Home Catalog Info Search View Cart Checkout Send Mail
Buy Online - Be Smart, Elegant and Unique... Buy Abaan

Online Catalogue : Health Tips

Vaccination
Dispelling the Myths

An examination of immunisation theory and practice exposes fatal flaws that warrant serious consideration and urgent action by health officials, doctors and the public

By Alan Philips
1996, Feb 1997
Vaccine Awareness
PO Box 62282
Durham, NC 27715-2282, USA
E-mail: aphilip@email.unc.edu
www.unc.edu/~aphilip/www/vaccine/informed.htm

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN MEDICAL SCIENCE & IMMUNISATION POLICY

When my son began his routine vaccination series at age two months, I did not know there were any risks associated with immunisations. But the clinic's literature contained a contradiction. The chances of a serious adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine were one in 1,750, while the chances of dying from pertussis were one in several million. When I pointed this out to the physician, he angrily disagreed and stormed out of the room, mumbling, "I guess I should read that sometime"

Soon thereafter I learned of a child who had been permanently disabled by a vaccine, so I decided to investigate for myself. My findings have so alarmed me that I feel compelled to share them; hence this report.
Health authorities credit vaccines for disease declines, and assure us of their safety and effectiveness. Yet these seemingly rock-solid assumptions are directly contradicted by health statistics, medical studies, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports, and reputable research scientists from around the world. In fact, infectious diseases declined steadily for decades prior to the introduction of vaccinations. US doctors report thousands of serious vaccine reactions each year, including hundreds of deaths and permanent disabilities. Fully vaccinated populations have experienced epidemics, and researchers attribute dozens of chronic immunological and neurological conditions to mass immunisation programs.

There are hundreds of published medical studies documenting vaccine failure and adverse effects, and dozens of books written by doctors, researchers and independent investigators that reveal serious flaws in immunisation theory and practice. Ironically, most paediatricians and parents are completely unaware of these findings. However, this has begun to change in recent years as a growing number of parents and healthcare providers around the world are becoming aware of the problems and are starting to question the use of widespread, mandatory vaccinations.

My point is not to tell anyone whether or not to vaccinate, but rather, with the utmost urgency, to point out some very good reasons why everyone should examine the facts before deciding whether or not to submit to the procedure. As a new parent I was shocked to discover the absence of a legal mandate or professional ethic requiring paediatricians to be fully informed, and to see first-hand the prevalence of physicians who are applying practices based on incomplete information- and, in some cases, outright misinformation. 

Though only a brief introduction, this report contains sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation by all concerned, which I highly recommend. You will find that this is the only way to get an objective view, as the controversy is a highly emotional one.

A note of caution… Be careful trying to discuss this subject with a paediatrician. Most have staked their identities and reputations on the presumed safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and thus have difficulty acknowledging evidence to the country. The first paediatrician I attempted to share my findings with yelled angrily at me when I calmly brought up the subject. The misconceptions have very deep roots.

VACCINATION MYTH #1: "Vaccines are completely safe."
…or are they?
The FDA's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting Systems) receives about 11,000 reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination annually, some 1% (112+) of which are deaths from vaccine reactions. The majority of these reports are made by doctors, and the majority of deaths are attributed to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine- the "P" in DPT. This figure alone is alarming, yet it is only 'the tip of the iceberg'.

The FDA estimates that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported- a figure supported by two National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) investigations. In fact, the NVIC reported that, "In New York, only one out of 40 doctor's offices [2.5%] confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination"- so 97.5% of vaccine-related deaths and disabilities go unreported there. Implications about the integrity of medical professionals aside (doctors are legally required to report serious adverse events), these findings suggest that vaccine deaths actually occurring each year [in the US] may be well over 1,000.

With pertussis, the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs the number of disease deaths, which have been about 10 annually for recent years according to the CDC, and only eight in 1993, the last peak-incidence year. (Pertussis runs in three-to-four-year cycles, though vaccination certainly doesn't). Simply put, the vaccine is 100 times more deadly than the disease. Given the many instances in which highly vaccinated populations have contracted disease (see Myth #2), and the fact that the vast majority of disease declines this century occurred before compulsory vaccinations (pertussis deaths declined 79% prior to introduction of vaccines; see Myth #3), this comparison is a valid one- and this enormous number of vaccine casualties can hardly be considered a necessary sacrifice for the benefit of a disease-free society.

Unfortunately, the vaccine-related deaths story doesn't end here. Both national and international studies have shown vaccination to be a cause of SIDS. (SIDS is "sudden infant death syndrome", a 'catch-all' diagnosis given when the specific cause of death is unknown. Estimates range from 5,000 to 10,000 cases each year in the US.) One study found the peak incidence of SIDS occurred at the ages of two and four months in the US- precisely when the first two routine immunisations are given, while another found a clear pattern of correlation extending three weeks after immunisation. Another study found that 3,000 children die within four days of vaccination each year in the US (amazingly, the authors reported no SIDS/vaccination relationship), while yet another researcher's studies led to the conclusion that half of SIDS cases- that would be 2,5000 to 5,000 infant deaths in the US each year-are caused by vaccines.

There are studies that claimed to find no SIDS-vaccine relationship. However, many of these were invalidated by yet another study which found that "confounding" had skewed their results in favour of the vaccine. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Shouldn't any credible correlation between vaccines and infant deaths be just for meticulous, widespread monitoring of the vaccination status of all SIDS cases? In the mid-1970s the Japanese raised their vaccination age from two months to two years; their incidence of SIDS dropped dramatically.
In spite of this, the US medical community has chosen a posture denial. Coroners refuse to check the vaccination status of SIDS victims, and unsuspecting families continue to pay the price, unaware of the dangers and denied the right to make a choice. Low adverse-event reporting also suggests that the total number of adverse reactions actually occurring in the US each year may be more than 100,000. Due to Doctors failure to report, no one knows how many of these are permanent disabilities, but statistics suggest that these are several times the number of deaths (see "petitions" below). This concern is reinforced by a study which revealed that one in 175 children who completed the full DPT series suffered "severe reactions", and a doctor's report for attorneys which found that one in 300 DPT immunisations resulted in seizures.

England actually saw a drop in pertussis deaths when vaccination rates dropped from 80% to 30% in the mid-1970s. Swedish epidemiologist B. Trollfors' study of pertussis vaccine efficacy and toxicity around the world found that "…pertussis-associated mortality is currently very low in industrialised countries and no difference can be discerned when countries with high, low and zero immunisation rates were compared." He also found that England, Wales and West Germany had more pertussis fatalities in 1970 when the immunisation rate was high, than during the last half of 1980 when rates had fallen.

