I thought I was sufficiently cynical about the state of the world until I heard Suzanne Humphries point out the glaringly obvious fact that the “side effect” of certain vaccines causing chronic disease in certain populations happens to fit the pharmaceutical industry’s business model to a T. Chronic disease means lifetime customers.
… Around 2006, CDC took stock of the persistently low compliance with its influenza recommendations, largely ignored by both doctors and pregnant women, and began more aggressively promoting flu shots for pregnant women. In an update in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC cited as evidence of the vaccines’ safety during pregnancy a grand total of two retrospective epidemiological studies of medical records—one of which was published in 1973.
In 2011, CDC and other medical trade organizations also began recommending that all pregnant women get the Tdap vaccine (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis), which, among other ingredients, contains neurotoxic aluminum. Tdap coverage in pregnancy increased substantially following this recommendation, particularly in women who also received other vaccines during pregnancy. The FDA’s original approval of the two Tdap brands (Boostrix and Adacel) in the mid-2000s was as a booster for teens and adults, and the product inserts state that Tdap should be given during pregnancy only “when benefit outweighs risk.” At the time of the 2011 recommendation, no prelicensure studies of Tdap safety during pregnancy were available, so most of the (largely unpublished) data used to justify the recommendation came from post-licensure pregnancy pharmacovigilance conducted by vaccine manufacturers. To this day, online information for Boostrix states that “it is not known whether Tdap vaccine will harm an unborn baby.”
There is no place in the universe for these people. They would be cast out even from hell.
Regulators Remain Indifferent to Unsafe Levels of Aluminum in Vaccines
Vaccines are complex laboratory creations designed for one seemingly simple purpose: to stimulate a theoretically protective immune response. However, some vaccines are not as likely to have their intended effect without an “adjuvant” to amplify the vaccinated individual’s response. Aluminum salts are the most common type of vaccine adjuvant in use, despite abundant science establishing aluminum as a neurotoxin.
In 2002, only two childhood vaccines contained aluminum adjuvants, but the aluminum picture had changed dramatically by 2016, when children received five aluminum-containing vaccines from birth to age three and at least two more in the teenage years. Two independent researchers are raising important questions about the wisdom of this ramped-up use of injected aluminum in young children. In a study published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology (JTEMB) and a related online article, the researchers methodically show that current levels of aluminum in vaccines—wrongly termed “safe” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—derive from “outdated information, unwarranted assumptions and errors.”
Missing science: counting the ways
According to the two researchers, current aluminum amounts in vaccines lack the rigorous scientific underpinning ordinarily required to make a proper determination of toxicity and dosing. One of the largest gaffes is that “the entire paradigm to aluminum dosing in vaccines [was not] determined considering body weight.”
The researchers note that whereas dosage should be expressed in terms of micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day (and should consider all injected and ingested sources of aluminum on that day), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) simply references aluminum amounts in terms of micrograms per dose. As a result, aluminum amounts do not appropriately adjust for toxicological differences between adults and children, males and females or normal-birthweight versus low-birthweight infants.
The JTEMB article describes a number of other startling research omissions that have done a major disservice to infants and young children who receive aluminum-containing vaccines. For example:
Regulators based their inadequate aluminum safety thresholds on studies of adult mice.
The mice in question received “poorly absorbed, ingested aluminum” rather than “highly absorbed injected aluminum,” but the toxicity of ingested doses of other forms of aluminum has little to do with the toxicity of injected doses of aluminum salts.
Regulators and scientists relied for decades on a mistaken calculation of the “provisional tolerable weekly intake,” resulting in “overestimation of safe exposure levels.”
Dose-related toxicity has been ignored despite routine administration of multiple aluminum-containing vaccines at a single health care visit.
Although clearance rates of injected doses of aluminum are “not well characterized,” other researchers have suggested that vaccine forms of aluminum are not rapidly eliminated. At least “15% of injected aluminum goes to the brain and stays there.”
Regulators do not factor this issue of body burden into their equations, even though “the accumulated aluminum body burden at each vaccination interval will be higher than an individual aluminum level in a single vaccine.”
