#disclaimer: no cockroaches were harmed during this experiment

[romanticize-until-you-drop]

2024-02-02

New semester new me — not really though, despite my highest hopes. It’s only the end of the first week and I’ve already got work piling up. Absolutely wild.

[paullassiterca]

The Hill Says Vaccine Injuries Are Exaggerated Personal Anecdotes

Political newspaper and website The Hill has become the latest to belittle people interested in vaccine choice and safety, and practically deny adverse events after vaccination.1

They start out by acknowledging that “internet censorship is anathema to Americans, whose free speech is protected by the First Amendment,” but then go on to discuss what can be done to silence those who question vaccine safety or speak about their own experiences with adverse vaccine reactions.

To be clear, the article is written by Rachel Alter, a graduate research assistant at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, and Dr.Irwin Redlener, president emeritus and co-founder of the Children’s Health Fund, and published by The Hill.

A disclaimer at the top reads, “The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.” Still, even the headline — Time to Dispel Vaccine Myths Spreading on Social Media — reeks of censorship. The beginning paragraphs go so far as to call personal adverse vaccine reactions “exaggerated personal anecdotes”:2

“[W]hat can be done about the growing amount of harmful misinformation intended to influence thousands of people to make decisions that put not only their lives, but the lives of their and others’ children, at risk?

Such is the situation for the anti-vaccination, or ‘anti-vax,’ community, thousands of whose members flock to social media pages where they promptly remove ‘pro-vax trolls,’ and post fear-mongering memes and exaggerated personal anecdotes.”

Are Vaccine Injuries ‘Exaggerated Personal Anecdotes’?

The authors of this piece in The Hill are only the latest to downplay or deny that vaccine injuries occur. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), recently did the same in an interview with CBS News.3

“[T]he lack of safety and adverse events, things like autism … that issue is based purely on fabrication and that’s been proven … there is no association whatsoever between the measles vaccine and autism,” he said. The reporter questioned Fauci’s claims that there are no studies showing vaccines may cause harm and asked if he were perhaps not looking at the right studies.

“That’s just not true … that’s just not true, period,” Fauci said, refusing to even entertain the notion that vaccines may cause adverse reactions in some people, and that parents of vaccine-injured children may be justified in their hesitation to vaccinate their other children.

So what’s the truth? Every vaccine comes with a risk of adverse reactions, including death, and it’s up to each person to decide if that risk outweighs the benefit of the vaccination.

“For example,” Dr. K. Paul Stoller, fellow, American College of Hyperbaric Medicine, wrote in Acta Scientific Paediatrics, “it has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles,” continuing:4

“The nonprofit organization Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) recently reported in The BMJ that every year an estimated 5,700 U.S. children (approximately 1 in 640 children) suffer febrile seizures from the first dose of the MMR vaccine — which is five times more than the number of seizures expected from measles.5

This amounts to 57,000 febrile seizures over the past 10 years due to the MMR vaccine alone. And, as 5 percent of children with febrile seizures progress to epilepsy, the estimated number of children developing epilepsy due to the MMR vaccine, in the past 10 years, is 2,850.”

$4 Billion Paid Out to Victims of Vaccine Injuries

To deny that adverse vaccine reactions occur is the fabrication. There is, in fact, a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) available to victims of vaccine injuries. Congress created VICP under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act as an alternative to a vaccine injury lawsuit, which acts as a shield from liability to vaccine manufacturers.

In their latest release of data and statistics, the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) revealed that approximately $4 billion has been paid out to vaccine-injured victims since 1988 — in response to only 31 percent of the filed petitions.6

“There is no telling how much more money the taxpayer-funded program might have shelled out if the court had not chosen to dismiss the remaining petitions (56 percent) — possibly doing so fraudulently in at least some cases,” Children’s Health Defense, which is working to end childhood health epidemics by eliminating harmful exposures, explained.7

One in 168 — Not 1 in 1 Million

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that vaccines are safe, and serious adverse reactions are rare. For serious allergic reactions like anaphylaxis, they state such reactions occur “at a rate of approximately 1 per million doses for many vaccines.”8

However, serious adverse events occur far more common than publicly admitted, with 1 in 168 children requiring emergency room admittance following their 1-year wellness check when vaccines are given, according to Canadian research.9

One in 730 children ends up in the emergency room after their 18-month vaccination appointment, as well, and researchers noted an additional 20 febrile seizures occurred for every 100,000 vaccinated at 12 months.

