“Genetically Modified Children” film exposes how Philip Morris and Monsanto have exploited impoverished farmers since 1966, when the Argentinian government authorized the use of GMO crops to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller
Tobacco farmers in Argentina are forced to use a multitude of dangerous agrochemicals in order to grow a crop that’s certifiable by U.S. tobacco company Philip Morris
An increasing number of children are being born with severe birth defects and deformities in Argentina
The film interviews Dr. Hugo Gomez Demaio and Dr. Mario Barrera, who are dedicated to highlighting and treating the link between agrochemicals and birth defects
The film features anti-agrochemical activist Sofia Gatica, who is renowned for her work in tracking abnormal rates of cancer, kidney disease and other ailments linked to aerial spraying of glyphosate on GMO soy crops
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published August 25, 2018.
The shocking film “Genetically Modified Children” unveils the horrors of decades of chemical-intensive agricultural practices in Argentina, where the majority of crops are genetically modified (GM) and routinely doused in dangerous agrochemicals, and the chokehold big tobacco companies such as Philip Morris and chemical and seed giants have on poverty-stricken farmers desperate to earn a living.
The film, produced by Juliette Igier and Stephanie Lebrun, shows the devastating health effects the region’s agricultural sector is having on children,1 an increasing number of whom are being born with monstrous physical deformities. Some of the children’s cases are so severe that, without a medical intervention, will result in death before the age of 5.
The film begins with the crew traveling from North Argentina in the Province of Misiones to the Brazilian frontier, an agricultural region that was one of the nation’s first to begin growing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the mid-’90s.
Featured in the film is Ricardo Rivero, regional head of the local electricity company. He learned that the reason families cannot pay their bills is because often they are taking care of a sick or handicapped child, and receiving no assistance from the Argentinian government.
The film shows them visiting the humble home of a tobacco farmer where they meet Lucas Texeira, a 5-year-old boy with an incurable genetic skin disease. The family believes it was caused by the mother’s exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller early on in her pregnancy. No one told her it was toxic, she says.
The genetic mutation that caused her son’s condition left him with no pores in his skin, which means he doesn’t perspire. The heat from his body stays inside, causing him severe and painful itching that leads to frequent crying spells. Mr. Texeira expresses his sadness over Lucas’ condition, as well as his fears that he could have another child in the future with a similar deformity.
Agrochemicals Lead to Rise in Birth Defects, Deformities
Like many families in rural Argentina, the Texeiras have grown GM tobacco on their land for years, using a number of various agrochemicals required to produce a crop that’s certifiable by Philip Morris, an American multinational cigarette and tobacco manufacturing company (a division of Altria Company since 2003).
Philip Morris provides farmers GM burley tobacco seeds for the manufacturer of light tobacco cigarettes. Each year, Argentinian farmers are forced to use more than 100 different chemicals in order to grow the perfect-looking tobacco crop — that is, if they hope to make any money.
The Texeira family is no exception. For more than a decade, they have treated their tobacco plants with glyphosate and other agrochemicals — and without any protection. However, after seeing a rise in birth defects among the community’s children, including in their own child, they began to fear for their safety and moved off their farmland, away from the toxic chemicals.
“It’s not easy, but you have to live the life you have,” said Mr. Texeira. “Thank God, Lucas’ problem is just his skin. He’s healthy and can eat. He eats almost anything.” Lucas is a miracle, says the film’s narrator. In this region, there’s a disproportionate number of children born with deformities.
300 Million Liters of Glyphosate Are Applied Each Year
GM crops first entered the country through the Misiones Province of Argentina after the government authorized their use from 1996 onward, a decision based solely on studies conducted by Monsanto, and with no contradicting research.
For more than two decades the land was sprayed with glyphosate and other agrochemicals, contaminating the region’s soil and water. By 2013, more than 24 million hectares2 (59.3 million acres) of GM crops were grown in Argentina, including soy, maize, cotton and tobacco.
Mounting scientific evidence connecting the rise in miscarriages, birth defects and cancer to GMOs and agrochemicals did not dissuade the Argentinian government from subsidizing GM crops. Perhaps, that decision is due in part to the 35% in taxes Argentina receives from GMO soy exports.
Despite the dangers, no one warned tobacco farmers of the risks. In fact, the opposite was true. Farmers in the Misiones province were inundated with various forms of marketing, including commercials from chemical companies insisting agrochemicals were the key to prosperity.
Television advertisements touted the benefits of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, including its ability to kill everything except for GMOs. The marketing worked. Today, more than 300 million liters (79.2 million gallons) of glyphosate are dumped each year onto more than 28 million hectares (69.1 million acres) of land in Argentina.3
The film shows the crew visiting the home of another sick child. Lucas Krauss was born with congenital microcephaly. He suffers from epilepsy, delayed motor and mental development, multiple muscular atrophy and numerous other related pathologies.
The first doctor the family consulted said their son’s condition was due to a lack of oxygen; however, the neurologist had a different opinion. At first, he agreed and said it was due to a lack of oxygen; however, when they pressed him further he admitted that a lack of oxygen was not the only cause, but he refused to say what he believed the true cause was of Lucas’ condition. They wouldn’t even run medical tests, said the boy’s mother.
The family understands that Lucas’ condition, as well as many others in the community, is likely tied to the agrochemicals used to farm tobacco. But the family can’t quit the trade because it’s the main source of income in their area, and most importantly, it’s the only sector that provides social security for its workers. Without the financial aid of the tobacco industry, the father fears he will be unable to care for his special needs son.
“The whole family feels discriminated against because it seems that society doesn’t want to see their reality,” said Rivero. “His parents don’t ask anything for themselves. They’re not asking for anything out of the ordinary. It’s just that the responsible parties — the state is the responsible one for these children’s problems — and it’s not taking responsibility and there’s total desertion.”
In 2010, things started to move. Lawyers from the U.S. traveled to Misiones to visit the families of severely handicapped children. One of their stops included the home of 17-year-old William Nuñez, who was born severely handicapped.
He can’t walk or talk, and has to be fed through a feeding tube in his stomach. The family has received no aid from the government for the medical treatment William needs. Instead, they have learned on their own how to care for their disabled child.
Ignorance and Exploitation
The Nuñez family says they were visited by American lawyers four or five times in a sixth-month period, as well as a handful of doctors from the U.S. and Mexico. The Nuñez family were told that they were not at fault for using agrochemicals, and that they could be awarded up to $3 million for William’s case.
The attorneys asked the family to sign a contract with a commitment not to discuss their case with anyone. Up until now, they have respected the contract. But they haven’t heard from the lawyers in over four years and don’t want to keep quiet any longer.
Next the film introduces a man named Emilio, the son of a tobacco farmer who has created an independent labor union to contend with the two tobacco companies in the region, which often take the side of Big Tobacco.
Tobacco farming is a tough job, says Emilio, adding that people suffer a lot because they work all year long, and the financial incentive is not great. Emilio describes the tobacco industry in San Jacinto, Argentina as a slavery system, one encapsulated by ignorance and exploitation.
The film crew visits a warehouse where all of the region’s tobacco farmers come to sell their product. The farmers’ tobacco crop is transported here at the end of the growing cycle, which includes the sowing, treating, harvesting, drying and sorting. This is the only place they can sell their crop, says Emilio. The film crew is there on the day the farmers learn the value of their year’s work.
“It’s when you get happy or get angry, because if it went well, you know that you’ll be able to buy what you need or what you dreamed about when you were working for it. So, you’ll find out here,” says Emilio.
The crop must meet strict standards set by the cooperative, which inspects each bale in the blink of an eye. They examine the texture, breadth and the color of the leaves. Tobacco in its natural state would never pass the test — only the use of agrochemicals can ensure a good result.
Big Tobacco Dominates the Industry
The film interviews one of the farmers about his feelings on his earnings. He says he received 11,575 Mexican pesos (or about $610 U.S. dollars) for 975 kilos of tobacco. That’s about $3.50 per pound of tobacco. It’s a low price, he says. “To me, it seems like a total rip-off. It’s unfair.”
The farmers say their income was especially low this year as result of the expensive chemical inputs they are forced to use. The chemical companies charge them in U.S. dollars, but they pay in pesos, says one frustrated farmer, adding that he has no way out of the business because he can’t risk losing his social security.
Big Tobacco dominates the industry in San Jacinto, Argentina. It dominates to such an extent that companies like Philip Morris have completely changed tobacco farming. Today, farmers are enslaved by the companies that produce and sell the agrochemicals required to grow a crop that can be certified by Philip Morris.
The film crew manages to capture footage inside a warehouse where farmers go to buy pesticides. Tall stacks of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides line the walls — all of it handled with bare hands.
Among the insecticides is a chemical manufactured by Bayer called Confidor, which contains the insecticides clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and methiocarb,4 all of which, except for methiocarb, belong to a class of bee-killing pesticides known as neonicotinoids, which were banned on all crops grown outdoors in Europe.5
Poison Is a Recurrent Word in Argentina
Before leaving the region, the film crew makes one last stop to visit 50-year-old Raul Gomez, who has created a list of all the chemicals he has had to handle over the past two decades, most of which are now banned due to their toxicity. Gomez is concerned about having to keep the chemicals on his property, most of which are too dangerous for him to dispose of.
He says he was told someone would come and take them, but no one has, so he built shacks to store them. Gomez says he believes he was definitely a guinea pig in that he was forced to work with such dangerous poisons without any knowledge of the implication to his or his family’s health.
He and other farmers say the question isn’t if they will become ill, but when. Everyone in this region has poison running through their bodies, he says, and while he doesn’t feel it now, in a few years he may. “That’s how it is. The consequences come later.”
Next the film crew travels to Posadas, the capital of the Province of Misiones, where doctors are considering a terrifying hypothesis: Exposure to agrochemicals may actually modify the human genome.
They meet 73-year-old Dr. Hugo Gomez Demaio, head of the neurosurgery service at the Pediatric Hospital of Posadas, and Dr. Mario Barrera, neurosurgeon at the Medical School of Nordeste. (Both institutions are in Buenos Aries). The doctors are dedicated to highlighting and treating the link between glyphosate exposure and other agrochemicals and birth defects caused by DNA damage.
Over the years, Demaio has witnessed an increasing number of children suffering from malformations. “These are no more empirical observations, but an inescapable statistic that he has drawn up with his successor, Dr. Barrera,” says the film’s narrator. One hundred percent of these children with severe deformities will die before the age of 5 if they do not have a medical intervention, says Demaio.
The film shows two little girls suffering from hydrocephalus, a condition linked to an abnormality affecting the X chromosome. Hydrocephalus is the buildup of fluids deep within the brain. The excess fluids put pressure on the brain causing damage to brain tissue. Symptoms of hydrocephalus include an unusually large head, a rapid increase in the size of the head and a bulging spot on top.6
‘They Have the Money and We Have the Illness’
The mothers of the two little girls with hydrocephalus say they were exposed to agrochemicals, but indirectly. While agrochemicals were not stored in their home, they say they were exposed to them through the contaminated clothing of their male family members who farm tobacco. The women would wash the men’s clothing in a nearby creek, which also served as their source of drinking water.
Demaio says exposure to agrochemicals may cause genetic damage that’s transmitted to an individual’s offspring, causing a modification of genetic heritage. Barrera explains:
“Even if the entire local environment is contaminated, it does not mean that all children will become sick. But when the father is exposed to herbicides, they are absorbed into the body and alter his DNA. He then passes that genetic mutation on to his children.”
In the beginning, Demaio and Barrera worked alone, but soon other doctors who had made similar observations joined them in their work. In 2009, they published results showing miscarriages and congenital defects among newborns were six times higher than normal, and cancers in small children were five times more common than elsewhere.7
The doctors say the agrochemicals pass from mother to child and cause damage within the first 28 days of pregnancy, resulting in monstrous deformities that are difficult to repair. The most common expression is myelomeningocele,8 a birth defect of the backbone and spinal cord. It’s the most severe lesion of the central nervous system that one can still live with.
