By Dr. Mercola
In the wake of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. telling reporters that President Trump asked him to chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, the media is angling to shame and ridicule vaccine safety and informed consent proponents, be they physicians, scientists or parents with the ability to read and think for themselves.
Although Kennedy’s appointment has not been confirmed yet by the Trump administration, The Atlantic has gone so far as to suggest that a “shadow network of anti-vax doctors” is being emboldened by questions and concerns the new president has voiced about vaccine safety.1
Like Kennedy and many other critics of vaccine science and policy, President Trump has been outspoken about his suspicions that vaccines and vaccine policies may not be nearly as safe as they’re portrayed, and that the science is far from settled.
Meanwhile, Kennedy recently co-wrote an article in which he released documents revealing that officials at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “knew that infant vaccines were exposing American children to mercury far in excess of all federal safety guidelines since 1999.”2
Recent reports also reveal that medical treatment guidelines are frequently influenced by drug industry ties,3 and scientific “citation cartels” are gaming the system by repeatedly citing each other’s work,4 thereby making their studies appear more noteworthy and establishing what amounts to a false base of research that becomes difficult to overturn by independent researchers.
In all, there can be little doubt that the drug industry is getting anxious and this is why the heat is being turned up against anyone daring to question the status quo on vaccines.
Clearly, having an open discussion about vaccine safety means opening the door to doubt, and this is something the drug industry simply cannot afford. Meanwhile, avoiding the discussion is something parents, and the health care system as a whole, can no longer afford.
Emboldening ‘Anti-Vaccine Shadow Network?’
Not surprisingly, The Atlantic and other media outlets have published diatribes attacking President Trump and his staff for meeting with not only Kennedy, but also Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist.
In 1998 Wakefield and 12 colleagues published a case series paper in The Lancet, reporting that parents of 9 of 12 children they’d seen for chronic gastrointestinal symptoms told them that their children’s symptoms had begun soon after getting the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.
A case series paper is different from a control study in that it simply describes experiences of a single patient or group of patients with a similar diagnosis. As Wakefield points out in his book, “Callous Disregard,” the purpose of a case series paper is to “generate new hypotheses.”
It is not supposed to suggest or investigate possible causality — and Wakefield’s paper did not make any causal claims. Rather, he and his colleagues concluded:5
“We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immun[iz]ation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.
The world didn’t read it that way, however, and the paper was retracted after generating massive international controversy and denials by public health officials and doctors giving vaccines to children.
According to Science Magazine, Trump met with Wakefield and three other vaccine safety activists in August, 2016:6
“Trump chatted with a group of donors that included four antivaccine activists for 45 minutes, according to accounts of the meeting, and promised to watch “Vaxxed,” an antivaccine documentary produced by Wakefield …
Trump also expressed an interest in holding future meetings with the activists, according to participants.”
Such meetings and discussions are being widely criticized as completely unnecessary and evidence of ignorance and anti-science heresy by anyone involved, on par with believing that the Earth is flat. As noted by The Atlantic:7
“… [M]ost mainstream doctors say the vaccine question is beyond settled: Vaccines are some of the safest and most important preventive-health measures around. There is no evidence they cause autism or any other health problem …
What’s more, unvaccinated people don’t just threaten their own health. Outbreaks are more likely to occur during dips in the percentage of a population that’s immune … A high vaccine uptake rate protects the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.”
There’s No Such Thing as Vaccine-Induced Herd Immunity
The Atlantic goes on to discuss the importance of herd immunity, noting that “not one child under the age of 1 died from the chicken pox between 2004 and 2007, even though the chicken pox vaccine is not given to children that young. They simply benefited from the so-called “herd immunity” of older kids who were vaccinated.”
What the writer, Olga Khazan, fails to address is the fact that herd immunity doesn’t work the same way for immunizations as it does for naturally-acquired immunity resulting from exposure to, and recovery from, illness.
To understand the difference between natural immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity, please see the video below.
Khazan also makes no effort to explain how the majority of outbreaks occur in areas that are thought to HAVE herd immunity status already, i.e., where the majority of people are fully vaccinated and “should” therefore protect the entire community from infection and transmission of infection.
Documents Reveal Government Betrayal
Part of the FDA Modernization Act, passed by Congress in 1997, required the FDA to compile a list of pharmaceutical products that contain mercury.
More than 30 FDA licensed inactivated vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, ended up on this list and included DPT/DTaP, HIB and hepatitis vaccines routinely given to babies between day of birth and 18 months old.
The FDA was also charged with conducting a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mercury compounds on the list. This responsibility fell on the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).
Prior to this, no one had ever added up the cumulative mercury exposure resulting from thimerosal-containing infant vaccines. According to Kennedy:9
“When the agency finally performed that basic calculation, the regulators realized that a -month-old infant who received thimerosal-preserved vaccines following the recommended CDC vaccine schedule would have received a jaw dropping 187.5 micrograms of mercury.
Instead of immediately ordering the removal of thimerosal, FDA officials circled the wagons treating the public health emergency as a public relations problem. Peter Patriarca, then director of the FDA Division of Viral Products, warned his fellow bureaucrats that hasty removal of thimerosal from vaccines would:
‘… raise questions about FDA being ‘asleep at the switch’ for decades by allowing a potentially hazardous compound to remain in many childhood vaccines, and not forcing manufacturers to exclude it from new products.
It will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use. We must keep in mind that the dose of ethylmercury was not generated by “rocket science.”
