Saturday, July 20, 2013

YES, Vaccines CAN Cause Infertility

Vaccines Can Cause Infertility
Jul 20th, 2013 | By  | Category: Christina EnglandTop Stories

For the full article please visit:
Vaccines have not been evaluated for causing infertility (read the vaccine insert).
Vaccines have not been evaluated for causing infertility (read the vaccine insert).
I have been investigating whether there is a proven link between vaccines and infertility. What I have uncovered will shock many readers because I have discovered that innocent women and girls in developing countries have been deliberately experimented on, with the use of infertility vaccines, for many years.
They are not the only victims. Recently several vaccines used worldwide have also been found to cause infertility, including the HPV vaccines and many of the swine flu vaccines.
My interest in the subject began after it was reported that the Japanese government had decided to withdraw its support for the HPV vaccine schedule. This decision came after the government received approximately 2000 reports from women and girls suffering adverse reactions, including long-term pain, numbness, paralysis and infertility. [1]
This does not mean that Japan has banned or suspended the program, as the vaccines will still be available to anyone wishing to receive them. However, the medical provider will automatically inform anyone wishing to receive the HPV vaccines Gardasil or Cervarix that the Japanese government no longer supports the HPV vaccine program.

This Shot Changed One Girl’s Life Forever

Over the years, a range of adverse reactions have been reported worldwide after the HPV vaccinations. However, the discovery that the HPV vaccine has been found to cause infertility in some women has only been publicized more recently.
In 2012, the British Medical Journal published a paper by Dr. Deidrie Little titled Premature Ovarian Failure 3 Years After Menarche in a 16 Year-Old Girl Following Human Papillomavirus Vaccination, in which Dr. Little detailed the case of a sixteen year-old girl suffering from premature menopause after receiving the HPV vaccine Gardasil. The summary of the paper states:
“Premature ovarian failure in a well adolescent is a rare event. Its occurrence raises important questions about causation, which may signal other systemic concerns. This patient presented with amenorrhoea after identifying a change from her regular cycle to irregular and scant periods following vaccinations against human papillomavirus. She declined the oral contraceptives initially prescribed for amenorrhoea. The diagnostic tasks were to determine the reason for her secondary amenorrhoea and then to investigate for possible causes of the premature ovarian failure identified.
Although the cause is unknown in 90% of cases, the remaining chief identifiable causes of this condition were excluded. Premature ovarian failure was then notified as a possible adverse event following this vaccination. The young woman was counselled regarding preservation of bone density, reproductive implications and relevant follow-up. This event could hold potential implications for population health and prompts further inquiry.” [2]
As the BMJ charges a fee to read their articles, interested readers can find a report about the case on the Weekly Briefing of the Population Research Institute’s website. The report states that Dr. Little said that before the sixteen year-old received the vaccine Gardasil during the fall of 2008, her menstrual cycle was perfectly normal. However, by January 2009, her cycle had become irregular, and over the course of the next two years, her menses (bleeds) had become increasingly irregular. By 2011, she had ceased menstruating altogether.
The Weekly Briefing stated:
“In the Australian case, after testing the levels of numerous hormones, and the function of various internal organs, the girl was diagnosed by Dr. Little as having “premature ovarian failure”, which is defined as “the presence of menopausal gonadotrophin levels in association with over 3 months of amenorrhoea or oligomenorrhoea before age 40 years.”
Further testing confirmed that all of her eggs—every last one—were dead. She was and is totally and irrevocably infertile.”
The Weekly Briefing article has since been removed, but a complete copy of the article can be found on several websites, including Population Research Institute. [3]
For the entire article please visit:

A Priest Researches Vaccinations and Decides Against it

Friday, November 25, 2011

To Vaccinate or Not--A Physical AND Spiritual Decision

(Check out the new official article over on HFFG's new website (not a blogspot!) here:
 During the first half of November, we discussed the controversial topic of vaccination on HFFG's Facebook page.  I received many emails and Facebook messages, some good and some, well, not so good.  I have also received comments and messages looking for specific information that was posted since it can be difficult to locate on Facebook after a while.  

