In a Daily Beast opinion piece on December 15, Paul Offit—one of the vaccine industry’s most strident ambassadors—puzzles over a seeming contradiction. How, Offit wonders, could the state of Mississippi, which has “the worst overall health in the nation,” have used standout “efficiency” to achieve over 99.4% vaccine coverage in kindergartners? Rather than seriously investigate this apparent enigma, Offit presents his ready-made answer and reveals his article’s true purpose. According to Paul Offit, Mississippi’s high vaccination rates are due to the state’s 1979 decision to make the government—rather than parents—the primary vaccine decision-maker for children.
Reflecting on the Mississippi Supreme Court’s 1979 elimination of that state’s religious exemption to vaccination, Offit applauds the Court’s position, stating, “If a parent harbors a religious belief that contradicts a basic tenant [sic] of modern medicine…the state has a right to protect the child from the irresponsible acts of the parent.” Offit—though a parent himself—tells readers that the state-determined “duty” to vaccinate supersedes other parental rights. In short, Offit appears to believe that coercion is the name of the game, openly admitting that he disapproves of the 47 states that still allow parents in the U.S. to take religious, moral or personal beliefs into account when making vaccine decisions on behalf of their children.
“The worst health in the nation”
According to the comprehensive state-by-state health rankings that Offit cites, Mississippi has remained squarely at the bottom of the nation’s overall health rankings for decades (Figure 1). The low ranking correlates, in part, with the state’s poverty statistics: one-third of Mississippi’s children live in poverty (the highest percentage of any state), and 87% of the state’s Medicaid enrollees are children. But from birth on, scattered health statistics suggest that Mississippi’s children and adolescents face other physical and mental health challenges as well. To cite some examples from the available data:
- Mississippi’s infant mortality rate is more than twice as high (8.8 deaths per thousand live births) as New Hampshire’s (4.2 per 1000), which is the U.S. state with the highest health ranking. The percentage of low birthweight babies in Mississippi is also high—11.4% versus 6.9% in New Hampshire.
- Asthma-related emergency department visits and hospital discharges are higher for children ages 0-4 than for any other pediatric or adult age group.
- The obesity rate for Mississippi high school students (18.9%) is significantly higher than the national average (13.9%) and has been increasing steadily since 2001.
- A study that examined Medicaid recipients in Mississippi who received services related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in 2007 found that 88% were age 21 or younger (1170/1330). Most young Medicaid recipients with ASD were on psychotropic medications (62% of 10-and-under children and 75% of youth in the 11-21 age group). On average, over the one-year study period, each young Medicaid recipient with ASD had twelve (< 10 years old) to sixteen (ages 11-21) psychotropic drug claims.
- Mississippi’s high school students are significantly more likely than the nation’s high schoolers to attempt suicide (12.7% versus 8.6%), and the percentage has doubled since 2001. The percentage of Mississippi students making a suicide plan has increased by 45% since 2011.
Figure 1. Mississippi’s overall health ranking, 1990–2016
Avoiding the obvious question
Despite juxtaposing two critical pieces of health information about Mississippi’s children—high vaccine coverage and poor health rankings—Offit does not ask the obvious elephant-in-the-room question: Could one have something to do with the other? Clearly, factors such as poverty and nutrition are one set of influences on health status, but vaccines—potent immune-system-stimulating medical interventions administered repeatedly, both prenatally and from birth—must be considered as another influence. Mississippi’s medical practitioners and Offit are shirking their ethical responsibilities by denying vaccines’ ability to trigger adverse health outcomes, including death.
Researchers who are less disingenuous than Offit have plausibly linked many of the above-listed health conditions (asthma, obesity, ASD and other neurodevelopmental disorders and infant mortality) to vaccines. ASD, in turn, has been associated with disrupted circadian rhythms, which appear to be linked to increased risk of suicide attempts in adolescents. Parents also have reported suicide as an outcome of devastating HPV vaccine damage. None of these associations should come as a surprise, given that vaccines intentionally tamper with normal immune system functioning and also contain unsafe aluminum adjuvants and/or other toxic ingredients such as thimerosal and formaldehyde.
Looking at infant mortality
Since the early 1990s, newborns have received the first of three mandated hepatitis B (HepB) shots within 24 hours of birth. In 1999, the head of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons warned Congress that HepB vaccine recipients were 100 times more likely to experience a serious reaction from the HepB vaccine itself than from the disease.
