Monday, November 29, 2010

A Thing is not Necessarily True Because a Man Dies for It

The mother who wrote this important message wishes to remain anonymous so that this message can stand for all parents and children who have sacrificed for our vaccine society:

Your child is more important than mine.

I want you to read these words and have them reverberate through your body like they do through my body. Open your mind and put yourself in my shoes. This is what I feel in my heart NOW AND FOREVER. I gave my child for the greater good. But I'm called names and made to look like I'm crazy and told that my child doesn't count. Why, because he was sacrificed to save yours?"

The anonymous mother quotes Julie Obradovic:
"This is the argument that keeps me up at night. This is the mentality that fried my baby’s brain. This is the rationale behind a vaccine program that is out of control, completely corrupt, and responsible for damaging millions and millions of lives. As long as the belief is that those damaged millions are justification for the billions, it’s okay. As Angelina Jolie says in her summer movie Wanted, “Kill one. Save a thousand.” But what about when that “one” is yours? When that “one” could have and should have been saved? When that “one” turns out not to be “one” but an entire generation of children across the globe?

Well, that’s when I get angry. I have yet to meet one parent of a vaccine injured child, or a vaccine injured person, who is okay with what happened because they take comfort in knowing their sacrifice was for the greater good. The only people who believe they should are those that have the luxury of not having made a sacrifice, and worse, believe that sacrifice somehow made them safer. And those people don’t even believe they have to say “thank you” to we who have sacrificed. They believe they were entitled to our sacrifice. To any and all who may feel that way, let me make this clear: You were never entitled to my child’s life, and I never had any intention of giving it to you."

The anonymous mother continues:

"Someone told me the other night, “I know something happened to your son with vaccines but I’m pro-vaccine and they save lives.”

Fine, be “pro-vaccine” but what you said was cold and absolutely HEARTLESS. I would never have said something like this to you, as I am a mother. Would you say the same thing to a mother that had a child with cancer? No, but it’s ok to say it to a mother that has a child damaged by the very thing she was told would make her child and everyone else safe.

There are so many things about this you can’t possibly understand so I will give you the benefit of the doubt…you really didn’t mean to be rude, ignorant heartless and self-centered.

Before you make blanket statements about vaccines consider this: my child lives everyday with bleeding eczema and gut pain so bad you could only have nightmares about it. He cannot communicate his wants or needs because his vaccine-caused brain damage rendered him speechless. He is not potty trained at 6 years old. He is in a special needs class.

My child was born perfectly normal. His Apgar scores were fantastic. There was nothing wrong with him physically or mentally when I gave birth to him. My son could draw at 15 months. He could feed himself. He had a great vocabulary. Then the Pediatrician gave him MMR, Verivax (chicken pox) and Prevnar-7 on the same visit. Some of you may think this is excessive but it is now standard procedure to give this same combo to children as young as 12 months.

That night my son had a seizure and never came back. When I took my son to the doctor after a frantic evening in the ER, I was told, “No, he must be epileptic it wasn’t the immunizations.”

I want you to remember before you make rude statements that there are REAL children who are SUFFERING behind the vaccination program. There are REAL parents who watched their baby never come back.

You may not believe that vaccines cause autism but you don’t know the whole story because you haven’t dug deep enough. You listen to what your doctor/the CDC/the media tell you to believe. Blanket statement about a subject that you have no real knowledge on is what Mr Lowry calls a fallacy. In all honesty, if you knew and read the peer reviewed studies that I have from our own government about vaccines and brain damage you would never stick another needle into your child. There is a whole world of special interests and back door deals when it comes to the multi-billion dollar industry of vaccines. The vaccine schedule has increase by over 600% in the last 25 yrs and researchers are claim there has been a 6000% increase in autism. That’s not a typo, 6000% increase. If you caused a 6000% increase in a developmental disorder wouldn’t you try to hide it too?

I know you probably don’t have any interest in finding out any of this information but I can enlighten you with information that the government doesn’t want you to hear or know. AND NO, I’m not a conspiracy theory nut. This is in black and white and is waiting for you to find if you’re looking for it.

Take a good hard look at the picture I’ve given you. Remember that this is my beautiful child. This is the little boy that suffers everyday because *I* believed I was doing the right thing by vaccinating him. I was a nurse. I believed in the system. I thought all vaccines were tested effectively and in combination with each other. I was wrong. Only one ingredient and one vaccine have been studied (MMR and Thimerosal). And poorly studied at that. To top it off, the primary mercury study is now facing some very harsh criticism and may not hold water. NONE of the vaccines on the schedule have been tested for cumulative or combined effects on an infant’s brain.

I am a real mother who sacrificed my baby for the greater good and instead of thanking me…you told me that my child didn’t matter.

Your compassion is astounding.”

Here is a real face behind herd immunity.

"The end does not justify the means.  

No one's rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others."  

-- Ayn Rand

Arguing on the Foundation of Normal

As an activist, when you enter into a debate on these issues you need to maintain a true measure of normalcy. Do not make the mistake of allowing medical interventions become the norm with your words. An intact body is the norm; everything else is an intervention, whether purported to be helpful or damaging.

Debating breastfeeding? Do not say, "Breast is best," because it isn't best. It's absolutely normal. "Breast is best" means formula is normal. You are in reality shouting, “Breast is the best and formula is the standard!” Every step of the way along the "best campaign" makes formula good, acceptable, adequate and comparable. No wonder the numbers of mothers who nurse in America are so low!

Watch your language when discussing nursing relationships.

Debating vaccine theory? Do not start out claiming vaccines are scary or dangerous. You need to make the other person do the work of proving them safe and effective. No one should be convinced to STOP vaccinating. They should be convinced to START vaccinating. And it’s not that a child is “unvaccinated." He is “vaccine free” or she has an “intact immune system.” Vaccination is what permanently alters the immune system.

