Archive for the ‘vaccines’ Category

Are Unvaccinated Children Healthier than Vaccinated Children?

There is an ongoing, UNBELIEVABLE study that is evaluating the health of over 7800 unvaccinated children and comparing their health to the health of the general childhood population.

I say this is an unbelievable study because no study like this has ever been done before, certainly not of this magnitude, and because the results are quite interesting.  It is also “unbelievable” because I’m quite confident that mainstream media will not say a word of this study, keeping it “unbelievable” to most.

A few important thing to understand before looking at the results:

  • This study just began in December of 2010 but is ongoing so that data may change
  • Most participants were from the US, but many were also from the UK, Canada, Australia and other countries.  75% of responders answered in English, while 25% of the answered in German.
  • The study is being done by survey and thus is dependent on the memory and reporting of the parent.
  • So far, the majority of children in the study were breastfed longer than 6 months and most parents prefer natural or holistic care over allopathic (conventional) medicine.
  • While the ages range from infancy to >19, there is currently much more information on children under 6 years old than on older children.  Consequently current results will show lower numbers of those illnesses, like autoimmune disorders, that don’t typically show up until children are older.   (If you click here, it will take you to the study where there are links that provide a breakdown of the ages studied for each disease.)
  • Interesting to note:  the reason that 25% of responders gave as to why they did not vaccinate was because they had seen a vaccine reaction in a friend or family member.  Over 99% of the parents were happy with their decision not to vaccinate.
So what does the study show?

Comparing asthma, allergies and atopy (eczema), unvaccinated children have significantly lower rates of illness:

  • Less than 10% of unvaccinated children suffered from any allergy, compared to 40% of US children
  • 2.5% of unvaccinated children have been diagnosed with asthma, compared to 10-14% of US children, 14-16% in Australia, and 4.7% of German children.
  • 2.5% unvaccinated have had hayfever, compared to 10.7% of German children.
  • 7% unvaccinated have had eczema, while 20% of US children and 13% of German children have eczema or “neurodermatitis.”

Unvaccinated kids have less ADD/ ADHD

Only 1-2% of unvaccinated children have ADD/ADHD, while 9.5% of US children and 7.9% of Germany children have been given that diagnosis.

Unvaccinated children were diagnosed with autism, but FAR less frequently than seen in the general population

There were  4 unvaccinated children (out of the 7832 children in the study) with autism, whereas the rates of autism in the US are greater than 1 in 100.

Unvaccinated kids suffer less from otitis (ear infections) and sinusitis (sinus infections)

6.6% had otitis (11% in Germany)
2.2% had sinusitis (32% in Germany)

Autoimmune diseases (diabetes, thyroid disease, other) were found very infrequently in unvaccinated children

However, this is difficult to compare with the population as autoimmune disorders are uncommonly found in the age range of most in the study.  As more older children enter the study, this data will become more informational.
While there are certain risks to not vaccinating your child, this study certainly supports that there are great benefits to not vaccinating as well.

Thankfully the decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate remains yours, and must continue to stay yours!

As this study is ongoing, if  your child is entirely unvaccinated, you are welcome to have your child become part of the study.

Support for Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Research Regarding Measles and Autism

MMR Shot Fears Gain Support

By James Chapman, Daily Mail

Dr Arthur Krigsman, a consultant paediatric gastroenterologist, has observed serious intestinal inflammation in 43 autistic children.

At a U.S. Congressional hearing on the safety of MMR last week, he said his patients had inexplicably deteriorated, losing language and other skills at around 12 to 18 months of age.

All the children had been referred to him because they also had unexplained digestive problems such as pain, constipation and diarrhea.

Tests revealed that 90 per cent had the same inflammatory bowel disease reported by Dr Wakefield in patients he examined at the Royal Free Hospital in London four years ago.

Dr Krigsman said last night: ‘Our findings, which are independent of Dr Wakefield’s, completely support his explanation and his observations of the abnormalities in the bowels of these children.

