Grumblings of the Móðirbera

I'm Crazy and I'm Proud!

2009-02-26T12:48:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I get really frustrated and depressed when I hear so much negative criticism and condescending dismissal of parents who make a non-mainstream choice, whether it be to birth with no professional in attendance, or to not vaccinate, or to homeschool. It's frustrating to hear over and over how you are "ignorant", "uneducated", "irrational", "irresponsible", or just plain "crazy".

But then it occured to me... all throughout history, this is what anyone who has ever questioned mainstream ideas and practices has been labeled with. The ones who push the mainstream have historically and predictably used this tactic over and over again. Instead of offering up arguments to the facts, they attack the person's character and try to invalidate them in the eyes of others. They essentially try to shame others into agreeing with them and conforming.

How many people who were, in their own times, once considered "insane" do we now celebrate and admire for their courage to question, to draw their own conclusions, and stand up for what they believe in?

If you are denigrated for doing your own research and coming to your own decisions about what's best for your children, don't take it to heart. If you are told that your informational resources are "unreliable" just because they aren't government-sanctioned, don't get discouraged. All individuals throughout history who have had the courage to question and think for themselves have been called ignorant, irrational lunatics by the mainstreamers of their time. You are in good company, and one day, you may be celebrated for your courage and independence too. Take it as a compliment. :-)

Vaccine Court: Hepatitis B Shot Caused MS

2009-02-10T13:08:00.000-08:00

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/vaccine-court-hepatitis-b-shot-causes-ms.html

By David Kirby

All eyes are on Vaccine Court this week, as people await rulings in the autism “test cases” on MMR and thimerosal. But another omnibus proceeding involving Hepatitis B vaccine and autoimmune disorders in adults, including MS, has already been quietly ruling in favor of several petitioners. (HERE)

The most recent case was announced about a week ago. In it, the Court ruled that the victim, an adult female, had contracted a form of demyelinating disease and MS, and eventually died, after receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine series. It was just the most recent case in a rash of rulings in the omnibus proceeding dealing with hepatitis B vaccine and “demyelinating diseases such as transverse myelitis (TM), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating disease (CIDP), and multiple sclerosis (MS),” according to court papers.

“Petitioner has prevailed on the issue of entitlement. The medical records during decedent’s final hospitalization reflect that she died from demyelinating disease. Not only did decedent have a vaccine injury, but also her death was vaccine-related,” wrote the Special Master in the case.

Interestingly, the US government chose not to present any expert witnesses, nor to contest the case any further.

But the family of the deceased woman had presented testimony from an expert witness who stated that, “It is biologically plausible for hepatitis B to cause demyelination because vaccines are composed of organic compounds of viral or bacterial origin, whether recombinant or otherwise, whose purpose is to initiate an immune response in the recipient,: the Court noted in the ruling. “But if any of the vaccine antigens shares a homology with the recipient’s antigens, the host’s immune response will attack both the vaccine antigens and the host’s antigens, resulting in an autoimmune response. This concept is also known as molecular mimicry and is well-established in immunology.”

In the last few years, it turns out, the Federal Vaccine Court has issued a number of rulings in favor of petitioners seeking compensation for Hepatitis B vaccine-related demyelinating diseases, especially MS.

What is also notable about all the Hep B rulings is that they fly in the face of the reasoned opinion of an IOM panel that looked into the matter in 2002. That committee determined that “the epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the hepatitis B vaccine in adults and multiple sclerosis.” Likewise, the panel said that it “does not recommend that national and federal vaccine advisory bodies review the hepatitis B vaccine on the basis of concerns about demyelinating disorders.”

Apparently, Vaccine Court Special Masters are willing to make their rulings independent of what the IOM has decreed (and given the IOM’s spotty track record on the etiology of illnesses such as Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome, perhaps there is a solid legal underpinning for that).

