Tag: science

  • Considerations for Mask Mandate Implementation

    The No. 1 way to prevent coronavirus isn’t wearing a face mask. Until June 5, the WHO maintained that face masks weren’t a solid defense for healthy people and could lead to user error that heightens their risk. In fact,  the current best evidence suggests wearing a mask to avoid viral respiratory infections such as COVID-19 offers minimal protection if any. Dr. Gregory Polland of the CDC claimed that masks were for a behavioral reminder.

    Now 4 months into the COVID virus, death rates have declined by large percentages. Testing has increased by large percentages and the media only reports on the increased cases. In Idaho, more than 60% of our deaths are in pseudo quarantined assisted living facilities. Those immune-compromised individuals don’t have the leisure of going to the parks, stores, and participating in community activities. Yet, our health districts want to mandate masks for all people – including our children so that we can go out in society.

    We are certainly not going to support authoritarian rule and the destruction of the economy, community, and our personal freedoms, based on a current 0.26% CDC estimated COVID mortality rate.  Mandating face masks and lockdowns (never enacted before in recent history for any other virus) is an over-reaction unwarranted for this virus.  Illness is part of life. 

    Using is the unlimited authority he granted to himself under several extended proclamations of emergency, our Governor has imparted to the health districts across the state the authority to implement mask mandates on citizens. The Idaho Constitution reserves the role of writing laws for our legislature. These masks mandates are unenforceable. Beyond that clear point, we ask the health districts and the city mayors have you considered these questions/potential problems should you implement a mask mandate?

    1. What about people who cannot breathe well in the masks, including those who do not have a respiratory medical condition (i.e. anxiety symptoms caused by oxygen deprivation)?  Would they require a “doctor’s note”?  How would you regulate this?  Businesses (i.e. grocery stores) in California are refusing service to un-masked patrons even if they have a doctor’s note.  Is this illegal discrimination?  Does this violate HIPPA regulations?
    2. Will you be providing a mask supply to businesses?  (many of which are already struggling financially).  What about the stress caused to employees who must face potential violence from angry citizens who disagree with a mask mandate?  Can police services handle these extra calls and are you willing to place this burden on law enforcement agencies?  Are you prepared to fine or jail citizens and businesses, already stressed and financially burdened by consequences of the lockdown?  Is a universal mask mandate based on flimsy scientific evidence worth the trouble that it may cause?  Could it exacerbate the economic depression?
    3. What about potential infection via the eyes?  Lack of eye protection eliminates any benefit a mask would provide.
    4. Please recall that as of just recently the CDC, WHO, and US Surgeon General did NOT recommend masks for the general public (healthy people) outside of healthcare facilities. 

    In addition, the American Medical Association states that “Face masks should be used only by individuals who have symptoms of a respiratory infection such as coughing, sneezing, or, in some cases, fever. Face masks should also be worn by health care workers, by individuals who are taking care of or are in close contact with people who have respiratory infections, or otherwise as directed by a doctor. Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill. Face masks should be reserved for those who need them because masks can be in short supply during periods of widespread respiratory infection. Because N95 respirators require special fit testing, they are not recommended for use by the general public.”  https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694

    1. Have you found studies that measure the long-term health risks of masks for both adults and children?  Could the intervention be worse than the illness itself?   Is it legal and ethical to mandate an intervention for children that could potentially affect their health, where the child’s parents or legal guardians alone have the right to make these decisions for them?
    2. Could you consider a less intrusive mandate based on more on conclusive scientific evidence, i.e. face mask mandate in public only for those who are sick/vulnerable, or requiring hand sanitizing at business entrances.

    We agree with common sense science-based measures encouraged for any type of viral illness i.e. handwashing and staying home when sick, but it seems much of the nation is reacting based on hysteria, emotion, and fear.  For this virus, the focus should not be on the number of cases sensationalized in the media (since many people are asymptomatic and most recover without medical intervention, there are problems with testing i.e. false positives, and there is evidence of data fraud) but on COVID-caused hospitalization and death rates.  

    The world population has been living with several types of coronaviruses (and millions of other kinds of viruses and bacteria) for decades, and current science is still making discoveries about the complex and amazing nature of our God-given immune system.  Our society will adjust to this new virus as the population achieves natural herd immunity.  

    We are certainly not going to support authoritarian rule and the destruction of the economy, community, and our personal freedoms, based on a current 0.26% CDC estimated COVID mortality rate.  Mandating face masks and lockdowns (never enacted before in recent history for any other virus) is an over-reaction unwarranted for this virus.  Illness is part of life. 