“There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12- and 18-month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented,” the researchers concluded.10

Research from Shanghai, China, also provided some insights into the frequency of vaccine adverse reactions among children. The Shanghai study, based on reported pediatric adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for 2009, found that 42 percent were caused by vaccines, with reactions ranging from mild skin rashes to deadly reactions like anaphylaxis.

Of all the drugs causing adverse reactions among children, vaccines were the most commonly reported.11 The vast majority of reports came from physicians, pharmacists and other health care providers, with less than 3 percent coming from consumers.

In the U.S., underreporting of adverse reactions to vaccines is common, with an estimated 99 percent of such reactions never reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). As noted in 2011 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:12

“Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with less than 1 percent reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Low reporting rates preclude or delay the identification of ‘problem’ vaccines, potentially endangering the health of the public. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

Refusing Vaccination ‘Silly’

In their belittling of people who value informed consent and choose to refuse one or more vaccinations, The Hill article calls such personal choice “silly”:13

“If it were only a matter of putting oneself at risk by refusing vaccination, we would not necessarily be called to action. After all, a personal choice is just that, regardless of how silly it may seem to outsiders. But people who refuse vaccines for themselves and their families are putting the most vulnerable members of their community at risk of severe illness or death.”

They’re invoking the commonly parroted idea that vaccines confer herd immunity if a high-enough percentage of people in a population are vaccinated. However, vaccines do not work in the same way as natural immunity, and there is evidence that vaccine-induced herd immunity is largely a myth.

In his book, “Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness,” Dr. Thomas Cowan explains how vaccines cause a distortion in the two branches of your immune response — the cell-mediated immunity (innate) and the humoral immunity (adaptive). This, in turn, radically increases your risk of immune dysfunction, including development of autoimmunity and even cancer.

When you get a viral childhood disease, the virus enters your body and infects your cells. The subsequent disease process involves your cell-mediated immune response, which activates white blood cells and chemicals that attract them to the site of infection in order to clear the virus.

During recovery, your humoral immune system kicks in and starts generating antibodies against the virus to help prevent the same kind of disease process from occurring again in the event you’re exposed to the virus again at a later date.

As long as the cell-mediated immune system is activated first, and the humoral immune system is activated second, you will have a longer-lasting, qualitatively superior immunity against that disease. Vaccines, however, circumvent the possibility of creating robust herd immunity in a population, as they often avoid a cell-mediated immune response, provoking a humoral response instead.

Vaccination triggers the creation of vaccine-strain antibodies, but since vaccination skips the cell-mediated response, it only confers an artificial temporary immunity.

This is also why most vaccines, especially inactivated vaccines, require booster shots to try to extend artificial immunity. (Live attenuated viral vaccines, such as measles vaccine, are thought to more closely mimic the natural disease process, but even live virus vaccines confer an artificial immunity that is not identical to natural immunity.)

Open Discussion Into Vaccine Safety — Not Name-Calling — Is Urgently Needed

In the vaccination debate, what happens all too often is not an open, scientifically based discussion but rather inappropriate name-calling and threats. A scathing article in the Los Angeles Times even labeled unvaccinated people “cockroaches.”14 Many parents are also left feeling belittled or threatened by their children’s doctors should they so much as question the U.S. CDC’s vaccination schedule.

At least one study has found the vaccination schedule may put premature babies at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders,15 but should parents question their pediatrician about it, they may risk being rejected from the practice and left without a source of medical care for their child. Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), explained:16

“These days, a well-baby checkup can be a frightening and gut-wrenching experience for a new mom bringing her baby to the pediatrician’s office.

That is because, with the approval of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), many pediatricians have taken the hardline position that they do not have to discuss vaccination with parents or, if they do, they can threaten them with dismissal from the practice for not obeying a direct order.”

The ability to make informed, voluntary vaccine choices for yourself and your children must be protected, because vaccines are not a one-size-fits-all-solution, nor is the U.S. public as a whole a one-size-fits-all population. Stoller also questioned whether vaccine policy is really about safeguarding the public, and his stance deserves consideration:17

“In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry is the largest campaign donor to politicians and the largest advertiser in all forms of media, but even that level on influence should still yield to safeguards on human rights and bioethics.

For when a medical intervention becomes shielded from liability and is then mandated by governments who are often in an unholy partnership with the corporations responsible for that intervention then we are all in peril.

When coercion becomes part of the equation, a crime against humanity is being perpetrated. The intellectual and social suppression of views, research and information inconvenient to vaccine stakeholders and proponents is no different today than it was for those who opposed the practice of bloodletting and dosing patients with mercury.