Vaccinations cost us much more than just the lives and health of our children. The US Federal Government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has paid our over US$724.4 million in taxpayers' dollars to parents of vaccine injured and vaccine-killed children. The NVICP has received over 5,000 petitions since 1988, including over 700 for vaccine-related deaths, and there are still some 2,000 total death and injury cases pending that may take years to be resolved.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies have a captive market. Vaccines are legally mandated in all 50 US states (though legally avoidable in most; see Myth #9), yet these same companies are 'immune' from accountability for the consequences of their products. Furthermore, they have been allowed to use 'gag orders' as a leverage tool in vaccine-damage legal settlements to prevent disclosure of information about vaccination dangers to the public. Such arrangements are clearly unethical; they force a nonconsenting American public to pay for vaccine manufacturer's liabilities, while attempting to ensure that this same public will remain ignorant of the dangers of their products.

It is interesting to note that insurance companies (who do the best liability studies) refuse to cover vaccine adverse reactions. Profits appear to dictate both the pharmaceutical and insurance companies positions.

VACCINATION TRUTH #1" "vaccination causes significant death and disability at an astounding personal and financial cost to families and taxpayers."

VACCINATION MYTH #2: Vaccines are very effective."
…or are they?
The medical literature has a surprising number of studies documenting vaccine failure. Measles, mumps, smallpox, polio and Hib outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations.
In 1989 the CDC reported: "Among school-aged children, [measles] outbreaks have occurred in school with vaccination levels of the country, including areas that had not reported measles for years." The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100%-vaccinated population.

A study examining this phenomenon concluded: "The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons." A more recent study found that measles"…produces immune suppression which contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections."
These studies suggest that the goal of complete immunisation is actually counterproductive-a notion underscored by instances in which epidemics followed complete immunisation of entire nations. Japan experienced yearly increases in smallpox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892 there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated. Early in theis century, the Philippines experienced their worst smallpox vaccine doses; the death rare quadrupled as a result. In 1989 Oman experienced a widespread polio outbreak six months after achieving complete vaccination. In the US in 1986, 90% of 1,300 pertussis cases in Kansas were "adequetly vaccinated". In the 1993 Chicago pertussis outbreak, 72% of cases were fully up-to-date with their vaccinations.

VACCINATION TRUTH #2: "Evidence suggests that vaccination is an unreliable means of preventing disease."

VACCINATION MYTH #3: "Vaccines are the main reason for low disease rates in the US today." … or are they?
According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygiene practices well before mandatory vaccination programs were introduced.

Infectious disease deaths in the US and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century prior to vaccinations (measles mortality declined over 97%). In Great Britain, the polio epidemics peaked in 1950 and had declined 82% by the time the vaccine was introduced there in 1956.
Thus, at best, vaccinations can be credited with only a small percentage of the overall decline in disease-related deaths this century. Yet even this small portion is questionable, as the rate of decline remained virtually the same after vaccines were introduced. Furthermore, European countries that refused immunisation for smallpox and polio saw the epidemics end - as did those in the countries that mandated the immunisation. (In fact, both smallpox and polio immunisation campaigns were followed initially by significant disease incidence increases. During smallpox vaccination campaigns, other infectious diseases continued their declines in the absence of vaccines. In England and Wales, smallpox disease and vaccination rates eventually declined simultaneously over a period of several decades.

It is thus impossible to say whether or not vaccinations contributed to the continuing decline in disease death rates, or if the same forces which brought about the initial declines-improved sanitation, hygiene, improvements in diet, natural disease cycles-were simply unaffected by the vaccination programs. Underscoring this conclusion was a recent World Health Organization report which found that the disease and mortality rates in third world countries have no direct correlation with immunisation procedures or medical treatment, but are closely related to the standard of hygiene and diet. Credit given to vaccinations for our current disease incidence has simply been grossly exaggerated, if not outright misplaced.

Vaccine advocates point to incidence statistics rather than mortality as proof of vaccine effectiveness. However, statisticians tell us that mortality statistics can be a better measure of incidence than the incidence figures themselves, for the simple reason that the quality of reporting and record-keeping is much higher on fatalities. For instance, a recent survey in New York City revealed that only 3.2% of paediatricians were actually reporting measles cases to the health department. In 1974, the CDC determined that there were 36 cases of measles in Georgia, while the Georgia State Surveillance System reported 660 cases. In 1982, Maryland state health officials blamed a pertussis epidemic on a television program, DPT-Vaccine Roulette, which warned of the dangers of DPT. However, when Dr J. Anthony Morris, former top virologist for the US Division of Biological Standards, analysed the 41 cases, only five were confirmed and all had been vaccinated. Such instances as these demonstrate the fallacy of incidence figures, yet vaccine advocates tend to rely on them indiscriminately.
VACCINATION TRUTH #3: "It is unclear what impact vaccines had on infectious disease declines that occurred throughout this century."

VACCINATION MYTH #4: "Vaccination is based on sound immunisation theory and practice."
… or is it?
The clinical evidence for vaccinations is their ability to stimulate antibody production in the recipient-a fact which is not disputed. What is not clear, however, is whether or not such antibody production constitutes immunity. For example, agammaglobulin-anaemic children are incapable of producing antibodies, yet they recover from infectious diseases almost as quickly as do other children.

Furthermore, a study published by the British Medical Council in 1950 during a diphtheria epidemic concluded that there was no relationship between antibody count and disease incidence; researchers found resistant people with extremely low antibody counts and sick people with high counts.

Natural immunity is a complex phenomenon involving many organs and systems; it cannot be fully replicated by the artificial stimulation of antibody production.

Research also indicates that vaccination commits immune cells to the specific antigens involved in the vaccine, rendering them incapable of reacting to other infections. Our immunological reserve may thus actually be reduced, causing a generally lowered resistance.

Another component of immunisation theory is "herd immunity", which states that when enough people in a community are immunised, all are protected. As Myth #2 revealed, there are many documented instances showing just the opposite: fully vaccinated populations do contract diseases. With measles, this actually seems to be the direct result of high vaccination rates.

A Minnesota state epidemiologist concluded that the Hib vaccine increases the risk of illness, when a study revealed that vaccinated children were five times more likely to contract meningitis than were the unvaccinated children.

