Link to the Douglas Report

Below is the link to The Douglas Report, which urges Americans about five vaccines they should "never get." This link is posted on the top of the gmail toolbar!

I thought this was a great example of some of the extremism regarding vaccines.

http://www.douglassreport.com/reports/vaccines.html?gclid=CKChxYP70pkCFSbxDAodXDaotQ

From Larry King Live: Autism is Preventable and Reversible

LKL Blog Exclusive by J.B. Handley, founder of Generation Rescue. J.B. will be our guest tonight on LKL, in addition to Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey.

Jenny McCarthy’s son Evan no longer has autism. This is a very hard concept for most people to grasp, because the popular understanding of autism is that it’s lifelong. Quietly, a revolution of tens of thousands of parents around the world are standing firmly behind Jenny and using the same treatments to heal their children that she used to heal Evan. Not a day goes by where I don’t hear a story from a parent of their child’s dramatic improvement or complete recovery from autism using what we call “biomedical intervention.”

In the 1940s, Autism was supposed to be a placeholder diagnosis, used until we had a better understanding of the actual physical issues that would define autism as a disease. Yet even today, a child is diagnosed based entirely on behavioral observation - there is no blood test or other way to test for it. Unfortunately, this has led to a level of inertia and acceptance amongst the mainstream medical community that many parents find unhelpful, if not unacceptable. “Autism is something you can’t really change, just learn to accept it” - that’s the message so many of us hear from our medical authorities.

Imagine for a second being that parent of a child with autism and told that your child may never speak and that a lifetime of care is likely. You start to do your own research, and you happen upon our community, filled with hope, examples of recovery, and specific actions you can take to heal your child. What would you do?

The vaccine issue has made autism one of the most polarizing topics on earth, which is too bad, because it keeps different communities within the autism world from working for the benefit of the only group that matters: our kids.

The number of children diagnosed with autism today is deeply alarming. The 1 in 150 number often used here in the U.S. is actually from 7 years ago, and we’re hearing more recent numbers well below 1 in 100 in states like Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon, to name just a few. Published studies in the 1970s showed an autism rate of 1 in 10,000, so autism has grown 100-fold, or 10,000%, numbers that are nearly impossible to imagine.

With autism cases growing this quickly, something in the environment has to be causing the rise. A “spontaneous genetic epidemic” is a scientific impossibility. It’s also likely that something relatively straightforward has to be behind the epidemic - it’s very unlikely that 100 different things all showed up sometime in the early 1990s and triggered the autism epidemic.

That’s where vaccines come in, and I think the case for them as a primary trigger is, unfortunately, very compelling. Firstly, the number of vaccines given to U.S. kids has expanded dramatically. Up until 1989, our kids received 10 total shots by their 5th birthday. Today, they receive 36. At their 2 month old appointment alone, most American children receive 6 separate vaccines in less than 15 minutes. Few other things on the planet that nearly all children receive have grown so dramatically during the exact time period when autism cases have exploded.

Secondly, and this is something most parents don’t realize, vaccines are known to cause brain injury in some kids. In fact, the US government has paid out over $1.8 billion in compensation for vaccine injury, most of it to children and much of that for brain injury. How exactly do vaccines cause brain injury? No one knows for sure, but if you check out the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services, you can see for yourself that brain injury is a primary side effect (sometimes called “encephalopathy”) of many of our vaccines.

Finally, we have tens of thousands of case reports of parents reporting that their child developmentally regressed, stopped talking, and was later diagnosed with autism after a vaccine appointment. The number of vaccines have risen along with autism rates, vaccines are known to cause brain damage, and parents report regression and later autism after getting them. Is it really so hard to believe we think vaccines are a trigger?

Few parents appreciate that American kids are the most vaccinated on the planet. Generation Rescue just released a study called “Autism and Vaccines Around the World” which will surprise many. We looked at the vaccine schedules of 30 other first world countries to compare how many doses of vaccines children receive. What did we find? Compared to our 36, the average for the rest of the first world is 18, or half of the U.S. schedule. Perhaps more shocking, we looked at countries with the lowest rates of mortality for children under 5 (the U.S. ranks a disappointing 34th, behind Cuba and Slovenia). How many vaccines do the 5 countries with the lowest under 5 mortality rates give? Well, Iceland, Sweden, Singapore, Japan, and Norway give 11, 11, 13, 11, and 13 vaccines respectively - all less than 1/3 the number of vaccines the U.S. mandates!