What exactly do you know about immunity and vaccinations? 

Debating circumcision? Do not use the word uncircumcised, as if circumcision is natural for humans (or mammals in general). Medically unnecessary amputation causes the defect. The prepuce, also called the clitoral hood or foreskin, is not the defect. Children protected from circumcision are intact, whole, as nature intended or as God made them.

What else do you routinely remove from your child's body at birth?

The internet is a powerful communication tool for sharing information with others. But it is also a restrictive tool, since we can only rely on words and images, and in a common debate on here, it's primarily words. Our words can be extremely powerful. They are more than a definition. They are an idea, a worldview, a description of living. Make sure they are describing what's truly normal for humans.

It's not a movement, bandwagon or fad; it's normal.

Which image is biologically normal? And yet which image
perhaps surprised you or caught your attention more than the other?
Why is the default, the biologically expected, shocking?

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Did the Vaccine Save Humanity from Haemophilus influenzae Type B?

Was the vaccine solely responsible for drastically reducing Hi type B cases in America? Let's see what the CDC really says.

"Before vaccines became widely used, about 20,000 Hib cases were reported each year in the country." 

To get to 20,000 annual cases, which is an incident rate of about 100 per 100,000 under 5 years of age, we have to zip back to the 1980s.  (Notice that the Type B, Hi-B, is specified in this quote.)

Oh, but the conjugate vaccine, what is still used today, was not widely introduced until 1991.

Its extremely disingenuous to imply that there were 20,000 cases in 1991. This is completely false. According to the CDC's own data the amount of cases had dropped to 8 per 100,000 (or around 1,600 total) for all types of Hi disease in those under 5, (not just Type B).

"After children began receiving the vaccinations in the early 1990s, CDC officials said, there was a 99 percent drop in cases." 

The vaccine may have been responsible for the drop in disease from around 1,600 cases to the 15-30 we see today, but not from 20,000 to 15-30. So 92% of the 99% drop of the amount of cases from 1980 had nothing to do with the vaccine.

["Progress Toward Eliminating Haemophilus influenzae Type B Disease Among Infants and Children - United States, 1987-1997." MMWR. November 27, 1998]

See the graphs and charts at the bottom of the page:

The CDC's Pink Book acknowledges this play on numbers but still attempts to attribute it to the vaccine:

"The incidence of invasive Hib disease began to decline dramatically in the late 1980s, coincident with licensure of conjugate Hib vaccine." 

Note the words "coincident" and "licensure" and the lack of the term "widespread use." The vaccine was being created and produced in the 1980s, but was not routine in the population until 1991.

Always put your thinking cap on when reading vaccine documents!

According to the CDC for 2009 (invasive):

HIB cases - 10
Non serotype B - 64 (not covered by the vaccine)
Unknown serotype - 56 (not covered by the vaccine)

Here's a summary:

The first Hib vaccine was licensed in 1985. Hib was put on the childhood recommended schedule of immunizations in 1993. Prior to 1991, Hib was not a notifiable disease.

Here are the number of reported Hib cases:

1991 (2,764)
1992 (1,412)
1993 (1,419) Hib was placed on the childhood schedule, resulting in widespread/routine vaccination and state-by-state mandates for entry to daycare/school.
1994 (1,174)
1995 (1,180)
1996 (1,170)
1997 (1,162)
1998 (1,194)
1999 (1,309)
2000 (1,398)
2001 (1,597)
2002 (1,743)
2003 (2,013)

This is FROM the CDC.

Historical reporting data from the CDC:

Some more from the CDC:

Additional resources on the Hib vaccine:

The Hib conjugate vaccine is produced by Merck. Here is the actual manufacturer insert:

The vaccine is given at 2, 4, 6 months and then again between 12-15 months according to the CDC schedule:

The primary concern with conjugate/bacterial vaccines (Hib, Prevnar, Menactra, etc) is Serotype Replacement. This link has a compiled resource list of serotype issues:

Here is an article on the issue of otitis media (ear infection) connected to bacterial vaccination:

Here are some studies on Hib and serotype replacement:

//In addition to the proportional increase in cases of non-type b Haemophilus influenzae disease in the post-H. influenzae type b vaccine era, the incidence of invasive H. influenzae disease was found to be approaching the rates of H. influenzae type b disease that were documented in the prevaccine period. Fifty-six percent of invasive disease now occurs in individuals aged >10 years.\\

//During January 1996–December 2004, 770 cases of invasive H. influenzae disease were reported to the Illinois Department of Public Health (Springfield). The incidence of disease increased from 0.4 to 1.0 cases per 100,000 persons, including an increase of incidence in adults aged 65 years from 1.1 to 3.9 cases per 100,000 persons. Nontypeable H. influenzae disease accounted for the greatest proportion of cases (35.8%–61.5%) in all but 1 age group. The number of cases of invasive nontypeable H. influenzae disease increased by 657%, from a low of 7 cases in 1996 to a high of 53 cases in 2004\\

//Phenotypes and genetic relatedness of invasive Haemophilus influenzae strains were evaluated from 1989 through 2001. Among 119 isolates, multidrug resistance decreased (from 50 to 0%), the level of H. influenzae serotype b (Hib) strains declined (from 81 to 16%), the level of noncapsulated strains rose (from 19 to 80%), and the first invasive H. influenzae serotype f strain was described.\\

//Though numbers of Hib infections in adults fell after the introduction of Hib vaccines for children (P = 0.035), and there was no increase in infections caused by other capsulated Hi serotypes, total numbers of invasive Hi infections increased due to a large rise in infections caused by non-capsulated Hi (ncHi) strains (P = 0.0067)\\

"Nontypeable H influenzae form biofilm in vitro and ex vivo and has been implicated in chronic infection such as otitis media, sinusitis, and bronchitis. Nontypeable H influenzae biofilm formation was found in patients with CF on the apical surface of airway epithelia with decreased antibiotic susceptibility. Studies into the nature of this biofilm structure and proteins will help develop strategies to fight chronic infections. Persons at risk for invasive H influenzae disease include those with asplenia, sickle cell disease, complement deficiencies, Hodgkin disease, congenital or acquired hypogammaglobulinemia, and T-cell immunodeficiency states (eg, persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus [HIV])."

