This is a great post written by a fellow homebirth mom regarding the comment women who birth at home often receive from family members, friends, and strangers.
Here are some excerpts:
"I am not brave to birth at home. What is brave in my opinion is to entrust my body to someone else."
"What I have realized is that the brave comment often has nothing to do with being “brave” but is often just another way to say “I think you are crazy”. Whereas before I would answer with a confused face, now, I answer directly to that comment by saying that I think the brave people are those that go the hospital. It turns the table and brings up more questions about the things that I want to avoid. The power struggles, the hospital policies that have no basis in health reasons but simple bureaucracy, interventions that are still practices without any scientific backup and all the rest of the negatives of going to the hospital when trying to have a normal and natural birth."
"When most people talk about the things that can go wrong they are often talking abut things that are of direct consequence of standard interventions that are often not questioned, so bringing up those risks as a reason that I want to avoid the hospital setting often brings more insight than just saying that I want to avoid the interventions. Of course I know that things can go wrong, but that is why I would rather stay away from the place that holds the most risks and knowing what I know, that is in a hospital setting."
"It has nothing to do with being brave but with making an informed decision that I believe is best. It is about staying within my comfort zone and choosing what I believe is the safest place to give birth."
I couldn't agree more.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Why We Choose Homebirth
I wrote this in response to a NICU nurse who, after witnessing the tragic death of a baby during a failed homebirth attempt, posted on Facebook her belief that women choosing homebirth are making a "stupid, stupid decision." I can understand her sadness and anger, but I wanted to explain the viewpoint of why women choose homebirth. It's for the very same reason other women choose hospital birth--they want the best outcomes for mom and baby.
I won't deny that things can go wrong during childbirth and that hospitals have saved many lives in those situations. I'm very grateful for medical technology when it is needed. And I completely agree that women who choose homebirth need to be self-educated with correct, unbiased information, use a qualified midwife with good judgment, and know when to seek medical attention if necessary. I think I would add one more "requirement" to having a safe homebirth. That is the ability of the mom and the midwife to recognize and follow inspiration. For my part, I never would have had the courage and trust to give birth at home had I not had the divine reassurance that all would go well. It was a reassurance that I sought several times throughout the pregnancy and also once labor started because I know that things can change quickly.
With that reassurance, I felt that giving birth at home would be safer for me and my baby than giving birth in a hospital. Contrary to the opinion of many in the medical community, most, if not all, women who choose to give birth at home are making that decision because they want the best outcome for mother and baby. We do this because we have learned through personal experience and a great deal of research that many of the routine medical interventions done to women in labor actually cause the very complications that we're all afraid of. Not always, but far too often the "perfect situation goes south" because of interventions like too much pitocin too fast, induction before baby is ready, pushing a baby out in the ineffective lithotomy position, sudden drop in blood pressure at the injection of an epidural, interference in the natural flow of oxytocin and endorphins when drugs are given, etc. My emergency c-section was iatrogenic in nature (medically caused). My c-section experience is a very common one and, sadly, it's becoming more common all the time. A cesearean rate of nearly 32% is evidence of that.
My wish is that the medical community would acknowledge and recognize that many of the routine interventions done in the hospital are not in the best interests of mom and baby. In the absence of true complications, nature is much better at delivering a healthy baby than when we interfere with the process. And actually even with minor complications, nature knows how to adjust and adapt as was the case with my daughter, Talita's, birth. Unfortunately, because of a lack of experience with truly natural childbirth, this viewpoint is not shared by most ob's and L&D nurses. If the unnecessary interventions were not pushed on women in labor, I believe you would see less women choosing to birth at home. Of course, I realize it's not always that simple because of the legal/political climate in this country. I don't put the blame on OB's and L&D nurses, necessarily. I believe that most of them truly want to do what is best for mom and baby and are instead restricted by malpractice insurance regulations. I think the risk of being sued is the major cause of the misuse and overapplication of medical interventions.