How do autism rates compare in some of these other countries? Iceland’s rate is 1 in 1,000, Finland’s 1 in 700, and Sweden’s 1 in 800. These countries give 1/3 the vaccines we do and have autism rates that are as little as one-tenth of ours? Something isn’t right.

Parents just want a simple answer: “What do I do for my child? I want to give vaccines, but I don’t want autism.” There is no perfect answer as our kids are so different. But, perhaps you could start by considering the US vaccine schedule in 1989, which is a schedule many countries still use today. In 1989, we gave the following vaccines (and doses): DTP (5), Polio (4), MMR (1). For reference, today we give the following vaccines and doses: DTP (5), Polio (4), MMR (2), Hepatitis B (3), Hib (4), Varicella (2), Rotavirus (3), PCV (4), Flu (7), Hepatitis A (2).

Prevent deadly disease while preventing autism, why can’t the two co-exist?

To date, our health authorities have been unwilling to meet us halfway on vaccines. There appears to be no room for moderation, and we hear the American Academy of Pediatrics state that American children should simply get all their shots. Yet, looking at 30 other first world countries, we found that only 3 others had added Varicella to their schedules, and only 2 others had added Rotavirus to their schedules, as two examples of low rates of adoption by other countries, despite the fact that both of these vaccines have now been on the market for over a decade. What do these other countries know that we don’t? Would it surprise you to learn that the patent holder for Rotavirus sat on the government panel that adds vaccines to our schedule?

Our health authorities are also quick to assert that “the science shows vaccines don’t cause autism.” It’s disappointing to hear false statements like this from people many of us inherently trust. Having read every study these experts put forward, I can tell you with conviction that any doctor making this claim is either lying or has never read the studies for themselves. In fact, we were so frustrated by this mantra about “the science” that we created a website to analyze all the studies, which you can now find at FourteenStudies.org and see for yourself. In a nutshell, if you never look at unvaccinated kids and if you only ever study one vaccine (the MMR) which accounts for 2 of the 36 vaccines our kids get, its easy to craft studies to get the answers you want.

The debate over the causes of autism will not end anytime soon. Parents trying to do the right thing for their children are being put in the middle. I’m grateful for people like Jenny McCarthy who are willing to share their own stories and help as many parents as possible prevent and reverse autism. Through her courage alone, thousands of kids today are facing a far brighter future.

Courts Rule: MMR Vaccine Does Not Cause Autism

As of February 12, 2009, the Federal courts have ruled that there is no link between the MMR vaccination and Autism. While many would find this and sigh with relief that the never ending debate had finally come to an end, but unfortunately, 

Some autism advocacy groups say that despite a ruling that appears to exonerate MMR vaccines as the cause of autism in children, they will continue to push to raise awareness that such a link may exist.

-ABC NEWS

Autism is "Curable," McCarthy Claims

It is no secret that when opting to receive vaccinations, or any medication for that matter, that you indirectly acknowledge and accept any and all potential health risks and side effects.  The chance of experiencing any mild problems, let alone ending up with a life-altering condition, is a chance so miniscule, that the long lists of "cautions" are rarely given more then a quick glance before going ahead with the treatment. Many are led to believe that for one reason or another, they are required to have certain vaccines, whether it be as an infant up until 5 years old, or when they are "all-grown-up" and going off to college. For whatever reason for getting vaccinated, in Michigan, they are (although each state is different) strictly a recommendation, NOT a requirement. This is an important fact that NOT many are aware of, and given all of the possible effects and life changing outcomes, the most controversial of those to be Autism.

For a list of different vaccinations, the ingredients contained in each, and the possible side effects of each, click: http://www.generationrescue.org/vaccine_information/

With a child that had been diagnosed with Autism, mother and author, Jenny McCarthy, is convinced that the MMR vaccination actually CAUSED his Autism. Wanting to raise awareness, and educate the public on information regarding the dangers and risks that are associated with vaccinations, but more specifically, autism. Taking on the role of the activist, she is getting people to start asking the government and doctors important questions, and to  challenge treatments that may not have been thoroughly tested for their safety. She does this along side the well known comedian/actor, Jim Carry. Together they have created an Autism Organization: Generation Rescue.