The difference today are the economic factors, for it is projected that by 2020, global vaccine revenues exceed $60 billion, so with that amount of money in play vaccine and public health policies have been made to support the desires of a criminal cabal where informed consent is perhaps the only remaining firewall.”

from Articles http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/02/19/vaccine-injuries-exaggerated-personal-anecdotes.aspx source https://niapurenaturecom.tumblr.com/post/182908905481

[jakehglover]

The Hill Says Vaccine Injuries Are Exaggerated Personal Anecdotes

Political newspaper and website The Hill has become the latest to belittle people interested in vaccine choice and safety, and practically deny adverse events after vaccination.1

They start out by acknowledging that “internet censorship is anathema to Americans, whose free speech is protected by the First Amendment,” but then go on to discuss what can be done to silence those who question vaccine safety or speak about their own experiences with adverse vaccine reactions.

To be clear, the article is written by Rachel Alter, a graduate research assistant at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, and Dr.Irwin Redlener, president emeritus and co-founder of the Children's Health Fund, and published by The Hill.

A disclaimer at the top reads, “The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.” Still, even the headline — Time to Dispel Vaccine Myths Spreading on Social Media — reeks of censorship. The beginning paragraphs go so far as to call personal adverse vaccine reactions “exaggerated personal anecdotes”:2

“[W]hat can be done about the growing amount of harmful misinformation intended to influence thousands of people to make decisions that put not only their lives, but the lives of their and others’ children, at risk?

Such is the situation for the anti-vaccination, or ‘anti-vax,’ community, thousands of whose members flock to social media pages where they promptly remove ‘pro-vax trolls,’ and post fear-mongering memes and exaggerated personal anecdotes.”

Are Vaccine Injuries ‘Exaggerated Personal Anecdotes’?

The authors of this piece in The Hill are only the latest to downplay or deny that vaccine injuries occur. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), recently did the same in an interview with CBS News.3

“[T]he lack of safety and adverse events, things like autism … that issue is based purely on fabrication and that’s been proven … there is no association whatsoever between the measles vaccine and autism,” he said. The reporter questioned Fauci’s claims that there are no studies showing vaccines may cause harm and asked if he were perhaps not looking at the right studies.

“That’s just not true … that’s just not true, period,” Fauci said, refusing to even entertain the notion that vaccines may cause adverse reactions in some people, and that parents of vaccine-injured children may be justified in their hesitation to vaccinate their other children.

So what’s the truth? Every vaccine comes with a risk of adverse reactions, including death, and it’s up to each person to decide if that risk outweighs the benefit of the vaccination.

“For example,” Dr. K. Paul Stoller, fellow, American College of Hyperbaric Medicine, wrote in Acta Scientific Paediatrics, “it has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles,” continuing:4

“The nonprofit organization Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) recently reported in The BMJ that every year an estimated 5,700 U.S. children (approximately 1 in 640 children) suffer febrile seizures from the first dose of the MMR vaccine — which is five times more than the number of seizures expected from measles.5

This amounts to 57,000 febrile seizures over the past 10 years due to the MMR vaccine alone. And, as 5 percent of children with febrile seizures progress to epilepsy, the estimated number of children developing epilepsy due to the MMR vaccine, in the past 10 years, is 2,850.”

$4 Billion Paid Out to Victims of Vaccine Injuries

To deny that adverse vaccine reactions occur is the fabrication. There is, in fact, a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) available to victims of vaccine injuries. Congress created VICP under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act as an alternative to a vaccine injury lawsuit, which acts as a shield from liability to vaccine manufacturers.

In their latest release of data and statistics, the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) revealed that approximately $4 billion has been paid out to vaccine-injured victims since 1988 — in response to only 31 percent of the filed petitions.6

“There is no telling how much more money the taxpayer-funded program might have shelled out if the court had not chosen to dismiss the remaining petitions (56 percent) — possibly doing so fraudulently in at least some cases,” Children’s Health Defense, which is working to end childhood health epidemics by eliminating harmful exposures, explained.7

One in 168 — Not 1 in 1 Million

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that vaccines are safe, and serious adverse reactions are rare. For serious allergic reactions like anaphylaxis, they state such reactions occur “at a rate of approximately 1 per million doses for many vaccines.”8

However, serious adverse events occur far more common than publicly admitted, with 1 in 168 children requiring emergency room admittance following their 1-year wellness check when vaccines are given, according to Canadian research.9

One in 730 children ends up in the emergency room after their 18-month vaccination appointment, as well, and researchers noted an additional 20 febrile seizures occurred for every 100,000 vaccinated at 12 months.