Conversion of the percentage thimerosal to actual micrograms of mercury involves ninth grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations? Why didn’t CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?’
Toxicology Models Confirm Mercury Overexposure
Dr. Barry Rumack was one of the consultants hired by the FDA to delve deeper into the cumulative mercury exposure problem from vaccines given to babies in the first few years of life. In 1999, Rumack presented a model of the mercury blood-and-body burden associated with childhood vaccines, showing that:
“… [T]himerosal-containing vaccines was dosing American children with mercury levels far exceeding all three federal safety guidelines established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FDA and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),” Kennedy writes.
“There was no point in time from birth to approximately 16-18 months of age that infants were below the EPA guidelines for allowable mercury exposure. In fact, according to the models, blood-and-body burden levels of mercury peaked at  months of age at a shockingly high level of 120ng/liter. To put this in perspective, the CDC classifies mercury poisoning as blood levels of mercury greater than 10 ng/L.”
With the certain knowledge that infants were being exposed to unacceptably high mercury burdens through vaccines, what the FDA did next is unforgivable.
The agency that is supposed to protect the public from unsafe pharmaceutical products concealed these alarming findings about “bolus” (large amount) mercury exposures to infants receiving multiple thimerosal-containing vaccines simultaneously by using a statistical trick in which they simply averaged the mercury exposure over a period of six months.
In reality, the bolus mercury exposures via multiple vaccines given on a single day occurred at four specific times during the first year of a child’s life: at birth, and at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. By averaging the exposures over the full six months, the spikes in mercury on the four days of vaccination disappeared. According to Kennedy:
“An analogy would be to compare taking two Tylenol tablets a day for a month to taking 60 Tylenol tablets in one day; the first exposure is acceptable, while the other is lethal.”
Even With Deception, Mercury Burden Exceeded EPA Guidelines
Using this statistical trickery, mercury levels from childhood vaccinations ended up being lower than FDA and ATSDR guidelines, leading the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics to report that:
“There is a significant safety margin incorporated into all the acceptable mercury exposure limits. Furthermore, there are no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule. Infants and children who have received thimerosal-containing vaccines do not need to be tested for mercury exposure.”
It would seem the last sentence was added as a protective buffer to prevent people from actually conducting further testing of actual mercury levels in children following repeated injections with mercury-containing vaccines in the first few years of life.
Remarkably, even with this statistical trick, “The levels were still above EPA guidelines which were the most stringent of the three,” Kennedy writes,10 adding that “Numerous toxicologists have reported that the FDA’s calculation, averaging these high bolus dose exposures, was not appropriate.” Moreover, it appears the FDA may have misguided the pediatrician, Dr. Leslie Ball, assigned to oversee the public reporting of the ATSDR results.
According to Kennedy, Ball was unfamiliar with toxicology and, when confronted about the statistical manipulation, she replied that she was basically just following orders, saying, “That is what I was told to do.” Email correspondence from 1999 shows that even Ball herself questioned the rationale behind averaging the exposures. In a July, 1999 email to Norman Baylor, Ph.D., director of the Office of Vaccines Research Review, marked “confidential,” Ball asked:11
“Has the application of these calculations as exposure guidelines received the sign off by toxicologists? In prior discussions, the toxicologists seemed reluctant to state any Hg (mercury) level was ‘safe.'”
CDC Vaccine Patents Create Serious Conflicts of Interest
Kennedy has also reported that the CDC owns more than 20 different vaccine patents and sells $4.1 billion in vaccines each year, noting that those patents create a significant undisclosed conflict of interest when it comes to the agency’s involvement in vaccine safety.12
Mark Blaxill, who specializes in intellectual property law, in 2010 wrote about the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), holds patent rights to the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix, and receives a percentage of the profits from the administration of these vaccines on a global scale.13
In a recently released report, Ginger Taylor, M.S., director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, lists the human vaccine-related patents held by the CDC, which currently total 27, plus another five patents for veterinary vaccines.14 (For links to the actual patents, please see the reference hyperlink to the original report.)
“Does this seem like a public health agency making “independent” vaccine recommendations, or a private company with an impressive portfolio to which one might look for investment opportunities?” she writes.15 Yet, “Nowhere on the CDC’s website can I find the disclosure that the agency is a profit partner with the vaccine makers for whom it is supposed to be providing safety oversight.
Kennedy is in very safe territory by reporting that the CDC has over 20 patents that create vast, undisclosed conflicts of interests in vaccine safety. He is understating the problem by more than half … The vaccine business is currently a $30 billion per year industry … the World Health Organization … project[s] that it will become a $100 billion per year industry by 2025.
Thus, it is evident that the CDC and their business partners need the public to not only be [OK] with the 69 doses of recommended childhood vaccines, but to begin to adhere to the additional 100-plus doses of vaccines recommended by the new adult schedule, and to be ready to inject their families with the additional 271 vaccines in the development pipeline.
That profit boom can’t happen if the corruption in the industry, and the vast, unassessed damage that it has done to the health of children (and now adults) is laid open for all to finally see.
The $30 billion per year industry will become a sub $10 billion per year industry, with a cap on how much it can make. Because there is a cap on how much the human body can process. We must continue to press the Trump administration for comprehensive vaccine safety review and reform, including the universal right to forgo any and all vaccines without coercion.”
