Vaccine Study Shows Higher Rates of Chest Infections Posted on March 7th, 2010
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
A study published in the January 2010 edition of the journal Pediatrics shows that childhood pneumococcal vaccination may be linked to an increase in serious pneumonia complications. Of course, reportage claims that the benefits of the vaccine, introduced in 2000, far outweigh the risk. Findings from the study’s researchers, based in the University of California, Davis, show only that the vaccine is not lowering rates of empyema-associated hospitalization, which have actually increased during the vaccine’s use.
Su-Ting Li, MD, MPH and Daniel J. Tancredit, PhD, authored the study and their conclusion says that empyema-associated hospitalization rates have actually increased, not by some small sum, but by a whopping 70% for the study’s window:
“Among children 18 years of age, the annual empyema-associated hospitalization rates increased almost 70% between 1997 and 2006, despite decreases in the bacterial pneumonia and invasive pneumococcal disease rates. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is not decreasing the incidence of empyema.”
This shows a probable unintended consequence of the pneumococcal vaccination regimen (now recommended by the CDC and mandated in several states) to be an increase of empyema. Empyema is a collection of pus in an anatomical cavity, usually in the lungs’ pleura, and is most often associated with serious pneumonia infections.
Pneumococcal disease is a type of pneumonia caused by a virus and the bacteria, pneumococcus, is actually naturally occurring in most people’s bodies. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends vaccinations (called the PCV7 series) in infants and children at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 12-15 months as well as increased dosage and series for several “at risk” categories.
The study looked at the Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID) to estimate the number of children (18 years or younger) who were associated with empyema in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006. This was correlated with Census data to get annual incidence rates per 100,000 children. These were then compared to see the rate of growth in empyema hospitalizations amongst children.
The result, with a 95% confidence interval, showed that rates of hospitalization for empyema went from 2.2 per 100,000 in 1997 (pre-vaccination) to 3.7 per 100,000 in 2006. That 70% increase was also accompanied by a 44% increase in pneumonia complications requiring intubation (chest tube insertion). All of this was followed by a 13% decrease in pneumonia infections.
So the study found some interesting correlations. Not only did pneumonia decrease (the intended use of the vaccine) by 13%, but it also gained strength, raising the number of people who had serious complications in their pneumonia infection by 70% and the number of people requiring severe medical intervention (intubation) to treat their infection by 44%.
Note that these numbers are not by number infected, but are by population as a whole. So despite the vaccine being credited with lowering pneumonia infections by a few percentage points, the study shows that by population, serious complications of pneumonia are on a dramatic rise.
Resources:
1 - Empyema Hospitalizations Increased in US Children Despite Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine, Pediatrics, Jan. 2010, Su-Tin T. Li, MD, MPH and Daniel J. Tancredi, PhD
2 - Pneumococcal Disease In-Short, Centers for Disease Control, Vaccines & Immunizations
3 - Empyema, Wikipedia
4 - Vaccine information on NaturalNews
Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots Posted on January 18th, 2010
The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I’m about to reveal here.
It all started with the CDC’s recent release of new statistics about swine flu fatalities, infection rates and vaccination rates. According to the CDC:
• 61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu (about 20% of the U.S. population). The CDC calls this a “success” even though it means 4 out of 5 people rejected the vaccines.
• 55 million people “became ill” from swine flu infections.
• 246,000 Americans were hospitalized due to swine flu infections.
• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.
Base on these statistics, the CDC is now desperately urging people to get vaccinated because they claim the pandemic might come back and vaccines are the best defense.
But here’s the part you’re NOT being told.
The CDC statistics lie by omission. They do not reveal the single most important piece of information about H1N1 vaccines: How many of the people who died from the swine flu had already been vaccinated?
Many who died had already been vaccinated
The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections.
And that means roughly 20% of the 11,160 Americans who died from the swine flu were probably already vaccinated against swine flu. That comes to around 2,200 deaths in people who were vaccinated!
How do I know that swine flu vaccines don’t reduce infection mortality? Because I’ve looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn’t take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.
That’s right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal fluindicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated.
So let’s give the recent H1N1 vaccines the benefit of the doubt and let’s imagine that they work just as well as other flu vaccines. That means they would reduce the mortality rate by 1%. So out of the 2,200 deaths that took place in 2009 in people who were already vaccinated, the vaccine potentially may have saved 22 people.
