Watch this video by Dr. Mercola to see why getting the flu shot makes no sense. Some reasons include:

The majority of the 30,000 “scare” flu deaths are really pneumonia related deaths and the flu only causes about 1,000 deaths a year.

Of the million who get the flu, most are elderly with compromised immune systems and more susceptible to pneumonia

Numerous studies report that the flu vaccine will not protect against pneumonia (obviously) and no study conclusively proves that the flu vaccine protects against the flu either.

Prevention is a much safer and saner way to avoid getting the flu in the first place. Please watch Dr. Mercola’s video for proven advice on health tips such as Vitamin D intake that will boost your immune system and protect against the flu naturally.

From the article:

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

• 12,000 — unnecessary surgery 8
• 7,000 — medication errors in hospitals 9
• 20,000 — other errors in hospitals 10
• 80,000 — infections in hospitals 10
• 106,000 — non-error, negative effects of drugs 2
• These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:

• First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
• Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
• Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.

If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

Another analysis (11) concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings, with:

• 116 million extra physician visits
• 77 million extra prescriptions
• 17 million emergency department visits
• 8 million hospitalizations
• 3 million long-term admissions
• 199,000 additional deaths
• $77 billion in extra costs

Click here to read the full article

A Kentucky woman sued her a doctor for branding her uterus with the initials of his Alma mater during an operation to remove the organ. Stephanie Means alleged that while Dr. James Guiler performed the hysterectomy at Central Baptist Hospital in Lexington, he “used a cauterizing instrument to intentionally brand the letters ‘UK,’ approximately 4-5 cm in height, on Plaintiff Stephanie Means’s uterus.”

Means’s lawsuit noted that since she and her husband were apprehensive about the surgery, Guiler filmed the procedure and gave the couple a copy of the videotape, which, the Fayette Circuit Court lawsuit stated, “clearly showed the instrument being used to brand Stephanie’s uterus.” Apparently, 9 other women came forward and said the doctor had done the same to their uterus.

Sheryl’s comment:
There are so many doctors out there that treat patients like objects rather than human beings. One of the reasons I have always hated going to the doctor is simply that they refuse to honor an appointment time, refuse to listen to what you are saying and then dismiss you like you are an annoyance rather than a paying customer.

To me this video shows very graphically that you need to respect yourself first and do everything humanly possible through fitness, nutrition and alternative therapies to avoid going to a modern medical doctor at all costs. Do you believe that women being objectified by the medical profession is the exception or the rule?

What if the claim of preventing HPV is far fetched or even totally misleading in many cases? What if the vaccine actually caused more precancerous lesions in some women? What if HPV is not really a terrible disease but an extremely common virus that most people contract and get over rather quickly without incident? What if HPV doesn’t even cause cervical cancer? Would you still take the vaccine? Would you still make your daughter take it?

All cancer is serious business and people will do what they can to avoid getting it. As far as survival rates go, however, cervical cancer is one of the most favorable. It is very easy and inexpensive to detect, it can take up to 20 years to develop (which gives 8-20 pap smears a chance to catch it) and is due to the accessibility of the cervix, it is much easier to treat that many other types of cancer.

Cervical cancer is also very rare at only about 1 in 135 women (vs 1 in 8 women who will get breast cancer). There are many risk factors for cervical cancer including poor nutrition (specifically lack of folate and vitamin A), oral contraceptives, smoking and a weakened immune system. These are all very simple lifestyle choices that are very easy to change if a person is truly interested in avoiding cervical cancer or any other cancer for that matter. (Perhaps it seems easier to get a shot than to quit smoking?)

