Connect with us

Health

The American Academy of Pediatrics Is Calling for Hepatitis B Vaccination of ALL Newborns Within 24 Hours

Published

on

On August 28, 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called for the administration of the hepatitis B vaccine to all American newborns within 24 hours of birth. This decision shows that the AAP is completely incapable of performing a risk-analysis, that they don’t know the basics of germ-theory, and that they don’t even give lip-service to individualized medicine.

advertisement - learn more

Diseases, including vaccine-preventable diseases like hepatitis B, are caused by exposure to pathogens. Simply put, you cannot get a disease if you are not exposed to its pathogen — it’s germ-theory 101. Hepatitis B is caused by the hepatitis B virus, so if you are not exposed to the hepatitis B virus, you cannot get that disease. Hepatitis B is NOT caused by a lack of hepatitis B vaccination. A hepatitis B vaccine can train your immune system to attack and resist hepatitis B virus if it is exposed to it, but you still can’t contract it unless you are exposed.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

HBV is transmitted through activities that involve percutaneous (i.e., puncture through the skin) or mucosal contact with infectious blood or body fluids (e.g., semen, saliva), including

  • Sex with an infected partner
  • Injection drug use that involves sharing needles, syringes, or drug-preparation equipment
  • Birth to an infected mother
  • Contact with blood or open sores of an infected person
  • Needle sticks or sharp instrument exposures
  • Sharing items such as razors or toothbrushes with an infected person

The ONLY one of the risk-factors listed above that should apply to an infant is being born to a mother who is infected with the hepatitis B virus. All infants that are born to mothers with the hepatitis B virus should get the hepatitis B vaccine. However, according to the CDC, only 1,000 of the 4,000,000 infants born in the U.S. each year are born to mothers with hepatitis B. That means that only 0.025% of American newborns are at risk of acquiring hepatitis B from their mother.

So, why is the AAP calling for ALL infants to be vaccinated against hepatitis B regardless of the viral status of their mother? Why is the AAP calling for an invasive medical procedure to be performed on ALL infants when far fewer than 1% of American-born infants are at risk of exposure to the virus?

advertisement - learn more

I think it’s an absurd recommendation, but in an attempt at empathy, I’ll give you a couple potential reasons why an organization of presumably smart people might make a recommendation along these lines:

  1. They think that the hepatitis B vaccine is harmless, and that we “may as well” give it to all infants “just in case” they’re exposed to the disease.
  2. Greed, greed, and more greed. Pediatricians are paid to “fully vaccinate” the children in their practice. Pediatrics is not the highest paying medical specialty, and recommending over-vaccination is a way that the AAP can financially support its members.
  3. They don’t have the time or resources to ask about every mother’s hepatitis B status, so they assume that everyone is hepatitis B positive (even though very few people are).
  4. “The AAP justifies the ridiculous extremity of vaccinating everyone’s children, regardless of hepatitis B status, on the day of their birth, with the fact that approximately 90% of infants who contract perinatal hepatitis B (there were 37 infants who contracted perinatal hepatitis B in the U.S. in 2015) would go on to develop chronic hepatitis B infections in the absence of treatment. That chronic hepatitis B in combination with cirrhosis (much more likely with high levels of alcohol consumption) could put those children at significant risk of liver cancer someday. In other words, the AAP is telling us that we all need to vaccinate our newborns immediately to keep them from being among the 33 infants per year who could drink themselves into liver cancer someday.” (source)

Possibility #1 is likely the one that resonates most with parents of newborns, while possibilities #2 and 3 are self-explanatory, and possibility #4 is just ludicrous. When most parents agree to have their newborn vaccinated against the hepatitis B virus on the day of their birth, they are attempting to protect their child. They think that the possibility of being exposed to the hepatitis B virus is high, and the possibility of suffering from an adverse-reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine is low to non-existent. Is that true though?

Again, per the CDC, the activities that put a person at-risk for exposure to the hepatitis B virus are:

  • Sex with an infected partner
  • Injection drug use that involves sharing needles, syringes, or drug-preparation equipment
  • Birth to an infected mother
  • Contact with blood or open sores of an infected person
  • Needle sticks or sharp instrument exposures
  • Sharing items such as razors or toothbrushes with an infected person

Don’t let your infants have sex with anyone — much less an infected partner, don’t let them inject drugs, don’t let them have contact with blood or open sores of an infected person (typically IV drug users and sex workers), and tell them not to share toothbrushes or razors with anyone. That’s parenting 101.

