Here is a study published this year, that I hope you find not only interesting, but makes you think, so that you can make informed decisions about your family’s health. You make the best decisions that are informed decisions!

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses

routinely given:

Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

Human & Experimental Toxicology

May 2011 [epub]

Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman

FROM ABSTRACT:

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socioeconomic well-being and public health conditions of a country.

The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs.

KEY POINTS FROM THIS STUDY:

1) “The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of child health and overall development in countries.”

2) “Clean water, increased nutritional measures, better sanitation, and easy access to health care contribute the most to improving infant mortality rates in unclean, undernourished, and impoverished regions of the world.”

3) “The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes 7 out of 10 childhood deaths in developing countries to five main causes: pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and malnutrition—the latter greatly affecting all the others.”

4) Malnutrition is associated with a decrease in immune function which leads to an increased susceptibility to infection.

5) Every nutritional deficiency increases susceptibility to disease.

6) “Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country, 33 nations have better infant mortality rates.”

7) The high infant mortality rate in the US is not attributed solely to high premature births.

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) keeps accurate up-to-date infant mortality statistics throughout the world. “In 2009 there were 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States. The US infant mortality rate of 6.22 infant deaths per 1000 live births ranked 34th.”

9) “Many developing nations require their infants to receive multiple vaccine doses and have national vaccine coverage rates of 90% or better, yet their infant mortality rates are poor.”

10) “Gambia requires its infants to receive 22 vaccine doses during infancy and has a 91%–97% national vaccine coverage rate, yet its IMR is 68.8.”

11) “Mongolia requires 22 vaccine doses during infancy, has a 95%–98% coverage rate, and an infant mortality rate of 39.9.”

12) “These examples appear to confirm that infant mortality rates will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care.”

13) “A counter-intuitive relationship occurs between the number of vaccines given to infants and infant mortality rates: nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates give their infants, on average, more vaccine doses.” “Are some infant deaths associated with over-vaccination?”

14) “Among the 34 nations analyzed, those that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst IMRs. Thus, we must ask important questions: is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health? Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with over-vaccination? Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?”

15) “Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ [Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)] was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics.”

16) In the US, national immunization campaigns began in the 1960s. “Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.” [Sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation]. SIDS was not added to the National Center for Health Statistics as new cause-of-death category until 1973.

17) “By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.”

18) There is evidence that some infants may be “more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated.”

19) A 1982 study published in the journal Neurology concluded that DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) vaccine ‘‘may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits.”

20) A 1987 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times greater that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization.

21) A 1992 article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that babies died at a rate about eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.

22) The authors present evidence that vaccine related SIDS are under reported because the deaths are reclassified as death due to:

• Suffocation

• Unknown cause

• Unspecified causes

• Pneumonia

• Unspecified viral disease

• Diseases of the blood

• Septicemia

• Diseases of the nervous system

• Anoxic brain damage

• Diseases of the respiratory system

• Influenza

• Unspecified diseases of the respiratory system

23) “It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to overvaccination.”

24) “Of the 34 nations that have crossed the socio-economic threshold and are able to provide the basic necessities for infant survival—clean water, nutrition, sanitation, and health care—several require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses and have relatively high infant mortality rates. These nations should take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes.”

25) Common substances found in vaccine include:

• Antigens (attenuated viruses, bacteria, toxoids)

• Preservatives (thimerosal, benzethonium chloride, 2-phenoxyethanol, phenol)

• Adjuvants (aluminum salts)

• Additives (ammonium sulfate, glycerin, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium chloride)

• Stabilizers (fetal bovine serum, monosodium glutamate, human serum albumin, porcine gelatin)

• Antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B)

• Inactivating chemicals (formalin, glutaraldehyde, polyoxyethylene)

26) “Respiratory disturbances have been documented in close proximity to infant vaccinations, and lethal changes in the brainstem of a recently vaccinated baby have been observed.”