//widespread use of Hib conjugate vaccine and the subsequent reduction in Hib colonization may have opened an ecologic niche for increased colonization with Hia or other non-Hib strains...the potential for serotype replacement remains a concern (16). Three population-based studies have documented small increases in the incidence of non–type b H. influenzae disease after the introduction of the Hib conjugate vaccine...or a preexisting background rate of non-b serotype disease may have simply been uncovered due to the decreasing Hib rates.\\

//Furthermore, the potential risk of the vaccine exceeds the potential benefit. We compared a group that received four doses of the vaccine, a group that received one dose, and a group that was not vaccinated. The cumulative incidence of diabetes per 100 000 in the three groups receiving four, one, and no doses of the vaccine was 261, 237, and 207 at age 7 and 398, 376, and 340 at age 10 respectively. 

Classen JB et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine. BMJ 1999;319:1133. \\

This is from the CDC's Pink Book page on Hib-

//In 1998–2000, approximately 44% of children younger than 5 years of age with confirmed invasive Hib disease were younger than 6 months of age and too young to have completed a three-dose primary vaccination series. Fifty-six percent were age 6 months or older and were eligible to have completed the primary vaccination series. Of these age-eligible children, 68% were either incompletely vaccinated (fewer than 3 doses) or their vaccination status was unknown. Thirty-two percent of children aged 6–59 months with confirmed type b disease had received three or more doses of Hib vaccine, including 22 who had received a booster dose 14 or more days before onset of their illness. The cause of Hib vaccine failure in these children is not known. \\

Could it be BOOBS that saved the day?

Here is a compilation of studies on Hib and breastfeeding:

Here is a Swedish study in the International Journal of Epidemiology that found the protective effect of breastfeeding lasted 5 to 10 years and was stronger against meningitis from HIB.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Aborted Human Cells: The Soylent Green of Vaccines


Here is a concise, cited list of cell lines. If you are looking to verify the claim of human cell lines used in vaccine manufacturing and/or want to learn more about the specific humans aborted, this is the link for you:*

It’s a controversial debate. Do vaccines contain human cells derived from aborted humans? In the passionate debate about whether or not it is moral to use humans in vaccine production, people tend to overlook some important questions, such as: IS IT PROVEN SAFE?

Are you wondering if American vaccines contain human cells from aborted humans?

Do you read the warning label on the allergy medication or Tylenol bottle you bought at the store before giving it to your child? Well, why not read the warning label that comes with every single vaccine before vaccinating your child?

There are as of now 10 vaccines licensed in America that use human cells derived from aborted humans:

Varivax (chicken pox)
Havrix (hep-A)
Vaqta (hep-A)
Twinrix (hep-A/hep-B)
Poliovax (polio)
Imovax (rabies)
Meruvax II (rubella)
MR-VAX (measles/rubella)
Biavax II (mumps/rubella)
MMR II (measles/mumps/rubella).

You can see which vaccines your child will receive by looking at the CDC schedule here:

You can verify the presence of human dna from aborted humans in any particular vaccine by reviewing the manufacturer inserts. They are listed here:

Below is one example of how to verify that human cells from aborted humans are present in a vaccine.

Here is Merck's MMRII product insert. If your child is under 7 years of age and you consent to a regular vaccination schedule, your child will receive this vaccine beginning around 12 months:

Right on the first page, Merck admits that their rubella virus is grown in the cells derived from human lungs:

"(Rubella Virus Vaccine Live), the Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts.1,2"

What does this mean? Development of the Rubella vaccine in America actually involved not one, but 28 abortions. Twenty-seven abortions were performed to isolate the virus and one abortion (WI-38) to culture the vaccine. The vaccine's strain is called RA 27/3 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus tested, 3=3rd tissue explanted). The aborted human was a girl.

“The WI-38 human diploid cell line was derived by Leonard Hayflick from normal embryonic (3 months gestation) lung tissue.”

For those looking for more details and a bigger list of references on WI-38:

Another popular cell line found in many of the vaccines on the list is MRC-5.

“Derived from normal lung tissue of a 14-week-old male fetus by J. P. Jacobs in September 1966 (Nature 227: 168-170, 1970)”

For those looking for more details and a bigger list of references on MRC-5:

MRC-5 is in:

Hep A (Vaqta)
Hep A (Havrix)
Hep A/ Hep B (Twinrix)
MMRV (ProQuad)
Rabies (Imovax)
Varicella (Varivax)
Zoster (Zostavax)

Both MRC-5 and WI-38 are in the Varivax (chickenpox) vaccine.

If you want a concise, authoritative history on the development and use of human cell lines, check out this referenced paper:

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) created a list of ingredients divided by vaccine. You can confirm which vaccines contain human cells by looking at their list here.

Rene Levia, MD gives an indepth analysis of the history of human cell lines:

Don't forget about the younger cell line, PER.C6:​hnology%20-%20Cell%20Techn​ology

Human materials are used in other products as well. This website attempts to bring awareness:

Their Facebook page:


1. Since vaccine companies are using these cells lines, doesn’t that mean we can assume they are safe?
The answer to that is no. These cell lines were collected and replicated for research on whether or not they would work in various scientific endeavors, not to find out if they were safe to be injected into our children. Studies were not conducted to review the effects of using these cell lines. Human trials were not run before using them. After all these years of using them, we still have no double blind, longitudinal study proving how they impact the body or observing if they have adverse consequences.