In addition to cervical cancer being very rare to contract and very easy to diagnose, the prognosis is excellent relative to other cancers: The survival rate for cervical cancer with early detection is over 90%. “With treatment, 80 to 90% of women with stage I cancer and 50 to 65% of those with stage II cancer are alive 5 years after diagnosis. Only 25 to 35% of women with stage III cancer and 15% or fewer of those with stage IV cancer are alive after 5 years.” (Wikipedia)

So what we have here is a cancer that very rare, easy to diagnose, easy to treat and has an incredible survival rate. Those facts are small comfort to the 4,000 (or less) women in the US who die from cervical cancer every year. Who wouldn’t want to be one less? If the vaccine can lower the death rate, then what can it hurt, right? It might hurt if HPV does not even cause cervical cancer.

As it turns out, no one has ever proven that HPV actually causes cervical cancer. They have identified an almost 100% correlation between HPV and cervical cancer. In other words, HPV cells are found in virtually all cervical cancers, but that does not mean that HPV caused it. In fact, in 2003, the FDA admitted that they know that HPV does not cause cervical cancer and Natural News uncovered the FDA documents to prove it.

“Since at least 2003, the FDA has changed its position on the relationship between Human Papilloma Virus and cervical cancer, stating that the HPV strain is “not associated with cervical cancer.” Natural News

Researchers do know that sexual history seems to play a large role in cervical cancer. Nuns, for example rarely get cervical cancer unless they were sexually active before they entered the convent. The risk of cervical cancer also seems to go up in relation to the number of sex partners a woman has. The most interesting finding of all, is that the second wives of men whose first wives died of cervical cancer are more likely to get cervical cancer themselves. (Wikipedia)

It seems fairly logical to conclude that cervical cancer could be caused by the sperm, a variety of semen or something abnormal in the ejaculate of certain males. Since 80% of women have HPV by the time they are 50 and less than 1% of women contract cervical cancer then certainly there must be more to the story than only HPV. In fact, one study did find that prostglandins in semen fuel the growth of cervical and uterine tumors. (Wikipedia)

In 1992, 2 molecular biologists at the University of California at Berkely proposed that HPV is a marker rather than a cause of cervical cancer. “In short, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibility that “carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV or HSV.” And here’s the key point: “Since proliferating cells [cancer cells dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would just be indicators rather than causes of abnormal proliferation.”: …..and from the same article, “Even the National Cancer Institute (NCI) says that “direct” causation has not been demonstrated” Mercola.com

So maybe the vaccine will not make you “one less” if there is something else about sex that causes cervical cancer but HPV must be a really horrible thing to contract, right? Shouldn’t we still do everything we can to avoid this terrible virus? Not really. Over 3/4 of the population has HPV and it is rarely a problem. HPV normally cures itself in healthy women.

• The large majority of people cure themselves (usually without ever knowing that they had been infected). Average length of time from infection to cure is about 8 months. Most times, if low risk HPV is detected in a woman without symptoms, we would recommend only “watchful waiting” as treatment.
• Early changes on the cervix which could lead to cancer are nearly always discovered on Pap tests.
• Warts, if they develop, are usually treatable.
• The HPV virus is so common that it can almost be considered normal to have it. (Health.rutgers.edu)

Persistent infections of HPV only occur when the host female is already in an unhealthy, low immunity state. Interestingly, this unhealthy state is the same prime environment for cancer to take hold forty or fifty years later.

Let’s reiterate: We are vaccinating young, healthy girls against a virus that is extremely common, essentially harmless and goes away on its own and it has never been proven to cause a cancer that is very rare, easy to diagnose and treat and has a magnificent survival rate. Hmmmmm. There must be a great reason to drop $400 on this vaccination! What could it be?

OK, let’s say for sake of argument that HPV might cause cervical cancer (even though it has never been proven and the FDA claims it does not). On the off chance that it is in fact the cause of cervical cancer, then maybe we should get in line for this wonderful vaccine? What could it hurt? Shouldn’t we err on the side of caution?

Well, as it turns out there is a lot to be afraid of from the vaccine itself. As of October 2007, there have been almost 3,500 reported adverse reactions to Gardasil, including 11 deaths and 347 serious reactions. Keep in mind that historically, adverse reactions are seriously underreported both from the patients and more importantly the doctors who take the information after the fact and have a moral and ethical responsibility to report such reactions but for some reason ($$$$) fail to do so.