Pharma and CDC Fund Medical Trade and Front Groups to Undermine Vaccine Exemptions
Back in 2008, veteran CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson asked the question in her investigative report, “How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?” She found extensive financial ties between vaccine manufacturers and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Every Child by Two (ECBT) and Merck vaccine developer Paul Offit.16 The AAP, ECBT and Offit all lobby for elimination of vaccine exemptions for religious, conscientious or philosophical beliefs.
The CDC is also a primary funding source for the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO),17 an organization whose mission “is to be a leader, partner, catalyst and voice for local health departments.” While its name and mission statement would make you think it’s a member-funded organization, it actually operates primarily on government grants, and the CDC is a primary source. Seven of 11 funding priorities for NACCHO programs also come from the CDC.
In July, 2011, NACCHO issued a policy statement urging state legislators to remove vaccine exemptions for religious, conscientious and philosophical beliefs.18 During the 2013 fight in the Oregon state legislature to eliminate the religious belief vaccine exemption (S.B. 132), NACCHO heavily lobbied for the bill and did it again in 2015 with another bill to eliminate all but medical vaccine exemptions granted by a doctor (SB442).
In fact, NACCHO was portrayed as a primary supporter of the bill,19 and also has put its weight behind eliminating personal belief vaccine exemptions in other states.
Moreover, NACCHO policies not only favor mandatory use of vaccines from cradle to grave, but also support the creation of national electronic registries of the vaccination status of all citizens, including adults. It’s worth noting that in addition to the 69 doses of vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, the CDC recommends no less than 72 vaccinations between the ages of 19 and 65 for adults.
It would appear as though NACHHO is little more than a front group for the CDC, and through use of federal tax dollars, the CDC is actively undermining vaccine exemptions and civil liberties, including freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief. Could one reason be because the CDC is an agency that is financially profiting from promoting mandatory vaccination policies and laws?
Again, in reality, the CDC is hardly an impartial agency, and it does not appear to have safety at the core of its operation when it comes to vaccines. Rather it seems to be an integral part of the vaccine industry machine.
Another front group for the vaccine industry — and the CDC — is Voices for Vaccines, which “advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.” Its administrators are portrayed as two concerned mothers, who founded the blog Moms Who Vax. However, Voices for Vaccines is actually an “administrative project” of the Task Force for Global Health, the third largest charity in the U.S., which has deep ties to CDC and pharmaceutical industry funding.
A 2013 article by News from Underground explained that the Scientific Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines includes Merck vaccine developers and mandatory vaccination proponents Paul Offit and Stanley Plotkin; former CDC immunization director Alan Hinman, who is an Emory University professor and heads the Center for Vaccine Equity at the Task Force for Global Health; Vanderbilt professor William Schaffner; and director of the Immunization Action Coalition, Deborah Wexler. The Immunization Action Coalition is funded by pharmaceutical companies through the CDC Foundation.20
In 2014, the online blog VacTruth also detailed the many connections between Voices for Vaccines, the Task Force for Global Health, Emory University, the CDC, vaccine makers and other pro-vaccine organizations and promoters, including Dr. Paul Offit.21
The Atlantic may want you to think there’s a shadow network of anti-vaccine doctors out there, determined to undermine the health of the world. But it’s ironic, considering that, in reality, there is a vast, undisclosed, yet well-documented pharma-driven network using every propaganda tactic in the book to squash freedom of thought and speech about vaccination — all in the name of protecting profits.
Media Conveniently Ignores Conflicts of Interest When It Serves
Not surprisingly, corporate media pundits are all too willing to point out how many minutes President Trump might have spent face-to-face with Andrew Wakefield, a physician they did everything in their power to discredit, and the influence he might have on the president. However, they rarely, if ever, talk about the extraordinary conflicts of interest of another physician, Paul Offit, who is one of the most prominent vaccine propagandists typically cited by the media whenever vaccine safety questions arise.
As noted by Taylor, Offit has asserted that “holding vaccine patents, being funded by Merck and having Merck buy and distribute, to physicians, his book extolling the virtues of vaccines, does not compromise his objectivity as a member of the committee that determines what is and is not sound vaccine practice.”22 In one instance, Offit said:
“I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that. When I review safety data, am I biased? That answer is really easy: absolutely not.”
Ironically, the corporate media are now alleging that Kennedy — who has been outspoken about the toxicity of mercury in vaccines and conflicts of interest within the vaccination system for the last decade — is so tremendously biased that he could not possibly contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion, while Offit, who has made a small fortune off his promotion of mandatory vaccine use, is presented as the non-conflicted, objective and most respected authority in the vaccine field.
How does that work? Offit’s proclamations of impartiality are ludicrous in the extreme and so are media reports claiming anyone but doctors like Offit is too biased to lead an investigation on vaccine safety.
Funding Colors Patient Recommendations
I’ve written about how industry money can taint recommendations by individuals and health organizations alike on many occasions, and now yet another study has confirmed the power and influence of funding. According to Susannah Rose, a social worker and scientific director of research for the Cleveland Clinic’s office of patient experience in Ohio, who led the study:
“Relationships with industry might bias advice, and I don’t think anyone is immune to that. If they’re getting funding and advocating for certain medications, there’s a potential for undue risk of influence.”23
Her study found that more than 67 percent of 245 patient advocacy groups received industry funding in the past year, and evidence suggests the source of funding played a role in recommendations made by such organizations.