‘They mirror exactly what he has described.’ The doctor, an assistant professor at New York University, said he did not know whether the illnesses were linked to MMR.  But he now plans to examine biopsies taken from the children for evidence of infection with the measles virus.

Pathologists at Trinity College, Dublin, claimed earlier this month they had evidence from similar experiments on 75 children, identifying measles virus from the MMR vaccine in bowel tissue samples.

Though this is far from proof that the jab actually triggered autism or bowel disease, some experts saw it as significant.

Dr Krigsman said: ‘Our concern was to determine whether there was bowel inflammation in these autistic children. The answer was yes. Now the question is: “What is causing it?î.’ His findings will add to the confusion of millions of parents over whether to have their children inoculated with MMR.

According to the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS), the take-up rate for the triple vaccine has fallen to ‘dangerously low levels’ in parts of the UK, prompting fears of a potential epidemic of measles, which in extreme cases can be fatal.

HPV vaccine may INCREASE cervical cancer risk

This is shocking news:

Back in 2006, there was significant research, documented by the FDA, which showed that the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) actually INCREASED the risk of cervical cancer in women who already had HPV infection before receiving the Gardisil vaccine.

There were two important concerns identified in this review of the Gardasil vaccine.

One (concern) was the potential for Gardasil to enhance disease among a subgroup of subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types at baseline.”

3 Different Studies Supported this Very Real Concern:

  • One study showed an increase of 11.7% risk of cervical cancer from getting the Gardasil vaccine as compared to placebo.
  • Another showed a 33.7% increased risk in those who received Gardisil after already having HPV.
  • And the third study showed an even greater risk, almost a 45% increased risk, of developing cervical cancer in women who already had HPV infection as compared to placebo.

What is crazy is that most pediatricians really want to believe that our 10 – 14 year old teens are innocent and are telling the truth when they say that they have never had sex.  Unfortunately, kids lie and kids have sex. And, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease – affecting 26.8% of US females.   Thus, even when doctors become aware of this increased risk of cervical cancer from giving the Gardasil vaccine to people already infected with HPV, doctors will still be at high risk of giving the HPV vaccine to not-so-innocent sexually active teenagers who already had HPV.  And, consequently, they will significantly increase the teens’ risk of getting cervical cancer by upwards of almost 45%!

We took an oath when we became doctors to “DO NO HARM.”  Unless doctors test each and every girl for HPV before giving them the vaccine, they are causing potential harm by giving this vaccine.

If HPV was really so bad, wouldn’t OBGYNs be concerned about it in our teens?  You’d think so, but you would be wrong.  When most OB’s see a teen with cervical dysplasia (pre-cancerous changes on the cervix) from HPV, they usually just watch it and don’t treat it, as most NATURALLY resolve from the body’s own defenses fighting it off. The young healthy body  can usually fight off HPV on it’s own.  Not just teens clear HPV, but studies suggest that approximately 90% of all infections clear within 2 years. (J Pediatr. 1998;132:277, J Infect Dis. 1999;180:1415)

The second concern was with regards to the fact that Gardasil only protects against a few cancer causing HPV strains  – in fact, only 3% of those with HPV were found to have these vaccine “preventable” strains . 

Thus, there is a real chance that by getting vaccinating, patients may likely develop a false sense of security, thinking they are protected from cancer causing HPV, when really they are only protected from those few strains.

So, if the vaccine doesn’t make much difference to those given it at the “right” time, but rather significantly increases risk of harm to those given it at the “wrong” time, then it sure seems like the vaccine is acting much like a punishment for “wrong-doers” than any preventative for “right-doers.”

Our job as doctors is not to judge nor to punish, but rather to protect and heal.  We need to get back to doing our job, think for ourselves, and stop being moneymakers for big pharmaceutical companies, and stop acting as henchmen for those who have their own “moral” agenda.

New flu vaccine, containing H1N1 strain, banned in AU and NZ due to death and seizures

Australia and New Zealand BANNED the flu vaccine in children under five years old after the death of one child 12 hours after the vaccine, and seizures, high fevers, and vomiting seen in many others.

Fifty-five children in Western Australia, 5 years and younger, have been identified with possible convulsions after receiving the flu shot,

and 196 had less serious reactions such as fever, vomiting and inflammation at the injection site, Western Australia’s health department said. (4)

The vaccine is the FIRST seasonal influenza vaccine to contain the H1N1 strain.(4)

The Australian and New Zealand government has taken this seriously and placed a ban on flu vaccinations for children under 5 years old.

Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jim Bishop AO, MD, MMed, MBBS, FRACP, FRCPA announced that after considering the results to date of a comprehensive study into the safety of seasonal flu vaccine for young children, he has advised, as a precaution, the suspension of season flu vaccination for healthy children under the age of five years. (5)

While the expected febrile convulsions rate should be 1 per 1,000 at the most, epidemiological analyses point to a rate of febrile convulsions in children aged under five years following 2010 seasonal influenza vaccination of about 9 per 1000 children vaccinated. (5)

But if it is such a concern for children under 5 that they are banning it, could it be doing any harm to children over 5, pregnant women, those with chronic illness, or the elderly?

Hmmm… lucky for us, flu vaccination doesn’t begin here for a few more months.






HPV Vaccine Concerns

Again, I am concerned that a vaccine is more dangerous than the illness for which it claims to prevent. Gardasil is this vaccine. After four deaths and multiple complications, India has immediately suspended its Gardasil study. (1)

During a 2 year study that was being conducted in India to evaluate the utility and acceptability of Gardasil, FOUR girls have DIED and 120 girls reported COMPLICATIONS after vaccination.

“The girls complained of stomach disorders, epilepsy (seizures), headaches and early menarche (early onset of menstruation).” (1) The study was halted for both medical and ethical reasons.  This is the identical vaccine given to American children.

I personally, have seen two girls with significant reactions that began after having received the Gardasil vaccine.  On the day of vaccination (given in the arm), one girl developed serious leg pains which lasted for several days.  The other previously healthy girl, however, was not so fortunate.  Within 2 weeks of getting her first Gardasil vaccine, she developed a bizarre constellation of symptoms ranging from unilateral edema (swelling) of her arm, breast and chest, severe pain, numbness, tingling, and she also developed enuresis.  Yes, this teenager became incontinent and had to wear a diaper to school.  At first, we were all confused by her symptoms and their etiology.  Because her symptoms didn’t begin until close to 2 weeks after vaccination, I don’t even think any of us considered any association.  She saw several specialists, some whom not surprisingly thought her symptoms were all psychological.  (Often when doctors don’t have an explanation and symptoms don’t make sense to them, psychiatric illness is where they place the blame.)  After I began working with this girl, her symptoms began to improve.  However, then she was given the second Gardasil vaccine and her symptoms promptly returned, worse than before.  To her mother, it seemed quite obvious that either this vaccine caused these symptoms or was the trigger that brought them out.  Needless to say, I strongly recommended that she not receive the third shot.

I must admit that the thought of a vaccine that could decrease the chances of a woman getting cervical cancer was very enticing at first.  I think that this is what convinced so many doctors to recommend it as soon as it came out and why so many parents and girls are wanting to get it.  However, after seeing such a severe reaction in my patient, I began to strongly question the safety of the Gardasil vaccine. So I did some research, and here’s what I learned:

The US keeps record of adverse events occuring after vaccines.  This program is called VAERS – The Vaccine Adverse Reporting System. VAERS is the place where people and doctors report all possible vaccine side effects/ associated symptoms.  Most of the time, it takes a very strong reaction, with close proximity to a vaccination, to trigger a doctor to report a symptom to VAERS.  It is estimated that only between 1 and 10 percent of all adverse health outcomes which occur following vaccination are reported to VAERS. (5,6,7) Using the VAERS data, the National Vaccine Information Center compared the adverse events reported comparing Gardasil to Menactra, since both vaccines are given to a similar population of healthy teenage girls.

What you will see is that the numbers of girls who had adverse events after receiving the Gardisil are far higher than those seen in the same healthy population of girls who received the Menactra vaccine, which is given to prevent meningitis.   One argument often made is that Gardasil is given in three doses while Menactra only one, thus there is tripling the likelihood that an adverse event could be random and unrelated to the vaccine.  But again, as you look at the numbers, you will see far more than a triple increase in most adverse events.

Comparing these two vaccines (Gardasil/Menactra), girls who were given Gardasil had:
  • BLOOD CLOTS (23/0)
  • THROMBOSIS (34/1)
  • STROKE (16/1)
  • LUPUS (28/6)
  • SEIZURES (544/158 (73 of these 158 were given both vaccines)), and
  • VASCULITIS (11/2) far more frequently than those who received Menactra.
After being given Gardasil:
  • 261 (vs. 29) girls have become DISABLED,
  • 2017 (vs. 393) have NOT recovered from their symptoms and
  • 29 (vs. 6) girls have DIED. (3)

As you can see, the ADVERSE EVENTS after the Gardasil vaccine are FAR in EXCESS of TRIPLE what would be expected from a healthy population of girls!

Furthermore, the adverse symptoms are not limited to the above list.  There are many others symptoms in excess of triple Menactra’s rate: alopeica, arrythmia, arthritis, blindness, collapse, fainting, hair loss, joint pain, migraine, rheumatoid arthritis, and syncope. (3)

And what are the potential benefits from the Gardasil vaccine to make it so worth these risks?

Gardasil has been shown to prevent 60-80% of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) cases, many of which are associated with genital warts and future cervical cancer.  Gardasil has NOT been shown to prevent cancer – the vaccine hasn’t been around that long to show this.  “The officials concede that because the vaccine was introduced less than a decade ago, it is too early to say whether it prevents cervical cancer itself.” (2)  “A vaccine that is highly efficacious in providing protection against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, based on available epidemiological data, might be capable having a significant impact in preventing cervical cancer.”(8)  No proof of cancer prevention – just an assumption.  Interestingly, many OBGYNs don’t worry much about teenagers with atypical (pre-cancerous) cervical cells caused by HPV.  I have been told that teens’ immune systems are usually so strong that usually the body is able to clear these atypical cells on their own.

The Menactra vaccine is a completely different situation – it is given to prevent an acute life threatening illness (Neisseria meningitis) that strikes most frequently during late adolescence, with it’s highest risk being in their first year of group housing such as their freshman year at college, the first year that teens are apart from their parents.  Consequently, I see the validity in taking the risk with Menactra.

On the other hand, the Gardasil vaccine is given to hopefully prevent an illness that does not present until much later in adulthood.  Cervical cancer is often treatable, and certainly is not acute.  Unfortunately this vaccine has also recently been approved for use in boys – to decrease HPV transmission – certainly not a benefit for my son that would balance the risks!

I completely agree with the National Vaccine Information Center that “vaccines which are licensed and recommended by the government for universal use by children and young adults, should adhere to the highest standards with regard to proof of safety and efficacy.” (3)  I am very concerned about the lack of long-term safety studies, especially for girls ages 9-15 where there is the least safety data. (8)

Whether it is the body’s immune reaction to the viral particles, the 225mcg of aluminum adjuvant (4) in the vaccine, a combination of both, or something else that triggers  these adverse events is unknown.  What I do know however, is that I will NOT be giving this vaccine to my 11 year old daughter, nor my son, and will NOT be recommending that any one else does either.

If you or a loved one had a negative reaction that you feel could be related to the Gardasil vaccine, please go to:

It provides you both the VAERS web site to report symptoms directly and a questionnaire from National Vaccine Information Center.

Interested in reading another article about the dangers of the HPV Vaccine?  Click Here.





5.   Rosenthal S, Chen R. The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems for vaccine adverse events. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 1708-9.

6.   Braun M. Vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS): usefulness and limitations. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The clinical impact of adverse event reporting. MedWatch. October 1996



Rotarix vaccine contaminated with pig virus

When it comes to vaccines, there is one vaccine that I have never liked and have never advised.  Never!  This is the rotavirus vaccine.

The first rotavirus vaccine came out right as I completed my residency program.  Having never seen a patient die from rotavirus, having never seen a patient permanently harmed from rotavirus, and at very worst, having seen the most severely affected patients with rotavirus need only IV fluids and brief 2-3 day hospitalizations, I never understood the need for the rotavirus vaccine.

Vaccines should be made to protect us from life threatening illness.

That is why we take the risk of putting these toxins in our bodies – to save lives and prevent serious illness.   For a third world country that does not have IV fluids or accessible hospitals, there, the rotavirus vaccine has a place.  Here, however, in the US, this was a vaccine of convenience – a money maker for the pharmaceutical company and a way to avoid missed work days for parents.

Hence, despite recommendations from above, I never advised it and only gave it to those children whose parents still wanted it, even after I explained fully why I didn’t think it was necessary nor worth the risk.

Within months, my concerns were confirmed.

The initial rotavirus vaccine was found to be associated with a significantly increased risk of intussucception (a severe, life threatening condition in which the intestines telescope into itself) and was taken off the market.

Consequently, doctors stopped giving the vaccine… until, of course, years later they made a new one and then another.  Still, I remained consistently and adamantly opposed to them.  I continued to advise parents against these unnecessary vaccines that provide little benefit and could prove harmful.  I fought with vaccine reps and infectious disease specialists.  I also argued with my collegues, in particular, against purchasing and providing the Rotarix vaccine as it had been found, in one study, to be associated with a significantly higher risk of death!

Now, again I am vindicated.

The FDA has asked doctors to stop using the Rotarix vaccine. This is because Rotarix has been found to be contaminated with a pig virus.

How did it get there?  No one knows.

They claim that there is no evidence that this poses a safety risk, but this is just a guess – truly, they do not know.  Here is a live vaccine, given orally to babies as young as 6 weeks old, contaminated with a pig virus. No testing has ever been done on babies exposed to this pig virus.   How do they know that it couldn’t harm these babies?

In a worst case scenario, could this pig virus be live and could it recombine with the rotavirus to create a “novel” swine stomach flu virus?

Interestingly, the only reason that this contamination was even discovered was because of some random independent researchers looking for a new way to screen vaccine for impurities.  Well, it sure seems like their testing works.   Isn’t it odd that the FDA doesn’t routinely test for impurities?

So now, why has the FDA not banned use of this vaccine, but rather has only gently asked doctors to not use it until further research is performed?

Could it be that the pharmaceutical companies have great power?   If this kind of contamination was found in a vitamin, they’d certainly ban that vitamin and put that nutraceutical company out of business immediately.

Even if doctors do stop giving the Rotarix to babies, guess what they are going to use instead… the other rotavirus vaccine that has been found to have an increased rate of Kawasaki’s disease! All this risk just to prevent a common stomach virus, which if the associated dehydration is treated, is a fairly benign illness.  I really don’t get it!

Unfortunately, doctors don’t have time to read the vaccine research and instead just trust the FDA.  What do parents then do – they trust those same doctors who trust the FDA, which is controlled by the pharmaceutical companies.

This ignorance has to stop.  People (parents and doctors) need to think for themselves before putting toxins into the bodies of their patients and loved ones.  They need to ask questions and find the answers and never trust someone else (especially not an agency) to make these decisions for them.

Would you give your baby the flu vaccine?

People keep asking me what I think about the annual flu vaccine and about the H1N1 flu vaccine.

More important than what I think is what you think.

Please ask yourself the below questions:

How many babies would need to be studied to convince you that the flu vaccine is safe enough to give to your baby?

How many children should be observed for side effects, and for how long would you want them observed, before you would trust that the vaccine was safe?

How many children would you want studied to feel confident that the flu vaccine was effective in reducing your baby’s chances of getting the flu?

How effective should the vaccine be to be worth the risks?

Lastly, if you (or your wife) were pregnant, what kind of research would you want to prove the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine on you (your wife) and your unborn fetus?

Now read below and realize that all information was taken directly from the package insert on Fluzone, which is the seasonal flu vaccine used for children >6months through adulthood. This is the only vaccine that has been approved for children less than 4 years old in the US.  Also note that the studies quoted are the only studies that the package insert refers to regarding these specific issues.

The information can be found at the below website:

How many babies would need to be studied for you to be convinced that the flu vaccine is safe enough to give to your baby?

8.4. Pediatric Use

Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone vaccine in children below the age of 6 months have not been established. The immune response and safety of Fluzone vaccine was evaluated in 31 children between the ages of 6-26 months. [See Adverse Reactions (6.1), Clinical Studies (14)]

As a pediatrician, I would have expected thousands to have been studied.  I am shocked that they are basing any scientific data on only 31 children.

How many children would you want observed for side effects, and for how long would you want them observed, before you could trust that the flu vaccine was safe?

Children The 2003-2004 formulation of Fluzone vaccine was studied in 19 children 6 to 23 months of age and in 12 children 24 to 36 months of age, given in 2 doses one month apart. Local reactions and systemic events were solicited for 3 days after each dose. Most local and systemic reactions were mild. The proportions of local and systemic reactions in children were similar to the proportions in adults. No reported local or systemic reaction required a therapeutic intervention other than analgesics. (3)

19 children in this study were only observed for 3 days.  What if 1 in 100 children have a bad reaction? What if the vaccine causes inflammation that affects the child in 1 week?  Why were asthmatic children, who were given the flu vaccine, found to be three times more likely to need hospitalization than other children with asthma who were unvaccinated?

How many children would you want studied to feel confident that the flu vaccine was effective in reducing your baby’s chances of getting the flu?

14.2. Immunogenicity in Children

In a study using 2 doses of Fluzone vaccine (2003-2004) in 31 healthy children 6–36 months of age (3 Black, 23 Caucasian, 2 Hispanic, and 3 other; 15 were male and 16 were female), the following immunogenicity results were obtained on day 0 before vaccination and approximately 14 days after dose number 2. (See Table 2.)

Again, only 31 children studied!

How effective should the vaccine be to be worth the risks?

I couldn’t copy table 2 referred to above, however, it clearly shows that, after 2 vaccines, only 52% of babies, ages 6-36 months, had sufficiently elevated titers to Influenza A and only 27% had elevated titers to influenza B.  What does this mean?  It means that the vaccine will at best protect 52% of babies against the strains included in the vaccine, and only those 3 strains included in the vaccine.

In past years (for example, in 2008), the “experts” predicted the wrong vaccine strains and the flu vaccine offered virtually no protection at all.  Furthermore, these are only titers – no actual data showing that these children did or did not get the flu.  But, with only 31 kids studied, this data would mean nothing anyway.

Lastly, if you (or your wife) were pregnant, what kind of research would you want to prove the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine on you (your wife) and your unborn fetus?

8.1. Pregnancy

Pregnancy Category C: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Fluzone vaccine. It is also not known whether Fluzone vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Fluzone vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.

They haven’t even tested pregnant animals!  Either that or they have and don’t want to share the data.  The unborn fetus is incredibly sensitive to toxins and stressors.  How can the authorities tell us that the vaccine is safe for our unborn babies when they don’t know because they haven’t done ANY testing?  Why are they using humans as guinea pigs?

8.3. Nursing Mothers

It is not known whether Fluzone vaccine is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when Fluzone vaccine is administered to a nursing woman.

Note that all other flu vaccines inserts contain the same statement about cautioned use in pregnant women and nursing mothers.

All the above information was with regards to the commonly used ANNUAL flu vaccine currently given to babies, children and adults.

Realizing that the H1N1 vaccine is a newer vaccine, has been tested far LESS than the annual flu vaccine, and has been found to be associated with an increased risk of Guillian Barre, Bell’s Palsy and thrombocytopeniawould you give it to your family?