|
|
On June 26th I saw the above article linked to on the main page of CNN's website where the first paragraph begins like this: (click, "read more" to continue) ---->
0 Comments
At the same time, health information at odds with big media's message is being censored by Facebook, Amazon, Pinterest, Yahoo, YouTube and more. Yet those lacking first hand knowledge of this censorship, often don't realize how pervasive the censorship has become. The big tech companies claim they are merely removing things that are not true -- but Sanjay Gupta, Nina Shapiro and others aligned with those who hold the power are not getting censored -- even when they say things that can be shown to be factually incorrect. Here is a good example. Dr. Nina Shapiro is a graduate of Harvard Medical School, a division head of a surgery center and she's taught medicine in academic settings. With those credentials -- you'd think there might be some pressure on her to make factually supportable public statements right?  Shapiro is also the author of the book, "Hype" which claims to be a doctor's guide to "...medical myths and exaggerated claims...and how to tell what's real and what's not." It is that tagline by Shapiro that makes me think of Brave New World. Let me explain. Nina Shapiro exemplifies Brave New World. My first exposure to Nina Shapiro was when I stumbled upon an article of hers featured on Forbes where she argues that the right to have or refuse an abortion IS a valid personal choice, but the right to have or refuse other medical interventions -- with documented risks is not. She thinks having an abortion which can be definitively linked with ending a specific life is acceptable while refusing a vaccine which has only a theoretical possibility of preventing a disease which if not prevented has only a theoretical chance of hurting someone is not acceptable. Here is a screen shot of the headline of her article:  But Nina has a big problem with her facts. The only justification she offers for why our fundamental right to decide what happens to our own body should be violated is this statement:
Could a medical doctor who graduated from Harvard really be THAT ignorant? Tetanus is not a communicable disease. The vaccine for Diphtheria is a toxoid --- so there is not even a theoretical basis to suggest that it can prevent the spread of the organism that causes diphtheria. And the published science on the Pertussis vaccine not only provides ZERO evidence that this vaccine prevents the spread of the disease --- in fact it is well documented that people properly vaccinated for pertussis can have and spread the illness -- and often don't show any symptoms!
I notice a disturbing double standard by some of my scientist and doctor friends when it comes to medical information like this. When I share information that challenges their perspective (particularly on the subject of vaccines) many look at it only long enough to find a single detail they can point to, to discredit the entire article -- even when the detail might not be central to the evidence being presented. But they take the opposite approach to sources that support what they already believe....like this one I just deconstructed by Nina Shaprio.  But sometimes details really do matter a lot. So I ask you...who is really promoting medical myths and exaggerated claims? (For the record -- here is a screen shot of what Nina wrote: 
manufacturers immunity from liability for vaccines on the CDC schedule, by placing a tax on vaccines and then having a special court award that money to vaccine injured people. To date the fund has paid out over four billion dollars for vaccine injuries. This in spite of the fact that most claimants spend years trying to get compensated, before being refused. That in addition to the fact that one must file a claim within 3 years, and many who are injured and seeking treatment don't even learn about the fund until it's too late to file. But the 1986 act was a gold mine for vaccine makers, turning vaccines into one of pharma's most profitable sectors now estimated to be worth over sixty billion annually It also led to an explosion in the number of vaccines children are mandated to get in order to attend school.
Most people don't realize that unlike all other pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines are not tested for safety against a true inert placebo. Instead the, "placebo" group may get the vaccine's entire toxic brew minus only the actual antigen. Because mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, gelatin, bovine serum, DNA fragments, egg protein and the other assorted ingredients in vaccines all have biological impacts when injected, "placebos" that contain these probably obscure many harms and adverse impacts from vaccines. That was why I recently trekked to my state capitol to testify for a proposed bill that would simply make it harder for those under pharma's spell to get additional vaccines mandated for school entry Here is my testimony:
Here is a cut and pasted copy of the comment I tried to post on Statnews -- on the page with the above article: This article missed a growing reason why adults are not getting vaccines -- it's CENSORSHIP on vaccine information or any science that challenges the pro-pharma narrative dominating the media. This in turn is fueling vaccine skepticism!
