Children with Furry Pets Get Sick Less Often: A Lesson in Vaccine Futility

Gaia Health

Trying to escape from nature doesn’t work. Whether by attempting to sterilize our lives or by trying to simulate nature’s processes, we end up weaker, not stronger.

Babies in homes with dogs are significantly healthier than those without them, according to a new study published in the journal Pediatrics this month. The researchers suggested that the likeliest reason is earlier activation of the immune system.

This has implications for vaccinations. Vaccines overstimulate the immune system, causing it to focus on developing antibodies at the expense of innate immunity.

Vaccines inject antigens, now frequently multiple as in the DTaP vaccine, not to mention a host of other substances including preservatives, adjuvants, and contaminants from the production process. All of the intended and unintended substances present a burden to a young immune system, derailing it from normal development.

On top of that, introducing antigens through injections is not natural. It bypasses the natural barriers, such as nasal passages and the mouth. This artificial method of creating antibodies results in both temporary and less effective disease prevention, requiring ever more vaccinations in an attempt to produce disease immunity.

The failure of this approach can be seen in the now-prevalent concept of cocooning, which suggests that, if enough people get vaccinated, it will prevent diseases in those who are very young, elderly, or have compromised immune systems—which, by the way, are largely the direct result of autoimmune disorders caused by vaccines.

Obviously, any gains from vaccinations must be balanced against harms, which none of our health agencies have ever bothered to examine. As we can see in the fact that having furry pets is beneficial to babies’ immune systems, natural development results in healthier children. A recent study, State of health of unvaccinated children demonstrates that unvaccinated children are healthier.

The authors of the furry pet study, titled Respiratory Tract Illnesses During the First Year of Life: Effect of Dog and Cat Contacts, wrote:

If children had dog or cat contacts at home, they were significantly healthier during the study period. …

The most protective association was seen in children who had a dog inside at home for up to six hours a day, compared to children who did not have any dogs or who had dogs that were always outside.

We speculate that animal contacts could help to mature the immunologic system, leading to more composed immunologic response and shorter duration of infections.

The study examined children in their first year of life and documented that having furry pets is beneficial to the immune system by helping to mature it. In more straightforward terms, the study found that exposure to natural disease-producing substances gives the immune system a chance to do what it’s meant to do: protect against diseases.

Before this study, the only benefit in pets was believed to be psychological. It’s now clear that naturally triggering a baby’s immune system is beneficial. Understimulation of a baby’s immune system, that is, attempting to keep a child in a sterile environment, prevents it from learning how to protect health. Overstimulation deranges the immune system, making it overactive and creating autoimmune disorders.

Certainly, there are no sure ways to get babies through childhood. However, the more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that trying to circumvent nature virtually always results in far more harm than benefit. Trying to escape from nature doesn’t work. Whether by attempting to sterilize our lives or by trying to simulate nature’s processes, we end up weaker, not stronger.

Isn’t it time to stop medicalizing our lives? We need to stop trying to control and separate ourselves from nature if we want to have any semblance of a healthy existence.

Latest Elite Meme: Autism Caused by … High Fructose Corn Syrup?

On the News With Thom Hartmann: A New Study Suggests That the Food We Eat Might Be Responsible for Increase in Autism, and More … Americans are screwed by the food we eat. On the heels of a report by the Centers for Disease Control showing a drastic 78% increase in cases of autism in America since 2002 – a new study suggests that the food we eat might be responsible. The peer-reviewed journal, Clinical Epigenetics, links increased autism cases to the widespread use of high-fructose corn syrup in the American diet. As the study’s co-author, Dr. David Wallings, said, “To better address the explosion of autism, it’s critical we consider how unhealthy diets interfere with the body’s ability to eliminate toxic chemicals, and ultimately our risk for developing long- term health problems like autism.” – Thom Hartmaan radio program transcript

Dominant Social Theme: It’s the farmers’ fault.

Free-Market Analysis: Here is a fairly predictable power elite meme. As vaccines come under more and more attack thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation, the powers-that-be are trying to find anything else to blame when it comes to rising autism rates.

Thom Hartmaan is a liberal radio commentator with a national following. From this report, it would seem that he has not presented the idea that vaccines cause autism, at least not regularly. He is presenting an alternative view, one we would suggest had been generated at least in part to cast doubt on the autism-out-of-vaccines linkage.

This is not surprising. Many in the media are sent various kinds of scientific studies addressing the startling rise in autism from numerous angles. It would seem to us that much of this is generated to confuse the issue.

There is surely evidence that vaccines cause numerous kinds of health damage – for certain people anyway. The elites behind the vaccine industry (and everything else, perhaps) are determined to ensure that vaccines are not implicated in autism damage.

The power elite seems to be run by dynastic families from the City of London, along with associates and enablers in politics, business, religion and the military. These elites seem to want to run the world and use fear-based promotions to frighten people into giving up power and wealth to globalist solutions.

Vaccines seem to be an integral part of these manipulations, from what we can tell. The ability to justify placing foreign substances into one’s body in mass programs is an integral part of the larger control over the public that the elites seek.

Recently, we were very surprised to find that no double-blind tests had ever been done on vaccines because of “ethical” reasons. This seems, in our humble opinion, to be a red flag. Also, we have observed how aggressively the mainstream media has targeted, for instance, Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who intimated that there might be a link between autism and vaccines. You can see our recent articles here:

While the Wakefield pillorying continues – even though one of his partners was just exonerated of the charges for which Wakefield lost his British doctor’s license – the campaign to find an alternative substance continues. Here’s some more from the article:

According to the study – consuming high fructose corn syrup can lead to the loss of zinc in the body – making it more difficult for the body to rid itself of toxic metals like mercury and arsenic that have an adverse effect on brain development in children. Could studies like this deter major food corporations that are using high fructose corn syrup in their products to feed Americans? Probably not.

We can see here how the study is turned into an attack on private enterprise. There is nothing remotely defensible about high-fructose corn syrup, which is another corporate poison, from what we can tell. But the powers-that-be would gladly sacrifice corn syrup for vaccines. If autism can be blamed on corn syrup, then such a promotion would surely be mounted.

The Internet Reformation has dealt setbacks to numerous dominant social themes of late, including global warming, central banking and even the apparently phony war on terror. But the vaccine meme – if that’s what it is – would probably be the worst loss yet.

Access to the human body is of major import to the elites, apparently. The plan seems to be to place microchips into humans and animals at some point, and then to create even further human-mechanical elaborations. (Just Google “microchip programs in animals and humans to see for yourself.)

All of this is built on trust – the trust generated by massive vaccine programs that “protect” the common good. If this trust is jeopardized, then further public health programs are endangered as well.

Conclusion: While we used to believe in vaccines and vaccine programs implicitly, ‘Net information has made us increasingly doubtful. Finding out there were reportedly never any double-blind tests as regards vaccines was quite a shock. What else aren’t they telling us?

FDA Approved Gardasil Without Safety Testing: Proof in FDA Document


Would you willingly use a pharmaceutical product or subject your child to one if it hasn’t been safety tested?

If you’ve had the Gardasil vaccine or have allowed your daughter, and now your son, to be injected, that’s precisely what has happened. The proof has been hidden in plain sight on the FDA’s website since 2006.

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval letter went out with statements saying that both short and long term studies were to be done.

Approval was immediate, not predicated on the results of those studies.

From the approval letter sent to Merck in 2006:

“You have committed to conduct a short-term safety surveillance study in a U.S. Managed Care Organization (MCO). The study will include approximately 44,000 vaccinated subjects who will be followed for 60 days for assessment of general short-term safety (i.e., emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths). The subjects will also be followed for 6 months subsequent to vaccination for new autoimmune disorders, rheumatologic conditions, or thyroiditis. … The final study report will be submitted by September 30, 2009.”

That references a single study that was to be performed in the United States for a short term 60 day assessment and another short term 6 month assessment.

It’s now nearly 2½ years after the date that study was supposed to be submitted to the FDA. I searched the FDA’s database for a reference to it … any reference to it. The search terms used were “merck gardasil safety assessment”. I also tried to find a reference in the journal literature.

All that exists on the FDA site is information based on the sorely inadequate VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data, where it’s estimated that less than 10% of all adverse events are reported.

In A summary of the post-licensure surveillance initiatives for GARDASIL/SILGARD, I found a reference to a study that appears to be a match for the requirement stated in the FDA’s letter. It was described as being done in association with Merck, planned for an MCO, and to include 44,000 vaccinated subjects. The sample size is referenced as being an FDA requirement. In fact, the study is clearly one published in the Internal Medicine study that I reported on in Farcical Study of Gardasil Safety: Medscape Gives CME Training Credit for It. It was published in November 2011, more than 2½ years later than the Gardasil approval requirement specified.

The FDA didn’t pull Gardasil from the market for the lack of safety data that Merck had agreed to produce. But it’s even worse than that. The requirement, as stated above, was for reporting of adverse events that occurred up to 60 days after vaccination and up to 6 months after. The study didn’t even touch on those time spans. It reported on a select group of diseases, which were chosen by the FDA. As the Farcical Study… article indicates, they are not the problems that are generally reported as adverse effects of Gardasil.

Clearly, the FDA does not stand as a guardian of the public’s health. They operate as a pusher of Big Pharma’s products. The Gardasil disaster demonstrates it clearly:

The FDA approved the vaccine without adequate testing for either safety or efficacy.
When the required testing hadn’t been done, or at least no report of it has been produced, the FDA allowed Merck to continue marketing the product.

When the study was finally published, it did not contain the documentation required by the original agreement.

In October 2009, shortly after the September 2009 deadline for reporting on the safety test had passed, the FDA actually expanded application of Gardasil to include boys.

To further exemplify the FDA’s utter lack of concern for the public’s health, the same document that granted approval to market Gardasil specified that efficacy against cervical cancer and prevention of the HPV variants included in the vaccine be monitored in a group of 5,500 Norwegian women. They are also supposed to investigate “pregnancy outcomes, especially congenital anomalies” in the study participants.

According to A summary of the post-licensure surveillance initiatives…, this study appears to be in process. But one must wonder how it will be adulterated, as the previous one was—and as the FDA clearly collaborated in the first study’s adulteration by providing a list of specific diseases to search for, rather than simply report on any and all adverse effects, how likely is it that December 31, 2018 will come and go with no study report or that the report, when it is produced, is done in a manner designed to give the false impression that Gardasil is safe?

Clearly, the FDA is not acting for the benefit of the people:

The FDA approved Gardasil without first making reasonable assurance that it was safe in anyone.
The FDA approved the mass use of Gardasil without having any information to indicate whether it will cause fetal harm. Remember thalidomide? Apparently, the FDA doesn’t.

The FDA turned their heads when Merck didn’t come up with the first safety study. They left Gardasil on the market.
The FDA approved Gardasil’s use in boys shortly after the first safety study wasn’t delivered. Can we assume that this approval was planned even before initial approval was given? It seems that the FDA was punked by Merck when it didn’t produce the trial, but went ahead with their approval plans anyway.
The FDA aided Merck in scamming the report of that first study by specifying conditions that weren’t those that people were reporting.
What more could we possibly need to know that the FDA is corrupt and should be disbanded?

Here is the FDA’s letter to Merck granting approval to market Gardasil and specifying the study requirements, which are highlighted in yellow, so you can scroll to them quickly:

June 8, 2006 Approval Letter – Human
Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11,
16, 18) Vaccine, Recombinant

June 8, 2006 Approval Letter – Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) Vaccine, Recombinant.pdf


Bedrock of vaccination theory crumbles as science reveals antibodies not necessary to fight viruses

Natural News, Mar. 27, 2012

While the medical, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries are busy pushing new vaccines for practically every condition under the sun, a new study published in the journal Immunity completely deconstructs the entire vaccination theory. It turns out that the body’s natural immune systems, comprised of both innate and adaptive components, work together to ward off disease without the need for antibody-producing vaccines.

The theory behind vaccines is that they mimic infection by spurring B cells, one of the two major types of white blood cells in the immune system, to produce antibodies as part of the adaptive immune system. It is widely believed that these vaccine-induced antibodies, which are part of the more specific adaptive immune system, teach the immune system how to directly respond to an infection before the body becomes exposed to it.

But the new research highlights the fact that innate immunity plays a significant role in fighting infections, and is perhaps more important than adaptive immunity at preventing or fighting infections. In tests, adaptive immune system antibodies were shown unable to fight infection by themselves, which in essence debunks the theory that vaccine-induced antibodies serve any legitimate function in preventing or fighting off infection.

Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity,” said Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School. “It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis.”

Full story

60 Lab Studies Now Confirm Cancer Link to a Vaccine You Probably Had as a Child

International Medical Council on Vaccination, Feb. 4, 2012

The HPV vaccine Gardasil, which is being vigorously pushed on unsuspecting young girls and women to theoretically guard against cervical cancer still has never been proven to actually prevent cancer. On the contrary, evidence suggests that under certain circumstances the vaccine increases your risk of precancerous lesions by nearly 45 percent, and an ever increasing number of girls are being seriously injured by this unnecessary vaccine.

As of December 13, 2010, 20,915 adverse reactions had been reported in the United States alone, including 89 deaths, 297 miscarriages or stillbirths, and 370 reports of abnormal pap smears post vaccination.

Making matters worse, as of 2009 the US FDA approved Gardasil for use on young boys as well, and the first male death has also been reported. In September of last year, a young boy died just eight days after being vaccinated with Gardasil.

Folks, this is a disaster in the making. I shudder to think about the statistics we’ll see in a few years if parents fall for this nonsense.

I urge you to consider the risks already revealed in the four short years since Gardasil came on the market. Already, there are close to 21,000 reported incidents of adverse effects and death, despite the fact that only two out of every 10 women in the approved age group have gotten the vaccine so far.

Full story

Scientists Say Delay Breastfeeding to ‘Improve’ Vaccine Potency

Natural Society, Jan. 20, 2012

Scientists are now recommending that mothers delay vital breastfeeding in order to ‘improve’ the effects of vaccinations, stating that consuming breast milk could hamper the potency of vaccinations such as the rotavirus injection. The authors state that the immune-boosting effects of breast milk could negatively affect the vaccine potency. Of course the authors make no mention of the relationship between vaccination and over 189 diseases as observed by peer-reviewed research.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases that anyone can freely read, scientists say that breastfeeding should be halted to improve vaccine effects (which include negative effects).

The advisory is specifically targeted towards developing and poor nations, as is the norm with massive vaccination campaigns funded by the likes of the Bill Gates Foundation and the United Nations. Perhaps most startling is the fact that children in these nations oftentimes rely on breast milk as the only source of quality nutrition, yet the recommendation states that this is a desirable effect. In fact, a weakened immune system is just what the scientists are looking for to increase the potency and ‘effectiveness’ of the vaccine.

Full story