The organization is aimed at educating other parents that may be experiencing the same traumatizing diagnose that she received of her son, and also to let others know that Autism, she believes, is curable, and on top of that, she also claims that her son is fully recovered!  While her beliefs may be 100 percent false, either way she continues to exercise her personal rights autonomy, and with that she and all others are entitled to.

 

For a parents guide/ information on the MMR vaccine, go here:

"AUTISM YESTERDAY" Autism is Reversible from JB Handley on Vimeo.

Prevention of Cocaine Addiction through Vaccination

Article from TIME Magazine

The Ethics of Vaccinations

by Tom Murray

Scientists at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston have developed a vaccine that may protect against cocaine addiction. The drug is still years away from FDA approval, but as with many new medical technologies, it raises some profound ethical questions about how, when and in whom it should be used. TIME asked Tom Murray, president and CEO of the Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, to answer the most pertinent and thought-provoking questions.

Should we be concerned about giving the vaccine to children?

In general, parents will want to use any tools at their disposal to help their children, and a vaccine that prevents cocaine addiction could well fall into this category. There are a couple of problems, however: The vaccine as currently designed is not for prevention of addiction, but for use by current or former addicts who want to guard against relapsing. The drug is not likely to be tested in children, but if trials in cocaine-addicted adults lead to FDA approval, the vaccine will be available for "off-label" use — meaning that doctors will be free to prescribe it for anything they want.

Plenty of drugs that are not specifically approved for use by children are nevertheless given to them off-label, but medically speaking, children are not merely tiny adults, and scientists cannot predict how children will respond to a drug that has been tested only in adults. Without solid research confirming that the vaccine works in children as a preventive against addiction — without damaging side effects — parents who decide to give it to their children will be exposing them to unknown and possibly serious risks. At a minimum, if children are given the vaccine, doctors should follow them carefully in order to pick up any evidence of side effects.

Since drug addiction is a costly societal problem, should there be mass vaccination? If so, who should pay for it?

If the cocaine vaccine proves to be safe and effective, why not offer it to every adult who is a current or former user? If the vaccine is not outrageously priced and if it safeguards people against relapsing into addiction, it's hard to imagine that it would not yield enormous savings in the long run. The wisdom of mass vaccination, however, is not so clear. Even the safest vaccine has side effects. Complications may be rare, but the more people you vaccinate, the more adverse effects we'll see.

When we balance the risk of side effects against an addict's freedom from the grip of cocaine, uncommon risks are easily justifiable. But when we vaccinate tens of millions of people, most of whom will never get nearer to cocaine than the traces on the $20 bill in their pocket, even a one-in-million risk may be too high.

Will the vaccine exacerbate health care and social disparities, with the rich having more access to it than the less advantaged?

That, of course, depends upon who pays for it. Many of the newer vaccines listed by the Centers for Disease Control run from $75 to $125 a dose at your doctor's office, so it's reasonable to anticipate that a cocaine vaccine could cost upwards of $100 a pop. That's real money for most of us. If common sense prevails, addicts and recovering addicts will get the vaccine at no or nominal cost. It's in everyone's interest — including the health insurer's — to immunize addicts against cocaine intoxication. As for vaccinating children or people who have never used cocaine, until we can be sure that it will be an overall benefit to them, we should hold off. We have plenty of other real injustices in health care to remedy first.

Would people being offered the vaccine be able to give informed consent? Many people with drug addiction suffer from other problems, such as mental illness, and addiction itself might impair consent.

Making certain that someone gives fully informed and voluntary consent is fundamental to good ethics in both treatment and research — especially research. The days of testing new drugs on hapless victims are, we hope, long past. Researchers will have to be sensitive to the challenges of assuring that people enrolled in clinical trials for the cocaine vaccine understand what they're agreeing to and have the clarity of mind to give meaningful consent. The bare fact that a person is or was addicted to cocaine or may suffer from a mental illness does not render them incompetent to consent. But it does require researchers to be especially vigilant to ensure that the person has the mental capacity to consent — and that the vaccine is not being forced on them.

Will biomarkers remaining in the blood after patients receive the vaccine be a "stain" that can be used to discriminate against them for employment, travel, insurance, or legal purposes — even though use of the vaccine does not mean that cocaine was ever taken?

Sometimes wisdom is knowing when to ask someone else. So I asked my dear friend Mark Rothstein to answer this question. He is one of the world's experts on medical information and privacy and the director of the Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. He says: "It's safe to assume that any information that can be used will be used. Obtaining test results will become increasingly easier, as testing technology gets cheaper and electronic health-record networks more efficiently transfer large data files. As a legal matter, to take the example of employment, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals who have engaged in the illegal use of drugs but who have successfully completed or are participating in a supervised rehabilitation program and are no longer using drugs. Therefore, if the vaccine biomarker were used to identify former cocaine users who are no longer using drugs, then discrimination based on a positive test would be unlawful. There are many other contexts besides employment in which the test might be used, however, and it will be necessary to examine (and perhaps amend) various laws to protect against discriminatory use of this information."

Cocaine is an illegal substance. Might use of the vaccine lead to trouble with the law? Or might it be a condition of parole, and is this ethical?

We'd like ethics and law to be good friends or, at least, not complete strangers. But they have different purposes and different ways of reasoning. The biological footprints left in the blood by the cocaine vaccine are not proof that the person ever used the drug. The cocaine molecule itself will leave traces in the body for a while, but it's too tiny to trigger our immune system; that's why the vaccine hooks it up to a larger one. Unless the law goes completely berserk, it won't confuse the antibodies created in response to the vaccine with the drug itself.

What's more likely is that judges and parole boards will look favorably upon addicts willing to take the vaccine, and suspiciously at those who refuse. Rehabilitation is a primary goal of the justice system. There's a good argument to be made that someone whose addiction led to crimes and thence to prison, but who is no longer an addict thanks to the vaccine, has to a significant degree been rehabilitated and deserves to be released. Ethically, however, that looks like a coercive offer: Take the vaccine or go back to the slammer. It's not an unreasonable judgment by the law. But I anticipate a pretty vigorous argument about whether it's ethical.

Is have the right to decide always the best choice?

Autonomy is freedom from external constraint and the presence of critical mental capacities such as understanding, intending, and voluntary decision-making capacity.

The negative side to individual autonomy with immunizations:

1. Physicians have the training and greater knowledge of the fundamentals of vaccinations and relevant diseases to justify health benefits and risk of an individuals case to be immunized, as opposed to the knowledge held by the general public.
2. Someone who chooses to be exempt is 35 times more likely to develop a disease that could be prevented through vaccination.
3. Overall protection to the public and individuals is decreased, if there is no outside intervention to implement vaccinations.
4. Herd immunity is decreased if many people decide not to get vaccinations.
5. Transmission is increased. If less people are protected, there is greater risk of spreading the disease.
6. Total eradication of the disease is less likely to occur and more resistant strains will develop.
7. An individual’s choice to refuse preventative measures through vaccinations is choosing to risk the chances of dealing with treatment of diseases.
8. May decide not to get immunized because they believe it is not natural, but a vaccination can help with naturally strengthening the immune system.
   

Smallpox Eradicated Through Actions of Compulsory Vaccinations

A dramatic example of the benefit to not having individual autonomy is the smallpox epidemic. The World Health Organization required mass vaccinations. All cases discovered enforced vaccinations to those in the household of those infected and vaccinations of those in contact with the household members. In West Africa, it was reported that about 90% of the population received the smallpox vaccine. On May 8th, 1980, the actions of compulsory vaccinations led to the eradication of naturally occurring smallpox, which previously was the cause of over 2 million deaths.

Cost-effectiveness of Immunizations

• Vaccinations save more than $52 billion in total health care costs
• Meningitis Vaccine – saves $ 2 billion in health care costs
• Hepatitis B Vaccine – saves $14 health care costs in children and adolescents for every dollar spent
• Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine – saves $9 billion each year
• Diptheria, Tetanus, Polio (DTP) Vaccine – saves $6 in health care costs for every dollar spent
• Pneumonia Vaccine – saves $194 million annually