Carefully selected epidemiological studies are yet another justification for vaccination programs. However, many of these may not be legitimate sources from which to draw conclusions about vaccine effectiveness. For example, if 100 people are vaccinated and five contract the disease, the vaccine is declared to be 95% effective. But if only 10 of the 100 are actually exposed to the disease, then the vaccine is really only 50% effective. Since no one is willing to directly expose an entire population-even a fully vaccinated one-to disease, vaccine effectiveness rates may not indicate a vaccine's true effectiveness.

Yet another surprising concern about immunisation practice is its assumption that all children, regardless of age, are virtually the same. An eight-pound, two-month-old receives the same dosage as a 40-pound, five-year-old. Infants with immature, undeveloped immune systems may receive five or more times the dosage (relative to body weight) as older children.

Furthermore, the number of "units" within doses has been found upon random testing to range from a half to three times what the label. Indicates. Manufacturing quality controls appear to tolerate a rather large margin of error. "Hot lots"- vaccine lots with disproportionately high death and disability rates- have been identified repeatedly by the NVIC, but the FDA refuses to intervene to prevent further unnecessary injury and deaths. In fact, it has never recalled a vaccine lot due to adverse reactions. Some would call this infanticide.

Finally, vaccination practice assumes that all recipients, regardless of race, culture, diet, geographic location or any other circumstances, will respond in the same way. This was perhaps never more dramatically disproved than an instance a few years ago in Australia's Northern Territory, where stepped-up immunisation campaigns resulted in an incredible 50% infant mortality rate in the native Aborigines. Researcher Archie Kalokerinos, M.D., discovered that the Aborigines' vitamin C-deficient 'junk food' diet (imposed on them by white society) was a critical factor. (Studies had already shown than vaccination depletes vitamin C reserves; and that children in shock or collapse often recovered in a matter of minutes when given vitamin C injections.) Kalokerinos considered it amazing that as many survived as did. One must wonder about the lives of the survivors, though, for it half died, surely the other half did not escape unaffected.

Almost as troubling was a very recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine which revealed that a substantial number of Romanian children were contracting polio from the vaccine-a less common phenomenon in most developed countries. Correlations with injections of antibiotics were found: a single injection within one month of vaccination raised the risk of polio eight times; two to nine injections raised the risk 27-fold; and 10 or more injections raised the risk 182 times (Washington Post, 22 February 1995).

What other factors not accounted for in vaccination theory will surface unexpectedly to reveal unforeseen or previously over looked consequences? We will not begin to comprehend fully the scope of this danger until researchers begin looking and reporting in earnest.

In the meantime, entire countries' populations re unwritten gamblers in a game that many might very well choose not to play if they were given all the 'rules' in advance.

VACCINATION TRUTH #4: "Many of the assumptions upon which immunisation theory and practice are based have been proven false in their application."

VACCINATION MYTH #5: "Childhood diseases are extremely dangerous."
… or are they, really?
Most childhood infectious diseases have few serious consequences in today's modern world. Even conservative CDC statistics for pertussis during 1992-94 indicate a 99.8% recovery rate. In fact, when hundreds of pertussis cases occurred in Ohio and Chicago in the fall 1993 outbreak, an infectious disease expert from Cincinnati Children's Hospital said, "The disease was very mild; no one died, and no one went to intensive care unit."
The vast majority of the time, childhood infectious diseases are benign and self-limiting. They also may impart lifelong immunity, whereas vaccine-induced immunity is only temporary.

About half of measles cases in the resurgence of the late 1980s were in adolescents and adults, most of whom were vaccinated as children. Moreover, recommended booster shots may provide protection for less than six months.

In fact, the temporary nature of vaccine immunity can create a more dangerous situation in a child's future. For example, the new chickenpox vaccine has an effectiveness estimated at six to 10 years. If effective, it will postpone the child's vulnerability until adulthood, when death from the disease is 20 times more likely.
Furthermore, some healthcare professionals are concerned that the virus from the chickenpox vaccine may "reactivate later in life in the form of herpes zoster (shingles) or other immune system disorders". Dr A. Lavin of the Department of Pediatrics, St Luke's Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, strongly opposed the licensing of the new vaccine"…until we actually know..the risks involved in injecting mutated DNA [herpes virus] into the host genome [children]." The truth is, no one knows, but the vaccine is now licensed and recommended by health authorities.

Not only are most infectious diseases rarely dangerous, but they can actually play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system. Persons who have not had measles have a higher incidence of certain skin diseases, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, and certain tumours; while absence of mumps has been linked to higher risks of ovarian cancer.

VACCINATION TRUTH #5: "Dangers of childhood diseases are greatly exaggerated in order to scare parents into compliance with a questionable but profitable procedure."

VACCINATION MYTH #6: "Polio was clearly one of the great vaccination success stories."
… or was it?
Six New England states reported increases in polio one year after the Salk vaccine was introduced-increases ranging from a more than doubling in Vermont to an astounding 642% in Massachusetts. In 1959, 77.5% of Massachusetts' paralytic cases had received three doses of IPV (injected polio vaccine).

During 1962 US congressional hearings, Dr Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics for the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, testified that not only did the cases of polio increase substantially after mandatory vaccinations (50% increase from 1957-58, 80% increase from 1958-59), but the statistics were manipulated by the Public Health Services to give the opposite impression.

According to researcher/author Dr Viera Scheibner, 90% of polio cases were eliminated from statistics by health authorities redefinition of the disease when the vaccine was introduced, while in reality the Salk vaccine was continuing to cause paralytic polio in several countries at a time when there were no epidemics being caused by the wild virus.

For example, in the US, thousands of cases of viral and aseptic meningitis are reported each year. These were routinely diagnosed as polio before the Salk vaccine was introduced. The number of cases needed for an epidemic to be declared was raised from 20 to 35, and the requirement for inclusion in paralysis statistics was changed from symptoms for 24 hours to symptoms for over 60 days. It is no wonder that polio decreased radically after the introduction of vaccines-at least on paper.

In 1985 the CDC reported that 87% of polio cases in the US between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine, and later declared that all but a few imported cases since were caused by the vaccine-and most of the imported cases occurred in fully immunised individuals.

Jonas Salk, inventor of the IPV, testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine. At a workshop on polio vaccines, sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr Samuel Katz of Duke University cited the estimated eight to 10 annual US cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) in people who have taken the oral polio vaccine, and the (four-year) absence of wild polio from the western hemisphere.