I think we can learn a lot from the countries who have a more balanced approach to childbirth and obstetrics. For example, in Holland, expectant women are carefully screened and only those who are high risk see obstetricians and deliver in the hospital (as well as those women who just want to deliver in the hospital and are willing to pay extra for it.) Women who are low risk use the care of a qualified midwife and deliver at home, but are within 15 minutes of a hospital. Flexibility and careful monitoring is used should a low risk woman become high risk. The maternal and infant mortality rates are much lower there than they are here in the US. For a country where 99% of women give birth in the hospital, why are we losing so many moms and babies? We have some of the worst maternal and infant mortality rates for a developed country. Why are women so "defective" here in the US that one third of them "can't" give birth vaginally? Something to think about.
The other thing I like about the Netherlands is the respectful working relationship between lay midwives and ob's. It's pretty hostile here in the US. I believe fewer moms and midwives would wait too long to transport to the hospital when necessary if they knew they would be treated respectfully, rather than with contempt and branded with labels like stupid, reckless, selfish, etc. As women we need to seek to understand where each other is coming from rather than blindly labeling women who choose differently than we might.
I'm passionate about this issue because I've lived both sides of it. I really just want all women to have strong, healthy babies and safe, empowering birth experiences. For me and my last 3 babies, that meant giving birth at home.
It wouldn't have to be that way if we all opened our minds and took a serious look at why more and more women are choosing to give birth at home. It's not to be "trendy" like the ACOG contends. We all just really want healthy, undrugged moms and babies and quicker recovery times. A "side benefit" is the truly wonderful and spiritual experience of peacefully and gently welcoming our children into the world.
I won't deny that things can go wrong during childbirth and that hospitals have saved many lives in those situations. I'm very grateful for medical technology when it is needed. And I completely agree that women who choose homebirth need to be self-educated with correct, unbiased information, use a qualified midwife with good judgment, and know when to seek medical attention if necessary. I think I would add one more "requirement" to having a safe homebirth. That is the ability of the mom and the midwife to recognize and follow inspiration. For my part, I never would have had the courage and trust to give birth at home had I not had the divine reassurance that all would go well. It was a reassurance that I sought several times throughout the pregnancy and also once labor started because I know that things can change quickly.
With that reassurance, I felt that giving birth at home would be safer for me and my baby than giving birth in a hospital. Contrary to the opinion of many in the medical community, most, if not all, women who choose to give birth at home are making that decision because they want the best outcome for mother and baby. We do this because we have learned through personal experience and a great deal of research that many of the routine medical interventions done to women in labor actually cause the very complications that we're all afraid of. Not always, but far too often the "perfect situation goes south" because of interventions like too much pitocin too fast, induction before baby is ready, pushing a baby out in the ineffective lithotomy position, sudden drop in blood pressure at the injection of an epidural, interference in the natural flow of oxytocin and endorphins when drugs are given, etc. My emergency c-section was iatrogenic in nature (medically caused). My c-section experience is a very common one and, sadly, it's becoming more common all the time. A cesearean rate of nearly 32% is evidence of that.
My wish is that the medical community would acknowledge and recognize that many of the routine interventions done in the hospital are not in the best interests of mom and baby. In the absence of true complications, nature is much better at delivering a healthy baby than when we interfere with the process. And actually even with minor complications, nature knows how to adjust and adapt as was the case with my daughter, Talita's, birth. Unfortunately, because of a lack of experience with truly natural childbirth, this viewpoint is not shared by most ob's and L&D nurses. If the unnecessary interventions were not pushed on women in labor, I believe you would see less women choosing to birth at home. Of course, I realize it's not always that simple because of the legal/political climate in this country. I don't put the blame on OB's and L&D nurses, necessarily. I believe that most of them truly want to do what is best for mom and baby and are instead restricted by malpractice insurance regulations. I think the risk of being sued is the major cause of the misuse and overapplication of medical interventions.
I think we can learn a lot from the countries who have a more balanced approach to childbirth and obstetrics. For example, in Holland, expectant women are carefully screened and only those who are high risk see obstetricians and deliver in the hospital (as well as those women who just want to deliver in the hospital and are willing to pay extra for it.) Women who are low risk use the care of a qualified midwife and deliver at home, but are within 15 minutes of a hospital. Flexibility and careful monitoring is used should a low risk woman become high risk. The maternal and infant mortality rates are much lower there than they are here in the US. For a country where 99% of women give birth in the hospital, why are we losing so many moms and babies? We have some of the worst maternal and infant mortality rates for a developed country. Why are women so "defective" here in the US that one third of them "can't" give birth vaginally? Something to think about.
