Thursday, December 16, 2010

Medical Doctor Retracts H1N1 Vaccine Advice After Reading Insert!

Don’t schedule that repeat c-section until you read this!

Written on December 9, 2010 at 7:43 am by Birth Sense

I’ve long been a believer in the value of chiropractic treament for the frequent low back pain and sciatica that many women experience during pregnancy.  But a recent question from a reader led me to consider whether chirpopractic might have other benefits during pregnancy. 

A reader emailed me with a question: I have a prominent sacral promontory, and ended up with a c-section for my first birth.  Does this mean an automatic repeat c-section for me?  My doctor and midwife say that chiropractic treatment won’t help; is this true?

To answer the question, I turned to Dr. Dawn Tames, of Sacred Touch Chiropractic.   A chiropractor specializing in pregnancy and pediatric care, Dr. Dawn has posted an article on her website that discusses the benefit of chiropractic treatment, not only for low back pain, but also for dystocia, or difficult labor. 

I spoke with Dr. Dawn, who expressed her conviction that a prominent sacral promontory is not a defect that a woman is born with, but a variation from normal spinal alignment, which can be treated by chiropratic adjustments.  To give you a visual picture of what we’re talking about here, compare the following diagrams:

This is a normal spinal curve.  However, during pregnancy, most women develop what is called lordosis, or “sway back”.  This is shown more clearly in the next diagram.

abnl curve

You can see more clearly in this image the difference between a normal curve of the spine and an abnormal curve.  Notice the prominent sacral promontory–the inside surface of the sacrum which the baby has to navigate past when descending the birth canal.   The exaggerated curve of this spine, or swayback as it’s commonly called, shifts the angle of the birth canal, causing the sacral promontory to protrude further into the birth canal.  Not only can this cause decreased space for the baby to pass through, in extreme conditions it can cause a ”shelf-like” prominence upon which the baby’s head or shoulder can get stuck.  Women with this condition are commonly told that they will need to deliver by c-section.  This is what I learned in my training, and while I’ve always encouraged mothers to try vaginal delivery, because sometimes we are surprised, I’ve believed what I was taught about the slim chances that a woman with a prominent sacral promontory could deliver vaginally.

Dr. Dawn told me that a simple maneuver, which may need to be performed several times during pregnancy, can reposition the sacrum and modify the abnormal curve of the spine.  Even women with scoliosis, she says, can benefit from about 6 months of treatment, greatly improving their chances of normal birth.  

Dr. Dawn and her chiropractor colleagues initiated a research study to document their results.  They collaborated with a group of perinatologists, who are medical doctors specializing in problem pregnancies.  The group shared care of pregnant patients, with the perinatologists managing the prenatal care, and the chiropractors monitoring the spinal alignment of each woman, and making adjustments as needed.  The results were very encouraging–women in the group who received chiropractic care as well as prenatal care had fewer c-sections, fewer problem labors, and fewer misaligned babies.   As the researchers were preparing to submit their results for publication, the perinatologists made an unusual demand.  They wanted the chiropractors to teach the nurses in the perinatology practice to perform the spinal adjustments, so the perinatology practice could bill for the adjustments in addition to prenatal care.  When the chiropractors declined to do this, the perinatologists refused to release their data for study publication.  Dr. Dawn is now in the midst of a new study, which she plans to publish in the near future. 

With the wealth of new information being presented on the topic of treating spinal misalignment for prevention of labor dystocia, and posterior and breech babies,  women now have even more reason not to schedule that repeat c-section, without first looking into what chiropractic treatment can do to help. 

An important point to remember:  chiropractors are not routinely trained in these specialized techniques.  Dr. Dawn took additional specialty training in pregnancy and pediatric care.  To find a chiropractor who is skilled in pregnancy care, check out the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Myths and Facts: Study Verifies That There Is No Value In Any Flu Vaccine

A remarkable study published in the Cochrane Libary found no evidence of benefit for influenza vaccinations and also noted that the vast majority of trials were inadequate. 