27) “Since some infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated, and babies vaccinated against diarrhea died from pneumonia at a statistically higher rate than non-vaccinated babies, there is plausible biologic and causal evidence that the observed correlation between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants should not be dismissed as ecological bias.”

28) “The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better infant mortality rates.”

29) Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation was found between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants.

30) “These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.”

31) “A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and infant mortality rates, is essential.”

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT THIS STUDY

Countries like Gambia and Mongolia vaccinate 91-98% of their infants with 22 vaccine doses and yet they have extremely high infant mortality rates. This supports that infant mortality is more linked to clean water, improved nutrition, and better sanitation than to vaccinations.

Clearly, in countries with clean water, good nutritional measures and better sanitation, increasing the number of vaccination does not reduce infant mortality, and might counter intuitively increase it as a consequence of synergistic toxicity. Vaccines are loaded with a large range of toxins. Massive immunization campaigns in the US began in the 1960s, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) first appeared in 1969, and SIDS became the leading cause of death of US children between 1 to 12 months of age by 1980. These authors imply and present evidence suggesting a relationship between SIDS and vaccines.

see this article at:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21543527

For more information on vaccines and state laws, see:  http://www.nvic.org/

…for your child’s health!

What Is Sciatica?

Sciatica refers to back pain caused by a problem with the sciatic nerve. This is a large nerve that runs from the lower back down the back of each leg. When something injures or puts pressure on the sciatic nerve, it can cause pain in the lower back that spreads to the hip, buttocks, and leg.

Symptoms of Sciatica

The most common symptom of sciatica is lower back pain that extends through the hip and buttock and down one leg. The pain usually affects only one leg and may get worse when you sit, cough, or sneeze. The leg may also feel numb, weak, or tingly at times. The symptoms of sciatica tend to appear suddenly and can last for days or weeks.

Sciatica or Other Back Pain?

Up to 85% of Americans experience some type of back pain during their lives. But this doesn’t always involve the sciatic nerve. In many cases, back pain is the result of overextending or straining the muscles in the lower back. What most often sets sciatica apart is the way the pain radiates down the leg and into the foot. It may feel like a bad leg cramp that lasts for days.

Who Gets Sciatica?

Most people who get sciatica are between the ages of 30 and 50. Women may be more likely to develop the problem during pregnancy because of pressure on the sciatic nerve from the developing uterus. Other causes include a herniated disk and degenerative arthritis of the spine.

Cause: Herniated Disk

The most common cause of sciatica is a herniated disk. Disks act like cushions between the vertebrae of your spine. These disks get weaker as you age and become more vulnerable to injury. Sometimes the gel-like center of a disk pushes through its outer lining and presses on the roots of the sciatic nerve. About 1 in 50 people will get a herniated disk at some point in life. Up to a quarter of them will have symptoms that last more than 6 weeks.

Cause: Piriformis Syndrome

The piriformis is a muscle found deep inside the buttocks. It connects the lower spine to the upper thighbone and runs directly over the sciatic nerve. If this muscle goes into spasm, it can put pressure on the sciatic nerve, triggering symptoms of sciatica. Piriformis syndrome is more common in women.

A Fat Wallet Can Trigger Piriformis

You might not think of too much cash as a source of pain, but a fat wallet can trigger piriformis syndrome. The condition can affect men who wear their wallet in the back pocket of their pants. This puts chronic pressure on the piriformis muscle and can aggravate the sciatic nerve over time. You can avoid this problem by keeping your wallet in a front pocket or jacket pocket.

Diagnosing Sciatica:

To determine whether you have sciatica, your chiropractor will ask you how your pain started and where exactly it is located. You may be asked to squat, walk on your heels or toes, or raise your leg without bending the knee. These muscle tests can help your doctor of chiropractic determine if it is the sciatic nerve that is irritated.

Sciatica Relief: Ice and Heat

There are steps you can take at home to ease the pain of sciatica. A heating pad or ice pack may be especially helpful. Apply the heat or ice for about 20 minutes every two hours. Experiment to see which provides more relief, or try alternating between heat and ice.