Yes, there are horrible situations that can happen — a child could get raped by a hepatitis B infected person, or a dentist could fail to clean her tools properly and infect your child with hepatitis B (or HIV). These things could happen. But they are incredibly unlikely, and they are even less likely when a child has parents who are desirous of keeping him or her safe.

But the vaccine is completely, 100%, unassailably, infallibly, safe, right? No, of course not. No pharmaceutical, medical device, or vaccine is perfectly safe for everyone. Every single medical intervention has “side-effects” — including vaccines. They may be “rare” but they are not impossible. Your child may have an immune-system disorder, kidney disorder, liver disorder, or genetic predisposition that makes him or her unable to properly process the hepatitis B vaccine, and he or she may suffer from an adverse reaction to it. Additionally, vaccinating on the day of a child’s birth makes it impossible for parents and physicians alike to know whether or not an infant is healthy, or whether his or her immune system, kidneys, liver, etc. are operating as they should.

How likely are adverse reactions to the hepatitis B vaccine given to infants on the day of their birth? That’s a tough question to answer. It’s difficult to tell when an infant is having an adverse reaction to a vaccine given to him or her at birth. Neither parents nor pediatricians have any notion of what is “normal” for that particular baby. If the baby is crying incessantly, it may be having a bad reaction to the vaccine, or it may just be a fussy baby. Vaccinating on the day of birth means that there is no baseline of health for the baby.

Since one can’t do a before/after test of an infant that receives a hepatitis B vaccine on the day that infant is born, we must look toward epidemiological studies to give us an idea of the risks of the hepatitis B vaccine. Epidemiological studies point toward increased incidents of neurological problems for children who receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth.

A 2007 study found that odds of requiring early intervention services for developmental disabilities were nine times greater in boys who had received three doses of hepatitis B vaccine than in boys who had received zero. A 2010 study found that boys who received the birth dose of hepatitis B had a threefold risk of autism when compared with boys who didn’t.

Neurological problems in children are far more common than perinatal hepatitis B transmission. Approximately 11% of children ages 4-17 have been diagnosed with ADHD (also according to the CDC), and 1:68 children are on the autism spectrum. The chance of hepatitis B transmission at birth is less than 1%.

Which do you think is more likely, that your child is going to be exposed to hepatitis B (whether from a rapist IV drug-user, or from a negligent dentist, or from you) or that he or she is going to have a neurological disorder? Basic math and commonsense tell you that a neurological disorder is more likely. Certainly, there are other causes of neurological disorders, but vaccination for hepatitis B at birth is linked to neurological disorders, and even if it being a causal agent is truly rare, it’s still more likely than encountering a negligent dentists, or a drug-addicted, hepatitis B infected, rapist attacking your infant — at least for most people.

Even if you dismiss all evidence linking administration of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth to later neurological problems, the chances of hepatitis B infection of an infant born to a mother who is not infected with hepatitis B are so slim that it’s not even worth the pain caused by the jab itself, much less the aluminum adjuvants, intentional immune system activation (that is what vaccines are intended to do), and other side-effects of the vaccine.

The AAP recommendation that all infants be vaccinated against hepatitis B on the day of their birth is absurd. A risk-analysis using data and information directly from the CDC shows that children born to uninfected parents are unlikely to be exposed to the hepatitis B virus, and though the risk of experiencing an adverse reaction to the vaccine is difficult to establish, there are certainly reasons to think that adverse reactions are more likely than hepatitis B virus exposure.

One of the more offensive and obnoxious things about the AAP recommendation is that it doesn’t take into account any individual differences in disease-status or lifestyle. Neither I, nor the AAP, know the risk factors in your life, and I encourage everyone who has children, or even who is thinking of having children, to do their own risk analysis before taking any medication, or accepting any vaccination.

We don’t routinely vaccinate against yellow fever in the U.S. because yellow fever is a tropical disease that doesn’t exist in the U.S., and therefore it is not necessary for us to vaccinate against it unless we’re travelling to a place where it does exist. Hepatitis B exists in the U.S., but it is rare, and vaccinating every infant against it, on the day of their birth, is crazy. It’s disappointing that an organization like the AAP, that is presumably full of intelligent people, is advocating for it as a routine practice.