• “Information has been received … concerning a 17 year old female who in June 2007 … was vaccinated with a first dose of Gardasil … During the evening of the same day, the patient was found unconscious (lifeless) by the mother. Resuscitation was performed by the emergency physician but was unsuccessful. The patient subsequently died.”
• “Information has been received … concerning a 12 year old female with a history of aortic and mitral valve insufficiency … who on 01-MAR-2007 was vaccinated IM into the left arm with a first does of Gardasil … On 01-MAR-2007 the patient presented to the ED with ventricular tachycardia and died.”
• “Initial and follow-up information has been received from a physician concerning an ‘otherwise healthy’ 13 year old female who was vaccinated with her first and second doses of Gardasil. Subsequently, the patient experienced … paralysis from the chest down, lesions of the optic nerve…At the time of the report, the patient had not recovered.”
• One earlier report, No. 275438-1, describes the reaction as coronary artery thrombosis, sudden cardiac death. “Given Gardasil vaccine dose #1 3/12/07. Collapsed and died on 3/26/07… Echocardiogram revealed very enlarged right ventricle, small left ventricle as well as large blood clots within both the right atrium & right ventricle.”
• Another report noted that the woman was vaccinated and “died of a blood clot 8 hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine.” (WorldNetDaily)

That is eleven deaths. Maybe Gardasil’s slogan should be “One More” not “One Less”. In addition to the needless deaths, there are also cases of permanent disability such as paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures. Gardasil can also cause serious complications if given to pregnant women or girls, including spontaneous abortion (c’mon Merck, what is it, one less or one more??) and serious fetal abnormalities. In fact, as of October 2007, of the 77 women who were pregnant when they received the vaccine, 33 had adverse reactions. That is almost half.

Gardasil is clearly not to be given to pregnant women, ever, under any circumstances. It should also not be given to women or girls who are sexually active at all. Why? Because they have already been exposed to HPV and the vaccine only works on women/girls who have never been exposed. In fact, Gardasil has been proven to activate dormant HPV in girls who already carry the virus causing an increase in precancerous lesions by almost 44%.

Gardasil is worthless for sexually active girls and women because they have most likely been exposed to HPV and could potentially be pregnant which creates serious risks for their fetus, including death. If Gardasil can only be given to virgins, how can that be proved? Should 9 year old girls submit to a pelvic exam to search for a hymen so Merck can make $400? Shouldn’t their sexual status be their business? Don’t they have a basic right to privacy? Maybe these 9 year old girls should simply undergo a pelvic swab for the presence of HPV. Is that more appropriate? Will Merck be responsible for parental reactions when the girl’s sexual status has been exposed?

“Clearly, this kind of patient questioning crosses all kinds of ethical barriers when such vaccinations are made mandatory (as they have been made in Texas). It puts the State in the positioning of ascertaining the sexual habits of very young teenage girls and then potentially causing them harm. It’s not hard to suppose that most sexually active teenage girls would claim to still be virgins (especially if their parents were present), creating a situation where vaccines would be routinely administered to precisely the HPV carrier subgroups for which it has been demonstrated to greatly increase the risk of precancerous lesions.” Natural News

And why on earth is Merck (and the supporting states) recommending or mandating this vaccine for all girls up to 26 years of age? Why aren’t they simply saying to get the vaccine before you are sexually active? Why isn’t it common knowledge that the vaccine is potentially dangerous for sexually active women? Because there are millions of girls and young women that will submit to this vaccine in the hopes that it will prevent cancer much later in life and most of them have already had sex. Each one of those girls represents $400. It is crazy profits when multiplied by millions of trusting girls. Since when do the drug companies really care about death or disability? It is simply collateral damage, the cost of doing business.