So, what does any of this have to do with the autism cases? Perhaps nothing. But, if the autism Special Masters suggest that more research is needed, one area that scientists may want to explore is demyelination in autism and its many potential causes.

Myelin is the fatty acid sheath that protects and insulates nerve cells and the brain. Some people with autoimmune disorders, including MS, present with damage to myelin in the brain.

Myelin damage has long been suspected in autism, though the jury is still out on this question. One thing that does seem to be certain is that children with ASD appear to have unusually high levels of antibodies to myelin basic protein, or MBP. That would suggest they might have myelin damage as well. Some studies have also shown highly elevated levels (up to 90%) of MBP antibodies in ASD children who received the MMR vaccine. The development of MBP antibodies could possibly be caused by a reaction to the live measles virus in the vaccine, because the virus may mimic the molecular structure of MBP. (The finding of antibodies to MBP is also associated with MS, which is a demyelinating disorder).

This vaccine-myelin association was also supported by a study in the October, 2008 issue of the journal Neurology. It reported that exposure to Hep B vaccine in children was associated with a 50% increased risk for CNS inflammatory demyelination of 50 percent (OR: 1.50; 0.93–2.43). This was especially true for children who got GlaxoSmithKline’s Engerix B vaccine, in which case the risk was elevated by 74% (1.74; 1.03–2.95). Among ASD children with confirmed multiple sclerosis, the risk increased by 177% (2.77; 1.23–6.24).

“Hepatitis B vaccination does not generally increase the risk of CNS inflammatory demyelination in childhood,” the authors concluded. “However, the Engerix B vaccine appears to increase this risk, particularly for confirmed multiple sclerosis, in the longer term. Our results require confirmation in future studies.”

Of course more studies are needed, but it is becoming more difficult these days to argue that there is no active immune/inflammatory response going on in the brains of autistic individuals, and even harder to contest that MBP is associated with at least one aspect of that response, although there are likely others. The MBP findings are not 100% concordant, but there is a fair amount of supportive evidence.

Equally intriguing, along these lines, is a new study published in the Journal of Child Neurology. That paper reported that “anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein positivity” was found in a stunning 62.5% of the autistic children studied. And, a family history of autoimmunity was five times more common in ASD children (50%) than controls (9.4%).

“Anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein serum levels were significantly higher in autistic children than those without such history,” the authors wrote. “Autism could be, in part, one of the pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders. Further studies are warranted to shed light on the etiopathogenic role of anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein antibodies and the role of immunotherapy in autism.”

This information is tantalizing, to say the least. And it could provide new avenues of research into the role of vaccines, demyelinating diseases, “autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders,” and autism.

If the HepB series can destroy myelin in some kids and adults, and cause full-blown MS in adults, then is it really that “fringe” to investigate the plausibility of a biological mechanism whereby some vaccines (including MMR) in a subset of susceptible infants might produce symptoms that are characteristic of autism and/or other neuro-developmental disorders?

For years, the US Government and the IOM have insisted that Hepatitis B vaccine does not and can not cause MS. But the Federal Vaccine Court has now, essentially, overturned that opinion. Will the Court now do the same for vaccines and autism? I don’t think so – not this week. But it just might keep that door slightly ajar for the future.

David Kirby is author of Evidence of Harm and a contributor to Age of Autism.

Court rules in favor of family in MMR vaccine case

2009-01-07T11:27:00.000-08:00

Court rules in favor of family in MMR vaccine case

[Transcribed by me. No guarantees of 100% accuracy!]

"He was always laughing, you know, just a joy of life," said the father. Little Benjamin Zeller Jr. was everything his parents had hoped for when he was born in early November 2003. "He would always be following you around on the floor if not trying to throw a bottle at you, or bite your toes," said his father.

This is how little Benjamin Zeller looks today. The now 4-year-old is in a comatose state, unable to talk, walk, or even hold his head up on his own. "This was an adverse reaction to the vaccine. There's no question in my mind. We've had all the genetic testing," said the father.