Using a more rigorous and extensively justified methodology, the two researchers offer their own calculations of provisional “safe” levels of aluminum in childhood vaccines. These calculations unequivocally show that the levels of aluminum currently present in individual vaccines and in the modern vaccine schedule as a whole are “problematically high.”
Aluminum in the brain can trigger chronic brain inflammation and a cascading series of other events that have all the hallmarks of autism and other neurodegenerative conditions.
Why baseline assumptions matter
In a related online commentary by one of the two researchers, the latter makes no bones about the low credibility of current regulatory thresholds for aluminum—shaped as they have been by “serious historical missteps,” “unfounded assumptions,” “rationalization,” “muddy calculations” and “misrepresentations of past science.” Unfortunately, the sobering bottom line of this “mathematical gerrymandering” is that “we are almost certainly looking at a global neurotoxicity disaster.” Aluminum in the brain can trigger chronic brain inflammation and a cascading series of other events that have all the hallmarks of autism and other neurodegenerative conditions. Is it any surprise, then, that researchers have confirmed massive aluminum accumulation in the brains of children with autism?
Unfortunately, the types of safety calculation errors and unjustified assumptions described by the two researchers will sound only too familiar to those who have followed the lengthy and disturbing saga of neurotoxic ethylmercury in the vaccine preservative thimerosal. In fact, both thimerosal and aluminum adjuvants have a longstanding role as “dominating interventional exposures encountered by fetuses, newborns and infants.” Despite the urgent need to minimize (if not eliminate) the neurotoxic effects of both substances, regulators appear satisfied to continue propagating errors and misplaced reassurances.
It’s quite a coincidence that aluminum adjuvant became a common ingredient in childhood vaccines at the same time that thimerosal perservative (mercury) was being phased out (except for bulk flu vaccines, which are given every year btw).
There should not be a connection here. Phasing out a neurotoxic preservative does not necessitate adding a neurotoxic adjuvant. Apparently we are to believe that the timing was coincidental.
Unfortunately for those who still cling to the benevolence theory of medical mayhem, there is a non-coincidental explanation and a plausible connection between the two. This connection is seen in the medical establishment’s argument that thimerosal could not be connected with autism because there was no reduction in autism rates when thimerosal was (mostly) removed. Therefore, we are to conclude, medicine and their pharmaceutical benefactors have no culpability in the plague of misery and brain damage which continues to spread among the children of this country.
There are no conflicts of interest in medicine. No financial incentives to keep doing what they have been doing in order to forestall exposure of mass quackery and legal liability. That’s why they stopped sexually torturing baby boys many decades ago, when even the most dimwitted among them could hardly avoid noticing that there was no scientific reason to do it and every humane reason to stop.
Even from a strictly Darwinian perspective, empathy is humanity’s ace in the hole. It is the foundation of social organization, without which we would not have language, science, technology or the desire to pass these gifts on to future generations. Without empathy, we would not have family and community. We would be isolated, defenseless, naked apes, easy prey for any carnivore of even moderate size, or, in a modern day context, for any social grouping of sufficient cohesion among themselves. Thus, in a very real sense, empathy is power.
But humans are born at a very early stage of development compared to other mammals. Aside from human breast milk, babies need pleasurable sensory and experiential inputs to activate their full neurological potential, especially their empathic potential. These require family cohesion and stability which is only possible with well-developed parental empathy and bonding. Thus in healthy nurturing families, empathy is amplified and passed on through the generations, with predictable benefits in terms of survival, success and fulfillment.
Nature has provided only 3 biological processes in which the hormones and the neural connections of love and empathy are activated in the human brain. These are sex, birth and breast feeding. While social and physical activity can contribute, these basic reproductive processes are foundational to making human brains receptive to other positive stimuli. Sex, birth and breast feeding are nature’s way of inducing the emotional states which bond families together and maximize empathic and survival potential. Such strong primal bonds naturally resist the dissociative social and economic pressures that the overlords use to divide people, and groups of stable families can form very stable and resilient communities, which are inherently subversive to the top-down management necessitated by large scale centralized social control.