The other thing I like about the Netherlands is the respectful working relationship between lay midwives and ob's. It's pretty hostile here in the US. I believe fewer moms and midwives would wait too long to transport to the hospital when necessary if they knew they would be treated respectfully, rather than with contempt and branded with labels like stupid, reckless, selfish, etc. As women we need to seek to understand where each other is coming from rather than blindly labeling women who choose differently than we might.
I'm passionate about this issue because I've lived both sides of it. I really just want all women to have strong, healthy babies and safe, empowering birth experiences. For me and my last 3 babies, that meant giving birth at home.
It wouldn't have to be that way if we all opened our minds and took a serious look at why more and more women are choosing to give birth at home. It's not to be "trendy" like the ACOG contends. We all just really want healthy, undrugged moms and babies and quicker recovery times. A "side benefit" is the truly wonderful and spiritual experience of peacefully and gently welcoming our children into the world.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Fantastic interview on the vaccine issue
I just heard more common sense and intelligence (when it comes to vaccine theory) from the mouth of one man than I have ever heard in my life. In this interview with Dr. Palevesky, I learned more, and had more light bulbs come on than from anything I have heard or read on the issue. TOTALLY worth your time.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspx
Friday, October 30, 2009
"OBAMA ISSUES EMERGENCY DECLARATION TO BOOST VACCINE USAGE"
This wake-up call about the reality of the swine flu "epidemic" comes from the editor of World Affairs Briefs:
"The technical issue behind Obama's dramatic and false declaration of a national swine flu emergency was to facilitate Medicare repayments to doctors and hospitals-no big deal. But the actual intention and effect was to add another log on the fire of fear the government and media is creating to induce more people to take the Swine Flu vaccine. You can't get through a single session of the morning or evening news without being pummeled with more propaganda on the virtues of getting these shots. They are even peddling claims of a vaccine shortage to make people clamor for it. If people are this gullible, heaven help us in a real crisis. The real story is otherwise--there is no shortage because the vast majority of Americans are evading the shot. More and more Americans understand that the risk of side effects and permanent damage from the vaccine is greater than the effects of the flu. That's why the government is pumping up fear by proclaiming a flu emergency when none really exists. Sure, most people know someone with the swine flu, but it's still relatively mild and can be overcome without hospital intervention. Most people have figured out that the threat is way overblown. In fact, the CDC flu statistics being presented by government are outright deceptive. In his declaration Obama claimed, "H1N1 is more widespread now than it's ever been [so is any disease over time]. Health authorities say almost 100 children have died from the flu, and 46 states now have widespread flu activity. Worldwide, more than 5,000 people have reportedly died from swine flu since it emerged this year and developed into a global epidemic [hardly an epidemic when these figures don't even approach the usual death rate for ordinary flu and pneumonia], the World Health Organization said Friday. Since most countries have stopped counting individual swine flu cases, the figure is considered an underestimate." --Easy to say when you stop counting and never did do specific testing on the vast majority of people claimed to have the Swine flu. Dr. Joseph Mercola catalogs the contradictions: "A three-month-long investigation by CBS News, released earlier this week that included state-by-state test results, revealed some very different facts. The CBS study found that H1N1 flu cases are NOT as prevalent as feared. 'If you've been diagnosed 'probable' or 'presumed' 2009 H1N1 or 'swine flu' in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn't have H1N1 flu. In fact, you probably didn't have flu at all.' Obviously CBS News and the CDC are completely contradicting each other. So who is right?"CBS reports that in late July 2009 the CDC advised states to STOP testing for H1N1 flu, and they also stopped counting individual cases. Their rationale for this, according to CBS News, was that it was a waste of resources to test for H1N1 flu because it was already confirmed as an epidemic... every person who visited their physician with flu-like symptoms since late July was assumed to have H1N1, with no testing necessary because, after all, there's an epidemic."It's interesting to note that at the same time... Finnish health authorities actually downgraded the threat of swine flu... As the CDC continues to use fear to motivate and control Americans with their worst-case swine flu scenarios, they say nothing of the experience of those in the southern hemisphere, which just finished their flu season and found it was not as bad as expected."Before beginning their investigation, CBS News asked the CDC for state-by-state test results prior to their halting of testing and tracking. The CDC did not initially respond so CBS went to all 50 states directly, asking for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. 'The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.' "...not only are most cases of suspected flu-like illnesses not H1N1, they're not even the flu but more likely some type of cold or upper respiratory infection! Most states show 1-2% swine flu, 5-10% regular flu and 85-90% cold, upper respiratory symptoms--NOT FLU." Some epidemic!"
