Connect with us

Awareness

Study Finds Infants of Unvaccinated Moms Fared Better Compared To Vaccinated Ones

Published

on

Public health officials and doctors, ever more insistent that pregnant women get flu shots, are frustrated that fewer than four in ten American moms-to-be avail themselves of the recommendation. Policy-makers’ disappointment stems not just from their zeal to achieve the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% coverage of pregnant women but also from their recognition that women who go along with vaccine recommendations during pregnancy are more acquiescent about vaccinating their newborn infants as well.

advertisement - learn more

Yet maternal worries about vaccine-related harm to the fetus are widespread and operate as a principal barrier to higher pregnancy vaccine uptake. Envisioning a day when “even more vaccines” will be added to the maternal vaccine schedule, researchers are studying how to improve uptake and design more persuasive “communication interventions.” Their messaging generally emphasizes a twofold rationale for prenatal flu shots. The first and primary stated aim is to prevent influenza in mothers and babies—but researchers also assert that by preventing such infections, they may be able to prevent unwanted fetal outcomes thought to be linked to influenza infection during pregnancy.

research team out of South Africa has just published a paper examining the second rationale, comparing four outcomes—fetal death, low birth weight, small for gestational age birth and preterm birth—for infants whose mothers received flu shots or a placebo. In their surprisingly frank conclusions, not only do the researchers report that influenza vaccination during pregnancy was ineffective in lowering risk for the four outcomes, but—ever so cautiously—they also note that the vaccinated infants fared worse.

The study

The 2011–2012 South Africa study was one of three large double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of influenza vaccination during pregnancy funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). As originally described in 2014 in the New England Journal of Medicine, over 2,000 mothers received either trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines or placebo between 20 and 36 weeks of pregnancy—in other words, in their second or third (but not first) trimester of pregnancy. (In the U.S., which encourages flu shots during any trimester of pregnancy, studies have identified a heightened risk of autism in the children of women vaccinated during the first trimester.) The researchers followed up on fetal outcomes when the infants reached 24 weeks of age.

Of note, the study used an inert saline placebo. This is unusual in the context of vaccine clinical trials, which nearly always compare one group that receives the vaccine of interest against another group that receives a different vaccine (called an “active comparator”). The use of active comparators can “increase the occurrence of harms in the comparator groups and thereby [mask] harms caused by the…vaccines” being studied. In contrast, an inert placebo enhances the likelihood of detecting differences between groups, if any are present.

Overall, the investigators found “no significant vaccine efficacy” with respect to any of the fetal outcomes. Unexpectedly (to the researchers), they also found that the average gestational age at birth was lower in the vaccinated versus placebo group—a statistically significant result indicative of a greater risk of preterm birth. Although most of the study’s other findings did not attain statistical significance, the pattern of results showed, in another writer’s words, tendencies that were “not reassuring.” Across all analyses, the percentages and rates of fetal death, preterm birth, low birth weight and small for gestational age birth were higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group. Couching their conclusions with caveats, the authors explain:

advertisement - learn more

[W]e found a slight, though non-significant decrease in the birth weight of infants in the vaccinated group…as well as a non-significant increase in fetal deaths among [influenza]-vaccinated mothers. […] We point this out only as a cautionary word and suggest this observation be explored carefully in larger studies of vaccine safety data bases.

Weak, inconsistent and biased evidence

In 2017, researchers who carried out a systematic review found that “comparative studies of adverse birth outcomes following maternal influenza disease are limited in quantity and have produced inconsistent findings.” In a 2019 paper, an Italian researcher agrees, arguing that it is inappropriate to recommend across-the-board influenza vaccination of all pregnant women in the absence of “strong and consistent” randomized clinical trial evidence—particularly if one also acknowledges that current evidence often exhibits bias. Making specific reference to the South Africa clinical trial, the author notes that the trial “was funded by BMGF and by public sponsors, with the principal investigator in financial relationships with the vaccine producer, and two authors with other influenza vaccine producers.”

The author describes other results from the South Africa trial that, while again not attaining statistical significance, “were not in the expected/hoped direction.” For example, maternal hospitalizations for infections were “numerically higher” in the vaccinated group, as were severe neonatal infections. Overall, the trial produced only “18 less influenza illnesses in vaccinated mothers and their children, to be weighted…against 9 more maternal hospitalization for any infection and 6 more neonatal hospitalization due to sepsis within 28 days of birth.”

In addition to the South Africa trial, the Italian author mentions several other randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in low-income countries that compared influenza vaccination during pregnancy against meningococcal or pneumococcal vaccination; even with an active comparator, the author suggests that these trials [hyperlinks added] do not support influenza vaccination during pregnancy:

The first and larger trial substantially disregarded an alarming excess of infant deaths and serious “presumed/neonatal infections” in the influenza vaccine group. Even in the other small RCT the fetal plus infant deaths were nonsignificantly higher in the influenza vaccine group. In a last large trial the tendency for miscarriage, stillbirth, congenital defects, and infant deaths at 0-6 months were not in favour of the vaccine group. These countries are not comparable to high-income ones, but one could expect that their poverty and demographic conditions would magnify the benefits of influenza vaccination, not the opposite.

2013 study that evaluated adverse pregnancy outcomes following influenza vaccination of pregnant women found that “low-risk” women (that is, women without medical complications or co-morbidity) who received the vaccine during the 2009–2011 influenza seasons had an increase in a composite measure of adverse outcomes (miscarriage, fetal demise, preterm birth and neonatal demise) compared to unvaccinated pregnant women—“even after adjusting for confounding factors.” Reluctant to accept the implications of their findings, the authors stated, “We do not believe that influenza vaccination causes adverse pregnancy outcomes in low-risk women; instead our findings likely represent the result of selection bias and residual confounding.”

The same kind of avoidance was apparent in a study that investigated risks for preterm delivery and birth defects following influenza vaccination in three consecutive seasons beginning in 2011. Although the researchers found that women in the vaccinated group had a shorter gestational duration and their infants had an elevated risk of a rare abdominal wall defect called omphalocele, the investigators concluded that their results were “generally reassuring” and that “[t]he few risks that were observed are compatible with chance.”

A questionable policy

Researchers have speculated that influenza infection during pregnancy could be associated with adverse birth outcomes due to “mechanisms such as maternal fever and inflammation,” and they note that “[i]mmunological responses, such as elevated pro-inflammatory cytokine levels…are recognised as an important pathway to preterm birth.” What they generally do not acknowledge is that prenatal vaccination also introduces immune activation risks—and these risks remain scandalously understudied. Instead of bemoaning pregnant women’s “suboptimal” flu shot uptake—or dismissing the risks to a developing fetus from vaccinating the mother during pregnancy as “theoretical”—researchers and policy-makers should be putting their poorly supported pregnancy vaccination recommendations on hold. And members of the public should remember that no vaccines have ever been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

 

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Johnson & Johnson Found To Have Knowingly Allowed Asbestos In Their Baby Powder

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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.

And regardless of their size or numbers, asbestos fibers are lethal at any capacity. As the World Health Organization (WHO) has stressed repeatedly, there is no safe level of exposure. (source)

advertisement - learn more

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.

The Takeaway

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.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Prescription Infant Formulas Found To Be Contaminated With Aluminum

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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:

advertisement - learn more

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.

Detoxing

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.

The Takeaway

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.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

9 Studies You Should Be Aware of Before Trying The Ketogenic Diet

Published

on

In Brief

  • 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.

advertisement - learn more

The Videos

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.

Related Articles

Diabetic Shares Why He Quit ‘The Ketogenic Diet’

Doctor Explains Why She Never Recommends The ‘Ketogenic Diet’

The Biggest Misconception About The ‘Ketogenic Diet’…You Don’t Actually Have To Follow It

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!