2. Since it was only a couple abortions and it happened a long time ago, is it really that bad?
First, even if only a couple humans were used and even if it happened a long time ago, that doesn’t dismiss the safety issue. Second, if you oppose abortions or the patenting of human body parts, then it doesn’t matter how many were done or when it happened. Finally, by continuing to consent to vaccines that contain patented human cells, you are maintaining market demand for these companies, which sends a strong message to them and will help them in their decision making.

3. We condone the use of blood for transfusions, bone marrow for cancer treatments, hair for wigs, etc so why is this any different?
First, regardless of your stance on abortion, this is different because informed consent is never obtained from the child being injected with these human cells. And informed consent is very rarely obtained from the parents consenting for their child.

Just ask yourself: how many times did your child’s doctor inform you that the vaccine she was about to give your child contained replicated human cell lines? Did she ever mention it? Or give you the package insert to read?

Second, transfusions and other organ transplants are screened for disease and to match the individual’s age, blood type, ethnicity and more. It's easy to understand the importance of matching blood type and marrow type and of matching organ age with the patient's age and health, right? So what do you think the implications are for every child, of every age, weight, health-background, blood type, ethnicity etc receiving the same replicated human cells in vaccines? It's never even been studied. All you can do is speculate.

In a sense, this is one of the biggest GMO experiments in humans up to this point!

In closing, what do we now know according to the CDC and vaccine companies? What are the actual facts?

~Aborted humans were used to test the propagation (growth) of genetically modified viruses to see if they were a sustainable substance for use in vaccine production.
~The human cell lines were patented and thus are now owned by the vaccine companies.
~The cell lines are replicated to continue their use.
~Human cells are present in the finished product.
~The presence of human cells has not been proven safe, nor has the impact of intramuscular injection of human cells into EVERY child of EVERY size, age, ethnicity, health status, etc EVER been studied.

Basically, American children are GMO-children.

And we asked ourselves some questions:

FIRST, even if you do not personally find abortion unethical, does that make human cells in vaccines safe?
SECOND, if something happened a long time ago or only a couple times, does that make it moral?
THIRD, whether or not anyone finds abortion to be unethical, do parents have a right to be informed about the presence of human cells in the product BEFORE their children are injected with it?

These are questions that parents have a right to ask and to answer after their own research. It is my hope that every parent has opportunity to give full and informed consent when vaccinating their children.

Additional reading:

Pro-vaccine information that every parent should know about before vaccinating:

Here is an article addressed to Catholic parents. But it contains a brief history of human cells lines and resources for vaccine exemptions and alternatives, so it is helpful to anyone.

Here is a PDF released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that shows the increase in Autism diagnoses correlates with the introduction of human cells in vaccine production. This is not causation, but food for thought. Many people acknowledge that Autism is an issue of genetic variation. How are genetics changed with the injection of replicated human DNA?

Here is a chart of the available licensed vaccines. It shows a basic ingredient list and manufacturer names/numbers.

Here is the official statement from the Vatican on the moral use of vaccines derived from aborted humans. Notice that using vaccines is considered an extreme case based on the premise that vaccines are necessary and save lives.
PDF version to save:

Mainstream commentary on the issue:

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Meningococcal Infection and Fearmongering

Today I have the pleasure of sharing Marcella Piper-Terry’s informational post on my blog! She is a mother and grandmother with one child with Asperger's Syndrome and two with ADHD diagnoses. She has a master’s degree and a range of experience as an independent researcher, biomedical consultant, and former Defeat Autism Now! practitioner. Her goal is to provide parents with information they can use to empower them make informed decisions about the health and wellness of their children.

You can read more about her here and here. 

And you can follow her on her blog here.

Now, get comfortable and read what she has to say:

“My friend Nico tagged me in a note regarding current media campaigns designed to increase vaccination rates for meningococcal illness. Here is a link to the "information" published by Voices of Meningitis:

Nico's question was, "What can you say after watching a video like this?? I want to know what you guys think..."

I printed out the CDC's report Prevention and Control of Meningococcal Disease:  Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).The report is long, and full of lots of scary statistics. It is clearly designed to give the impression that menigococcal infection is monstrous and you, as a parent MUST vaccinate your children in order to protect them from the horrors of this very preventable illness.  I say "preventable" because meningococcal infection IS preventable and it appears that the BEST prevention is to REFUSE vaccination!

Here is what I have learned:

According the CDC's MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) from May 27, 2005, titled "Prevention and Control of Meningococcal Disease," there are an estimated 1,400-2,800 cases of meningococcal disease in the U.S. each year. 2010 Census data indicates the U.S. population is 308,000,000. This means meningococcal infection occurs in 1 person out of every 110,000 - 220,000 people, or .00045 - .00091% of the population.

The case-fatality ratio for meningococcal disease is between 10-14% (CDC, 2005). This means that each year in the U.S. it is estimated that between 140-392 people die from meningococcal infection. This translates to an annual death rate in the U.S. of approximately 1 in 1,000,000; literally  "one in a million."

"During 1991-2002, the highest rate of meningococcal disease (9.2/100,000) occurred among infants aged 1 year; the rate for persons aged 11-19 years (1.2/100,000) also was higher than that for the general population." (CDC, MMWR, vol. 54, No. RR-7, p. 2)

"U.S. surveillance data from 1998-99 school year indicated that the overall rate of meningococcal disease among undergraduate college students was lower than the rate among persons aged 18-23 who were not enrolled in college." Rates were higher among freshmen, and highest among freshmen living in dormitories. (CDC, MMWR, vol. 54, No. RR-7, p. 3)

"Persons who have deficiencies in the terminal common complement pathway (C3, C5-9) and those with anatomic or functional asplenia are at increased risk for acquiring meningococcal disease. Antecedent viral infection, household crowding, chronic underlying illness, and both active and passive smoking also are associated with increased risk for meningococcal disease." (CDC, MMWR, vol. 54, No. RR-7, p. 2).

