Posts Tagged ‘vaccines’

Today is my son’s 10th birthday AND SB277 is reviewed.

I find most experiences in life to be “more than a coincidence”.  This is one of them.

As many of you know we celebrate nearly 4 years (July 24th is the true anniversary date) of my son, Koa, remaining seizure free.  No drugs, no medications, no ketogenic diet, no missing school.  I’m so proud of this little man: his resilience, his determination to understand the world and his loving ways.   I’m also beyond thrilled that he can lead a “normal” healthy life: attending school, participating in all sports (concrete or not!) playing, taking chances and discovering the world around him.    

Today is also the day that SB277 (the mandatory vaccine law) will appear in front of the State Assembly.  If it moves through the State Assembly it may become a reality that Koa will be mandated to be vaccinated IF he wants to attend public schools.  Yes, that is correct.  Even though Koa was diagnosed with Epilepsy, was given a grim prognosis and then recovered when we discovered his impaired detoxification pathways, the excuse is not permissable by a physician to avoid vaccines.  He will be mandated by a physician to acquire further vaccines, the physician will be exempt from liability, and Koa’s health would be endangered.  The only health exemptions authorized by a physician will be if:

1.  you have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy

2. you have had an organ or blood cell transplant

3. You are one of a rare group diagnosed with Severe Combined Immune Deficiency

Today we celebrate Koa’s 10th birthday and his recovery.  And we celebrate that to date he has been able to lead a “normal life”.  Ironically, on this very day, we will find out if  public education remains an option for him or if we need to being exploring independent study.

P.S. There is concern about those not being vaccinated and the harm that they present to the masses that are.  Here’s a brief fact for you:

“In 2015, California reported 136 cases of measles. Of the cases with vaccination records, 30 percent had been vaccinated. Only 18 percent of the measles cases were in school-aged children, while 55 percent were in adults.86,87 In 2014, out of 8,200 pediatric cases of pertussis with vaccination records reported in California, 90 percent of the children had been vaccinated.88” – Dr. Mercola

Be well and let’s remember “First do no harm”,


I went there…

I’m not an Immunologist but do research and have a personal interest in vaccines. The first three years of my son’s life involved healthy development. For one and half years following he experienced multiple seizures daily. The “pill for an ill” model was not effective. His seizures worsened. Once we sought biochemical supports, we identified my son was toxic in aluminum (an adjuvant used in vaccines) and that his detoxification pathways were “blocked”. Finally, within 2 weeks of addressing his detoxification pathways his seizures ended. He has remained seizure free for nearly 4 years.

My last 5 years has been devoted to my son’s recovery, the focus on systems support rather than symptom support, biochemical pathways specifically and nutrition. I spend much of my time researching on the interplay between hormones, immune, digestion, detoxification, the environment and neurotransmitters. I practice as a Functional Diagnostic Practitioner and encounter daily multiple instances of women, men and children experiencing all types of chronic diseases.

I believe SB 277 is not a bill predicated on science but rather a true conflict of interests driven by the government for profit driven purposes. As a nation, with the most vaccinated children in the world, our children are experiencing an epidemic of chronic disease.

“Fifty years ago, when the immunization schedule contained only four vaccines (for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and smallpox), autism was virtually unknown”. i In the past 20 years, autism has increased to 1 in 68 (from 1 in 20,000), ADHD has increased by at least 400 percent, asthma by 300 percent and allergies by 400 percent . ii Childhood type 1 diabetes runs risk in 1 in 400 children and childhood arthritis affects nearly 300,000 children.iii The food industry would be a logical finger-point of origin but let’s remember that the same government that decides what foods are safe to eat also governs the current vaccine schedule.

We’ve been advised that vaccinations are unavoidably “safe” yet, the current vaccination schedule has never been studied with truly vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals and never studied with multiple vaccines delivered at once, specifically 49 doses in 14 vaccines by age 6.iv  Vaccines are prepared with adjuvants such as aluminum, mercury, MSG, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (foreign substances) with unpredictable inflammatory responses.

Thousands of parents that have witnessed permanent health issues and even death in their children after they received vaccines and yet are unable to sue the pharmaceutical companies due to a liability protection designed by the government. Allow me to emphasize: Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines are protected. There are no checks and balances. How can the government assist the pharmaceutical companies without proper safety data and allow no recourse? v

We know that in the first years of life the brain is reaching 80% development by age 2. An infant’s immune-response is heightened compared to a fully developed individual. vi We also know that nearly half of the world population has impaired detoxification <methylation> pathways (cannot support the excretion of metals and toxins).vii  And yet the government is attempting to enforce mandatory 24 doses of vaccines before age 2!

