Ditto, you educate women, you empower them and that changes societies which includes making decisions about family planning (proper planning, not blanket use of contraceptives).:
Printable View
Ditto, you educate women, you empower them and that changes societies which includes making decisions about family planning (proper planning, not blanket use of contraceptives).:
Perhaps from an egocentric Western POV, but culture plays a big part, educated or not and Western culture is not the epitome of what is right.
Women's autonomy, education and employment in Oman... [Reprod Health Matters. 2004] - PubMed result
Others::
While empowered women were more likely to use contraception, women's education was a better predictor of "met need" than autonomy, as traditional factors and community influence remain strong. For nearly half the 1,830 women in the study, the husband decided whether contraception was used. Fewer than 1% were using contraception before their first child as women are expected to have a child within the first year of marriage.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2939231
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2137845
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar...cId=5002411991
So grossly misleading statement it is not.
It might be time to start looking at things holistically. Breaking things into isolated parts may help to understand something to a certain degree, but most things do not exist within a vacuum, there are multiple facets that play a part.
As for making statements that can't be backed up, I've said that some of these are only my theories (and they do have supporting science which I have provided) and others are the theories of people who know more than me about such things (again with supporting scientific evidence) and they're not any less valid then your theories (that you rarely back up other than "because we/they say so"). At any rate, I find your statement ironic Mr "Autism is easier to live with than being crippled by polio". Vaccines have not been proven safe, the haven't looked into them holistically, only looking at one or two components again in isolation. They can't even really prove they are effective. If I'm wrong, then you back it up - Bring it for your side rather than sitting there saying I don't know what I'm talking about. Show me the undeniable evidence to prove me wrong other than sitting there stating your own unbacked up statements.
You don't know what your talking about.
You've got it around the wrong way, your linking systems in a 'holistic' way that's just not quite right. If you looked deeper you would see that the whole is connected in more complex ways.
You are right about need for holistic points of view but humans are incredibly complex and making random and simplistic connections doesn't help that.
Reading the studies you have linked is interesting, they all state that the link between increasing a woman's education and decreasing fertility is undeniable and proven?!?
They are mostly looking for the subtleties of why this is and one shows that a modest increase in education not beyond primary school had a rise but education beyond primary school had the expected, undeniably proven effect of decreasing fertility.
It is about much more than contraception use. It is about empowerment of women. It's complex and I for one don't know all the reasons why, but educating women lowers birth rate
Thank you for the articles in support of this universally accepted idea
Really, then prove me wrong rather than making insulting statements. Ball's in your court to put your money where your mouth is.:
And Polly, I think you might need to re-read them without the simplicity and sarcasm. Culture plays just as big a role in fertility as education. That is also a proven and undeniable fact.
Also, my main point was on population differences, not differences in birth rates which only makes up part of what effects population numbers. While education might lower the birth rate, it would also equip those women to look after the children they have better, therefore reducing the mortality rate. So the population would see little difference in the short to mid term. BTW, I wasn't the one that went off onto a birth rate only focus.:
Results from both data sources show that spousal influence, rather than being mutual or reciprocal, is an exclusive right exercised only by the husband...
Pakistan's typical family structure is patriarchal, and women typically live with their husband's family after they are married. Decision-making involves communication between the spouses and elders of the extended family. Elsewhere, researchers have found low levels of communication between spouses about reproductive matters, and women with low levels of contraceptive use report little spousal communication. [4] In addition, mothers-in-law can have power over women's lives [5] and influence the number of children a couple will have. [6] In India, for example, women's mothers-in-law influence reproductive decision-making.
Sorry, but I've read a lot of these studies and listened to a lot of bizarre theories. I'm losing interest fast.:
Some of the resources you've posted are valuable but I think you lost that a few pages ago.
:ROFL: That's a cop out if I ever heard one. So that's a no then, you're not going to back up what you say as you go around having a go at other people. What exactly is bizarre about the idea that some disorders may be caused by enzyme issues linked to damage done to certain enzyme systems by vaccines before they mature?
I've pretty much lost interest too but there are some really interesting studies about TV and fertility in developing nations that I thought were worth sharing. Not because they add anything much to the discussion but just because I think it's interesting.:
Freakonomics » Did Soap Operas Shrink Brazil's Families?
If you follow the links there are some more in depth articles.
FWIW, wealthy, educated Pakistani women tend to have small families as do wealthy educated women from most cultures. Benazir Bhutto is perhaps the most famous Pakistani woman of recent times. She had 3 children.