We need some definitions and understanding of what causes increased risk for infection from meningococcal infection in order to understand WHY infants and children are more vulnerable than the general population.


(Caution:  If technical information makes your eyes glaze over, you may want to either skim or skip the definitions. The translation of the definitions is basically that the immune system works together and if you upset one part of it there is a domino-effect, resulting in increased vulnerability to illness from a variety of sources.)

Complement:  Immunology adjective Pertaining to the complement system. noun 1. Any protein of the complement system 2. Complement system The term was first used for a heat labile factor in serum that caused immune cytolysis of antibody coated cells; it now refers to the entire functionally related system comprising ± 25 distinct serum proteins, which mediate the nonspecific inflammatory response to various antigens through a complex sequence of enzymatic cleavages; complement is thus the effector not only of immune cytolysis but also of other biologic functions; it is activated by 2 routes, the classic and alternative pathways.

Complement:  a complex series of enzymatic proteins occurring in normal serum that are triggered in a cascade manner by, and combine with, the antibody-antigen complexes, producing lysis when the antigen is an intact cell. Complement comprises 25 to 30 discrete proteins, labeled numerically as C1 to C9, and by letters, i.e. B, D, P, etc., and with C1 being divided into subcomponents C1q, C1r and C1s. Components C3 and C5 are involved in the generation of anaphylatoxin and in the promotion of leukocyte chemotaxis, the result of these two activities being the inflammatory response. C1 and C4 are involved in the neutralization of viruses. The components also combine in various sequences to participate in other biological activities, including antibody-mediated immune lysis, phagocytosis, opsonization and anaphylaxis. The complement system is known to be activated by the immunoglobulins IgM and IgG.

alternate complement pathway, alternative complement pathway:  the sequence in which complement components C3 and C5 to C9 are activated without participation by C1, C2 and C4 or the presence of an antibody-antigen complex.

complement cascade:  the sequence of reactions, each being the catalyst for the next, that leads to the terminal complement pathway and cell lysis. There are two pathways for activation of C3, the 'classical' (below) and the 'alternate' (above).

 classical complement pathway:  the one in which all of the complement components C1 to C9 participate and is triggered by antibody-antigen complexes.

complement deficiency:  various complement components may be deficient without serious effects on the host. C3 deficiency is most severe and occurs in humans, Brittany spaniels and Finnish-Landrace lambs. Increased susceptibility to infections results.

Terminal Complement Pathway:  the final stages of complement activation in which C5, C6, C7, C8 and C9 are activated; common to both the alternate and classical pathways.

End of definitions... back to the discussion: this explains why infants are at greatest risk of infection from meningococcal disease, and it also explains why the rates in infants were so high between 1991 and 2002.  The complement system is activated by the immune system's response to antigens. Different parts of the system are activated by different antigens (viruses, bacteria, etc.). The complement proteins themselves are dependent on enzymatic processes in order to work properly, and they also depend on the stability of the permeability of the cell membranes.

One of the risk factors listed by the CDC is "antecedent viral infection" - meaning a viral infection that happened prior to exposure to meningococcal bacteria. This makes sense because if you have been exposed to a virus, C1 and C4 will be activated to fight the virus. Because of the way the system works, activation of the earlier complements disrupts the stability of the system and would be expected to cause a depletion in the successive complements (which are necessary to fight bacterial infections) - think of the see-saw metaphor, when one goes up another comes down.

Administration of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth was initiated in 1988-89 and by 1990 it was widespread. Hepatitis B is a virus.

Another risk factor mentioned by the CDC is "active or passive smoking." Why would smoking cause an increase in the risk for meningococcal infection? Because of exposure to toxins that deplete antioxidants and minerals, especially vitamin C (necessary for glutathione), magnesium and zinc (necessary for integrity of cellular membranes, including the blood-brain barrier). When zinc is depleted or out of balance with calcium and magnesium, the blood brain barrier becomes more permeable (bigger holes), which increases the efficiency of passage of viruses (like measles and viruses in the herpes family) into the central nervous system. Cigarette smoke is ONE source of toxins that deplete minerals and glutathione. Mercury is another, and mercury accomplishes the disruption of minerals and antioxidants at a much greater level than cigarette smoke.

The childhood vaccination schedule was greatly increased throughout the 1990s and included multiple vaccines that contained toxic levels of mercury in the form of Thimerosal.

Now... go back to the definition of the complement system and notice the importance of enzymes and enzymatic cleavage.  Enzymes are catalysts. They make things happen. When enzymes are messed up, things do not happen the way they are supposed to.  Mercury (and other toxins, including aluminum and lead) damages enzymatic processes throughout the body. This is why heavy metals are SO dangerous and why they cause SO MANY different manifestations of illness; they destroy the enzymatic processes in the body so NOTHING works they way it's supposed to.


1. Why would adolescents now be at increased risk of meningococcal infection?
Answer:  In the last few years adolescents have been the target of increased vaccination, including flu vaccines that contain mercury.

2. Why would college students (particularly college freshmen) be at increased risk of meningococcal infection?
Answer:  Colleges and Universities have policies that require incoming freshmen to prove "up-to-date" vaccination before being allowed to register for classes.  Freshmen are therefore vaccinated at higher rates than upper classmen. There is a very high risk for over-vaccination in college freshmen, particularly among those who may not have ready access to their childhood medical records and who, thinking there is no risk from vaccines, opt to simply get more shots rather than going through the steps necessary to prove they are "up-to-date" or have established immunity. Freshmen living in dormitories are more likely to be exposed to other freshmen whose immune systems are also damaged from mass over-vaccination, resulting in increased infections of all kinds.

3. How can you, as a parent, best protect your child from meningococcal infection?
Answer:  Improve your child's immune system by providing a healthy diet of whole foods that are rich in nutrients. Give supplements that are high in antioxidants, balanced B-vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids. Give extra vitamin D3 during cold and flu season.  Heal the gut if your child has gastrointestinal problems.  Stress the importance of getting enough sleep and fresh air.  Help your child learn to relax. And, just say NO to vaccines that damage your child's innate immune system."