Am I against vaccines? No. Virulent diseases such as polio and diphtheria should be vaccinated against. If I were to vaccine my children all over again, I would

• Not allow my children to be vaccinated until after 2 years of age
• Not allow a vaccine if my child was feeling ill on the day of the injection
• Only permit virulent vaccines
• Only allow one vaccine injection per visit, not cluster-fed multiple vaccines.

We need to protect our children in their development, first and foremost. With the rise of immune diseases resulting from antibiotic resistance and autoimmunity, a lack of scientific research to substantiate the administering multiple vaccines at once (let alone injecting in our infants), no liability carried by the pharmaceutical companies, SB 277 will be putting our children at even greater risk of chronic disease.

ii “Healing the New Childhood Epidemics”- Kenneth Bock, M.D. and Cameron Stauth

Be well,


Vaccinate your infants or teens? Must watch BEFORE November 23rd.

I typically don’t urge readers to watch lengthy videos.  Yet “The Greater Good” documentary analyzes the legitimacy of mandating vaccines as well as the safety of vaccines.    The HPV vaccine Gardaisil is discussed in length revealing shocking examples of a vaccine gone awry.  The real life examples brought tears to my eyes.  If you have daughters entering the pre-teen years this is a MUST SEE.  If you are pregnant or have young children PLEASE watch this.  It’s total run time is one hours and 25 minutes and it’s worth every minute of your time.Here are just a few highlights:

1.  since the 1980’s the number of vaccines required to be administered have tripled

2. The majority of vaccine research is paid for by the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves.  The ACIP approves vaccines and they are taking the words of these companies that produce the drugs.

3.  The ACIP board that makes decisions on vaccines features board members that are doctors that have a financial interest in vaccines.

4.  Merck the manufacturers of Gardiasil initiated a study involving 1200 pre-teen to teen girls.  Merck reported to the FDA after 4 years that they had an excellent product and asked it to be ‘fast-tracked’.  The FDA approved Gardiasil 6 months later. 

Too much content to recap…

Please note that I am NOT anti-vaccine but I AM pro-safety.

“The Greater Good”  documentary is released to the public FREE until November 23, 2013 and is available to watch here.

Be well,



Why is UNICEF picking a fight with MDs that are making a difference?

(Taken from
By Dr. Mercola

Truth becomes treason in an empire of lies. Attacks against health web sites like yours truly and others, and our readers—yes, that would be you—are rapidly escalating.

Thinly veiled threats are issued not just by industry spokespersons (many of whom hide their industry ties from their readers), but also international organizations like UNICEF. It’s become very evident, very quickly, that now more than ever, we need your support to counter the increasingly dirty tactics of these industry players.

Simply by reporting the scientific evidence—which is published in peer-reviewed journals, mind you—I’ve been labeled as a top “anti-vaccine influencer” for my pro-safety stance on vaccines, and a “media supporter of domestic eco-terrorists” for my reporting on the hazards of Roundup and genetically engineered foods.

Why Is UNICEF Accusing Health Journalists of Lying?

A recently published report1 by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reveals that the organization is tracking “the rise of online pro-vaccine safety sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe,” and has identified the most influential pro-vaccine safety influencers” on the web.

UNICEF included me on the list, along with other independent health websites like, and, just to name a few. In their opening reference, they use a quote by Mark Twain that reads:

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Clearly, UNICEF is inferring that I and other vaccine-safety advocates are lying about the situation and therefore should be ignored. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.

Here we have an international organization supposedly dedicated to children’s health and wellbeing, and instead of addressing the ample scientific evidence showing the potential harm of vaccines, they’re entering into ever-deepening partnerships with vaccine company giants like Merck2 and GlaxoSmithKline3 (GSK).

They spend precious time and resources on public relations schemes to convince you to ignore any science that raises questions about the wisdom of “carpet-bombing” infants’ and young children’s immune systems with potentially harmful vaccines.

UNICEF’s Bedfellows

This is especially disturbing because Merck has been involved in numerous criminal scandals and class-action lawsuits in recent years, including fraudulently marketing its deadly drug Vioxx; lying about the true efficacy of its mumps vaccine.

Additionally, they engaged in scientific fraud (a charge brought by its own scientists); and hiding critical side effects associated with its osteoporosis drug Fosamax, just to name a few of the most publicized.

Even more shocking, in 2009, it was revealed that Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be “neutralized” or discredited for voicing critical opinions about the pain killer Vioxx—a drug that indeed ended up killing more than 60,000 people before it was pulled from the market.

Two years later, in 2011, the company ended up pleading guilty to a criminal charge over the fraudulent marketing and sales of this deadly drug.4 But sure, let’s listen to UNICEF and trust the guys who go so far as to threaten the lives of those who question the safety of a very factually dangerous drug. Then there’s GSK, whose leadership among corporate criminals is illustrious indeed.