The Zellars say within days after Benjamin's MMR shot in November of '04, the child began changing drastically. A week later, he had a complete febrile seizure that almost killed him. "I went in to go change his diaper and all of a sudden he wasn't breathing."

The Zellers rushed their son to a nearby hospital. Doctors were able to save little Ben, but he never fully recovered. And the little boy who was once full of life was declared permanently brain damaged, and no one wanted to take responsibility. "For people to turn us away and call us crazy, it hurt me, it killed me," said his mother.

But just last month, the Zellers received a major break in their case against the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. In a landmark decision dated July 30th, the court ruled in favor of the family, finding little Ben "would not have experienced the seizure disorder... but for the administration of the MMR vaccine."

"This will open up floodgates of litigation," said the Zellers' attorney. The Zellers' attorney, Beverly ?, says the ruling is one of the first of its kind where a family has proved the MMR vaccine negatively affected their child's health. "The link does not have to be direct. It can be circumstantial. And if the timeline is there, they will get compensation." The Zellars may receive 10s of millions of dollar in damages. For a young couple that was barely making it, the ruling is a godsend.

"To have the courts recognize... I feel justice has been done," said the father. "Everything Ben needs, I want to be taken care of," said the mother. "That's all I care about and that's what I hope is the outcome of this case."

Thoughts on Fat & Obesity

2008-12-24T13:54:00.000-08:00

We are told that we are getting fatter in this society because we eat a high fat diet. But the truth is that we do not eat a diet that is necessarily higher in fat than what was eaten 100 years ago (and beyond). In fact, low-fat and non-fat products (especially dairy products) are promoted heavily in our society and many people eat these products. Conversely, 100+ years ago, people were drinking whole milk, eating real butter, using cream in their porridges, valuing eggs for their life-giving properties, relishing the fat from meats, etc.

When you look at diets from about 100 years ago, the big difference that you do see is that we eat a lot more refined sugar (and products that contain them) and a lot more refined processed grain products. We eat refined sliced breads, crackers, cookies, breakfast cereals, refined pastas and rices, etc. In fact, the bulk of most people's diets are such refined and processed simple starch grain products.

Refined grains cause our blood sugar to be imbalanced, and they affect the hormones that cause you to feel full after eating. As a consequence, we eat these foods and still feel hungry, so we eat more and more of these nutrient-devoid foods, more and more empty calories. And this is a big part of why we are getting fat.

When you limit fat, your body wants to horde that fat. So if you are limiting fat and eating lots of starchy carbs instead, your body will hang on to the fat and gladly use the carbs as fuel instead. If you eat fat regularly, your body will not be in "starvation mode", and consequently eating more fat will actually help you burn more fat. If you look at primitive societies you will see that they valued animal fats for health and survival. They freely ate full-fat dairy products, animals fats, and organ meats as well as whatever plant fats they could find. They knew they needed fat to live, and since they were not eating an abundance of refined starches, their bodies used the fat as fuel during their daily activities, and hence their bodyfat was regulated and kept in balance. They had the amount of bodyfat they needed for health and survival and optimal functioning, without storing an unhealthy excess.

Eating fat, such as full-fat dairy products, also makes us feel more full and helps us reduce our cravings for refined starchy grain products. In addition, if you do eat whole grain products, eating healthy fats (such as full-fat minimally processed butter and cream) along with the grains actually helps you digest, absorb, and utilize the vitamins and minerals in the whole grain products. Dairy products and other animal fat products contain fat-soluble vitamins, which are necessary for the absorption and utilization of the minerals and water-soluble vitamins found in grains, vegetables, and meat. When our ancestors ate their porridge with cream, and their bread with butter, they probably weren't just doing it to make it taste better! Without these fats we are not getting the most out of the other foods in our diet, leaving us in a constant state of nutrient starvation.