61 million injections add up to bad public health policy
So let’s see: 61 million people are injected with a potentially dangerous vaccine, and the actual number “saved” from the pandemic is conceivably just 22. Meanwhile, the number of people harmed by the vaccine is almost certainly much, much higher than 22. These vaccines contain nervous system disruptors and inflammatory chemicals that can cause serious health problems. Some of those problems won’t be evident for years to come… future Alzheimer’s victims, for example, will almost certainly those who received regular vaccines, I predict.
Injecting 61 million people with a chemical that threatens the nervous system in order to avoid 22 deaths — and that’s the best case! — is an idiotic public health stance. America would have been better off doing nothing rather than hyping up a pandemic in order to sell more vaccines to people who don’t need them.
MD Retracts H1N1 Vaccine Advice After Reading Report Posted on November 17th, 2009
Just goes to show that a little info can go a long way.
The Veteran’s Administration (VA) is pushing this vaccine hard on veterans. They’ve called both myself and my wife (who’s pregnant) twice, sent us pamphlets in the mail labeled with titles like “PANDEMIC” and “SWINE FLU – NOT THE SEASONAL FLU” (caps are theirs, not mine).
Misleading Media Denies Connection between Mercury and Autism Posted on November 8th, 2009
(NaturalNews) Several recent headlines about a study which concluded that mercury levels in children with autism were not significantly higher than those without have been widely distributed. Headlines reading “Mercury levels not related to autism” and “Mercury not linked with autism, study says” were at the top of many American and European newspapers and magazines in October.1
These publications quickly latched on to the implied fact that because children with autism and those without had about the same blood mercury levels, mercury cannot be the reason children are getting autism. This isn’t the first time the media has been misleading in its interpretation of science.
The study they refer to is from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and was published on October 19, 2009. The study was titled Blood Mercury Concentrations in CHARGE Study Children with and without Autism and was authored by Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Peter G. Green, Lora Delwiche, Robin Hansen, Cheryl Walker, and Isaac N. Pessah. It was published through Environmental Health Perspectives and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.2
The study found that young children without autism have equivalent mercury levels in their blood when compared to children who’ve been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The study also included children with Down’s Syndrome and other developmental disorders.
The study involved 452 children between 2 and 5 years of age and adjusted for demographic and mercury sources such as fish. Most of the children measured, regardless of mental ability, were found to have 0.28 micrograms of mercury per liter of blood or less before adjustments and 0.26mcg/L or less after adjustment.
The problem here is the methodology used and the conclusions drawn by the media versus what the actual science is proposing.
Understanding that blood mercury versus tissue mercury is not the same is the first clue. Mercury absorbed through vaccination goes directly into the blood, but quickly transfers to body tissues. Similarly, mercury absorbed through diet usually is absorbed into tissues quickly. Mercury absorbed directly through the skin travels in the same manner, spending very little time in the blood.
Mercury, when found in the blood, is usually there for one of two reasons: recent introduction or as part of the body’s natural flushing system to be rid of it. Mercury, regardless of why it’s in the blood, does not stay in blood for very long.
Mercury injected into the blood would have to move on to other tissues before ASD could be caused by it. Regardless of whether mercury caused the ASD, the blood levels of those with and without autism would be roughly the same. Obviously, in order for the mercury to have caused ASD, it has to have affected and damaged the nerve cells. This means it’s no longer in the blood stream.
Most scientists agree that the most accurate measurement method of mercury contamination in mammals, including humans, is hair, not blood.
Now, back to the media representation of this study.
Does it seem odd to anyone that this study was done and published and grabbed up by the main stream media right about the same time that H1N1 vaccines containing Thimerosal (a mercury derivative) are being pushed on pregnant women and young children? What about the fact that recent studies, covered here on NaturalNews,3 have shown direct links between mercury and autism and between vaccines themselves and ASD? Yet these studies got little traction in the main stream.
Strange coincidences, to be sure.
Make Your Own Flu Vaccine! (video) Posted on October 29th, 2009
This is hilarious. A great how-to for making your own flu vaccines at home. Just follow these easy steps:
