A recent clinical trial published in the August 2011 edition of the medical journal Spine proves that "Spinal maintenance adjustments show long term benefit for chronic low back pain".
To obtain long term benefits of reduced pain and increased range of motion, the authors recommend on-going maintenencae therapy spinal adjustments bi-weekly.
You can read the study abstract at: http://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Fulltext/2011/08150/Does_Maintained_Spinal_Manipulation_Therapy_for.2.aspx. (cut and paste in your browser).
The reason this study was so significant? It was performed by MD's, not chiropractors, and published in the premier international journal for spinal research and surgery!
This study validates what we have been saying for 100 years: That regular chiropractic adjusments help you maintain an active lifestyle.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The Great American Dairy Myth:Learn How to Live Long and Stay Healthy Without the Cow!
I have long been a proponent of a non-dairy diet. My 4 children were raised that way and are healthier than most. My youngest two, ages 5 and 3, have never had dairy since birth, nor has their mother during their nursing. Both youngsters have less colds and sickness than any of their peers. I counsel my patients to avoid dairy at all costs.
So what’s the problem with dairy you may ask?
Cow’s milk and milk products are the most pervasive food allergy causing substances on the planet that are both easily obtained and widely used as foods. A protein in milk, casein, appears to be the major cause of adverse reactions. Casein is in milk of all forms, including lactose-free or low-lactose products. Casein is a very large and convoluted protein, and it is often mistaken for a foreign substance by our immune systems. And truly it is, because cow’s milk is meant for baby cows, not humans.
A human infant’s intestinal tract is designed to digest mother’s breast milk from birth to at least nine months of age, preferably to 12 months. Breast milk contains immune factors which protect against foreign substances. Breast milk contains three times the lactose, one third the calcium, a more absorbable form of iron, and higher amounts of essential fatty acids than cow's milk. Cow’s milk formula feeding prematurely exposes an infant's fragile intestine to cow's milk, and through a long series of maladaptive biological functions, the infant becomes sensitive (allergic) to that cow's milk.
Milk Allergy and Lactose Intolerance are not the same issue. Lactose intolerance means that the enzyme lactase is not produced by the body in sufficient quantity to digest lactose (milk sugar) resulting in gastric symptoms, such as cramping, gas, bloating and/or diarrhea. One can be lactose intolerant and yet ingest low-lactose, or lactose-free milk and dairy products without ill effects. Allergy to casein is another matter, and has nothing to do with lactose.
Why, then, is our American culture so hung up on cow’s milk? The problem is multi-factorial and has both cultural and economic roots. Milk and milk products are big business in America, and many in my generation were raised to believe that milk is an “essential food”; you can not live properly without it. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Many of us were raised at a time when the American Dairy Association touted dairy as “one of the 4 food groups”. Even today, dairy has it’s own section on the USDA Food Pyramid. In reality, we neither need dairy nor should we look at it as a separate or essential food category in our diet.
Two-thirds of the world’s population cannot tolerate milk and a rapidly growing number of Americans are allergic to cow's milk. In fact, cow's milk allergy is one of the most common food allergies. Many cultures never ingest milk products and are healthier than Americans by far. These cultures get much of their protein from legume sources and their calcium from legumes and vegetables.
One of the biggest untruths the American Dairy Association uses to promote cow’s milk as “essential” is that it is the only good source of dietary calcium. It’s time to debunk that myth as well. There are many excellent sources of calcium in other foods, such as dark green leafy vegetables, legumes, some fruits and figs. Many cultures that eat no dairy have better health and stronger bones by getting their calcium from fish, green vegetables, and legumes.
As far as protein: Yes, milk is high in protein, but at what cost? If casein is one of the most allergic proteins to humans, why ingest it at all? Soy and other legumes are much better alternatives. Even lean meats are. If you are not a vegan, sustainable fin fish that is low in mercury, like salmon and tilapia, are a fantastic source of calcium and protein.
Concerning soy products: Much misinformation was circulated in the recent past attempting to tarnish soy’s clean image. Don’t believe it! Cultures that have eaten soy and vegetable based diets are the healthiest on earth. Their people have greater longevity, lower cancer rates and lower rates of chronic illness. We, the great “milk” drinkers have lower levels of energy, greater obesity, and shorter life spans.