The authors stated that the only ones showing benefit were industry-funded. They also pointed out that the industry-funded studies were more likely to be published in the most prestigious journals...and one more thing: They found cases of severe harm caused by the vaccines, in spite of inadequate reporting of adverse effects.

The study, "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults", is damning of the entire pharmaceutical industry and its minions, the drug testing industry and the medical system that relies on them.

In the usual manner of understatement, the authors concluded:
The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases.

The Study

The authors attempted to find and investigate every study that has evaluated the effects of flu vaccines in healthy adults aged 18-65. To this end, they "searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2010) and EMBASE (1990 to June 2010)." They included 50 reports. Forty of them were clinical trials adding up to over 70,000 people. Two reported only on harmful effects and were not included in this study.
Studies of all types of influenza vaccines were included: live, attenuated, and killed – or fractions of killed – vaccines.
The primary outcomes they looked for were numbers and seriousness of influenza and influenza-like illnesses. They also looked at the number and seriousness of harms from the vaccines. The authors attempted to collect missing data by writing to the authors. They describe the response as "disappointing". In the end, they included 50 studies and refused to use 92, mostly because of highly significant flaws, such as using inappropriate controls, not being randomly controlled trials, inconsistencies in data presented, lack of study design, unclear definitions, poor reporting, lack of crude data, and lack of placebo.
The authors found that vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract, usually meaning by injection. reduced influenza-like symptoms by 4%. They found no evidence that vaccination prevents viral transmission! (There goes the whole herd immunity argument!) They also found no evidence that they prevent complications, either.
They attempted to ascertain the degree of complications, and though they did report on some, most of the studies simply did not address the issue or did so inadequately.

Five Myths to Keep in Mind About Flu Vaccines 

Myth 1: The Flu Shot is very effective. 
Statistically, you are less likely to get the flu if you haven’t had a flu vaccine. A BCTV reporter in Vancouver, commenting on the overload in BC emergency rooms, said that out of 32 people who had received a flu shot, 30 got the flu.

Myth 2: The Flu Shot has a high success rate. 
This is a vaccine that only has a 6.25% success rate. This is a pretty big under-achievement, considering that the average reaction to placebo injections of distilled water is 30%. 

Myth 3: The Flu Shot is safe. 
Hugh Fudenberg MD, who is the world’s leading immunogeneticist, says that if a person had 5 flu vaccinations between 1970 and 1980 he/she is 10 times more likely to get Alzheimer’s Disease than if he/she had only one or two shots. Fudenberg said that this was because of the aluminum and mercury, which almost every flu vaccine contains. The gradual accumulation of aluminum and mercury in the brain leads to cognitive dysfunction.

Myth 4: There are no harmful ingredients in vaccinations. 
Flu vaccines consist primarily of 3 categories of ingredients. First there are viruses and cultured bacteria. The second ingredient is the way in which they can be cultivated. This includes aborted human fetal cells, chick embryos, pig blood, monkey kidney tissue, cowpox pus, and calf serum, and all of these foreign proteins get injected straight into your bloodstream. A bit repulsive just thinking about it, isn’t it? The flu shot also contains neutralizers, stabilizers, carrying agents and preservatives such as mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is something that is used for embalming the dead and is known to cause cancer. There is no amount of formaldehyde considered safe when injected into a living organism. 

Myth 5: The Flu Shot works. 
The flu shot could actually weaken your immune system and make you more likely to catch this virus. It is has absolutely no value and should probably be avoided for your own safety. Not only is it loaded with toxic chemicals, but many people actually get the flu shortly after getting the shot, because it weakens their immune system instead of making it stronger like it is claimed to do. 