Demaio says the Argentinian government refuses to listen to him, so he has dedicated his time to educating young people at universities, many of whom have grown up in tobacco farming families and around pesticides, but know very little about them.
They were told agrochemicals are safe, and necessary, to feed people. “They have the money and we have the illness,” says Demaio, referring to the chemical companies and the profits they’ve earned on unsuspecting farmers forced in a chemical-reliant trade.
A David Versus Goliath Battle
The film crew visits the lawyers in their office in Bueno Aires, the ones who never followed up after visiting the families four years ago. They were not very knowledgeable about the case, so the film crew visits the New York office for which the attorneys had worked on the file years ago.
They speak with Steven J. Phillips of the Phillips & Paolicelli LLP office, which specializes in defending children from toxic products. Phillips says he believes he has a strong case against Monsanto and Philip Morris. Monsanto designed and sold glyphosate to people in South America under conditions in which it knew there would be pregnant women mixing the chemicals.
Monsanto knew it was extremely dangerous but sold the stuff anyway and made a ton of money, said Phillips. Philip Morris insisted the farmers grow the tobacco in a specific way that included the use of glyphosate, and if they didn’t, Philip Morris wouldn’t buy the tobacco. So, the farmers had no choice.
“If you force someone to behave in a way that’s dangerous, mislead them about it, and then their children get hurt, then that’s a reason to bring them to court,” said Phillips. While the attorneys recognize the battle as being a David versus Goliath type, they also know that the truth is on their side.
The truth often prevails, as is the case in the guilty verdict in the landmark Monsanto trial. A jury in San Francisco, California, awarded plaintiff Dewayne Johnson $289 million in damages after determining his cancer was caused by exposure Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller.9 Organic Consumers Association (OCA) reports:
“The jury’s decision was unanimous: Monsanto was guilty of manufacturing and selling a product that caused Johnson’s cancer. What’s more, the company knew its product could cause cancer — and yet it intentionally hid that fact from Johnson and the public.”
The case is eerily similar to that of the farmers and their families who are suffering from exposure to agrochemicals, including glyphosate, in Argentina. And the tobacco farmers aren’t alone in their battle. There’s another region in Argentina that has become the symbol in the fight against agrochemicals.
Cordoba, the Realm of the Transgenic Soybean
The film crew travels to Cordoba, Argentina’s second most important city, and the last stop in their investigation. Cordoba is characterized for its planting of transgenic soy and where glyphosate is applied from above through aerial spraying.
The town is littered with anti-Monsanto graffiti. In 2012, a historical verdict10 was delivered in Cordoba when a farmer and the owner of a crop-dusting plane were sentenced to three years in prison for illegal aerial spraying. They had been spraying glyphosate within 2,500 meters of a densely, populated area.
The film introduces anti-agrochemical activist Sofia Gatica, who cofounded Mothers of Ituzaingo,11 a group of moms working to stop the indiscriminate agrochemical use that has poisoned the region’s children. Gatica lost her own infant daughter to kidney malformation, and her son lost his ability to walk following exposure to a local agrochemical fumigation.
Gatica is recognized for her work in tracking the abnormal rates of cancer, kidney disease and other conditions in areas close to where glyphosate was applied to GMO soy crops. The Mothers of Ituzaingo had blood tests done on their kids and found that 3 in 4 children living in their community had agrochemicals in their blood, including pesticides, chromium, lead and arsenic.
Hoping to get help from the government, the group presented the results to Argentinian officials, who told them they would only improve the water if the families signed away their right to sue for the water contamination.
Gatica has repeatedly been threatened and physically assaulted for her efforts in fighting the chemical companies. On one occasion in 2014, she was threatened with a gun and told by a man that if she didn’t stop protesting against Monsanto, he would “blow her brains out.”
Making Progress
Despite the uphill battle, Mothers of Ituzaingo and other activists have made good progress. As the OCA reports:12
“In 2008, Argentina’s president ordered the minister of health to investigate the impact of pesticide use in Ituzaingó. A study was conducted by the Department of Medicine at Buenos Aires University and the results corroborated with the research the mothers had done linking pesticide exposure to the many health issues experienced by people in the community.
Gatica also succeeded in getting a municipal ordinance passed that prohibited aerial spraying in Ituzaingó at distances of less than 2,500 meters from residences.
And, in a huge victory, a 2010 Supreme Court ruling banned agrochemical spraying near populated areas and reversed the burden of proof — now the government and soy producers have to prove the chemicals they are using are safe, instead of residents having to prove that the spraying is making them sick.”
Despite the victories, people living in Argentina and other regions saturated with GMOs and agrochemicals have a long, hard road ahead. In 2021, according to a systematic review of the scientific literature published between 2006 and 2018, it was estimated that 385 million cases of unintentional, acute pesticide poisoning (UAPP) occur annually worldwide.13 But agrochemicals are worth $40 billion per year, and are projected to reach $308 billion in value by the year 2025.14
Will the world’s multinational chemical companies ever sacrifice profits to protect public health? Only time will tell; however, the solution likely lies in the legal system, which is making strides around the world to protect the public from harmful agrochemicals.
(NaturalHealth365) If you are hesitant or unsure about childhood vaccines, you should know that you are NOT alone. Many parents share your concerns.
In fact, the number of parents who are starting to question, delay, modify, or forgo “the schedule” for children is increasing rapidly – no matter how much mainstream media outlets and so-called health “experts” want to deny this reality.
New federally-backed research report reveals more parents are questioning childhood shot schedules than ever before
A new research report out of Canada, conducted by Ekos Research Associates and commissioned by the Canadian federal government, offers revelatory findings about how parents truly feel about mandated childhood shots.
The report, Childhood Vaccination Marketing Campaign Survey 2022, collected data from 1,228 Canadians, “including 1,035 parents with children 0 to 6 years of age, and 193 individuals who are currently pregnant or planning a pregnancy within the next 12 months,” according to the report.
Of the respondents, only about 4 in 10 (39 percent) “said they accept all recommended vaccines and have no doubts or concerns about vaccinating their child.” That’s nearly a 10 percentage point drop from 48 percent in 2017.
The report also found that 1 in 3 parents have “minor doubts and concerns” about government-recommended shots, and another five percent say they have “many doubts and concerns,” even though they accept these shots for their children. Conversely, 3 percent of respondents have opted out of all shots, and nearly 1 in 5 (19 percent) have declined or delayed at least some shots.
This is NOTEWORTHY data. Here’s why:
It indicates a growing interest in medical freedom and bodily autonomy – and highlights the atrocious impact of medical discrimination
It indicates that people are becoming more empowered to think for themselves
It stands with our belief that we should all want FULLY informed consent about any medical intervention – and that we all deserve the right to choose when and whether to consent to said intervention without coercion, propagandized shame, or threat of loss (loss of access to education, work, public places, etc.)
In other breaking news: Yet ANOTHER state approves religious exemptions for shtos in school-aged children
The COVID-19 pandemic certainly spawned a LOT of conversation around medical freedom in Canada, America, and elsewhere and caused many people to come to the conclusion that forcing adults and children to consume imperfect medical products that come with a laundry list of adverse effects is ethically bankrupt. Could we be seeing the tides turning as a result of this cultural shift?
Case in point:
In April 2023, a federal judge struck down a decades-long ban on religious exemptions to childhood shot requirements for public or private school attendance in the state of Mississippi. Effective July 2023, the ruling means that parents in the state can now opt out of injecting their children based on their religious beliefs and still be permitted to send their children to school.
Religious exemption used to be allowed in the state but was struck down in 1979 by the Mississippi Supreme Court. This reversal is truly a victory in the fight for bodily autonomy – although we would argue that any parent should be free to opt out of injecting their children for medical, religious, or philosophical/personal reasons.
Unsurprisingly, mainstream media outlets are trying to paint this federal ruling as a reason for concern, claiming that unvaxxed kids are a danger to themselves and their community. Never mind that:
Plenty of fully-vaxxed kids end up sick with the disease that shots are supposed to prevent – for example, did you know that at least 40 percent of American kids who got pertussis in 2022 were fully vaxxed against it, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?
Kids who recently received a live MMR, chicken pox or intranasal flu shot are a potential danger to others (including immunocompromised and vax-free children) due to the well-established phenomenon of vax shedding – yet these kids are allowed to be in school, no hesitation!
Unvaxxed does NOT automatically equal infected (just like vaxxed does NOT automatically equal uninfected) – in other words, how can a healthy child spread a disease they don’t have?
Mainstream media outlets also decry the decline in childhood shots that has occurred since the COVID-19 pandemic. According to an April 22, 2022 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) from the CDC, the exemption rate for the 2020-21 school year was “low” at 2.2%, while vax coverage was one percent lower than the previous school year (though still high, at 94%). The CDC blames things like school closures and delayed doctor visits … could it also be that parents are becoming more curious about “the schedule”?
Of course, there’s no question that there will be a push for catch-up vaccine schedules in the wake of the pandemic. We can only hope we do not start to see a sharp rise in vax injuries and sick kids in the coming months and years … and if we do, we can only hope public health officials will be transparent and honest about what’s going on.
In 2020, a federal court ruled the EPA ignored evidence that dicamba would lead to widespread crop damage and invalidated the registrations for this herbicide
Instead of pulling it from the market, the EPA reapproved it months later with minor label changes
In 2021, the EPA admitted that its changes made little difference, and dicamba was still causing grave damage, prompting a lawsuit alleging the agency failed to take action against the herbicide, despite the court order
During the 2021 growing season, the EPA received reports of about 3,500 dicamba-related incidents, which revealed more than 1 million acres of soybean crops were damaged due to dicamba drift; similar damage was expected during 2022
The EPA reported that these numbers significantly underestimate the true extent of dicamba-driven damage, but it still allows it to be widely used throughout the U.S.
Dicamba, a highly volatile herbicide known for drifting and damaging off-target crops, is still causing widespread environmental damage and, likely, harm to human health. This is despite a 2020 promise from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take action against the chemicals, which are often sprayed “over the top” of genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton crops.
In 2020, a federal court ruled, “The EPA made multiple errors in granting the conditional registrations”1 for dicamba herbicides, ignoring evidence that they would lead to widespread crop damage.
The court order invalidated the registrations for dicamba,2 but instead of pulling it from the market, the EPA reapproved it months later with minor label changes. In 2021, the EPA admitted that its changes made little difference, and dicamba was still causing grave damage, prompting a lawsuit alleging the agency failed to take action against the herbicide, despite the court order.3
Dicamba Drift Devastates US Crops
Millions of acres of croplands across the U.S. have been damaged by dicamba drift,4 and there’s also disturbing information that the chemical harms trees.5 Dicamba use has also turned farmers against one another, as those experiencing damaged crops blame neighboring farms for spraying dicamba.
When dicamba was first used, it was typically applied only sparingly and not during the growing season due to its known potential to kill nearby crops. As resistance grew to other herbicides, like glyphosate, however, Monsanto — now owned by Bayer — came up with a plan. As reported by investigative journalist Carey Gillam:6
“In 2011 Monsanto announced that glyphosate had been “relied on too long by itself” and said it planned to collaborate with BASF to develop a cropping system of genetically engineered (or GMO) crops that would tolerate being sprayed with dicamba. It said it would introduce a new type of dicamba herbicide that would not drift far from fields where it was sprayed.”
The newer dicamba was approved by the EPA in 2016, but it did not prove to be the panacea that Monsanto had promised. By November 2017, an estimated 3.6 million acres across 25 U.S. states had been damaged by dicamba drift.7 The EPA was aware of the damage then but didn’t go nearly far enough to stop the desecration. According to the EPA:8
“In 2017 and again in 2018, EPA amended the registrations of all over-the-top dicamba products following reports that growers had experienced crop damage and economic losses resulting from the off-site movement of dicamba.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the 2018 registrations in June 2020 on the basis that ‘EPA substantially understated risks that it acknowledged and failed entirely to acknowledge other risks.’ Days after the court’s decision, EPA issued cancellation orders for the affected products that addressed existing stocks.”