I’m sure that there will be many disparaging comments and accusations of being an “anti-vaxxer” thrown in my direction, but just to make sure that I make everyone on both sides of the vaccination fence mad, I want to close by saying that I’m not opposed to the hepatitis B vaccine. If you are engaged in high-risk activities, such as IV drug use or unprotected sex with various partners, getting vaccinated against the hepatitis B virus is smart and responsible. Infants who are born to mothers who are infected with the hepatitis B virus should receive the hepatitis B vaccine. However, it is absurd to vaccinate every infant, regardless of risk, against a sexually transmitted disease that he or she has close to zero risk of exposure, on the day of his or her birth. Every pharmaceutical, including every vaccine, has risks, warnings, and contraindications. Exposure of every infant born in the U.S. to those risks, is ridiculous, thoughtless, and wrong. The AAP has made a recommendation that is somewhere between thoughtless and negligent, and they should rescind and change course.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Health

Natural Measles Immunity — Better Protection & More Long-Term Benefits Than Vaccines

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Natural immunity compared to the immunity provided by vaccines is extremely different. Public health authorities have made a case for measles eradication since the early 1980s, 50+ years of mass measles vaccination have stopped nothing.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do pharmaceutical companies continue to make false claims about vaccines, using mass marketing? Why are they allowed to? And why does everyone believe them?

Stories about vaccines in the popular press tend to be unabashedly one-sided, generally portraying vaccination as a universal (and essential) “good” with virtually no downside. This unscientific bias is particularly apparent in news reports about measles, which often are little more than hysterical diatribes against the unvaccinated.

Although public health authorities have made a case for measles eradication since the early 1980s, 50-plus years of mass measles vaccination and high levels of vaccine coverage have not managed to stop wild and vaccine-strain measles virus from circulating. Routine measles vaccination also has had some worrisome consequences. Perhaps the most significant of these is the shifting of measles risks to age groups formerly protected by natural immunity. Specifically, modern-day occurrences of measles have come to display a “bimodal” pattern in which “the two most affected populations are infants aged less than 1 year and adults older than 20 years”—the very population groups in whom measles complications can be the most clinically severe. As one group of researchers has stated, “The common knowledge indicating that measles [as well as mumps and rubella] are considered as benign diseases dates back to the pre-vaccine area and is not valid anymore.”

A little history

Before the introduction of measles vaccines in the 1960s, nearly all children contracted measles before adolescence, and parents and physicians accepted measles as a “more or less inevitablepart of childhood.” In industrialized countries, measles morbidity and mortality already were low and declining, and many experts questioned whether a vaccine was even needed or would be used.

Measles outbreaks in the pre-vaccine era also exhibited “variable lethality”; in specific populations living in close quarters (such as military recruits and residents of crowded refugee camps), measles mortality could be high, but even so, “mortality rates differed more than 10-fold across camps/districts, even though conditions were similar.” For decades both prior to and following the introduction of measles vaccination, those working in public health understood that poor nutrition and compromised health status were key contributors to measles-related mortality, with measles deaths occurring primarily “in individuals below established height and weight norms.” A study of measles mortality in war-torn Bangladesh in the 1970s found that most of the children who died were born either in the two years preceding or during a major famine.

Moms who get measles vaccines instead of experiencing the actual illness have less immunity to offer their babies, resulting in a ‘susceptibility gap’…

advertisement - learn more

Measles vaccination and infants

Before the initiation of mass vaccination programs for measles, mothers who had measles as children protected their infants through the transfer of maternal antibodies. However, naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-induced immunity are qualitatively different. Moms who get measles vaccines instead of experiencing the actual illness have less immunity to offer their babies, resulting in a “susceptibility gap” between early infancy and the first ostensibly protective measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 to 15 months of age.

A Luxembourg-based study published in 2000 confirmed the susceptibility gap in an interesting way. The researchers compared serum samples from European adolescents who had been vaccinated around 18 months of age to serum samples from Nigerian mothers who had not been vaccinated but had experienced natural measles infection at a young age. They then looked at the capacity of the antibodies detected in the serum to “neutralize” various wild-type measles virus strains. The researchers found that the sera from mothers with natural measles immunity substantially outperformed the sera from the vaccinated teens: only two of 20 strains of virus “resisted neutralization” in the Nigerian mothers’ group, but 10 of 20 viral strains resisted neutralization in the vaccination group. This complex analysis led the authors to posit greater measles vulnerability in infants born to vaccinated mothers.

…many vaccines may eventually become susceptible to vaccine-modified measles…and consequently complicate measles control strategies

The Luxembourg researchers also noted that in the Nigerian setting, where widespread vaccination took hold far later than in Europe, the mothers in question had had “multiple contacts with endemic wild-type viruses” and that these repeat contacts had served an important booster function. One of the authors later conducted a study that examined this booster effect more closely. That study found that re-exposure to wild-type measles resulted in “a significantly prolonged antibody boost in comparison to [boosting through] revaccination.” Taking note of expanding vaccine coverage around the world and reduced circulation of wild-type measles virus, the researchers concluded in a third study that “many vaccinees may eventually become susceptible to vaccine-modified measles…and consequently, complicate measles control strategies.”

Bimodal distribution

With the disappearance of maternally endowed protection, what has happened to measles incidence in infants? A review of 53 European studies (2001–2011) focusing on the burden of measles in those “too young to be immunized” found that as many as 83% of measles cases in some studies and under 1% in other studies were in young infants.

At the same time, the predictions of an increased percentage of measles cases in older teens and adults have also come true. Reporting on a higher “death-to-case ratio” in the over-15 group in 1975 (not many years after widespread adoption of measles vaccination in the U.S.), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researcher wrote that the higher ratio could be “indicative of a greater risk of complications from measles, exposing the unprotected adult to the potential of substantial morbidity.”

In recent measles outbreaks in Europe and the U.S., large proportions of cases are in individuals aged 15 or older:

  • In the U.S., 57 of the 85 measles cases (67%) reported in 2016 were at least 15 years of age. U.S. researchers also have conservatively estimated that at least 9% of measles cases occur in vaccinated individuals.
  • Among several thousand laboratory-confirmed cases of measles and an additional thousand “probable” or “possible” cases in Italy in 2017, 74% were in individuals at least 15 years of age, and 42% of those were hospitalized.
  • Examining a smaller number of laboratory-confirmed measles cases in Sicily (N=223), researchers found that half of the cases were in adults age 19 or older, and clinical complications were more common in adults compared to children (45% versus 26%). Likewise, about 44% of measles cases in France from 2008 to 2011 (N=305) were in adults (with an average age in their mid-20s), and the adults were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized as infected children.

Time to reevaluate

Pre-vaccination, most residents of industrialized countries accepted measles as a normal and even trivial childhood experience. Many people, including clinicians, also understood the interaction between measles and nutrition, and, in particular, the links between vitamin A deficiency and measles: “Measles in a child is more likely to exacerbate any existing nutritional deficiency, and children who are already deficient in vitamin A are at much greater risk of dying from measles.” Instead of inching the age of initial measles vaccination down to ever-younger ages, as is increasingly being proposed, there could be greater value in supporting children’s nutrition and building overall health—through practical interventions that “improve[e]…existing dietaries through the inclusion of relatively inexpensive foods that are locally available and well within the reach of the poor.”

Ironically, while acute childhood infections such as measles protect against cancer, the rise of chronic childhood illnesses (disproportionately observed in vaccinated children) is linked to elevated cancer risks.

There are many other tradeoffs of measles vaccination that remain largely unexplored, including the important role of fever-inducing infectious childhood diseases in reducing subsequent cancer risks. Ironically, while acute childhood infections such as measles protect against cancer, the rise of chronic childhood illnesses (disproportionately observed in vaccinated children) is linked to elevated cancer risks. These tradeoffs—along with the dangerous loss of infant access to protective maternal antibodies and the higher rates of measles illness and complications in older teens and adults—suggest that measles vaccination deserves renewed scrutiny.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

10 Things That Happen To Your Body When You Walk Everyday

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    There are multiple health benefits to be gained by taking a simple walk every day. These benefits are measurable, and if you don't already have an active lifestyle it can be a great way to assist you with your health.

  • Reflect On:

    Reflect on how the human race has become extremely sedentary, and how disease rates continue to climb as a result of the modern human lifestyle.

The human experience has become extremely sedentary, the average human lifestyle in the western world has been linked to multiple diseases and is one of the main causes of why disease rates continue to climb, among many other factors that surround all aspects of human life, like big food, for example. With technology in place and jobs that require tremendous amounts of sitting, there is no doubt that it’s having a detrimental effect on our lives.

That being said, the world is clearly becoming way more health conscious. It’s like we needed this experience of unhealthy food, the corporate take-over of everything, and our motionless lifestyle to knock us out of it. We are seeing a health revolution take place, where more and more people are becoming health conscious, and are always being encouraged to be more active.

Ultimately, we can’t really blame the human experience for our lack of movement, it’s something that all of us have the time to incorporate into our lives in one way or another, and if you’re someone who doesn’t enjoy being too active, a simple walk every day can have tremendous amounts of benefits. As pointed out in the video below, by Bright Side.

If You Want To Increase The Benefits Even More, Walk Barefoot

It’s called grounding, or ‘earthing’ and it involves placing your feet directly on the ground, without shoes or socks as a barrier. Why? Because there is an intense negative charge carried by the Earth, it’s electron-rich, which serves as a good supply of antioxidants and free radical destroying electrons.

A study published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health titled “Earthing: Health Implications of Reconnecting the Human Body to the Earth’s Surface Electrons” postulates that earthing could represent a potential treatment for a variety of chronic degenerative diseases.

That’s right, many positive health benefits occur as a result of walking barefoot, and these are measurable.

advertisement - learn more

The picture below represents improved facial circulation (right image) after 20 minutes of grounding, as documented by a Speckle Contrast Laser Imager (dark blue=lowest circulation; dark red=highest circulation). Image Source: Scientific Research Publishing

If you want to read more publications and access the in-depth science with regards to grounding, you can refer to the article linked above the picture.

10 Things That Happen To Your Body When You Walk Barefoot On Earth 

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

Nature Valley Ad Shows The Down Side Of Children Addicted To Technology

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Technology has impacted most of our lives in a really big way. We use it daily for everything we do pretty much. Kids today, unlike previous generations, use technology more than ever and spend much less time in nature.

  • Reflect On:

    How much is too much technology for young and developing minds? Is it time to reevaluate our children's relationship with technology and get them back into nature?

Technology has become a staple in most of our lives, really, could you imagine life without it? In the video posted below, Nature Valley asks 3 generations what it was that they did for fun as a kid, the answers from the youngest generation may or may not surprise you, but is it time to cut back on the technology and bring kids back to nature?

Technology is not bad per se, that isn’t the discussion here. This is about how we use it.

Before technology, children would look to nature for entertainment. They would play outside on the lawn, go sledding, build forts, and use their imagination to create their own entertainment. Nowadays it’s all too easy for kids to get sucked into technology, there are video games, tablets, computers, cell phones and television, all of which provide a type of escape from the real world. Although, there are many ways that technology is and has been used for good in the world, is the disconnect that it is causing children and adults to part from nature causing more harm?

With the rise of mental disorders and illnesses, is it possible that the answer to these issues is simply to get kids back into nature, more time with self, using their brains to build things, be creative and connect to the energy from the Earth? We already know how effective a simple walk or hike in nature is and how they both can literally change our brains. Nature appears to be much more important than we generally give it credit for.

In my own experience, disconnecting from technology and going camping on my own proved to be a very cathartic and healing experience for me. I’ve come to realize that although being immersed in nature regularly does have a lot of benefits, but even just making time for it at all can cause a positive impact. For many of us who live in cities, with the constant bombardment of noise and of course EMF frequencies etc., just disconnecting for a short period can make a huge difference.

The following video is a brilliant ad from Nature Valley, check it out.

advertisement - learn more

It’s easy to get emotional watching something like this as it shows just how far removed the newer generations are from what has been most natural to children for centuries, simply playing in nature. The children are essentially self-proclaimed tech addicts and get their entertainment by playing video games, watching videos or tv shows, texting etc. Is it time to go back to the basics and start evaluating how detrimental too much technology can be on young and developing brains? You can read more about this issue here, Is Your Child Struggling From Nature-Deficit Disorder?

Is it up to the parents to ensure they are setting proper boundaries with the amount of time their children are allowed to use technology? Or is this the future and something we should simply let happen as a natural part of evolution?

Much Love

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!