    Instead of fear-based reactions, public health efforts should focus on protecting vulnerable populations (i.e. nursing homes) and educating medical practitioners and the general public on COVID treatment remedies and how to strengthen and support the immune system.

    The evidence for masks (as explained below) cited by health authorities (supposedly our nation’s “experts”) is inadequate and does not justify forcing what could be considered a medical intervention on millions of healthy people.  In even considering a sweeping mandate the burden of proof is on health and government officials to provide sufficient and conclusive (not anecdotal) evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there are NO negative health effects (physical, mental, or emotional) associated with the implementation of mask policies.  Please review all the citations given on the governor’s website from the CDC and Idaho Health & Welfare (https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/idaho-resources/) used to justify face coverings?  Here is our summary.

    CDC Citations –

    1. The CDC provides a list of 19 citations.  Citations 1-12 only discuss asymptomatic transmission and are not actually mask studies. *the first study was actually shown to be fraudulent as the individuals experienced fever and chills. Still the CDC uses it. If this study is fraudulent it casts doubts on all they provide. 
    2. Citations 13 – 15 are the only studies that address cloth masks (see below).  If the government is not going to provide a constant supply of surgical masks to the entire population, most people will opt for cloth masks due to affordability and availability.  CDC encourages the general public to use cloth/home-made masks to preserve the surgical mask supply for healthcare workers.  These 3 studies show some potential benefit to masks, but efficacy depends on proper use and fit (no gaps), the number of layers and type of fabric, and other measures used to reduce infection.  A mandate will not be able to control these factors.  Study #14 shows that filter efficiency was significantly reduced by gaps – this problem alone makes universal masking unrealistic and unsupported as a mandate.  The general public is not fit-tested or trained on mask-wearing, they do not seal or tape masks to their skin, and do not live in a clinically controlled environment.  Many of the materials in these studies were sealed around a tube, not tested on real people.  Look around – you will rarely see a lay-person with a mask that does not have any gaps (not to mention those people who pull their mask down to sneeze!).
    3. Citations 16 – 19 only address surgical mask material with no gaps, or a patient was instructed on proper use.  It should be noted that not all viral RNA droplets/aerosols actually contained virus, and infectivity was not confirmed.

    Citation 13 (author Davies): “…the homemade mask did not significantly reduce the number of particles emitted… In contrast, the surgical mask did have a significant effect.”  “Although any material may provide a physical barrier to an infection, if as a mask it does not fit well around the nose and mouth, or the material freely allows infectious aerosols to pass through it, then it will be of no benefit.”  “An improvised face mask should be viewed as the last possible alternative if a supply of commercial face masks is not available, irrespective of the disease against which it may be required for protection.  Improvised homemade face masks may be used to help protect those who could potentially, for example, be at occupational risk from close or frequent contact with symptomatic patients.  However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from other persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols.”

    Citation 14 (author Konda):  This is the only study that tested mask materials with and without gaps.  Surgical masks and multi-layered fabrics had some filter efficiency, however, “Whereas the surgical mask provides moderate (>60%) and excellent (close to 100%) particle exclusion below and above 300 nm, respectively, the tests carried out with the 1% opening surprisingly resulted in significant drops in the mask efficiencies across the entire size range (60% drop in the >300 nm range).”  For example, the 1 layer 80 TPI quilter’s cotton (which is stated as often used in DIY masks) as shown on Table 1 only has a 9% filter efficiency, even without a gap.  A surgical mask with any gap only has a 50% filter efficiency.  “Our findings indicate that leakages around the mask area can degrade efficiencies by ∼50% or more, pointing out the importance of “fit”.  “It is critically important that cloth mask designs also take into account the quality of this “fit” to minimize leakage of air between the mask and the contours of the face, while still allowing the exhaled air to be vented effectively.”

    Citation 15 (author Aydin):  This study showed some benefit to cloth masks (1-layer T-shirt had a 43.3% blocking efficiency) but tested only droplet dissemination (not aerosolized particles), and only tested the materials without any gaps.

    Idaho Department of H&W Citations –

    1. Reference numbers 3 – 7 and 9 are duplicate citations from the CDC list.  Reference #8 is the CDC article that provides the link to their mask references.  Reference #10 is a short article with no mask information.
    2. Reference #1 is an article written by doctors that actually questions the benefits of masks and has no mask data.  “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection…. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”  “What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown.  A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection control measures.”  “One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis.”
    3. Reference #2 concluded that “Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath.”  “…fabric materials show only marginal filtration performance against virus-size particles when sealed around the edges.  Face seal leakage will further decrease the respiratory protection offered by fabric materials.”  This study did not measure face seal leakage.