A 2017 study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) concurs with this warning and suggests that young children bear a heavy burden of HepB damage. Looking at over 20,000 adverse events reported to VAERS over a ten-year period (2005–2015) following administration of single-antigen HepB vaccine (or other HepB-containing vaccines), the researchers found that half (51%) of all the adverse event reports were for children under two years of age, and another 13% were for 2-to-18-year-olds. The serious adverse events reported in association with single-antigen HepB vaccine included 45 deaths, with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) being the “most commonly reported cause.” In July 2017, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that there was “preponderant evidence” supporting the claim that vaccines “actually caused or substantially contributed” to SIDS. A 2008 SIDS autopsy study also found that SIDS cases often manifest “signs of inflammation and response to infection” that are “out of proportion to pre-existing symptoms.” These authors added that SIDS infants typically are “not totally ‘normal’ in the days prior to a SIDS death” and frequently display symptoms such as “listlessness” and “droopiness”—the types of “mild problems” that public health experts list as possible reactions to vaccination.
Now consider Mississippi’s high infant mortality rate. Half of all infant deaths in Mississippi occur on the very first day of life, and another 25% happen within the first month. Mississippi’s most recent analysis of child deaths reports that there were 523 child deaths in the state in 2014. For almost three in ten deaths (29% or 151/523), the State Department of Health considered the cause of death to be “conditions originating in the perinatal period,” with another 19% (102/523) in the “other and unknown” category. Reviewers then examined 172 of the total cases (33%) in greater detail, including 57 infant deaths. Almost three-fourths (70% or 40/57) of the infant deaths were due to “asphyxia,” and the cause of death for another 12 infants (21%) “remained undetermined.” Research has shown that U.S. medical examiners and coroners are inconsistent in the cause of death that they apply to sudden unexpected infant deaths and often classify them as “suffocation/asphyxia.” This lack of consistency—and the masking of deaths that may be vaccine-related—“impacts true understanding of infant mortality causes, and inhibits our ability to accurately monitor and ultimately prevent future deaths.”
Offit makes it clear that he wants other states to follow Mississippi’s example and take away parental rights to make vaccine decisions. For him, the fact that vaccination rates are high across the U.S. and that relatively few parents exercise current exemption options appears to be beside the point. A February 2017 Forbes propaganda piece about West Virginia (one of the two other states to have deprived its citizens of religious exemptions) reveals the same pro-coercion mindset. The Forbes writer (who has since had multiple articles retracted due to serious questions about conflicts of interest) admits that West Virginia parents “vaccinate their children primarily because they have no other choice” [emphasis added] and that vaccination rates “would dip dangerously if nonmedical exemptions were allowed.” Rather than crediting parents who have the wisdom to ask valid questions about vaccine safety, Offit and his ilk want Big Brother to take over.
A recent commentary in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health provides a different perspective. Calling attention to the “neurotoxic content” of many vaccines and “disturbing evidence” that vaccines may not be as safe as implied, the author, Keith Schofield, calls on government to recognize the potential for toxins in the environment and in vaccines to have damaging synergistic effects and create a neurotoxic “overload” in both humans and fetuses. Rather than going after Constitutional and parental rights, Offit would do well to heed Schofield’s call for the U.S. medical profession to “reassess its current general vaccination program” and admit that the nation’s “excessive” vaccine schedule “has to be considered dangerous [and] irresponsible.”
Johnson & Johnson Found To Have Knowingly Allowed Asbestos In Their Baby Powder
- The Facts:
Johnson and Johnson have recently lost lawsuits for negligence in knowingly allowing carcinogenic substances in their talc-based hygiene products.
- Reflect On:
Are we starting to turn the page on an era where human health and safety are not the prime considerations in the manufacturing of consumer products?
We are starting to awaken to the fact that it seems to be the rule, and not the exception, that large Western corporations put profits above human health considerations. The only time they seem to give any regard to human health concerns is when their forecasts of potential lawsuits down the road would likely exceed the cost measures needed to ensure the safety of their product.
Johnson & Johnson is just one of a long line of corporate perpetrators who believed that covering up and lying about known health concerns would make better business sense than taking the time and resources to actually address those health concerns within their products.
Contaminated Baby Powder: The Height Of Indignity
One would think, regardless of an understanding that the bottom line is a priority for most private companies, that the health and safety of a nursing mother and her newborn child would be sacrosanct for any industry. The reality is that this is simply not the case, even though J&J could have mitigated this problem from the start.
Companies that mine talc are required to take extra steps to ensure the absence of asbestos in their talc. Instead, J&J allegedly went to great lengths to fake it.
Not only did the company know about the asbestos contamination, evidence suggests, but J&J also failed to warn its customers about the link between Baby Powder and cancer or replace its talc with a safer alternative. As a result, J&J guaranteed its customers’ exposure to asbestos.
The Testimony of Scientist James Webber
Baby Powder’s contamination with asbestos (a mineral that naturally occurs near talc) has long been the subject of lawsuits. But only in recent years has evidence begun to unravel J&J’s defense – that the company had no idea – and threatened its success in lawsuits to come.
In March, a California jury awarded $29 million to Terry Leavitt, a woman who said that asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s talcum-powder-based products caused her terminal mesothelioma. Environmental scientist James Webber testified in her high-profile California trial and made these observations:
During several hours on the stand, Webber explained how he ran tests that showed “clear” evidence of asbestos contamination in the mines from which J&J sourced talc.
“The testing I have seen [shows] that it was present at least as early as 1971 and up through the late 1990s,” said Webber, who ran an asbestos laboratory in New York state.
Despite denying it publicly, J&J had observed this contamination in internal memos. Its notes dismissed the amount of asbestos in its talc as “but a trace,” Webber alleged. But that was just an optimistic interpretation of superficial testing, he said: the tests used methods too weak to detect microscopic asbestos fibers. Webber insisted the actual tests results revealed there could be millions of asbestos fibers per gram of talc.
And J&J’s inaccurate reports were allegedly only the tip of the iceberg. In some instances, Webber said, photos attached to J&J’s reports revealed that “they had been seeing it and not reporting it.” (source)
And It’s Getting Worse
The $29 million verdict, in California Superior Court in Oakland, was the latest defeat for the healthcare conglomerate facing more than 13,000 talc-related lawsuits nationwide. And things may be getting even worse for J&J, according to ZeroHedge:
Johnson & Johnson shares are down over 5% after Bloomberg reports that, according to people with knowledge of the matter, the U.S. Justice Department is pursuing a criminal investigation into whether Johnson & Johnson lied to the public about the possible cancer risks of its talcum powder…
Now, a grand jury in Washington is examining documents related to what company officials knew about any carcinogens in their products, the people said.
It seems as though corporations have long been willing to take the calculated risk of short-cuts and denials instead of ensuring that their products are safe for public use. My suspicion is that a part of our collective awakening process will be issuing in a new business paradigm in which human health and safety become paramount.
Prescription Infant Formulas Found To Be Contaminated With Aluminum
- The Facts:
Multiple brands of prescription infant formula were found to contain high levels of aluminum.
- Reflect On:
Should we be questioning the quality of products that come from pharmaceutical production? Do we veer away from natural methods of raising children more than we should? At what cost?
You may not think aluminum is a big deal, but it is. For anybody who has looked into aluminum toxicology, it’s quite clear and apparent that it has no place inside of any living biological organism. Putting it simply, it wreaks havoc on our biology. High amounts of aluminum have been found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease, with experts in the field believing that aluminum brain accumulation may be one of the main causes of Alzheimer’s disease.
It’s also been discovered within the brains of MS patients, and some of the highest aluminum content ever recorded in brain tissue has also been discovered in people with autism. Aluminum is associated with several diseases. But an adult body can do a great job of flushing out aluminum.
Despite the fact that aluminum has no place within earth’s biota, it’s still present in many of our medications, our food, and even in the water that we drink due to contamination since the industrial revolution. Aluminum inside the body is a new phenomenon and still understudied. Again, there is a threshold, and aluminum that is injected via vaccines doesn’t exit the body–there is strong evidence that it remains inside the body and ends up in distant organs and eventually inside of the brain. If you want to access more studies on that topic, you can read this article I published that provides them and goes into more detail. You can also watch this interview with Christopher Exley, where he also points to that fact.
A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has shown that multiple popular infant prescriptions are contaminated with aluminum. You may be asking how much aluminum, but the authors make it a point to stress that there are no safe amounts of aluminum levels that can be inside of a human body, let alone a newborn baby. That being said, the amounts found are listed within the abstract of the study:
Historical and recent data demonstrate that off-the-shelf infant formulas are heavily contaminated with aluminium. The origin of this contamination remains to be elucidated though may be imported via ingredients, packaging and processing. Specialised infant formulas exist to address health issues, such as low birth weight, allergy or intolerance and medical conditions, such as renal insufficiency. The aluminium content of these prescription infant formulas is measured here for the first time. We obtained 24 prescription infant formulas through a paediatric clinic and measured their total aluminium content by transversely heated graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry following microwave assisted acid/peroxide digestion. The aluminium content of ready-to-drink formulas ranged from 49.9 (33.7) to 1956.3 (111.0) μg/L. The most heavily contaminated products were those designed as nutritional supplements for infants struggling to gain weight. The aluminium content of powdered formulas ranged from 0.27 (0.04) to 3.27 (0.19) μg/g. The most heavily contaminated products tended to be those addressing allergies and intolerance. Prescription infant formulas are contaminated with aluminium.
Another very important point made right off the bat by the authors:
Human exposure to aluminium is a serious health concern. Aluminium exposure in infants is understandably a burgeoning issue. While infant exposure to aluminium continues to be documented, its consequences, immediate and in the future, have received only scant attention and research is required to understand the biological availability of aluminium through formula feeding. For example, how much aluminium is absorbed across the neonate gut and its subsequent fate, including excretion.
There is already too much aluminium in infant formulas and herein we have measured its content in a large number of prescription formulas, products which are fed to vulnerable infants in their first months of life. Many of these products are heavily contaminated with aluminium.
As for the specific infant formulas, you can refer to the study. The researchers obtained 24 prescription infant formulas via the Paediatric Clinic of Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, United Kingdom. The ready-to-drink and powdered products were new, ready-to-be used and unopened samples. These formulas are for babies with some sort of growth restriction, like for preterm infants or infants who have poor weight gain. There were also powdered formulas for allergies and intolerances and powdered formulas with additional amino acids.
The authors contacted each manufacturer and expressed that they denied knowing that there was any aluminum in their products, which means it’s still a mystery as to their source. The authors hypothesize on a number of ways that aluminum could be entering into the formulas.
In their conclusion, the authors emphasize that:
Where possible, breast milk feeding should be prioritised, as the aluminium content of breast milk is invariably an order of magnitude lower than in formula feeds. Where infant formulas are the only source of nutrition for many infants in their first weeks and months of life, aluminium ingested in formula feeds will be the major contributor to their body burden of aluminium. The last thing that vulnerable infants fed specialised formulas for their specific nutritional/medicinal need is additional aluminium in their diet.
There is a lot of information out there on how a person can detox from aluminum and other heavy metals. There are multiple studies, and based on what I’ve looked into, water with high amounts of Silica are effective in draining aluminum out of your body and brain. Herbs like cilantro and substances like chlorella and spirulina are also great for removing some metals. The information is out there, so be sure to do your research.
It’s concerning to think about what these corporations are doing. Again, aluminum should hold no place in our society, it should’ve remained well below our surface as part of the Earth’s crust for a reason. It wasn’t until humans began digging it out and using it for a number of things, irresponsibly I might add, that we started to see the health implications which still go largely ignored by the medical community.
In fact, heavy metal accumulation and detoxification of aluminum haven’t been addressed at all, which is odd given the fact that heavy metal accumulation is linked to a variety of diseases.
9 Studies You Should Be Aware of Before Trying The Ketogenic Diet
- The Facts:
The Ketogenic diet is a popular fad diet that promotes quick weight loss and symptom management for bodies that are dealing with poor lymph, kidney and digestion health.
- Reflect On:
Based on the studies that are emerging, is our desire for quick weight loss more important than living a long and healthy life? Are we learning about these diets primarily through those with strong ties to upholding these diets?
The ketogenic diet has popped up as a popular approach to weight loss in the last few years. Is it successful at that? Sure, it is. I’ve experimented with the diet myself years ago when I was looking to lose some belly fat. I was entering into ketosis in a different way than most, as I was not eating any animal products, but it does in fact work.
But like any animal product based diet, what are the consequences of eating so much food that does not truly jive with our human bodies? Not only that, is fast weight loss more important than keeping our morality rate down?
In the last few years, we’ve reported a lot on the Keto diet and the various ways it can be done. We have explored the studies, the results and in some ways, we supported it. But lately, I have been thinking about how supporting this could actually be encouraging people to jump into these diets, including the paleo diet, when in reality these diets increase mortality rates and are not healthy for the human body.
It became a thought in the back of my mind, I have always strived to put the best information out that I can through this platform to promote good health. And so we must look at that, even if that means upsetting some people who currently are on paleo or keto and are seeing some good weight loss or symptom management. The truth is, like the many people I’ve seen crash on these diets after a few years, I want people to know the truth of what’s going on out there. And how we can get beyond diets that symptom manage, and instead get onto diets that truly heal.
Anytime we have fad diets, which paleo and keto are, we see products and bias pop up all over the place to support the continuation of these trends. It becomes less about health and more about upholding an identity or a business.
So as I recently looked into what experts are saying about these diets, I came upon two important videos I think everyone should check out. Both have been embedded below. Remember, it’s not that I care what you choose in your own life, or that I feel there is a right or wrong, it’s that I believe we should be informed and I wish to use this platform to promote as best a message as I can.
Thanks to Plant-Based News for creating such a good channel and resource of information on YouTube.
In this video, several plant-based health experts talk through 9 nutrition studies that would be of interest to low carb keto diet proponents. To read the 9 studies, click here.
Next up, Dr. Kim Williams (past President of the American College of Cardiology) shares his insights about the ketogenic.
17 Genuinely Creepy Photos From A 1972 Rothschild Dinner Party
Have you seen the film Eyes Wide Shut? If so, you may recognize some of what you are about to...
University Mathematician Decodes The Crop Circle With A Binary Code & Extraterrestrial Face
Did you know that crop circles are actually real? How they’re made and who or what is making them is...