EPA Admits It Failed to Stop Dicamba Damage
Four months after the 2020 court ruling, the EPA reapproved the toxic herbicides with new directions on the labels.9 The EPA reported:10
“In October 2020, EPA issued new registrations for two dicamba products and extended the registration of an additional dicamba product. These registration decisions were made with some input from EPA’s career scientists and managers and were expected to address the risk concerns noted by the Ninth Circuit.
All three registrations included new measures that the Agency expected to prevent off-target movement and damage to non-target crops and other plants.”
However, a follow-up conducted by the EPA in December 2021 revealed the same problems were occurring. The EPA admitted:11
“Despite the control measures implemented in EPA’s October 2020 dicamba registration decision, incident reports from the 2021 growing season showed little change in the number, severity, and/or geographic extent of dicamba-related incidents when compared to the reports the Agency received before the 2020 control measures were required.”
During the 2021 growing season, the EPA received reports of about 3,500 dicamba-related incidents, which revealed:12
More than 1 million acres of soybean crops were damaged due to dicamba drift
Dicamba also damaged other non-target crops, including sugar beets, rice, sweet potatoes, peanuts and grapes
Dicamba damaged plants and trees growing near homes and in wild areas, including a 160,000-acre wildlife refuge
More than 280 of the incident reports were from counties that had imposed additional restrictions on dicamba use to protect endangered species near dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton crops
Further, the EPA reported that these numbers significantly underestimate the true extent of dicamba-driven damage, noting:13
“Based on prior research and numerous stakeholder meetings, EPA has reason to believe the number of incidents reported significantly understates the actual number of incidents related to dicamba use. For example, in a 2020 memo, EPA estimated that one in 25 dicamba incidents was reported to EPA. No evidence available to EPA suggests that underreporting has changed.”
After their 2021 report revealed devastating damage due to dicamba, the EPA admitted that a similar amount of damage likely occurred during 2022:14
“EPA has not yet fully analyzed 2022 incident data, but based on incident reports received and discussions with state regulators, weed scientists, and academics, EPA has reason to believe dicamba-related incidents continued through the 2022 growing season as well.”
Still, in a bulletin released February 16, 2023, the EPA chose not to ban dicamba to stop its environmental destruction. Instead, it approved more labeling amendments intended to reduce the risks of over-the-top dicamba use. The revised labels state that over-the-top dicamba application on dicamba-tolerant crops is prohibited after June 12, 2023, in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana and after June 20 in South Dakota.15
“This restricts over-the-top dicamba application to earlier in the growing season, when temperatures are likely to be lower, and is intended to reduce the potential for dicamba to volatilize and drift off-site,” the EPA noted.16
In 2020, a lawsuit was filed against the EPA by National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America. It challenged the EPA’s reapproval of dicamba after the court had removed it.17 New filings in the lawsuit, made in 2023, again allege the EPA has endangered U.S. cropland by ignoring the 2020 court order. In a statement, the plaintiffs explained:18
“The new litigation was prompted by the EPA’s decision to ignore the court’s ruling and move forward with reapproving the pesticide. In re-approving dicamba, the EPA once again failed to weigh the true costs to farmers and the environment.”
Speaking to The Guardian, Nathan Donley, environmental health science director with the Center For Biological Diversity, blamed the EPA’s close ties with the pesticide industry for their leniency in “treating the pesticide industry not as regulated companies, but as clients”:19
“The pesticide industry has a ton of clout in the EPA’s pesticide office, a ton of ability to persuade people there, and the culture at the office is very in alliance with the pesticide industry.”
Dozens of farmers are suing Bayer and BASF for crop damage caused by dicamba. The first case that went to trial involved Bader Farms in Missouri, which alleged an “ecological disaster” was created to force farmers to buy GE dicamba-tolerant seeds. Bader Farms was awarded $250 million in punitive damages and $15 million in compensatory damages in the case.20
Dicamba Linked to Cancer, Health Risks
The EPA has also downplayed health risks linked to dicamba, stating, “EPA has not identified any risks of concern regarding human health, including all population subgroups, or for occupational handlers. EPA has not identified cancer as a human health risk of dicamba.”21
However, an analysis that evaluated dicamba use with a follow-up period of up to 20 years found an association between the herbicide and liver cancer and intrahepatic bile duct cancer in those with the highest levels of exposure.22 Donley stated in a news release:23
“This sweeping study exposes the terrible human cost of the EPA’s reckless decision to expand the use of dicamba. For the EPA to approve widespread use of this poison across much of the country without assuring its safety to people and the environment is an absolute indictment of the agency’s persistent practice of rubber-stamping dangerous pesticides.
… Just as with glyphosate, we were falsely told that dicamba was completely safe for humans and there was nothing to worry about. With dicamba’s ability to drift for miles, people in many areas of the country are now routinely forced to breathe in this dangerous pesticide.”
Separate research also linked dicamba to colon and lung cancer24 and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma,25 along with an increased risk of hypothyroidism.26
Regulatory Capture Is Putting Health and Environment at Risk
André Leu, former president of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and current international director of Regeneration International, is the author of “Poisoning Our Children: The Parent’s Guide to the Myths of Safe Pesticides.” He explains how the agricultural industry and global chemical industry have manipulated the system to control and suppress safety concerns.
Through this regulatory capture, regulators end up working for the industry’s rather than the public’s interest. Part and parcel of this process is the revolving door between government and industry, where regulators are given high-paying industry jobs and industry executives get hired as senior managers in regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where they start approving the products of their former company.
“That is really a form of corruption,” Leu says, “But we see this everywhere around the world. In every country I look at, the regulators are owned by the industry.” For its part, the EPA has a long history of siding with the pesticide industry. Not only has it stated that dicamba isn’t harmful, but it’s insisted the herbicide glyphosate “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”27
Moreover, regulators make decisions on the safety of poisons in our food and environment based on data provided by the company selling the toxin — and most of these studies are confidential, so the public — as well as other scientists and researchers — cannot access them.
But as noted by Leu, when access to corporate studies is gained through freedom of information requests or legal discovery, most turn out to be of poor quality while others show a whole range of diseases and risks. When he reviewed data on pesticides, he concluded children, in particular, are at risk from exposure to even small amounts of these chemicals.
We can’t wait for the EPA to take action to start protecting the most vulnerable among us. To minimize your exposure to pesticides — and help influence positive agricultural change in your local area — buy organically produced foods from small farmers as much as possible, and avoid using pesticides around your home and garden. You can also plant and grow your own food using organic methods.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today launched an investigation into whether Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson committed fraud related to the COVID-19 vaccines.
He also will investigate whether the pharmaceutical giants engaged in gain-of-function research and misled the public about it, The New York Post reported.
“If any company illegally took advantage of consumers during this period or compromised people’s safety to increase their profits, they will be held responsible,” Paxton said. “If public health policy was developed on the basis of flawed or misleading research, the public must know.”
Paxton said Big Pharma had a “vested interest” in the success of its COVID-19 vaccines because they drove record profits.
“This vested interest … combined with reports about the alarming side effects of vaccines, demands aggressive investigation,” he said.
In 2022 alone, Pfizer reaped profits of $31.4 billion on record sales of $100.3 billion. Sales from its COVID-19 vaccine and Paxlovid, used to treat COVID-19, totaled $56 billion — more than half the vaccine maker’s annual revenue.
Johnson & Johnson’s first-quarter 2022 COVID-19 vaccine sales were only $457 million, but in 2021, its vaccine sales reached $2.4 billion.
Paxton also said that because mandates were dictated at the federal level, “This investigation into the scientific and ethical basis on which public health decisions were made is of major significance.”
As part of the investigation, Paxton will demand the three companies provide documentation related to decision-making about pandemic interventions, “especially when a profit motive or political pressure may have compromised Americans’ health and safety.”
The investigation could have implications for the immunity vaccine makers enjoy under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness, or PREP Act, for producing vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization, Kim Mack Rosenberg, acting general counsel for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender.
She said:
“I applaud the Texas attorney general investigating fraud in connection with COVID-19 shots.
“Because these injections are covered by the PREP Act and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), with near blanket liability protection for manufacturers and significant restrictions and limitations on recovery for injuries, evidence of fraud or willful misconduct may be an avenue to justice for the many who have been injured by these products.”
The PREP Act declaration for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19 shields manufacturers of COVID-19 pandemic countermeasures, such as vaccines or treatments, from liability for injuries resulting from those countermeasures.
It funnels vaccine injury claims into the CICP program, which is meant to compensate people with vaccine or other covered countermeasure-related injuries for expenses associated with their injury.
To date, the CICP has compensated only three of the more than 10,000 claims brought for COVID-19 countermeasure injuries.
But the PREP Act does not immunize manufacturers from liability in the case of “willful misconduct.”
That means if the Texas attorney general proves the companies engaged in willful misconduct, people injured by the vaccine may have other methods beyond the CICP available to them to seek compensation for their pain and suffering.
“The catastrophic effects of the pandemic and subsequent interventions forced on our country and citizens deserve intense scrutiny, and we are pursuing any hint of wrongdoing to the fullest,” Paxton said.
Florida grand jury investigating ‘crimes and wrongdoings’ related to COVID vaccine
In December 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis petitioned for a grand jury investigation into “crimes and wrongdoing committed against Floridians related to the COVID-19 vaccine.”
“It is against the law to mislead and to misrepresent, particularly when you’re talking about the efficacy of a drug,” said DeSantis, whose petition seeks more information from pharmaceutical companies about the vaccines and potential side effects.
DeSantis argued that pharmaceutical companies had a financial interest in creating a climate in which people believed that getting a coronavirus vaccine would ensure they couldn’t spread the virus to others.
“The Biden administration and pharmaceutical corporations continue to push widespread distribution of mRNA vaccines on the public, including children as young as 6 months old, through relentless propaganda while ignoring real-life adverse events,” DeSantis’ office said in a statement in December.
The Florida Supreme Court granted his request on Dec. 22, 2022, committing to convening a grand jury to investigate any wrongdoing with respect to the COVID-19 vaccines. The grand jury will meet for one year.
The committee will meet in May to examine “adverse events from mRNA vaccines,” The New York Post reported, and it will also provide guidance to the Florida Department of Health.
Along with DeSantis, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, M.D., Ph.D., has been vocal in his concerns about adverse events associated with the vaccines. He issued a health alert in Florida, warning residents about a “substantial increase” in reports of adverse events.
He also petitioned the heads of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate the millions of adverse events that have been reported to VAERS.
He asked them to “promote transparency” with respect to the excess risk of adverse events associated with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and asked them to “promote transparency” among healthcare professionals “to accurately communicate the risks these vaccines pose,” The Defender reported.
At least 500 Australians have already joined a “landmark” COVID-19 vaccine injury class action lawsuit filed this week against the Australian government and the medicines regulator seeks redress for those allegedly injured or left bereaved by the COVID-19 vaccines.
The action was filed in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry.
According to the lawsuit, the respondents approved the vaccines “with no proper or reasonable evidentiary or logical basis to reasonably determine the Vaccines to be safe, effective and possessing a positive risk-benefit profile.”
“The action will argue that the Therapeutic Goods Administration did not fulfil their duty to properly regulate the Covid-19 vaccines, resulting in considerable harm and damage to Australians.”
The suit alleges the government “acted negligently in approving the vaccines and also by failing to withdraw them” based upon the “known evidence” of risk.
“Australians who have experienced a serious adverse event following Covid-19 vaccination are invited to step forward and register for this class action,” Strijland said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Aged Care said that the department “is aware” of the lawsuit and that “as the matter is before the court it is not appropriate to comment further.