When we consider these facts, it becomes abundantly clear that it is not fat per se that is making us fat. It is processed and refined sugars and starchy grains.

A simple comparison of today's typical diet (and products available on grocery store shelves) with that of 100 years ago will clearly show that the most dramatic difference in diet is the greatly increased consumption of processed, refined, prepackaged grain products (often laden with refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup), and the simultaneous decrease in the consumption of healthy fats. This fact alone should lead us to look at these sugary nutrient-devoid grains as one of the main culprits of our obesity problems.

"Live & Let Live"

2008-12-12T18:07:00.001-08:00

I don't believe in forced unity and conformity.

I don't believe there should *ever* be one people, one government, one religion...

We can be different--we can even be separate--but still cooperate and respect each other and each other's right to exist on our own terms. Forcing us all into "one nation" is not going to achieve peace. Look at history... it has never worked. People do not like to be forced to fit in, to give up their native identity. Only when we learn to STOP trying to make everyone else like us, and not only respect, but embrace our differences and each other's sovereignty, will we ever stop the warring that has been going on since man existed.

It is unfortunate to me that there are certain beliefs that have been around for the past couple thousand years that essentially cannot and will not allow this to happen... for their very mission is to make others conform to their belief. I don't believe this is the case with most indigenous tribal beliefs, however. When was the last time you had a pagan, or a Shintoist, or a Hindu come knocking on your door in an attempt to convert you to their belief?

This is not to say that there was no warring in ancient times. There was, but over resources needed for a tribe's very survival, not over ideology. As we now have established nations with their established lands, I believe it's possible for borders and resources to be respected. And if we could stop forcing our ideologies on others, we could learn to trade freely with others for the things we need and want.

I can say with honesty that I do not feel a desire to make everyone believe as I do, to follow the same political or spiritual path as I do. As long as my family's right to exist and live as we please (without harm to others, of course) is not violated, I have no reason to exercise aggression against anyone else on this earth.

I feel that is the true meaning of Live and Let Live...

The film "Vaccine Nation"

2008-12-10T10:04:00.000-08:00

In part, it tells the story of parents whose babies suffered fatal reactions from their vaccination shots, but who were instead blamed and imprisoned for supposedly causing Shaken Baby Syndrome in their own child.

Infuriating, and heartbreaking...

Circumcised Men Lead Potential Class Action Lawsuit on SueEasy.com

2008-11-24T18:53:00.000-08:00

Circumcision is sexual abuse, torture and mutilation

"1 million infant boys are sexually tortured and mutilated each year in the U.S. This is a violation of their human rights.

Any man that was circumcised is due reparations for the lost sexual functioning he inevitably suffered since circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis."

Grumbling of the Day

2008-10-22T04:00:00.000-07:00

You know what bothers me most about these vaccine-pushers? They act like the burden of proof is on us to prove that vaccines aren't safe. I'm sorry, but they are taking the positive position, they are the ones telling us to do something. We are taking the negative position (the position of no action, of not vaccinating).

The burden of proof is always on the one who takes up the positive position. The burden of proof is on them (vaccine manufacturers, doctors, scientists) to prove that vaccines are safe... and thus far, I have not been sufficiently convinced. How can I just close my eyes and "trust" that the doctors know best, when everything in my being says that this is not a good idea? No, you must convince me before that needle enters my body or those of my children. I would be an irresponsible parent if I did anything to them that I was not convinced was the right thing for their health, safety, and well-being.

I am not convinced precisely because the entire act is an experiment, where no one yet fully understands what the long term consequences are, and where the entire concept and method seems so unnatural and nonsensical to me.

Can someone explain to me why I am the crazy one for not wanting to inject foreign chemicals into my, or my children's, bloodstream, for not wanting to unnaturally bombard our immune systems with artificially introduced diseases?!

Settlement in the death of 1-year-old from MMR vaccine

2008-10-13T16:57:00.000-07:00

http://www.kspr.com/news/local/30808289.html

Did your child suffer a severe side effect from a vaccine?
By KSPR News

Story Created: Oct 10, 2008

KSPR reported two weeks ago about the death of 1-year old Madyson Williams from the MMR vaccine.

Garry and Rachel Williams will receive $250,000 from the government for the death of their daughter.

The Williams claimed the Mumps, Measles, Rubella Vaccine or MMR killed their daughter.

Madyson got the vaccine at the Pediatric Center in Springfield on May 12, 2006. Her parents submitted medical evidence that the MMR vaccine is the reason Madyson died 6 days later.

Attorneys for the Department of Health and Human Services Friday settled with the family for liability.

Since this story we've heard from many people who've seen their children suffer adverse effects from vaccines. If you are one of those families KSPR wants to talk to you. We are interviewing members of the Federal Health and Human Services department about why it requires some vaccines. If you are willing to talk about your experience on camera and share with the Ozarks why you believe vaccines should not be required, please contact Christine Daues at cdaues@kspr.com

VACCINES are NOT mercury free

2008-07-17T12:11:00.000-07:00

I can't believe how many times I hear people say "But they don't put mercury in vaccines anymore!" Bullshit. They treat vaccines the same way they treat food products... the FDA allows the manufacturer to say "0 grams" or "free" if the offending ingredient is present in some arbitrary "trace" amount which they have deemed to be a "safe and acceptable level".

They do this with trans-fats that have been linked to numerous health problems. If a product contains less than .5 grams of trans-fat per serving, the manufacturer is allowed to label it "0 grams per serving" and therefore call it "Trans-fat free!"

The same misrepresentation and deceit is allowed with vaccinations that are injected into tiny little babies and toddlers every day.

If something is a neurological toxin--and in the case of mercury, one of the most toxic substances on this earth--THERE IS NO ACCEPTABLE OR SAFE AMOUNT! Mercury is around us, but we are urged to avoid it as much as possible (see cautions regarding consumption of fish and fish procucts, for example). Yet then the very same "experts" want to directly inject it into the veins of newborn babies and young children! There is NO good reason to deliberately expose anyone--let alone little babies--to mercury. All throughout pregnancy, we are urged to avoid this and not eat that because of the dangers of mercury exposure to the developing fetus, yet as soon as the baby comes out, they are suddenly strong enough to withstand multiple injections of it directly into their bloodstream?! How does this make any sense?!

Don't be fooled. The government's interest is not your health and safety. It is about pandering to corporations who want to maintain "cost-effective" methods of production, yet don't want to lose their customer base by disclosing that their products contain dangerous and harmful ingredients.

VACCINES are NOT mercury free
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2004
Health Advocacy in the Public Interest (HAPI)
Contact: Dawn Winkler 970-641-7413

Vaccines Are Not Mercury Free

After much public controversy surrounding the mercury content of childhood vaccinations, Health Advocacy in the Public Interest (HAPI) raised $500 to have four vaccines tested for heavy metal content.

The vials were sent to Doctor's Data, an independent lab which specializes in heavy metal testing.

Many manufacturers voluntarily began producing supposed "mercury free" vaccines in 1999.

Some product inserts currently claim that a "trace" amount of mercury still exists in the final product but that the amount has been greatly reduced.

Others claim to be producing completely mercury free products.

During an investigation into the mercury issue, HAPI learned that Thimerosal, a 50% mercury compound, is still being used to produce most vaccines and that the manufacturers are simply "filtering it out" of the final product.

However, according to Boyd Haley, PhD, Chemistry Department Chair, University of Kentucky, mercury binds to the antigenic protein in the vaccine and cannot be completely, 100% filtered out.

All four vaccine vials tested contained mercury despite manufacturer claims that two of the vials were completely mercury free.

All four vials also contained aluminum, one nine times more than the other three, which tremendously enhances the toxicity of mercury causing neuronal death in the brain.