Treating Sciatica

Chiropractors frequently treat people with sciatic pain with resounding success. Treatment may include spinal adjustments, stretching, various physical modalities, and home care/instructions. Working to improve your posture is also a good way to help improve and prevent future back problems.

Preventing Sciatica

If you’ve had sciatica once, there’s a chance it will return. But there are steps you can take to reduce the odds:

• Exercise regularly.

• Maintain good posture.

• Bend at the knees to lift heavy objects.

These steps can help you avoid back injuries that may lead to sciatica.

If you or someone you know is suffering from back or sciatic pain, call the office and schedule an appointment!

…for your health!

The number of adults with diabetes worldwide has more than doubled since 1980 to a mind-numbing 347 million, officially making it a global epidemic. But believe it or not, there’s good news about diabetes: There are a number of ways to combat and even outright prevent this growing disease.

As the 7^th leading cause of death in the United States, diabetes costs the nation $174 billion annually, including $116 billion in direct medical expenses. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 79 million Americans – one-third of the nation’s adult population – has prediabetes, a condition in which blood sugar levels are elevated, raising a person’s risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke. In fact, having diabetes increases the risk of death from all causes.

Diabetics are also at increased risk of developing aging-related diseases. Men and women in their 50s with diabetes have nearly double the risk for developing cognitive impairment, incontinence, falls, dizziness, vision impairment and chronic pain compared to same-age counterparts who do not have diabetes. Because diabetes affects multiple organ systems, it has the potential to contribute significantly to the development of a number of health issues that we associate with aging.

Today, non-drug interventions such as nutritional supplementation, smart dietary choices, and lifestyle changes are becoming more widely recognized as key approaches to reduce the risk of diabetes and/or manage the condition if you’ve developed it.

We will help you dodge diabetes, improve your health, and lose weight with the Ideal Protein Weight Loss Method. Schedule an appointment and let us teach you the strategies to help ensure a healthier, happier, diabetes-free you.

…for your health!

This picture demonstrates the progression of forward head posture (FHP), referred to as “anterior head translation” and the increase in weight of the head upon the neck and spine.  Perfect posture would be demonstrated by a line dropped from the center of the external auditory meatus (EAM) that would land directly in the center of the shoulder (the tip of the acromion process).

According to Kapandji (Physiology of the Joints, Volume III), for every inch your head moves forwards, it gains 10 pounds in weight, as far as the muscles in your upper back and neck are concerned, because they have to work that much harder to keep the head (chin) from dropping onto your chest.   This also forces the suboccipital muscles (they raise the chin) to remain in constant contraction, putting pressure on the 3 Suboccipital nerves.   This nerve compression may cause headaches at the base of the skull. Pressure on the suboccipital nerves can also mimic sinus (frontal) headaches.

Rene Cailliet M.D., famous medical author and former director of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Southern California states:

“Head in forward posture can add up to thirty pounds of abnormal leverage on the cervical spine. This can pull the entire spine out of alignment. Forward head posture (FHP) may result in the loss of 30% of vital lung capacity. These breath-related effects are primarily due to the loss of the cervical lordosis, which blocks the action of the hyoid muscles, especially the inferior hyoid responsible for helping lift the first rib during inhalation.”

Persistent forward head posture puts compressive loads upon the upper thoracic spine, and is also associated with the development of “Upper Thoracic Hump”, which can devolve into Dowager Hump when the vertebra develop compression fractures (anterior wedging).   A recent study found this hyperkyphotic posture was associated with a 1.44 greater rate of mortality.

It’s not uncommon to observe 2″ of anterior head placement in new patients.   Would you be surprised that your neck and shoulders hurt if you had a 20-pound watermelon hanging around your neck?   That’s what forward head posture can do to you.   Left uncorrected, FHP will continue to decline.   Chiropractic can be very corrective, especially in the hands of a chiropractic rehabilitationist.   Our specialty is in reversing the joint fixations (what we refer to as “subluxations”) and in re-invigorating the muscles that normally retract the head.

We will help you in correcting this potential serious health condition!