Not only was GSK found guilty in the largest health fraud settlement in US history just last year, for which they were fined $3 billion. A couple of months ago, Chinese authorities accused the company of bribery and illegal marketing schemes. Chinese police claim to possess evidence showing that bribery has been a “core part” of GSK China’s business model since 2007.

Doctors and government officials are said to have received perks such as travel, cash, and sexual favors that when combined, amounted to nearly $5 billion, according to some reports. The company allegedly used travel agencies as middlemen to carry out these illegal acts. Four Chinese GSK executives have so far been detained on charges of cash and sexual bribery.

GSK also spent more than 10 years covering up information that proved they knew about the serious health dangers of their blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, as it would adversely affect sales. While carousing with the true liars and criminals, UNICEF deems it fitting to paint me and other health journalists as the liars; the ones leading you astray.

Little does UNICEF realize that by publicizing a list of monitored “vaccine influencers”—the health reporters who stick pegs in the wheels of their crafty PR schemes by publishing all those studies the vaccine industry would rather see buried—they’ve basically given you a Who’s Who of real vaccine information.

Maybe we should thank them rather than rail against their poor judgment? As stated by Sayer Ji5 of, who was also targeted in the report:

“[W]hile the document purports to be analytical and descriptive, it has proscriptive and defamatory undertones, and only thinly conceals an agenda to discredit opposing views and voices. UNICEF’s derogatory stance.

This is all the more surprising considering that websites such as aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine, much of which comes from high-impact journals.”

GMO-Labeling Supporters Now Accused of Supporting Eco-Terrorism. What’s Next?

Another recent article, published in Forbes Magazine,6 really ups the ante of the attack on health journalists and their readers with the headline: “ Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers.” The article, written by Jay Byme and Henry I.Miller, reads in part:

“In recent years, [eco]terrorists have attempted to gain sympathy and “justification” for their actions by means of disinformation campaigns that relentlessly smear the safety and utility of genetic engineering applied to agriculture… “Frankenfood” headlines may sell newspapers and organic food, but this kind of “black marketing” — enhancing the perceived value of your products by disparaging those of your competitors – can also encourage serious criminal acts.

…There exists in this country a vast, well-established, highly professional, protest industry fueled by special interest groups seeking to line their own pockets… Anti-genetic engineering campaigns are openly funded and promoted by mainstream organic food marketers like Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield Organic, and alternative health and food-supplement hucksters Joe Mercola and Mike Adams — all cynical fear-profiteers who benefit from increased consumer mistrust in their competitors’ products… The ultimate objective, of course, is to sell more overpriced, overrated organic food…

One result of the widely disseminated disinformation effort is an environment that provides encouragement to extremists who commit criminal acts. It comes from the Facebook and Twitter followers of the genetic engineering conspiracy theorists, organic marketers and “right to know” labeling activists… Against the backdrop of this fear-mongering, hate-speech and support for acts of terror toward legal, highly regulated, safe and societally valuable R&D, we should condemn not only the perpetrators themselves but also their corporate and media enablers.”

Why Am I on Biotech’s Hit List?

Alright, now that we’ve been labeled as “enablers of domestic eco-terrorism” as well—again by simply reporting on research that is published in peer-reviewed journals and interviewing educated researchers and professionals in the field—let’s take a look at who’s behind the name calling. The first author of this hit-piece is Jay Byrne, whose author’s bio identifies him as president of v-Fluence Interactive Public Relations, Inc. Why does Mr. Byrne fail to mention in his bio that he was a former Monsanto executive?

Jay Byrne actually headed up corporate communications for Monsanto Company from 1997 to 2001. And this piece is nothing if not a corporate communication; clearly, there are persistent ties there. How nice for Monsanto to be able to call up their old communications director and have him pen a totally impartial article warning you of your eco-terrorism ties and contributions, should you decide to support a GMO labeling campaign. Back in 2001, Jay Byrne also made the following statement, which is more than a little telling:

“Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on a table. Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody’s going to get killed.”

Byrne’s company v-Fluence Interactive Public Relations7 is also a thinly veiled arm of big Biotech. According to Byrne, “traditionally produced foods and agricultural practices are under attack… Leveraging such issues as pesticides, GMOs, hormones, antibiotics, Mad Cow disease, CAFOs and trade concerns linked to risk factors (human health, environmental risks and consumer choices/controls).” If that’s not a statement taken right out of Big Biotech’s playbook, I don’t know what is. He’s certainly not speaking with any concern for your health and wellbeing.

Perhaps Jay would like to address the recent contamination of alfalfa and wheat exports. While it was just recently approved for commercial use, it was already found in contaminated and rejected exports sending yet another shock to countries who require labeling or reject genetically engineered crops. Monsanto is single-handedly destroying farmer’s export markets by genetically polluting and contaminating our entire agriculture.