Class actions provide “a path to justice” for people who may not have the resources to file a court claim on their own, said Alison Bevege, a journalist who has written for Reuters and Daily Mail, in an April 26 Substack post.
Those injured by COVID-19 vaccines have been “ignored, denied, belittled and marginalised,” Bevege added.
Australian doctor crowdsourced $110,000 to bring class action suit
According to McCann, the class action suit was necessary because Australia’s federal vaccine injury compensation program — the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme — was “not fit for purpose” and had left many vaccine-injured Australians “abandoned with no support” after being promised “fair and accessible” compensation.
Services Australia as of April 12 had received 3,501 applications and paid 137 claims totaling more than $7.3 million, with 2,263 claims still in progress and 696 deemed not payable, news.com.au reported.
By comparison, the U.S. government, as of April 1, approved its first three payments to people injured by COVID-19 vaccines — amounting to a total of $4,634.89. Since the start of the pandemic, Americans claiming injuries related to COVID-19 vaccines and other countermeasures submitted 11,425 requests for compensation.
“TGA had determined that several young previously healthy children died of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis. Redacted letters from the TGA to McCann indicated these facts and an admission of willful concealment,” McCullough said.
‘I’d never known what a heart attack would feel like’
Among those represented in the lawsuit is Melbourne teacher Gareth O’Gradie, a previously healthy father of two who before he got his first Pfizer shot in July 2021, was into running, footy, cricket and tennis.
“Six days after [the vaccination] I had sudden-onset chest pain, shortness of breath, fever, chills, sweats,” he told World Freedom Alliance. “I’d never known what a heart attack would feel like, but that’s the type of thing I expected.”
O’Gradie, 41, was rushed to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with vaccine-induced pericarditis. He said:
“In the end I had open heart surgery to remove the pericardium, which had become inflamed and stuck to my heart. It’s extreme.
“All the heads of different departments, cardiology, rheumatology, cardiothoracic, all had conferences to say, ‘We’ve tried this, what is the next step for this recurrent pericarditis we can’t control the pain for?’ It wasn’t an easy decision.
“They said, ‘Nothing’s working — this is what we can offer.’”
“There was a lot of, you know, ‘We need to not scare the public as part of the vaccine rollout, so let’s not publicise these things,” he told news.com.au. “There was a large, intentional withholding of information — that doesn’t give people informed consent.”
California lawmakers are hoping to ban five toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of many processed foods, including titanium dioxide, potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil, red dye No. 3 and propylparaben
Combined, these chemicals are estrogen disrupters, lower sperm count, are known to cause cancer in animals and humans, disrupt the gut microbiome, damage the central nervous system, cause loss of memory and muscle coordination, and are linked to hyperactivity in children
If enacted, the bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of products containing these chemicals, such as Skittles, Sour Patch Kids, jellybeans, Pez candy, Campbell’s Soup and Trident sugar-free gum to name a few
Foods that most people overlook are condiments that are far from benign and can have a cumulative biological effect. Making mayonnaise, sour cream, salad dressing and ketchup at home takes just a few minutes, helps reduce excess sugar in your diet and eliminates artificial preservatives, dyes and flavor enhancers
California lawmakers are hoping to ban the addition of five toxic food additives in foodstuffs sold in California that the FDA approves for use but are associated with cancer and organ and DNA damage.1 According to the FDA,2 “Today, food and color additives are more strictly studied, regulated and monitored than at any other time in history.”
In other words, the FDA allows food additives for U.S. consumption that other countries ban even though additives are more strictly studied and regulated “than at any other time in history.” Two groups of food ingredients are exempt from regulation. The first are substances that were approved before 1958 and the second are those that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) based on use before 1958 or published data. The FDA also states that their regulations:3
“… [R]equire evidence that each substance is safe at its intended level of use before it may be added to foods. Furthermore, all additives are subject to ongoing safety review as scientific understanding and methods of testing continue to improve. Consumers should feel safe about the foods they eat.”
And yet, despite these statements, the evidence does exist that the five food additives California lawmakers would like to ban, and which are currently approved by the FDA for use in food products, are dangerous for consumers and may place your health at risk.
California Takes the Lead on Eliminating Five Food Toxins
In February 2023,4 California assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, proposed Bill AB418 that would prohibit food containing red dye No. 3, potassium bromate, propylparaben, brominated vegetable oil and titanium dioxide from the sale, manufacture and distribution in the state. In a press release from the assemblymember’s office, Susan Little, governmental affairs senior advocate for the Environmental Working Group (EWG) asked:5
“Why are these toxic chemicals in our food? We know they are harmful and that children are likely eating more of these chemicals than adults. It makes no sense that the same products food manufacturers sell in California are sold in the EU but without these toxic chemicals. We thank Assemblymember Gabriel’s efforts to remove these toxic additives from California’s food supply.”
Some of the foodstuffs containing these toxic chemicals include Skittles, Sour Patch Kids, jellybeans, Pez candy, Campbell’s Soup and Trident sugar-free gum. Other consumables on the chopping block include Old El Paso sauce, Hot Tamales candy, Sun Drop soda and some breads.6
If the bill passes and becomes law, it will also prevent companies from manufacturing products with these chemicals inside the state, even if they’re not sold in California. Although the bill is aimed at protecting California, Gabriel hopes that it could have a national impact.
He explained to a reporter from the Daily Mail7 that he hopes companies will change their recipes as they’re unlikely to pull their products and abandon the large California market. However, Mars Inc. already makes a different version of Skittles sold in the EU, yet continues to sell the more toxic form in the U.S.
If the bill is enacted, California would be the first state to ban the use of dangerous chemicals in processed foods. In a press release, Gabriel, who is chair of the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, commented on his state webpage:8
“Californians shouldn’t have to worry that the food they buy in their neighborhood grocery store might be full of dangerous additives or toxic chemicals. This bill will correct for a concerning lack of federal oversight and help protect our kids, public health, and the safety of our food supply.”
Europe Bans Toxins and the US Embraces Them
In an era in which the FDA claims food additives are more regulated than at any other time in history, Mars Inc. announced in 20169 that they were committed to removing “harmful and potentially poisonous nanoparticles of titanium dioxide from its food products, including many popular candies.” Yet, over six years later, the company has made no move to remove these harmful chemicals and the FDA has made no move to protect the public.
The Skittles website continues to list titanium dioxide as one of the ingredients in the candy. In 2022, California filed a lawsuit against Mars Inc. claiming it deceived its customers and put health at risk by continuing to use titanium dioxide. According to a report in Insider,10 the company sold an estimated $185 million in Skittles in 2017, which ranked it as the top non-chocolate chewy candy.
The FDA continues to list titanium dioxide as safe under Title 21,11 yet as the agency must surely know, published studies have raised safety questions. Although food companies began phasing out titanium dioxide in products shipped to the EU, it continues to be added to food sold in the U.S., Britain and Canada.
When The New York Times requested a comment from the FDA on why the EU banned titanium dioxide, but the U.S. had not, the official comment was that available studies “do not demonstrate safety concerns connected to the use of titanium dioxide as a color additive.”12
One researcher on a 2014 study on titanium dioxide told The Times there was cause for concern since many of the candies with the highest levels of the toxin are consumed by children at a higher relative dose. Scott Faber, senior vice president at the EWG added that steering clear of the toxin is difficult since companies are not required to publish it on their ingredient list and it could be included simply as “color added.” Faber went on to say:13
“Titanium dioxide is really the poster child for many chemicals that were reviewed, in some cases, more than 50 years ago for safety by the F.D.A. and haven’t been reviewed since. So, titanium dioxide is part of a bigger story about regulatory failure.”
Tatiana Santos, chemicals manager with the European Environmental Bureau, spoke with a reporter from The Guardian, characterizing the FDA’s lack of consumer protection in a statement,14 “The U.S. often waits until the harm is done, and the EU tries to prevent it to a certain extent. It often seems the U.S. favors the market over protection.”
Each of the five food additives listed in California’s proposed Bill AB418 may trigger health concerns, so it’s a good idea to watch for these on food labels. When you cook and bake using whole products, you can avoid toxic chemical additives the FDA insists are not dangerous to your health, but which data show cause damage.
• Titanium dioxide — Nanoparticles of titanium dioxide are used in many foods as an artificial cake additive, anti-caking agent and whitener. It can be found in chewing gum, salad dressings, baked goods and coffee creamer. When the dust is inhaled, titanium dioxide is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans — yet, it’s an ingredient in the breast cancer drug tamoxifen.15
A 2017 paper16 demonstrated titanium dioxide nanoparticles could be found in tissue after only one week of exposure in an animal model at levels relevant to human consumption. The researchers concluded that the data indicated a risk for susceptibility to autoimmune diseases and colorectal cancer when exposed to dietary sources.
A 2021 EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavorings17 found that based on the evidence and many uncertainties as well as a concern for genotoxicity, titanium dioxide “can no longer be considered safe when used as a food additive.” Scientists theorized in a 2022 paper18 that after exposure to titanium dioxide stopped, the toxic effects would continue to be detected.
Using colon cells, they found that exposure caused alterations that were not reversed even after 48 hours. A 2021 review of the literature19 looked at how titanium dioxide affected the gut microbiota. They evaluated 18 animal studies and acknowledged that while extrapolation from animals to humans is challenging, the review did highlight titanium dioxide plays a key role in gut nanotoxicity.
• Brominated vegetable oil (BVO) — While the EU has banned BVO, the FDA allows manufacturers to use it as an emulsifier in citrus-flavored soda to keep the flavor from floating to the top.20 BVO contains bromine, which the Daily Mail21 notes can damage the central nervous system with long-term exposure and has been linked to memory loss, chronic headaches and poor balance.
Mountain Dew removed BVO in 2020, but Sun Drop and other budget and store-brand versions of Mountain Dew still use it. India, Japan and the EU have banned its use as an additive as there are concerns that the bromine could accumulate in fatty tissue.
The EWG22 warns that drinking large amounts of BVO-containing soda increases your risk of irritation to the skin and mucous membranes, fatigue, loss of muscle coordination and memory, and headaches. The risks have been known since the early 1980s and even earlier studies showed animals eating diets contaminated with brominate developed changes to their heart and liver. Yet, since 1958, the FDA has classified it as GRAS.
• Potassium bromate — According to the Advisory Board,23 potassium bromate is another additive that is banned in Europe because it may cause cancer but still allowed to be added to flour and baked goods in the U.S. A request to ban potassium bromate was denied by the FDA, even though the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies it as a possible human carcinogen.
According to the EWG,24 the EU believes it may cause cancer, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment believes it’s known to cause cancer and the IARC believes it is possibly carcinogenic to humans. In 2015,25 the EWG’s online tool found 86 baked goods and other food products where manufacturers use potassium bromate as an ingredient. In 2023, that number has risen to 180.26
• Red dye No. 3 — As the Daily Mail notes,27 this food dye is used in many sweet candies. Yet, since the early 1980s, researchers have demonstrated that it is linked to cancer and laboratory animals and behavioral issues in children.
January 30, 1990, The New York Times28 reported that the FDA had banned red dye No. 3 in cosmetics, yet it continues to allow the toxic chemical to be ingested in food and drugs.29 Consumer advocacy groups continue to petition the FDA to remove red dye No. 3 based on its link to cancer in animal studies and hyperactivity in children.30
• Propylparaben — Propylparaben belongs to a group of chemicals widely used as artificial preservatives called parabens. The Daily Mail31 notes that propylparaben is often used in baking products, yet the additive has been associated with infertility in animal studies, reduced sperm count in males and as an estrogen disruptor in females.
Propylparaben is covered under the GRAS classification by the FDA. In 2019, the EWG32 reported that human studies from Harvard linked reduced fertility with higher levels of propylparaben in the urine. A 2021 paper33 reviewed the use of propylparaben, known for wide use in personal care products, drugs and food.
The researchers reviewed the available evidence from animal and human studies, during which they addressed the circular logic proponents use to suggest that because the chemical has been used for several decades it must be safe. After evaluating the data, they concluded “… that inadequate evidence has been provided for the safe use of PP [propylparaben] in food, cosmetics and consumer products.”34
Don’t Forget the Condiments
One food category that most Americans often overlook when they’re evaluating dietary choices is condiments. Since they are eaten in small quantities, you may brush them off as harmless. But, far from being benign, they can have a cumulative biological effect35 demonstrated at low doses rather than high doses, especially for hormone-disrupting chemicals. Examples of unhealthy commercially prepared condiments include:
• Mayonnaise — Most commercially prepared mayonnaise primarily uses GMO soybean oil, which is one of the most harmful oils you can eat. Whether it is partially hydrogenated, organic or even made from newer varieties, it causes chaos at the cellular level.
However, mayonnaise is easy to make in a blender with organic eggs and healthy oils. It doesn’t last as long, but it tastes much better and can be made with just a few basic ingredients. You’ll find a good recipe at The Hungry Mouse website.36
• Sour cream — Commercially prepared sour cream doesn’t offer much in the way of real food. Not only that, but the nonorganic organic dairy products used often contain genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). It increases milk supply in cows and is linked to breast cancer in women.37
Despite decades of evidence, the FDA still maintains it’s safe. Culturing your own sour cream at home has the added benefit of including natural probiotics that are killed off during commercial processing. For more information on making your own cultured sour cream visit Cultures for Health.38
• Salad dressings — The ever-popular ranch and bleu cheese salad dressings are often filled with soybean oil, monosodium glutamate and food dyes. You can make your own at home with homemade yogurt as a base and add your own fresh herbs from the garden. Once you’ve mastered making homemade mayonnaise and sour cream, your choice of dressings, sauces and dips is only limited by your imagination.
• Ketchup — Commercially prepared ketchup is like an intravenous infusion of high fructose corn syrup. In addition, the large bolus of sugar may come from genetically engineered corn syrup. The ingredients in homemade ketchup are simply tomatoes, vinegar, sugar, spices and seasonings. You can cut the sugar by substituting healthful sweeteners, such as honey.
You do not have to give up condiments. Instead of grabbing a commercially prepared bottle, take a few minutes to make your own using real food packed with nutrition. You’ll reduce excess sugar in your diet, and eliminate preservatives, dyes and flavor enhancers.
The safety data on Recombivax HB, the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, are sadly lacking, as the FDA approved the shot based on clinical trials performed on only 147 infants and children and followed for only five days
There are four hepatitis B vaccines, two of which are approved for infants; the second approved for infants is Engerix-B, and clinical safety data show infants and children were followed for only four days in these trials
Most infants are not at high risk for hepatitis B. It makes better financial and health sense to test mothers before birth and vaccinate only those infants born to mothers with an active or chronic hepatitis B infection, putting off vaccination in other infants until they are older
The current childhood vaccination schedule includes 19 potential doses of vaccines and one mRNA experimental injection by the time an infant is 6 months old. Many of these contain aluminum, which raises a child’s risk of persistent asthma in childhood
As the pandemic years have made abundantly obvious, the results of politically and financially driven public health policies can be devastating. And, as more and more vaccines get added to both child and adult schedules, it’s becoming clear there needs to be an open and rational discussion about how vaccines fit into public health policy and what they offer in protection against infectious diseases.
One thing that is certain is we all want our children to be healthy and safe from unnecessary harm. However, as lead attorney for Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), Aaron Siri explains,1 just one example of the negligence in regulations is the sadly lacking safety data on the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns.
Newborns Given Hepatitis B Vax Without Proper Safety Data
Before a newborn leaves the hospital, they’re given one vaccine for hepatitis B, even though the safety data for it is scant, if that. According to Siri,2 the clinical trials designed to protect newborns included only 434 doses of Recombivax HB given to 147 healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age, and these children were monitored for only five days after each dose.3
In other words, the testing was done not only on infants, but also on older children whose immune system is vastly different than a newborn’s. Additionally, there were only 147 infants and children, total, involved in three clinical studies, which means there were far fewer infants who received the shot before it was released and approved in the childhood vaccine schedule.
If you’d like a closer look at the clinical trials and information on all vaccines, you can search “FDA vaccines licensed for use in the United States.” That will bring you to a page4 on the FDA website with a list of all the product names and the trade name. When you click on a specific vaccine link it will take you to the FDA’s page for the vaccine on which you’ll find a link for the package insert.
As Siri describes, section 6.1 of each package insert includes information about clinical trials the FDA used to approve a vaccine. In total there are four hepatitis B vaccines approved for use, but only two are approved for use in infants — Recombivax HB made by Merck and Engerix-B made by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.
According to the package insert, the most frequently reported adverse reactions included a fever of over 101 Fahrenheit, diarrhea, fatigue and weakness, diminished appetite and rhinitis.
Siri also notes, there is no indication there was a control group in the studies. He compares the paucity of data in the clinical trials for Recombivax HB given to newborns to the warp speed COVID jab.5 Comparatively, the studies on the COVID jab, which we know were not adequate, would appear admirable.
For example, Siri notes the COVID jab had six months of safety data while the Recombivax HB shot followed children for just five days. Pfizer’s COVID trials6 enrolled 46,331 participants in a Phase 3 clinical trial while Recombivax HB tested just 147 infants and children.
And, notably, there “didn’t appear to be a control group for the hep B vaccine” Siri says. “And even if there was, what are you going to do with 147 kids’ data?”7
Believing this may have been an error, Siri’s group submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the studies the FDA used to approve Recombivax HB. The data confirmed that safety monitoring only occurred for five days after injections were given to newborns, 1-month-old and 6-month-old babies. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals was even worse, as the Engerix-B shot only tracked safety data for four days:
“These are the only two shots that a newborn can get in America,” Siri says. “That’s the first shot they get in life. So, I’d say ridiculous might be too soft of an adjective to describe that safety review period.”
On behalf of ICAN, Siri’s firm has filed a petition with the FDA requesting either a proper clinical trial to ascertain side effects and efficacy or withdrawing the licensure from Merck. By law, the FDA has six months to respond to such a request which, according to Siri, has expired. Having not received a formal response from the FDA, the plan is to sue the FDA in federal court over this issue.
Most Infants Are Not at High Risk for Hepatitis B
According to the CDC,8 the leading means of transmission include spread when infected blood, semen or other bodily fluids are transferred to an uninfected person. This happens through shared needles or other drug equipment, sexual contact, or from mother to baby at birth.
In other words, the likelihood of a child contracting hepatitis B except at birth is extremely low. For many people, it’s a short-term Illness, but it can become chronic and lead to liver cirrhosis or liver cancer. There is a simple blood test9 that detects the presence of the virus, called the surface antigen. If that test is positive, further testing is necessary to determine if the infection is acute or chronic.
The surface antigen test costs between $24 and $69.99 depending on the area of the country and the lab that draws the test.10 In comparison,11 each hepatitis vaccine for infants costs the provider (pediatrician) between $26 and $27 per shot — but the markup they charge is well over four times their cost. You may pay from $11812 to $14013 per shot depending on your provider.
Data14 show that the risk of an unvaccinated infant acquiring hepatitis B during birth can be up to 100% when they’re born to a hepatitis B antigen-positive mother. However, since a newborn’s immune system doesn’t function in the same way as an older child’s or an adult’s, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend $25 to test mothers before birth and vaccinate only those infants whose mothers have an acute or chronic hepatitis B infection?
In the precious early months of life, when an infant’s brain and immune system are continuing to grow, most receive up to 20 injections of vaccines that parents are told will protect their child.15 Beyond the hepatitis B newborn shot, at 2 months old they get six vaccine doses including a second hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal conjugate and inactivated poliovirus.
Some are repeated at 4 months and 6 months, when they also receive their first flu and COVID-19 shot. All told, there are potentially 19 doses of vaccine and one dose of an experimental mRNA injection an infant could receive by 6 months of age.
According to every vaccine’s package insert in Section 6.1, the clinical trial data don’t offer parents a strong indication of what could happen when their newborn and infant receives these doses:16
“Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a vaccine cannot be directly compared with rates in the clinical trials of another vaccine and may not reflect the rates observed in practice.”
Aluminum in the Hepatitis Vaccine Exacerbates Asthma
According to the CDC, one cost of following the childhood vaccination schedule is persistent asthma linked to aluminum exposure. Aluminum is the most common vaccine adjuvant, and the hepatitis B vaccine is one that contains it.17,18 Despite its neurotoxicity,19 manufacturers add aluminum to vaccines to create an enhanced inflammatory response that theoretically generates higher protective antibodies.
However, an increasing number of parents say that repeated exposure to vaccines with aluminum may be harming their children. Indeed, previous animal studies demonstrated that aluminum increases the risk of allergy by inducing a T helper 2 cell-biased immune response.20
In other words, the aluminum causes the T cells to be overactivated, which then exacerbates allergic responses.21 This is known to affect airway inflammation and the hyperresponsiveness that occurs in children with allergic asthma.
In a January 2023 study with 326,991 children born from 2008 to 2014, they set out to assess “the association between cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccines before age 24 months and persistent asthma at age 24 to 59 months.”22
They found there was a 1.26- and 1.19-times higher risk of persistent asthma for each additional milligram of vaccine-related aluminum exposure. The observational study stopped short of saying that it proves a link between aluminum-containing vaccines and asthma.
The CDC also stated that it has no intention of altering its vaccine recommendations based on this study alone.23 However, the researchers pointed out that rates of asthma in U.S. children steadily increased in the 1980s and 1990s, then remained steady since 2001.
The 2001 date is significant, as most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the childhood vaccine schedule before 2001. This includes, for example, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP), hepatitis B, some formulations of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines.
It’s Time for Rational Discussions on Vaccine Safety
Unofficial surveys24,25 have suggested that highly vaccinated children may have more chronic health problems than unvaccinated children, and that unvaccinated children have a far lower incidence rate of autism. A 2014 study26 published in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology found that increases in autistic disorder correspond with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines and retroviral contaminants.27
When you also consider that the U.S. was the first country to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for COVID jabs to children as young as 6 months,28 and that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices just added them to the child vaccine schedule29 even though children have the lowest risk of COVID and therefore the least need for the shots,30 it’s clear that it’s time for some rational dialogue on vaccine safety.
But to have rational discussions, we cannot ignore signs that mandatory use of multiple vaccinations in early childhood is NOT a safe preventive strategy, especially since we have no idea how many children’s lives are sacrificed in the name of “the greater good.”
From my point of view, there’s little doubt we need to review the safety and effectiveness of the current vaccination program, especially since there has never been a large, prospective, well-designed study to evaluate whether children who are unvaccinated or who received fewer vaccines are more or less healthy than children who receive all federally recommended vaccines.
These discussions must include methodologically sound investigative studies that are not compromised by conflicts of interest within industry and government. The good news is that there is much more historical data available today about the vaccine program and the effect it has on children and families. Just one study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children could shed light on the childhood vaccine schedule.
COVID Jab Added to Secure Indemnification
In yet another display of sacrificing children for Big Pharma and profits, the U.S. became the first country in the world to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID jabs to toddlers and children as young as 6 months. The FDA issued the EUA on June 17, 2022,31 and the next day the CDC recommended all toddlers get the shot as soon as possible.32
However, as with the Hepatitis B vaccine, the pediatric EUA was based on extremely weak evidence, even after the FDA lowered the efficacy requirements for the pediatric population and even though children have the lowest risk of COVID and therefore have the least need for the shots.33
The addition of the unlicensed COVID-19 shots to the child, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules was approved in a unanimous 15-0 vote at the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).34
Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology said the move was likely to shatter whatever remaining trust Americans had in the CDC, “as it should. I am shocked by the malfeasance. I have no trust left at all in our public health system. It is broken,” he said.
“Why the Rush for Toddler Vaccines?” asks Wall Street Journal editorial board member Allysia Finley in a July 4, 2022, op-ed.35 Indeed, asked that same question, and I’m glad the legacy media’s WSJ had the courage to print it.
The stark truth is that the FDA and CDC are no longer in the business of protecting public health. They are securing profits for the drug industry, and the EUA for infants and young children was the first crucial step toward securing permanent legal indemnity for the drug makers.
By adding the shots to the vaccine schedule, it paves the way for U.S. schools to require them for attendance. The shots were also added to the Vaccine for Children (VFC) program, which provides vaccines to children at no or low cost using federal funding.36
Pfizer and Moderna, the shots’ makers, will also be granted permanent legal indemnity, which otherwise would have disappeared once COVID-19 shots were no longer protected under emergency use authorization (EUA).37
You can learn more about this indemnification process in “The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids,” which features my interview with Alix Mayer, board president of the Children’s Health Defense’s California chapter.
So, the reason the FDA and CDC have acted and continue to act so irrationally and ignore safety signals is that they are not working to protect you. They’re working for the drug industry, and they’ve just sold out our children.
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Feb 22, 2023
Editorial by Gary S. Goldman, PhD
OMNS (Feb 22, 2023) There exists a heated controversy as to whether COVID-19 vaccines and associated boosters are truly “safe and effective.” Health care providers and regulators recommend COVID-19 vaccines to all individuals, despite differences in risk factors of serious disease among various age groups. Even those who have contracted COVID and have recovered from the disease via natural immunity are strongly encouraged to be vaccinated. Various laws and mandates have been drafted that require COVID-19 vaccination of employees. Senate Bill (SB) 866, introduced on the Senate floor on May 12, 2022, was initially drafted to allow children as young as 12-years of age to make their own medical decisions, including the administration of an FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine, without the knowledge or consent of their parents and have their medical records sealed. This measure was subsequently amended, but then moved to an inactive file.
According to Dr. E. G. Bailey, a bioinformatics course instructor and her students, vaccine hesitancy “has intensified due to the rapid development and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine.” They voice concern regarding “anti-vaccine information” being shared on social media, and appear to target for retraction a 2011 peer-reviewed study published in the journal Human and Experimental Toxicology that I coauthored with Neil Miller. In this paper, we reported a counterintuitive correlation demonstrating that among the most highly developed nations, those that require the most vaccines for their infants tend to have the worst infant mortality rates (IMRs) [1]. Bailey and nine coauthors uploaded a preprint manuscript [2] that reports, “it is troublesome that this [the Miller and Goldman] manuscript is in the top 5% of all research outputs since its publication, being shared extensively on social media with tens of thousands of likes and re-shares (see https://acs.altmetric.com/details/406556).”
If all vaccines were truly “safe and effective,” would not everyone be actively seeking to be vaccinated to gain protection against “vaccine preventable” diseases? Interestingly, many individuals assigned the label “anti-vaccine” initially manifested a “pro-vaccine” mindset. It was only after one or more of their own children experienced an adverse vaccine reaction, or they learned of an adverse reaction from friends, that their perception of vaccines changed. It is not just the lay public that has become skeptical of claims that vaccines have a positive risk-to-benefit ratio. A diverse range of medical professionals and researchers challenge that paradigm as exemplified by Seneff et al. [3] and other emerging peer-reviewed studies that specifically question the-benefit of COVID-19 vaccination and subsequent boosters compared to protection afforded by natural immunity. After a 30-year career, the recent resignation of Dr. Philip R. Krause, former FDA Deputy Chief for Vaccines, likely speaks to his integrity of supporting vaccine safety and estranging himself from an agency whose decision-making has become captured by the pharmaceutical industry and increasing conflicts of interests.
The Bailey manuscript (Nysetvold et al. [2]), is methodologically flawed by its use of data from both highly developed and Third World nations that have the tendency to attenuate the strength of the correlation between number of vaccine doses and IMR. Their failure to account for differences in nations’ vaccination rates and diversity (heterogeneity) of socio-economic factors, likely explains why they were only able to report a statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.16, p < .03) that is very weak relative to the stronger correlation, r = 0.70 (p < .0001), reported by Miller and Goldman [1]. Miler and Goldman avoided introducing many confounders by performing linear regression analysis using data from the US (which specified the most vaccine doses of any nation) and the 29 nations with better IMRs than the US. These nations inherently reported high vaccination rates (exceeding 90%) and displayed homogeneity of socio-economic factors.
Once the critics achieved a “negligible” association, it is likely that outcome reporting biases influenced them to pursue other investigations that they considered as further evidence in support of the “safety and effectiveness” of vaccines [4]. For example, in their analysis of IMR versus percentage vaccination rates for each of 8 vaccines, they report inverse correlations (e.g., as the percentage vaccination rate increases, IMR improves) for 7 vaccines. However, close inspection of the scatter plot reveals that vaccines are not necessary for low IMR (some countries with low IMR have lower dose schedules) nor are they sufficient (some countries with high dose schedules have very high IMR) [5]. Moreover, the methodology used by the critics ignore the possibility of synergistic effects of combinations of vaccines.
The methodology, results, and conclusions of several analyses that were performed by these critics are critically reviewed in a recent peer-reviewed publication by Goldman and Miller [5] which includes three new analyses (e.g., odds ratio, sensitivity analysis, and 2019 replication) that affirm the positive correlation (of their original study) (Table 1). An odds ratio analysis performed by an independent statistician, Dr. Walter Schumm, split the nations at the median for IMR and for the total number of vaccine doses. Three of eleven control variables that were investigated (i.e., child poverty rate, pertussis vaccination rate, and teenage fertility rate) were statistically significant. None of these variables lowered the correlation below 0.62, thus robustly confirming the original findings [5]. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the original study of 30 top nations could have been expanded to sixteen additional nations with IMRs worse than the US (for a total of 46 nations) and the linear regression analysis of IMR and number of vaccine doses would have remained statistically significant. The Miller and Goldman 2011 study using 2009 data was replicated using 2019 data. Linear regression analysis based on the US (which now ranked 44th based on IMR and continued to specify the most vaccine doses of any nation) and the 43 nations with improved IMRs, corroborated the positive correlation between number of vaccine doses and IMR.
Table 1. Multiple analyses by Goldman and Miller affirm a positive correlation between number of vaccine doses and infant mortality rates
There is credible evidence and biological plausibility for an association between pediatric vaccines and infant deaths. Of the 2605 infant deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 1990 through 2019, 58% clustered within three days post-vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days post-vaccination, confirming that infant deaths tend to occur in temporal proximity to vaccine administration [6]. The excess of deaths during these early post-vaccination periods was statistically significant (p < 0.00001). This study, and studies by Aaby et al. [7-9] (who discovered that vaccines have non-specific effects that can increase or decrease mortality from infectious diseases not targeted by the vaccine), provide additional evidence for an association between increased vaccine doses and higher rates of infant mortality.
Vaccine-related morbidity and mortality are more extensive than publicly acknowledged. In Third World nations, numerous studies indicate that DTP and inactivated polio (IPV) vaccines have an inverse safety profile, especially when administered out of sequence [8,9]. Multiple vaccines administered concurrently have also been shown to increase mortality. In all nations, a causal relationship between vaccines and sudden infant deaths is rarely acknowledged. Yet, physiological studies have provided biological plausibility by showing that infant vaccines can produce fever and inhibit the activity of 5-HT neurons in the medulla, causing prolonged apneas and interfering with auto-resuscitation [6].
Vaccines are not always safe and effective. This outcome may be partially due to the US granting pharmaceutical companies immunity from litigation arising from adverse vaccine reactions.
Miller and Goldman conclude their recently published 2023 study [5] by reaffirming the main finding in their original 2011 study:
There is a positive correlation between infant vaccines and infant mortality rates. This relationship is most pronounced in analyses of the most highly developed homogenous nations but is attenuated in background noise in analyses of nations with heterogeneous socioeconomic variables. Health authorities in all nations have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving desired goals. More investigations into the health outcomes of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations and the effect of vaccinations on all-cause mortality are imperative.
(Gary S. Goldman holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science and served as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Medical Veritas. He has authored or coauthored 18 medical journal articles indexed in Pubmed, and is an unpaid advisor to the non-profit Physicians for Informed Consent https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/ . The views presented in this article are the author’s and not necessarily those of all members of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service Editorial Review Board.)
References
1. Miller NZ, Goldman GS. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Human & Expl Toxicol 2011 May 4;30(9):1420-28. doi:10.1177/0960327111407644 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0960327111407644
2. Nysetvold E, Mika T , Elison W , Garrett D, Hunt J , Tsuchiya I , Brugger SW , Davis MF, Payne SH, Bailey EG. Infant vaccination does not predict increased infant mortality rate: correcting past information [PREPRINT]. medRxiv 2021.09.03.21263082; doi: 10.1101/2021.09.03.21263082 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.03.21263082v4
3. Seneff S, Nigh G, Kyriakopoulos AM, McCullough PA. Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: the role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs. Food Chem Toxicol 2022 Jun; 164:113008. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/
4. Goldman GS. Examples of outcome reporting bias in vaccine studies: Illustrating how perpetuating medical consensus can impede progress in public health. Cureus 20200 Sep 21; 14(9): e29399. doi:10.7759/cureus.29399 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36304385/
5. Goldman GS, Miller NZ. Affirming a positive correlation between number of vaccine doses and infant mortality rates: A response to critics. Cureus 2022 Feb 2; 15(2): e34566. doi:10.7759/cureus.34566 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36751569/
6. Miller NZ. Vaccines and sudden infant death: an analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature. Toxicol Rep 2021 Jun 24; 8:1324-35. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.06.020. eCollection 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34258234/
7. Aaby P, Ravn H, Benn CS, Rodrigues A, Samb B, Ibrahim SA, Libman MD, Whittle HC. Randomized trials comparing inactivated vaccine after medium- or high-titer measles vaccine with standard titer measles vaccine after inactivated vaccine: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2016 Nov; 35(11):1232-41. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001300 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27753769/
8. Aaby P, Benn C, Nielsen J, Lisse IM, Rodrigues A, Ravn H. Testing the hypothesis that diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine has negative non-specific and sex-differential effects on child survival in high-mortality countries. BMJ Open 2012 May 22;2(3):e000707 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000707 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22619263/
9. Mogensen SW, Andersen A, Rodrigues A, Benn CS, Aaby P. The introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and oral polio vaccine among young infants in an urban African community: a natural experiment. EBioMedicine. 2017;17:192-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.041 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28188123/
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Albert G. B. Amoa, MB.Ch.B, Ph.D. (Ghana)
Seth Ayettey, M.B., Ch.B., Ph.D. (Ghana)
Ilyès Baghli, M.D. (Algeria)
Barry Breger, M.D. (Canada)
Ian Brighthope, MBBS, FACNEM (Australia)
Gilbert Henri Crussol, D.M.D. (Spain)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (USA)
Ian Dettman, Ph.D. (Australia)
Susan R. Downs, M.D., M.P.H. (USA)
Ron Ehrlich, B.D.S. (Australia)
Hugo Galindo, M.D. (Colombia)
Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. (USA)
Michael J. Gonzalez, N.M.D., D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
Claus Hancke, MD, FACAM (Denmark)
Patrick Holford, BSc (United Kingdom)
Ron Hunninghake, M.D. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Dwight Kalita, Ph.D. (USA)
Felix I. D. Konotey-Ahulu, MD, FRCP, DTMH (Ghana)
Alan Lien, Ph.D. (Taiwan)
Homer Lim, M.D. (Philippines)
Stuart Lindsey, Pharm.D. (USA)
Pedro Gonzalez Lombana, MD, MsC, PhD (Colombia)
Victor A. Marcial-Vega, M.D. (Puerto Rico)
Juan Manuel Martinez, M.D. (Colombia)
Mignonne Mary, M.D. (USA)
Joseph Mercola, D.O. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
Tahar Naili, M.D. (Algeria)
Zhiyong Peng, M.D. (China)
Isabella Akyinbah Quakyi, Ph.D. (Ghana)
Selvam Rengasamy, MBBS, FRCOG (Malaysia)
Jeffrey A. Ruterbusch, D.O. (USA)
Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Thomas N. Seyfried, Ph.D. (USA)
Han Ping Shi, M.D., Ph.D. (China)
T.E. Gabriel Stewart, M.B.B.CH. (Ireland)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor-In-Chief
Associate Editor: Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA)
Editor, Japanese Edition: Atsuo Yanagisawa, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
Editor, Chinese Edition: Richard Cheng, M.D., Ph.D. (USA)
Editor, Norwegian Edition: Dag Viljen Poleszynski, Ph.D. (Norway)
Editor, Arabic Edition: Moustafa Kamel, R.Ph, P.G.C.M (Egypt)
Editor, Korean Edition: Hyoungjoo Shin, M.D. (South Korea)
Editor, Spanish Edition: Sonia Rita Rial, PhD (Argentina)
Editor, German Edition: Bernhard Welker, M.D. (Germany)
Contributing Editor: Thomas E. Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Contributing Editor: Damien Downing, M.B.B.S., M.R.S.B. (United Kingdom)
Contributing Editor: W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Contributing Editor: Ken Walker, M.D. (Canada)
Contributing Editor: Michael Passwater (USA)
Technology Editor: Michael S. Stewart, B.Sc.C.S. (USA)
Associate Technology Editor: Robert C. Kennedy, M.S. (USA)
Legal Consultant: Jason M. Saul, JD (USA)
Comments and media contact: drsaul@doctoryourself.com OMNS welcomes but is unable to respond to individual reader emails. Reader comments become the property of OMNS and may or may not be used for publication.
A new peer-reviewed study found a positive statistical correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses received by babies — confirming findings made by the same researchers a decade ago.
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
In “Reaffirming a Positive Correlation Between Number of Vaccine Doses and Infant Mortality Rates: A Response to Critics,” published Feb. 2 in Cureus, authors Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D., an independent computer scientist, and Neil Z. Miller, a medical researcher, examined this potential correlation.
Their findings indicate a “positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses and IMRs is detectable in the most highly developed nations” — which, on average, administer the most vaccine doses to infants.
The authors replicated the results of a 2011 statistical analysis they conducted, and refuted the results of a recent paper that questioned those findings.
Miller spoke to The Defender about the study and its implications for infant and childhood vaccination schedules.
The more doses, the higher the infant mortality rate
In 2011, Miller and Goldman published a peer-reviewed study in Human and Experimental Toxicology, which first identified a positive statistical correlation between IMRs and number of vaccine doses.
The researchers wrote:
“The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The U.S. childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year — the most in the world — yet 33 nations have lower IMRs.
“Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants.”
In the above figures, “r” refers to the correlation coefficient, a number that ranges from -1 to 1. Any figure above zero is understood as a positive correlation, with figures between 0.6 and 0.79 considered a “strong” positive correlation, and 0.8 and above a “very strong” positive correlation.
The “p-value” indicates the extent to which the predictor’s value, in a linear regression analysis, is related to changes in the response variable.
A p-value of 0.05 or below is considered statistically significant, and indicative that the predictor and the response variable are related to each other and move in the same direction.
In the same 2011 study, which used 2009 data, the researchers found the highest positive correlation in countries that administered the most vaccine doses to infants (between 21 and 26 months old).
“Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009),” the researchers wrote.
Miller told The Defender:
“In 2011, we published a study that found a counterintuitive, positive correlation, r = 0.70 (p < .0001), demonstrating that among the most highly developed nations (n = 30), those that require more vaccines for their infants tend to have higher infant mortality rates (IMRs).”
However, “critics of the paper recently claimed that this finding is due to ‘inappropriate data exclusion,’ i.e., the failure to analyze the ‘full dataset’ of all 185 nations.”
According to Miller:
“A team of researchers recently read our study and found it ‘troublesome’ that it’s in the top 5% of all research outputs. They wrote a rebuttal to our paper to ‘correct past misinformation’ and to reduce the impact of vaccine hesitancy.
Miller said he and Goldman “wrote our current paper to examine the various claims made by these critics, to assess the validity of their scientific methods and to perform new investigations to assess the reliability of our original findings.”
The original paper studied the U.S. and 29 other countries with better IMRs “to explore a potential association between the number of vaccine doses … and their IMRs,” finding a strong positive correlation.
The 10 researchers — Elizabeth G. Bailey, Ph.D., a biology assistant professor at Brigham Young University, and several students associated with her Bioinformatics Capstone course who wrote the rebuttal to Goldman and Miller’s 2011 analysis — combined “185 developed and Third World nations that have varying rates of vaccination and socioeconomic disparities” in their analysis.
“One stated rationale behind Bailey’s reanalysis (and additional new investigations) is to reduce the impact of vaccine hesitancy, which ‘has intensified due to the rapid development and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine,’” Goldman and Miller said. “They also appear to be targeting our study for a potential retraction.”
Miller explained the methodology Bailey’s team used:
“The critics select[ed] 185 nations and use linear regression to report a correlation between the number of vaccine doses and IMRs.
“They also perform[ed] multiple linear regression analyses of the Human Development Index (HDI) vs. IMR with additional predictors and investigate IMR vs. percentage vaccination rates for eight different vaccines.”
According to Miller, “Despite the presence of inherent confounding variables in their paper, a small, statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.16, p < .03) is reported that corroborates the positive trend in our study (r = 0.70, p < .0001).”
In other words, there is still a positive correlation between the IMR and the number of vaccine doses, albeit weaker, among the 185 countries Miller’s critics studied.
However, this positive correlation is “attenuated in the background noise of nations with heterogeneous socioeconomic variables that contribute to high rates of infant mortality, such as malnutrition, poverty, and substandard health care” — meaning that there are confounding factors in poorer nations that significantly contribute to their higher IMRs.
Miller explained the difference in methodologies:
“We both used linear regression to analyze a potential correlation between the number of vaccine doses and IMRs. However, we analyzed the 30 most highly developed nations with high vaccination rates (consistently above 90%) and uniformity of socioeconomic factors.
“In contrast, our critics analyzed 185 nations with variable vaccination rates (ranging from less than 40% to greater than 90%) and heterogeneous socioeconomic factors.
“By mixing highly developed and Third World nations in their analysis, our critics inadvertently introduced numerous confounders. For example, malnutrition, poverty, and substandard healthcare all contribute to infant mortality, confounding the data and rendering the results unreliable.”
Miller and Goldman also conducted three other types of statistical analysis: odds radio, sensitivity and replication analyses. These tests confirmed their findings, as they wrote in their new paper:
“Our odds ratio analysis conducted on the original dataset controlled for several variables. None of these variables lowered the correlation below 0.62, thus robustly confirming our findings.
“Our sensitivity analysis reported statistically significant positive correlations between the number of vaccine doses and IMR when we expanded our original analysis from the top 30 to the 46 nations with the best IMRs.
“Additionally, a replication of our original study using updated 2019 data corroborated the trend we found in our first paper (r = 0.45, p = .002).”
Put differently, the new study, which used 2019 data, found a somewhat weaker positive correlation of .045, but nevertheless confirmed a connection between the number of infant vaccine doses and IMRs.
Miller explained that, unlike the critics’ dataset of 185 countries, no adjustments for vaccination rates were necessary for his dataset, as “Vaccination rates in the countries that we analyzed generally ranged from 90-99%.”
He added that the odds ratio analysis considered 11 variables, including child poverty, and, “None of these variables lowered the correlation below 0.62.”
Similarly, said Miller, “In our sensitivity analysis, where we successively analyzed nations with worse IMRs than the United States, an additional 16 nations could have been included in the linear regression of IMRs versus the number of vaccine doses, and the findings would still have yielded a statistically significant positive correlation coefficient.”
Miller told The Defender the positive correlation he and Goldman identified grew stronger when the data were limited to highly developed countries, which tend to require a larger number of doses:
“When we replicated our 2009 study using 2019 data, we once again found a statistically significant positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses and IMRs. Although the correlation was less robust (r = 0.45, p = .002) than our original finding, it corroborated the direction of the trend initially reported.
“When our 2019 linear regression analysis was limited to the top 20 nations, the correlation coefficient increased (r = 0.73, p < .0003), revealing a strong direct relationship between number of vaccine doses and IMRs.”
Miller noted that his critics’ paper based its conclusions on results it found for “high” and “very high developed nations” as categorized by HDI.
Their paper stated, “A re-analysis of only highly or very highly developed countries similarly shows that human development index (HDI) explains the variability in IMR, and more recommended vaccine doses does not predict more infant death.”
However, Goldman and Miller, in their new paper, challenged the use of HDI as a predictor of overall health in a country, noting that HDI looks only at “educational levels, income per capita, and life expectancy” and that multiple scholars have identified “severe misclassification in the categorization of low, medium, high, or very high human development countries.”
“As we discuss in our paper, up to 34% of HDI-classified nations are misclassified due to three sources of error, so it is unreliable,” Miller told The Defender. “Although our critics reported a strong correlation between HDI and IMR, this reveals no specific health measures that might be positively or negatively influencing IMR.”
Miller also noted, “An alternative index, the Human Life Indicator (HLI) was created to address HDI shortcomings. While Denmark was recently ranked fifth in the world by HDI, it fell to 27th place with HLI; the U.S. was recently ranked tenth by HDI while HLI ranked it 32nd.”
In summarizing the shortcomings of his critics’ study, Miller said:
“It was inappropriate for our critics to combine data from nations with highly variable vaccination rates and heterogeneous socioeconomic factors.
“In Third World nations, several factors contribute to a high infant mortality rate, thus when all 185 nations are analyzed (rather than limiting the analysis to the most highly developed homogenous nations), a positive correlation between number of vaccine doses and IMRs is attenuated or lost in the background noise of these other factors.”
Infant deaths spike in days following vaccination, data show
Miller previously studied the association between pediatric vaccines and sudden infant death, in a 2021 paper titled “Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature.”
Commenting on the findings of that research, Miller said:
“Of the 2,605 infant deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 1990 through 2019, 58% clustered within three days post-vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days post-vaccination, confirming that infant deaths tend to occur in temporal proximity to vaccine administration.
“The excess of deaths during these early post-vaccination periods was statistically significant (p < 0.00001).”
Combined with the findings of his most recent paper, Miller argued that “Vaccines are not always safe and effective. Vaccine-related morbidity and mortality are more extensive than publicly acknowledged.”
He added:
“In all nations, a causal relationship between vaccines and sudden infant deaths is rarely acknowledged. Yet, physiological studies have shown that infant vaccines can produce fever and inhibit the activity of 5-HT [serotonin] neurons in the medulla, causing prolonged apneas and interfering with auto-resuscitation.”
Miller also highlighted the sequence in which vaccines are administered as a potential factor contributing to IMRs. He told The Defender:
“Global health officials do not test the sequence of recommended vaccines nor their non-specific effects to confirm they provide the intended effects on child survival. More studies on this topic are necessary to determine the full impact of vaccinations on all-cause mortality.
“In Third World nations, numerous studies indicate that DTP and inactivated polio (IPV) vaccines have an inverse safety profile, especially when administered out of sequence. Multiple vaccines administered concurrently have also been shown to increase mortality.”
Miller said that based on his latest study, “We do not know whether it is the vaccinated or unvaccinated infants who are dying at higher rates.” However, he noted most nations in his sample “had 90-99% national vaccination coverage rates.”