My suggestion to everyone is this: Eliminate dairy as much as possible. Eat more vegetables, fruits and whole foods. Eat more fiber and less fat, and never, never give babies milk to drink or cheese to eat. You will live happier, healthier and longer I promise you.
So what’s the problem with dairy you may ask?
Cow’s milk and milk products are the most pervasive food allergy causing substances on the planet that are both easily obtained and widely used as foods. A protein in milk, casein, appears to be the major cause of adverse reactions. Casein is in milk of all forms, including lactose-free or low-lactose products. Casein is a very large and convoluted protein, and it is often mistaken for a foreign substance by our immune systems. And truly it is, because cow’s milk is meant for baby cows, not humans.
A human infant’s intestinal tract is designed to digest mother’s breast milk from birth to at least nine months of age, preferably to 12 months. Breast milk contains immune factors which protect against foreign substances. Breast milk contains three times the lactose, one third the calcium, a more absorbable form of iron, and higher amounts of essential fatty acids than cow's milk. Cow’s milk formula feeding prematurely exposes an infant's fragile intestine to cow's milk, and through a long series of maladaptive biological functions, the infant becomes sensitive (allergic) to that cow's milk.
Milk Allergy and Lactose Intolerance are not the same issue. Lactose intolerance means that the enzyme lactase is not produced by the body in sufficient quantity to digest lactose (milk sugar) resulting in gastric symptoms, such as cramping, gas, bloating and/or diarrhea. One can be lactose intolerant and yet ingest low-lactose, or lactose-free milk and dairy products without ill effects. Allergy to casein is another matter, and has nothing to do with lactose.
Why, then, is our American culture so hung up on cow’s milk? The problem is multi-factorial and has both cultural and economic roots. Milk and milk products are big business in America, and many in my generation were raised to believe that milk is an “essential food”; you can not live properly without it. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Many of us were raised at a time when the American Dairy Association touted dairy as “one of the 4 food groups”. Even today, dairy has it’s own section on the USDA Food Pyramid. In reality, we neither need dairy nor should we look at it as a separate or essential food category in our diet.
Two-thirds of the world’s population cannot tolerate milk and a rapidly growing number of Americans are allergic to cow's milk. In fact, cow's milk allergy is one of the most common food allergies. Many cultures never ingest milk products and are healthier than Americans by far. These cultures get much of their protein from legume sources and their calcium from legumes and vegetables.
One of the biggest untruths the American Dairy Association uses to promote cow’s milk as “essential” is that it is the only good source of dietary calcium. It’s time to debunk that myth as well. There are many excellent sources of calcium in other foods, such as dark green leafy vegetables, legumes, some fruits and figs. Many cultures that eat no dairy have better health and stronger bones by getting their calcium from fish, green vegetables, and legumes.
As far as protein: Yes, milk is high in protein, but at what cost? If casein is one of the most allergic proteins to humans, why ingest it at all? Soy and other legumes are much better alternatives. Even lean meats are. If you are not a vegan, sustainable fin fish that is low in mercury, like salmon and tilapia, are a fantastic source of calcium and protein.
Concerning soy products: Much misinformation was circulated in the recent past attempting to tarnish soy’s clean image. Don’t believe it! Cultures that have eaten soy and vegetable based diets are the healthiest on earth. Their people have greater longevity, lower cancer rates and lower rates of chronic illness. We, the great “milk” drinkers have lower levels of energy, greater obesity, and shorter life spans.
My suggestion to everyone is this: Eliminate dairy as much as possible. Eat more vegetables, fruits and whole foods. Eat more fiber and less fat, and never, never give babies milk to drink or cheese to eat. You will live happier, healthier and longer I promise you.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Healthcare vs Sickness Care: Changing the Paradigm
Even with our great wealth and scientific sophistication, we Americans are far from healthy. Why is it that we spend so much on healthcare and health insurance but we generally feel unhealthy?
First and foremost we need to define what "health" and "Healthy" really mean. The World Health Organization, (WHO) defined health in its broader sense in 1946 as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". Actually, that is close to my definition of health: "The optimization of and harmony between one's mental, physical and spiritual state of being". Health is not simply lack of symptoms or not feeling sick; it's much more.