    Other studies and citations questioning masks:

    “We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission… Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.”  “In sum, given the paucity of information about their performance as source control in real-world settings, along with the extremely low efficiency of cloth masks as filters and their poor fit, there is no evidence to support their use by the public or healthcare workers to control the emission of particles from the wearer.”  COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

    “Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with the medical masks (44%).”  “We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm”.   “A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers”, https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf

    “While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions [7], there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings.  There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection.  Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review“, Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face e-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematicreview/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

    “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.  Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.” (bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/)

    “….homemade masks are not considered PPE, since their capability to protect HCP is unknown. Caution should be exercised when considering this option. Homemade masks should ideally be used in combination with a face shield that covers the entire front (that extends to the chin or below) and sides of the face.”  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/face-masks.html

    Potential health risks voiced by doctors and other professionals:

    • Possible increased risk of infection (inhaling trapped virus, bacteria, and other toxins you would normally be exhaling?):  “The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI (influenza-like illness) significantly higher in the cloth mask arm compared with the medical mask arm.”  (the cloth masks were 2-layer cotton) “Adverse events associated with facemask use were reported in 40.4% of HCWs in the medical mask arm and 42.6% in the cloth mask arm.  General discomfort and breathing problems were the most frequently reported adverse events.”  “The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk for HCWs. The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks, and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.  Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible….Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.  These effects may be associated with cloth masks.”

    “A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers”, https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf

    • Hypoxia and immune system impairment (hypoxia can cause heart attacks, strokes, seizures, death and more. Low oxygen levels stress the body resulting in increased cortisol. Cortisol suppresses the immune system rendering people MORE susceptible to illness).

      Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376.

      Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84.

      Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.
    • Increase of CO2 and immune system impairment

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32008-x.pdf

    Additional Resources: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-risks-vs-benefits-of-face-masks-is-there-an-agenda/

    Ben Swann
    All the studies show no benefit from a mask.
    Not effective in randomized controlled trials.
    Those studies that are being used by the media are easily manipulatable and easily bias studies that don’t represent natural conditions. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8upEg-bEJ8

    Del Bigtree interviews Denis Rancourt, PhD

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1ODBTdNiG0

    Del Bigtree demonstrates how CO2 builds up to hazardous levels very quickly.

    https://youtu.be/RzqcN6ybfkE?t=6590

    Dr. Kelly Victory
    This video talks about how children have less than 1/4 of the virus in their noses as adults. We have no documented cases of children infecting adults. Any children who have died had serious underlying issues. The risk of a child dying from COVID is as close as being struck by lightning.

    https://edberry.com/blog/medical/get-the-truth-about-covid-19/?__s=hgtupervhueppemsecrq

    Dr. Ron Paul

    Dr. Paul Thomas – FACE MASKS & FACE SHIELDS: Should We Wear Them?

    https://youtu.be/XIhQnqmiG6I

    GreenMedInfo

    https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/healthy-people-should-not-wear-face-masks

    Tons of information under MASKS tab

    The Healthy American

    Stand For Health Freedom

    https://standforhealthfreedom.com/action/act-now-mandatory-masks-endanger-your-health/

    Q: Why is the CDC recommending that people wear cloth masks in public?

    A: It’s “… a behavioral reminder that there’s a pandemic and life is not the same right now.”
    – Dr. Gregory Poland   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaka1vqYFNs

  • Answers That Cannot Be Questioned

    We are in a era where medical science no longer allows raise questions about the liability-free medical product mandated by law. Those ‘brave souls’ who venture out to question the validity of the “the science is settled” Public Health slogans risk having reputations shredded.  In this recent blog post Scottish doctor, author and self proclaimed skeptic took a ‘brave’ step to bring up legitimate scientific questions against vaccination in two separate articles. 

    excerpt from his article: My feeling about the vaccine debate

    It is clear that, in the medical profession, there is an unquestioned faith in vaccination. That is, all vaccinations, for all diseases, everywhere – for everyone. Anyone who dares to hint that, ahem, there could be some negative issues associated with vaccination is subjected to withering contempt. ‘You will be responsible for killing millions of children.’ You don’t understand science.’ And suchlike.

