Thursday, July 27, 2017

ARE WE GETTING TOO MUCH VITAMIN D?

Are Americans Really Getting Too Much Vitamin D? A Critical Look at Recent Media Warnings

  •       
  • July 03, 2017 • 182,542 views


Story at-a-glance
  • A recent study claims many Americans are taking dangerously high doses of vitamin D, warning 4,000 IUs/day is the recommended max and that anything above this can lead to calcifications and other health problems
  • Indeed, it is important to maintain not only the proper balance of vitamin D and calcium, but also magnesium and vitamin K2. Lack of balance between these nutrients is what causes symptoms of vitamin D toxicity
  • The study’s authors assume the vitamin D dosage recommended by the National Academy of Medicine is scientifically substantiated. In reality, it underestimates vitamin D needs by a factor of 10, due to a mathematical error that has never been corrected



By Dr. Mercola
Over the past couple of decades, tens of thousands of studies have evaluated the benefits of vitamin D, linking low blood levels to a whole host of chronic health conditions. In fact, this site was one of the leaders helping to catalyze interest in vitamin D over 15 years ago. Today, many doctors have finally caught on and are taking vitamin D seriously; testing their patients and recommending supplementation when necessary. The progress made makes the present backlash all the more shocking and disappointing.
"Many Americans Taking Too Much Vitamin D," Reuters recently announced.1 "More people than ever are taking way too much vitamin D," Popular Science declared, adding, "You may have a deficiency, but overdosing isn't the answer."2 ABC News warned its viewers that taking more than 4,000 international units (IUs) of vitamin D is "far above safe levels," and could potentially cause heart disease.3Ditto for Consumer Affairs4 and many others.5,6
Where is this coming from? If you've followed the progression of vitamin D science, you will be aware of the fact that recommended vitamin D levels — and the dosages typically needed to achieve those levels if you're not getting regular sun exposure — have dramatically risen over the years.
Researchers have also pointed out a basic mathematical flaw that led to vitamin D recommendations being underestimated by a factor of 10. Unfortunately, the study now being promoted by the media takes none of these things into consideration, instead promulgating decades' old fallacies.
Are Americans Taking Too Much Vitamin D?
According to the featured study,7 nearly 20 percent of American adults are taking supplemental vitamin D, and many are taking "excessively high doses" — amounts linked to "an increased risk of fractures, falls, kidney stones and certain cancers" — even an increased risk of death from all causes.8
An "excessively high dose," the study warns, is anything over 4,000 IUs a day, adding that this is the maximum recommended dosage, and that anything higher than this may result in dangerous side effects. Senior author Pamela Lutsey, public health researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, told Reuters:
"Vitamin D is essential for bone metabolism, as it helps the body absorb calcium and maintain appropriate concentrations of calcium and phosphate in the blood. Excessive intake of vitamin D can, however, be harmful, as it can cause over absorption of calcium. Excess blood calcium can, in turn, lead to detrimental deposition of calcium in soft tissues, such as the heart and kidneys."
Reuters does note that the study was "not a controlled experiment designed to examine the risks and benefits of varying amounts of vitamin D supplementation." Unfortunately, that important piece of information is likely to get lost in the fearmongering, no matter how flawed the conclusions.
For starters, the study's authors assume the vitamin D dosage recommended by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM; formerly the Institute of Medicine, IOM) is scientifically substantiated. As it turns out, it is not, and dedicated vitamin D researchers have for a long time urged NAM to update its recommendation, as it is based on flawed math.
Flawed Math Vastly Underestimates Vitamin D Need
ror occurred.Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.
In this video, Keith Baggerly, Ph.D., explains the key problems with respect to NAM’s stance on vitamin D requirements. You can also read his report here.  NAM (formerly IOM) chose 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) of serum concentration of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as an adequate level for bone health, and to maintain a level of 20 ng/mL, NAM says you need to take 600 IUs a day up to age 70, and 800 IUs if you’re over 70. However, both of these measures are too low due to a mathematical error.
Using the same raw data, and correcting the math, you get an estimate of about 30 ng/mL as an adequate level for bone health, and given the logarithmic nature of the dose response curve for vitamin D, increasing the target serum level by 50 percent may require increasing the RDI in IUs by several times. 
In 2014, two investigators from the University of Edmonton published a paper9 that explicitly showed NAM had made a calculation error in defining the intake needed to reach and maintain 20 ng/mL. Had it been calculated correctly, the RDI would have been at least 10 times greater than what was publically posted.
Importantly, 30 ng/mL is merely indicated for bone health; it may not be sufficient for general health or diseases prevention. When studying a native African tribe, the physiological levels were found to be in the 40 to 60 ng/mL range, which is the range suggested by GrassrootsHealth’s panel of experts for general health.  As explained by the late Dr. Robert Heaney in a previous interview (included below for your convenience):
"The [RDI], as I think most of us know, is the intake that is reckoned to be necessary to meet the nutritional need of 97.5 percent of the population … How much is enough? The [IOM, now NAM] said 600 IUs was enough. But what's very clear is that 600 IUs would not get 97.5 percent of the population above 20 ng/mL. That's what the Edmonton investigators showed.
As a matter of fact … as many as half of the people getting 600 IUs a day wouldn't get up to 20 ng/mL … The Edmonton investigators calculated a number of 8,895 IUs per day, using the same set of studies on which the IOM had based its calculation ... When I was able to access the GrassrootsHealth (GRH) data, a completely different set from the one used by the IOM, we could directly calculate the intake needed …
That's because, in the GRH database, we know exactly how much of an increase in 25-hydroxy D the participants got on whatever dose they were taking. Our calculation showed that about 3,800 IUs per day, in addition to everything they were already getting [from sun and food], would have been necessary to get 97.5 percent of that population to 20 ng/mL.
Factoring in the basal intake in the GRH population, we showed that you need about 7,000 IUs per day in order to get 97.5 percent above 20 ng/mL. That's very close to the figure that the Edmonton investigators had used: 8,895 [IUs]."
The public health implications are tremendous. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has created a statistical panel to review NAM’s calculations. This panel has now completed its review, but the results have not yet been made public. It is imperative that the panel’s results be published as soon as possible, especially in light of the current misinformation being disseminated, suggesting Americans may be taking dangerously high levels of vitamin D, when in fact most are not getting nearly enough.
NAM Needs to Own Up to Its Mistake and End Catastrophic Misinformation Campaign