Articles by Helen Branswell exemplify this problem. Branswell has superb credentials, but her writing is PR for pharma thinly disguised as "health reporting."
TIME and the corporate controlled media want us to believe it's everyone's duty to get vaccinated -- especially to protect infants for whom these diseases are more dangerous and who may also be too young to get some vaccines. On page 37 of the this 2008 article, TIME lamented that only 77% of kinder-gardeners in America were completely up-to-date on their vaccines and even said -- that was the country's highest vaccination rate we had ever had!  Today, ten years later, whooping cough, measles and mumps outbreaks are in the news and "anti-vaxxers" are being blamed. But a large body of published science shows that extremely high rates of vaccine coverage do not prevent circulation of these diseases in the community. They may keep vaccinated individuals from showing symptoms -- but vaccinated people can still be silent carriers, making seemingly healthy vaccinated people a bigger threat to infants than their not vaccinated counterparts (since someone who has not recently been vaccinated and becomes infected with Pertussis is more likely to appear to have a cold or cough and thus can be avoided.) Also at odds with the media's narrative is the fact that vaccination rates in children have actually soared from 77% to about 94% since TIME published their article:  Though the report emphasizes the fact that there was a very tiny increase in exemptions, the report actually puts the overall rate of vaccinated kinder-gardeners at about 94% now. Here's another screen shot:  The idea that people refusing vaccines are putting babies too young to be vaccinated at risk hides another unintended public-health consequence of vaccines; infants may actually be more vulnerable to measles now, than they were in the pre-vaccine era. Before routine measles vaccination, most mothers had measles in childhood. Studies suggest that babies of mothers who had the actual disease (as opposed to only the vaccine) pass on more protective antibodies to their infants:   Did you hear about the recent measles outbreak in Samoa that killed 6 -- most of whom were babies too young to be vaccinated? The deaths were blamed on falling vaccination rates in Samoa, but it's likely they were due at least in part to vaccinated mothers having less immunity to pass on to their infants. The media discourages us from seeing something an important fact: High vaccination rates are not preventing circulation of these diseases. If you have read a lot of the published science on this subject however, this will not surprise you because...
The pharma-promoting media, in conjunction with our "conflict-of-interest-compromised" regulatory agencies, spin what is happening to support vaccine sales and passage of laws that take away the fundamental right to informed consent for medical procedures -- a direct violation of the Nuremberg Code. Meanwhile plenty of published science shows whooping cough and mumps are frequently spread in fully vaccinated populations. Here is a small sampling: 1993:  1994:  1996:  2000:  2019:     And can you think of any population more highly vaccinated than the military? And yet Mumps spread through a navy ship earlier this year. (Though they tried to deny it was mumps by calling it, "Mumps-like.") Though the measles vaccine appears to be more effective than mumps or pertussis -- many fully vaccinated against measles have gotten and spread it too...and the vaccine's effectiveness in an individual has been shown to wane with each passing year. Meanwhile, growing numbers of parents are coming forward alleging serious adverse events following their child's vaccinations--reactions which left some children brain-damaged, disabled or dead. I found this short video of these parents of triplets very moving. Why does our media never tell these family's story? Yet if a child is hospitalized after a case of Chickenpox -- that story makes headlines across the country. Oh -- looks like Youtube removed that video -- but I found it on another platform -- click the image below to see it.  America has an epidemic of chronic diseases plaguing fully vaccinated children (allergy, asthma, autoimmune disease, seizures, autism, and psychiatric disorders). A growing body of science suggests various mechanisms by which vaccines are likely contributing to many of these chronic conditions. Vaccines are one the fastest growing, most profitable sectors of the pharmaceutical industry -- an industry that has been repeatedly shown to engage in scientific misconduct intended to hide the true harms of their products or overstate benefits. Do your own critical thinking.
ing I had developed a new fear -- flying. I was also not eager to be halfway across the country from my nursing toddler.
"I can't go, we're still nursing," I said matter-of-factly to my husband. "I told them that," my husband shot back. "But you would only be gone one night. They
Especially pay attention to the very bottom words on the image above...