Jessica Scheer of the National Rehabilitation Hospital Research Center in Washington, DC, pointed out that most parents are unaware that polio vaccination in this country entails "a small number of human sacrifices each year". Compounding this contradiction are low adverse-event reporting and the NVIC's experiences with confirming and correcting misdiagnoses of vaccine reaction, suggesting that the actual number of VAPP "sacrifices" may be many times higher than the number cited by the CDC.

VACCINATION TRHTH #6: "Vaccines caused substantial increases in polio after years of steady declines, and they are the sole cause of polio in the US today."

VACCINATION MYTH #7: "My child had not short-term reaction to vaccination, so there's nothing to worry about."
…or is there?

The documented long-term adverse effects of vaccines include chromic immunological and neurological disorders such as autism, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders, dyslexia, allergies, cancer and other conditions, many of which were quite rare before mass vaccination programs began.

Vaccine components include known carcinogens such as thimersol, aluminium phosphate and formaldehyde. (The Poisons Information Centre in Australia claims there is no accpetable, safe amount of formaldehyde which can be injected into a living human body.)

Medical historian, researcher and author Harris Coulter, Ph.D. explained that his extensive research revealed childhood immunisation to be"… causing a low-grade encephalitis in infants on a much wider scale than public health authorities were willing to admit: about 15-20% of all children." He points out that the sequelae [conditions known to result from a disease] of encephalitis [inflammation of the brain, a known side-effect of vaccination]-autism, learning disabilities, minimal and not-so minimal brain damage, seizures, epilepsy, sleeping and eating disorders, sexual disorders, asthma, crib death, diabetes, obesity and impulsive violence- are precisely the disorders which afflict contemporary society.

Many of these conditions were formerly relatively rare, but they have become more common as childhood vaccination programs have expanded. Coulter also points out that"…pertussis toxoid is used to create encephalitis in lab animals."
A German study found correlations between vaccinations and 22 neurological conditions including attention deficit disorder and epilepsy. The dilemma is that viral elements in vaccines may persist and mutate in the human body for years, with unknown consequences.

Millions of children are partaking in an enormous, crude experiment; and no sincere, organised efforts is being made by the medical community to track the negative side-effect or determine the longterm consequences.
VACCINATION TRUTH #7: "The long-term adverse effects of vaccinations have been virtually ignored in spite of direct correlations with many chronic conditions."

VACCINATION MYTH #8: "Vaccines are the only disease prevention option available."
… or are they?

Most parents feel compelled to take some disease-preventing action for their children. While there is no 100% guarantee any where, there are viable alternatives.

Historically, homoeopathy has been more effective than 'mainstream' allopathic medicine in treating and preventing disease. In a US cholera outbreak in 1849, allopathic medicine saw a 48-60% death rate, while homoeopathic hospitals had a documented death rate of only 3%. Roughly similar statistics still hold true for cholera today.

Recent epidemiological studies show homoeopathic remedies as equalling or surpassing standard vaccinations in preventing disease. There are reports in which populations who were treated homoeopathically after exposure had a 100% success rate: none of those treated caught the disease.

Homoeopathic remedies have proved to be highly effective when taken during times of increased risk (outbreaks, travelling etc), and since they have no toxic components they have no side effects. In addition, homoeopathy has been effective in reversing some of the disability caused by vaccine reactions, as well as many other chronic conditions with which allopathic medicine has had little success. Homoeopathic kits for disease prevention are also available.

VACCINATION TRUTH #8: "Documented safe and effective alternatives to vaccination have been available for decades but suppressed by the medical establishment."

VACCINATION MYTH #9: "Vaccinations are legally mandated, and thus unavoidable."
… or are they?

There are three exemption possibilities in the USA:

1) Medical Exemption-All 50 states in the US allow for a medical exemption. A few states licensed naturopathic or chiropractic doctors, in addition to medical doctors, to issue medical examptions. However, few paediatricians check for indications of increase risk before administering vaccines, so it is advisable for parents to research this matter for themselves. Epilepsy, severe allergies, and siblings previous adverse reactions are but a few of the many conditions in child or family history which may increase the chances of an adverse reaction and thus qualify for medical exemption.

2) Religious Exemption-Nearly all states allow for a religious exemption. This may or may not require membership in an established religious organisation, as individual state laws vary.

3) Philosophical or Personal Exemption- An increasing number of states allow one of these exemptions, in recognition of the controversy and/or violation of freedom that mandated vaccination laws impose. Generally, exempted children may not be banned from attending public school and colleges except during local outbreaks. It is best to contact local school officials in advance to determine their particular procedure for handling exemptions.

The best sources for obtaining a copy of your state's vaccination laws are state health official and your public library. A phone call to the state epidemiology department may be all that it takes to get a copy mailed to you.

VACCINATION TRUTH #9: "Legal exemptions from vaccinations are obtainable for most-but not all-US citizens."

VACCINATION MYTH #10: "Public health officials always place health above all other concerns."
… or do they?

Vaccination history is riddled with documented instances of deceit designed to portray vaccines as mighty disease conquerors, when many times, in fact, they have actually delayed and even reversed disease declines.
The United Kingdom's Department of Health admitted that vaccination status determined the diagnosis of subsequent diseases: those found in vaccinated patients received alternative diagnoses; hospital records and death certificates were falsified.

Today, many doctors are still reluctant to diagnose diseases in vaccinated children, and so the 'myth' about vaccine success continues. However, individual doctors may not be wholly to blame. As medical students, few have reason to question the information taught (it dies not address the information presented in this report). Ironically, medicine is a field which demands conformity; there is little tolerance for options opposing the status quo.

Doctors cannot warn you about what they themselves do not know, and with little for further education once they begin practice, they are in a sense held captive by a system which discourages them from acquiring information independently and forming their own opinion. Those few who dare to question the status quo are frequently ostracised, and in any case they are still legally bound to adhere to the system's legal mandates.
VACCINATION TRUTH #10: "Health officials compromise public health when they perpetuate vaccination myths that are not supported by the medical evidence."

EPILOGUE: THE CHALLENGES AHEAD
In the December 1994 Medical Post, Guylaine Lanctot, M.D., Canadian author of the best-seller The Medical Mafia, stated: "The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are changing our genetic code through vaccination… Ten years from now we will know that the biggest crime against humanity was vaccines."

After an extensive study of the medical literature on vaccination, Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., concluded: "… there is no evidence whatsoever of the ability of vaccines to prevent any diseases. To the contrary, there is a great wealth of evidence that they cause serious side-effects."

John B. Classen, M.D., M.B.A., has stated: "My data proves that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to any one or to society in general. This question can only be determined by proper studies which have never been performed. The flaw of previous studies is that there was no long-term follow-up, and chronic toxicity was not looked at. The American Society of Microbiology has promoted my research… and thus acknowledges the need for proper studies."

To some, these may seem like radical positions but they are not unfounded. The continued denial of the evidence against vaccines only perpetuates the 'myths' and their negative consequences or our children and society. Aggressive and comprehensive scientific investigation is clearly warranted, yet immunisation programs continue to expand in the absence of such research. Manufacturer profits are guaranteed, while accountability for the negative effects is conspicuously absent. This is especially sad given the readily available safe and effective alternatives.

Meanwhile, the race is on. According to the NVIC, there are over 250 new vaccines being developed for everything from earaches to birth control to diarrhoea, with about 100 of these already in clinical trials. Researchers are working on vaccine delivery through nasal sprays, mosquitoes (yes, mosquitoes), and the fruits of "transgenic" plants in which vaccine viruses are grown.

With every child (and adult, for that matter) on the planet a potential, required recipient of multiple doses, and every healthcare system and government a potential buyer, it is little wonder that countless millions of dollars are spent nurturing the growing multi-billion-dollar vaccine industry. Without public outcry, we will see more and more new vaccines required of us and our children. And while profits are readily calculable the real human costs are being ignored.

Whatever your personal vaccination decision, make it an informed one: you have that right and responsibility. It is a difficult issue, but there is more than enough at stake to justify whatever time and energy it takes. Do not use this report alone to make your vaccination decision. Find out for yourself!

Back | Top
A Bitter Pill to Swallow 
The Oral Contraceptives Betrayal

A revolution was about to begin when the birth control Pill arrived on the scene in 1960. It heralded an era that would emancipate fertile women from the burden of unwanted pregnancies, thus opening the door to greater equality and freedom. For the past 37 years, about 200 million women around the world have chosen the Pill as their preferred method of contraception. This 'medical miracle' has enlisted almost 90 per cent of Western women of reproductive age on some kind of contraceptive at some time in their lives.

The choices of the steroid hormone contraceptive have now expanded to include the combined Pill and the low-dose Pill, made with oestrogen and synthetic progesterone, i.e., progestin or the mini-Pill, implant and injection, made only with progestin.

The Pill has been proclaimed as one of the most studied drugs in history. After three decades of experimentation (unfortunately, on unsuspecting Pill-users) we are told that safe dosages are, at last, finally known. However, as the thin veneer of advertising hype, pharmaceutical cover-ups and sanitised clinical trials is peeled away, another picture emerges revealing the devastating consequences to women's health and well-being from the use of steroid hormones found in the Pill, as well as in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) which uses the same steroid drugs.

Far from being safe and risk-free, it is now being recognised that these steroid hormones are actually dangerous and potentially life-threatening drugs that cause grave harm to women. The sexual freedom that women have fought so hard to attain has been won at a terrible price. In fact, with hindsight, it will very likely be recorded in history that the widespread prescribing of synthetic hormones to women was the biggest medical bungle in history. Most women taking the contraceptive pill (or, for that matter, HRT) have very little idea about the hormones they are putting into their bodies; nor are they knowledgeable about the potential side-effects. A soaring incidence of breast and cervical cancers as well as strokes, cardiovascular disease, blood clots, impaired immunity, infertility and major nutritional imbalances are only some of the conditions undeniably linked to these hormones.

THE PILL'S HIDDEN AGENDA
In the 1950s, the spectre of a world doomed by overpopulation was alarming scientists and governments in the industralised West. Thus began a frantic rush to control populations. This coincided with the discovery of a relatively inexpensive process for making synthetic oestrogen and progesterone that could be used as contraceptives, known as the combined Pill.

Even though as early as 1932 it was known that oestrogen and progestin could cause cancer of the breast, womb, ovaries and pituitary glands in animal experiments, the Pill was believed to be an effective solution to the overpopulation crises. Plans for manufacturing sex hormones were well underway and the required clinical trials were initiated.

Nobel laureate Frederick Robbins expressed the prevailing attitude of the time when he addressed a meeting of the American American Association of Medical Colleges, staring that "the dangers of the overpopulation are so great that we may have to use certain techniques of conception control that may entail considerable risk to the individual woman."

And considerable risks they did contain. Envoid, the first oral contraceptive, was given a clean bill of health by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960 on the basis of clinical studies which improved only 132 Puerto Rican women who had taken the Pill for a year or longer. Five women died during the study, but no effort was to determine the cause of their deaths. Not surprisingly, the initial trials were flawed and inadequate. The fact that there was no evidence that the product was safe did not seem to be a cause of great concern to the researchers. In spite of what should have been a serious warning, the Pill was promoted with all the enthusiasm that the pharmaceutical companies could muster.

Although it was known early on that the Pill caused blood clots, it wasn't until the mid-1970s that the death toll for young women from heart attacks and strokes doctors-that the widespread rise in use of oral contraceptives would create health hazards on a scale previously unknown in medicine-were coming true.

Dr. Ellen Grant, an early researcher into the harmful effects of the Pill and author of The Bitter Pill and Sexual Chemistry , said way back in the 1960s that she was shocked when synthetic hormones were not withdrawn from the market due to their then known, serious side-effects. Statistics have confirmed that the early Pill users were up to 11 times more likely to have thrombo embolisms.

In effect, there are presently about 60 million women 'trialling' the Pill around the world. It is evident that the early reassurances by governments and pharmaceutical companies were lies. A recent study for the Inspector General's Office of the US Department of Health and Human Services disclosed that more that 70 per cent of oral contraceptive advertising to doctors is "misleading or unbalanced"- making contraceptives the most "deceptively advertised" category or prescription drug, with antibiotics in second place.

While the Pill in its many forms has been accepted successfully into the lifestyles of millions of women, the fact remains that the long-term effects from artificially altering a woman's hormonal and reproductive life bode ill for the health not only of the women themselves but also of future generations. Dr David Clark, a neurologist with the University of Kentucky School of Medicine, expressed the truth when he said that, "The Pill allows experiments on the general pollution that would never be allowed as a planned experiment." How generous of women to be donating their bodies to medical science, even if no informed consent has ever been given.
By 1975, the devastating effects from young Pill-takers dying from blood clots and heart attacks caused outrage. The ensuing pressure from consumer groups convinced the FDA Commissioner to propose that oral contraceptives be accompanied by package inserts: full-length comprehensive warning about possible side-effects of the recommended dosage. It was expected that there would be opposition from the manufacturers. What was not anticipated, however, were the heated attacks from the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It seemed that if the medical profession, not wanting to trigger undue alarm among patients, wasn't fully informing women of the risks, then nothing else should either.
With almost four decades of knowledge of the many side effects of the Pill, there are still few doctors who adequately warm their patients of the many risks and potentially serious problems associated with taking the Pill. In 1995 Professor John Guillebaud, a noted English expert on family planning, wrote, "Although not risk-free, the Pill's benefits far outweigh its risks. Another way of saying this is that the Pill is safe-but some women are dangerous."

Such double-speak lulls doctors and women into a false sense of security, assuring them that the newer generations of oral contraceptives are now perfectly safe. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

HOW THE PILL WORKS
Hormones are very powerful substances. Begin tampering with Nature's finely tuned messengers of life's processes and you are asking for trouble. This is especially true for women. A woman's psyche is intimately connected to her monthly flow of hormones.

Hormones not only direct and determine physiological processes but also influence emotional and psychological states. Besides controlling sexual development and function, hormones also help to control growth and muscle building, and regulate the digestive system, blood sugar levels, blood pressure and fluid balance.
Hormones also hold the key to subjective feelings and changes in blood chemistry associated with stress. Hormonal imbalances not only create myriad health problems and diseases but can also undermine self-esteem, the sense of well-being, emotional balance and mental acuity.

The two main hormones in a woman's body are oestrogen and progesterone. Nature has choreographed these two hormones to work together with exquisite timing and balance. Oestrogen, which is produced in the first half of a cycle, is responsible for the sexual development of females: the growth of breasts, the development of the reproductive systems and the shape of the female body. It also stimulates the growth of cells preparing the endometrial lining for fertilisation each month. The target organs of the breast, uterus and ovaries as well as skin are particularly sensitive to oestrogen.

Progesterone halts oestrogen's effect of rapid cell growth. It also developers the proliferative lining of the uterus, ensuring the implantation of a fertilised egg (it is the progestation hormone). Progesterone is known as the mother of all hormones since oestrogen (which is really made up of three kinds: oestradiol, oestrone and oestriol) and testosterone are all made from it. Progesterone is not only a sex hormones; it is also intricately involved in maintaining many other vital physicological functions.

In 1863, a surgeon named Cooper published his observation that the stage of the menstrual cycle influenced the speed of growth and division of breast cancer cells. They proliferated more rapidly in the early part of the Cycle when ovaries are secreting oestrogen. By 1896 the Lancet reported the experiments of Beatson who removed the ovaries of women with breast cancer, causing their advanced disease to go into remission. At the same time it was discovered that the secretions of the yellow cyst in the ovary prevented the release of any more eggs once a pregnancy had started. This gave rise to the idea that oestrogen and progesterone could be used as a contraceptive.

By 1932 it was known that oestrogens and progestins could cause cancer of the breast, womb, ovaries and pituitary gland in experimental animals, but the plans of rmanufacturing sex hormones were well underway.
The body's own internal hormones are endogenous, while those from outside, eaten in food or prescribed as medication, are exogenous. Most oestrogens, whether natural and endogenous or synthetic and exogenous, like Premarin, still act exactly like oestrogens, have the same action and attach themselves to oestrogen receptors. All exogenous hormones tend to cause biochemical stress.

When a women is pregnant, levels of oestrogen and progesterone rise and further egg production is stopped. The hormones levels continue to rise during pregnancy, signalling the brain to stop secreting its egg-stimulating hormones. The contraceptive Pill hormones mimic this effect and continually dupe the brain into thinking that pregnancy has occurred, thus suppressing ovulation.

Present-day oral contraceptives are made up of varying doses of oestrogen-progestin formulations (the combination Pill) or progestin-only products (the mini-Pill or implants such as Depo Provera.)
The Pill literally stops menstruation. Bleeding only occurs each month because the synthetic hormones are not taken for seven days of the cycle. The bleeding that occurs would be more accurately termed "withdrawal bleeding", not menstruation. In fact, there is nothing natural about taking the Pill. The action of the Pill actually 'castrates' a woman by stopping her natural reproductive cycle, sometimes permanently damaging her ovaries and even causing infertility. To varying degrees the various formulations of the Pill signal the brain to suppress ovulation.

In addition, all formulations of the Pill cause alterations to cervical mucus. The cervical mucus may become thicker and hence make it more difficult for sperm to move through the neck of the cervix. This presents obvious difficulties when a woman decides to stop taking the Pill in the hope of becoming pregnant.
Both the progestin-only and oestrogen-progesterone formulations act to cause alterations to the lining of the womb, converting the proliferative nature of the endometrium-which is naturally designed to accept and sustain a fertilised ovum-to a secretory endometrium, which is a thin, devasculating lining, physiologically unreceptive to receiving and sustaining a zygote.

The Pill also causes changes to the movement of the Fallopian tubes which may alter the time taken for the passage of the ovum and hence reduce the possibility of the ova being fertilised.

Clearly, when you tamper with a woman's hormones you are tampering with her most sensitive physiological and psychological processes. By interfering with these vital processes, many profound changes are initiated in a woman's body.

THE PILL AND BREAST CANCER
For the best part of two centuries we have known that sex hormones cause cancer in hormone-dependent, such as in the breast. In 1940, around the time that pharmaceutical oestrogenic chemicals were first appearing on the market, an American woman's lifetimes risk of breast cancer was 1 in 20. In 1995 the risk is now 1 in 8. In Australia, it is presently 1 in 14.

"Every study shows an increase now," confirms Carol Ann Rinzler, author of the authoritative book, Estrogens and Breast Cancer. Rinzler is especially worried about the youngest users who may take the Pill for four years or longer prior to the birth of their first child. These young women, she explains, have the highest risk of developing cancer from using the Pill, and the highest risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases. Teenagers are particularly vulnerable to the potent artificial steroid drugs contained in the Pill. According to a report in the November 1995 Natural Fertility Management newsletter, the Pill causes 150 chemical changes in a young woman's body.

The prevailing myth that the Pill is a safe and natural way to correct hormonal imbalances has led to its widespread use in correcting teenagers' menstrual cycles or alleviating painful periods. Puberty has now been medicalised. Even though Nature often requires several years to help balance out a teenager's menstrual cycle, girls as young as 13 who complain of irregularities will all too often be recommended or prescribed the Pill, supposedly to help 'regulate' their periods. Such common practices are both irresponsible and highly dangerous.
Professor Vincent, formerly chief hydrologist at the Department of Hydrology at Paris University, pioneered what has become known as the Bio-electronic Vincent Method of assessing healthy blood and tissue parameters. By conducting tests that measured such indicators as pH, resistance and redox potential in blood, urine and saliva, he was able to determine a subject's general health. When he directed his testing methods to assess the health of women using the Pill, his results were quite shocking. Women on the Pill showed a definite shift of parameters towards a malignant pattern within just a few months of starting to use it!

By the mid-1970s a new test, allowing doctors to identify oestrogen-dependant tumours, established that approximately one third of breast cancers contain cell chains that hook up with oestrogen molecules. Such tumours are called "oestrogen receptor positive", or "ER+". Very simply, they grow when exposed to oestrogen and shrink when their source of oestrogen is withdrawn. This new technology has allowed epidemiological 

The Pill contraindicated for women with a personal history or family history of:
  • Angina pectoris 
  • Blood clots
  • Breast nodules or fibrocystic disease of the breast
  • Cancer, known or suspected, of the breast or reproductive organs
  • Cigarette smoking 
  • Depression
  • Diabetes
  • Epilepsy
  • Fibroid tumours of the uterus
  • Gall bladder disease or gallstones
  • Heart or kidney disease
  • High blood pressure
  • High cholesterol or triglycerides
  • Liver tumours
  • Migraines or recurrent headache 
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Obesity
  • Pregnancy-triggered diseases, e.g. jaundice, herpes, chloasma
  • Pregnancy, known or suspected 
  • Recurrent or active hepatitis
  • Unusual vaginal bleeding
  • Varicose veins (large, swollen, or tender)
  • Very irregular menstrual cycles or late menarche 
  • Women who are currently breast-feeding
  • Women over 35, especially if they smoke or suffer from poor circulation
    (source: Natural Fertility, by Francesca Naish)
    researchers to examine which kinds of breast cancer tumours, ER+ or not ER+, are increasing at a faster rate.

In 1990 a study based on information from the Kaiser Permanente tumour registry in the US revealed that from 1974 to 1985 the nationwide incidence of ER+ breast tumour rose 131 per cent - about five times faster than the incidence of tumours without oestrogen receptors.

In 1995, after publication of a study on trends in cancer incidence and mortality in the United States, Dr Joseph Fraumeni Jr, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute, told the New York Times that the rise in tumours that are stimulated by oestrogen (but not in those that do not respond to oestrogen) "suggests that some hormonal factor may be involved". Fraumeni's list of possible influences include contraceptives and menopausal hormones, exposure to oestrogen-like compounds in plants, and chlorinated hydrocarbons that act like oestrogents.

Dr Max Culter, a highly respected Los Angeles surgeon, gave a chilling testimony in 1970 at a US Senate hearing which was investigating the Pill. This foremost authority on breast cancer had been performing microscopic studies of biopsy material from patients who had taken oral contraceptives. "I have a series of patients who have had two or three breast biopsies. In some, the biopsies were performed before the patient started to take the contraceptive pill, and a second or third biopsy was performed after the patient had been on the Pill for several years. Study of surgical specimens under these circumstances presents a unique oportunity to observe the tissue changes."

As Dr Cutler feared, his biopsies revealed "increased cellular activity, reflecting the stimulating effects of the oestrogen. He testified that "the risk is a potential time-bomb with a fuse at least 15 to 20 years in length… this is a gamble which is difficult to justify because of the large numbers of women at risk. The available evidence, indicating a relationship between the steroid hormones and the induction of breast cancer, suggests that this relationship is dose-related and time-related. The higher the dose given and the longer the exposure, the greater the number of cancers produced…"

Dr Cutler's purpose for testifying was to urge that only the lowest effective doses of the Pill be prescribed and for the shortest period of time. Another 17 years would elapse before the US would heed Dr Cutler's prophetic warning. It was only when Dr Philip Corfman became Director of the Endocrine and Metabolism Division of the FDA that the pharmaceutical industry was persuaded at last to withdraw the high-dose preparations.
Since the development of breast cancer is related to length of use, by the late 1980s studies to reveal the full extent of the Pill/breast cancer link. DR Claire Chilvers released a major study in the Lancet in 1989. She found that "there was a highly significant trend in risk of breast cancer with the total duration of oral contraceptives." Women using the Pill between 49 to 96 months had a 43 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer, and women using it for more than 97 months had a 74 per cent greater risk.

Minor (non-life-threatening) Side-Effects of the Pill:

  • Allergic reactions
  • Breakthrough Bleeding
  • Decreased immune system function
  • Disturbances in liver function
  • Eye disorders, double vision, inflammation
  • Facial and body hair growth
  • Fluid retention and bloating
  • Fungal infections and tinea
  • Hair loss
  • Hay fever, asthma, skin rashes
  • Loss of libido
  • Lumpy or tender breasts
  • Migraines
  • Nausea
  • Psychological and emotional disorders, depression, mood changes
  • Secretions from the breast
  • Skin discolouration
  • Weight gain
  • Systemic Candida infection (or yeast infection)
  • Urinary tract infection
  • Vaginal discharges, including much greater tendency for vaginal thrush
  • Varicose veins
  • Venereal warts

This research was further backed up by a paper, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1989, that reported a 100 per cent increased risk of breast cancer which extended from 10 years of Pill use down to just three months of use!"

Another source of support came from Harvard School of Public Health in a review paper published in Cancer. "…data combined from case-control studies revealed a statistically significant positive trend in the risk of premenopausal breast cancer for women exposed to oral contraceptives for longer duration. This risk was predominant among women who used oral contraceptives for at least four years before their first term pregnancy."

Since the breast tissue of teenage girls is still developing and is particularly sensitive to overstimulation from synthetic oestrogen, the earlier a woman uses the Pill, the greater the risk not only of developing breast cancer but also large tumours-and a worse prognosis. In a study by Olsson (Cancer, 1991) it was shown that the Pill caused chromosomal aberrations in the breast tissue of young female users of the Pill. One study found the most terrifying results: the younger the women were at the time of diagnosis, the greater the possibility they would be dead within five years.

John Wilks, author of A Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, sums up this scandalous abuse of steroid hormones by stating that, "…given these results, it is not beyond the bounds of reasoned argument to suggest that this situation could be categorised as drug-induced vandalism of the female physiology. Yet little or nothing is heard of this lamentable betrayal of young women's health."