Consequently, I would like to summarize our discussion and include the strongest points and information in one concise blog post.  This article can be used to forward to friends who may be asking questions like those I received in many emails during that time: "What's wrong with vaccinations?" "Should I delay them?"  "Which ones are the most dangerous?" "What about herd immunity?" And so on.

But first, I'd like to remind my readers that as a parent of five children, I have been on both sides of this issue.  I blindingly and naively followed the masses on this topic for my first three children who were fully vaccinated.  I beamed with pride whenever I pulled out that fancy, up-to-date, gold vaccination card for each child. 

When our fourth child was a year old, God placed some friends in our lives that gently warned us of the dangers of vaccines.  Because our fourth son had just experienced what we believed to be a reaction to those shots, we began to look into it further.  What I've found has led me to fiercely refuse any further vaccinations.

Disclaimer: The information presented here is based on my research of this topic during the last 5 years.  I am not a healthcare practitioner and encourage every parent to make their own informed decisions based on their own research.  This is a big decision that carries not only physical effects but spiritual ones as well.  It should not be taken lightly.

For the full article please visit:

Friday, July 12, 2013

Vaccine risks that are never acknowledged.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Evaluating Vaccine Risks

image source
Catherine J. Frompovich
Activist Post

In the June 29, 2013 issue of The Lancet, a rather interesting article appeared. The title “Ukraine at risk of polio outbreak” [1] aroused more curiosity than this writer can explain, since many of the recent outbreaks have been from polio vaccination campaigns, particularly in India where in April of 2012, this was reported, “Paralysis cases soar after oral polio vaccine introduced.”[2] Indian doctors’ findings were published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics.

Furthermore, the doctors provided this troubling information:
In 2011, there were an extra 47500 new cases of NPAFP [in India]. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received.[3] [CJF emphasis added]
NPAFP is non-polio acute flaccid paralysis, which is another term for a paralysis that medicine doesn’t want to have associated with polio that apparently can be contracted either from the oral polio vaccine or from third parties coming in contact with vaccinees through vaccine viral shedding. The very diseases for which a child is vaccinated either can be contracted by the vaccinee, or spread to others through what’s known as vaccine virus shedding[4],[5] from such vaccines as
the measles vaccine, rubella vaccine, chickenpox vaccine, oral polio vaccine, FluMist vaccine, and possibly a rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq).[6]
Apparently, the U.S. CDC had to admit that:
From 1980 through 1999, there were 162 confirmed cases of paralytic polio cases reported. Of the 162 cases, eight cases were acquired outside the United States and imported. The last imported case caused by wild poliovirus into the United States was reported in 1993. The remaining 154 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).[7] [CJF emphasis added]
June 19, 1999 The New York Times published this:
A [U.S.] Federal advisory panel has recommended replacing the oral polio vaccine with the injected version to reduce the chance of contracting the paralyzing disease.[8]

So, why would anyone who knows the facts about vaccines, especially pro-vaccine groups like The Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation[9], go around the globe distributing the oral polio vaccine? Hasn’t 47,500 NPAFP cases in India made the point that vaccines, especially the oral polio vaccine, are not to be trusted to NOT produce a paralyzing disease by whatever name medicine wants to call it? Brazil[10], Nigeria[11], and Pakistan[12] have experienced oral polio vaccine campaigns and also have had NPAFP outbreaks, but you don’t hear about that from the U.S. ‘free’ press, which apparently is coerced into not reporting such public health problems resulting from vaccinations. After all, those facts really would scare off parents if they knew. But, many parents know those facts, as word of mouth travels.