Adverse Events Vastly Underreported
In a best-case scenario, we would have accurate information about vaccine side effects. Unfortunately, we do not, and this has seriously undermined efforts to push for greater vaccine safety. In a recent paper published in PLOS Medicine, Dr. Gordon Schiff discusses the need for better prescription drug adverse event reporting. While he does not single out vaccine reactions, there’s cause to believe vaccine reactions are even more underreported than other drug reactions.
“While not a pediatrician, as a primary care physician and patient safety researcher I have spent considerable time both submitting and reviewing safety reports. At one point, I had filed more error and adverse drug reactions reports than all the other physicians at my public hospital in Chicago combined, making me either the institution’s most dangerous prescriber or its most diligent reporter,” he writes.
What he describes about underreporting of drug adverse events by physicians cuts to a core problem of vaccine safety. On the one hand, the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is specifically set up to record adverse events related to vaccines in the U.S. On the other hand, it’s criticized as being unreliable due to severe underreporting.
The answer is obvious: insist on mandatory reporting. But that’s not happening. On the contrary, there appears to be a concerted effort to control and manipulate statistics by discouraging and minimizing reports, effectively sweeping problems — no matter how severe or widespread — under the proverbial rug.
Parents of vaccine injured children were the ones who secured vaccine safety informing, recording and reporting provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The law’s vaccine reaction reporting requirement directed doctors and all vaccine providers to report adverse events following vaccination to VAERS, which is jointly operated by the CDC and the FDA.
This is NOT a prerequisite for the person making a vaccine reaction report to VAERS to personally make a judgment about whether or not he or she believes the adverse event was caused by the vaccination. Rather, a report is supposed to be filed for any and all hospitalizations, injuries, deaths and serious health problems following vaccination. Period. It’s not up to the vaccine provider to decide whether a reaction is related to the vaccine or not.
Despite this legal requirement, most vaccine providers are unfamiliar with the reporting process, are confused about who should be doing the reporting, and/or are unwilling to file a report. Each year, VAERS receives about 30,000 reports, and studies into reporting habits suggest adverse reactions are only filed in 1 to 10 percent of all cases.24
In a 2015 article, an ER nurse and former police officer described his experiences with vaccine reactions. He said he’s seen first-hand how many doctors not only refuse to report vaccine reactions, but actually go through extra trouble to cover them up by altering the medical records and removing mention of recent vaccinations.25,26
Doctors Frequently Overestimate Benefits and Underestimate Harms of Medical Interventions
Meanwhile, recent research27 reveals that clinicians frequently overestimate benefits and underestimate harms of medical treatments, tests and screenings. When it comes to vaccines, there’s little doubt the same pattern is to be found. According to the authors:
“In this systematic review of 48 studies (13, 011 clinicians), most participants correctly estimated 13 percent of the 69 harm expectation outcomes and 11 percent of the 28 benefit expectations. The majority of participants overestimated benefit for 32 percent of outcomes, underestimated benefit for 9 percent, underestimated harm for 34 percent, and overestimated harm for 5 percent of outcomes.
Meaning: Clinicians rarely had accurate expectations of benefits or harms, with inaccuracies in both directions, but more often underestimated harms and overestimated benefits … Inaccurate perceptions about the benefits and harms of interventions are likely to result in suboptimal clinical management choices.”
To finish where I started, I believe it’s imperative we start having an open public discussion about vaccine safety and conflicts of interest in the mandatory vaccination system. The industry does not have the right to shame doctors and patients for wanting to be safe rather than sorry.
The vaccine industry and the federal agencies charged with vaccine safety oversight are rife with conflicts of interest, as the National Vaccine Information Center and other individuals and organizations have pointed out over the past three decades.28,29 It’s time to get to the bottom of it. Profit cannot be allowed to continue being the sole driving force of government health recommendations. Our society simply cannot afford to pay that price any longer.
By Dr. Mercola
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends meningococcal conjugate vaccines (brand names Menactra and Menveo) for all 11- to 12-year-olds along with a booster dose at 16.1
Menactra and Menveo vaccines (MCV4) contain four strains of meningococcal (A, C, W-35, Y) and are intended to help prevent invasive meningococcal disease, which is a bacterial infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis, or meningococcus, when the bacterium enters the blood stream.
Meningococcal organisms are naturally present in the throat and nasal passages of humans and the majority of children develop antibodies to the bacteria without having any symptoms.
There is a very low incidence of meningococcal disease in the U.S. but, rarely, individuals who are genetically or biologically susceptible to developing invasive meningococcal disease are at risk for severe injury and death, including loss of limbs.
Symptoms may start out similar to influenza and can progress to nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to light, red or purple skin rash and confusion.
Other symptoms of severe bloodstream infection and inflammation of the lining of the brain and spinal cord (meningitis) include sudden high fever, severe persistent headache, stiff neck, joint pain and unresponsiveness.
Despite the CDC’s insistence that vaccination is the best way to protect all children against invasive meningococcal disease, serious questions remain about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.
Meningococcal Vaccination Linked to Bell’s Palsy
In a study using data from nearly 49,000 people between the ages of 11 and 21 years, Hung-Fu Tseng, Ph.D., from the Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Pasadena, California, and colleagues evaluated the safety of quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine.
A significantly increased risk of Bell’s palsy, which causes paralysis or weakness of facial muscles, was found when the vaccine (Menveo) was given along with another vaccination. The condition typically occurred five to 10 weeks after vaccination.
Overall, the risk of Bell’s palsy increased 2.9-fold in the 12 weeks after vaccination among those administered concomitant vaccines. Bell’s palsy has previously been noted as a complication of hepatitis B,2 smallpox and influenza vaccination (seasonal and H1N1) as well.3
Research published in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics also revealed an increased risk of cranial nerve palsies following vaccination, especially combinations of vaccines.4
In 59 percent of the cases, the palsies were identified as serious, which suggests, the authors noted, “that a cranial nerve palsy may sometimes be the harbinger of a broader and more ominous clinical entity, such as a stroke or encephalomyelitis [inflammation of the brain and spinal cord].” They continued:5
“Cranial nerve palsies have been reported to VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] following a wide variety of inactivated and live attenuated vaccines.
Reports for trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine were the most frequent among single-vaccine reports, but they constituted only a weak plurality and not an overwhelming majority.
The reports listing multiple vaccines largely reflected the most common combinations of routine immunizations administered to infants and young children: Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine, Hemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 7-valent, and Poliovirus vaccine inactivated given together, as well as measles, mumps and rubella vaccine live co-administered with varicella vaccine live.”
Serious Adverse Events Revealed When Menactra Is Administered Along With HPV Vaccine
Bell’s palsy is not the only adverse event that’s been revealed when meningococcal vaccines are administered along with other vaccinations, particularly Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
The CDC recommends both Menactra and Gardasil for all 11- to 12-year olds in the U.S. and, although they may often be administered simultaneously, this concomitant use was not studied for safety in Gardasil’s initial clinical trials.
In 2007, only a year after Gardasil was approved, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) analyzed reports of serious adverse events reported to VAERS after individuals received Gardasil alone or along with Menactra.6
They revealed a 1,000-percent increase in reports of the autoimmune disorder Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) to VAERS when the vaccines were administered simultaneously. Reports of other serious adverse events were also significantly increased, including:
- Respiratory problem reports increased by 114 percent
- Cardiac problem reports increased by 118 percent
- Neuromuscular and coordination problem reports increased by 234 percent
- Convulsions and central nervous system problem reports increased by 301 percent
- Reports of injuries from falls after unconsciousness (vasovagal syncope) increased by 674 percent
In 2010, Merck released a clinical trial showing that the concomitant use of Menactra with Gardasil “did not compromise the safety,” but at the same time admitted that the trial may have been skewed because of “incorrect administration” of the Menactra in 92 subjects,7 which in my opinion questions the validity of this trial, especially since it had so few subjects in it to begin with.
State-Mandated Meningococcal Vaccines
More than two dozen states mandate meningococcal vaccines for all children attending school, typically during grade 6 or 7, but there is much debate over whether this one-size-fits-all policy is safe and cost effective.
MCV4 is one of the more expensive pediatric vaccines on the U.S. market. It costs an average $115 per shot in a private pediatrician’s office, not including administration fees, and an average $78 per shot through the federally subsidized Vaccines for Children (VFC) program.8
As noted by Christina Abel, a registered nurse with Vaccine Awareness Minnesota in response to Minnesota’s meningococcal vaccine mandate for 7th graders:9
“It does not seem reasonable nor is there a need to require the meningococcal vaccine in Minnesota …
•Meningococcal disease is rare in the U.S., including Minnesota
•The bacteria [are] not easily transmittable
•Vaccinating adolescents does not create herd protection in the community.
•The vaccine does not reduce the seriousness of the disease
•Routine vaccination of Meningococcal vaccine (MCV4) is not cost-effective.”
Rates of meningococcal disease in the U.S. are at a historic low. Cases decreased more than 60 percent from 1998 to 2007,10 and in 2013, the CDC reported there were about 550 total cases of meningococcal disease reported in the U.S., which is an incidence rate of 0.18 cases per 100,000 persons.11
In other words, meningococcal disease is relatively rare. In 2011, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of NVIC, explained some of the concerns about adding meningococcal vaccines to the U.S. vaccine schedule.
Be Informed About the Meningococcal Strains Included in Each Vaccine
In 2000, the CDC recommended that all college freshmen get a dose of meningococcal vaccine that contains four strains (A, C, W-35 and Y). In 2005, they also recommended that all 11-year-olds receive the MCV4 vaccine. However, strain B, a type that is not included in MCV4 vaccine, is associated with more than 50 percent of meningococcal cases and deaths. In children under the age of 5, strain B is responsible for up to 70 percent of meningitis cases.
In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a meningococcal vaccine that includes strain B, but the vaccine showed lower-than-expected results when tested on college campuses. The vaccine (4CMenB) was administered during an outbreak at Princeton University in 2013 (before it was approved for use in the U.S.).
Out of the nearly 500 college students who received two doses of the vaccine, 34 percent had no immune response to the outbreak strain, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).12
Many People Are Asymptomatically Colonizing and Are Carriers of Meningococcal Organisms
According to the NEJM, at any given time about 5 percent to 10 percent of Americans are asymptomatically colonizing meningococcal organisms in their nasal passages and throats.13 Globally, the numbers of asymptomatic carriers may be higher, depending upon the country.
While this may sound like a reason to increase vaccination, being an asymptomatic carrier actually boosts the person’s innate immunity to invasive meningococcal infection. This is doubly beneficial for women of child-bearing age, because women with innate immunity are able to transfer maternal antibodies to their newborns, which protects them until they can make their own antibodies.
