By Darrel Crain, D.C.
I attended elementary school way back in the early 1960s. Things were different back then, we only had black and white television, and there were only three channels to watch on TV. We were also only given 3 vaccines that I recall. There was one smallpox and a couple of polio vaccines, one live and one dead.
It was during the cold war. Duck and cover drills were routine so we would be ready to survive a Russian nuclear attack at a moment's notice. When the bell was rung in a certain pattern, everyone jumped under a desk or crouched in a doorway with their eyes shut tight, except for the unlucky curtain monitors who first had to pull the curtains closed to protect the rest of us from the blast.
We have thoroughly redefined what protection means in the past 35 years. Instead of just 3 vaccine doses, kids are urged to get 56. Which brings us to the new human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, for girls only (so far).
It is truly a first for several reasons, the first vaccine said to fight cancer, the most expensive vaccine ever sold, and the most heavily promoted vaccine ever in history. The HPV vaccine is also racing to the top of the federal charts that tally the number of reported adverse reactions.
"The Centers for Disease Control collected more than 500 complaints since the vaccine's approval last June," reported Kim Mulvihill, M.D., for CBS news in San Francisco.
"These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain. Some have lost consciousness during what appears to be seizures," wrote Vicky Debold, R.N., Ph.D., of the National Vaccine Information Center.
"Investigators dismissed the total of 102 Gardasil and placebo-associated serious adverse events, including 17 deaths, that occurred during the clinical trials, claiming that they were unrelated," according to Christiane Northrup, M.D.
For some reason, Merck, the maker of the vaccine, was allowed to use a "placebo" that contained the same kind of reactive aluminum hydroxide found in the vaccine. This means the placebo was not really a placebo. Other troubling details from the safety trial data were dismissed as being irrelevant, including the alarming fact that five women vaccinated in the trial later gave birth to babies with congenital abnormalities.
For some background on the actual risks associated with a cervical cancer diagnosis, this information appears on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website: "Cervical cancer occurs at an average age of 54; however, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (or CIN), the precursor lesion to cervical cancer, most often occurs in much younger women. For a woman with CIN, her likelihood of survival is almost 100 percent with timely and appropriate treatment." No wonder so many parents question the need for the HPV vaccine.
What are the risk factors for cervical cancer? According to the CDC, "Experts agree that infection with certain strains of the HPV is one of the strongest risk factors for cervical cancer, but the most important risk factor for developing cervical cancer, at least from the point of view of what we can do about it, is the failure to receive regular screening with a Pap smear."
Which brings us to the pincushion question. Who decides which of the many thousands of potential human disorders gets elevated to superstardom, is declared "vaccine preventable," and so gets its own vaccine? And whose idea was it to focus on something sexually transmitted and rare this time around?
There is also the Aluminum hydroxide question. It is injected along with most vaccines, including HPV, because it creates a "response." If your arm could talk, here's what the response would sound like, "Ow! Are you crazy? Get that poison crap out of here!"
"Vancouver neuroscientist Dr. Chris Shaw just finished his research that shows a link between the aluminum hydroxide used in vaccines, and symptoms associated with Parkinson's, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease), and Alzheimer's," according to the International Medical Veritas Association.
Our health leaders at the highest levels need to start asking better questions. How about, "What must we do to address the greatest health risks facing the greatest number of people?" Injecting aluminum into our people for any reason is simply a very bad idea.
Health researchers recently became confused when they discovered that parents with more education vaccinate their children less. One researcher was at a loss to explain this paradox. He theorized that moms are probably too busy these days with their careers and don't have time, or they just forget, or else they read some cockamamie story on the Internet. A fourth possibility apparently escaped him, moms are making informed choices and expressing their inalienable right to medical freedom.
I'm figuring the poor American Medical Association (AMA) is annoyed because there are too many parents snooping around, asking questions and defying medical authority. Rest assured the AMA is not taking this thing lying down, having expressed what I feel is a strong opinion that parents should be stripped entirely of vaccine exemption rights for their children. It's my opinion that the AMA apparently believes medical doctors are the only ones smart enough to make such a decision, regardless of state law.
That reminds me of the story about the March of Dimes poster girl from the 1950s most of us never heard. Author Eleanor McBean wrote, "Little Winifred Gardella had been treated for polio by medical doctors for two and a half years, and the best they could do was to release her as a hopeless cripple wearing crutches and leg braces -- with no hope for the rest of her life. Her picture was used on the March of Dimes posters to jerk more donations from people...After she left the medical hospital, her mother took her to a drugless doctor, Dr. Lewis Robertson (chiropractor), who treated her with special drugless methods and had her well and walking in less than six months."
In order for parents to make the best decision for their child, they need access to unbiased information free of unscientific hype generated by drug companies. Dr. Joseph DeSoto of the National Institutes of Health explained this principle eloquently in a recent editorial in the Charleston Daily Mail.
"Medical ethics require that patients have autonomy in their medical decisions, with informed consent. They have a right to know what they have, what the prognosis is, what the proposed treatment is, what the alternatives are, and what the possible side effects are prior to any treatment. Indeed, a patient has a right to say no, even if by refusing treatment they might die. I as a medical professional cannot overrule their decisions."
Back in my day in elementary school, we were taught never to trust Russian science. Even though the Russians could take out my town with a missile shot from halfway around the planet, they had no real science. That is because all "scientific outcomes" over there were ideological, decided upon ahead of time by politics. The scientist's role, I presume, was to fudge the experiments so the results would match.
Today in America we live in a modern, free world and things are very different, sort of. While it is true that our scientific outcomes are also decided upon ahead of time, at least the decisions are mandated by genuine, hardworking, corporate money.
Dr. Darrel Crain is a Family Chiropractor and Natural Health Writer practicing in San Diego, California. He is the President of the CCA San Diego County District and can be reached at 619-445-0100