In 2013 an Italian court awarded 200,000 Euros to the family of a six-month-old girl after determining that she died from a mandatory hexavalent vaccine and two optional vaccines.[13] According,
The court finally recognized the causal connection that a series of medical consultants to the family and the consultant of the court have established between the hexavalent vaccine and the death of the child. …. 
The hexavalent vaccine had been composed of the vaccines for polio, diphtheria, tetanus, Hepatitis B, pertussis, and haemophilus.[14]
Getting back to The Lancet’s article about the risk of polio in Ukraine, what this writer finds enormously intriguing is that the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF question why as many as a third of Ukrainian parents are against vaccinations. Perhaps parents everywhere, just not in Ukraine, are beginning to understand the risks involved with vaccinations. As The Lancet article noted,
Many parents speak privately of being aware of the risks of not having their child immunised but say they are preferable to the dangers of vaccines.[15]
Furthermore, what would parents do if they knew that the mumps vaccine in the USA was not what it was cracked up to be, and that the U.S. government is suing the maker, Merck & Company, because
The scientists claim Merck defrauded the U.S. government by causing it to purchase an estimated four million doses of mislabeled and misbranded MMR vaccine per year for at least a decade, and helped ignite two recent mumps outbreaks that the allegedly ineffective vaccine was intended to prevent in the first place.[16] [CJF emphasis added
For those who want to know more about the problem(s) with that non-effective mumps vaccine, Suzanne Humphries, MD, discusses the issue here.

As an aside, if readers were appalled at what they found out recently about phone, computer, and wiretapping in the USA, just imagine how you would feel if you really knew about how vaccine science actually is done, especially by those who finance the ‘effectiveness’ studies that are presented to the FDA for vaccine approval. See this.

Probably nothing is indicative of the issues regarding vaccines in Ukraine as this:
But there is another substantial hurdle to raising vaccination rates—health-care workers themselves. Some doctors speak openly against vaccination and WHO says it has identified apathy among many medical workers towards promoting immunisation— something rooted again in the 2008 scandal. Nitzan explains to The Lancet: “Many health-care workers are not actively promoting vaccinations. They are afraid that, just like in 2008, that if they vaccinate someone and they get sick then they will get the blame for it."[17]
A 2008 vaccination scandal? Could they be referring to what happened in Brazil when Brazil’s pro-abortion Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao decided to institute a vaccination campaign, or in Argentina with the rubella vaccine? According to August 14, 2008,
Temporao is heading a mandatory program to vaccinate 70 million Brazilians, which would make it the largest vaccination in history. 
Adolfo CastaƱeda of Human Life International notes that just two years ago, researchers found that the rubella vaccine used in a similar campaign in Argentina was laced with Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG), a pregnancy hormone that is necessary for a newly conceived zygote to implant in the uterine wall after conception. 
When the body receives HCG in a vaccine, it perceives it as an intruder and creates antibodies that fight the presence of the hormone in the body. The body’s immunological response is turned against pregnancy, causing abortions when conception occurs.[18]
Shouldn’t that Argentine HCG issue be considered a crime against humanity? And yet, there are numerous toxic chemicals used in vaccines that parents really don’t know about, but should. How many people really know what’s in vaccines? I discuss many of them in my new book, Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, coming out on in early August 2013.

Furthermore, I congratulate healthcare workers with insights into the real vaccine/vaccination issues who take a stand and voice them. Their concerns either are being disregarded by federal health agencies, or they are penalized or prosecuted for voicing them. I send kudos to the whistleblowers in the Merck & Company mumps vaccine fiasco that resulted in the feds finally doing something about fraud in vaccine issues. Many medical workers apparently have realized problems with or arising out of vaccines, which have affected their thinking – much to the chagrin of the medical establishment. Morally and ethically, such workers are to be commended, in my opinion. No one should be made to take anything into his or her body, especially vaccines which: a) have not been tested to cause cancer, birth defects, or infertility; b) have been proven to cause the very diseases that they are promoted and advertised as preventing; or, c) contain toxic chemicals that may/can interfere with life processes.

In recent years there have been outbreaks of measles and pertussis (whooping cough) in the United States that health officials tried blaming on non-vaccinated children. Statistically, of those children contracting pertussis, 90 percent or more were fully vaccinated. What does that tell you? Apparently according to health authorities, it says children need more and more vaccinations; not that vaccines do not protect against disease, but can induce disease. It seems the more vaccines are given, the more chronic diseases children are contracting. And, parents realize that—no matter where: Ukraine, India, or the United States. But those who push vaccines can’t seem to – or want to – connect the glaring dots.

Personally, I think there is an accurate and effective way to convince parents, other than using the strong arm of the law that vaccines can make their children healthier, and that’s to do a retrospective study of the health status of non-vaccinated children compared with fully vaccinated children.