The following slide is from his 2013 conference presentation8 on Food and Agricultural Advocacy, which carries the following description (you can view the slideshow in its entirety here):

“These five stakeholders represent a core group of commercial players who act in advocacy roles seeking to influence public attitudes, commercial and governmental policies negatively impacting agriculture and food biotechnology. These influencers directly or via their organizations have been principal drivers via direct activities, funding or complementary marketing behind North American anti‐GMO advocacy campaigns in 2011.

While the scope of this report focused on NGOs it is important to note that absent commercial partners – specifically those in the organic, natural products and alternative health sectors – who provide funding and other leverage for anti‐GMO advocacy there would be little effective or sustained advocacy in this space.”

Remember Henry Miller?

Coincidentally, if the name Henry I. Miller—the second author of that hit piece—rings a bell, it could be because you paid attention during last year’s campaign to get genetically engineered foods labeled in California. He was front and center of the “No on Prop 37” campaign, posing as a Stanford professor in TV commercials and flyers, telling California voters that the ballot measure was “arbitrary,” “completely illogical,” and “ill conceived.”

In reality, he’s not a Stanford professor; he’s a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that happens to be housed on the Stanford campus. Furthermore, Stanford has a policy to not take positions on candidates or ballot measures, and does not allow political filming on campus. The campaign’s TV ad was eventually pulled due to the misrepresentation of Miller.9 He also has a long history10 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to working for Big Tobacco.

If you care about your right to know what’s in your food, your right to choose organic, and your right to learn how your food is being produced, I suggest you etch the names Jay Byrne and Henry Miller into your memory, so you know exactly who is speaking when you come across their industry PR pieces, because nowhere do either of these men fess up their close ties to the industries they defend.

The Science Media Centre—the Dark Side’s PR Center

Another not-so-independent source of information is anything generated by the Science Media Centre (SMC).11 Headquartered in the UK, there is also a US-based outlet.12 The SMC13 claims to be “an independent press office helping to ensure that the public have access to the best scientific evidence and expertise through the news media when science hits the headlines.” Yet their list of funding sources reads like a a Who’s Who of big biotech14 — multibillion dollar giants like:

BASF Bayer CropLife (pesticide and biotech trade group) Abbott Laboratories
Monsanto Novartis Syngenta Astra Zeneca
Coca-Cola Biochemical Society Chemical Industries Association GlaxoSmithKline

The organization lays claim to being objective and non-biased because they don’t receive more than five percent or so of their funding from any one company, organization or individual. But how non-biased can you possibly be when so much of the funding comes from different companies and front groups within the same industries? Their highly conflicted panel of “experts” represent the funding industries and are NOT providing the media with objective academic feedback. Why would any company pay to have some independent, objective expert speak out against them? In short, the SMC has one agenda, and that is to deceive you with corporate propaganda.

For example, they provide handy tips to their “independent” experts in a document15 called “Communicating Risks in a Soundbite: A Guide for Scientists.” It explains how to respond to media questions by downplaying problems. For example, if a reporter asks, “Is it risky?” the scientist should get the journalist to instead ask about the benefits by replying, “the benefits outweigh the risks.” Another suggested answer: “It is a very small risk. So small that I believe it is safe.”

Not exactly players with an objective view of science.

This might explain why the Science Media Centre pounced16 on the French study showing organ damage and massive cancer tumors in rats fed GE corn. This was the first lifetime feeding study that has ever been conducted with GE food, so it was sure to be a major embarrassment to Big Biotech. The very same day the French report was published came a press release17 from the Science Media Centre claiming “anomalies throughout the paper” despite the authors having been through the usual peer review process.

In short, you can bet if there’s a harmful substance out there that makes money, there are at least one or more front groups, posing as independent non-profit organizations, disseminating anything but independent safety reviews and information pertaining to it. It’s high time to pull back the curtain and see who’s really pulling the strings and levers.

I hope you will support not only this web site by reading and sharing what you learn here with others, but also any number of other health journalists reporting the results of research that Big Business would rather you didn’t know. It’s quite clear that many of us have targets on our proverbial backs, and the attacks are quickly escalating. Now is the time to stand together, form a united front, and show them that we simply will not be cowed by their thinly-veiled threats.

Why Does Monsanto Hate Americans?

Interestingly ,Monsanto seems to be fine with supporting GMO labeling when there’s no other choice. Here’s a Monsanto ad from the UK, letting British consumers know how much the company supports the mandatory labeling of their goods—even urging Britons to seek such labels out—ostensibly because Monsanto believes “you should be aware of all the facts before making a decision.” What’s the difference between British shoppers and American shoppers? Why does Monsanto support one nation’s right to know but not another?

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Be well,