Why is there a "Healthcare Crisis" in America? The main reason is that we have a system of "sickness care " rather than "Healthcare" as defined by the WHO. Instead of teaching our patients to be healthy, we have traditionally waited for them to get sick, then intervene. Hence, our system is not one of health maintenance, but sickness intervention.
We hear the term "Wellness" so much lately that it has tended to lose it's significance. It's become ubiquitous; sort of like "New and Improved" or "Organic". What does it really mean? What does it mean to be "Healthy" in America? Do we know anymore?
Consider this: The World Health Organization, (WHO), decided last year to categorize and rank the healthiest nations. The rankings were based on quantifiable measurements, like life expectancy, chronic illness rates, infant mortalitiy and morbitity, etc.
So how do you think the USA ranked? The country with the largest and most sophisticated healthcare delivery system on Earth. The country with the most and best doctors on Earth. The nation with the most access to the latest pharmaceuticals and finest hospitals. According to CBS, this country that spends more per person on "healthcare" than most nations spend per capita on everything!
Guess we should be #1, right? Or maybe #2....No? How about 10th? 20th? 30th? Try 37th healthiest! That is correct: There are 37 countries healthier than the greatest country on Earth! Maybe we did forget what "Health" really means.
Chiropractic physicians, like myself, were one of the first groups to advocate the concept of health maintenance instead of crisis intervention in healthcare. Chiropractic pioneers, like Dr. Forrest Shaklee who engineered the field of food supplement "Vitamins"; Dr. Carlton Fredricks, mutimedia pioneer and advocate of preventive nutrition, and Dr. Jack LaLanne, fitness guru and nutritional and health advocate, all embraced the concept of "keeping yourself healthy before you get sick" long before it was popular. All were chastized in their time as "health nuts" because of America's preoccupation with the "sickness care" paradigm.
Thankfully times are changing, due mostly to public education and the realization that our current system of "sickness care" is not working to keep us healthy. More people are concerned with their nutrition, doing some regular exercise, and seeing their healthcare providers for check-ups before they get sick. More healthcare providers, like internists, dentists and other medical professionals are educating their patients on how to stay healthy and avoid getting ill.
If you are tired of sickness care and ready for health, join me and follow the chiropractic way of staying healthy by employing my 5 Factors of Good Health: you need proper nutrition, regular exercise, enough rest, a positive mental and spiritual attitude, and a source of regular holistic healthcare.
First and foremost we need to define what "health" and "Healthy" really mean. The World Health Organization, (WHO) defined health in its broader sense in 1946 as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". Actually, that is close to my definition of health: "The optimization of and harmony between one's mental, physical and spiritual state of being". Health is not simply lack of symptoms or not feeling sick; it's much more.
Why is there a "Healthcare Crisis" in America? The main reason is that we have a system of "sickness care " rather than "Healthcare" as defined by the WHO. Instead of teaching our patients to be healthy, we have traditionally waited for them to get sick, then intervene. Hence, our system is not one of health maintenance, but sickness intervention.
We hear the term "Wellness" so much lately that it has tended to lose it's significance. It's become ubiquitous; sort of like "New and Improved" or "Organic". What does it really mean? What does it mean to be "Healthy" in America? Do we know anymore?
Consider this: The World Health Organization, (WHO), decided last year to categorize and rank the healthiest nations. The rankings were based on quantifiable measurements, like life expectancy, chronic illness rates, infant mortalitiy and morbitity, etc.
So how do you think the USA ranked? The country with the largest and most sophisticated healthcare delivery system on Earth. The country with the most and best doctors on Earth. The nation with the most access to the latest pharmaceuticals and finest hospitals. According to CBS, this country that spends more per person on "healthcare" than most nations spend per capita on everything!
Guess we should be #1, right? Or maybe #2....No? How about 10th? 20th? 30th? Try 37th healthiest! That is correct: There are 37 countries healthier than the greatest country on Earth! Maybe we did forget what "Health" really means.