One would think that in this age of demanding science and studies to prove efficacy, that type of study would have been done by the U.S. Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration to accurately prove vaccine science rather than merely by their mandates saying so.

I am a consumer health researcher who knows of numerous cohorts of unvaccinated children in the United States and the European Union who could be ‘ready-made’ study subjects. I propose a challenge to U.S. federal health agencies to undertake such a study as soon as possible and without Big Pharma input. Children, parents, and consumers need to know the facts—not mandates just “because Big Pharma says so.” Let the factual, independent, non-Big-Pharma-paid-for-study-data speak for itself. What are they afraid of? Furthermore, why haven’t they done such a study heretofore? Isn’t it about time?

Shortly before I finished this article, Norma Erickson, the president of SaneVax, wrote the article “Vaccines: Why are informed consent laws being ignored?” which came out of suggestions I had made regarding informed consent laws relative to vaccines and vaccinations. That exceptional article can be read here.


[3] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[17] Ibid

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies.

Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).

Homeopathic Researcher Discusses Vaccination


Hpathy Ezine, June, 2013 | 
Homeopath and researcher Dr. Rupali D. Bhalerao discusses vaccination and homeoprophylaxis.
“A truth, on any plane, presented to different men, is accepted or rejected by each according to the good or evil of his mind”- Kent
 For the entire article please visit:

Vaccination presents a difficult choice. On one hand it is aimed to prevent serious diseases whose mere names terrifiy us, like polio or tetanus; on the other hand we tend to instinctively reject the idea of injecting young babies with pathological material. In 1796 Jenner tried his vaccine against smallpox and in 1799 Hahnemann used homoeopathic Belladonna as a preventive for Scarlet fever. Conventional medicine followed efforts to prevent disease in a manner similar to that used by Edward Jenner. Due to lack of systematic studies, homoeoprophylaxis was never established as a scientific and effective method of disease prevention.
Burnett & his vaccinosis
 Burnett was the first Homoeopath to forcefully warned against the dangers of vaccination. He believed that vaccination generated a state of disease, not that of the disease intended to be protected against, but rather a similar low chronic state of ill health; a contracted miasm.
He argued that vaccination, as practiced by Pasteur and Jenner using material doses will eventually end in disaster, because it is temporary protection. It does not individualize the dose to the strength of individual and it brings long term chronic consequences.  Burnett warned against the reaction of individuals to particular vaccines on the basis of individual susceptibility back in 1884. In a recent report in August 2011 of IOM in review of adverse effects of vaccine, they clearly mention under the heading of susceptibility that ‘individuals with certain characteristics are more likely to suffer from cer­tain adverse effects from particular immunizations’. Modern medicine is late to actually realize the importance of individual characteristics for evaluating the adverse events of vaccination.
Burnett also noted that vaccination actually increases the mortality rate, because in addition to the vaccinosis incurred, if a person also catches the disease prophylaxis was intended to prevent, he or she is more likely to die from the disease than if had just caught the disease without vaccination.  Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldmanin their research published in Human and experimental toxicology found thepositive correlation between the number of vaccine doses in the first year of life and increasing Infant mortality rates (IMRs) of a nation. 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. The author concludes with a note ‘A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential’.
What Burnett said in the 18th century and what research reflects currently about adverse effects of vaccination is similar. We must think twice before denying facts in the present situation.

Threats from Cells Used in Making Vaccines

Investigating Viruses in Cells Used to Make Vaccines; and Evaluating the Potential Threat Posed by Transmission of Viruses to Humans

Principal Investigator: Arifa S. Khan, PhD
Office / Division / Lab: OVRR / DVP / LR

General Overview
The emergence of pathogenic virus infections like influenza and HIV have created an urgent need for new vaccines.

Virus-based vaccines are made in living cells (cell substrates). Some manufacturers are investigating the use of new cell lines to make vaccines. The continual growth of cell lines ensures that there is a consistent supply of the same cells that can yield high quantities of the vaccine.