    When it comes to the science, it does amuse me that vaccination began before anyone understood any of the science – of anything to do with microbes and the immune system. It all began, so it is recorded, with the observation that milkmaids were much less likely to get smallpox.

    excerpt from the more recent article A second look at vaccinations:

    I have to say that I thought long and hard about blogging on vaccination. It is the most brutal area for discussion that I have ever seen, and a reputation shredder. If you even dare to hint that there may just be the slightest issue with any vaccine, people come down upon you like a ton of bricks.

    However, as we move towards a world where it seems that all Governments around the world are going to pass laws mandating vaccination for everyone, and people are fined, or lose their jobs, for speaking out, or refusing to be vaccinated, then I feel that some attempt to discuss the area is essential.

    Because, once something becomes mandatory, and any research into possible harms moves strictly off limits, we really need to be absolutely one hundred per-cent certain that there is no possibility that we may be doing harm. Or, that we are reducing any potential harm to the lowest level possible.

    Read the article in full by Dr. Malcom Kendrick A second look at vaccination – answers that cannot be questioned

  • Scientist and Mother Shares Her Stance Against Vaccines

    Toxicologist Ashley shares her stance against vaccines based on the science and research she found. Once pro-vaccine her research lead her to discover that as parents, we aren’t told the whole truth and provided with informed consent when it comes to the vaccines injected into our children. Please read her editorial and research the links provided to help you make an informed choice for or against vaccines for your family. 
    Dear pro-vaxxer,
    As someone who once believed in vaccines, who vaccinated my child, I’m asking you to hear me out.
    I know you might think I am either (1) stupid, (2) uneducated, or (3) crazy. I know you think questioning vaccine safety is akin to believing in conspiracy theories. I know you are angered to think that there are people putting children in harm’s way because of the increasing rate of vaccine refusal.

    I understand that. I 100% appreciate the fact that you care about children, that you care about health, and that you want the best for your family and for the rest of us.

    I know you find the practice of vaccination to be an incredible scientific advancement that you are deeply thankful for. I know you believe in the benevolence and good will of those in the medical profession.

    HOW truly INSPIRING and absolutely wonderful is that to believe?

    How difficult and frustrating would it then be, to have those beliefs challenged? And for medical professionals, to have one of the main tenets of their profession and life purpose be questioned, and attacked?

    Believe me, it took years of daily research and investigation into this issue before I began to decide that the potential benefits of vaccination do not outweigh the costs. And this was *after* vaccinating my child and watching him suffer neurodevelopmental and cognitive delays. This was after we began to deal with food allergies that gave him constant stomach pain and eczema.

    Let me add, that when I say the words “research” and “investigate”, I’m not talking about mom blogs or natural news websites with no sources or references for their information. I’m talking about published, peer reviewed scientific research from medical journals. I’m talking about data and records from the CDC website that you have to dig to find. I’m talking about important information about outbreaks and how to treat measles and whooping cough that doesn’t make the local or national news. I’m talking about historical records and archived articles… A significant amount of this information is behind paywalls. It’s not easily found or accessed unless you have come to learn what you need to search 

    for.

    I will also add that I am a scientist. Specifically, a toxicologist – someone who determines the level at which a particular substance is toxic or deadly. 

    (Please don’t attempt to remind me that “the dose makes the poison”. This applies to substances that are not toxic at the lowest levels we can measure.) I know how to read, understand, and interpret scientific research. When it comes to vaccines, I search for proof. For solid scientific evidence. It was and still is, of utmost importance to me, to see the research, and only then, come to an informed decision. And in the end, the overwhelming amount of unbiased historical and scientific evidence – was against vaccines.

    I do not take this issue lightly. 

    What I am hoping for, is that you might just heed our warning, and make an effort to dive deep into the research on this subject. 

    So what, you know what you know, and the entire medical system and all of these great pediatricians KNOW that vaccines are “safe and effective”. Well what if that’s not actually… true?

    *What if doctors never actually learn about vaccines, their ingredients, or adverse events, in medical school?
    *What if the medical textbooks are written with an enormous amount of funding from the pharmaceutical industry?
    *What if the CDC owns patents on vaccines?
    *What if the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt and funds studies which conveniently stop monitoring test subjects before adverse effects begin to manifest?
    *What if vaccines contain toxic substances at levels which can cause chronic illness when children are repeatedly injected with them? What if we are trading temporary illness for the development of autoimmune and neurological disease later in life?
    *What if the threat and danger of these “preventable” diseases has been inflated to push more vaccines?
    *What if these vaccines are not even truly effective as we have been led to believe and we will always need more booster shots to try to make up for that fact?

    What if there is evidence for all of the above, you just haven’t seen it yet?