Your simplifying the issues. If it was that easy then the connection would've been made but this stuff is complex and will continue to be debated and researched for some time yet.
I'm happy to chat about the meanings of studies but im not interested in debating them on a forum like they amounted to some kind if truth.
Your quotes from the studies do not refute that increasing education lowers birth rate, they do, as I suggested, look at some of the complexities around decision making:
I am rather offended that you would make the statement that undeducated women lose babies due to their parenting skills. Particulalry that this lack of ability to keep children alive would even out somehow with a lower birth rate.
The reasons for increased mortality are much more likely to be food security, water quality, infectious disease and overcrowding, and education in terms of improved earning capacity may help to address some of these things, but many of them are things that need to be addressed at a societal level.
I value education.
I do not however believe an uneducated woman any less of a parent. I don't think statements like that are well thought out or just. In fact I think there is much to be learnt from parenting styles and community in places facing these issues by those in more developed countries. Facing such adversity and still enjoying the moments, sharing good times with your community, dancing and singing is a quality that seems to be getting lost in Australian society
:doh: Where did I say the uneducated are less of a parent!! I said education would equip women to look after their children better. Don't you think a women who can earn a better income because she's educated wouldn't have more resources to provide for her children?? Able to buy better food, better shelter, healthcare.. the basic equipment/resources people need to live. That doesn't automatically make uneducated women bad parents, it just means they have less access to these things because they all cost money, and not having them affects mortality. I would really appreciate it if people didn't keep making big jumps in interpretation and then pass it off as my thoughts - omitting or exchanging one word can make a very big difference to context. Reactionary posts because of misinterpretation that hasn't been clarified also don't really help the discussion. The last three pages have gone off on a wild goose chase because "birth" rate was substituted for "population" rate.
I think we've all lost interest to be honest. The tangents and the need for pedantry are just getting ridiculous.
LOL, Onxy - so what they say about "not having a tv" is pretty spot on then! ;)
Firstly...whoa. Seems ages since I've been in here and look at this wonderful debate! :clap: Didn't realise we had so much in common SAHD - I too am at home taking care of 2 kids and 4 chickens.... lol
Yes. The Japanese example would strengthen this argument.:
In Japan, from 1970 to 1974 there were 37 documented infant deaths following pertussis vaccinations. (Noble, G.R., et al. "Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan: report of a visit from U.S scientists. JAMA, 1987;257:1351-56).
Doctors boycotted the vaccine, and in 1975, Japanese authorities raised the age of vaccination from two months to two years. Therefore, under this law, no child was permitted to receive a vaccine until they reached the age of 2 years. As a result, babies stopped dying unexpectedly. According to writing in Pediatrics, "the category of 'sudden death' is instructive in that the entity disappeared following both whole-cell and acellular vaccines when immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age." Cherry, J.D., et al. "Report on the task force of pertussis and pertussus immunization." Pediatrics (June 1988);81(6):993-84
In fact, the Japanese infant mortality rate improved from 17th place to best in the world. Scott, J. "Report: U.S slips in fight to cut infant mortality" Press and Sun Bulletin (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 1990).
And all this talk of using old or new references is really stifling, and irrelevant, I believe. Sure, it looks great in theory to only have recent studies to back your views, but we cannot simply discredit 'old' scientific papers based upon their date. Most of the research that supports the widely accepted view that smoking is hazardous to health dates as far back as the 1930's. It is unlikely that we will need to re-examine the case against smoking in another 50 years to see if smoking cigarettes still increases the risk of cancer.
Similarly, vaccines have not changed all that much since the 1970's. Sure, mercury (thimerosal) may have been pulled from a number of childhood vaccines due to public pressure and studies strengthening the case for mercury-induced vaccine reactions. (Note that thimerosal is still present in the current flu vaccine including last years which caused quite a debacle).
If formaldehyde was a listed human carcinogen and considered toxic to humans and animals in 1970, it's quite likely that the case will still apply today.
The main difference in vaccines from the 1970's, 1980's to present day is that we now have a heck of lot more vaccines added to the immunisation schedule, and that equals a heck of a lot more aluminium, formaldehyde and other toxic ingredients being injected directly into the blood stream and bypassing our very important mucous membranes (our first defence against disease). Add this to the fact that (as SAHD mentioned) our environment is rapidly changing and our children are exposed to greater environmental toxicity than previous generations, and you have an ironic situation where a greater number of immune-compromised individuals are exposed to far greater levels of carcinogenic and toxic compounds.