The mercury content of routine childhood vaccinations has been linked to the current autism epidemic as well as numerous other neurological disorders affecting children today.

Currently, one in six children are affected in some way and one in 250 children are diagnosed as autistic compared to one in 10,000 prior to mercury containing
vaccines.

It is the position of Dr. Haley as well as HAPI that if mercury can be detected in any vaccine using standard instrumentation, the content should be disclosed in the product insert and manufacturers should not be allowed to call the product "mercury free".

Executive Director of HAPI, Dawn Winkler, met with FDA officials in Silver Spring, Maryland on July 27, 2004 to discuss blatant mislabeling and misrepresentation of ingredients in vaccinations which are licensed by the FDA. Clearly, more testing is needed.

The FDA has the ability and authority to take on the necessary testing, however, at present, this task sadly appears to be up to the public.

HAPI will be attempting to raise more funds to test more vaccines in an effort to pressure the FDA to crack down on manufacturers to label their products correctly.

To help with this effort call 970-641-7413 or email noshots@earthlink.net.
(noshots(at)earthlink. net)

Pharmaceutical advertising is totally unethical

2008-07-05T13:29:00.000-07:00

So I'm not a big sports fan, but I'm sitting here half-watching baseball because nothing else is on. At every commercial break, there is at least one advertisement for a drug intended for men (usually something having to do with their genitalia or reproductive tract). Obviously targeted advertising, because the drug companies know it's mostly men watching sports.

I don't know the specific stats, but I know that women statistically visit their doctors a lot more often than men, and are also more likely to accept medication treatment or ask their doctors about a medication than men. Not surprisingly, most of the pharma-drug ads I see on TV are directed towards women. But sure enough, during this sporting event, every single one is for a drug designed for men. The majority of drug ads targeted towards men are for sexual issues (erectile dysfunction, etc.) because advertisers know that men--as a general stereotype--care a lot about their sexual status and abilities. Plenty of other advertising directed towards men is intended to play on this concern of theirs, even if the product doesn't actually have any real connection to sexuality!

It is no secret that advertisement is highly psychological (people even get bachelor's degrees in "Consumer Psychology"), and we are bombarded by advertisement on television more than anywhere else. The combination of the visual and auditory messages provided through television can be highly effective to those unaware and unsuspecting.

This issue just really pisses me off, because I honestly believe it should be illegal for drug companies to advertise their products. I'm not a communist and I'm not anti-free market, and yeah my opinion is usually "If you don't like it, just ignore it/don't buy it/turn your TV off, etc.", but this one just pisses me off because it seems so overtly manipulative and sinister. We are talking about drugs that can kill people here! To be so casual about persuading people to take a potentially harmful drug that they probably don't need is digusting to me.

What's supposed to happen is this:

You, of your own accord and being aware of your own body, go see your doctor because you feel something might be "wrong". You then discuss all your options with the doctor, and if a treatment is legitimately called for, you may choose to proceed. You also have the right to decline all treatment if none of it seems acceptable to you.

Here is what pharma-drug advertising is all about:

You are frequently bombarded with messages designed to convince you that something is wrong with you, and that what you need to fix it is some fantastic new pill/patch/injection, etc. They show happy "active" people enjoying life, while flashing a catchy brand name/label, and then often specifically telling you to "Ask your doctor if Fantasticil is right for you!" The hope (of the drug companies) is that you will be convinced and will go visit your doctor asking about this specific brand. The drug company gets paid because you are purchasing their drug, and the doctor gets your money for your visit AND a commission from the drug company for endorsing their particular product.

Which one sounds more ethical to you? Which one is more about finding what will truly help the patient live a better-quality life, rather than advertising a product--like most products--that you don't really need?

To take a line from Penn & Teller (with whom I do NOT agree on everything, just for the record)...

Pharmaceutical drug advertisting is BULLSHIT!