In some cases the cell lines that are used might be tumorigenic, that is, they form tumors when injected into rodents. Some of these tumor-forming cell lines may contain cancer-causing viruses that are not actively reproducing. Such viruses are hard to detect using standard methods. These latent, or "quiet," viruses pose a potential threat, since they might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions. Therefore, to ensure the safety of vaccines, our laboratory is investigating ways to activate latent viruses in cell lines and to detect the activated viruses, as well as other unknown viruses, using new technologies. We will then adapt our findings to detect viruses in the same types of cell substrates that are used to produce vaccines. We are also trying to identify specific biological processes that reflect virus activity.

These methods will enable FDA scientists to help manufacturers to determine whether their specific cell substrate is safe to use for vaccine production. The methods our laboratory are developing and testing will help to ensure the production of safe and effective vaccines in two ways: 1) FDA will be able to develop testing guidelines for manufacturers who use new cell substrates for producing vaccines; and 2) FDA will publish the new methods it develops in peer-reviewed scientific journals, thus making them readily accessible to all manufacturers.

We are also evaluating the risk of retrovirus infections in humans. (Retroviruses are RNA viruses that use an enzyme called reverse transcriptase (RT) to replicate; RNA is the de-coded form of DNA). Simian foamy virus (SFV) can be transmitted from nonhuman primates (e.g., monkeys) to humans. Although there is no evidence that SFV causes disease, the virus can remain in a lifelong quiet state in the DNA after infection. Moreover, two individuals in Africa were recently found to be infected with both HIV-1 and SFV. Therefore, it is important to determine if SFV poses a threat to human health and to understand how the virus spreads in order to create strategies for controlling human infections. Such work will also help FDA to develop a new policy regarding blood donation by individuals working with nonhuman primates and implementing formal safety guidelines for people working with SFV-infected animals. We are also investigating the consequences of dual SFV and HIV-1 infection in the monkey model.

Similarly, we are investigating the transmission and infection processes of a new human retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV). We are pursuing this work both in vitro ("test tube" studies) as well as in the monkey model, in order to address potential safety concerns in vaccine cell substrates and in blood products.

Scientific Overview
Detection of latent viruses in cell substrates for vaccine safety. The urgent demand for vaccines against emerging diseases has necessitated the use of novel cell substrates. These include tumorigenic cells such as MDCK and CHO cells (for influenza virus vaccines), 293 and PER.C6 cells (for adenovirus-vectored HIV-1 and other vaccines), and tumor-derived cells such as HeLa cells (for HIV-1 vaccines).

The use of tumorigenic and tumor-derived cells is a major safety concern due to the potential presence of viruses such as retroviruses and oncogenic DNA viruses that could be associated with tumorigencity, Therefore, detection of persistent, latent DNA viruses, and endogenous retroviruses in vaccine cell substrates is important for vaccine safety, particularly in the development of live viral vaccines, where there are no or minimal virus inactivation and removal steps during vaccine manufacturing.

Chemical induction is a rigorous method for evaluating the presence of endogenous retroviruses as well as some latent DNA viruses that have the potential to become active and produce infectious virus. This approach has been extensively used for mouse cells. We have optimized virus induction conditions in mouse cells using a standardized, highly sensitive, single-tube fluorescent PCR enhanced reverse transcriptase (STF-PERT) assay. We have further determined optimum conditions for activating latent DNA virus from a human cell line. We have extended the assay to develop a stepwise approach to induce and detect endogenous retroviruses and latent DNA viruses during evaluation of cell substrates for vaccine safety.

The chemical induction algorithm developed using these positive control cell lines can be used to evaluate the safety of novel vaccine cell substrates for new vaccines. We are now investigating emerging technologies for broad virus detection to identify novel, induced and other unknown viruses. Additionally, we are investigating potential biomarkers for virus induction

In vitro and in vivo investigations to address retrovirus concerns in biologics. Simian foamy viruses (SFVs) are highly prevalent in all nonhuman primates (NHPs) and can infect humans by cross-species transmission. Although there is no evidence yet of disease with SFV, infectious virus persists in the host DNA. Therefore, we are trying to understand SFV latency and activation and factors involved in virus transmission, which will be important for managing SFV infections in humans.

We are also investigating potential interactions of SFV and SIV in the monkey model to predict the outcome of SFV and HIV-1 dual-infections in human cases, reported in Africa. Furthermore, our blood transfusion studies in monkeys regarding the risk of SFV transmission from infected blood donors to recipients will contribute to blood donation policy-making decisions.

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is a recently discovered human retrovirus that has been found in both chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer patients. Although these findings need further confirmation, there is a potential safety concern regarding XMRV in cell substrates used in vaccines and in transmission by blood transfusion and blood products. We are developing sensitive detection assays for XMRV to evaluate cell substrates and investigate virus transmission by blood transfusion in a monkey model.

J Virol 2013 Feb;87(4):2278-86
No evidence of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus transmission by blood transfusion from infected rhesus macaques.
Williams DK, Galvin TA, Gao Y, O'Neill C, Glasner D, Khan AS
Adv Virol 2011;2011:787394
Xenotropic and other murine leukemia virus-related viruses in humans.
Khan AS, McClure M, Kubo Y, Jolicoeur P
Biologicals 2011 Nov;39(6):378-83
Investigation of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) in human and other cell lines.
Williams DK, Galvin TA, Ma H, Khan AS
PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2011 Nov 1;65(6):627-33
Current testing methods and challenges for detection of adventitious viruses.
Khan AS
Vaccine 2011 Oct 26;29(46):8429-37
Investigations of porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV1) in vaccine-related and other cell lines.
Ma H, Shaheduzzaman S, Willliams DK, Gao Y, Khan AS
J Virol 2011 Jul;85(13):6579-88
Chemical induction of endogenous retrovirus particles from the vero cell line of african green monkeys.
Ma H, Ma Y, Ma W, Williams DK, Galvin TA, Khan AS
PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2010 Sep-Oct;64(5):426-31
Testing considerations for novel cell substrates: a regulatory perspective.
Khan AS
PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2010 Sep-Oct;64(5):451-7
Regulatory considerations for raw materials used in biological products.
Khan AS
Biologicals 2009 Jun;37(3):196-201
Proposed algorithm to investigate latent and occult viruses in vaccine cell substrates by chemical induction.
Khan AS, Ma W, Ma Y, Kumar A, Williams DK, Muller J, Ma H, Galvin TA
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2009 Jun;7(5):569-80
Simian foamy virus infection in humans: prevalence and management.
Khan AS

Contact FDA

(800) 835-4709
(301) 827-1800
Consumer Affairs Branch (CBER)
Division of Communication and Consumer Affairs
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development
Food and Drug Administration
1401 Rockville Pike
Suite 200N/HFM-47
Rockville, MD 20852-1448

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Clean and Vaccinated Get Asthma and Allergies

- See more at:

The "germaphobic" approach to life could be doing kids more harm than good. Parents who adopt and overly hygienic lifestyle for their children are at an increased risk of developing asthma, allergies and eczema. 

The hygiene hypothesis holds that, when babies' exposure to germs is so limited, their immune systems are deprived of the opportunity to learn how to fend off pathogens properly...consequently their immune systems become so sensitive that the babies develop allergies. That would also explain why people who grow up in large families or who have early contact with animals are less likely to develop allergies. 

Young children who share their home with dogs or cats in the first year of life are half as likely to become allergic to those animals than kids who grew up with no pets. 

Previous studies have suggested that children born during tree pollen season may develop a tolerance for pollen, thus reducing their risk for acquiring pollen allergy later in life. Scientists believe the same type of 'de-sensitizing' mechanism may be at work in infants exposed to pets in the home

Young children who share their home with two dogs or cats in the first year of life are half as likely to become allergic to those animals than kids who grew up with only one dog or cat, or no pets. 

Besides increases in medicated and vaccinated children in the past 20 years, the number of children with allergies has also doubled -- with the sharpest increase among the middle classes, however it may not only be our failed medical system that is only to blame. 

The sharpest increase has been among the middle-classes which scientists say support their theory that youngsters from wealthier families have a weakened immune system because they live in cleaner homes. 

Ahe new study looked at 184 healthy full-term babies, many of whom were at risk for allergies by virtue of having a parent with allergies. When the babies were born, their parents answered questions about the pregnancy, delivery, their family structure and living conditions...and they were given diaries to record events in the babies’ lives, such as illnesses, food introduction, medication use, etc. 