Furthermore, can I just clarify that non-vaccinating parents/professionals etc are not out 'to get' and 'bring down' pharma companies, or even to see an end to vaccination. We only wish the following; that science and pharma companies, with anti-vaccine health professionals and families alike, work together to devise means that will provide safer ways to innoculate against disease and trigger antibody response. This would require;
- eradification and replacement of toxic ingredients such as formaldehyde (sad that I even have to write that).
- increased oral administration of vaccines, so that pathogens are permitted to by-pass the mucous membranes, the natural route of administration for such pathogens whereby lasting immunity can occur (I believe this proposal is currently being examined for development).
- Dosage and quantity of vaccines varied so that vaccines can be administered in amounts that are relative to body mass, age, and immune status (I'm not just talking about having a fever of cold), rather than a blanket dosage which applies to all.
- A vaccine schedule that is administered in relation to developments in immune response.
Until these demands are met, I don't believe that any real progress can be made with regards to this debate, and sadly, the rate of vaccine injured infants and children will remain unchanged, leading to the slow but steadily increasing number of non-vaccinating families.
Oh - and in regards to the rise in nut, egg and latex allergies, there is a strong case against vaccines (yep, sorry) because of the presence of nut oils, egg protein and latex all commonly used as additives in vaccines. Once again, injected directly into the bloodstream, by-passing the mucus membranes, where the body registers the presence of foreign invaders and attempts to fight them by building antibodies to them. Seems the body does a better job of building nut and latex antibodies than it does to pathogens! However I suppose the antibody response again comes down to individual immune function.
The following article published in the Health Gazette is interesting;
Peanut Allergy - Vaccination Link: Consumer Concerns
The article below was submitted by Barb Feick. It is published here because:
•the observations and reasoning it offers are essentially sound, and
•it represents a fine example of the kind of critical enquiry that consumers need to develop
References would strengthen the article but none were submitted. To follow up on the article make a comment below or contact Barb Feick directly via her site.
Barb’s article follows:
The is a summary of peanut allergy info so far Posted in Health, Peanut allergies on January 13th, 2009 – A basic review of what I’ve covered in my previous blogs concerning peanut allergy which can be deadly.
Hypothesis: Vaccinations are the leading cause of peanut allergy. Infant formula, infant vitamins, and antibiotics that contain peanut products directly or indirectly may be secondary causes.
1. Vaccines are given to create an immune response from the body. It only makes sense that the body treats anything in the vaccine as an invader that needs to have an antibody created to combat it. That is why we give vaccines. But if the vaccine has a trace of food in it such as egg or peanut, it only makes sense that the vaccine can cause a food allergy.
2. Peanut oil is used in vaccines in adjuvants or as a vaccine carrier. The ingredients of adjuvants or vaccine carriers are not listed individually on the package insert. So the physician would have no way of knowing that there was peanut oil in the vaccine.
3. Peanut allergy decreases in populations that have decreased percentage of vaccinated children. There are a number of studies that link vaccinations to allergies.
4. Peanut allergy is almost unknown in Israel. The population eats lots of peanuts. Israel produces sesame oil. Israel manufactures is own vaccines. Sesame is a major allergy there. Hypothesis: Sesame oil is used instead of peanut oil in the vaccines used in Israel.
5. Study that is frequently cited saying that Indonesia and Thailand people do not suffer from peanut allergies was erroneous. Many children in the study reacted to peanuts in the skin ***** test. The study relied on parents of report food reactions. I found a Thai parent quoted on the Internet saying that her child had a peanut allergy. I also found a physician from Singapore stating that peanut allergy is a major problem there.
6. The "hygiene" theory points out that there is less food allergy in underdeveloped countries. They speculated that the people and environment is less clean so it is the early exposure to bacteria, etc. that protects against allergies. However, children as young as 8 months have been diagnosed with peanut allergy and it is only since 1990 that peanut allergies have become a huge problem. The populations in the underdeveloped countries are also not as compliant with childhood vaccinations which would account for less peanut allergy.
7. The United States and China are major producers of peanut oil and vaccinations. There are many patents for products used in vaccines that contain peanut oil.
8. The secondary causes of peanut allergy are due to young children having a "leaky gut", immature digestive system. Introducing foods too soon can lead to allergies. Medicines given with traces of peanut protein could lead to an allergy. Also antibiotics kill off good bacteria as well as bad and can lead to an overgrowth of yeast which can cause food allergy type problems. I don’t know if any infant formula in the United States contains peanut oil. One website said it was more of a problem in Europe.