“There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12- and 18-month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented,” the researchers concluded.10

Research from Shanghai, China, also provided some insights into the frequency of vaccine adverse reactions among children. The Shanghai study, based on reported pediatric adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for 2009, found that 42 percent were caused by vaccines, with reactions ranging from mild skin rashes to deadly reactions like anaphylaxis.

Of all the drugs causing adverse reactions among children, vaccines were the most commonly reported.11 The vast majority of reports came from physicians, pharmacists and other health care providers, with less than 3 percent coming from consumers.

In the U.S., underreporting of adverse reactions to vaccines is common, with an estimated 99 percent of such reactions never reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). As noted in 2011 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:12

“Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with less than 1 percent reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Low reporting rates preclude or delay the identification of ‘problem’ vaccines, potentially endangering the health of the public. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

Refusing Vaccination ‘Silly’

In their belittling of people who value informed consent and choose to refuse one or more vaccinations, The Hill article calls such personal choice “silly”:13

“If it were only a matter of putting oneself at risk by refusing vaccination, we would not necessarily be called to action. After all, a personal choice is just that, regardless of how silly it may seem to outsiders. But people who refuse vaccines for themselves and their families are putting the most vulnerable members of their community at risk of severe illness or death.”

They’re invoking the commonly parroted idea that vaccines confer herd immunity if a high-enough percentage of people in a population are vaccinated. However, vaccines do not work in the same way as natural immunity, and there is evidence that vaccine-induced herd immunity is largely a myth.

In his book, "Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness," Dr. Thomas Cowan explains how vaccines cause a distortion in the two branches of your immune response — the cell-mediated immunity (innate) and the humoral immunity (adaptive). This, in turn, radically increases your risk of immune dysfunction, including development of autoimmunity and even cancer.

When you get a viral childhood disease, the virus enters your body and infects your cells. The subsequent disease process involves your cell-mediated immune response, which activates white blood cells and chemicals that attract them to the site of infection in order to clear the virus.

During recovery, your humoral immune system kicks in and starts generating antibodies against the virus to help prevent the same kind of disease process from occurring again in the event you’re exposed to the virus again at a later date.

As long as the cell-mediated immune system is activated first, and the humoral immune system is activated second, you will have a longer-lasting, qualitatively superior immunity against that disease. Vaccines, however, circumvent the possibility of creating robust herd immunity in a population, as they often avoid a cell-mediated immune response, provoking a humoral response instead.

Vaccination triggers the creation of vaccine-strain antibodies, but since vaccination skips the cell-mediated response, it only confers an artificial temporary immunity.

This is also why most vaccines, especially inactivated vaccines, require booster shots to try to extend artificial immunity. (Live attenuated viral vaccines, such as measles vaccine, are thought to more closely mimic the natural disease process, but even live virus vaccines confer an artificial immunity that is not identical to natural immunity.)

Open Discussion Into Vaccine Safety — Not Name-Calling — Is Urgently Needed

In the vaccination debate, what happens all too often is not an open, scientifically based discussion but rather inappropriate name-calling and threats. A scathing article in the Los Angeles Times even labeled unvaccinated people “cockroaches.”14 Many parents are also left feeling belittled or threatened by their children’s doctors should they so much as question the U.S. CDC’s vaccination schedule.

At least one study has found the vaccination schedule may put premature babies at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders,15 but should parents question their pediatrician about it, they may risk being rejected from the practice and left without a source of medical care for their child. Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), explained:16

“These days, a well-baby checkup can be a frightening and gut-wrenching experience for a new mom bringing her baby to the pediatrician’s office.

That is because, with the approval of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), many pediatricians have taken the hardline position that they do not have to discuss vaccination with parents or, if they do, they can threaten them with dismissal from the practice for not obeying a direct order.”

The ability to make informed, voluntary vaccine choices for yourself and your children must be protected, because vaccines are not a one-size-fits-all-solution, nor is the U.S. public as a whole a one-size-fits-all population. Stoller also questioned whether vaccine policy is really about safeguarding the public, and his stance deserves consideration:17

“In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry is the largest campaign donor to politicians and the largest advertiser in all forms of media, but even that level on influence should still yield to safeguards on human rights and bioethics.

For when a medical intervention becomes shielded from liability and is then mandated by governments who are often in an unholy partnership with the corporations responsible for that intervention then we are all in peril.

When coercion becomes part of the equation, a crime against humanity is being perpetrated. The intellectual and social suppression of views, research and information inconvenient to vaccine stakeholders and proponents is no different today than it was for those who opposed the practice of bloodletting and dosing patients with mercury.

The difference today are the economic factors, for it is projected that by 2020, global vaccine revenues exceed $60 billion, so with that amount of money in play vaccine and public health policies have been made to support the desires of a criminal cabal where informed consent is perhaps the only remaining firewall.”

from HealthyLife via Jake Glover on Inoreader http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/02/19/vaccine-injuries-exaggerated-personal-anecdotes.aspx

[jerrytackettca]

The Hill Says Vaccine Injuries Are Exaggerated Personal Anecdotes

Political newspaper and website The Hill has become the latest to belittle people interested in vaccine choice and safety, and practically deny adverse events after vaccination.1

They start out by acknowledging that “internet censorship is anathema to Americans, whose free speech is protected by the First Amendment,” but then go on to discuss what can be done to silence those who question vaccine safety or speak about their own experiences with adverse vaccine reactions.

To be clear, the article is written by Rachel Alter, a graduate research assistant at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, and Dr.Irwin Redlener, president emeritus and co-founder of the Children's Health Fund, and published by The Hill.

A disclaimer at the top reads, “The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.” Still, even the headline — Time to Dispel Vaccine Myths Spreading on Social Media — reeks of censorship. The beginning paragraphs go so far as to call personal adverse vaccine reactions “exaggerated personal anecdotes”:2

“[W]hat can be done about the growing amount of harmful misinformation intended to influence thousands of people to make decisions that put not only their lives, but the lives of their and others’ children, at risk?

Such is the situation for the anti-vaccination, or ‘anti-vax,’ community, thousands of whose members flock to social media pages where they promptly remove ‘pro-vax trolls,’ and post fear-mongering memes and exaggerated personal anecdotes.”

Are Vaccine Injuries ‘Exaggerated Personal Anecdotes’?

The authors of this piece in The Hill are only the latest to downplay or deny that vaccine injuries occur. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), recently did the same in an interview with CBS News.3

“[T]he lack of safety and adverse events, things like autism … that issue is based purely on fabrication and that’s been proven … there is no association whatsoever between the measles vaccine and autism,” he said. The reporter questioned Fauci’s claims that there are no studies showing vaccines may cause harm and asked if he were perhaps not looking at the right studies.

“That’s just not true … that’s just not true, period,” Fauci said, refusing to even entertain the notion that vaccines may cause adverse reactions in some people, and that parents of vaccine-injured children may be justified in their hesitation to vaccinate their other children.

So what’s the truth? Every vaccine comes with a risk of adverse reactions, including death, and it’s up to each person to decide if that risk outweighs the benefit of the vaccination.

“For example,” Dr. K. Paul Stoller, fellow, American College of Hyperbaric Medicine, wrote in Acta Scientific Paediatrics, “it has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles,” continuing:4

“The nonprofit organization Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) recently reported in The BMJ that every year an estimated 5,700 U.S. children (approximately 1 in 640 children) suffer febrile seizures from the first dose of the MMR vaccine — which is five times more than the number of seizures expected from measles.5

This amounts to 57,000 febrile seizures over the past 10 years due to the MMR vaccine alone. And, as 5 percent of children with febrile seizures progress to epilepsy, the estimated number of children developing epilepsy due to the MMR vaccine, in the past 10 years, is 2,850.”

$4 Billion Paid Out to Victims of Vaccine Injuries

To deny that adverse vaccine reactions occur is the fabrication. There is, in fact, a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) available to victims of vaccine injuries. Congress created VICP under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act as an alternative to a vaccine injury lawsuit, which acts as a shield from liability to vaccine manufacturers.

In their latest release of data and statistics, the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) revealed that approximately $4 billion has been paid out to vaccine-injured victims since 1988 — in response to only 31 percent of the filed petitions.6

“There is no telling how much more money the taxpayer-funded program might have shelled out if the court had not chosen to dismiss the remaining petitions (56 percent) — possibly doing so fraudulently in at least some cases,” Children’s Health Defense, which is working to end childhood health epidemics by eliminating harmful exposures, explained.7

One in 168 — Not 1 in 1 Million

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that vaccines are safe, and serious adverse reactions are rare. For serious allergic reactions like anaphylaxis, they state such reactions occur “at a rate of approximately 1 per million doses for many vaccines.”8

However, serious adverse events occur far more common than publicly admitted, with 1 in 168 children requiring emergency room admittance following their 1-year wellness check when vaccines are given, according to Canadian research.9

One in 730 children ends up in the emergency room after their 18-month vaccination appointment, as well, and researchers noted an additional 20 febrile seizures occurred for every 100,000 vaccinated at 12 months.

“There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12- and 18-month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented,” the researchers concluded.10

Research from Shanghai, China, also provided some insights into the frequency of vaccine adverse reactions among children. The Shanghai study, based on reported pediatric adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for 2009, found that 42 percent were caused by vaccines, with reactions ranging from mild skin rashes to deadly reactions like anaphylaxis.

Of all the drugs causing adverse reactions among children, vaccines were the most commonly reported.11 The vast majority of reports came from physicians, pharmacists and other health care providers, with less than 3 percent coming from consumers.

In the U.S., underreporting of adverse reactions to vaccines is common, with an estimated 99 percent of such reactions never reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). As noted in 2011 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:12

“Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with less than 1 percent reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Low reporting rates preclude or delay the identification of ‘problem’ vaccines, potentially endangering the health of the public. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

Refusing Vaccination ‘Silly’

In their belittling of people who value informed consent and choose to refuse one or more vaccinations, The Hill article calls such personal choice “silly”:13

“If it were only a matter of putting oneself at risk by refusing vaccination, we would not necessarily be called to action. After all, a personal choice is just that, regardless of how silly it may seem to outsiders. But people who refuse vaccines for themselves and their families are putting the most vulnerable members of their community at risk of severe illness or death.”

They’re invoking the commonly parroted idea that vaccines confer herd immunity if a high-enough percentage of people in a population are vaccinated. However, vaccines do not work in the same way as natural immunity, and there is evidence that vaccine-induced herd immunity is largely a myth.

In his book, "Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness," Dr. Thomas Cowan explains how vaccines cause a distortion in the two branches of your immune response — the cell-mediated immunity (innate) and the humoral immunity (adaptive). This, in turn, radically increases your risk of immune dysfunction, including development of autoimmunity and even cancer.

When you get a viral childhood disease, the virus enters your body and infects your cells. The subsequent disease process involves your cell-mediated immune response, which activates white blood cells and chemicals that attract them to the site of infection in order to clear the virus.

During recovery, your humoral immune system kicks in and starts generating antibodies against the virus to help prevent the same kind of disease process from occurring again in the event you’re exposed to the virus again at a later date.

As long as the cell-mediated immune system is activated first, and the humoral immune system is activated second, you will have a longer-lasting, qualitatively superior immunity against that disease. Vaccines, however, circumvent the possibility of creating robust herd immunity in a population, as they often avoid a cell-mediated immune response, provoking a humoral response instead.

Vaccination triggers the creation of vaccine-strain antibodies, but since vaccination skips the cell-mediated response, it only confers an artificial temporary immunity.

This is also why most vaccines, especially inactivated vaccines, require booster shots to try to extend artificial immunity. (Live attenuated viral vaccines, such as measles vaccine, are thought to more closely mimic the natural disease process, but even live virus vaccines confer an artificial immunity that is not identical to natural immunity.)

Open Discussion Into Vaccine Safety — Not Name-Calling — Is Urgently Needed

In the vaccination debate, what happens all too often is not an open, scientifically based discussion but rather inappropriate name-calling and threats. A scathing article in the Los Angeles Times even labeled unvaccinated people “cockroaches.”14 Many parents are also left feeling belittled or threatened by their children’s doctors should they so much as question the U.S. CDC’s vaccination schedule.

At least one study has found the vaccination schedule may put premature babies at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders,15 but should parents question their pediatrician about it, they may risk being rejected from the practice and left without a source of medical care for their child. Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), explained:16

“These days, a well-baby checkup can be a frightening and gut-wrenching experience for a new mom bringing her baby to the pediatrician’s office.

That is because, with the approval of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), many pediatricians have taken the hardline position that they do not have to discuss vaccination with parents or, if they do, they can threaten them with dismissal from the practice for not obeying a direct order.”

The ability to make informed, voluntary vaccine choices for yourself and your children must be protected, because vaccines are not a one-size-fits-all-solution, nor is the U.S. public as a whole a one-size-fits-all population. Stoller also questioned whether vaccine policy is really about safeguarding the public, and his stance deserves consideration:17

“In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry is the largest campaign donor to politicians and the largest advertiser in all forms of media, but even that level on influence should still yield to safeguards on human rights and bioethics.

For when a medical intervention becomes shielded from liability and is then mandated by governments who are often in an unholy partnership with the corporations responsible for that intervention then we are all in peril.

When coercion becomes part of the equation, a crime against humanity is being perpetrated. The intellectual and social suppression of views, research and information inconvenient to vaccine stakeholders and proponents is no different today than it was for those who opposed the practice of bloodletting and dosing patients with mercury.

The difference today are the economic factors, for it is projected that by 2020, global vaccine revenues exceed $60 billion, so with that amount of money in play vaccine and public health policies have been made to support the desires of a criminal cabal where informed consent is perhaps the only remaining firewall.”

from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/02/19/vaccine-injuries-exaggerated-personal-anecdotes.aspx

source http://niapurenaturecom.weebly.com/blog/the-hill-says-vaccine-injuries-are-exaggerated-personal-anecdotes

[sharpnaturejournal-blog]

The ‘Zoos, conservation & education vs. animal rights & welfare’ debate

This is a topic that almost everyone already has a strong, long-established opinion on. There is an abundance of information available on the internet. A simple Google search will turn up a huge array of individual opinions, and scientific comparisons & research.

 Despite this, I thought I would give a brief insight into the debate in my most recent blog post because it is an issue that I have been confronted with and challenged by a lot recently. Animal rights and welfare in my opinion should be of top concern, however I also believe that conservation of vulnerable species should be considered as a ‘bigger cause’. Furthermore, I truly believe that the experiences I had as a malleable young child, such as growing up in a city with a zoo, owning pets, and having the opportunity to pet or handle certain species, shaped the person I am today and instilled in me a passion for protecting wildlife and a respect for all creatures. I still believe that conservation and education should be carried out in a certain way, making the welfare of the animals involved the top priority if we are to validate their captivity and any stress caused by human interaction. Despite this ‘disclaimer’ of my own opinion, I have strived to make my blog post on the matter as unbiased and middle-ground as possible!

A few points to consider from all sides of this debate…

·         ‘The welfare of captive animals (whether in zoos, aquariums or house pets) seems to be much more important to the general public than the welfare of wild animals.’

·         Animal welfare in zoos is continually improving as the reputation of zoos (and therefore the profitable ‘business’ of zoology) is at stake.

·         Zoos can act as safe-havens for certain persecuted wild animals.

·         ‘Zoos play a huge educational role, instilling in children an interest in, and intrinsic respect and value towards, animals.’

·         ‘Seeing animals in cages and ‘performing’ during educational talks teaches children that animals are commodities with little or no rights.’

·         Zoos play a huge part in the conservation of suffering wild populations. They play a major role in protecting endangered species.

·         ‘Zoos only carry out conservation programmes to meet the standards required to run. Their first thought is how they can exploit animals for profit.’

·         Most zoos have educational signs informing visitors about each species, their natural habitat, conservation status and issues, etc.’

·         Capturing animals and keeping them captive is cruel.

·         No matter how impressive a zoo’s enclosures are and how much enrichment they provide, animals will still suffer negative psychological effects from being out of their natural range and habitat.

·         Unless part of a breeding for reintroduction programme, most captive-bred animals will never see the wild.

·         ‘No one visits the zoo with the mentality of visiting a museum (for education). They go for recreation, to see the captive animals, not to learn about them from talks and signs.’

·         ‘While certain individuals may ‘exploit’ zoos, visiting just see these animals, some of the educational aspects may still rub-off on them, even if unintentionally.’

·         ‘Most individuals campaigning for animal rights visited zoos as a child. Whether it was the zoo’s educational programmes itself that instilled a passion in them for speaking-up for animals, or whether it was the individual’s disapproval of the conditions there… that experience still led them to where they are.’

·         ‘It will always ultimately be down to a person’s opinions, beliefs and empathy. While classroom dissections and other experiences may bring out dark instincts to harm animals in a few individuals, these interactions result in a respect and interest for animals in most children. For example most current veterinarians will have carried out a number of educational dissections, but they are vets because they care about animals and want to alleviate their suffering. Not because they are sadistic animal torturers!’ 

PETA have an uncompromising view on Animal Rights.