Instead of relying upon the Pill to 'regulate' problem periods, girls would be much better off to correct the problem at its source through improved diet, nutritional supplements, exercise and attention to emotional stresses. It would save them from the horrors of breast cancer and the high risk of dying from the disease.
The assault of women's breast health comes not only from the effects of oestrogen but also from progestins. Depo-Provera, an injectable from of synthetic progestin, should be of great concern to women. The British Medical Journal reported in 1989 that women who used progestin before the age of 25 increased their relative risk of breast cancer by 50 per cent. For women using it for six or more years, the risk increased significantly to 320 per cent. There is no doubt progestin also stimulates breast tissue growth.

THE PILL AND CERVICAL CANCER
The most common cancer in young women is cervical cancer. With the introduction of the Pill, not only have the rates of cervical cancer increased but so has the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The sexual freedom that the Pill ushered in was also responsible for more sexually transmitted infections or venereal diseases. Dr Ellen Grant observed that, "…Few of the hundreds of women I examined before the Pill was first prescribed had either cervical or vaginal infections and none of the smears was positive. Now, one in five of my preconception patients, many of whom have taken the Pill for over five years, has had a positive smear-a sign of very early cervical cancer- before they are 40 years old."

A form of viral infection known as HPV (human papilloma virus), found in genital warts and cervical tissue, ahs molecular receptor sites within their respective structures which recognise and interact with hormones such as those in the Pill. Not only are the receptors within the cervical tissue adversely influenced by hormones but so are sites within the HPV which infect the same cervical tissue. The hormones stimulate an increase in the self-replication rate of the virus. For Pill users, this constitutes a form of double jeopardy. The combination of HPV and the Pill represents a greater increased risk of cervical cancer than does the Pill alone or HPV alone.
A 1992 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reported that women starting on the Pill at an earlier age were at increased risk of cervical cancer compared with those starting later. The risk was 50 per cent greater for Pill users. Many studies worldwide have shown increased in both squamous carcinoma of the cervix and the rater adrenocarcinoma with prolonged Pill use. Women who have had a positive smear and continue to take hormones are more likely to develop more severe cancer. Invasive cervical cancer in young women is another reason for early-age hysterectomy. 

In addition, the Pill causes production of a type of cervical mucus which makes it easier for cancer-causing to gain access to a woman's body. Mineral and vitamin deficiencies, especially deficiencies of folic acid, have been linked with cervical cancer. Such deficiencies are prevalent among hormone-takers and smokers.

THE PILL AND MELANOMAS
The number of melanomas have increased sharply among young women in the principal Pill-taking countries of Australia, North America and Europe. It has been found that the tumours, like breast cancer cells, have oestrogen receptors. It has also been found that women on HRT are also more likely to develop melanomas. The American Walnut Creek study found that Pill and HRT users were more likely to develop melanomas. All the women who develped melanomas under the age 40 had taken the Pill. By 1981, the overall increased risk for Pill users was statistically significant at three times.

An Australian case-control study, led by Dr Valerie Beral, described how more than five years of Pill use significantly increased the melanoma risk if the Pill had been started 10 years before the cancer was diagnosed. Dr Beral found increases among women who had been given hormones to regulate their periods, as well as hormones in HRT or to suppress lactation.

Stress, zinc deficiency and lack of protective antioxidants increase the chance of developing moles, any of which can change for the worse when hormones are taken.

Based upon international medical research projects on the undeniable relationship between the Pill and various forms of cancer, it is quite puzzling and rather distressing that a government approved patient information leaflet for the Pill can state the following: "At present, there is no confirmed evidence from human studies which would indict that an increased risk of cancer is associated with oral contraceptives." (Australian Government-approved drug information for Triferme, produced by Ayerst Laboratories, 1996.) The reality is quite the opposite and the evidence is indisputable.

Major Side Effects of the Pill:
  • Disturbance to blood-sugar metabolism (possibly contributing to diabetes or hypoglycaemia)
  • Greatly increased chance of suffering a stroke (increasing with age and duration of Pill usage)
  • Increased chance of hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure
  • Increased risk of blood clots
  • Increased risk of gall bladder disease (gallstones)
  • Increased risk of liver tumours (as duration of Pill usage increases)
  • Osteoporosis
  • Possible link with cancer of the endometrium, cervix, ovaries, liver and lungs
  • Significantly increased risk of ectopic pregnancy
  • Strong probability of more rapid development of pre-existing cancers and progression to cancer of abnormal cells
  • Threefold to sixfold increase in risk of heart attack (according to age)

(Source : Natural Fertility, by Francesca Naish)

REGAINING PERSONAL CONTROL OF FERTILITY
Far from emancipating women, the Pill and other steroid hormone variation have condemned them to a life of potentially debilitating health risks and an early grave. We are only just beginning to realise the price we are paying for being part of a culture where fast food, fast cures and fast sex are predominant.
There are safer, effective birth-control methods available-barrier methods such as diaphragms and low-toxin spermicides and condoms. There is also a highly effective method developed by Francesca Naish, author of the book, Natural Fertility. Called "Natural Fertility Management", it incorporates various methods to monitor fertile and non-fertile times naturally, rather than override or manipulated them. Women using her technique are becoming highly attuned to their bodies and are not only reclaiming their health but are safely avoiding or achieving conception.

Maintaining choice and control over one's reproductive freedom is the right of each woman in our modern-day culture. However, perhaps it is time for women to rethink the entire Pill issue.

Women are indeed recognising that they have succumbed to a highly successful advertising and propaganda campaign promoting the joys of sexual reproductive freedom.

Back | Top

Health Tips

Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Online Catalogue : Health Tips

Email this page to a friend or colleague

www.abaan.com


Home Catalog Info Search View Cart Checkout Send Mail

Buy Online - Be Smart, Elegant and Unique... Buy Abaan

Ladies fashion - clothing - apparel - designers manufacture - wholesale & retail. factory prices - catalogs - shopping e-commerce... Ladies lingerie - ladies leather jackets -ladies bags.. Jewellery fantasy & costume..Organic cosmetics-organic health shop-organic bath products..Dr Bach flowers. Organic & biodynamic foods-organic supermarket-organic&biodynamic wines-organic & biodynamic coffee & tea. Organic baby foods... Gifts - flowers-free greeting cards & e-cards. Free health tips & Alternative Therapies. Free horoscope free news - free jokes & proverbs.

Charity - children's charity - world hunger.. Web design - website design.