9. Our vaccinated animals are getting food allergies Dogs are allergic to peanuts. Searching the Internet – I found a wild elephant allergic to wheat; the elephant had been immunized. (Wheat germ oil is used as a carrier of vaccines. Wheat protein is used to manufacture vaccines/medicines.)
10. The statistics for allergies is appalling!! The allergy epidemic increased with every new mandate for more childhood immunizations.
11. How pure can we make peanut oil? I assume it is highly refined but it only would take a teeny weeny bit of peanut protein in a vaccine to create a problem. That is, of course, assuming that it is ONLY the peanut protein that causes the allergy. Using my "guessing" math, only 1 shot out of 1680 would need to be contaminated to create a peanut allergy in 1 in 70 people in Great Britain.
12. Vaccine adjuvants/ vaccine carriers contain many other oils/ingredients. These other ingredients could account for allergies to other foods. Fish oil is used. Shellfish can be mixed in with the fish by-products which are used to make fish oil. Wheat germ oil, corn oil, soy oil are used. Milk and eggs are also used in the production of vaccines.
I keep looking but so far, I have been unable to DISPROVE my hypothesis.
This explains the theory further. I personally believe anyone would be hard-pressed to find an unvaccinated child with peanut, egg or latex allergies. All of these substances need to pass via the mucous membranes when entering the body for the first time, in order for the immune system to process them appropriately. God almighty, imagine if there was actually a large scale study that compared allergy rates between the vaxed and unvaxed? Don't expect to see that anytime soon!
What would also be interesting, would be to compare the rates of these allergies between infants that receive their first bout of vaccines after natural introduction to these substances (via the digestive system), with infants that have been exposed to these substances intravenously (as per the vaccine schedule) long before natural exposure takes place. Because we know that the mucus membranes are responsible for signalling the immune system to code and create a blue-print for each new substance, prior to the substance entering the blood stream. Obviously I am only refering to substances such as egg and nuts. Latex doesn't really have a place in the human body - neither the blood stream or the digestive tract!
The Non-Disclosed and Hyper-Allergenic Vaccine Adjuvant
By Catherine J. Frompovich | July 15th, 2010 | Category: Allergies, Allergies, Auto Immunity, Catherine Frompovich | 18 Comments and 0 Reactions
Catherine J. Frompovich
vactruth.com
07/15/2010
What do peanuts and vaccines have in common? Well, you’re probably thinking that some people have allergic reactions to both, and you are correct. Peanuts cause the most common severe food allergy reactions. Vaccines, on the other hand, that are grown on chicken eggs (MMR and influenza vaccines in particular) cause allergic reactions for which pharmaceutical and vaccine makers willingly provide cautionary notices on vaccine package inserts. It’s important to note that technically there can be two responses: a reaction, e.g., immediate allergic response (anaphylaxis), and a side effect, e.g., fever, rash, or localized swelling later on.
As an aside, vaccine makers would like to get away from growing vaccines on eggs for several reasons. In the April 11, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) the article “Safety and Immunogenicity of a Baculovirus-Expressed Hemagglutinin Influenza Vaccine” by John J. Treanor, MD, et al, stated:
In this study, we evaluated an experimental influenza vaccine consisting of recombinant HA expressed in insect cells by a recombinant baculovirus (rHA0). This alternative avoids dependence on eggs and is very efficient because of the high levels of protein expression under the control of the baculovirus polyhedrin promoter. Safety and Immunogenicity of a Baculovirus-Expressed Hemagglutinin Influenza Vaccine, April 11, 2007, Treanor et al. 297 (14): 1577
In essence, researchers produced vaccines grown on insect cells. If that vaccine production technology will be used or substituted for fertile egg mediums in the future, what cautionary information will appear on vaccine package inserts about bugs?
Allergic reactions to vaccines used to be of prime concern to pharmaceutical and vaccine makers. That changed after the passage of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2006 [PREP Act 42USC 247(d)-6d)] that, basically, exonerates vaccine makers of any damages from vaccines and/or vaccinations. A special vaccine court has been established from which harmed individuals must seek permission to bring legal charges. Common tort law no longer applies to vaccine/vaccination injury/damage.