·         On zoos: “PETA opposes zoos because cages and cramped enclosures at zoos deprive animals of the opportunity to satisfy their basic needs. The zoo community regards the animals it keeps as commodities, and animals are regularly bought, sold, borrowed, and traded without any regard for established relationships. Zoos breed animals because the presence of babies draws zoo visitors and boosts revenue.” why zoos

·         On conservation: “When I hear that word (conservation), I know for sure that there is some sort of hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. and that there will be no mention of animal rights.” vs conservation

·         On pets: “millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year.” “The selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering.” “Pet abuse occurs every day.” “What we want is for the population of cats and dogs to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals from pounds and shelters.” why pets

·         On education: “Animals are abused for cruel, archaic teaching exercises, despite the existence of superior non-animal teaching tools.” “Half of animals used in education are killed for classroom dissection and medical training.” “Sophisticated computer software teaches anatomy as well as animal labs.” “Animal dissection can traumatize, foster insensitivity towards animals, and dissuade pursuing careers in science.” classroom

 Some points I would like to make, and questions I am raising purely to be volatile in this debate are…

Yes, research intended to improve the welfare of animals and conservation of their population often involves research (should we consider all research as experimenting and testing on animals?) and most conservation projects will involve some form of capture and/or release. And there are certain conservation projects to protect natural ecosystems that remove invasive species or reduce harmfully over-grown populations using methods such as hunting, and capture & extermination.

As far as I can tell from PETA’s financial reports they do not invest in any kind of ‘alternative’ animal-rights focused conservation projects, besides the neutering of pets. Their work focuses on using animal-rights to prevent over-population of pest species, but saving wild species from extinction is outside of their focus. peta financial report

I find it interesting that PETA take issue with capturing and breeding animals for the purpose of saving them from extinction. Yet spaying and neutering, processes that must be equally stressful for animals, is in their opinion necessary and humane.

 The British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums

When the federation was formed in 1966 there was a growing recognition that there was a need for standardized principles and practices to be adopted in animal husbandry. The federation implemented a zoo inspection process to ensure the highest level of animal welfare were achieved, and created a community that encouraged its members to share expertise and best practice with the aim of continuously improving standards. Today, modern zoological establishments are much more than places where the public can view a range of different animals. Members are declaring that they have the highest level of animal welfare, they participate in conservation projects, their discovery and learning programmes are continually being developed, and that they are actively contributing to a body of research that will, ultimately, help us to conserve species in the wild. biaza

 Over 700 projects involving research and training are carried out by BIAZA members annually, and members support over 500 field conservation projects.

 Although some UK zoos are not BIAZA members, the European Zoos Directive on the Keeping of Wild Animals in Zoos came in to force as early as 2002. This sets conservation, education and animal welfare standards for ALL zoos and aquariums in EU countries. Quite frankly no EU zoos can be solely for-profit anymore within the EU. Of course some zoos may do the minimum required to continue running, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are carrying out valid conservation and research despite their reasoning behind this good work. It is also easy to check which zoos are BIAZA members and have the best welfare or most conservation programmes. People have power! So boycott zoos you do not feel are up-to-scratch and demand change where you think it is needed! As we have all seen recently in the media, it is very easy to put zoos and their practices under the spotlight! Directive

 I am aware that I have only covered UK and European zoos in an attempt to limit this post and not overwhelm. Obviously it is slightly harder to hold international zoos accountable, but I implore my foreign friends to scrutinize their own national zoos and strive for improvements which there is always room for.

 In conclusion I feel that, like most meaningful debates, this issue is not black and white. Quite simply all zoos cannot be lumped together, some are as solely for-profit as possible, while others have a genuine interest in animal welfare and rights, and feel that animal rights should encompass conservation- not shun it because it is a much stickier topic. Similarly some ‘educational’ programmes simply let children handle animals and watch them perform, but many refuse to let children handle any animal more complex than a cockroach and make it clear during the presentation to teach children to respect and care for animals. Yes the methods and standards of zoos and educational programmes involving animals to have some influence on children whose perceptions and ethics are ‘malleable’, but many other experiences shape these children, visiting a zoo or carrying out a classroom dissection will not lead directly to a child’s amusement by torturing animals. Furthermore, not all ‘conservation’ projects are created equal. Some use methods that can be very invasive and harmful for the individuals involved, under the guise of it being for the greater-good. We should constantly review the programmes of conservation organization, and challenge them to consider the welfare and rights of each individual animal, while striving conserve a whole population.

 I have very briefly touched on this subject, and have not been able to cover scientific research into wildlife perceptions and ethics. There really have been an abundance of studies….

Mutanga, et al. (2015) Community Perceptions of Wildlife Conservation and Tourism. Trop Con Sci, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 564-582.

Hacker & Miller (2016) Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego Safari Park. Zoo Biol, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 355-361.

Ballantyne & Packer (2016) Visitors Perceptions of the Conservation Education Role of Zoos and Aquariums. Visitor Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.193-210.

… to name a few.