 Marcella Piper-Terry 

Friday, November 19, 2010

What Every Parent Needs to Know About Vaccines According to the CDC

Do you read the ingredient labels on food before buying it? Read the instructions before assembling furniture? Read the fine print before signing on the dotted line to buy a car?

We take time to ensure we are making an informed decision on a variety of topics. Why not do the same for your child’s vaccination schedule?

Here is what all parents should know about vaccines before deciding whether or not to keep the immune systems intact on their children. The links below take you to pro-vaccine, authoritative sources:

Know the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) official American infant vaccine schedule here.
Obtain the product inserts for licensed vaccines in America here.
Review the CDC ingredient list for licensed vaccines in America here.
Make sure your child does not have a contraindication to vaccines here.
See if your child cannot receive vaccines due to Primary Immunodeficiency here.
Learn about the possible vaccine side effects from the CDC here.
Read about vaccine injuries and deaths at the government site here.

If you want to learn more about vaccines, you might also find these sources helpful:

Get factual data at your fingertips with phone apps here.
Calculate toxin loads, get a list of allergens and create a customized vaccine schedule here.
Navigate the adverse reaction website more easily with this alternate tool here.
Disseminate medical literature and learn about vaccine history here.
Find all the forms, laws and information needed for vaccine exemptions here.
Broaden your understanding of the vaccine/autism controversy here.
Create a support group and gain invaluable mom-to-mom advice here.
Learn about the differences between vaccine-free and vaccinated families/kids here.
Stay updated and open minded with critical articles on current events here.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Eats on Feets is Meals on Wheels for Little Babies in Need of Mama Milk

When pointing out the danger of feeding infants a formula substitute, valid and urgent questions often surface: "What about when a mama really cannot nurse her infant? What about an infant who cannot drink from the breast?"

We all know that life is not an easy road. And for some mamas and babies, the hard road is breastfeeding. First, there are some actual medical conditions that make it difficult to nurse or to produce milk. Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS), Insufficient Glandular Tissue (IGT) and Hypoplastic Tubular Breasts (HTB) can all interfere with lactation. 

Other issues include thyroid disease, hormonal imbalances, retained placenta or severe hemorrhaging, etc. Infants can also experience difficulty latching on due to various issues such as ankyloglossia and a disorganized latch. Perhaps the most avoidable complication is infant circumcision which can traumatize the infant so badly that it disrupts the nursing relationship. 

I want to stress that none of these automatically mean the mama will never be able to nurse. Working with an informed lactation consultant or skilled doctor first can ensure every option is explored.

But the bottomline is that some mamas and babies cannot nurse. So what then? The World Health Organisation (WHO) has created a set of guidelines for situations where nursing is not possible:
This chart shows that the next appropriate choice for infants who cannot latch onto the breast and nurse is expressed milk from the mother. If milk production is an issue and galactogogues do not help, the next options are human milk from a donor. 

Whether the milk is from the mother, from other mothers, pasteurized, term or not, the benefits of bonding, palate development from suckling, comfort nursing and antibody stimulation can all be continued with the use of a Lactaid which is a feeding device that connects to the breast so that the child is fed while latched on to the breast. 

Wetnursing and donor milk have been accepted practices in other areas and previous generations. But the propagation of myths about the quality of human milk, the practice of nursing and the dangers of formula in the mid-1900s caused us to forget about these invaluable and healthy practices. (You can read a brief summary of how this change came about here and here).

Until now. Today's mothers have a resource right at their fingertips. Check out "Eats On Feets" for local, immediate assistance! 

World's Largest Breast Milk Sharing Network Spreads Across Facebook: "Eats On Feets" Goes Global

Within a matter of days, women around the world have mobilized on the social networking site Facebook to organize an international, woman-to-woman milk sharing network. Human milk is for human babies, and formula-feeding is associated with risks to both the mother and infant. Women today are aware of this fact and are taking their life-sustaining power back into their own hands --they are now converging on Facebook to freely share their breastmilk with one another.

Montreal, Canada, November 7, 2010 - The announcement last month from internet health guru, Dr. Joseph Mercola, of his plans to launch his own brand of powdered infant formula onto the US market, has spawned the Eats On Feets GLOBAL breastmilk sharing network. In retaliation against yet another needless and harmful artificial breastmilk substitute to hit the market, mothers on Facebook from around the world have come together to take a stand for infant health. They have now established the world's largest human milk sharing network, an initiative spearheaded by Canadian lactating mother and passionate breastfeeding activist, Emma Kwasnica.

The "Eats On Feets" name is the brainchild of Phoenix, AZ midwife, Shell Walker. A mother to young children in the '90s, Walker and her friends had this thought: "Hey, why don't we just become wet-nurses? Instead of 'Meals on Wheels', we can call our business 'Eats On Feets'." Walker took this idea and made it a reality in July, 2010, when she created a Facebook profile page under the same name, and began a free, community-based breastmilk sharing network for mothers in Phoenix. She has since been successful at matching up local women who have an excess, or are in need of, human breastmilk.

Meanwhile, Kwasnica has also been using her personal profile page and her large network of international birth and breastfeeding activists on Facebook, in order to match up human milk donors and recipients around the world. One such story involves a fellow Canadian friend, living in Bandung, Indonesia; the school teacher and single father to a newborn son wondered if he could source human milk for his baby instead of feeding his son a powdered breastmilk substitute. Aware of his situation, Kwasnica put the call out to her vast network via a simple status update on Facebook, and a breastfeeding peer counselor in a neighbouring city in Indonesia responded. A string of lactating women on the ground was assembled to provide human milk locally for the infant boy. Now three months old, this baby has never tasted anything other than human milk.