Chiropractic physicians, like myself, were one of the first groups to advocate the concept of health maintenance instead of crisis intervention in healthcare. Chiropractic pioneers, like Dr. Forrest Shaklee who engineered the field of food supplement "Vitamins"; Dr. Carlton Fredricks, mutimedia pioneer and advocate of preventive nutrition, and Dr. Jack LaLanne, fitness guru and nutritional and health advocate, all embraced the concept of "keeping yourself healthy before you get sick" long before it was popular. All were chastized in their time as "health nuts" because of America's preoccupation with the "sickness care" paradigm.
Thankfully times are changing, due mostly to public education and the realization that our current system of "sickness care" is not working to keep us healthy. More people are concerned with their nutrition, doing some regular exercise, and seeing their healthcare providers for check-ups before they get sick. More healthcare providers, like internists, dentists and other medical professionals are educating their patients on how to stay healthy and avoid getting ill.
If you are tired of sickness care and ready for health, join me and follow the chiropractic way of staying healthy by employing my 5 Factors of Good Health: you need proper nutrition, regular exercise, enough rest, a positive mental and spiritual attitude, and a source of regular holistic healthcare.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
FORCED CHILD REMOVAL
Imagine this. You are an upstanding member of your community. You have a healthy, thriving daughter with a physical disability who is homeschooled. At age 13, she declares that she wants to attend public school. Your daughter is compelled to receive all vaccines mandated by your home state as a requirement for school admission. She is given a "catch up schedule" of shots. Your daughter suffers what appears to be post-vaccinal encephalitis, a serious adverse reaction to her vaccines. Among other developments, her personality changes. She is struggling with emotions and mood. She is very unhappy. You voluntarily seek help from a local children's center that helps families with troubled children. As part of the treatment plan, she is prescribed Risperdal, a psychotropic drug. The medication makes things worse. Your daughter is still unhappy, and now she is violent. You pursue a second opinion, and another physician recommends that you wean your daughter off Risperdal. You do this and she improves. Someone doesn't like this. You don't know who it is. He or she contacts Child Protective Services. CPS says that you need to stay on the original treatment plan. CPS issues you an ultimatum: continue the Risperdal or surrender your child. CPS obtains a warrant to remove your daughter. The police are involved. They are knocking at your door. Let's assume that you are frightened out of your mind. You have a very realistic fear that someone is going to knock down your door and take your child away from you. What would you do? This is happening right now, for a 56 year-old mother from Detroit, a former teacher who gave up a career in dance to care for her physically disabled child. The facts are based solely on press reports and you can read more about the story on the AHRP site and the official Justice for Maryanne Godboldo site. If you're interested in learning more about Forced Child Removal, buy Vaccine Epidemic and read chapter 20 by Kim Mack Rosenberg, JD. She explains parental rights when CPS scrutinzes a parent's medical choices -- including vaccination and biomedical treatment for autism spectrum disorder -- and parents are investigated for "medical neglect."
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
(Reprinted without permission from the NaturalNews) Prepare to have your world rocked. What you're about to read here will leave you astonished, inspired and outraged all at the same time. You're about to be treated to some little-known information demonstrating why seasonal flu vaccines are utterly worthless and why their continued promotion is based entirely on fabricated studies and medical mythology.
If the whole world knew what you're about to read here, the vaccine industry would collapse overnight.
This information comes to you courtesy of a brilliant article published in The Atlantic (November 2009). The article, written by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, isn't just brilliant; in my opinion it stands as the best article on flu vaccines that has ever been published in the popular press. Entitled Does the vaccine matter?, it presents some of the most eye-opening information you've probably ever read about the failure of flu vaccines. You can read the full article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...
Perhaps its impressive narrative shouldn't be too surprising, though, since writer Shannon Brownlee is also the celebrated author of a phenomenal book on modern medicine entitled Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer (http://www.amazon.com/Overtreated-M...) (http://www.naturalpedia.com/book_Ov...).
While I've never done this before, I'm going to summarize this article point by point (along with some comments) so that you get the full force of what's finally been put into print.
This information is so important that I encourage you to share the following summary I've put together. Email it to family, friends and coworkers. Or post it on your blog or website (with a link and proper credit to both NaturalNews and The Atlantic, please). Get this information out to the world. People need to know this, and so far the mainstream media has utterly failed to make this information known.
(The really good information begins after around a dozen bullet points, so be sure to keep reading...)