Families and communities are a form of distributed autonomous hubs of economic activity and intelligence and a distributed information store. They are a source of inconvenient history, invention, innovation and mutual support and solidarity which raises constant trouble for anyone seeking to impose a top-down command-and-control social structure suitable for unchallenged rule, while their economic efficiency and largely self-contained economic activity reduces opportunities for the financial harvesting which would otherwise occur via loanable and taxable currency flows. Furthermore, they produce new people which at least initially are socialized outside of the seamlessly integrated banking / governmental complex to boot. A losing proposition all the way around for the parasitic financial and political overlay which has feasted on human activity for centuries. So it’s not surprising that the family has long been a prime target for empire builders, and aside from the usual economic, social and legal incentives used to disrupt families and push kids into state management, they also work behind the scenes to throw a monkey wrench precisely into sex, birth and breast feeding.
The weapons used to interfere with familial bonding include stress, pain, trauma, sensory deprivation and actual sensory lobotomy. No kidding.
Cruelty in Maternity Wards: Fifty Years Later
Fifty years have passed since a scandal broke over inhumane treatment of laboring women in U.S. hospitals, yet first-person and eyewitness reports document that medical care providers continue to subject childbearing women to verbal and physical abuse and even to what would constitute sexual assault in any other context. Women frequently are denied their right to make informed decisions about care and may be punished for attempting to assert their right to refusal. Mistreatment is not uncommon and persists because of factors inherent to hospital social culture. Concerted action on the part of all stakeholders will be required to bring about systemic reform.
“Cruelty in Maternity Wards” was the title of a shocking article published just over 50 years ago in Ladies’ Home Journal in which nurses and women told stories of inhumane treatment in labor and delivery wards during childbirth (Schultz, 1958). Stories included women being strapped down for hours in the lithotomy position, a woman having her legs tied together to prevent birth while her obstetrician had dinner, women being struck and threatened with the possibility of giving birth to a dead or brain damaged baby for crying out in pain, and a doctor cutting and suturing episiotomies without anesthetic (he had once nearly lost a patient to an overdose) while having the nurse stifle the woman’s cries with a mask.
“The article shook the country and triggered a tsunami of childbirth reform that included the founding of the American Society for Psychoprophylaxis in Obstetrics, now known as Lamaze International. Nonetheless, as Susan Hodges (2009) recently noted in her guest editorial published in The Journal of Perinatal Education, despite enormous differences in labor and delivery management, decades later, inhumane treatment remains distressingly common. American childbearing women still suffer mistreatment at the hands of care providers, ranging from failure to provide supportive care to disrespect and insensitivity to denial of women’s right to make informed decisions to common use of harmful medical interventions to outright verbal, physical, and even sexual assault. Furthermore, the more extreme examples are not aberrations but merely the far end of the spectrum. Abuse, moreover, results from factors inherent to the system, which increases the difficulties of implementing reforms.
ABUSE IN CHILDBIRTH: PARALLELS WITH DOMESTIC ABUSE
According to domesticviolence.org (an online resource devoted to helping individuals recognize, address, and prevent domestic violence), domestic violence and emotional abuse encompass “name-calling or putdowns,” “keeping a partner from contacting their family or friends,” “actual or threatened physical harm,” “intimidation,” and “sexual assault” (“Domestic Violence Definition,” 2009, para. 2). In all cases, the intent is to gain power over and control the victim. One could add that perpetrators, obstetric staff or otherwise, feel entitled to exert this control on grounds of the victim’s inferior position vis-a-vis the perpetrator as the following illustrate: …” — J Perinat Educ. 2010 Summer; 19(3): 33-42.
When you consider birth as an involuntary process involving old, mammalian structures of the brain, you set aside the assumption that a woman must learn to give birth. It’s implicit in the mammalian interpretation that one cannot actively help a woman to give birth. The goal is to avoid disturbing her unnecessarily. — Michel Odent, Birth and Breastfeeding.