…for your health!

For those of you that have daughters, sisters, or granddaughters and have concerns about all the vaccines that are recommended, here is an article by: Herb Newborg that you might find interesting.

Why have the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries chosen to experiment with the first ever, large scale application of a new, unproven, genetically modified, inter-species gene mixing vaccine technology on the female youth of an entire generation?

Under the ruse of attempting to eradicate cervical cancer, Merck is actually engaged in the first large scale, real world deployment and testing of genetically modified DNA, genetically engineered proteins and genetics produced by the combining of genetic material from more than one origin or species in a vaccine.

The wide spread promotion and attempts to mandate the use of this drug in the United States is clearly not predicated on preventing deaths from cervical cancer as the drug has only been approved in the U.S. for use in girls 9-26, ages when deaths from cervical cancer happen rarely, if ever. Cervical cancer has been steadily decreasing in the U.S. since 1955.

The American Cancer Society states:

“Cervical cancer was once one of the most common causes of cancer death for American women. The cervical cancer death rate declined by 74% between 1955 and 1992. The main reason for this change is the increased use of the Pap test. This screening procedure can find changes in the cervix before cancer develops. It can also find early cervical cancer in its most curable stage. The death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% a year. Cervical cancer tends to occur in midlife. Most cases are found in women younger than 50. It rarely develops in women younger than 20. Almost 20 percent of women are diagnosed with cervical cancer when they are over 65.”

According to a 2001 presentation by Elizabeth R. Unger Ph.D., M.D., then Acting Chief, Papillomavirus Section of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP):
*HPV infection is very prevalent in the population
*OVERALL 75% of population exposed
*Genital HPV is acquired around the time of sexual debut
*Consistent epidemiologic association of HPV with cervical cancer precursor lesions
*Plausible biologic mechanisms for HPV oncogenesis (cells becoming cancerous)
*HPV oncogenesis is a rare event with long interval between infection and cancer
*Infection alone is insufficient to cause cancer
*Additional factors required for neoplasia (abnormal proliferation of cells)

Paraphrasing, more than 75% of the population is exposed to HPV. HPV exposure typically occurs when a woman becomes sexually active. There is an association between HPV and cervical cancer. HPV causing cervical cancer is plausible, yet it alone does not cause cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is a rare event and there is a “long interval” between infection and development of cervical cancer.

Now follow closely. Cervical cancer typically develops in mid life (around 48 years old) even though HPV exposure typically occurs at sexual debut. This new vaccine is purported to protect against a disease that occurs, if ever, 20 to 35 years after HPV infection. Yet the duration of protection from the vaccine is unknown.

According to the FDA Gardasil approval announcement: “For most women, the body`s own defense system will clear the virus and infected women do not develop related health problems. However, some HPV types can cause abnormal cells on the lining of the cervix that years later (emphasis added) can turn into cancer.”

The clinical trials on this vaccine only lasted 5 years. It is chronologically impossible to have determined efficacy in preventing cervical cancer as a result of administration of this vaccine in the study population. Speculation as to whether the protection against HPV offered by this vaccine lasts beyond the five years of studies conducted to date is just that, speculation.

By the FDA`s own statement: “For most women, the body`s own defense system will clear the virus”. Combined with the frequent Pap tests of study participants who were participating in a study of sexually transmitted disease, it is fair to say that the 20,541 sixteen to twenty-six year old participants in the clinical trials were far from a random representation of the average female`s risk for contracting HPV or developing cervical cancer.

The studies on nine to fifteen year old girls included far fewer participants and were halted prior to completion.

Speculation as to whether or not girls vaccinated with Gardasil will experience a lower rate of cervical cancer 10 to 30 years from now is also merely conjecture. As such, there is currently no official schedule on required booster doses of the drug.

In the FDA`s approval announcement, they state: “While the study period was not long enough for cervical cancer to develop, the prevention of these cervical precancerous lesions is believed highly likely to result in the prevention of those cancers.”

Believed highly likely?