• There is extreme "cult-like" peer pressure put on doctors and researchers to swallow the vaccine mythology without question. Quoted from the story: Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. "People told me, 'No good can come of [asking] this,'" she says. "'Potentially a lot of bad could happen' for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, 'We know that vaccine works.' This was the prevailing wisdom." [In other words, don't dare question the vaccine, and don't ask tough scientific questions because the vaccine industry runs on dogma, not science... and if you ask any questions, you might find yourself out of a job...].
[Here's where the really good part begins...]
• Lisa Jackson was not deterred. She and three other researchers began to study the widely-quoted vaccine statistics in an attempt to identify this "healthy user effect," if any. They looked through eight years of medical data covering 72,000 people aged 65 or older and recorded who received flu shots and who didn't. Then they compared the death rates for all causes outside the flu season.
The vaccine made no difference in mortality
• What she found blows a hole right through the vaccination industry: She found that even outside the flu season, the death rate was 60 percent higher among those who did not get vaccines than among those who do. [In other words, even when you take the flu season completely out of the equation, elderly people who don't get vaccines have other lifestyle factors that makes them far more likely to die from lots of other causes.]
• She also found that this so-called "healthy user effect" explains the entire apparent benefit that continues to be attributed to vaccines. This finding demonstrates that the flu vaccine may not have any beneficial effect whatsoever in reducing mortality.
• How well done were these particular studies? Quoted from the story: Jackson's papers "are beautiful," says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. "They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done."
• Many pro-vaccine experts simply refused to believe the results of this study [because it conflicts with their existing belief in vaccine mythology]. The Journal of the American Medical Association refused to publish her research, even stating, "To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!" [Which just goes to show you how deeply ingrained the current vaccine mythology is in the minds of conventional medical practitioners. They simply cannot imagine that vaccines don't work, so they dismiss any evidence -- even GOOD evidence -- demonstrating that fact. This is what makes the vaccine industry a CULT rather than a science.]
• Jackson's papers were finally published in 2006, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
[And here's the really, really juicy part you can't miss...]
Vaccine shortage proves it never worked in the first place
• The history of the flu vaccine reveals some huge gaps in current vaccination mythology, essentially proving they don't work:
• For example: In 2004, vaccine production was low and there was a shortage in vaccines (a 40 percent reduction in vaccinations). And yet mortality rates did not rise during the flu season. [Clearly, if vaccines actually worked, then a year when the vaccine wasn't even administered to 40% of the people who normally get it should have resulted in a huge and statistically significant increase in mortality. It should have spiked the death rates and filled the morgues... but it didn't. You know why? Because flu vaccines don't work in the first place.]
• In the history of flu vaccines, there were two years in which the formulated flu vaccine was a total mismatch to the widely-circulating influenza that made people sick. These years were 1968 and 1997. In both of these years, the vaccine was a completely mismatch for the circulating virus. In effect, nobody was vaccinated! [Knowing this, if the vaccine itself was effective at reducing death rates, then we should have once again seen a huge spike in the death rates during these two years, right? Seriously, if the vaccine reduces death rates by 50% as is claimed by vaccine manufacturers, then these two years in which the vaccine completely missed the mark should have seen huge spikes in the winter death rates, right? But what really happened was... nothing. Not a blip. Not a spike. Nothing. The death rates didn't rise at all.]
• If vaccines really worked to save lives, then the more people you vaccinate, the lower death rates you should see, right? But that's not the case. Back in 1989, only 15 percent of over-65 people got vaccinated against the flu. But today, thanks to the big vaccine push, over 65 percent are vaccinated. And yet, amazingly, death rates among the elderly have not gone down during the flu season. In fact, they've gone up!
• When vaccine promoters (and CDC officials) are challenged about the "50 percent mortality reduction" myth, they invoke dogmatic language and attack the messenger. They are simply not willing to consider the possibility that flu vaccines simply don't work.
• Scientists who question the vaccine mythology are routinely shunned by the medical establishment. Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration is an epidemiologist who questions the claimed benefits of flu vaccines. "The reaction [against Jefferson] has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you'd think he was advocating stealing babies" said a colleague (Majumdar).
