Landmark case could allow injured persons to once again sue vaccine makers

(NaturalNews) Vaccines are implicated in causing all sorts of health damage, from neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimer's disease to intestinal problems like ulcerative colitis and Chron's disease -- and everything in between. And a vaccine injury case currently before the Supreme Court could be the landmark decision that once again allows those injured by vaccines to sue vaccine manufacturers for damages, a course of action that has been barred since 1986 because of special federal protections enacted to immunize vaccine manufacturers against having to abide by the rule of law.
Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages caused by their vaccines. The Act established an entirely new "legal" system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special "vaccine court" that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted.

The Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, for instance, the "vaccine courts" can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated.

But all that could change, depending on how the Supreme Court handles a case currently before it involving a young lady whose parents say she became permanently injured by a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine called Tri-Immunol that she received when she was a child. The Bruesewitz's say that Wyeth, the manufacturer of the DTP vaccine, knew about a safer version of the vaccine, but continued to sell the dangerous one anyway. Now their daughter Hannah requires costly, specialized care for the rest of her life.

The case was first rejected in "vaccine court" when just a month before the case was to be heard, the court removed all the reported severe injuries from the list of compensatory items. After then taking the case to civil courts, the Bruesewitz's were told that the case was automatically invalid because of the federal Vaccine Act. So now the case sits before the Supreme Court where, if determined in the Bruesewitz's favor, will set a new precedent whereby vaccine manufacturers will no longer be able to avert the rule of law.

The illegitimacy of 'vaccine court'

Much like the phony Internal Revenue Service (IRS) "tax courts", "vaccine courts" have no justifiable basis anywhere in the law. They serve as nothing more than a way for drug companies to avoid having to bear responsibility for the harm caused by their vaccines. Any other person or company must go through the standard legal process, but the federal Vaccine Act literally grants special legal immunity to vaccine makers that nobody else receives.

There are a few cases where "vaccine courts" have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but such cases are likely just a ploy to trick the public into thinking such courts are legitimate and lawful. Most cases are rejected by "vaccine court" and, even though plaintiffs can then take the case to civil courts, the process has been made very difficult because of the federal Vaccine Act.

Even though $154 million was paid in 2010 for "vaccine court" cases, that amount is a mere fraction of the overall profits vaccine companies rake in every year. And truth be told, vaccine manufacturers do not even pay such settlements.

Vaccine companies don't even injury settlements, the public does!

Of the few cases that are actually ruled in favor of injured plaintiffs in "vaccine courts", not a single one of them is paid for by the vaccine manufacturers that cause the harm. A special excise tax is collected when vaccines are sold to the public, which is later used as settlement compensation. This means that insurance companies and ultimately the public end up paying for vaccine settlements while the vaccine manufacturers get off scot-free!

So not only are vaccine manufacturers essentially exempted from the real legal system, but the mock legal system set up in their favor actually guards them from having to pay a single cent for damages caused by their products.

It's time to end the vaccine racket

Proponents of special legal protection for vaccine manufacturers say that it is necessary to protect them from "undue" litigation. But that is precisely what the real court system is for in the first place: to evaluate cases and determine whether or not a defendant is liable for damages. Setting up special "vaccine courts" that bypass due process is tyranny in the name of medicine, and it is simply unacceptable.

Because of "vaccine courts", the idea that vaccines are in any way related to causing autism has been dismissed all across the board, even though numerous studies and research data continue to suggest a connection (http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_a...). And in the case of Hannah Bruesewitz, the system permits gross negligence on the part of vaccine manufacturers to go unpunished, unless of course the Supreme Court decides to do the right thing.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/h...

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/suprem...

When it comes to health knowledge, doctors are surprisingly ignorant

(NaturalNews) America is a nation of widespread health and nutritional illiteracy. And I'm not just talking about the knowledge gaps of health consumers, either. It's the doctors and health 'experts' who have astonishing gaps in knowledge that should be considered basic health information in any first-world nation.

Parents, too, lack any real literacy in nutrition and health. That's largely because medical journals, health authorities and the mass media actively misinform them about health and nutrition issues, hoping to prevent people from learning how to take care of their own health using simple, natural remedies and cures."
Here are some shocking examples of the huge gaps in knowledge among doctors, parents and others...