Lastly, there is one more hole in the argument for Gardasil. Even if there is a chance that HPV causes this cancer that is very easy to diagnose and treat and has a phenomenal survival rate, and even if HPV was not a relatively benign virus that everybody gets and most people get over in a few months, then maybe we should at least vaccinate all of our virgins, right? It would be unethical, wrong, dangerous and a tremendous waste of resources to vaccinate women and girls who are already sexually active, but the virgins can still be protected!

Here is the biggest problem of all with Gardasil. It is only good for 4-6 years. If you give it to a nine year old then we all hope she will still be a virgin in 4 years, right? So if a girl remains a virgin then Gardasil was totally worthless. If a virgin gets the vaccine and then has her first sexual experience the very next day (how fortuitous), then she will in fact, be protected from HPV for the next few years. This is the only case where HPV actually does what it is supposed to do. What if the girl is 16 when she gets vaccinated and has sex for the first time the very next day and the vaccine is effective until she is 20 or 22? Then what? What about the next 30+ years that she is sexually active? She is already sexually active so she cannot and should not under any circumstances get the vaccine again because she was already exposed to HPV and it could increase her likelihood of precancerous lesions. She could also potentially be pregnant and since Gardasil causes permanent and irreparable damage to almost 50% of the fetuses that it comes in contact with, then it would be murder to take it, right?

How much protection from cervical cancer do you think that 4-6 years of protection from HPV will offer that girl who had her first sexual experience the day after she received the Gardasil vaccine? Most women do not get cervical cancer until they are in their 50s. So does 4 years of immunity (from a benign virus that does not cause cervical cancer) when a girl is in her teens, protect her against cervical cancer in her 50s?

Gardasil only went through 3 1/2 years of testing and many experts question the findings (Mercola). It has not been proven to prevent any cancer at any time, only to protect women against HPV if they had never been exposed to it before. The risks of Gardasil are tremendous and widespread. The risks of HPV and cervical cancer are not. While all deaths from cervical cancer are tragic and not to be minimized, we should use those numbers as a platform to encourage healthy living and regular pap smears which are the real force behind the wonderful survival rates of cervical cancer.

If you are really interested in preventing cervical cancer, then optimize your fitness and nutrition levels (yes this is a bit more difficult than getting a shot but it actually works). Gets tons of fresh air, sunshine, vitamins and minerals. Minimize stress, stay happy and laugh. Try herbs that will bolster your immune system like Reishi mushrooms, bee propolis, and, echinacea. Cervical cancer seems to have a link to promiscuity so respecting yourself rather than freely giving yourself away should give you an advantage against cervical cancer as well as keeping your self esteem intact.

If you are really interested in avoiding HPV then either abstain or use a condom. Abstinence only works as long as you practice it obviously, but used in conjunction with carefully choosing your partners, it may limit your risk somewhat. Condom use has been shown to protect against HPV transmission to some extent but it is not foolproof and only lowers your risk by about 50%. If you are sexually active you can choose your partners wisely and use a condom but there is still a great chance you will contract HPV despite your efforts.

A better goal than avoiding infection, is avoiding persistent infection by following the same healthy lifestyle tips that will help prevent cervical cancer in the long run. In addition, if you need to treat a persistent case of HPV, many people take anti-viral susbtances both orally and topically with good results such as garlic, tea tree and Neem oil. Some other anti-viral herbs are Grapefruit seed extract, olive leaf extract, lemon balm, oil of oregano, lauric acid in coconut oil, and rosemary oil. Many people swear by Miracle II soap as well, which also contains a number of natural anti-viral ingredients.

I welcome comments from anyone who feels my logic and conclusions are way off base. Maybe you still believe that HPV is a terrible virus and four years of protection is worth the risks of the vaccine. Maybe you believe that cervical cancer isn’t rare, easy to diagnose or treat. Maybe you even have scientific evidence that HPV actually causes cervical cancer or maybe you believe Gardasil is truly safe (and the adverse reactions and deaths were caused by something else). Maybe you simply think that vaccinations are our civic duty and we should vaccinate ourselves and our loved ones whenever the government and/or Big Pharma suggests it (my favorite argument). If you believe any of this, please leave a comment, I would love to hear from you.

Here is a video playlist consisting of three youtube videos on the dangers of Gardasil in case you are still not convinced:

About 15 years ago my friend, a self avowed health nut loaned me a tape based on a presentation by Dr. Joe Wallach extolling the virtues of natural healing and the alternatives available to us. His estimate is that we have the ability to live 120-140 years. Before you roll your eyes, let me give you some background information on Dr. Wallach.

Joe Wallach grew up on a farm in the Midwest and questioned the different way farmers cared for their livestock as opposed to how we humans cared for ourselves because he noted that livestock never came down with the same illnesses as humans because farmers always found ways to prevent disease with nutrition. Dr. Wallach went on to study agriculture and eventually became a Veterinarian. He worked in Africa with Marlin Perkins of Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom for 2 years specializing in the treatment of rhinos and elephants. During that time, a special grant was setup to study the effects of the environment on animals at the St. Louis Zoo, and subsequently other zoos in the area. Over the next 12 years, Dr. Wallach performed 17,500 autopsies on animals and 3,000 on people that lived in the area.

His next stage in life was what he described as a “license to kill”, he became a Physician. In the course of his practice, he wrote seventy-five scientific articles, wrote 8 multi-author textbooks plus one on his own, 1700 newspaper interviews television appearances and the gamut of media, but his message of applying the same successful dietary knowledge of preventative nutrition used for animals to humans fell on deaf ears. That was in the 1960s, fortunately more people are listening today, and we generally call them liberals.

Dr. Wallach challenged conventional medicine and supported his hypothesis that the average lifespan of the population during his studies was 75.5 years of age while that of a medical doctor was only 58. In his studies, he learned that the main difference in longevity was that people who received their water supply from glaciers or had their fields flooded, both sources depositing and re enriching mineral depleted soil, received the essential nutrients, improving their health, and ultimately their longevity. The primary reason for the increased longevity in areas with mineral rich soils is because our bodies need about 90 nutrients and they are most readily available through plants grown in this wonderful soil. Most soil throughout the world is tremendously depleted so Dr. Wallach strongly recommends supplementing our diet, specifically with colloidal minerals (the only kind we can readily absorb)

Some of his conclusions were:

• A senior that dies, after a fall in fact dies form osteoporosis

• Arthritis can be cured by ingesting cartilage
• Kidney stones are caused by a calcium deficiency.
• A copper deficiency will cause grey hair, skin wrinkles and other aging symptoms
• Diabetes, Cardio Myopathy, Alzheimer’s, cancer and even male pattern baldness are preventable through diet and nutrition

I deal extensively with seniors and quite often I am amazed when I ask health related questions and look at their lifestyles. Approximately half of them have the triple American whammy: diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol. Looking around at their environment there is an abundance of processed food, cakes, ice cream, white bread and the smell of grease, evidence of their cooking habits. They have obviously put their faith in the ability of their medications to keep them alive. As they get older, the dosages increase and their livers and kidneys need even more drugs to make them work. The other half of seniors I meet are remarkably disease free, have diets rich in fruit and vegetables and exercise on a regular basis.

Recently, I listened to a talk radio show and the topic focused on African Americans in the southern states, notably Georgia, who regularly ate small amounts of dirt. I have also read that poor Hatian people sometimes make cookies out of dirt that are duly baked and consumed, supposedly to stave off hunger. This is known as pica and originated in Africa, more as a dietary supplement. . This condition also occurs during pregnancy as the body’s way of getting needed minerals for the developing fetus. According to Dr. Wallach, our bodies will let us know to a large extent what we need, we just need to learn how to listen and that is where his conclusions are so important. We as humans have the ability to make choices (unlike the farm animals), unfortunately we seem to look for the easy path, not addressing the underlying causes.

You can learn more about the work of Dr. Wallach through this link or you can purchase his book, Dead Doctors Don’t Lie at Amazon.com.