Is the role of the FDA to ensure that a drug has been proven to be a safe and effective or have we reduced the burden down to “likely to convey some benefit, maybe, sometime down the road”?

In addition, according to the FDA announcement of Gardasil`s approval , somehow the association and plausible mechanism between HPV and cervical cancer with the crystal clear statement that HPV “infection alone is insufficient to cause cancer” stated in the 2001 CDCP presentation magically morphed into “HPV is the cause of 70% of all cervical cancer”.

Promoting a new, unproven, vaccine to an entire generation of young girls as a cancer vaccine, without adequate long-term safety or efficacy testing is unethical and in this author`s opinion immoral.

But wait, there is much more.

This is a whole new type of vaccine called a virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine. Anti-viral vaccines have traditionally been prepared by using attenuated, or weakened, forms of the infectious virus. This type of vaccine involves complications in manufacturing.

These brand new virus-like particle (VLP) based vaccines including Merck`s Gardasil and GSK`s Cervarix are the first ever FDA approved VLP vaccines. No long term studies or studies on populations larger than the Gardasil clinical trial (20,541 women for up to 5 years) have ever been conducted on VLP technology or the specific inter-species genetic mixing this technology represents.

According to National Institute of Health (NIH) documents:

“The underlying technology for the vaccine originated in the laboratories of Drs. John Schiller and Douglas Lowy of the NIH National Cancer Institute. Drs. Schiller and Lowy commenced their research on the molecular biology of HPV nearly 20 years ago. Among their numerous findings, they discovered that the major outer coat protein of the HPV virus, called L1, could self assemble into non-infectious virus-like particles (VLPs) that closely resemble the native outer shell of the actual virus.

The principle behind the vaccine is that exposure to VLPs triggers the immune system to produce protective antibodies. If an individual is exposed to HPV after receiving the vaccine, the immune system already contains the antibodies necessary to prevent virus infection. The antibodies primarily function by preventing the virus from binding to the cell which is necessary in order for the virus to reproduce and thrive.

The catch is that for induction of HPV neutralizing antibodies the L1 must be in the same conformation as in the intact virus. Unlike some other viral vaccines, inactivated virus produced in cultured cells was not a viable option because the viruses could not be produced in sufficient quantities in vitro. Also, the inactivated virions would still contain the viral oncogenes, which would preclude use in healthy young people, the primary target population. (In other words, the vaccine would produce cancer, not prevent it.)

Schiller and Lowy demonstrated that large quantities of VLPs could be produced in insect cells (emphasis added) infected with L1 recombinant baculovirus (a genetically engineered protein grown in insect larvae). Critically, they also showed in animal models that the L1 VLPs were able to induce high titers of neutralizing antibodies, comparable to those induced by authentic virions. Furthermore, they and their colleagues demonstrated that L1 VLP vaccination could protect animals from experimental challenge with high dose virus of the corresponding animal papillomavirus (emphasis added) types and that human and animal papillomavirus (emphasis again added) L1 behaved similarly in the ability to assemble into VLP.”

While individual papilloma virus types tend to be highly adapted to replication in a single animal species, researchers have already identified inter-species transmission of papilloma virus in rabbits and cattle. The evolution of papilloma viruses is slow compared to many other virus types. It is believed that papilloma viruses generally co-evolve with a particular species of host over many years.

The long term results of introducing into the human body genetically engineered, recombinant human, insect and animal DNA, along with human and animal strains of papillomavirus are unknown, untested and unproven, particularly when used as a vaccine, which effectively bypasses all of the body`s natural defenses against outside pathogens (skin, saliva, mucous, etc.)

The current deaths and maiming of young girls used as guinea pigs to test this new technology may be just the beginning. No one can predict what adverse consequences this newest inter-species gene mixing technology may cause. Remember we are dealing with the reproductive systems of an entire generation of young woman.

Furthermore, the two strains of HPV which the vaccine purportedly protects against account for only 70% of all cervical cancers, leaving at least 30% of these young girls with no protection against cervical cancer. To call this a cervical cancer vaccine is a tragic deception.

In addition, many health care experts have publicly predicted that cervical cancer deaths will increase sharply, with routine Pap tests foregone under a false sense of security that Gardasil has made them immune to cervical cancer (and not just the two strains of alleged cancer causing HPV for which the vaccine claims efficacy).

The fact that the vaccine is not effective in girls already exposed to the virus, yet parental supervision is mandated during the interview to determine if the recipient is sexually active, further undermines the ability to discern “qualified” candidates for this potentially dangerous, new, experimental, unproven, falsely promoted vaccine technology. Imagine a 16 year old girl who does not want to confess that she has been sexually active to a parent stating that she has not and then being administered this drug. According to a reported Merck document, if this young girl has previously been infected with HPV, she has just increased her risk of developing high grade pre-cancerous lesions of the cervix by 44.6%.

It was reported to the FDA as early as October 30, 2006 by letter. Sin Hang Lee, M.D., a practicing pathologist wrote to Dr. Steven I. Gutman, Director, Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), FDA, enclosing the manuscript of a scientific report titled “Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by DNA Sequencing-The Gold Standard HPV Test for Patient Care,” which was submitted to a professional journal to be considered for publication. The purpose of the letter was to inform the FDA that a more sensitive and more specific device is being introduced for detection of HPV in clinical samples and for preparation of materials for HPV genotyping and to request advice and guidance from the agency for making this device available to hospital laboratories at the point of care . With this letter and manuscript, the FDA was informed of the need for a new generation of HPV testing based on new information available because:

1) A sensitive HPV detection device that can provide accurate genotyping information is needed for following patients with persistent infection that is now recognized to be the tumor promoter in cancer induction.

2) A PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with Gardasil of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document: Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine . May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting. www.fda.izov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/br… [14].

Page 10 of the attached document included this statement:

The introduction of the type-specific Gardasil HPV vaccines among the sexually active women also requires genotype monitoring of the HPV infections before and after immunization to develop prevention strategy for the individual patients. Based on a `Background Document” submitted to the FDA by Merck & Co., Inc., injection of HPV vaccines into women who have concurrent vaccine-relevant HPV type infections may increase the risk, by 44 .6%, of developing high-grade precancerous lesions in the cervix. Therefore, it would be prudent to perform a sensitive HPV detection assay with accurate genotype determination on the patients to be vaccinated if prior HPV infection is suspected.

Recombinant DNA, genetically engineered proteins, inter-species gene mixing, questionable new vaccine technology, lack of long term safety and efficacy data, questionable pre-qualifications procedures and now, an extremely high prevalence of reported adverse side effects up to and including miscarriage and death.

This vaccine represents more than just bottom line profit for Merck. This is the first genetically modified drug unleashed across a broad swath of unsuspecting, formerly healthy Americans.

Unfortunately, the target they chose for this grand genetic experiment is the entire female population of mothers to be for all future generations. Can we really afford to allow this fraud and deception to continue?

Sources:

What Are the Key Statistics About Cervical Cancer? via American Cancer Society website
Human Papillomaviruses:Natural History and Virology, Elizabeth R. Unger Ph.D.,M.D. via FDA website
NIH Technology Licensed to Merck for HPV Vaccine via NIH Office of Technology Transfer website
FDA Press Release P06-77: FDA Licenses New Vaccine for Prevention of Cervical Cancer
and Other Diseases in Females Caused by Human Papillomavirus
Christensen ND (2005). “Cottontail rabbit papillomavirus (CRPV) model system to test antiviral and immunotherapeutic strategies”. Antivir. Chem. Chemother. 16 (6): 355-62. PMID 16331841
Calleja-Macias IE, Villa LL, Prado JC, et al (2005). “Worldwide genomic diversity of the high-risk human papillomavirus types 31, 35, 52, and 58, four close relatives of human papillomavirus type 16″. J. Virol. 79(21):13630-40 doi:10.1128/JVI.79.21.13630-13640.2005. PMID 16227283
RECLASSIFICATION PETITION FOR Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Detection via FDA website

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/025613_cancer_HPV_vaccine.html#ixzz1XKOJ2Jqm

…for your health!

Bad posture is a modern day health epidemic that is much worse than most people naturally assume. Posture is the window into your spine. The spine has a powerful relationship with the brain, spinal cord, and overall organ function. This intimate connection means that poor posture and spinal health will lead to an overall decrease in brain and organ function.

Nobel Prize recipient Dr. Roger Sperry says that the spine is the motor that drives the brain. According to his research “90% of the stimulation and nutrition to the brain is generated by the movement of the spine.” Only 10% of our brain’s energy goes into thinking, metabolism, immunity, and healing. Sperry demonstrated that 90% of brain energy goes into processing and maintaining the body’s relationship with gravity.

One of the worst types of health problems people experience is a loss of the natural curves of their spine. Ideally, we should have a 40-45 degree curve in our neck that many chiropractors and neurosurgeons refer to as “the arc of life.” This curve helps to protect the brain stem and the spinal canal for the spinal cord and nerves that travel to every region of our body.

Subluxation is the term for misalignments of the spine that cause compression and irritation of nerve pathways affecting organ systems of the body. Subluxations can manifest as pain, but since only a small portion of spinal nerves transmit pain sensations they are often unnoticeable by the individual. Losing the arc of life in the neck, forward head posture, and scoliosis are three of the most dangerous forms of subluxation.

Subluxation patterns such as forward head posture and loss of the neck curve are most often created by trauma and/or poor posture. Examples of trauma include the birth process (especially with forceps delivery), falls, car accidents, & sporting activities. The typical individual in our society today spends at least 3-4 hours a day slumped in front of a television, computer, and texting cell phone. These behaviors cause the head to shift forward and create a lasting posture pattern called forward head posture.

This ‘forward head posture’ can add up to 30 pounds of abnormal leverage pulling the entire spine out of alignment and may result in the loss of 30% of vital lung capacity,” says University of California’s director of physical medicine and rehabilitation, Rene Cailliet.

As forward head posture decreases lung capacity it affects the body from effectively oxygenating cells. This can lead to asthmatic conditions, blood vessel problems and heart disease. The oxygen deficit affects the entire gastrointestinal system leading to altered nutrient absorption and peristaltic activity. Lowered oxygen states also decrease endorphin production turning the perception of non-painful sensation into pain experiences.

Some chiropractors specialize in corrective care techniques that reduce or eliminate forward head posture and restore the natural curves of the body. This is done through gentle & specific adjustments that take pressure off of the brain stem and nerve pathways and enhance function to the body. Corrective rehabilitative exercises are prescribed to address postural abnormalities and create lasting objective postural and x-ray changes. Specialized chiropractors are able to demonstrate these changes to the individual with pre-post x-rays, nerve scans, postural pictures and other technology.

Studies have shown that corrective based chiropractic care effectively reduces forward head posture and enhances the arc of life. A 2009 study by Morningstar and Jockers showed that this corrective process dramatically enhanced lung function. As the respiration process improves more oxygen gets into the body. This improves blood flow into every organ system of the body dramatically improving overall function.

Article by: Dr. David Jockers

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030956_posture_health.html#ixzz1XEEf5Xdx

Dr Lund specializes in postural correction methods!

…for your health!

Greater Waist Circumference Increases Death Risk

Recent research is showing that your waist circumference (WC) is just as important as your body mass index (BMI). The study found that “very high levels of WC were associated with an approximately 2-fold higher risk of mortality in men and women.”

Read Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20696950

This study gives another reason to loose weight. We know how difficulty it can be to loose weight and keep it off. That is why, we use and recommend the Ideal Protein Weight Loss Method. We want to help you loose the weight, but more importantly we want to help you regain/restore your health.

For more information on the Ideal Weight Loss Method, see the Weight Loss Tab on our website. Don’t put it off any longer, there is no better time than the present to start your Last Diet!

…for your health!