The announcement of Dr. Mercola's plans to market formula was the final catalyst that spurred Emma Kwasnica on to convene with Shell Walker and launch Eats On Feets GLOBAL. Regarding the inception of this initiative, she states: "Shell Walker is a friend and the midwife in Phoenix, AZ who came up with the name 'Eats On Feets'. She graciously allowed me to use her catchy name in order to launch the global initiative: a woman-to-woman, grassroots milk sharing network here on Facebook. As for Dr. Mercola, he should be injecting his burgeoning wealth into breastfeeding support, not trying to make more money off a product that is harmful to infants and their lifelong health."

With the help of nearly 200 women online from the global mothering Facebook community, the initiative has taken off. Donor and recipient milk matches are being made right now all over the world on the pages of Facebook. There are now 87 Eats On Feets chapter pages spanning 18 countries (a quick Facebook search for "Eats On Feets" yields dozens of results). This movement is proof that Facebook can, indeed, be used for the good of humanity. By encouraging the biologically normal way of feeding babies, and reviving an age-old practice of human milk sharing, it is clear that social networking has the power to revolutionize infant health.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Marching to the Beat of the Formula Piper

Ingredient label on a case of Enfamil formula

In our country, we put cows in crowded, dark buildings, standing side by side, buried in their own manure. We feed them genetically modified grain. They can't digest grain/corn, which is why we have e.coli problems, as it grows in their damaged stomachs. They do not go outside in fresh air and sunlight nor do they eat the fresh food they are intended to consume.

So the nutrition stores in the actual cow's body are next to nothing. But wait, there's more. Then these cows are bred. And the offspring are immediately separated at birth and fed a milk substitute from the day of birth.

But wait, there's more. The cows are then given a synthetic growth hormone to keep this assembly line moving even faster. And they are injected with antibiotics so they can continue to stand there and be force-fed grain while producing milk. The hormones, antibiotics and pus from their infections are even present in the milk.

This cycle repeats itself endlessly; generation after generation of cows being raised from a deficient standpoint.

Then, the milk from these nutritionally deficient, diseased cows is pasteurized, allegedly killing everything. But that means anything that might have possibly still been good or nutritious is also destroyed.

It is then shipped to a formula factory where it is broken down and processed into a dry, dead substance that we call powdered formula. Corn syrup, corn solids and various forms of sugar are added to make it taste sweet, along with fake vitamins that aren't as bioavailable as food-sourced vitamins. (And synthetics are also associated with an increase in toxicity resulting in cancers, poor assimilation and other issues.)

During this time, the formula becomes contaminated with whatever happens to be in the factory: cleaning detergents dripping off the machines, aluminum, perchlorate (rocket fuel) and fluoride from the water used in processing, BPA from the can lining, bugs and animals in the factory, etc.

If the formula company uses algae-derived DHA in its product, then hexane might also be present because that is how they separate it out. If the company uses tuna-derived DHA (Nestle/Gerber) then mercury might be present.

Now, according to the most recent stats from the CDC, only about 2/3 of women attempt to nurse their babies at birth. That statistic flips at the 6 month mark, where nearly 2/3 of women are now fully formula feeding their babies.

So, by 6 months, 75% of American infants are living on what I just described.

What's amazing is that you don't see EVERYONE in a mad rush to change this NOW. Instead, whenever the issue of formula vs. nursing comes up, it turns into a long, drawn out game of mental gymnastics where the mother who gave her child this concoction tries to claim she isn't guilty and the other person tries to claim she should feel guilty. All the other people involved, all the other people profiting, all the other people providing sub-par products for a PROFIT, are completely exempt from the conversation.

Meanwhile, an average of a thousand infants (1,000) die from formula use in America and millions die worldwide every year. (Read: The World Health Organisation lists powdered formula as 6 OUT OF 6 on feeding options. The FDA admits that formula companies are not regulated and currently fall under "Generally Regarded as Safe."

Thousands upon thousands of studies show that babies given a milk substitute suffer in every way possible...lower IQ, increased risk of GI illness, increased risk of cancer, increased risk of diabetes, increased risk of mental illness, etc etc etc. All the women who give their children a milk substitute instead of nursing also suffer increased risk of breast cancer, increased risk of diabetes, increased risk of heart disease, etc etc etc.

And the beat goes on and the tune of $$$$$$$$$$$. Women and children, and in truth, our entire human race, being damaged and cheated in the name of $$$$$$$$ and all we can do online is claim that "there is no right or wrong or guilt."

It would crack me up if it weren't so freakin' depressing.

Below are some resources if you'd like to start looking into this issue:

Page 10 paragraph 18- WHO specifically recommends:

18. The vast majority of mothers can and should breastfeed, just as the
vast majority of infants can and should be breastfed. Only under
exceptional circumstances can a mother’s milk be considered unsuitable
for her infant. For those few health situations where infants
cannot, or should not, be breastfed, the choice of the best
alternative – expressed breast milk from an infant’s own mother,
breast milk from a healthy wet-nurse or a human-milk bank, or a
breast-milk substitute fed with a cup, which is a safer method than
a feeding bottle and teat – depends on individual circumstances.

Traces of the metal in milk were found to be much higher than is legally allowed in water, according to scientists, with one brand containing more than 800 micrograms per litre.

“The fastest growing infants were those who had been fed formula-milk, rather than breast milk, and who were weaned onto solid foods at an early age, before 3 to 4 months old.
Dr Pauline Emmett, the study's senior nutritionist and a dietitian, says "It seems that breastfed infants are better able to regulate their energy intake than formula-fed infants.”

“Research has shown that infants who are fed formula may be more likely to be obese. This could be a significant factor in the climbing rates of obesity.” 

“Full-term infants who are born small score an average of 11 points higher on IQ tests if they are exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life compared to those who are given formula or solids early on, according to findings published in the March Acta Paediatrica. The study was conducted by researchers at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.”

Breastfed children attain higher IQ scores than children not fed breast milk, presumably because of the fatty acids unquely available in breast milk.

Infant Formula and the Risk for Enamel Fluorosis

The chemical is bisphenol A, or BPA, a component of the plastic epoxy resins used to line metal food cans. Dozens of laboratory studies show that BPA affects the developing brain and reproductive systems of animals exposed to low doses during pregnancy and early life.
1 of every 16 infants fed the formula would be exposed to the chemical at doses **exceeding** those that caused harm in laboratory studies.

Based on its analysis of existing research on BPA, even a very small amount of the compound may cause a host of problems, from brain and behavioral disorders to cancer, a claim the formula makers and federal regulators adamantly deny.

Bisphenol A (BPA), known as the 'gender bender' chemical, leaches into liquid baby formula from the linings of cans at levels dangerous to infant health

DHA: omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are produced in laboratories and extracted from algae and fungus then put into infant formulas, juices and packaged foods. The report below presents disturbing research indicating that the new additives placed in infant formula are seriously endangering the health of some formula-fed newborns and toddlers. Algal-and fungal-based DHA/ARA have been linked to serious side effects such as virulent diarrhoea and vomiting in infants consuming infant formula.

April 15, 2008–The Cornucopia Institute filed a legal complaint with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) today, demanding that the agency enforce the organic regulations prohibiting toxic solvents from being used in the production of organic food.
DHA/ARA that has been extracted from laboratory-grown fermented algae and fungus and processed utilizing a toxic chemical, hexane. 

Here's a link to the full report:

In some cases the DHA oils are extracted from non-toxic algae and soil fungus using chemicals such as hexane, acid and bleach.
Hexane is a volatile liquid found in glue and gasoline. When inhaled in high volumes it can cause nausea, euphoria, headaches and nerve damage. You can read more about the hexane process and formula supplementation by downloading a report at the Cornucopia Institute.

(Quick summary of hexane:


Melamine (us)
Humans and animals that consume toxic doses of melamine develop kidney stones. These hard crystals can block urinary flow and make urination painful. They can also cause kidney failure and death, pediatric kidney specialist Marc B. Lande, MD, MPH, of the University of Rochester, N.Y., tells WebMD.
Hiding the truth about melamine formula The FDA exists for only one purpose: To protect the profits of powerful food and drug companies. Babies be damned.

Cyanuric acid
This white, odorless solid finds use as a precursor or a component of bleaches, disinfectants, and herbicides.
When cyanuric acid is administered together with melamine (which by itself is another low-toxicity substance), they may form extremely insoluble crystals,[10] leading to formation of kidney stones and potentially causing kidney failure and death -- as evidenced in dogs and cats during the 2007 pet food contamination and in children during the 2008 Chinese milk scandal cases.

It is lethal at very high doses by ingestion and considered a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
Formaldehyde damages DNA, kills cells and causes cell proliferation

Melamine resin is manufactured by mixing urea with formaldehyde under heat and pressure.

Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane in bath products for children. Many products tested for this study contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, including the top-selling Johnson's Baby Shampoo and Sesame Street Bubble Bath.

Powdered infant formula is not sterile which means it may contain bacteria. This is one of the top reasons for formula recalls and top mortality reasons related to formula feeding.

Enterobacter sakazakii is a gram-negative, non-spore-forming, rod-shaped bacterium within the family Enterobacteriaceae. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported on a fatal case of meningitis in an intensive care nursery in Tennessee. The infecting organism was Enterobacter sakazakii, an unusual but often fatal, invasive pathogen. In the fatal Tennessee case, the infection was traced to contaminated powdered infant formula

The recent expert meeting recommended that caregivers to infants, particularly those at high risk (see
Q 4.), should be regularly alerted to the fact that powdered infant formula is not a sterile product.

Charts on bacteria growth and temperatures (not sure if this is a play it safe one by formula company scientists)

Soy formula
…soybeans act as potent enzyme inhibitors. These "antinutrients" block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors depress growth and cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer. Soybeans also contain high levels of phytic acid or phytates. This is an organic acid, present in the outer portion of all seeds, which blocks the uptake of essential minerals-calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc-in the intestinal tract. A reduced rate of growth is especially serious in the infant as it causes a delay in the accumulation of lipids in the myelin, and hence jeopardizes the development of the brain and nervous system.

Patent info on DHA and its extraction *(assigned by Martek Bioscience corp)
it is an object of the present invention to provide a single-cell edible oil containing DHA. In general, it is an object of the present invention to produce single-cell oil in commercially viable yields (one that doesn’t smell offensive because of the source of the ingredients fish eyes etc). The oil, characterized herein as a "designer" oil, after extraction can be used in infant formulas, baby foods, dietary supplements and pharmaceuticals.

Martek and a look at their finances and ratings in early 2009
Product sales were up 7% versus last years first quarter. (This is campaigning AGAINST breastfeedin btw)
The strength of our core infant formula business, growing consumer awareness of the health benefits of DHA

International Infant morality rates charts and formula

A recent review of evidence has shown that, on a population basis, exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is the optimal way of feeding infants. Thereafter infants should receive complementary foods with continued breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that "Breastfeeding should be continued for at least the first year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and child... Increased duration of breastfeeding confers significant health and developmental benefits for the child and the mother... There is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychologic or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer." (AAP 2005)

The American Academy of Family Physicians says"Breastfeeding beyond the first year offers considerable benefits to both mother and child, and should continue as long as mutually desired." They also note that "If the child is younger than two years of age, the child is at increased risk of illness if weaned." (AAFP 2001)

The World Health Organisation states that “A recent review of evidence has shown that, on a population basis, exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is the optimal way of feeding infants. Thereafter infants should receive complementary foods with continued breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond.” (WHO 2008)