Then when the babies were six months old, the parents answered a series of questions, including one about pacifier use. For the 74% of parents who indicated that their babies used pacifiers, the next question asked which method or methods parents used to clean the pacifiers--boiling (used by 54% of parents), rinsing in tap water (used by 83%) and/or the parent sucking on it before giving it back to the baby (used by 48% of parents). 

Babies were examined by a pediatric allergist when they were 18 months old and also whenever symptoms suggesting a possible allergic reaction were noticed. The allergist looked for signs of eczema and asthma, both of which can indicate an allergic response, and also checked the babies’ blood for markers that suggest specific food sensitivities. 

25% of the babies had eczema...5% had asthma...and 15% had food sensitivities. Pacifier use itself did not affect allergy risk. However, among the pacifier-using babies, the cleaning method made a big difference--because babies whose parents cleaned the pacifier by sucking on it were 63% less likely to develop eczema or food sensitivities and 88% less likely to develop asthma than babies whose parents did not use this cleaning method. Reassuring: Though parents often worry about spreading respiratory infections to their infants by kissing them or otherwise “swapping spit,” babies in this study whose parents sucked their pacifiers had no increased risk for respiratory infections. 

Researchers suspect that parents’ sucking on their children’s pacifiers introduces microbes to their children...and the early introduction of those microbes stimulates the infants’ immune systems into learning appropriate protective responses to germs. Saliva contains a complex mix of microbiota, just as the gut does--and in fact, swallowing the microbes that wind up in the mouth may have beneficial effects on the balance of microbes in the small intestine. 

Increasing levels of hygiene appeared to be especially linked to a risk of developing severe eczema. 

The link between hygiene and allergies is in step with the so-called "hygiene hypothesis"--the theory that a lower exposure to germs affects the immune system's development in such a way that it is more prone to allergic reactions. 

For example, previous studies have found that adults who had grown up on a farm were less likely to develop allergies, while young children exposed to older siblings at home and those who attend day care also have a lower risk of allergies and asthma. 

Routine childhood vaccinations also contribute to the emergence of chronic allergic problems such as eczema, ear infections, and asthma. However, most vaccinated children come from households with lower incomes, which may support the theory that hygiene and their environment may indeed be a greater contributing factor of childhood allergies than perhaps vaccinations. 

Vaccines clog our lymphatic system and lymph nodes with large protein molecules which have not been adequately broken down by our digestive processes, since vaccines by pass digestion with injections. This is why vaccines are linked to allergies, because they contain large proteins which as circulating immune complexes (CICs) or "klinkers" which cause our body to become allergic. 

Approximately 20 percent of children may outgrow their allergies, but with the increased frequency of recommended vaccines before the age of 3, severe allergic reactions will likely increase. 

Egg is the second most common food allergy in early childhood. Approx 1.5 to 3.2 percent of all children under 3 have an egg allergy. It is fast becoming a recognized fact that those with an egg allergy should consult their doctor before receiving a vaccination. This is because occasionally vaccines are grown in cell cultures of chick embryo’s and may cause a reaction. An example of this is the MMR. 

One of the first vaccines given to children, DTaP10, contains casein. Casein allergy coincidently appears in children in the first few months of life. Another vaccine given to children at two months of age is the Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV7). Each serotype for this vaccine is grown in soy peptone broth. A soy allergy is most common in infants and is usually noticed by 3 months of age...coincidence? 

Injections have been used to create allergies in test animals. Any food protein remaining in the vaccine from the culture medium or diluent oils when injected along with an adjuvant can cause a food allergy. 

More educated and affluent households are less likely to vaccinate, which contradicts the misconceptions of many health professionals who profess that parents don't vaccinate because they are under-educated, poor or misinformed. 

It's not a call for parents to abandon all hygiene practices, since hygiene (not vaccinations) is what eradicated many infectious diseases in the last few centuries. However, it is important to maintain a sense of awareness on all the factors that may affect and influence childhood allergies. 

Perhaps we should start focusing more on using natural cleaners and organic cleaning supplies. Most of all, we need to eliminate cleaning products which depress our immune system with carcinogenic agents

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment. 

Source: - See more at: