vaccines and autism:

Dave Weldon, M.D.
15th District, Florida
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

October 31, 2003

Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30333

Dear Dr. Gerberding:

I am writing to follow up on our conversation about the article (Verstraeten et. al.,) that will be published in the November 2003 issue of Pediatrics. I have reviewed the article and have serious reservations about the four-year evolution and conclusions of this study.

Much of what I observed transpired prior to your appointment a year ago as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I am very concerned about activities that have taken place in the National Immunization Program (NIP) in the development of this study, and I believe the issues raised need your personal attention.

I am a strong supporter of childhood vaccinations and know that they have saved us from considerable death and suffering. A key part of our vaccination program is to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that these vaccines, which are mandatory, are as safe as possible. We must fully disclose adverse events. Anything less than this undermines public confidence.

I have read the upcoming Pediatrics study and several earlier versions of this study dating back to February 2000. I have read various e-mails from Dr. Verstraeten and coauthors. I have reviewed the transcripts of a discussion at Simpsonwood, GA between the author, various CDC employees, and vaccine industry representatives. I found a disturbing pattern which merits a thorough, open, timely, and independent review by researchers outside of the CDC, HHS, the vaccine industry, and others with a conflict of interest in vaccine related issues (including many in University settings who may have conflicts).

A review of these documents leaves me very concerned that rather than seeking to understand whether or not some children were exposed to harmful levels of mercury in childhood vaccines in the 1990s, there may have been a selective use of the data to make the associations in the earliest study disappear. While most childhood vaccines now only have trace amounts of mercury from thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs), it is critical that we know with certainty if children were injured in the 1990s.

Furthermore, the lead author of the article, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, worked for the CDC until he left over two years ago to work in Belgium for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer facing liability over TCVs. In violation of their own standards of conduct, Pediatrics failed to disclose that Dr. Verstraeten is employed by GSK and incorrectly identifies him as an employee of the CDC. This revelation undermines this study further.

The first version of the study, produced in February 2000, found a significant association between exposure to thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism and neurological developmental delays (NDDs). When comparing children exposed to 62.5 ug of mercury by 3 months of age to those exposed to less than 37.5 ug, the study found a relative risk for autism of 2.48 for those with a higher exposure level. (While not significant in the 95% confidence interval for autism, this meets the legal standard of proof exceeding 2.0.) For NDDs the study found a relative risk of 1.59 and a definite upward trend as exposure levels increased.

A June 2000 version of the study applied various data manipulations to reduce the autism association to 1.69 and the authors went outside of the VSD database to secure data from a Massachusetts HMO (Harvard Pilgrim, HP) in order to counter the association found between TCVs and speech delay. At the time that HP's data was brought in, HP was in receivership by the state of Mass., its computer records had been in shambles for years, it had multiple computer systems that could not communicate with one another (Journal of Law, Ethics and Medicine Sept. 22, 2000), and it used a health care coding system totally different from the one used across the VSD. There are questions relating to a significant underreporting of Autism in Mass. The HP dataset is only about 15% of the HMO dataset used in the February 2000 study. There may also be significant problems with the statistical power of the HP dataset.

In June of 2000 a meeting was held in Simpsonwood, GA, involving the authors of the study, representatives of the CDC, and the vaccine industry. I have reviewed a transcript of this meeting that was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Comments from Simpsonwood, NJ meeting include: (summary form, not direct quotes):

* We found a statistically significant relationship between exposures and outcomes. There is certainly an under ascertainment of adverse outcomes because some children are just simply not old enough to be diagnosed, the current incidence rates are much lower than we would expect to see (Verstraeten);

* We could exclude the lowest exposure children from our database. Also suggested was removing the children that got the highest exposure levels since they represented an unusually high percentage of the outcomes. (Rhodes)

* The significant association with language delay is quite large. (Verstraeten);

* This information should be kept confidential and considered embargoed;

* We can push and pull this data anyway we want to get the results we want;

* We can alter the exclusion criteria any way we want, give reasonable justifications for doing so, and get any result we want;

* There was really no need to do this study. We could have predicted the outcomes;

* I will not give TCVs to my grandson until I find out what is going on here.

Another version of the study - after further manipulation - finds no association between TCVs and autism, and no consistency across HMOs between TCVs and NDDs and speech delay.

The final version of the study concludes that "No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes," and that the lack of consistency argues against an association. In reviewing the study there are data points where children with higher exposures to the neuortoxin mercury had fewer developmental disorders. This demonstrates to me how excessive manipulation of data can lead to absurd results. Such a conclusion is not unexpected from an author with a serious, though undisclosed, conflict of interest.

This study increases speculation of an association between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. I cannot say it was the author's intent to eliminate the earlier findings of an association. Nonetheless, the elimination of this association is exactly what happened and the manner in which this was achieved raises speculation. The dialogue at the Simpsonwood meeting clearly indicates how easily the authors could manipulate the data and have reasonable sounding justifications for many of their decisions.

The only way these issues are going to be resolved - and I have only mentioned a few of them - is by making this particular dataset and the entire VSD database open for independent analysis. One such independent researcher, Dr. Mark Geier, has already been approved by the CDC and the various IRBs to access this dataset. They have requested the CDC allow them to access this dataset and your staff indicated to my office that they would make this particular dataset available after the Pediatrics study is published.

Earlier this month the CDC had prepared three similar datasets for this researcher to review to allow him to reanalyze CDC study datasets. However when they accessed the datasets - which the researchers paid the CDC to assemble - the datasets were found to have no usable data in them. I request that you personally intervene with those in the CDC who are assembling this dataset to ensure that they provide the complete dataset, in a usable format, to these researchers within two weeks. The treatment that these well-published researchers have received from the CDC thus far has been abysmal and embarrassing. I would also be curious to know whether Dr. Verstraeten, an outside researcher for more than two years now, was required to go through the same process as Dr. Geier in order to continue accessing the VSD.

You have not been a part of creating this current situation, but you do have an opportunity to help resolve this issue and ensure that confidence and trustworthiness in the CDC and our national vaccination program is fully restored. I would ask that you work with me to ensure that a full, fair, and independent review is made of the VSD database to fully examine this matter. I would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to move this process forward.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with you on this urgent matter of great importance to our nation's most precious resource, our children.

Sincerely,
Dave Weldon, M.D.
Member of Congress


Here is some correspondence Thinktwice! recently received from a research analyst who spent 7 years working for the CDC to assess the benefit/risk ratio of the chickenpox vaccine. This analyst quit in disgust when he found that his data proving serious problems with this vaccine was suppressed.

Q. Dear Editor, I have read with great interest various items on your website. First of all, please let me introduce myself. I have served as Research Analyst on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project, one of three sites supported by a grant from the CDC, for the past 7 years. I recently resigned from this position as I encountered deleterious effects of the varicella vaccine (including increasing incidence of Herpes Zoster among children with prior wild-type varicella experience) which appeared to be suppressed by my supervisors and the CDC; while all positive results were published.

I have three manuscripts that have much technical merit, however, like other manuscripts that support increased incidence of HZ among adults by Brisson et al and Thomas et al, the major U.S. journals (such as Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine) will not consider them for publication. Do you have any recommendations on other journals, even European ones that might be more objective?

Is there an appropriate manner in which to have the manuscripts objectively peer-reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal. Dr. Philip R. Krause, head research scientist of the Biologics Lab of the FDA, had done a preliminary review of one of my manuscripts and suggested there was indeed some merit to the hypotheses presented.

I have also, unbelievably found great manipulation of data by CDC suggesting "no increases in herpes zoster at this time." Yet, they utilized a study that had insufficient power and too small of a sample size to detect increases in incidence less than 400%.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide.

A. Dear ----, As you must know by now, it will be very difficult to have your papers accepted in mainstream medical journals. We would be interested in publishing your research online.

Q. Dear Editor, I have completed three manuscripts which were submitted to major U.S. journals and which were rejected. The reasons for rejection were just amazing. For example, I was told I needed additional years of data to show a trend. Interestingly, Dr. Hope Simpson's manuscript was published, including his figure on herpes zoster incidence based on 6 cases of herpes zoster encountered during 16 years in a town of 510 children in Cirencester, England. My study had 15 times greater the observation time of this study and was on par with most other studies of herpes zoster incidence.

Recognizing that the U.S. journals might not publish, I have currently submitted them to another prestigious peer-reviewed journal and the manuscripts are being reviewed at this time. I have just completed a 4th manuscript, Why herpes-zoster incidence among school age children is paradoxically high despite seven years of universal vaccination: Preliminary Data and Hypotheses. Should I receive a negative response regarding publication in the journals I would consider online publication that you kindly mention. Why did you seem so certain that major U.S. journals were not going to publish the paper?

[Furthermore,] I have worked at one of the three varicella active surveillance sites in the nation for the past 7 years. While all my positive results were published, the negative results appeared to be suppressed -- thus, due to ethical concerns I resigned as Research Analyst. I have specific, quantified details concerning, for example, the VAERS reporting [the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System jointly operated by the FDA and CDC] and how the published data of herpes zoster indicates 2.6 cases per 100,000 doses. The actual figure that was measured during active surveillance for herpes zoster during a two year period in a community of 320,000 residents was approximately 44 per 100,000 doses, thus, the VAERS rate represented only a little more than 5% of the true value.

I could provide many other details to you and am pursuing publication of 4 manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.

There is something with which you can help me. I recently wrote a manuscript entitled, Why herpes-zoster incidence among school age children is paradoxically high despite seven years of universal vaccination: Preliminary Data and Hypotheses. Would you have any experiences of school nurses and or other healthcare professionals who have actually noted and increase in the number of herpes-zoster (shingles) cases in recent years relative to the prelicensure era? Will be back in touch with you soon. I will check out the reference you have provided.

A. Dear ----, If you'd like, I'll send you a complimentary copy of our booklet on chickenpox. It includes a few case histories and other pertinent information on chickenpox and its vaccine. Tell me where to send it.

Major journals generally support vaccination programs. Therefore, they often reject papers that show vaccines in a poor light.

Q. You are so very right about publishers accepting research with a positive bias. All I was attempting to do is be very objective -- presenting both the postive aspects of vaccination (which were all published) along with the negative aspects (which were suppressed for one to two years). I am an objective researcher, neither for or against vaccination. I only report numbers and analyze data. I do this very well and attempt to make a balanced presentation based on solid facts with appropriate confidence intervals!

Thank you very much for sending the case histories concerning chickenpox and shingles (herpes zoster). I will keep you informed of additional details -- especially if my manuscripts are published.


Here is some correspondence Thinktwice! received from a high level employee working for the State Health Department. He read a secret CDC bulletin acknowledging that flu shots from 1993 to 1996 were "dirty." When he tried to get a copy of this Bulletin, his efforts were met with great resistance.

Q. My family has been in crisis mode for the better part of 5 1/2 years. My wife has been diagnosed as the worse Myasthenia Gravis patient in New Mexico -- besides one other man who tried to treat himself by overdosing on steroids after getting his diagnosis. [We believe the flu vaccine caused her condition.] Our situation is particularly complex, as my wife has been the state medical director for Children's Medical Services for over 17 years, and continues to try and hold onto her job by working at home a few hours a week. I work in the Office of Epidemiology for the state, and have a rather high level technology position. So you see, both of our jobs could be jeopardized immediately by political forces if confidentiality was breached. I was privy to a bulletin put out by the CDC around 1998, or 1999, stating that they had acknowledged that the flu shots from 1993 to 1996 were considered 'dirty'. When I went back to get a copy of this bulletin last year (so that my wife could take an early retirement), no one admitted to the existence of such document. Believe me, I have contacts all over the country, including Atlanta. I realize now that the ranking members of CSTE are privy to information that not even EIS Officers in Atlanta know about. We are looking for ways to get a copy of that bulletin, or any related documents, just so that my wife can retire...not for any other purpose. I look forward to hearing from you, and would like to get whatever information you can provide. Thanks.

A. Thanks for the brief explanation of your situation. Apparently you believe that your wife's condition resulted from a flu vaccine. I would be interested in hearing more of the details. I would also like to see that bulletin. If others in your field suspect that you and your wife blame vaccines for her condition, they will remain cautious around you and will not provide you with information. We publish a small booklet documenting hazards of the flu vaccine. I can send you a copy if you'd like. Please email me with a mailing address. Best wishes.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

TETANUS VACCINE KILLING UNBORN CHILDREN -- CAUSING REPEATED MISCARRIAGES, HEART ATTACKS, BLINDNESS



VACCINES - THE NEW WAY TO KILL YOUR BABY AND/OR CREATE A "SPONTANEOUS" ABORTION.

Source Article by Heidi Stevenson
Tetanus Vaccine Causes a New Disease Known as Antiphospholipid Syndrome - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/tetanus-vaccine-causes-a-new-disease-known-as-antiphospholipid-syndrome/#sthash.tr4Ava2Y.dpuf
Gaia-Health.com
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/tetanus-vaccine-causes-a-new-disease-known-as-antiphospholipid-syndrome/

The vaccine junta is not only unconcerned with vaccine-induced diseases, it’s massively gearing up this vaccine arms race against the human race. It’s known that tetanus vaccine causes a new disease, antiphospholipid syndrome. New adjuvants are composed of phospholipids, a potential disaster.

The tetanus vaccine causes a new disease known both as Hughes syndrome and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). It’s an autoimmune condition that can attack any part of the body, though is best noted for heart attacks and killing fetuses. It’s likely that APS will become more common with the new generation of vaccine adjuvants now being produced.

The sufferers of (APS) are mostly women, and its diagnosis is often made as a result of multiple pregnancy losses. As is typical of new diseases, research is focused on finding a genetic cause, in spite of the fact that the connection with vaccines is well known and documented.

As the name implies, APS is a condition in which phospholipids, natural and necessary substances required by every part of the body, is seen as an infectious agent by the immune system. So, this substance that exists in every cell becomes subject to attack. Symptoms include:

Blindness
Cardiovascular:
Deep vein thrombosis (clots in veins)
Phlebitis
Thrombocytopenia (deficiency of blood platelets, causing bleeding & bruising)
Atherosclerosis
Pulmonary embolus (clots in the lungs)
Heart valve abnormatilies
Stroke
Headaches & migraines
Miscarriages
Neurological disorders:
Epilepsy
Chorea (sudden uncontrollable jittery movements)
Transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord)
Multiple sclerosis
Cognitive dysfunction
Skin disorders, including mottling, ulcers, and necrosis

APS can also be diagnosed—more accurately, misdiagnosed—as lupus erythematosus, which is another vaccine-induced condition.
APS and Vaccines

One study calls Hughes syndrome the “classical antiphospholipid syndrome”[1]. That study refers to similarities between plasma protein beta-2-glycoprotein-I (β2GPI), which is attacked in APS, and the tetanus vaccine. That is, the tetanus antigen has parts that are virtually identical to β2GPI, which is found virtually everywhere in the body.

Another study documents how APS can be induced in laboratory animals with tetanus vaccination[2]. Many large number of other studies document and investigate the connection between vaccines and antiphospholipid syndrome[3,4,5,6,7,8].

These studies leave little doubt that APS is caused by vaccines. That should come as little surprise, since it was first identified as a disease during the 1980s. If this disease existed prior to vaccines, it was so rare that it was unknown. Now, it can take its place among a growing list of vaccine-induced conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, macrophagic myofasciitis, multiple sclerosis, autism, and siliconosis. The list keeps growing and many believe that all these conditions should be included under a single name, autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, or ASIA.
Why New Generation Vaccines Are Especially Worrisome

Phospholipids are a primary part of your body, forming part of the membrane of every cell, among other functions. They’re under attack in APS. As can be seen with regard to tetanus vaccine, APS can be induced by the antigen when the epitope—the part of the antigen forming the pattern that autobodies are designed to attack—is similar to a particular part of the body.

What’s frightening is that phospholipids are becoming a primary ingredient of vaccines in the form of a new generation of adjuvants made via recombinant DNA by diddling with a part of pathogenic bacteria called outer membrane vesicles (OMVs). You can read more about them in New Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants: Worst Ever?

OMVs allow for designer vaccine antigens and adjuvants. OMV adjuvants are, of course, being promoted as the safest ever developed. That safety claim is based on the fact that they’re so much like the body already. This is the same claim that’s been used to promote squalene, which, as we’ve recently seen with the tragic cases of narcolepsy in children after the squalene-laced flu vaccine, Pandemrix, was unleashed in Europe, can devastate lives. Gaia Health explained the issue in How the Flu Vaccine Causes Narcolepsy.

Squalene is a lipid. That’s what makes it so dangerous. OMVs are even more precisely analogous to human tissue, because they are not only lipids, they are phospholipids—which are precisely what the body attacks in APS. Therefore, we can anticipate that there will be ever-more cases of APS as we see the approval of ever-more OMV-based vaccines, which are in the pipeline now.

Have no doubt: these vaccines will be approved. The first one, Cervarix, is already out there—and it’s been deemed safe, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

People with APS are suffering from phospholipid antibodies that are erroneously destroying parts of the eye, cardiovascular system, brain, nerves, skin, reproductive system—in short, any part of the body. This self-destruction is induced by vaccine technologies. These technologies are presumed safe without adequate, if any, testing. Just how many people must suffer before this travesty is ended? When will the clearly mad purveyors of these technologies step back and question what they’re doing?

The fact is that there are not just one, but several generations of people who don’t even know what good health is. Worse, each successive generation is growing sicker than the previous one. And worst of all, the vaccine junta is not only unconcerned, it’s massively gearing up this vaccine arms race against the human race.

Sources:

When APS (Hughes syndrome) met the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA)”, Lupus, M Blank, E Israeli, Y Shoenfeld, doi: 10.1177/0961203312438115.
Vaccine model of antiphospholipid syndrome induced by tetanus vaccine, Lupus, L Dimitrijević, I Živković, M Stojanović, V Petrušić, S Živančević-Simonović, doi: 10.1177/0961203311429816.
β2 glycoprotein 1 (β2GPI), the major target in anti phospholipid syndrome (APS), is a special human complement regulator, Blood, Katharina Gropp, Nadia Weber, Michael Reuter, Sven Micklisch, Isabell Kopka, Teresia Hallström and Christine Skerka, doi:10.1182/blood-2011-02-339564.
Anti-β2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI) autoantibodies recognize an epitope on the first domain of β2GPI, PNAS, G. Michael Iverson, Edward J. Victoria, and David M. Marquis.
Anti-phospholipid antibodies following vaccination with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine, Clinical and Experimental Immunology, J Martinuč Porobič, T Avčin, B Božič, M Kuhar, S Čučnik, M Zupančič, K Prosenc, T Kveder, and B Rozman, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2005.02923.x
Immunomodulatory and physical effects of phospholipid composition in vaccine adjuvant emulsions.
‘ASIA’ – autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.
Infections and vaccines in the etiology of antiphospholipid syndrome.
Hughes Syndrome Foundation
Antiphospholipid syndrome
Learning About Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS)
The antiphospholipid syndrome (Hughes’ syndrome)
APS Foundation of America

Vaccines cause autoimmune disorders!

Read the full article here: http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-01-29/tetanus-vaccine-causes-new-disease-new-vaccines-worse/

BIRTH TRAUMA IN AMERICA - EXPOSING THE DARK SIDE OF HOSPITAL BIRTH



NEW BOOK BY JEANICE BARCELO

Explores the Violence of Modern Medicine
and the Abuse of Mothers and Babies During Hospital Birth


Dear Friends — I am pleased to announce the completion of my first book in which I share my own personal story of severe birth trauma and a multitude of information about the dark side of hospital birth. This book exposes the violence of modern medicine, especially as it pertains to the ritual abuse of mothers and infants during technologically managed pregnancy and childbirth. It covers a wide array of topics including ultrasound, birth rape, induction, pitocin, cesarean section, neonatal intensive care units, circumcision, and more. There is also pertinent information concerning prenatal trauma and the impact it has on our psyches and lives. The book is an intense read, but the revelations presented in the book are so important that I hope many people will read it.

I want to let you all know that there is a pre-publication PDF version available right now for about half the price of the published version. If you’d like to read the book now, getting the PDF version might be a good option. You can get the PDF by ordering here...






FYI – I am working furiously to get the paperback edition of the book released before Christmas and will keep you informed as things progress. So far, I’ve gotten some really positive feedback about the book. Here’s what some people are saying:

I just read your book in a single reading. I couldn’t stop reading it. Wow. This is very powerful…. I’m familiar with much of what you’re explaining about medical abuse, but the way you put it together is so clear. I like the way that in telling your own story you’re telling the story of what has happened to our entire culture. I hope this book reaches a lot of people. I’m going to read it again in a few days. I need to process some of my own feelings about this first. I think a lot of people are going to be very moved and impressed by what you’ve done with this book. Congratulations.
— Kerth Barker, Author of “Angelic Defenders and Demonic Abusers”

WOW WOW WOW I just finished reading your book I could not stop reading your book. I read it in about two hours. This is an excellent book about birth trauma and it opens one’s eyes to the medical field and how some doctors, nurses, midwifes really do not care… The imagery is incredible the poem is well written – more so because it is from your heart and your pain. I love the way you had a few pages before your book started of what you can do to make yourself feel better… I just love the layout of the book — Mixing in stories with your take on it… As a volunteer of the Postpartum Resource Center I have read several books on PPD and a mom’s journey thru it. And there are also many medical books explaining it. But I can honestly say yours is a different kind.
— Geri O’Keefe, Author of “The Stork’s Revenge: My Struggles and Triumphs over postpartum depression”

I have no words. Such a powerfull book.. Wow. Wow. I know the cruelty of the birthing machine very well but you gave words to it in a wonderful way. It will open the eyes of many. Thank you for being you, for bringing this into the world, so so needed and necessary. Thank you for all the effort you put in this work, and helping women, men and babies to create a different world.
— Eugenie van Ruitenbeek, Author or “Raising Children in an Insane World”

This book will have you clutching your own body as you recognize and understand how you have come to be. The author, having gone through the fire herself, has given us this tremendous visionary’s gift. As a friend of mine said, ‘Jeanice Barcelo has got to be one of the most perceptive people on the planet.’ Jeanice lays out amazing, ground-breaking information, along with her own personal story — an absolute MUST READ!
— Sofia Smallstorm, Creator of “Unraveling Sandy Hook” and “From Chemtrails to Psuedo-Life: The Dark Agenda of Synthetic Biology

Pre-publication PDF Version Available Now

To purchase the PDF version for the low price of $8.99, simply click on the following link. Your book will be sent to the email address you use to make the purchase.





Saturday, December 13, 2014

9 SUPRISING FACTS ABOUT THE CORD AROUND THE BABY'S NECK


Photo Credit: http://birthwithoutfearblog.com

Source Article:
9 Surprising Facts About the Cord Around A Baby's Neck
http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth/surprising-facts-about-the-cord-around-a-babys-neck#.VIzYetzr0-2

A nuchal cord (cord around the neck) is one of many things that mothers-to-be fear about childbirth. The thought of their precious baby being ‘strangled’ by their umbilical cord can cause so much worry.

Luckily, unborn babies get nutrients and oxygen via the umbilical cord, not by breathing it in through their nose and mouth, which may eliminate some fear right there. They don’t need their neck to breathe.

This is one of the many reasons why it’s important to leave a baby’s umbilical cord intact (uncut) for at least 2 minutes after the birth, because it’s the life support system for the baby until his head is born. It’s the very same reason why babies don’t drown during a water birth, because they have an oxygen supply already attached, and don’t take their first breath until they are stimulated by air. You can read more about why it’s important to delay cord clamping here.

Here are some interesting facts about nuchal cords that every mother-to-be and father-to-be must know before they give birth…

1. Up To One Third Of Babies Are Born With The Umbilical Cord Around The Neck

It’s common to hear stories of babies being born with the cord wrapped around their neck – and the reason for that is because it’s quite common! Some doctors and midwives don’t even mention it during childbirth, because they tend to loop the cord over the baby’s head when he or she is crowning, and it’s no big deal. Ideally the cord should be left alone during the birth to prevent further compression or complications.

Studies report figures of up to one third of babies being born with a cord around their neck – thats 1 in 3 babies, which is the same number of babies born by caesarean section in Australia and the United States. Hardly a rare event.

Cords come in a range of lengths, and in this study, cord length ranged from 19 to 133 centimetres. However, the average umbilical cord length is around 50-60 centimetres long.

The above study stated: “In this study, the long umbilical cords seemed to be associated with the increased rate of multiple nuchal cords and true umbilical knots…however long umbilical cords did not contribute to adverse perinatal outcomes by themselves. In theory, fetal movement produces a tension on the cord that creates ample free length for delivery plus the length of the wrapped cord. Although an entangled cord may be at risk for intermittent or partial occlusion [blockage] of umbilical blood flow as previously reported, the excessively long cord may have self-protective effects to protect the fetuses from the risk of decreasing umbilical blood flow.”

"All 3 of my babies had the cord wrapped around their necks even wrapped twice around 2 of them"
— Jessica, BellyBelly Fan

So with a longer cord, some babies just like to play skippy in their mother’s uterus.

2. A Healthy Umbilical Cord Is Protected By A Slippery, Soft Coating

The human body is ever surprising with its clever design, which has been built to ensure our survival as a species. Even the umbilical cord has it’s party tricks!

A normal, healthy umbilical cord is and thickly coated in Wharton’s jelly, a soft, gelatinous substance which protects the blood vessels inside the cord. This substance makes the cord slippery, protecting the cord against compression as a result of the baby’s normal movements.

If a medical condition was impacting on the amount of Wharton’s jelly around the cord, then perhaps this may cause complications. However, the umbilical cord is carefully designed for uterine life.

“My first baby had the cord around her neck, her waist and her ankle. The midwife didn’t remember the last time she saw a cord that long!” — Anna, BellyBelly Fan

3. A Nuchal Cord Does Not Get Tighter As Labour Progresses

In her fantastic article Nuchal Cords: The Perfect Scapegoat, midwife and lecturer Rachel Reed explains:

“The baby is not ‘held up’ by the cord because the whole package – fundus (top of the uterus), placenta and cord are all moving down together. The uterus ‘shrinks’ down (contracts) moving the baby downwards, along with their attached placenta and cord. It is not until the baby’s head moves into the vagina, that a few extra centimetres of additional length are required. However, when a c-section is done for ‘fetal distress’ or ‘lack of progress’ during labour, the presence of a nuchal cord is often used as the reason… “ah ha, look – your baby was stressed because the cord was around his neck” or “…the cord was stopping her from moving down”. The cord is unlikely to have had anything to do with the stress or lack of progress.”

Some women say that their baby’s heart rate was dropping when they were pushing. Studies have proven that this is normal behaviour for a baby experiencing pressure around the head.

One study concluded:

“There was a very high incidence of abnormal FHR [fetal heart rate] during the second stage of labor, however, the most cases were response to parasympathetic stimulation due to umbilical cord or fetal head compression by mothers over push and descent of fetal head, or temporal diminishing of uterine placenta blood flow. It suggests that it is unnecessary to interfere immediately, unless truly fetal distress.”

Giving birth in an upright position can help – being on your back can make it worse (and more painful).

“3 of my 4 babies had cord around their neck, no problems. My last 3 had delayed cord clamping too.” — Jessica, BellyBelly Fan

4. A Cord Around The Neck Is Not Associated With Adverse Outcomes

This may be hard to believe or hear, especially if you’ve lost a baby and his or her cord happened to be wrapped around the neck. Understandably you want answers. However, several studies have reported that a cord around the neck is unlikely to be the main cause for adverse outcomes.

This study concluded:

“Nuchal cord is not associated with adverse perinatal outcome. Thus, labor induction in such cases is probably unnecessary.”

Another study came to the same conclusion.

The cord may be around the baby’s neck (which is very common as stated above) but many other issues can cause adverse outcomes which may be unknown at the time, making it very easy to blame the cord around the neck. Stillbirth is still an area of much research, and even doctors and researchers themselves can’t be certain what causes all cases.

5. Even With A ‘Tight’ Nuchal Cord, There Isn’t An Increased Risk Of Cord Accidents

Even a tight nuchal cord isn’t uncommon. A recent study found a tight nuchal cord occurred in 6.6% of over 200,000 consecutive live births, where they classed ‘tight’ as being unable to manually unloop the cord over the baby’s head.

In their findings, they state:

“Those with a tight nuchal cord were not more likely to have dopamine administered or blood hemoglobin measured on the first day, nor were they more likely to receive a transfusion or to die.”

“My baby boy has it wrapped around his neck 2 times. I freaked at first when my dr told us but I fed off his calmness which helped me settle down. Figured if he wasn’t panicked I shouldn’t be.” — Robin, BellyBelly Fan

6. Nuchal Cords Are Not An Indication For A Caesarean Section

The College Of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the United Kingdom advise that there is no reason to perform a caesarean section due to a nuchal cord.

They state, “No studies were identified of the effectiveness of caesarean section in the presence of umbilical cord around the fetal neck.”

Rachel Reed agrees there is no reason to perform a caesarean section ‘just in case’ due to a nuchal cord. “They very rarely cause a problem. Why not wait and do a c-section if/when a problem occurs? If you really want to avoid complications relating to cords then don’t rupture the membranes as this to avoid cord compression – a much greater risk than a nuchal cord. Incidentally when the cord is around the neck it is often protected from compression.”

“My first baby had her cord around her neck, it must have been around it for quite some time as I had to have an extra scan at 32 weeks because they couldn’t get a clear view of her left hand. She was born with her hand wrapped up in the cord too. Protecting herself before she was even born!” — Shauna, BellyBelly Fan
h3. 7. Nuchal Cord Accidents Are Very Low

Sadly, in a very small percent of births, cord accidents do happen – and they are not all due to the cord simply being around a baby’s neck.

According to a recent report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1 out of every 135 (0.74%) babies born in Australia is stillborn. In the United Staes it is 1 in 160 births. While the classification of a stillbirth varies around the world, in Australia, a ‘stillbirth’ is classed as ‘the birth of a baby who shows no signs of life, after a pregnancy of at least 20 weeks gestation or weighing 400g or more’.

A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that placental issues (for example placental abruption) were the leading cause of stillbirth at 26%, which was similar to a study in Sweden. A further 14-19% of stillbirths were due to infection. As for cord abnormalities, 10% were due to (or assumed to be due to, as doctors don’t always know why stillbirth occurs) cord problems. The range of cord problems included vasa previa, cord entrapment, evidence of occlusion [blocked], fetal hypoxia and prolapse. They stated:

“Nuchal cord alone was not considered a cause of death. This important cause of stillbirth has been somewhat overlooked in prior studies because of the difficulty in differentiating between harmless nuchal cords and cord conditions associated with pathophysiology leading to stillbirth.”

When you do the maths, the likelihood of a genuine cord accident due to being wrapped around the baby’s neck is very small – and in fact may not even be the underlying problem at all.

“My son had the cord wrapped around his neck when he was born at home in water september 2013. No big deal and i unwrapped it myself! I was also wrapped at birth and so were my brothers. It’s normal” — Guðrún, BellyBelly Fan

8. Even Multiple Loops Aren’t More Harmful

The number of loops is not important, remembering from above that the uterus, placenta and cord all move down with the baby during labour.

Rachel Reed says: “… as long as the cord is long enough to get the baby’s head out (i.e. the length of the vagina – which is not long when stretched into a baby’s head shape) then the rest of the baby can come out. It is extremely rare – but possible – that the cord is too short to allow descent of the baby. Then you would get a lack of progress and eventual fetal distress… often these babies get into a breech position before labour.”

A study found that the number of nuchal loops varied from 1 to 4, and the presence of 2 or more loops of cord around the neck was reported to affect between 2.5% to 8.3% of all pregnancies. They stated “0.1% of babies have 4 or more loops of nuchal cords and the maximum reported number was 9”. The study also mentioned that most babies in the study had Apgar scores of 7-10 (where 10 is the best score) after one minute, and only eight babies had an Apgar score of less than 7 after five minutes (5.20%), suggesting that any possible effect is only transient."

“My baby had his cord around his neck and under his arm. Absolutely no complications and it wasn’t scary for us. It can be okay!” — Ashley, BellyBelly Fan

9. It’s Usually Another Intervention Which Causes Fetal Distress… Then The Caesarean

Inductions of labour, especially with synthetic oxytocin (syntocinon in Australia or pitocin in the US) can cause fetal distress. Once you’re hooked up to the drip, it will remain on until you give birth. The majority of mothers accept an epidural (or other pain relief) after an induction of labour with this method of induction, because it can make the uterus work very hard – it doesn’t act like natural labour contractions. In this time, the mother-to-be can’t feel a thing and has no idea what’s going on inside of her. The blood and oxygen supply become compressed (even moreso because the mother is now immobilised, flat on her back) which eventually can cause the baby to become distressed… requiring an emergency caesarean. However, if there happens to be a cord around the neck, this may be used as the reason for the caesarean.

Take a look at the clip below from the MUST WATCH documentary, The Business of Being Born. It explains how an induction with pitocin/syntocinon can result in fetal distress and caesarean section.


Pitocin clip-Business of Being Born
http://youtu.be/3fPauJEy7fc


How To Reduce Your Risk Of A Stressful Situation At Birth

The best things you can do if you want to avoid extra stress and complications (for example fetal distress) when your baby is being born, is to avoid inductions of labour and being on your back during labour and birth (which is inevitable if you have an epidural, and common if you have an induction with synthetic oxytocin).

Also, if you have an epidural, you’ll be stuck in bed and can’t move your body, so your baby doesn’t have help to move down into the most optimal position. This may result in difficulties being born, requiring forceps or vacuum, or worst case, caesarean section. Getting informed with good information, and not just what you hear from friends or family, is crucial to set yourself up for the best outcome. We research our major purchases before we buy them; we need to research major life events which we’ll never forget too. Having a doula can reduce the incidence of many interventions.

Read our articles about the risks of induction of labour, the risks of epidurals and the benefits of doulas.

Remember: Sometimes, Doctors and Midwives Just Don’t Know

It may be the last thing that you want to hear (and the last thing that care providers want to say) but sometimes doctors just don’t know why complications have occurred. It can be especially hard when it looks to be as obvious as a cord around the neck, and parents are understandably emotional and desperate for answers.

Conception is a magical, mysterious thing. It’s complicated yet simple at the same time – and the same goes with birth. All we can do is trust the process. While life sometimes throws some distressing events our way where things just don’t work out as we hoped and dreamed, sometimes there is no-one or nothing to blame. But don’t let that get you down, because Mother Nature works beautifully the vast majority of the time – the population of the planet is proof of that.

A cord around the neck is not to be feared.

The Unassisted Hospital Birth of Clay
http://youtu.be/nnVuIwRX7V0


Watch as this mom gently unwraps the umbilical cord from around her baby's neck. Note: It was wrapped around the baby's neck FIVE TIMES and the baby was perfectly OK.


ON THE THEFT OF INFANT CORD BLOOD FROM PREMATURE BABIES



Source Article:
Doubt They're Evil? About The Umbilical Cord, and The Profitable Procedure For Premature Deliveries
http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/187-doubt-theyre-evil-cutting-the-umbilical-cord-and-the-profitable-procedure-for-premature-deliveries.html

"Another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting of the navel string too soon; which should always be left till the child has not only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the cord ceases. As otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to be, a portion of the blood being left in the placenta, which ought to have been in the child."
-- Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia, 1801

The modern hospitalized birthing process usually goes something like this in the U.S.. The mother gives birth to a child, while being thoroughly drugged, and the child's umbilical cord is immediately clamped. Soon after; male children are circumsized (usually without any pain killers) and then given a round of vaccines on his first day of birth. This is the modern version of birthing.

There was a time when the umbilical cord was not cut until the cord stopped pulsating. This would take somewhere between 2 and 20 minutes. Nowadays, that practice has been abandoned, but it is not due to health considerations. Early cord clamping provides no known medical benefits to either the child or the mother. With most deliveries, the cord blood is taken to be sold, because it contains valuable stem cells, including hematopoietic cells. These are sold for scientific research. Before this highly lucrative market developed, the blood was allowed to travel to the infant to help him become stronger. Instead, it is now stolen from him by the hospital staff. This practice has become such a standard procedure that whenever the blood is not to be saved, it is just thrown away.

Early cord clamping restricts blood that was intended for the infant. There is usually about a cup of blood transferred through the umbilical cord to the infant at birth. A huge number of studies show that early cord clamping is a dangerous procedure, which weakens a newborn, and can eventually lead to brain and lung problems (if not immediately). If the umbilical cord is attached, and the infant is receiving the highly-oxygenated blood, then there is not an urgency to immediately get the infant breathing. The oxygen from the blood will ensure the survival of the infant.

Waiting for the cord to stop pulsating has become unusual in American hospitals. Although, there was a time when an infant would have breathed well, and his skin color would have become normal before his cord was clamped. An infant will naturally begin breathing without any assistance or encouragement if the cord is not immediately clamped. However, the cord is now clamped long before the infant takes his first breath; producing obvious problems that stem from cutting off his oxygen supply.

Just Sign This Form

Parents usually have no clue that the blood of their child is being taken for research, and this is not accidental. Parents usually sign the fine print allowing their hospital to "dispose" of the cord blood and placenta, which is actually saved, and then sold to the highest bidder. Late cord clamping does not go well with the profit agenda. Ironically, the aim of the research is often to find cures for disorders which are caused by this early cord clamping. In other words, should we hurt John to help Luke? We can be sure that early cord clamping is, in some cases, creating future life-long 'customers' of the medical establishment, but this seems to be the normal pattern with allopathic medicine. Since the cord blood can contain one quarter of the total blood volume of an infant, the loss is a huge blow to his immune system.

Known problems with early cord clamping

Anemia
Brain lesions
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (S.I.D.S)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome (R.D.S)
Autism
Cancer

Premature Deliveries: Here's Where It Really Gets Evil

The cord blood of pre-term infants contains more stem cells than normal infants, and interestingly; early cord clamping is particularly promoted for these infants by the medical establishment, due to its higher market value. The welfare of the child is not even considered. For the hospital, this blood is a premium sales item because it contains more nutrients and stem cells than are normal. These are desperately needed by the weaker infants. This need is ignored, and the cord blood is literally stolen from the sickly child (by his own doctors -- no less), and then sold for maximum profit. There is no doubt that this cord blood would result in much healthier premature newborns.

The great majority of people believe that there is no harm in delayed cord clamping, so would it not be wise to leave it attached until it stops pulsating? Sometimes, the cord is clamped immediately for the convenience of the doctor, who desires to get in and out of the delivery room as quickly as possible, and back into his golf game. Doctors do have priorities, after all. Spending an extra 20 minutes in the delivery room would likewise make the customers less profitable for the hospital.

U.S.A.! We're number 1 number 33! [ACTUALLY - WE ARE NOW RANKED 68TH IN TERMS OF INFANT SURVIVAL BEYOND THE FIRST DAY]

When we combine this sort of "health care" with the onslaught to the immune system by dozens of completely unnecessary and unsafe vaccinations, then it is a wonder that most American babies survive. In fact, the U.S. is ranked 33rd in infant survival, according to the United Nations; meaning that there are 33 countries with less infant fatalities by percentage of births. America with its supposed "best in the world medicine", is in actuality, outdone by such nations as New Caledonia and Brunei. It's beyond sad. The delusional mythology behind it all is almost as pitiful. The topic of vaccinations has been covered throughout this website, and there is no need for more elaboration.