What your doctor doesn't know might actually harm you

• Most doctors have little or no understanding of the nutritional difference between LIVE foods and DEAD foods. Most doctors think they're nutritional identical!

• Most conventional doctors don't know that the NIH actively funded and operated criminal medical experiments on human prisoners (http://www.naturalnews.com/029920_U...).

• Most parents have no idea that processed meats (bacon, sausage, sandwich ham, etc.) are laced with the sodium nitrite coloring chemical that promotes aggressive brain, pancreas and colon cancers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/007024.html).

• Most doctors have no idea that seasonal flu vaccines are little more than quackery and simply don't offer any real protection against the flu. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...)

• Very few parents know the difference between the words "natural" and "organic" on food labels. Most parents just think "natural" means "organic" and so they buy more products that claim to be natural (even when the word means nothing).

• Few doctors realize that statin drugs were engineered from a molecule called lovastatin, found naturally in red yeast rice. The drug companies pirated the molecule from nature (biopiracy), then patented it. Then they pressured the FDA to declare that red yeast rice was an "adulterated" supplemented because -- get this -- it naturally contains the drug they stole from it!

• Most parents are completely befuddled by the nutritional claims of infant formula. They are astonishingly unaware that some of the most popular infant formula products such as Similac are made with over 50% sugars (http://www.naturalnews.com/029863_S...).

• Virtually no one outside the natural health community knows that soy protein is extracted using a toxic, explosive chemical called hexane. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026303_s...)

• Very few people know that the carmine food coloring used in fruit punch drinks and strawberry yogurt is actually made from smashed red beetles (http://www.naturalnews.com/002043.html).

• Most doctors remain completely unaware of the anti-cancer nutrients found in celery, grapefruit, cabbage and chocolate. They tend to believe that medicine comes from laboratories, not food.

• Very few parents are aware that processed milk and dairy products promote obesity, heart disease and acne in their teenage children. Astonishingly, most adults have been fooled into thinking that yogurt is good for them because it contains probiotics (never mind the homogenized milk fats).

• Most people of all ages, come to think of it, believe that frozen yogurt is somehow good for them, even though it's really just processed ice cream sprinkled with probiotic powder (http://www.naturalnews.com/029038_f...).

• Most doctors are completely unaware of the health dangers of aspartame and MSG and make no attempt to educate their patients about avoiding these excitotoxins.

• Most people don't know that if you sign up as an organ donor, literally millions of dollars may be made off your body parts while your organs go to murderers! (http://www.naturalnews.com/029296_o...) Also, if you're an organ donor recipient, you may receive a cancer-ridden, diseased organ as your "new" transplant. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027353_h...)

• Think cooking on non-stick cookware is safe? Most people have no idea that non-stick cookware surfaces are made of highly toxic chemicals, and if you heat a non-stick pan on the stove, it will actually off-gas enough toxic chemicals to kill your pet parakeet (this is not a myth).

• Very few doctors know that the human body has a second brain. It's located in your gut, and it's a highly complex mass of interconnected neurons that give real "intelligence" to your digestion and your interactions with food. There's even a book called The Second Brain (http://www.amazon.com/Second-Brain-...) that explains how it works.

• A typical conventional doctor cannot tell you the health benefits of blueberries -- even though blueberries can make statin drugs obsolete for many people! Most naturopaths, however, are well aware of the benefits of blueberries and may even prescribe them to you.

• Most doctors DO know the truth about how toxic chemotherapy is for patients, but they won't tell patients the details of what they know. It turns out that 91% of oncologists would not choose chemotherapy for themselves. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029996_c...)

This list could continue, of course. There are seemingly countless examples of extreme gaps in the knowledge of doctors who should frankly know better.

Med school graduates get an "F" in health

So why do conventional medical doctors remain so ignorant of the basics of human health and nutrition? Because medical schools don't teach health. They teach disease, surgery and pharmacology. They offer virtually no material on nutrition, disease prevention or mind-body medicine, so the doctors that graduate from medical school are nutritionally illiterate and lacking basic health knowledge.

Yet, at the same time, they are being told that they know everything about health and the human body, so they suffer from the most dangerous combination of all: A smug, know-it-all attitude combined with far-reaching health illiteracy. This is one of the key reasons why America's health care system is such an utter failure -- the people who are supposed to possess more health knowledge than everybody else are the very same people who actually lack it. In a sense, they have been "de-educated" by medical schools and come out knowing less than they did when they entered med school.

I'm not the only one who thinks this. In fact, you'll find some of these concerns reflected by other doctors who are appalled at the arrogance and health illiteracy of their own peers. For example, a commentary published in the July 14 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) features Dr. Pronovost, a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explaining how physician arrogance is killing tens of thousands of patients across America today. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029350_d...)

Holistically-trained doctors who went way beyond medical school and taught themselves principles of nutrition often describe their own conventional medical school training as wildly inadequate. Dr Andrew Weil, for example, famously describes his conventional medicine colleagues as "nutritionally illiterate."

And he's right. Most conventional doctors are nutritionally illiterate. So are most parents. And if we wish to change the health future of America, this situation obviously needs to change. Nutrition should be the foundation of med school training, not an afterthought.

You can't create a healthy nation if the people practicing medicine don't know much about health and nutrition themselves.

Get your children away from the TV - Physical fitness makes smarter brains

(NaturalNews) Want to raise healthy and smart children? Then don't allow them to be couch potatoes. Exercise, it turns out, does more than benefit the body and overall health -- physical fitness builds smarter brains in youngsters, too.

That's the news from a study just published in the journal Brain Research. Scientists used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the relative size of specific structures in the brains of 49 children, all of whom were 9 or 10 years old. The research team discovered that the hippocampus (part of the brain inside the temporal lobe that plays an important part in memory and learning) tended to be significantly larger in the kids who were physically fit. What's more, the fit children performed better on a memory test than youngsters the same age who were out of shape.

"This is the first study I know of that has used MRI measures to look at differences in brains between kids who are fit and kids who aren't fit. Beyond that, it relates those measures of brain structure to cognition," University of Illinois psychology professor and Beckman Institute director Art Kramer said in a statement to the media. Dr. Kramer headed the study along with doctoral student Laura Chaddock and kinesiology and community health professor Charles Hillman.

The researchers zeroed in on the hippocampus because it has long been known this brain structure is intricately involved in both learning and memory and that a larger hippocampus is associated with better performance on spatial reasoning and other cognitive tasks. Moreover, previous research in older adults and animals has shown that exercise can increase the size of the hippocampus.

For the new study, the University of Illinois scientists measured the children's physical fitness levels by seeing how efficiently the youngsters used oxygen while running on a treadmill. "The physically fit children were much more efficient than the less-fit children at utilizing oxygen," Dr. Kramer noted.

When the researchers analyzed the MRI data on the young research subjects, they found the fit kids tended to have significantly larger hippocampal volume. In fact, this part of the physical fit kids' brains was a whopping 12 percent bigger, relative to total brain size, than the hippocampus in out-of-shape youngsters. What's more, the children who were in better physical condition also scored higher on tests of relational memory (the ability to remember and integrate various types of information) than their less-fit peers.

"Higher fit children had higher performance on the relational memory task, higher fit children had larger hippocampal volumes, and in general, children with larger hippocampal volumes had better relational memory," Dr. Chaddock concluded in the media statement.

"We knew that experience and environmental factors and socioeconomic status all impact brain development," Dr. Kramer added. "If you get some lousy genes from your parents, you can't really fix that, and it's not easy to do something about your economic status. But here's something that we can do something about."

Bottom line: getting children out of the house and playing sports, biking or being physically active in other ways could have an important effect on brain development and even intelligence.

For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

5 toxics that are everywhere: Protect yourself - CNN

May 31, 2010|By David S. Martin, Senior Medical Producer

A growing body of research is linking five chemicals -- among the most common in the world -- to a host of ailments, including cancer, sexual problems and behavioral issues.

We encounter them every day -- in plastic bottles, storage containers, food wrap, cans, cookware, appliances, carpets, shower curtains, clothes, personal care products, furniture, television sets, electronics, bedding, cushions and mattresses. In short, every room in almost every house in the United States is likely to contain at least one of these chemicals, many of which did not exist a century ago.

They are bisphenol A, or BPA; phthalates; PFOA; formaldehyde; and polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PDBEs. Tests reveal most of us now carry them in our bodies, but are they putting our health -- and the health of our children -- in jeopardy?

Here's what you should know about:

BPA - Bisphenol A

What it does: BPA is a building block of a lightweight, clear, heat-resistant and almost unbreakable plastic called polycarbonate. It's also used in epoxy resins.

Where it's found: Water bottles, baby bottles, reusable food containers, plastic tableware, infant feeding cups, linings of infant formula cans and other cans, jar lids, CDs, electrical and electronic equipment, dental sealants.

How we're exposed: Eating food or drinking liquids stored in containers containing BPA. Infants and small children may also be exposed from hand to mouth contact with materials containing BPA. BPA also migrates from dental sealants into patients' mouths. Fetuses are exposed in the womb by their mothers. Almost everyone has been exposed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found BPA in the urine of 93 percent of the people it tested.

Health effects: The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, says exposure is so low there are no ill health effects. A new five-year Kaiser Permanente study of Chinese factory workers found higher BPA exposure linked to reduced male sexual function. This research joins a growing body of research on animals that suggests BPA poses a potential cancer risk and may mimic the female hormone estrogen and disrupt the extremely sensitive chemical signals in the body called the endocrine system. According to the Food and Drug Administration, these studies suggest BPA could affect "the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and young children."
Regulation: BPA is an Environmental Protection Agency "chemical of concern," one of five substances the agency has targeted for increased scrutiny and potential new regulation. (The others are phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, PBDEs, and perfluorinated chemicals including PFOA.)

The Food and Drug Administration allows BPA in flexible food packaging.

What you can do to reduce exposure: Buy stainless steel bottles and glass food storage containers. If you buy plastic, check for the recycle number on the bottom. If there is a number 7, assume the container contains BPA unless it explicitly says otherwise. Switch to fresh or frozen vegetables instead of canned. Other precautions include not microwaving or putting hot liquids in BPA plastic containers and throwing away baby bottles and feeding cups that are scratched.

Phthalates

What they do: This family of chemicals softens plastics. They also are used to bind chemicals together.

Where they're found: Shampoos, conditioners, body sprays, hair sprays, perfumes, colognes, soap, nail polish, shower curtains, medical tubing, IV bags, vinyl flooring and wall coverings, food packaging and coatings on time-release pharmaceuticals.

How we're exposed: Absorbed into the body through personal care products, ingested in drugs, on food, in water and dust. Infants can be exposed through infant care products like baby shampoos, lotions and powders. Fetuses are exposed in the womb. Virtually everyone is exposed to phthalates.

Health effects: A new study by the Mount Sinai Center for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research found a statistical association between prenatal exposure to phthalates and incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder years later. Phthalates are considered endocrine disrupters, and studies have shown a statistical association between phthalate exposure and male sexual development. Research has also shown phthalates disrupt reproductive development of male laboratory animals.

Regulation: Phthalates are an EPA "chemical of concern." The FDA allows for plastic containing phthalate in flexible food packaging. The U.S. government last year banned or restricted six phthalates for use in children's toys and children's products.
What you can do to reduce exposure: Avoid shampoos, conditioners and other personal care products that list "fragrance" as an ingredient. These may contain phthalates. (Companies are not required to disclose the ingredients in their scents, and the industry says this phthalate is safe.) The federal government recently ended one source of exposure, banning the sale of toys containing any of six phthalates.

PFOA -- Perfluorooctanoic acid (also called C8)

What it does: PFOA is used to make Teflon and thousands of other nonstick and stain- and water-repellent products.

Where they're found: PFOA is present in Teflon and other nonstick or stain- and water-repellent coatings as a trace impurity. These coatings are used on cookware, waterproof breathable clothing, furniture and carpets and in a myriad of industrial applications. PFOA can also be produced by the breakdown of these products.

How we're exposed: Inhaling contaminated air, eating contaminated food and drinking contaminated water. Some researchers say nonstick pans give off PFOA vapors, which contaminate food.

Health effects: Almost everyone has PFOA in his or her blood. PFOA causes cancer and developmental problems in laboratory animals. The EPA concludes research on PFOA is "suggestive of carcinogenicity but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential."

Regulation: PFOA is an EPA "chemical of concern."

What you can do to reduce exposure: The EPA does not recommend any steps to reduce exposure to PFOA. You can reduce potential exposure by using stainless steel or cast iron cookware. If you use nonstick cookware, do not overheat, which releases toxic gas.

Formaldehyde

What it does: Formaldehyde is an ingredient in resins that act as a glue in the manufacture of pressed wood products.

Where it's found: Pressed wood products such as particle board, plywood, paneling and fiberboard; also, glues and adhesives and durable press fabrics like drapes.

How we're exposed: Breathing "off-gassing" from products containing formaldehyde. Car exhaust and cigarette smoke also contain formaldehyde.

Health effects: Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen, causing cancers of the respiratory or gastrointestinal tract. Formaldehyde fumes can also cause nausea, skin irritation, watery eyes, or burning eyes, nose and throat.
What you can do to reduce exposure: Buying furniture free from formaldehyde eliminates much of the exposure we face from the chemical. One option to reduce "off-gassing": purchase "exterior grade" pressed-wood products, which emit formaldehyde at significantly lower rates. If you have wood products containing formaldehyde, increase ventilation, reduce humidity with air conditioning or dehumidifiers and keep your home cool.

PBDEs - Polybrominated diphenyl ethers

What they do: PBDEs are a group of chemicals used as flame retardants, meaning they reduce the chance of something catching fire and slow how fast it burns when it does catch fire.

Where they're found: PBDEs are found in televisions, computers and wire insulation, and furniture foam. Over time, televisions and other products shed PBDEs, which accumulate in dust. More than 124 million pounds of PBDEs are produced annually worldwide and they do not break down easily.

How we're exposed: Swallowing PBDE-contaminated dust and contact with this dust are the primary routes into our bodies, where they collect in fat tissue. We can also be exposed through food and water. Breast-feeding infants are exposed to PBDEs through their mother's milk and have the highest exposure compared to their body weight, followed by infants and toddlers, according to the data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Levels in humans have been rising rapidly since PBDEs were introduced in the 1960s and '70s.

Health effects: PBDEs accumulate in the body. Toxicology tests show PDBEs may damage the liver and kidneys and affect the brain and behavior, according to the EPA.

Regulation: In December, the EPA named PBDEs "chemicals of concern."

What you can do to reduce exposure: Try to find products without PBDE flame retardants and be sure to sweep up dust.

Bullied Schoolgirl Holly Stuckey, 12, Dies In Her Father's Arms

10:15pm UK, Wednesday October 06, 2010
Lulu Sinclair, Sky News Online
A 12-year-old girl collapsed and died in her father's arms after apparently suffering months of bullying.


Holly Stuckey went to Maesteg Comprehensive in Brigend
Holly Stuckey, of Bridgend, South Wales, who suffered from asthma, died after coming home from Maesteg Comprehensive School complaining of chest pains."
While her death is not being treated as suspicious, police are looking at the circumstances surrounding it.
After she died, Holly's parents, Clive and Lee, found hidden letters written by their daughter, giving details of months of misery.
Her father, a care worker, passed copies of the letters to police with the names of 13 children he claims were involved in her torment.
Keith Edwards, chairman of school governors, said police have "categorically" ruled out bullying as a factor in Holly's death.
"Obviously, these people are really, really hurting. It is such a tragic thing to happen to a 12-year-old girl. We have the greatest of sympathy for them," he said.
"As a school, bullying was never something flagged up to us. It is impossible to react to something that you do not know about."
He described Holly as a "lovely, lovely child" whose death had upset everyone at the school.
"But the police have said that there is no link to bullying in any shape or form. They have looked at the letters. I looked at one of them myself yesterday morning."
He said the letter he had seen seemed like "quite a morose song" and songwriting was something for which Holly was know to have a talent.
He added: "Of course, bullying does happen in all schools. Children can be very cruel, unfortunately.
"But it can often take place outside the school, going and coming, and that is not something we can ever see.
"But this is such an unbelievable tragedy."