"The technical issue behind Obama's dramatic and false declaration of a national swine flu emergency was to facilitate Medicare repayments to doctors and hospitals-no big deal. But the actual intention and effect was to add another log on the fire of fear the government and media is creating to induce more people to take the Swine Flu vaccine. You can't get through a single session of the morning or evening news without being pummeled with more propaganda on the virtues of getting these shots. They are even peddling claims of a vaccine shortage to make people clamor for it. If people are this gullible, heaven help us in a real crisis. The real story is otherwise--there is no shortage because the vast majority of Americans are evading the shot. More and more Americans understand that the risk of side effects and permanent damage from the vaccine is greater than the effects of the flu. That's why the government is pumping up fear by proclaiming a flu emergency when none really exists. Sure, most people know someone with the swine flu, but it's still relatively mild and can be overcome without hospital intervention. Most people have figured out that the threat is way overblown. In fact, the CDC flu statistics being presented by government are outright deceptive. In his declaration Obama claimed, "H1N1 is more widespread now than it's ever been [so is any disease over time]. Health authorities say almost 100 children have died from the flu, and 46 states now have widespread flu activity. Worldwide, more than 5,000 people have reportedly died from swine flu since it emerged this year and developed into a global epidemic [hardly an epidemic when these figures don't even approach the usual death rate for ordinary flu and pneumonia], the World Health Organization said Friday. Since most countries have stopped counting individual swine flu cases, the figure is considered an underestimate." --Easy to say when you stop counting and never did do specific testing on the vast majority of people claimed to have the Swine flu. Dr. Joseph Mercola catalogs the contradictions: "A three-month-long investigation by CBS News, released earlier this week that included state-by-state test results, revealed some very different facts. The CBS study found that H1N1 flu cases are NOT as prevalent as feared. 'If you've been diagnosed 'probable' or 'presumed' 2009 H1N1 or 'swine flu' in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn't have H1N1 flu. In fact, you probably didn't have flu at all.' Obviously CBS News and the CDC are completely contradicting each other. So who is right?"CBS reports that in late July 2009 the CDC advised states to STOP testing for H1N1 flu, and they also stopped counting individual cases. Their rationale for this, according to CBS News, was that it was a waste of resources to test for H1N1 flu because it was already confirmed as an epidemic... every person who visited their physician with flu-like symptoms since late July was assumed to have H1N1, with no testing necessary because, after all, there's an epidemic."It's interesting to note that at the same time... Finnish health authorities actually downgraded the threat of swine flu... As the CDC continues to use fear to motivate and control Americans with their worst-case swine flu scenarios, they say nothing of the experience of those in the southern hemisphere, which just finished their flu season and found it was not as bad as expected."Before beginning their investigation, CBS News asked the CDC for state-by-state test results prior to their halting of testing and tracking. The CDC did not initially respond so CBS went to all 50 states directly, asking for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. 'The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.' "...not only are most cases of suspected flu-like illnesses not H1N1, they're not even the flu but more likely some type of cold or upper respiratory infection! Most states show 1-2% swine flu, 5-10% regular flu and 85-90% cold, upper respiratory symptoms--NOT FLU." Some epidemic!"
Thursday, October 22, 2009
"Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human bodies."
I like this quote by A. Saul, Contributing Editor, Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. It pretty much sums up my feelings, especially as I've done more research into the vaccine issue lately.