Below you will find descriptions and pictures of the various activities I have created. I will be updating this blog post over the next few weeks as I finish making more of more of the activities. My plan is to document everything with enough detail so that parents, teachers and activists can copy what I have done.
I saw. But this enabled me to appreciate this bigger picture before I was, "educated" to not find it problematic: How companies create biased science and then use it to shape public health policy.
Anthropologists who have studied various cultures have described a variety of ways that elements of culture are transmitted to individuals born into that culture. These include such things as the usage of language, participation in rituals, the telling of stories, the emotion conveyed in relationship to certain events, and all the day to day, moment by moment choices and behaviors that one can observe in those around them.
Then I pause as if trying to think what kind of milk she might want...smiling broadly I ask, "Mommy's Milk?" "YESSSS!" she says with even more emphasis then any of the no's. And then we settle down to nurse. Games such as this reinforce our family's view that drinking the milk of any other animal is yucky and an aberration of what is normal. Once when my younger daughter had a cough for over a week, I took her to the doctor. My six year old went too. She heard me tell the doctor that we've never used antibiotics--or any other drugs -- and wouldn't unless we there was a very serious problem. The doctor agreed saying they are way overused. Then he examined my toddler and reported that her ears and tonsils looked perfect, and her lungs were clear. The only signs of illness he could see were that her temperature was elevated one degree, and she had one small swollen gland. I felt glad to know there was nothing serious wrong and that we could simply let her body heal itself. But then the doctor offered to give us a prescription for antibiotics and recommended a decongestant too. Of course I declined all these things. But it was a good example for my children to see that I do not turn over my decision making to any "authority figures" and that while we may seek out the opinions of others, we still must make our own responsible choices consistent with our own values and beliefs. Today at lunch my six year old told me that she thinks the reason she does not know much about the world (we had been talking about the legal requirements for home schoolers and how they are slightly different in every state.) is because we don't eat meat, and so she misses out on a part of the world that everyone else knows about. "How do you feel about that?" I asked her -- not sure where she was going with this whole discussion. "Good." She told me..."I'm glad I don't eat meat." I waited to see what else she might offer up, but she seemed to have expressed all that she wanted. This gave me an opportunity to point out to her how not eating meat had nothing to do with not understanding the laws about homeschooling, and that no two people on earth have exactly the same knowledge of the world. I went on to explain how the world is such a vast place that no one can know everything. So based upon our own unique experiences each of us knows slightly different things. Then I pointed out some of the things that she knows all about, which most six year olds wouldn't know anything about. She seemed very comfortable with our discussion. My point in all this is to raise awareness that hundreds of times a day each of us, as a parent is making choices. The stories we read, the words we use, the way that we offer comfort, the foods we make available, the outside influences we bring into our homes (toys and TV for example) every one of these choices is an element of enculturation. Individually and moment by moment, each choice by itself is probably inconsequential. But together they suggest a path, they create a paradigm. Together they communicate to our children what we value most, what we stand for, what we believe in our hearts.  My husband and daughters standing with our friend Ellen after we did a little beech activism together, on a visit to her island.
1) No one should be forced to live near a slaughterhouse.
2) Prime would increase carbon emissions from
animal agriculture.  (Note -- this article was originally published on my Compassionate Souls website shortly after my first book came out (about 2001). Neil Miller republished it with permission in his booklet on the Chickenpox vaccine, and 4 years ago I posted it to this blog. I am bringing it to the front of my blog now, because this issue is timely again.)
When I was a child, chickenpox was universally understood to be a generally benign disease in otherwise healthy children. Every spring, chickenpox would wash through the younger grades at my elementary school, and initiate a new group of kids. Most of us remember the disease for its horrendous itching and the occasional scar, but I don't remember any of us fearing it. I grew up accepting Chickenpox as a fact of life, and a normal passage of childhood -- like skinning your knees. According to the Merck Manual, Chickenpox is a highly contagious infection caused by the
We are LOVING these strawberry shakes. This recipe makes two large shakes -- but that never seems to be quite enough...
|
Click to learn why people Fail on
plant-based diets
Categories
All
My Best Articles are HERE
|