    Listen.

    …If you want to vaccinate, then do so. I hope though that you might keep an open mind and genuinely take time to look into this for yourself, beyond the claims of our government and medical system which ignore or are unaware of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts those claims. Please take caution and know that I don’t do this to be popular. I don’t do this to make friends.

    The only reason I speak out, is to protect my children and your children, from unnecessary harm. Truly.

    With love.

    This article was originally written by Ashley Everly and was republished with permission. 

    Researching Vaccines: Where to Start.

    ——————————

    …And there’s so much more. This is but a glimpse of all the information out there that we aren’t being given.

    VIDEO INTERVIEW Unaired interview with local news station + sources:
    https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/kboi-2-news-interview-with-a-toxicologist-on-vaccines

    BOOK Critical Vaccine Studies:

    https://amzn.to/2DxgvzH

    What doctors learn about vaccines in medical school:
    https://www.facebook.com/ashleyeverlyvax/posts/1131196103568691

    ARTICLE Conflicts of interest in medical education:
    https://www.facebook.com/ashleyeverlyvax/posts/1161909823830652

    ARTICLE Corruption in scientific research:
    https://www.facebook.com/ashleyeverlyvax/posts/1371432082878424

    Washington Post NEWSPAPER ARTICLE As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html

    NY Times NEWSPAPER ARTICLE Harvard Medical School in Ethics Quandary:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03medschool.html

    GREEN MED INFO The CDC owns patents on vaccines (please check all of the sources in this article linking to the patents):
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/examining-rfk-jrs-claim-cdc-owns-over-20-vaccine-patents

    Bad science:
    https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2018/03/13/its-that-bad-in-an-embarrassment-to-harvard-and-yale-journal-of-pediatrics-and-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-publishes-another-great-example-of-junk-science-pertussis-vaccination-in-pre

    Cons of vaccinating [read the links contained within this article]:
    https://thinklovehealthy.com/2016/10/25/the-cons-of-vaccinating

    “Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with a central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
    https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm
    >> And infants are receiving a lot more aluminum than this in their vaccines.

    Nutrition was the biggest factor in the decline of disease mortality, not vaccines:
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/rosner/g8965/client_edit/readings/week_2/mckinlay.pdf

    “Of the total fall in the standardized death rate between 1900 and 1973, 92.3 percent occurred prior to 1950.”

    Year vaccine was introduced:
    Polio: 1955
    Measles: 1963
    Mumps: 1967
    Rubella: 1969

    Measles adverse event rate pre-1960s vs current rate of adverse events from the MMR vaccine:
    https://www.facebook.com/ashleyeverlyvax/posts/1756143344407294

    Measles, before the vaccine, and now:
    https://www.facebook.com/jbhandleyjr/videos/1914488961924583/

    [ASIA] Autoimmune (auto-inflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants (e.g. Aluminum adjuvants in vaccines). Vaccination triggers rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, thyroid disease, and other autoimmune conditions:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23992328/

    Macrophagic myofasciitis [MMF]: characterization and pathophysiology:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22235051/

    MMF-associated cognitive dysfunction triggered by vaccination. “Affected patients usually are middle-aged adults, mainly presenting with diffuse arthromyalgias, chronic fatigue, and marked cognitive deficits…”:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25506338/

    MMF has been found to be directly triggered by tetanus, Hep A, or Hep B vaccination. Long-term persistence of aluminum injected intramuscularly via vaccine eventually causes systemic symptoms, which can manifest 3-96 months (8 years) later. Median time to symptoms onset is 11 months post-vaccination:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11522584/

    MedScienceResearch.com

  • The Immune System Complex and Not Completely Understood

    “We don’t know what caused it (the paralysis or the SIDs death), but it wasn’t the vaccines.” These are comments made by media, by doctors, by individuals who hold tightly to the belief that vaccines are life-saving and beneficial and should be mandated for all.

    “Science is settled!” they shout ignoring the apparent connection of damage and injury to vaccinations for some individuals.

    If science is considered settled, then it is no longer studied objectively and by definition can no longer be considered science.

    54% of our children are suffering from chronic illness and disease.  And OBVIOUSLY there much we are doing wrong! Obviously, following the USDA for diet and the FDA for protection from toxins and CDC recommendations for protection from disease is failing us.

    For example, doctors often can’t tell you why your child has allergies, asthma, Celiac disease, diabetes, eczema, multiple sclerosis, POTS, SIDS, or thyroid problems, etc., There is much we don’t know about the developing the immune system.

    http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2011summer/article7.html

    Resources for Research: 

    http://vaccinepapers.org/

    http://learntherisk.org/

    nvic.org

  • Another New Scientific Discovery in the Gut-Brain Connection

    On the heels of the discovery that that 100 gut bacteria can produce electricity is the newly discovered gut-brain connection That gut brain connection is becoming clearer. We must never assume science is settled, huge discoveries are being made yearly that impact our understanding of the process of hormones, immunity, detoxing and cell communication throughout our body. 

    The discovery of the size and complexity of the human microbiome has resulted in an ongoing reevaluation of many concepts of health and disease, including diseases affecting the CNS. A growing body of preclinical literature has demonstrated bidirectional signaling between the brain and the gut microbiome, involving multiple neurocrine and endocrine signaling mechanisms.

    The human gut is lined with more than 100 million nerve cells—it’s practically a brain unto itself. And indeed, the gut actually talks to the brain, releasing hormones into the bloodstream that, over the course of about 10 minutes, tell us how hungry it is, or that we shouldn’t have eaten an entire pizza. But a new study reveals the gut has a much more direct connection to the brain through a neural circuit that allows it to transmit signals in mere seconds. The findings could lead to new treatments for obesity, eating disorders, and even depression and autism—all of which have been linked to a malfunctioning gut.

    The study reveals “a new set of pathways that use gut cells to rapidly communicate with … the brain stem,” says Daniel Drucker, a clinician-scientist who studies gut disorders at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto, Canada, who was not involved with the work. Although many questions remain before the clinical implications become clear, he says, “This is a cool new piece of the puzzle.”

    In 2010, neuroscientist Diego Bohórquez of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, made a startling discovery while looking through his electron microscope. Enteroendocrine cells, which stud the lining of the gut and produce hormones that spur digestion and suppress hunger, had footlike protrusions that resemble the synapses neurons use to communicate with each other. Bohórquez knew the enteroendocrine cells could send hormonal messages to the central nervous system, but he also wondered whether they could “talk” to the brain using electrical signals, the way that neurons do. If so, they would have to send the signals through the vagus nerve, which travels from the gut to the brain stem.

    He and colleagues injected a fluorescent rabies virus, which is transmitted through neuronal synapses, into the colons of mice and waited for the enteroendocrine cells and their partners to light up. Those partners turned out to be to vagal neurons, the researchers report today in Science.

    In a petri dish, enteroendocrine cells reached out to vagal neurons and formed synaptic connections with each other. The cells even gushed out glutamate, a neurotransmitter involved in smell and taste, which the vagal neurons picked up on within 100 milliseconds—faster than an eyeblink.

    That’s much faster than hormones can travel from the gut to the brain through the bloodstream, Bohórquez says. Hormones’ sluggishness may be responsible for the failures of many appetite suppressants that target them, he says. The next step is to study whether this gut-brain signaling provides the brain with important information about the nutrients and caloric value of the food we eat, he says.

    There are some obvious advantages to superfast gut-brain signaling, such as detecting toxins and poison, but there may be other perks to sensing the contents of our guts in real time, he says. Whatever those are, there’s a good chance the benefits are ancient—gut sensory cells date back to one of the first multicellular organisms, a flat creature called Trichoplax adhaerens, which arose roughly 600 million years ago.

    Additional clues about how gut sensory cells benefit us today lie in a separate study, published today in Cell. Researchers used lasers to stimulate the sensory neurons that innervate the gut in mice, which produced rewarding sensations the rodents worked hard to repeat. The laser stimulation also increased levels of a mood-boosting neurotransmitter called dopamine in the rodents’ brains, the researchers found.

    Combined, the two papers help explain why stimulating the vagus nerve with electrical current can treat severe depression in people, says Ivan de Araujo, a neuroscientist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who led the Cell study. The results may also explain why, on a basic level, eating makes us feel good. “Even though these neurons are outside the brain, they perfectly fit the definition of reward neurons” that drive motivation and increase pleasure, he says.

    NICOLLE R. FULLER/Science Source

    Your gut is directly connected to your brain, by a newly discovered neuron circuit

    By Emily Underwood

    This article originally appeared at: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/your-gut-directly-connected-your-brain-newly-discovered-neuron-circuit.

    More about Brain Communication

    https://www.sciencealert.com/secret-tunnels-microscopic-vascular-channels-skull-marrow-brain-dura-neutrophils

    Gut-Brain Connection: 

    http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/46/15490 Gut Microbes and the Brain: Paradigm Shift in Neuroscience

  • Learn 7 Simple Ways to Get More from Herbs

    If you are new to herbs and want a very basic and yet through confidence building understanding of herbal remedies, I highly recommend learningherbs.com. Founder John Gallagher is a teacher at heart, and shares plethora of free resources to help the young (and young at heart) learn the nature of remedies. For those who want to use herbal remedies, it can be confusing as to exactly how to incorporate them into our lives. It’s really not as simple as “take this herb for that ailment.” 

    Herbalism is an art and science that enhances not just your health, but way of life.

    John shares a podcast from several years ago that is still an excellent resource.  An engaging podcast of the 7 ways to easily incorporate herbs and remedies into our lives. Herbalist and author Susun Weed specializes in keeping it simple for folks. 

    LISTEN TO THE PODCAST

    Susun Weed

    Which herbs should you take every day? What sort of herbal preparations should you avoid? What foods are antioxidants and will help prevent chronic illnesses? Which herbal remedies are simple to make in ANY kitchen? Already make herbal remedies like tinctures and infusions? Susun will share BRAND new ways to get more out of these tried and true remedies. This class is for all experience levels.

    Susun Weed has been practicing and teaching herbalism for over 40 years, and has written several books. Susun founded the Wise Woman Center in Woodstock, NY. She speaks at conferences worldwide and often appears on television and radio shows.

    You can visit Susun at www.susunweed.com
    Learn More at https://learningherbs.com/podcasts/susun-weed/
    Copyright © 2018 LearningHerbs.

    DID YOU LISTEN? What was the most fascinating piece of knowledge you gained from this podcast? Share in the comments below.

  • Cured from Cancer with food and meditation. 12 years later still cancer free.

    In 2005, Kathy Bero was diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer and given about 21 months to live. At the time she was 41 years old, had two young daughters and wasn’t ready to die so she went the traditional route with surgery, chemo, and radiation. But the disease came back.

    She said, “Eleven months after my first diagnosis, I was diagnosed with a high-grade tumor in my head and neck. My kidneys were failing; my liver was failing. My lungs were damaged. My heart was damaged. I told my oncologist that I’m done with that protocol because one way or another, I’m going to die. And I don’t want to go that way.”It’s about eating specific foods that fight disease,” she said. HINT: Yes, it can.)

    What anti-angiogenic foods do is block the creation of blood vessels, effectually stopping the spread of cancer…it’s like cutting off cancer’s growth supply line. Examples of anti-angiogenic foods are organic vegetables like purple potatoes, carrots, leeks, berries, walnuts, green tea, herbs, and especially garlic. For Bero, garlic is a favorite, “When a recipe calls for two cloves, I’m probably going to put in six because garlic is a really strong cancer fighter.” READ MORE

    Learn more about the power of food:

    When Foods hurt. When Foods Heal. 

  • Vaccines thoroughly studied before approved? No, and here’s proof.

     This is the actual vaccine approval hearing where they approved a vaccine without studies or complete information. Please pick up your voting “THINGY” and vote on whether we should give this with other vaccines. Unbelievable!

    This is how brand new vaccines are approved to the immunization schedule. Basic dialogue before they voted:

    Q: Is it dangerous to use this vaccine with other vaccines?

    A: We have no data on that.
    Once approved, it will be given along with other vaccines but we have no clue whether that’s safe or not.

    Q: Do we at least have any data from other countries that used this vaccine in combination with other vaccines?

    A: Nope

    Sounds good to me. Lets vote yes!

    Only after they vote, one guy voices concern over 16 heart attack deaths in the safety trials.

  • VACCINE SAFETY Part 1: Responsibility for Vaccine Safety lies SQUARELY On the Shoulders of US Department of Health and Human Services

    Unlike nearly every other company in America, pharmaceutical companies have almost no liability for injuries caused by their vaccine products.

    By granting immunity from actual or potential liability from injuries caused by vaccines, Congress eliminated the market forces that are generally relied upon to assure the safety of all other products. As the 1986 Act expressly provides: “No person may bring a civil action … against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a State or Federal court for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” Every pediatric vaccine recommended by the CDC creates for its manufacturer a liability-free captive market of 78 million children with guaranteed payment. So, who is there making sure vaccines are SAFE since manufacturers have no financial incentive do to so.

    ICANspent months researching the state of vaccine safety in the United States. The shocking result of this effort was presented to the heads of the National Institutes of Health with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in May of 2017.

    The information contained in that presentation has been distilled into an easy to read, thorough white paper that goes through many of the shortcomings and failures of the vaccine safety program. This is PART 2 of that paper.

    In 2016, the IOM formally changed its name to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Explained by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1, by 1986, the “litigation costs associated with claims of damage from vaccines had forced several companies to end their vaccine research and development programs as well as to stop producing already licensed vaccines.”2

    Instead of letting market forces compel vaccine makers to create safer vaccines, Congress granted pharmaceutical companies, financial immunity from injuries caused by vaccines recommended by the CDC. 3 Congress did so by passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the 1986 Act). 4

    By granting immunity from actual or potential liability from injuries caused by vaccines, Congress eliminated the market forces that are generally relied upon to assure the safety of all other products.

    As the 1986 Act expressly provides: “No person may bring a civil action… against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a State or Federal court for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.”5

    The 1986 Act even shields vaccine makers from liability where it is clear and unmistakable that the vaccine in question could have been designed safer. 6As recently explained in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion: [N]o one—neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries—ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements. This concern is especially acute with respect to vaccines that have already released and marketed to the public. Manufacturers… Will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins.7

    Recognizing that the 1986 Act eliminated the incentive for vaccine makers to assure the safety of their vaccine products, the 1986 Act explicitly places this responsibility in the hands of the United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).8  

    As provided in the 1986 Act, HHS is responsible for “research … to prevent adverse reactions to vaccines,” “develop[ing] the techniques needed to produce safe … vaccines,” “safety … testing of vaccines,” “monitoring … adverse effects of vaccines,” and “shall make or assure improvements in … the licensing, manufacturing, processing, testing, labeling, warning, use instructions, distribution, storage, administration, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting, … and research on vaccines in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.”9

    Since passage of the 1986 Act, the number of required pediatric vaccines has grown rapidly. In 1983, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule included 11 injections of 4 vaccines.10

    As of 2017, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule includes 56 injections of 30 different vaccines. It is only when the CDC adds a vaccine to its recommended vaccine schedule that the manufacturer is granted immunity from liability for vaccine injuries.

    And due to a federal funding scheme, CDC recommended vaccines are then made compulsory to American children under state laws and subsidized by the Federal government for children unable to afford the vaccine.13

    The end result is that under the 1986 Act, every pediatric vaccine recommended by the CDC creates for its manufacturer a liability-free captive market of 78 million children with guaranteed payment. This incentive structure is unequal in the marketplace and eliminates the normal market forces driving product safety. Hence the 1986 Act’s transferred essentially all responsibility for vaccine safety from the pharmaceutical companies to HHS.

    Read this important letter putting Health and Human Services on notice for failing to conduct proper science to demonstrate vaccine safety. “ICAN lays out the provisions of the (1986 Act) that legally require HHS to conduct science that reduces the risk of all vaccine injury. Failure to do so could result in legal action against HHS on behalf of the American public.”
    http://www.icandecide.com/white-papers/ICAN-HHS-Notice.pdf

    READ MORE ABOUT VACCINE SAFETY IN OUR SERIES  PART 1  | PART 2 | PART 3

    2 https://www.nap.edu/read/2138/chapter/2#2
    3 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq.
    4 Ibid.
    5 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11
    6 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)
    7 Ibid.
    8 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2; 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-27
    9 Ibid.
    10 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/images/schedule 1983s.jpg
    11 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adol escent.html (note that the influenza vaccine is different every year)
    12 The rapid growth of CDC’s vaccine schedule is excepted to accelerate since there were 271 new vaccines under development in 2013 and far more currently under development. http://www.phrma.org/press-release/medicines-in-developme nt-vaccines (listing 2,300 trials in search for “vaccines” between 2013 and 2017)
    13 See Section IV below.
    14 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/103795s5503lbl.pdf
    15 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/020702s056lbl.pdf
    16 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/103000s5302lbl.pdf

  • Unvaccinated Pose Zero Risk to the Public

    Open Letter to Legislators from Dr Tetyana Obukhanych. She has studied immunology in some of the world’s most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. and Stanford University in California. Every parent should watch this video. Helps to understand the difference between natural immunity and vaccination.

    Dear Legislator:

    My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

    Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

    It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

    IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.

    Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.

    While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.

    The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.

    Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.

    Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f).These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children. The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.

    Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.

    In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.

    How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

    It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment.

    When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.

    Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?

    Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:

    “The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”

    Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called low vaccine responders. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.

    Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.

    Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.

    It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.

    Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.

    Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?

    The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15. Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.

    Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism. The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.

    Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure.

    In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.

    Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk.

    Sincerely Yours,

    ~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD