Advertisements

Sudden Death of Your Child After Vaccination May Be Written Off by Researchers

By WENDY LYDALLl | VACTRUTH | MARCH 28, 2013

Around the world, medical authorities tell parents that vaccination has been proven not to cause SIDS, and sometimes they are even told that vaccination prevents SIDS. However, the studies that are used to justify these claims use research methods that do not adequately investigate the possibility that vaccination may actually increase the risk of SIDS in susceptible babies.

The Case-Control Method

A favourite method used by researchers who are looking at the relationship between vaccination and SIDS is the case-control method. Case-control studies compare babies who died with babies who did not die.

The researchers select a group of babies who died of SIDS within a particular geographical area, and these babies are called the cases. Each case is matched with two or three live babies who are called the controls. The vaccination history of the baby who has died is then compared with the vaccination histories of the two or three babies who have not died. Babies who have not received any vaccinations are excluded from the study.

In the case-control studies that have been published, researchers have found that when the live babies were at the age at which the case baby died, they had received more vaccine doses than those who had died. This leads the authors to conclude that vaccination does not cause SIDS, which is a happy conclusion for those who want to promote vaccination, but far from scientifically sound.

One problem with the case-control method is that it could be comparing fragile babies who are susceptible to dying from an immunological onslaught with tougher babies who can survive being injected with animal tissue, human tissue, peanut oil, attenuated germs, toxic metals, toxic chemicals, and genetically engineered yeast. Case-control studies can be useful for investigating something that is static at the time of death; for example, whether the baby was sucking a pacifier, or lying face down.

However, the effects of vaccination are not static; they are ongoing, and they are unknown. Case-control studies can also be useful if you take all the confounding factors into account, but in the case of vaccine susceptibility, no one yet knows what the confounding factors are. Controlling for factors that are known to increase the risk of SIDS does not mean that you are controlling for factors that increase the risk of SIDS from vaccination.

An Important Discovery

In the most recent case-control study, which was done in Germany, researchers found that the babies who died had had fewer vaccinations than the ones who were still alive, and that their vaccinations had been done later. [1]

The latter finding may be significant. Parents can be reluctant to turn up on time for vaccinations when they feel that their baby is unusually fragile, or when they know that vaccine reactions run in the family. Some parents who are not keen on vaccination eventually comply because of the extreme pressure that is put on them, but they do it later than at the prescribed time.

Interestingly, the researchers did find a statistically significantly higher rate of developmental problems, hospital admissions and special investigations, like x-rays or electrocardiograms, in the SIDS babies compared to the live babies. [2] This discovery might mean that the babies with these problems, who were only 22 percent of the SIDS babies, were more susceptible to dying unexpectedly, and that vaccination played no role in their deaths.

Alternatively, it might mean that these babies were susceptible to an unknown effect of vaccination, and that vaccination killed them. A different study design would need to be used to ascertain whether vaccination played a part in the deaths of this 22 percent. The fact that these babies had had fewer doses of vaccine than the live babies with whom they were compared does not mean that they were not pushed over the edge by the vaccines that entered their bodies.

Metabolic Disorders

There has been some consideration of the role that metabolic disorders might play in making children susceptible to adverse reactions from vaccination, but while the possible relationship to SIDS has been considered by one group of doctors, there has not been an actual study. There are many types of metabolic disorders, but each one occurs in only a few children.

In 2010, a group of doctors published an article in which they considered the possibility that some children who were born with metabolic disorders may have died from the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine. The doctors paid special attention to a metabolic disorder called medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency.

After considering the biological pathways in children with medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, the doctors concluded that one third of the babies who were born with this disorder, and who were also injected with the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine, could have died from resultant low blood sugar. [3]  Because medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency is very rare, this amounted to only 39 babies per year in the USA.

The consideration of medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency was only done seven decades after the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine was introduced. There are more than four hundred metabolic disorders that need to be considered and studied. There may be other types of vulnerability apart from metabolic disorders that make babies susceptible to dying quietly from vaccination. Case-control studies are unable to detect deaths that occur because of individual susceptibility.

Long ago, I mentioned to a pediatrician who publishes articles about SIDS that I considered case-control studies to be an inadequate way of testing whether vaccination increases the risk of SIDS. He replied, “That’s the way it has always been done.”

Valentina A. Soldatenkova is a mathematician and physicist who has also expressed the opinion that case-control studies are inadequate for assessing the relationship between vaccination and SIDS. In her published critique of the existing case-control studies, she criticises the study designs employed and statistical methods used by researchers to conclude that there is no relationship between vaccination and SIDS. [4]

The Institute of Medicine in the USA has the job of publishing complicated whitewashes about vaccine side effects, and they, of course, have done exactly that in regard to the question of whether vaccination may cause some cases of SIDS. Their lengthy report on the existing studies concludes that “the evidence does not support a causal link” between vaccination and SIDS.

Soldatenkova says that their report should have stated that “the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation between SIDS and vaccines.” [4]

Temporal Studies

Another type of study that is often quoted as proving that vaccination does not cause SIDS is the temporal study. Central to these studies is the assumption that if vaccination were to cause a sudden unexplained death, it would do so within 12 hours, or 24 hours, or 48 hours, or 7 days, or 14 days. [5,6,7,8] No one knows what vaccines do once they get inside the body, so no one knows what the time frame is for a negative effect. Implying that they do know is bordering on fraudulent.

Antibodies only start appearing two weeks after vaccination, and the production of antibodies continues for a few more weeks. The researchers, who are sometimes being paid to do the study by a vaccine manufacturer, have no basis for assuming that any negative effects of the ingredients in vaccines would take less time to develop than it takes for antibodies to develop.

The Possible Link Between Vaccination, Blood Sugar, and SIDS

It is possible that some SIDS deaths may be caused by low blood sugar. Dr. C. Horvarth reported that during a three-year period in New Zealand, the blood sugar level of 84 babies who had died inexplicably was measured at autopsy, and in 81 of them, the level was found to be below the normal range. [9]

Other studies have shown that low blood sugar is strongly associated with SIDS. [10,11,12,13] When the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine causes the level of blood sugar to drop, the drop starts at about 8 days after injection, reaches its lowest point at about 12 days after injection, and becomes normal at about 24 days after injection. [14]

Promising New Protocols

Many countries have passed legislation that an autopsy must be done after every SIDS death, and they have introduced protocols that have to be followed. This is a great step forward. Previously autopsies were only done if someone felt like doing one, and they could decide what to investigate and what to ignore.

One of the benefits of the introduction of autopsy protocols is that explanations are found for some of the otherwise mysterious deaths. In Germany, for example, a non-SIDS explanation for 11.2% of the SIDS deaths was found because of the autopsies. [15]

In the future, the protocols will help to identify ways to reduce the incidence of SIDS.  In the mean time, they help detect to infant abuse, and they help to prevent parents from being falsely accused of abuse. The protocols also mean that doctors can no longer write off blatantly obvious reactions to vaccination as SIDS.

The usefulness of the autopsies would be enhanced if they were to include an assessment of the blood sugar level at the time of death, which can be done even though blood glucose continues to be broken down for a short while after death. [10, 16]

Conclusion

SIDS has been occurring since long before vaccination was invented. [17]  As records of its incidence were not kept until relatively recently, it is not possible to know whether the rate of SIDS in modern times is different to what it was in the distant past. To gain more insight into the distressing phenomenon of SIDS, blood sugar levels at the time of death should be assessed in every SIDS autopsy, and every vaccine that is recommended for infants should be tested to find out whether it causes blood sugar levels to drop at any time after vaccination.

References

1. Vennemann, M.M., Butterfaß-Bahloul, T., Jorch, G., Brinkmann, B., Findeisen, M., Sauerland, C., et al. (2007). “Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunization.” Vaccine: 25(2), 336–340.

2. Vennemann, M.M., Findeisen, M., Butterfass-Bahloul, T., Jorch, G., Brinkmann, B., Kopcke W. et al. (2005). “Infection, health problems, and health care utilisation, and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.” Archives of Disease in Childhood: 90(5), 520–522. http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/5/520.long

3. Wilson, K., Potter, B., Manuel, D., Keelan, J., & Chakraborty P. (2010). “Revisiting the possibility of serious adverse events from the whole cell pertussis vaccine: Were metabolically vulnerable children at risk?” Medical Hypotheses: 74(1), 150–154.

4. Soldatenkova, V.A. (2007). “Why case-control studies showed no association between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccinations.” Medical Veritas: 4, 1411–1413. http://pdfdownloadfree.net/?pdfurl=1qeXpurpn6Wih-SUpOGunKqnh8PX74XXy…

5. Keens, T.G., Ward, S.L., Gates, E.P., Andree, D.I., & Hart, L.D. (1985). “Ventilatory pattern following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization in infants at risk for sudden infant death syndrome.” American Journal of Diseases of Children: 139(10), 991–994.

6. Hoffman, H.J., Hunter, J.C., Damus, K., Pakter, J., Peterson, D.R., van Belle, G., et al. (1987). “Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death: results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome risk factors.” Pediatrics: 79(4), 598–611.

7. Brotherton, J.M., Hull, B.P., Hayen, A., Gidding, H.F., & Burgess, M.A. (2005). “Probability of coincident vaccination in the 24 or 48 hours preceding sudden infant death syndrome death in Australia.” Pediatrics: 115(6), 643–646. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/6/e643.long

8. Griffin, M.R., Ray, W.A., Livengood, J.R., & Schaffner, W. (1988). “Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine.” New England Journal of Medicine: 319(10), 618–23.

9. Horvarth, C.H. (1990). “Sudden infant death syndrome.” New Zealand Medical Journal: 103(885), 107.

10. Hirvonen, J., Jantti, M., Syrjala, H., Lautala, P., & Akerblom, H.K. (1980). “Hyperplasia of islets of Langerhans and low serum insulin in cot deaths.” Forensic Science International: 16, 213–226. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7009350

11. Read, D.J., Williams, A. L., Hensley, W., Edwards, M., & Beal, S. (1979). “Sudden Infant Deaths: Some Current Research Strategies.” Medical Journal of Australia: 2(5), 236–238, 240–241, 244.

12. Aynsley-Green, A., Polak, J.M., Keeling, J., Gough, M.H., & Baum, J.D. (1978). “Averted sudden neonatal death due to pancreatic nesidioblastosis.” The Lancet: 311(8063), 550–551.

13. Cox, J.N., Guelpa, G., & Terrapon, M. (1976). “Islet-cell hyperplasia and sudden infant death.” The Lancet: 308(7985), 739–740.

14. Dhar, H.L. & West, G.B. (1972). “Sensitization procedures and the blood sugar concentration.” Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology: 24, 249.

15. Findeisen,M., Vennemann, M.M., Brinkmann, B., Ortmann, C., Röse, I., Köpcke, W. et al. (2004). “German study on sudden infant death (GeSID): design, epidemiological and pathological profile.” International Journal of Legal Medicine: 118(3), 163–169. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042379

16. Palmiere, C. & Mangin, P. (2012). “Postmortem chemistry update part I.” International Journal of Legal Medicine: 126(2), 187–98.

17. Limerick, S.R. (1992). “Sudden infant death in historical perspective.” Journal of Clinical Pathology, 45(Suppl), 3–6.

Advertisements

Psychiatry’s Reign of Terror in an Age of Fear

THE REAL AGENDA | MARCH 25, 2013

We live in the very picture of a modern society.

Seemingly secure. Seemingly safe. Seemingly happy.

But life isn’t always as it appears.

Psychiatry’s history of atrocities can be found everywhere.

But nowhere can we see them more clearly than in psychiatry’s very birthplace—Germany.

Drawing from extensive research and interviews with psychiatric experts and victims, this shocking documentary reveals the sordid story of psychiatry from its earliest beginnings to present day.

It is a seldom-told tale of false claims, damaging treatments, and the ultimate in human cruelty.

Filmed in Germany and Austria, The Age of Fear: Psychiatry’s Reign of Terror, draws from over 80 interviews of psychiatric experts, historians and survivors. Containing shocking personal testimonies and stark inside footage, the documentary tells the true story of psychiatry’s sordid history and current practices, revealing how its reliance on brutality and coercion has not changed since the moment it was born.

“If some doctors harm—torture rather than treat, murder the soul rather than minster the body—that is, in part, because society, through the state, asks them, and pays them, to do so.

“We saw it happen in Nazi Germany, and we hanged many of the doctors. We see it happen in the Soviet Union, and we denounce the doctors with righteous indignation. But when will we see that the same things are happening in the so-called free societies? When will we recognize—and publicly identify—the medical criminals among us?”

—Dr. Thomas Szasz, M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus

No Shade of Grey on the Right to Keep and Bear arms

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 18, 2013

Life is a carousel, a big screen where events appear, pass by, and, due to human nature, repeat themselves throughout history. A person only needs to look back 25, 50, 100 years or a millennium — depending on how much one wants to review — to find out that what’s happening today has already taken place.

Case in point, governments disarming citizens ‘for their own safety’. Why can’t a population realize that disarming THE PEOPLE is the first step that an elected government takes towards crushing them in order to maintain the monopoly of force?

Citing some examples:

China: Murdered 76,702,000 people;
USSR: Murdered 61,911,000 people;
Germany: Murdered 20,946,000 people;
Cambodia: Murdered 2,035,000 people;
Turkey: Murdered 1,883,000 people;
Poland: Murdered 1,585,000 people;
Pakistan: Murdered 1,503,000 people;

All of these populations were either lightly armed or completely disarmed with respect to their governments military power. This fact is a very important one. Being armed in only helpful if one can equal the power of that who posses a threat.

For those of you not familiar with the history of disarmament, murder by government is called DEMOCIDE and all advanced civilizations in human history have gone through it. Bar none.

Overall, governments have murdered between 262,000,000 and 350,000,000 in just the 20th century. If you think it can’t happen again take a look at history, the continuously moving carousel we all ignore on a daily basis even though it is the best source of information.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, I have to agree with judge Andrew Napolitano: There are no shades of grey. We either have it, or don’t have it.

There can’t be a Second Amendment to own a handgun, but not to own a semi-automatic rifle; especially because the right was written with no limitations. The creators of the Bill of Rights in the United States and similar documents in other parts of the world understood that society would evolve, and that throughout that evolution people’s liberty and freedom would be challenged.

There can’t be a Second Amendment to hunt deer, but not to hunt tyrants. Hunting tyrants is the real goal behind giving people the constitutional right to own firearms. It doesn’t matter how much the Government says it is all about hunting. It is not.

There can’t be a Second Amendment to defend our home, but not to defend our country. In many U.S. States, a home is a castle. If a stranger enters that home to steal, injure or kill someone, the homeowner has the right to shoot the intruder without asking questions. Why couldn’t THE PEOPLE apply the same criterium to defend their nation-state?

An even more important question to ask is, why should law-abiding citizens have their Second Amendment taken away — progressively or all at once — because insane people are pharmaceutically induced  to act violently? Should the authorities be more concerned with eradicating the pharmaceuticals that cause sane and insane people to act violently, as supposed to taking away the right to defend ourselves?

When it comes to the right to defend ourselves, the right to keep and bear arms has no shade of grey. We either have it or don’t have it. PERIOD! Those people who can’t stand that their neighbors own firearms to defend themselves from whatever threat, should move to England, North Korea or Mexico.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

EU Ministers agree on framework to create New World Order Bank

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 13, 2012

Ministers of Economy and Finance of the European Union reached an agreement early Thursday on the  legal framework that will allow Europe to create a single banking supervisor. The pact is the first step towards joining the euro zone bank and comes hours before the EU summit on Thursday, which will  ratify the commitment. It is expected that the bank becomes operational in March 2014.

During the hours leading up to the agreement, the main hurdle was the distribution of power and scope of the supervising entity, which as explained in previous reports published during 2012, will become the economic and financial beast the bankers have always dreamed about. Germany wanted to exempt regional banks and savings banks from the control of the supervisor, while France, like Spain, defended the institution to supervise all institutions without exception.

The bank union is full of technicalities, but in reality it comes down to one detail: who has the power. Germany has convinced others that the ECB will only oversee the nationalized banks and the largest institutions; those with assets in excess of 30,000 million or 20% of GDP, about 100 entities, to leave others in the hands of national supervisors.

Although initially it was thought that the supervisor could only have the power to control, at any given time, any entity in difficulty, Germany blocked that option, leaving out of the ECB’s orbit Länder banks, which are supposedly loaded up with toxic assets. These banks will remain under the supervision of the German Bundesbank.

Germany also imposes a watered down solution for the common guarantee fund (consisting simply of standardized national funds) and a considerable delay to the bank resolution fund (a mechanism to close banks if necessary), which at some point could be a form of mutualisation of euro problems to be done through back door deals. And almost everything else gets delayed from the original schedule, against the advice of Italy, France and especially Spain, the country most affected by the financial cliff.

The bankers are already salivating due to the agreement. “Historic agreement on the supervisor!” said the  European Commissioner for Internal Market and Financial Services, Michel Barnier, after 14 hours of meetings. In his Twitter account, Barnier judged that the creation of this entity is “a big step for a coherent supervision of all banks in the euro area.”

The objective is that the complete control of the European Central Bank (ECB) over all entities will serve to recapitalize troubled banks and break the vicious circle between the financial crisis and debt, but that kind of power will also undermine the sovereignty of the each of the member nations to a considerable degree in regards to their economic and financial policies. Everyone has seen in the last two years what happens when a complete continent is managed by a group of technocrats whose only goal is to consolidate power.

The supervising entity will be open not only to the euro zone, but all European countries that seek to yield their independence to a centralized, unaccountable banking system. So far only three countries have indicated that they are not interested in joining the single banking supervisor: the UK, Sweden and the Czech Republic.

The Cypriot Minister of Finance, Vassos Shiarly, announced at a press conference that the agreement will allow the Council to start negotiations with the European Parliament, which will begin early next week.