“In our paper, we provide plausible biological evidence that the observed correlation between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants might be causal,” Miller said.
As a result, argued Miller, “more investigations regarding health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations … would be beneficial,” adding that “Health authorities in all nations have an obligation to determine whether their vaccination schedules are achieving desired goals.”
“Much more research needs to be done in this field, but more studies will only achieve limited positive change until more individuals and families begin to make the connection between vaccines and adverse events,” Miller said.
“Also, legislators and health authorities must permit people to accept or reject vaccines without intimidation or negative consequences.”
Editor’s Note: This second installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here.
Summary of key facts
A Danish review of 79,102 female and 16,568 male subjects, found human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome were judged “definitely associated” with the HPV vaccine.
A large Danish and Swedish study including nearly 300,000 girls found a significant association between the HPV vaccine and increased rates of Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29).
A large study including 3 million Danish and Swedish women aged 18 to 44, identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis, or encephalomyelitis.
A 2017 French study of over 2.2 million young girls found evidence of a 3.78-fold increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). A 2011 U.S. study found nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks post-Gardasil vaccination.
While the underlying mechanisms causing these autoimmune reactions are not yet fully understood, some researchers speculate that the sizable overlap in protein sequences between the HPV and the human genome may cause the immune system to attack itself. Others are concerned that the adjuvants (such as aluminum) used to attract the attention of the immune system may be causing harm.
Neurological and autoimmune disorders
Danish review found increased nervous system disorder
In 2020, a group of Danish scientists conducted a systematic review of the overall benefits and harms of HPV vaccines.
Twenty-four eligible randomized controlled clinical studies were obtained, with a total of 95,670 participants, mostly women, and 49 months mean weighted follow-up.
Almost all controls were given an active comparator vaccine (typically a hepatitis vaccine with a comparable aluminum-based adjuvant).
Given that the adjuvant is highly immunogenic by design (it is meant to grab the attention of the immune system), this trial design makes it difficult to detect an excess risk with the HPV vaccines.
Without true controls (such as a saline placebo), the real risks of HPV vaccination cannot be accurately assessed.
In the vaccine group, 367 cancers were detected, compared to 490 in the comparator group.
Younger participants (15 to 29) seemed to benefit more from the vaccine concerning preventing moderate HPV-related intraepithelial neoplasia compared to older participants (ages 21 to 72). Younger participants also had fewer fatal harms.
Even though the studies were flawed in their design, at four years post-vaccination, those who had received the HPV vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders: 49%, as well as general harms totaling 7%.
The serious harms that were judged “definitely associated” with HPV vaccines were postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. POTS had a nearly twofold increase in the vaccinated group.
By July 2017, only two-thirds of the results from HPV vaccine trials had been published, and only about half the results had been posted, due to manuscript length limitations, reporting bias and confounding journal articles offering a limited view of trial outcomes.
This Danish systematic review compiled data from all the HPV trials to offer a summary of the evidence thus far.
Nevertheless, the investigators acknowledged that despite three years of work, the limitations of their analysis remained. These included reporting bias, incomplete reporting, data fragmentation and limited trial follow-up.
These investigators similarly note that the trials were powered to assess the benefits of HPV vaccination, not rare harms. The degree to which benefits outweigh risks is therefore unknown.
They concluded that future research should carefully evaluate the harms following Gardasil 9 compared to Gardasil because the former contains more than double the virus proteins and aluminum-containing adjuvant than the same dose of Gardasil.
Large studies reveal autoimmune events
In 2009, the HPV4 vaccine was integrated into the Danish childhood vaccination program. Since then, two large cohort studies on the HPV4 vaccine adverse events have been carried out using the hospital-based healthcare registries of Denmark and Sweden.
The first study in Denmark and Sweden included 296,826 girls aged 10 to 17 who received a total of 696,420 HPV4 vaccine doses.
The scientists evaluated rate ratios for autoimmune events and found no significant association for 20 out of 23 events.
They found a significant association between the HPV4 vaccine and Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29).
But after further review, they concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a causal association, because of the weakness of the signal and the lack of an underlying mechanism to explain biological plausibility.
In a second large cohort study, the same team expanded their research to more than 3 million Danish and Swedish adult women aged 18 to 44.
The authors identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV4 vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis or encephalomyelitis.
After sensitivity analyses, the association between HPV4 vaccination and celiac disease was the most robust finding.
Celiac disease is a condition where a person’s immune system attacks the body’s own gut after eating gluten.
As the graph below shows, the scientists used two risk periods after HPV4 vaccination: the first 180 days and after.
Time since the first dose of the HPV4 vaccine for vaccinated coeliac cases in a cohort of Danish and Swedish women. Credit: Journal of Internal Medicine
The authors noted that the observed 56% increased risk of celiac disease “was strong, and the increase was strikingly similar in both risk periods after vaccination.”
Celiac disease is underdiagnosed in Denmark.
So one possible explanation is that vaccination visits allow a chance for this and other conditions to be diagnosed and explored.
This explanation suggests that the association between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders may be coincidental.
However, given the lack of any real control groups in these studies, as well as the growing body of scientific literature from countries around the world showing problems with the HPV vaccine, dismissing these safety signals as coincidence seems short-sighted.
Large French study and U.S. VAERS study identify risks of Guillain-Barré Syndrome
The concern about autoimmune disease adverse events has contributed to low HPV vaccination uptake in France.
A 2017 study of over 2.2 million young girls in France found troubling evidence of a link with Guillain-Barré syndrome. GBS is a condition that arises when our own antibodies attack the nerves.
The incidence of GBS was found to be 1.4 per 100,000 person-years among the vaccinated girls compared to 0.4 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, resulting in an increased risk of GBS of more than 200%.
The association appeared to be “particularly marked in the first months following vaccination.”
This finding is corroborated by the pattern of adverse reactions reported worldwide. Data from a large number of case reports document similar serious adverse events associated with Gardasil administration, with nervous system disorders of autoimmune origin being the most frequently reported.
A 2011 U.S. study found that the estimated weekly reporting rate of post-Gardasil GBS within the first six weeks (6.6 per 10,000,000) was higher than in the general population, and higher than post-Menactra and post-influenza vaccinations.
In particular, there was nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks after vaccination, compared to the general population.
Additionally, the study found Gardasil vaccination was associated with approximately eight-and-a-half times more emergency department visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disability than the Menactra vaccination.
Plausible mechanisms of harm
Despite the conflicting data in the scientific literature to date, it is clear that the HPV vaccines can cause autoimmune disorders in susceptible people. But how?
Autoimmunity has been reported as a complication of natural infection as well as virus vaccination. This phenomenon has been observed with many viruses, including the Epstein-Barr virus, COVID-19 and HPV.
According to a 2019 study, the HPV vaccine contains epitopes — portions of the virus proteins — that overlap with the human proteins.
This means that if we develop antibodies to those viruses, we may also generate autoantibodies to our own cells, which is the root cause of autoimmune dysfunction.
The study showed that most of the immunoreactive HPV L1 epitopes are overlapping peptides present in human proteins.
The authors explained that this “unexpected enormous size of the peptide overlap between the HPV epitopes and human proteins” is relevant, and may be why a wide variety of autoimmune diseases have been reported post-HPV vaccination, including ovarian failure, systemic lupus erythematosus, breast cancer and sudden death, among others.
Why some people develop these conditions and others do not is unclear.
The authors suggest that vaccines should target the few peptides that do not overlap with human proteins, but which do overlap with the other HPVs.
Despite this overlap and the potential for causing autoimmune disease, medical doctors usually ignore or dismiss the connection. We are told that these diseases are rare.
The human body has something called immune tolerance. This protects a person’s immune system against attacking itself. Therefore, HPV infection is also “immune tolerated,” which means it lays dormant for some time until it becomes cancerous.
HPV vaccination was actually designed with this immune tolerance in mind.
Given the human body’s built-in defenses against autoimmune conditions, vaccinology requires an immunogenic catalyst to get the body’s attention. This is the job of an adjuvant.
An adjuvant is an ingredient used in a vaccine that the body recognizes as foreign. It is added to vaccines so that the body will mount a stronger immune response.
The idea is that in attacking the adjuvant, the body will also recognize other vaccine ingredients (in this case, purified HPV proteins).
In addition, the antigen dose is much higher than in natural infections and the capsids in the vaccine are directly exposed to systemic immune responses as opposed to the virus staying relatively hidden within the natural barrier of the skin following infection.
The vaccine was well-designed to trigger an immune response, but this advantage may come at a cost: Generating antibodies to HPV proteins through vaccination could, theoretically, set the stage for an autoimmune attack.
Link between HPV-vaccine-associated nervous system dysfunction and autoimmunity
A December 2022 Danish and German study was designed to elucidate a possible mechanism of harm.
The lead author, Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, a specialist in treating autoimmune conditions, noted that the HPV major capsid L1s antigen resembles human autonomic nerve receptors, including G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR).
According to the researchers, in the past several years, case series of suspected vaccination side effects have pointed to three disease entities: POTS, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and complex regional pain syndrome. These syndromes may be associated with neuroendocrine GPCR antibodies.
From 2011 to 2018, researchers saw 845 patients (839 females, six males) with suspected side effects following the HPV4 vaccine. The control group included vaccinated people without side effects.
Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in 83.3% of the patients but in none of the controls.
A high prevalence of symptoms, such as dizziness (91%), heart palpitations (71%), nausea (80%) and hyperactive bladder suggested that the patients were experiencing some kind of autonomic dysfunction.
Autonomic dysfunction occurs when the part of the nervous system that controls well-being and balance does not function properly.
Most frequent symptoms reported by 612 patients in Denmark. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity
Twenty-four percent higher antinuclear antibodies (ANA, a common type of autoantibodies) were found in patients, suggesting possible autoimmunity.
A larger proportion of the symptomatic patients were found with a common type of autoantibodies compared to healthy controls. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity
Antibodies against the adrenergic ß-2-receptor and muscarinic M-2 receptors were also found significantly higher in patients.
Many of the symptoms, including immune activation and autonomic dysregulation, could be mediated or aggravated by dysregulated autoantibodies against adrenergic receptors and impaired peripheral adrenergic function.
The authors suggested that girls and women with probable side effects of HPV vaccination have symptoms and biological markers compatible with an autoimmune disease closely resembling that seen in ME/CFS.
Interestingly, people who already had HPV infections at some point appeared to be at greater risk for adverse events following vaccination.
The authors noted that “prior disease may precondition some individuals for vaccine-related adverse events.”
They also noted that some of the adverse events resembled long-COVID symptoms.
Universal HPV vaccination called into question
Academic researcher at the University of British Columbia, Lucija Tomljenovic, and neuroscientist Christopher Shaw, who have closely looked into Gardasil, have argued that the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.
In a 2012 comment published in the American Journal of Public Health, they took issue with “incomplete and inaccurate” data and poorly designed trials.
Vaccination is unjustified if the vaccine carries any substantial risk, as healthy teenagers face little to no risk of dying from cervical cancer.
Risk-benefit analyses must be conducted to ascertain the overall balance of benefits and harms on both individual and societal levels.
Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
This website uses cookies
Websites store cookies to enhance functionality and personalise your experience. You can manage your preferences, but blocking some cookies may impact site performance and services.
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
Name
Description
Duration
Cookie Preferences
This cookie is used to store the user's cookie consent preferences.
30 days
These cookies are needed for adding comments on this website.
Name
Description
Duration
comment_author_email
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
comment_author_url
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
comment_author
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
These cookies are used for managing login functionality on this website.
Name
Description
Duration
wordpress_logged_in
Used to store logged-in users.
Persistent
wordpress_sec
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
15 days
wordpress_test_cookie
Used to determine if cookies are enabled.
Session
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Clarity is a web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
Clarity is a web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
(