• Jefferson is one of the world's best-informed researchers on the flu vaccine. He leads a team of researchers who have examined hundreds of vaccine studies. To quote directly from the article: The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies [to these studies]."
[And here's the real kicker that demonstrates why flu vaccines are useless...]
Flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them
• Vaccines supposedly "work" by introducing a weakened viral strain that causes the immune system to respond by building influenza antibodies. However, as Jefferson points out, only healthy people produce a good antibody response to the vaccine. And yet it is precisely the unhealthy people -- the ones who have a poor immune response to the vaccine -- who are most at risk of being harmed or killed by influenza. But the vaccines don't work in them!
• [In other words -- get this -- flu vaccines only "work" in people who don't need them!]
• [At the same time, it's also accurate to say that vaccines don't work at all in the very people who theoretically could benefit from them. They only produce antibodies in people who already have such a strong immune response that they don't need the vaccine in the first place.]
• Jefferson has called for randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the vaccines. But vaccine pushers are resisting these clinical trials! They call the trials "unethical" [but, in reality, they know that a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study would reveal the complete failure of flu vaccines, and they will do anything to prevent such a trial from happening. Don't you find it amazing that drug pushers and vaccine advocates claim they have "science" on their side, but they won't submit their vaccines to any real science at all?]
• [No placebo-controlled studies have ever been conducted on flu vaccines because the industry says they would be "unethical." So where do these people get off claiming their vaccines work at all? The whole industry is based on fabricated statistics that are provably false... and the injections continue, year after year, with absolutely no benefit to public health whatsoever...]
If the whole world knew what you're about to read here, the vaccine industry would collapse overnight.
This information comes to you courtesy of a brilliant article published in The Atlantic (November 2009). The article, written by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, isn't just brilliant; in my opinion it stands as the best article on flu vaccines that has ever been published in the popular press. Entitled Does the vaccine matter?, it presents some of the most eye-opening information you've probably ever read about the failure of flu vaccines. You can read the full article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...
Perhaps its impressive narrative shouldn't be too surprising, though, since writer Shannon Brownlee is also the celebrated author of a phenomenal book on modern medicine entitled Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer (http://www.amazon.com/Overtreated-M...) (http://www.naturalpedia.com/book_Ov...).
While I've never done this before, I'm going to summarize this article point by point (along with some comments) so that you get the full force of what's finally been put into print.
This information is so important that I encourage you to share the following summary I've put together. Email it to family, friends and coworkers. Or post it on your blog or website (with a link and proper credit to both NaturalNews and The Atlantic, please). Get this information out to the world. People need to know this, and so far the mainstream media has utterly failed to make this information known.
(The really good information begins after around a dozen bullet points, so be sure to keep reading...)
• There is extreme "cult-like" peer pressure put on doctors and researchers to swallow the vaccine mythology without question. Quoted from the story: Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. "People told me, 'No good can come of [asking] this,'" she says. "'Potentially a lot of bad could happen' for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, 'We know that vaccine works.' This was the prevailing wisdom." [In other words, don't dare question the vaccine, and don't ask tough scientific questions because the vaccine industry runs on dogma, not science... and if you ask any questions, you might find yourself out of a job...].
[Here's where the really good part begins...]
• Lisa Jackson was not deterred. She and three other researchers began to study the widely-quoted vaccine statistics in an attempt to identify this "healthy user effect," if any. They looked through eight years of medical data covering 72,000 people aged 65 or older and recorded who received flu shots and who didn't. Then they compared the death rates for all causes outside the flu season.
The vaccine made no difference in mortality
• What she found blows a hole right through the vaccination industry: She found that even outside the flu season, the death rate was 60 percent higher among those who did not get vaccines than among those who do. [In other words, even when you take the flu season completely out of the equation, elderly people who don't get vaccines have other lifestyle factors that makes them far more likely to die from lots of other causes.]
• She also found that this so-called "healthy user effect" explains the entire apparent benefit that continues to be attributed to vaccines. This finding demonstrates that the flu vaccine may not have any beneficial effect whatsoever in reducing mortality.
• How well done were these particular studies? Quoted from the story: Jackson's papers "are beautiful," says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. "They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done."