“By the time American children enter adolescence, the vast majority have asymptomatically developed immunity that protects them,” NVIC explains.14 In contrast, any protection provided by meningococcal vaccination decreases over time, which is why a booster dose is recommended for children at age 16, following the first dose at age 11 or 12. The CDC notes:15
“Available data suggest that protection from meningococcal conjugate vaccines decreases in many teens within [five] years, which highlights the importance of the 16-year-old booster dose so that teens maintain protection during the ages when they are most at risk for meningococcal disease. Early data on serogroup B meningococcal vaccines suggest that protective antibodies also decrease fairly quickly after vaccination.”
Recommending the vaccine be given at age 11, when children are generally at low risk and knowing any given protection will decrease before the age when they may need it (living in crowded living conditions in college or in the military increases the risk), is therefore highly questionable.
Meningococcal Disease on the Decline Prior to the Use of Meningococcal Vaccines
The CDC further notes that meningococcal disease is at an historic low in the U.S. but not because of routine vaccination:16
“Rates of meningococcal disease have been declining in the United States since the 1990s, with much of the decline seen before the routine use of meningococcal vaccines. In addition, serogroup B meningococcal disease has continued to decline even though vaccines were not available to help protect against it until the end of 2014.”
As far as using the argument of herd immunity for vaccinating all middle-schoolers, the CDC itself notes, ” … [D]ata suggest meningococcal conjugate vaccines … do not provide protection to the larger, unvaccinated community through herd immunity.”17
It’s true that the disease can be deadly: It’s fatal in about 10 percent to 15 percent of cases. In about 11 percent to 19 percent of cases, long-term or permanent health problems, including loss of limbs, deafness, nervous system problems or brain damage will result.18 However, this is not a disease that’s typically transmitted just by standing next to someone who has it.
Meningococcal bacteria cannot live outside the human body very long, so it’s not as easily transmitted as, say, a cold virus. Infection occurs via the exchange of saliva, such as sharing a toothbrush or kissing — not from standing next to someone in an elevator.
So the risks of mandated, one-size-fits-all meningococcal vaccination policies need to be carefully reassessed, while researchers should be focusing on why certain people seem to be more susceptible to meningococcal disease than others. According to NVIC:19
“A small minority of individuals, who have genetic and other unknown biological factors … [that] prevent them from naturally developing protective circulating antibodies, are up to 7,000 times more likely to get severe invasive meningococcal disease at some point in their lives.”
Children, adolescents and young adults may further minimize their risk of meningococcal disease by not sharing utensils, cups and other personal items, like toothbrushes, with others. And, as always, the key to avoiding infections is to maintain a strong immune system.
The basic steps to keeping your immune system healthy are positive lifestyle choices such as proper diet, stress management, high-quality sleep and exercise, with an emphasis on eating clean, whole foods (organic, pasture-raised and, preferably, locally sourced).
- By: Naturally Savvy
Much of the research concerning Alzheimer’s disease involves the impact of food choices on triggering, preventing, and treating the disease. Researchers have identified inflammation and insulin resistance as key factors in this neurodegenerative disease, as they damage neurons and interfere with intercellular communication.
The good news is we can help prevent Alzheimer’s disease if we make choices that help reduce inflammation, support our brain’s messaging system, improve insulin resistance and promote blood flow. Fortunately, there are many foods that address these needs. Here are eight dietary choices that can help prevent the development of Alzheimer’s.
1. Reduce sugary and blood glucose-spiking foods.
Foods high in sugar as well as processed, refined carbohydrates (e.g., white rice, white pasta, white flour) can result in sharp rises in blood sugar levels, which leads to inflammation in the brain. High blood sugar levels have been associated with a greater risk of dementia. Read labels carefully because many foods have hidden sugar, such as breakfast cereals (organic cereals with low sugar options), protein and energy bars, condiments, pasta sauces, and foods advertised as being low-fat or no-fat, which often have added sugar to make up for the reduction in fat. In fact, the link between blood sugar levels and Alzheimer’s has led many experts to refer to the disease as type 3 diabetes.
2. Eat omega-3 fatty foods.
Cold water fatty fish and seaweed (for vegetarians/vegans and nonfish-eaters) are the best food sources of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). Evidence indicates that DHA may help prevent Alzheimer’s disease by reducing the accumulation of beta-amyloid plaques in the brain. Salmon, sardines, tuna, mackerel, and trout are fish sources of these healthy fats.
3. Go a little nuts.
Tree nuts (e.g., almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, pecans, pistachios, walnuts) have been shown to benefit cognitive function, largely because they are a healthful source of omega-3 fatty acids, which fight inflammation and help circulation, as well as a good source of B vitamins and vitamin E. Nuts have also been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer.
4. MIND your diet.
The acronym MIND stands for Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay, and it combines critical elements from the DASH diet and the Mediterranean diet, plus includes specific foods and nutrients that have been shown scientifically to benefit the brain. The MIND diet, which was developed by nutritional epidemiologist Martha Clare Morris, PhD, and her colleagues at Rush University Medical Center, was shown to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by as much as 53 percent among individuals who followed the eating program rigorously, and by about 35 percent among those who followed it more moderately. MIND is easier to follow than the Mediterranean diet or the DASH diet, according to Morris, in part because of much less emphasis on fish consumption and a different focus on getting more fruits and vegetable.
5. Consume lots of fruits and vegetables.
Green leafy vegetables and berries should be at the top of our list, as they have been shown to be helpful in promoting cognitive function. Blueberries are especially beneficial, as are strawberries. Green leafy veggies such as spinach, lettuce, Swiss chard, mustard greens, and other salad greens support brain function because they are rich in lutein, a potent antioxidant, as well as folate, vitamin K, and beta-carotene.