I also like this quote by Roger Eichman, DDS (speaking of dental mercury, coincidentally) said, "The precautionary principle requires action once the possibility of harm exists. It does not require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt." Unfortunately, our current medical system keeps saying that until there is substantial and unequivocal proof that mercury or thimerosol harms the brain, we can keep saying that vaccines and mercury dental fillings are safe.
Along the same lines I just came across some information that says that the CDC actually has known for a long time of the damage caused by mercury, but buried the information. Because of the Freedom of Information Act, this buried study has been brought forth.
From Dr. Mercola's site:
The Age of Autism asks a very good question: If this finding is so clear, why has the CDC’s vaccine safety apparatus not found the same thing?
According to Age of Autism:
“The answer, of course, is that they have.
In their very first examination of the risk of thimerosal exposure in infants, the single most startling finding was this: infants who received the largest exposure of thimerosal in the first month of life showed the highest risk of autism and several other NDDs.
Buried deep in a pile of statistical tables that SafeMinds received under FOIA was a risk analysis conducted by CDC analyst Thomas Verstraeten, showing statistically significant risk multiples for the most exposed infants.
These ranged from 5 times the risk of unexposed infants in the case of sleep disorders to 11.5 times for autism.
What happened to the CDC findings that are now forcing us to rediscover the risk of thimerosal-containing birth doses of HBV in monkeys?
The answer is simple. The CDC team simply censored the data. Infants with the highest levels of thimerosal exposure--those who had received both the HBV and hepatitis B immune globulins--were simply removed from the study sample.” [Emphasis mine]
So according to the CDC’s own research data, the risk of autism from thimerosal-containing vaccines is even far greater than any independent studies have yet to come up with!
Mark Blaxill (the Editor-at-Large for Age of Autism and a Director of Safeminds) summarized the data obtained from the CDC through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which you can find at this link.
FYI: Even though most childhood vaccines no longer contain thimerosol, the multi-dose flu shots still do, including the swine flu vaccine.
I also like this quote by Roger Eichman, DDS (speaking of dental mercury, coincidentally) said, "The precautionary principle requires action once the possibility of harm exists. It does not require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt." Unfortunately, our current medical system keeps saying that until there is substantial and unequivocal proof that mercury or thimerosol harms the brain, we can keep saying that vaccines and mercury dental fillings are safe.
Along the same lines I just came across some information that says that the CDC actually has known for a long time of the damage caused by mercury, but buried the information. Because of the Freedom of Information Act, this buried study has been brought forth.
From Dr. Mercola's site:
The Age of Autism asks a very good question: If this finding is so clear, why has the CDC’s vaccine safety apparatus not found the same thing?
According to Age of Autism:
“The answer, of course, is that they have.
In their very first examination of the risk of thimerosal exposure in infants, the single most startling finding was this: infants who received the largest exposure of thimerosal in the first month of life showed the highest risk of autism and several other NDDs.
Buried deep in a pile of statistical tables that SafeMinds received under FOIA was a risk analysis conducted by CDC analyst Thomas Verstraeten, showing statistically significant risk multiples for the most exposed infants.
These ranged from 5 times the risk of unexposed infants in the case of sleep disorders to 11.5 times for autism.
What happened to the CDC findings that are now forcing us to rediscover the risk of thimerosal-containing birth doses of HBV in monkeys?
The answer is simple. The CDC team simply censored the data. Infants with the highest levels of thimerosal exposure--those who had received both the HBV and hepatitis B immune globulins--were simply removed from the study sample.” [Emphasis mine]
So according to the CDC’s own research data, the risk of autism from thimerosal-containing vaccines is even far greater than any independent studies have yet to come up with!
Mark Blaxill (the Editor-at-Large for Age of Autism and a Director of Safeminds) summarized the data obtained from the CDC through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which you can find at this link.
FYI: Even though most childhood vaccines no longer contain thimerosol, the multi-dose flu shots still do, including the swine flu vaccine.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Swine Flu update
This is an excellent video interview with Barbara Loe Fisher, the founder of NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center.) Even if you believe vaccines work, she asks some fundamental questions that all of us should be asking.
Friday, October 16, 2009
“To sin by silence when there is a duty to protect makes cowards of men.”