According Shiarly, the Twenty member states have reached an agreement on cooperation between the European Central Bank (ECB) and national regulators, the voting systems in the supervisory board of the entity and the European Banking Authority (EBA), the degree of enforceability of decisions made for countries outside the euro which are participating and the different phases of direct supervision.

Of course, it is clear that an entity that holds as much power as the supervisor will not share any kind of power to regulate how member nations direct their policies. Centralization of power and control is the reason why the bankers created this monster in the first place. From now on, it will be take it or leave it.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

The Immorality Crisis not lack of Transparency caused the Financial Collapse

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 5, 2012

The European Union countries most affected by the global economic and financial collapse are also some of the most corrupt. But the highest levels of immorality and corruption are not seen at the national level, but on the international stage.

A recent publication by Transparency International which assesses the perception of corruption through a well established index, calls the results “disappointing” in the sense that countries, especially those hit the hardest by the current financial collapse, are corrupt at heart, indeed.

The Index 2012 Corruption Perceptions from Transparency International shows that Greece obtained the worst result of all the European Union with a score of 36 out of 100, in 94th place out of 174 countries in the table. The Hellenic country is below Bulgaria and Romania.

Among the members of the European Union, Spain is in 13th place, after Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Belgium, UK, France, Austria, Ireland and Cyprus. The report from TI shows the stagnation of Spain, the second country in Europe on its way down the cliff. Spain shares the 30th position with Botswana in the latest report of the corruption index.

“Among the countries hardest hit by the crisis are Italy and Greece — both join Spain on their way to total collapse — as corruption in the public sector is a major problem,” said Corbus de Swardt, spokesman for the NGO. He then added that “the fight against corruption is one of the keys so that Greece can emerge from the crisis. True point, although the type of corruption that pulled Greece down to the abyss, did not necessarily originate inside the  country. As it happens in most nations, the bureaucrats who manage the destiny of countries and their people are front men and women whose work is to be ‘YES MEN’ and who represent the interests of the European oligarchy; where the highest levels of corruption emanate from.

In Germany and France, De Swardt believes that “one of the main problems is the relationship between politics and business.” The report reveals the existence of interest groups and a culture of secrecy. He is particularly concerned about the funding of political parties in Germany. Interest groups of course are not limited to women’s rights groups or unions, but to large conglomerates of companies that operate locally and outside the countries and who dictate the policies that the governments follow.

At a press conference Wednesday in Madrid, the President of Transparency International Spain, Jesús Lizcano, innocently advocated for giving good training to staff. He also called for issuing punishments to institutions that do not comply with transparency.

In this context, Antonio Garrigues Walker, executive committee member of IT, reminded people that in the past 18 years, corruption has increased gradually but forcefully mainly because, he said, that most countries do not have transparency laws in place. But reality shows otherwise. Countries with significant rules and regulations about transparency also suffer the consequences of corruption mainly because the rules on transparency are written for the people, not for the corrupt politicians in government and the corporations, who always manage to find back doors and legal windows to get away with cheating the system. Therefore, the crisis is not one of corruption, but of morality. Corruption is just the direct result of a society whose morality has been removed.

“Transparency is an absolute obligation of institutions and an absolute right of citizenship,” said the lawyer, who also lamented that countries like Spain have a civil society that is “weak and dependent.” In his opinion, corruption is “a true leukemia” especially in the economic system and transparency is the instrument to combat it.”

The agreement among most of the attendees is the “truly alarming” intensification of corruption worldwide. The highest levels of corruption speakers said have been seen during the current global financial collapse caused by the corrupt financial system upon which the world functions and which is managed by a few powerful elites.

Since the first Corruption Perceptions Index was published in 1995, both Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries remain at the top of the corruption ladder, even though the index does not always shows it. That is not a surprise as many of the oligopolies that are the source of corruption are established there. Outside Europe, countries such as Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia are three of the most corrupt in the world.

Although the Transparency International Index is just a main stream kind of thermometer which superficially gauges the levels of corruption around the world, it is a good starting point. Its results however contrasts with the reality of corruption and transparency. It is important to remember that in the case of the TI Index, it only reports the “perception” of corruption and not the real, factual levels in a country. That is why in its 2012 edition, countries like the United States, Uruguay and Germany hold distinctive positions, despite the fact these countries are submerged deeply into a sea of corruption. Another caveat is that the TI Index only includes the perception of corruption in the public sector and leaves out its twin out-of-control unregulated corporations.

Do we need a global index to know how bad corruption is in a determined country? Not likely. A more faithful gauge would be an honest look around the city and country where we live.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T COPY articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.