• Many pro-vaccine experts simply refused to believe the results of this study [because it conflicts with their existing belief in vaccine mythology]. The Journal of the American Medical Association refused to publish her research, even stating, "To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!" [Which just goes to show you how deeply ingrained the current vaccine mythology is in the minds of conventional medical practitioners. They simply cannot imagine that vaccines don't work, so they dismiss any evidence -- even GOOD evidence -- demonstrating that fact. This is what makes the vaccine industry a CULT rather than a science.]
• Jackson's papers were finally published in 2006, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
[And here's the really, really juicy part you can't miss...]
Vaccine shortage proves it never worked in the first place
• The history of the flu vaccine reveals some huge gaps in current vaccination mythology, essentially proving they don't work:
• For example: In 2004, vaccine production was low and there was a shortage in vaccines (a 40 percent reduction in vaccinations). And yet mortality rates did not rise during the flu season. [Clearly, if vaccines actually worked, then a year when the vaccine wasn't even administered to 40% of the people who normally get it should have resulted in a huge and statistically significant increase in mortality. It should have spiked the death rates and filled the morgues... but it didn't. You know why? Because flu vaccines don't work in the first place.]
• In the history of flu vaccines, there were two years in which the formulated flu vaccine was a total mismatch to the widely-circulating influenza that made people sick. These years were 1968 and 1997. In both of these years, the vaccine was a completely mismatch for the circulating virus. In effect, nobody was vaccinated! [Knowing this, if the vaccine itself was effective at reducing death rates, then we should have once again seen a huge spike in the death rates during these two years, right? Seriously, if the vaccine reduces death rates by 50% as is claimed by vaccine manufacturers, then these two years in which the vaccine completely missed the mark should have seen huge spikes in the winter death rates, right? But what really happened was... nothing. Not a blip. Not a spike. Nothing. The death rates didn't rise at all.]
• If vaccines really worked to save lives, then the more people you vaccinate, the lower death rates you should see, right? But that's not the case. Back in 1989, only 15 percent of over-65 people got vaccinated against the flu. But today, thanks to the big vaccine push, over 65 percent are vaccinated. And yet, amazingly, death rates among the elderly have not gone down during the flu season. In fact, they've gone up!
• When vaccine promoters (and CDC officials) are challenged about the "50 percent mortality reduction" myth, they invoke dogmatic language and attack the messenger. They are simply not willing to consider the possibility that flu vaccines simply don't work.
• Scientists who question the vaccine mythology are routinely shunned by the medical establishment. Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration is an epidemiologist who questions the claimed benefits of flu vaccines. "The reaction [against Jefferson] has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you'd think he was advocating stealing babies" said a colleague (Majumdar).
• Jefferson is one of the world's best-informed researchers on the flu vaccine. He leads a team of researchers who have examined hundreds of vaccine studies. To quote directly from the article: The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies [to these studies]."
[And here's the real kicker that demonstrates why flu vaccines are useless...]
Flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them
• Vaccines supposedly "work" by introducing a weakened viral strain that causes the immune system to respond by building influenza antibodies. However, as Jefferson points out, only healthy people produce a good antibody response to the vaccine. And yet it is precisely the unhealthy people -- the ones who have a poor immune response to the vaccine -- who are most at risk of being harmed or killed by influenza. But the vaccines don't work in them!
• [In other words -- get this -- flu vaccines only "work" in people who don't need them!]
• [At the same time, it's also accurate to say that vaccines don't work at all in the very people who theoretically could benefit from them. They only produce antibodies in people who already have such a strong immune response that they don't need the vaccine in the first place.]
• Jefferson has called for randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the vaccines. But vaccine pushers are resisting these clinical trials! They call the trials "unethical" [but, in reality, they know that a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study would reveal the complete failure of flu vaccines, and they will do anything to prevent such a trial from happening. Don't you find it amazing that drug pushers and vaccine advocates claim they have "science" on their side, but they won't submit their vaccines to any real science at all?]
• [No placebo-controlled studies have ever been conducted on flu vaccines because the industry says they would be "unethical." So where do these people get off claiming their vaccines work at all? The whole industry is based on fabricated statistics that are provably false... and the injections continue, year after year, with absolutely no benefit to public health whatsoever...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