This quote by Abraham Lincoln has been haunting me lately. Then this morning I saw a Deseret News article showing 700 people lining up at the county health department to get their flu shot. It made me crazy and pushed me over the edge of silence. So I’ve decided, come heck or highwater, I have to say something about the seasonal and swine flu vaccines that are being heavily promoted right now by everyone from school health officials to the mainstream media, to our own "beloved" government.
First, let me say that my first 3 children were fully vaccinated up through elementary school. My 4th was partially vaccinated, and my last three have received no vaccines at all.
Over several years now I have read countless books and web pages on the vaccine issue. I’ve found that those who are pro-vaccine have not read anything (or very little) about the history of vaccines and the standard ingredients in them (mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, foreign proteins from diseased monkey kidneys, aborted human fetal tissue, etc).
Instead they’ve relied on their doctors for vaccine information. (Which, by the way, is like asking a used car salesman if he ever sells bad cars.) By contrast, those people I’ve met and talked to who have chosen not to vaccinate have read and researched extensively on the vaccine issue.
My plea is this: please educate yourself about vaccines. Especially this most recent, fast-tracked, very little tested swine flu vaccine. Pay attention to the source of the information. Do they have a monetary or power stake in the issue? Is their medical or authoritative reputation on the line? For example, did you know that all of the recent "studies" showing no link between autism and vaccines were either performed or funded by the vaccine manufacturers? Or that the studies showing significant correlation were all independent studies?
Did you know that the CDC’s own data show that all diseases for which we have vaccines for were already in significant decline before the vaccines were introduced? We have improved sanitation, nutrition, etc. to credit for the eradication of these diseases, not toxic serums that have produced billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry.
Did you know that there was a swine flu "scare" in 1976 and the government heavily promoted the vaccine only to have many people suffer neurological damage and some even die as a result of the vaccine? Back then, the families who were able to sue were awarded millions of dollars for their injuries. Now, because of The Biodefense and Pandemic Act of 2006, Americans have lost the right to a jury trial if harmed by an experimental drug or vaccine during a declared pandemic. Ever wonder why they were so quick to declare a pandemic last spring when the swine flu seemed so mild?
Did you know that the first vaccine manufacturer to patent the H1N1 swine flu vaccine did so before the swine flu outbreak in Mexico? This is very interesting considering that swine and bird flus don’t genetically mix on their own.
Did you know that in recommending that pregnant women receive 2 doses of the seasonal flu shot and 2 doses of the swine flu shot, the CDC is going against stated FDA and manufacturer warnings? Or that the amount of mercury (thimersol) in one flu shot is 25 times the EPA's safe level?
I could go on and on, but I won’t. Instead I’ll give you some links to get you started on your vaccine education. These are reputable sites, many of them by doctors who have decided to open their minds and do a little research rather than relying on the drug company representatives for their information. Other sites were started by parents of vaccine-damaged children. Most, if not all, are non-profit organizations. They are not trying to make any money. They just want to warn and educate other parents so they don’t have to endure the heartbreak of seeing their children go from healthy to autistic shortly after receiving a vaccine, or at the very least, contract the very illness they are vaccinated against.
Please keep an open mind, and whatever you do, don’t go line up for a flu shot before reading some of this information and then praying about it. Yes, the swine flu is real and it’s not fun, but it’s nothing compared to lifelong neurological damage and/or autoimmune diseases. And there are natural ways to overcome the swine flu more quickly than just suffering through it (we got over it in 2 days) or taking Tamiflu (a drug that was taken off the market in Japan because of its dangerous side effects.)
If, after educating yourself and praying about it, (if you're religious) you decide to vaccinate, fine. That’s your choice. The decision to vaccinate or not is one I would never want to take away from anyone. I, however, will be able to sleep at night, knowing I at least said something to get you thinking and questioning.