6. Avoid trans fats.
These fats are associated with free radical production and inflammation, both of which can have a negative impact on brain function. Although trans fats are now listed on food nutrition panels and some foods are advertised as “trans-fat free,” be sure to read the ingredients, especially on packaged foods because of a loophole that allows labels to state zero trans fat if there is less than 0.5 grams per serving. Avoid other items known to be havens for trans fat, such as fried foods, fast food, and margarine.
7. Drink green tea.
Enjoy two to four cups daily of green tea, hot or cold, to help boost memory and prevent Alzheimer’s disease. Numerous studies have shown an improvement in cognitive function, a slowing of cognitive decline, and/or a decrease in oxidative stress associated with consuming green tea on a daily basis.
8. Go light on saturated fats.
Saturated fats are not the enemy, but they aren’t your best friends either. Limit your intake of red meats (3 or fewer servings per week), fried foods (less than 1 serving per week), and butter (less than 1 tablespoon daily), cheese (less than 1 serving per week), and other full-fat dairy foods. Decades of research have shown strong evidence of the “deleterious effects of saturated fat on dementia.”
9. Spice it up with curcumin.
Curcumin, the active ingredient in the spice turmeric, has been the topic of scores of studies exploring its role in fighting Alzheimer’s disease. In a recent review from a team of Australian scientists, it was noted that curcumin can alter the beta-amyloid plaques characteristic of Alzheimer’s and that the substance’s antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties have been shown to influence brain function and the development of dementia. Curcumin can be used to spice up vegetable and grain dishes, mixed into smoothies, stirred into soups, and sprinkled on salads.
Written by Andrea Donsky. Reposted with permission from Naturally Savvy.
Photo Credit: Alfonso Cenname/Unsplash
You may have heard that eating before bed is a big-time “no no” for those looking to lose weight. In fact, you’ve probably even heard that eating late at night will undoubtedly cause you to GAIN weight…even worse!
Well, there’s good news, and that good news is that not every food that you eat past 7PM will be automatically deposited to your butt, thighs, and love handles.
In fact, there are certain foods that you can eat as a late-night snack that can actually INCREASE your fatloss results! The key is knowing which foods to eat, and which to avoid, as the evening progresses.
Here’s a good rule of thumb: Avoid carbs before bed in favor of slow-digesting high-quality protein.
Carbohydrate consumption causes significant rise in the storage hormone insulin, which also puts the breaks on fat-burning. That’s a recipe for disaster in the late evening hours as your metabolism is winding down, but fortunately, slow-digesting protein isn’t.
Instead, slow digesting proteins provide your body with a steady flow of amino acids throughout the night to help you recover from exercise and maintain your calorie-burning lean muscle as you lose fat.
Here are my top 3 pre-bedtime choices:
1. White Meat Animal Protein (not red meat or fish) – White meat protein sources such as chicken and turkey are great pre-bed meal choices because they digest slowly and have a very low insulin release. These sources also promote the release of another hormone, glucagon, that assists the body with breaking down stored carbs and fat within your body to be burned for energy…a double win! Red meat and fish have a significantly higher insulin response so they’re best to avoid in the evening.
2. Cottage Cheese – Cottage cheese is very slow digesting and coats the stomach to be assimilated by the body over many hours. As a protein, it also stimulates glucagon release; a solid pre-bedtime choice. Just make sure you’re using plain cottage cheese, not the flavored varieties with added sugars.
3. Green Vegetables – While these aren’t considered a protein, they contain virtually no calories, are high in fiber, and they’re very filling. Often times when I get a late night craving I eat a big bowl of green veggies and it completely kills my craving…a diet savior!
To The Bed-Time Snack,
Change That Up
By Dr. Mercola
The allure of artificial sweeteners — zero calories and a sweet taste — is a strong one, such that up to 180 million Americans use them routinely.1
There have been concerns from the beginning, however, that consuming synthetic compounds with hyper-sweetness (200 times that of sugar in the case of aspartame) has some serious drawbacks.
One of the most appalling, especially to those consuming artificially sweetened sugar-free and diet products in the hopes of losing weight, is their propensity to fuel weight gain. Researchers wrote in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine:2
“Intuitively, people choose non-caloric artificial sweeteners over sugar to lose or maintain weight …
Whether due to a successful marketing effort on the part of the diet beverage industry or not, the weight conscious public often consider artificial sweeteners “health food.” But do artificial sweeteners actually help reduce weight?
Surprisingly, epidemiologic data suggest the contrary. Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain.”
Although their reputation as a weight-loss aid has held strong since the beginning, it’s been known for years that they seem to have the opposite effect.
Recently, a team of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) investigators even revealed a potential reason why artificial sweeteners like aspartame prevent, rather than promote, weight loss.3
Aspartame May Promote Obesity by Blocking Gut Enzyme Activity
A study on mice revealed that animals fed aspartame-laced drinking water gained weight and developed symptoms of metabolic syndrome while mice not fed the artificial sweetener did not.
Further, the researchers revealed that phenylalanine, an aspartame breakdown product, blocks the activity of a gut enzyme called alkaline phosphatase (IAP).
In a previous study, IAP was found to prevent the development of metabolic syndrome (and reduce symptoms in those with the condition) when fed to mice.4Study author Richard Hodin, MD, of the MGH Department of Surgery, said in a press release:5
“We found that aspartame blocks a gut enzyme called intestinal alkaline phosphatase (IAP) that we previously showed can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome; so we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP.”