What peanuts have in common with vaccines is something that very few healthcare consumers and medical doctors may be aware of: Peanut oil is a hidden and non-stated ingredient in the manufacture of children’s vaccines. This was brought to light in a 2010 court case wherein parents were accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome; had their child taken from them and placed in foster care for almost eight months; and Harold E. Buttram, MD, presented corroborating medical information to the court regarding the anaphylactic reaction the six-month old baby boy experienced resulting in tremendous swelling and pressure of the brain.
In Doctor Buttram’s paper presented for publication, “Subdural Hemorrhages Occurring in an Infant Immediately Following Vaccination,” he methodically charts the infant’s anamnestic allergic response to vaccines at four months of age. An anamnestic allergic response is a secondary immune response resulting from exposure to a previously encountered antigen. Such responses should preclude further administration of all vaccines.
Immediately following routine 6-month vaccines Pentacel [DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccine], Prevnar7 [Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine], and Rotateq [Rotavirus Vaccine], the infant suffered an explosive rupturing of a facial hemangioma [abnormal buildup of blood vessels] and traumatic brain injury confirmed by a brain MRI [Magnetic Resonance Imaging].
Let’s consider the components that make up the Pentacel vaccine: Aluminum phosphate, bovine serum albumin, formaldehyde, glutaraldhyde, MRC-5, DNA and cellular protein, neomycin, polymyxin b sulfate, polysorbate 80, 2-phenoxyethanol. [1]
The two other vaccines administered simultaneously to the infant had equally remarkable ingredients. In the hopes of keeping this article as brief as possible, I’ve elected not to include their makeup.
Two days after the above-administered vaccines, a brain MRI showed extensive bilateral subdural hematomas [collection of blood outside blood vessels in both sides of the brain], something often thought to be due to trauma associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Buttram noted that the scheduled and administered 4-month vaccines contained aluminum and unlabeled peanut oil. Furthermore, the infant’s mother observed noticeable enlargement and puffiness of the right strawberry-shaped facial hemangioma. Additionally, during 52 days of hospitalization, the infant was vaccinated further with the Hepatitis B vaccine. Medical records indicate tremendous head enlargement in a 30-day period, which could indicate hydrocephalus and/or brain hemorrhage.
Since Doctor Buttram was the expert witness for the defense (the child’s parents, who had the child taken away from them by civil authorities contending Shaken Baby Syndrome), he investigated and prepared a time line and inventory of the various vaccines administered along with the infant’s reactions and attending medical personnel witness statements as to the explosive rupturing of the facial hemangioma immediately after the injection while the infant was screaming dramatically.
Buttram found that yeast protein—a potent allergen—and peanut oil were used as adjuvants but not listed on the vaccine inserts. It was Doctor Buttram’s contention that both these adjuvants caused the hemangioma’s explosive reaction.
As part of his researched testimony, Doctor Buttram chronicled the use of peanut oil in vaccines, which proves rather interesting. After penicillin was invented (1945) researchers found that the kidneys excreted it within 3 hours thereby rendering it ineffective. In order to prolong penicillin’s action it was mixed with 4 to 4.8 percent beeswax and peanut oil. As a result, penicillin was slowly released as the body metabolized the oil. To further extend penicillin’s effects, penicillin with aluminum monostearate was added to make a solution suspended in peanut oil that kept blood levels of penicillin up to 24 to 26 hours. In 1964 Merck produced the adjuvant 65-4 that contained up to 65 percent peanut oil plus Arlasel A, aluminum stearate, and other ingredients with 13-fold higher levels of antibodies than previous vaccines. During the 1970s and 1980s peanut oil became a common practice and ingredient in vaccines. Coincidentally, peanut allergies began rising exponentially in children as more vaccines were administered. Heather Fraser in her 2010 book, The History of the Peanut Allergy Epidemic, documents this.
Concomitantly, hospital records indicate anaphylaxis reactions to vaccines. In the USA there were rising incidences of food anaphylaxis in children under five years of age. Hospital records in the USA further indicate that Emergency Room records indicated an increase of anaphylaxis from 671 per 100,000 during 1992-94 to 876 per 100,000 in 1995. More than 90 percent of all food allergy fatalities were documented as due to ingestion of peanuts and tree nuts, a 1991 study revealed. Nevertheless, in 2009 the prevalence of peanut allergy in children under 18 years of age amounted to more than 2 percent in both the United States and Britain. Additionally, in the U.S. during 2009, about 4.5 million people were allergic to peanuts, or about 1.5 percent of the population.
Interestingly, Romy Fischer, et al, in the American Journal of Pathology [2005; 167:1621-1630] say,
“We compared the oral and nasal routes of peanut sensitization for the development of a mouse model of allergy. Mice were sensitized by administration of peanut proteins in the presence of cholera toxin as adjuvant. Antibody and cytokine responses were characterized, as well as airway reactivity to nasal challenge with peanut or unrelated antigens. Oral sensitization promoted higher levels of IgE, but lower IgG responses, than nasal sensitization. Both orally and nasally sensitized mice experienced airway hyperreactivity on nasal peanut challenge.” Elsevier
Their research basically demonstrates that inhalation of peanut protein/antigens is cause for concern.
Aside from the above information, aflatoxin, a toxic fungus produced by Aspergillus flavus, often is found on peanuts and causes anaphylaxis.
Surely one important aspect about allergic response that needs to be highlighted is this: According to the doctor who “found” alimentary anaphylaxis, Dr. Charles Richter (1913), food anaphylaxis resulted from proteins that had not been properly broken down or avoided modification by the digestive system. In today’s medical practice many physicians recognize what is termed “Leaky Gut Syndrome,” which acts similarly insofar as some undigested proteins cross the intestinal lumen and contribute to much health-related problems.
Perhaps now is an excellent opportunity to point out that many proteins used in the manufacture of vaccines—or that “result” from the manufacturing process, e.g., not filtered out completely—are injected directly into the blood stream and thereby avoid modification by the digestive system, another apparent factor in the etiology of vaccine adverse reactions in addition to the numerous toxic adjuvants included in each vaccine for boosted immune response, which most often are too strong for an infant’s immature immune system to cope with thereby precipitating “blown circuits” such as neurological damage.
Maybe because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers refined peanut oil as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), vaccine manufacturers think it safe to use as a vaccine adjuvant while not recognizing the differences in physiology and function between food protein sources that are gut-digested from those syringed directly into the bloodstream. That issue could wind up becoming a critical learning for much of medicine, pharmaceutical and vaccine makers.
Further validation of peanut oil in a vaccine appeared in The New York Times, Business Financial Section page 31, September 19, 1964, under the headline:
“Peanut Oil Use In A New Vaccine.” It labeled peanut oil the key ingredient in Adjuvant 65 that was patented by Merck & Co., Inc. in September 1964. Ironically that article by Stacy V. Jones began with “A pharmaceutical manufacturer has developed a vaccine that it predicts will considerably lengthen immunity from influenza and other virus infections, thereby requiring fewer ‘shots’.” So much for their crystal ball gazing about fewer shots. If anything, they have manufactured and been influential in mandating more vaccinations than ever. Incidentally, Adjuvant 65, as a stand-alone product, supposedly is no longer used in the manufacture of vaccines in the United States.
Let’s review vaccinations that are mandated for infants and children:
Hepatitis B Vaccine: First dose at birth to 2 months; Second dose at 1 to 4 months; Third dose at 6 to 18 months
Hib vaccine: First dose at 2 months; Second dose at 4 months; Third dose at 6 months; Fourth dose at 12 to 15 months
Polio vaccine: First dose at 2 months; Second dose at 4 months; Third dose at 6 to 18 months; Fourth dose at 4 to 6 years
DTaP vaccine: First dose at 2 months; Second dose at 4 months; Third dose at 6 months; Fourth dose at 15 to 18 months; Fifth dose at 4 to 6 years; DTaP is recommended at 11 years
Pneumococcal vaccine: First dose at 2 months; Second dose at 4 months; Third dose at 6 months; Fourth dose at 12 to 18 months
Rotavirus vaccine: First dose at 2 months; Second dose at 4 months; Third dose at 6 months
Hepatitis A vaccine: First dose at 12 months; Second dose at 18 months
Influenza vaccine:First dose at 6 months (requires a booster one month after initial vaccine); Annually until 5 years (then yearly if indicated or desired, according to risks)
MMR vaccine: First dose at 12 to 15 months; Second dose at 4 to 6 years
Varicella vaccine: First dose at 12 to 15 months; Second dose at 4 to 6 years
Meningococcal vaccine: Single dose at 11 years
Human papillomavirus vaccine (adolescent girls only): First dose at 11 years; Second dose two months after first dose; Third dose six months after first dose
Childhood Immunization (Vaccination) Printable Schedule and Vaccine Facts on MedicineNet.com
So, by the above schedule one easily can ascertain that infants, in particular, are being subjected to numerous adjuvants, the least of which is non-disclosed emulsified peanut oil. There are several articles about peanut use in vaccines in the literature. Furthermore, President George W. Bush’s government set in place in 1991 the goal of raising national vaccination levels among preschool children to 90 percent by the year 2000. [2]
Other oils used in the manufacture of vaccines can include mineral oil (paraffin), squalene (shark liver oil, which probably is the most dangerous of any oil), and at one time in the 1930s and 1940s, cottonseed oil. For more information on adverse effects of adjuvants in vaccines, visit this web site ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ADJUVANTS IN VACCINES by Viera Scheibner
Interestingly, Ms. Fraser points out in her book that Charles Janeway, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and Yale University School of Medicine professor in 1989, revealed that adjuvants were the “immunologists’ dirty little secret”. The secret was really a poorly understood puzzle regarding the body’s response to them. Janeway suggested that there are cross-reactive combinations of which researchers are unaware but which the body recognizes. [3]
Before I leave adjuvants, Doctor Buttram’s article mentioned Arlacel A, something I’d not heard of before. So I checked on it and found that it is a mono-oleate of manitol with the following information, which seems intriguing:
Dianhydro mannitol mono-oleate, a surfactant used in the preparation of water-in-oil injectable pharmaceutical preparations was found to autoxidize on storing, with the formation of free acidity and labile peroxides. The autoxidized substance was found to cause peritoneal adhesions when injected intraperitoneally in mice. The autoxidized material could be reclaimed by chromatography through alumina. The eluate was comparable to normal saline in toxicity and the adsorbate was found to be more toxic. The Autoxidation of Tensides I: The Autoxidation, Toxicity and Reclamation of Dianhydro Mannitol Mono-Oleate - Amer - 2006 - Fette, Seifen, Anstrichmittel - Wiley Online Library
An issue that, perhaps, has exacerbated infants’ adverse reactions to vaccines is the practice of their being injected with multiple immune-challenging vaccines at one time for convenience sake although no longitudinal studies have been undertaken for that type of protocol. Consider that, that is what happened to the six month old baby boy in this article.
As pointed out so succinctly in Fraser’s book, and with which I totally agree, “One of the side effects engendered by vaccine ingredients is the production of IgE antibodies.” [4] Doctor Buttram, who is a medical expert in environmental medicine, certainly is in his element when discussing such responses.
Fraser points out what Doctor Buttram has observed in his practice: “Doctors knew that as the number and potency of vaccines increased, so too would the risk of side effects that included soaring IgE and atopy [genetic tendency to develop classic allergy diseases, e.g., asthma, rhinitis, dermatitis, food sensitivities, especially in autistic children]. Anaphylaxis immediately following vaccination had finally become an ‘obstacle’ to the routine jab, doctors observed.” [5]
What all this seems to come down to is the fact that since the advent of the practice to administer numerous vaccines at one visit, there has been a rise in anaphylaxis—something not seen as dramatically or in such prolific numbers, as is attested to in the literature, plus the Autism Spectrum Disorder that effects male children predominately because of the supposed interaction with testosterone.
Shortly before Christmas 2009, Dr. Catherine Rice, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said that the rate of autism for U.S. children is one in every 110 children as of 2006! Study: 1 in 110 U.S. children had autism in 2006 - CNN.com
One glaring, if not gnawing, question all health consumers ought to be asking is: Why is the human infant brain affected by vaccines? According to Doctor Buttram’s paper, the brain has the highest fat content of any organ in the human body and, therefore, is susceptible to lipid peroxidation, The process whereby free radicals “steal” electrons from the lipids in our cell membranes, resulting in cell damage and increased production of free radicals. lipid peroxidation definition
Furthermore, the Pourcyrous et al study out of the University of Tennessee with results published in the Journal Pediatrics, 2007; 151:167-172, indicates more answers to that question:
■Brain inflammation, as indicated by elevations of C-Reactive proteins.
■Brain edema, which can be assumed as one of the cardinal manifestations of inflammation.
■Potentially lethal cardiorespiratory events.
■Intraventricular brain hemorrhages—just what happened to the little fellow in this article.
Renowned brain surgeon Russell Blaylock’s research indicates over-stimulation for prolonged periods of time by vaccine adjuvants precipitates chronic inflammation, which, of course, is very destructive to the brain.
How convenient it would be to place the blame on Shaken Baby Syndrome and innocent parents whose lives are traumatized in numerous ways because of what their darling innocent infants and children are suffering through. Any parent knows the heartbreak and heartache of having a sick child. But when a child is permanently damaged because of medical procedures, as was indicated by the court in this case as probable vaccine damage and not Shaken Baby Syndrome, it’s time to demand answers from everyone: oversight health agencies at federal level, e.g., FDA, CDC, HHS; the medical profession, e.g., American Medical Association (AMA); pharmaceutical and vaccine makers both U.S. based and international; and from the U.S. Congress and its oversight powers.
Representative Carolyn B. Malloney (D-NY-14) introduced the Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act of 2007 that went nowhere in 110th Congress. Any bills that are not voted upon and passed as each two year congress ends, automatically become sine die or “dead.” They must be reintroduced into the next congress, as they don’t carry over. However, Congresswoman Malloney introduced a similar bill in the 109th Congress and was supposed to do so in the 111th, but apparently has not as of this late date in the waning half of the 111th Congress.
As a consumer healthcare researcher, I cannot believe that members of the U.S. Congress would not want to investigate what’s going on with our children’s health and the relationship to vaccines. I can only conjecture that because of the heavy duty lobbying by vaccine makers with their deep pockets and gifting, that it is easier to believe in Shaken Baby Syndrome. Shame on anyone who believes vaccines cannot cause inflammation/swelling and damage the brain.
Note: The legal citation for the adjudication is Case No. JVJV002265 (Iowa Dist. Ct. June 1, 2010), for which I thank the defendants and their attorney.
References
1 Heather Fraser, The History of the Peanut Allergy Epidemic, (Hamilton, Canada: Expresso Book Machine, 2010) 141
2 Heather Fraser, The History of the Peanut Allergy Epidemic, (Hamilton, Canada: Expresso Book Machine, 2010) 131
3 Ibid, 127
4 Heather Fraser, The History of the Peanut Allergy Epidemic, (Hamilton, Canada: Expresso Book Machine, 2010) 142
5 Ibid, 156
*Correction – Dr. Harold Buttram’s paper presented for publication, “Subdural Hemorrhages Occurring in an Infant Immediately Following Vaccination,” methodically charted the infant’s anamnestic allergic response to vaccines at six months of age, not four as mentioned in the above article.
:
I'm not so sure of that, Yeddi is pretty adamant that vaccines don't work at all and i'm sure she would be happier to see a return of treatment with herbs as a health department priority ;) I'm very cautious about the AVN too, they are my favourite anti-science organisation!
Thanks for your unreferenced AVN style comments JellyBean, all I have to say about peanut oil in vaccines is that if you did accidentally inject peanut products into the bloodstream of a person with peanut allergies they would die a very rapid and messy death. A death very very obviously caused by allergens in the vaccine and as you know such allergies are common enough to create some very messy news headlines!
Vaccinations are not given per weight or per age because everyone is given the minimum effective dose. We all have the same immune system so need the same vaccine, as has been pointed out babies immune systems are less effective so if anything they would need a higher dose. Drugs, antibiotics for example, are given to weight because the drug is distributed evenly in the body and still needs a minimum concentration throughout.
Like watering a lawn, more lawn the more water you need but every house only needs one letter box for the front yard.
Check that, you added a book! I'd appreciate it if you could summarise a bit, I got bored and and distracted like any modern vaccine induced ADHD victim.
Just a few extra points: if a vaccine was causing deaths in Japan then it should've been removed and reviewed. That doesn't mean that we have the same vaccine causing the same deaths, does it?
Preservatives are toxic, that's the point. A non toxic preservative is an oxymoron. Because all living things are so similar on a cell level it's difficult to find chemicals that won't kill human cells but will kill bacteria, viruses and fungi. Some kill very specific organisms like antibiotics killing some bacteria but preservatives need to kill a broad spectrum of living things while remaining relatively safe for people.
Oral vaccines are great but our mouth, throat and stomach are luckily very efficient at destroying most bacteria and viruses that pass through them, this is why its not so easy to create an effective oral vaccine. I wasn't aware that our immune system treats vaccines differently if they are taken orally as opposed to injected. I'm curious, do you have a study to prove your claims?
My wife is very allergic to latex, she has all, ALL, the immunisations and has never had an allergic reaction, maybe she missed all of the ones with latex in them. Lucky!!
Only with good information can we make good decisions about how to care for our children. Misinformation, scare tactics and general ignorance only help the AVN.
Question for you RSAHD, as I'm genuinely curious - is there anything anyone could EVER say that would get you to even consider the discussion with an open mind? So far I've only seen you punch down what everyone else has to say, be it the science or the delivery or your thoughts on the person. Is this even a discussion?