Dr. Viera Scheibner, arguably one of the world's most respected scientists and scholars on vaccine medical data stated from her research and writings on vaccine science and history:: "Ever since the turn of the (last) century, medical journals published dozens and dozens of articles demonstrating that injecting vaccines (can) cause anaphylaxis, meaning harmful, inappropriate immunological responses, which is also called sensitization. (This) increase(s) susceptibility to the disease which the vaccine is supposed to prevent, and to a host of related and other unrelated infections."
"We see it in vaccinated children within days, within two or three weeks. (Most of them) develop runny noses, ear infections, pneumonitis, (and) bronchiolitis. It is only a matter of degrees, which indicates immuno-suppression, (not immunity). It indicates the opposite. So I never use the word immunization because that is false advertising. It implies that vaccines immunize, which they don't. The correct term is either vaccination or sensitization."
In addition, "Vaccines (can) damage internal organs, particularly the pancreas," so everyone vaccinated, including for seasonal flu, is vulnerable to contracting severe "autoimmune diseases like diabetes," Addison's Disease, Arthritis, Asthma, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, Hepatitis, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Osteoporosis, Polio, and dozens of others.
Some can kill. Others produce a lifetime of disability and pain because autoimmune disease happens when the "body attacks itself," or more accurately "is attacked" by an unhealthy lifestyle, stress, and various harmful ingestible substances; that is, toxins in drugs, food, air, water, and other liquids. According to immunologist, Dr. Jesse Stoff, human health is compromised four ways:
-- by poor nutrition;
-- man-made environmental toxins;
-- disease-causing organisms and their toxins; and
-- immune system trauma from factors like x-ray radiation and stress.
Other factors include a lack of sleep and exercise, smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, and various excesses that throw the body out of balance, making it susceptible to a host of debilitating illnesses.

The Cochrane study found very little evidence to support even a small improvement in time off work. Even that finding needs to be put into the context of industry influence. The authors wrote:
This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

"...industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies..."
"...reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin..."
"...there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions..."
Most assuredly, the "content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding"!
Even without taking into account the shoddiness of the studies in general, the authors were still hard put to find any benefit of any sort for influenza vaccinations in healthy people. At best, they found a small decrease in number of days off work. They did not find that the vaccinations had any benefit whatsoever in complications or mortality.
In spite of the limited reporting on adverse effects, the authors did find some, including 1.6 Guillain-Barré cases per million.
The question that must be asked is: How can influenza vaccinations be justified when there is virtually no benefit—not even the oft-cited dubious herd-immunity—and cases of severe harm are documented, in spite of disgustingly limited reporting of adverse effects?
It is long past time to end the travesty of jabbing adults and childrenwithout a shred of evidence showing real benefit in spite of trying to find it, and with evidence of crippling harm, in spite of trying to mask it.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

H1N1 vaccine linked to 700 percent increase in miscarriages

Wednesday, December 08, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff
(NaturalNews) Recent data presented to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Children's Vaccines has revealed some shocking information about the effects of the H1N1 / swine flu vaccine on pregnant women. According to the report, the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit -- but the CDC denies the truth and continues to insist nobody has been harmed.

According to the
CDC, nearly 50 percent of allpregnant womenwere vaccinated with theH1N1 vaccineduring the 2009 / 2010 influenza season. Those whose physicians instructed them to get a seasonalflu shotwere three times more likely to get it, while those instructed specifically to get theH1N1shot were ten times more likely to get it. And the numbers clearly show that along with the rise in vaccinations due to the H1N1 scare came the sharp increase inmiscarriages, including a slew of actual reportedadverse events.

But the CDC does not seem to care about the facts, as numerous reports indicate the agency has failed to report any of this vital
informationto vaccine suppliers. In fact, when presented with the data for the third time, Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Vaccine Risk and Assessment Working Group, actually had the audacity to claim that there were no vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women caused by thevaccine.

"This baseless and fallacious assessment by the CDC assessment group has given the green light to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to continue their recommendation to give the 2010/11 flu shot to all people, including pregnant
women," explained Eileen Dannemann, director of the National Coalition of Organized Women, presenter of the information.

"This upcoming 2010/11
flu vaccinecontains the same elements that are implicated in the killing of these fetuses, the H1N1 viral component and the neurotoxin mercury (Thimerosal). Additionally, it contains two other viral strains -- a three-in-one shot for all people."

Overall, the number of vaccine-related "fetal demise" reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the
miscarriagestatistic. Meanwhile, the CDC continues to lie to the public about the vaccine, urging everyone, including pregnant women, to get it.

To read the report for yourself, visit:

Learn more:

I'm Alive

Wednesday, December 1, 2010