Mice in the study were fed either plain water or water infused with the equivalent amount of aspartame found in two to 3 1/2 cans of soda, along with a normal diet or a high-fat diet. Mice in the high-fat group that drank aspartame-infused water gained more weight than those eating the same diet without aspartame in their water.
Further, all the mice fed aspartame had higher blood sugar levels — an indicator of glucose intolerance — and higher levels of inflammatory protein TNF-alpha, which is suggestive of systemic inflammation. Given aspartame’s inhibition of IAP, the researchers suggested its use is counterproductive.
Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Weight Gain Since the 1980s
Artificial sweeteners are still viewed as a weight-loss aid in 2016 even though their hindrances to weight loss have been documented since at least the 1980s.
Then, the San Antonio Heart Study, which involved nearly 4,000 adults, found drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs (body mass index) than non-drinkers.6
Again in the early 1980s, a study of nearly 78,700 women found artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners.7
Such associations have only continued to grow over the passing decades. Artificially sweetened beverages, including diet soda, are among the key culprits, with intake associated with “striking” increases in waist circumference among older adults, according to one study.8
- Abdominal obesity
- Insulin resistance
- Impaired glucose intolerance
- Abnormally elevated fats in the blood
- High blood pressure
The study found drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (regardless of whether they gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent.
One way artificial sweeteners may increase your risk of weight gain, obesity and other related problems like type 2 diabetes is by inducing “metabolic derangements,” according to a report published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism:10
” … [A]ccumulating evidence suggests that frequent consumers of these sugar substitutes may also be at increased risk of excessive weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
… [C]onsuming sweet-tasting but noncaloric or reduced-calorie food and beverages interferes with learned responses that normally contribute to glucose and energy homeostasis.
Because of this interference, frequent consumption of high-intensity sweeteners may have the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements.”
Soda Industry Pledge to Cut Calories Off to Slow Start
The soda industry has pledged to cut the number of calories Americans consume via beverages by 20 percent over a decade, but they’re off to a slow start.11 In 2015, this caloric intake dropped by just 0.2 percent, according to a beverage industry report.
In addition to introducing smaller package sizes and reformulating products, a key strategy toward this goal is the promotion of artificially sweetened diet drinks, but the consumption of low- and no-calorie soda fell by nearly 6 percent last year.
Americans are growing increasingly wary of artificial sweeteners, and the soda industry is becoming increasingly desperate to hold on to its once-loyal customers. One of their ongoing strategies to appear like they care about your health is to promote their diet beverages as a healthy alternative.
In 2013, they rolled out an ad campaign encouraging people to unite in the fight against obesity, and then swiftly launched another campaign touting aspartame in its diet sodas.
According to the ad, aspartame is a “safe, high-quality alternative to sugar.” Clearly they’ve not reviewed the hundreds of studies on this artificial sweetenerdemonstrating its harmful effects or the risks of consuming diet sodas in general.
In one study, people who drank diet soda had a 70 percent greater increase in waist size in a 10-year period compared to non-diet soda drinkers. Those who drank two or more diet sodas a day had a 500 percent greater increase in waist size.
Research published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also revealed that people who drink diet beverages may end up compensating for their “saved” calories by eating more foods high in sugar, sodium and unhealthy fats.12
Obese adults had the highest incremental daily calorie intake from unhealthy foods associated with diet beverages. Researcher Ruopeng An, a kinesiology and community health professor at the University of Illinois, noted:13
“It may be that people who consume diet beverages feel justified in eating more, so they reach for a muffin or a bag of chips … Or perhaps, in order to feel satisfied, they feel compelled to eat more of these high-calorie foods.”
For more on the detrimental effects of diet sodas, including in relation to aspartame and weight gain, check out our infographic below.
Embed this infographic on your website:
Click on the code area and press CTRL + C (for Windows) / CMD + C (for Macintosh) to copy the code
Beyond Weight Gain: Problems With Aspartame
Aspartame is made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. But the phenylalanine has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group, as that provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, which allows the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol.
When aspartame is in liquid form, it breaks down into methyl alcohol, or methanol, which is then converted into formaldehyde and represents the root of the problem with aspartame.
While industry funded studies, which are notoriously biased, attempt to support aspartame safety, 92 percent of independently funded studies found aspartame may cause adverse effects, including depression and headaches.14 A recent study also found the administration of aspartame to rats resulted in detectable methanol even after 24 hours, which might be responsible for inducing oxidative stress in the brain.15
The Bottom Line? If You’re Trying to Lose Weight, Avoid Artificial Sweeteners
There are a number of reasons to avoid artificial sweeteners (like their link to cancer), but one that may be most compelling for those of you trying to lose weight is the simple fact that they are likely to impede this process.
When a sweets craving strikes, resist the urge to reach for an artificially sweetened food or beverage and eat something naturally sour instead. Sour taste, such as that from fermented vegetables or water spruced up with lemon or lime juice, helps to reduce cravings for sweets.
If that doesn’t appeal to you, try a cup of organic black coffee, an opioid receptor that can bind to your opioid receptors, occupy them and essentially block your addiction to other opioid-releasing foods.16,17
I also recommend addressing your cravings on an emotional level. Turbo Tapping, which is a version of the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), is specifically suited to help eliminate sweet cravings and it can be done virtually anywhere, anytime a craving strikes.