Here are the links:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/20/Mild-Swine-Flu-and-Over-Hyped-Vaccine.aspx
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/ This one answers a lot of questions.
http://www.tennantinstitute.com/TIIM_MAC/Newsletters.html (Click on the link to the newsletter titled "Vaccines, Will They Harm You?" It’s very thorough and well-referenced.)
http://www.drtenpenny.com/
http://www.vaclib.org/
http://www.nvic.org/
http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/
http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/links.htm
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/12/30/dtp_vaccine.aspx
First, let me say that my first 3 children were fully vaccinated up through elementary school. My 4th was partially vaccinated, and my last three have received no vaccines at all.
Over several years now I have read countless books and web pages on the vaccine issue. I’ve found that those who are pro-vaccine have not read anything (or very little) about the history of vaccines and the standard ingredients in them (mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, foreign proteins from diseased monkey kidneys, aborted human fetal tissue, etc).
Instead they’ve relied on their doctors for vaccine information. (Which, by the way, is like asking a used car salesman if he ever sells bad cars.) By contrast, those people I’ve met and talked to who have chosen not to vaccinate have read and researched extensively on the vaccine issue.
My plea is this: please educate yourself about vaccines. Especially this most recent, fast-tracked, very little tested swine flu vaccine. Pay attention to the source of the information. Do they have a monetary or power stake in the issue? Is their medical or authoritative reputation on the line? For example, did you know that all of the recent "studies" showing no link between autism and vaccines were either performed or funded by the vaccine manufacturers? Or that the studies showing significant correlation were all independent studies?
Did you know that the CDC’s own data show that all diseases for which we have vaccines for were already in significant decline before the vaccines were introduced? We have improved sanitation, nutrition, etc. to credit for the eradication of these diseases, not toxic serums that have produced billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry.
Did you know that there was a swine flu "scare" in 1976 and the government heavily promoted the vaccine only to have many people suffer neurological damage and some even die as a result of the vaccine? Back then, the families who were able to sue were awarded millions of dollars for their injuries. Now, because of The Biodefense and Pandemic Act of 2006, Americans have lost the right to a jury trial if harmed by an experimental drug or vaccine during a declared pandemic. Ever wonder why they were so quick to declare a pandemic last spring when the swine flu seemed so mild?
Did you know that the first vaccine manufacturer to patent the H1N1 swine flu vaccine did so before the swine flu outbreak in Mexico? This is very interesting considering that swine and bird flus don’t genetically mix on their own.
Did you know that in recommending that pregnant women receive 2 doses of the seasonal flu shot and 2 doses of the swine flu shot, the CDC is going against stated FDA and manufacturer warnings? Or that the amount of mercury (thimersol) in one flu shot is 25 times the EPA's safe level?
I could go on and on, but I won’t. Instead I’ll give you some links to get you started on your vaccine education. These are reputable sites, many of them by doctors who have decided to open their minds and do a little research rather than relying on the drug company representatives for their information. Other sites were started by parents of vaccine-damaged children. Most, if not all, are non-profit organizations. They are not trying to make any money. They just want to warn and educate other parents so they don’t have to endure the heartbreak of seeing their children go from healthy to autistic shortly after receiving a vaccine, or at the very least, contract the very illness they are vaccinated against.
Please keep an open mind, and whatever you do, don’t go line up for a flu shot before reading some of this information and then praying about it. Yes, the swine flu is real and it’s not fun, but it’s nothing compared to lifelong neurological damage and/or autoimmune diseases. And there are natural ways to overcome the swine flu more quickly than just suffering through it (we got over it in 2 days) or taking Tamiflu (a drug that was taken off the market in Japan because of its dangerous side effects.)
If, after educating yourself and praying about it, (if you're religious) you decide to vaccinate, fine. That’s your choice. The decision to vaccinate or not is one I would never want to take away from anyone. I, however, will be able to sleep at night, knowing I at least said something to get you thinking and questioning.
Here are the links:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/20/Mild-Swine-Flu-and-Over-Hyped-Vaccine.aspx
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/ This one answers a lot of questions.
http://www.tennantinstitute.com/TIIM_MAC/Newsletters.html (Click on the link to the newsletter titled "Vaccines, Will They Harm You?" It’s very thorough and well-referenced.)
http://www.drtenpenny.com/
http://www.vaclib.org/
http://www.nvic.org/
http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/
http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/links.htm
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/12/30/dtp_vaccine.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)