An error occurred.
Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.
Heaney would know what he was talking about, seeing how he was one of the leading, most well-recognized vitamin D researchers in the world. Up until his death he was also the research director of GrassrootsHealth, which is compiling data from a number of population-based studies like the D*Action project.
Trained as a clinical endocrinologist, Heaney spent a large part of the last 50 years of his life doing clinical research, most of it in the field of vitamin D, working on quantifying the vitamin D economy. This includes defining:
  • How much vitamin D is necessary to reach a certain effect
  • How large of an effect you might get at a particular dosage
  • How much vitamin D you make in your skin in response to sunlight
  • How long it lasts
Heaney and colleagues challenged NAM's vitamin D recommendation,10 warning the RDI underestimates need by a factor of 10. Most vitamin D experts also agree that a serum level of 20 ng/mL is too low for optimal health, which means the requirement for most people is even higher than that.
Moreover, any public guidance on vitamin D really should be based on your blood level, not a daily dosage, because the dosage response from one person to the next can vary significantly. As noted in a 2015 study evaluating the response to vitamin D supplementation:11
"In response to a given dose of vitamin D, the effect on 25(OH)D concentration differs between individuals … For this review, a comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify those factors and to explore their significance in relation to circulating 25(OH)D response to vitamin D supplementation …
Response to vitamin D supplementation can be explained by several environmental and demographic factors. Recently, Zittermann et al. (2014) published a systematic review concerning the importance of body weight for the dose-response relationship with circulating 25(OH)D.
The authors demonstrated that 34.5 percent of variation in circulating 25(OH)D was explained by body weight, followed by type of supplement (D2 or D3) (9.8 percent), age (3.7 percent), calcium intake (2.4 percent) and basal 25(OH)D concentrations (1.9 percent), leaving approximately 50 percent of the variations to unknown factors."
One such unknown factor could be related to differences in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPS), a common genetic variation. At any rate, the only way to ensure you're taking a dose that is appropriate for you is to test your blood level, which should be between 40 and 60 ng/mL year-round.
Research suggests potential toxicity does not occur until you reach a level of about 200 ng/mL, and no evidence of toxicity has been found in trials using dosages of 10,000 IUs a day12,13 — a far cry from the recommended maximum of 4,000 IUs a day.
What Is an Ideal Vitamin D Level?
Based on the accumulated data collected and research done by GrassrootsHealth, a vitamin D level of 40 ng/mL is a more appropriate minimum level. To prevent chronic disease and optimize health, a level between 40 and 60 ng/mL appears to be ideal. According to Heaney, evidence shows that 20 ng/mL is not even adequate for the prevention of osteomalacia.
"The point is the [IOM, now NAM] is dead wrong; not because it chose the wrong number, but because it made a mathematical mistake. They miscalculated, which is really kind of embarrassing if you think about it. Somebody didn't check the work," Heaney says.
"Now, having made that mistake, bureaucrats being bureaucrats, they're unlikely to want to change. They're not going to say, 'Oops, we made a mistake. Here is the right answer.' They seem to say, 'We are not wrong, [and] if no federal agency asks to have it reviewed, it could be 10 years from now before anybody ever looks at it again.'"
Lutsey's study is a perfect example of why NAM needs to rectify its mistake. We cannot move forward when researchers are making assumptions based on flawed recommendations. That Lutsey was unaware of this mathematical error just goes to show that scientists cannot keep up with all the relevant papers being published relating to vitamin D. Lutsey also ignores the many studies showing higher vitamin D levels in fact correlate with improved health outcomes and a lower risk of all-cause mortality, not higher risks.
The Interplay of Vitamin D, Calcium, Magnesium and Vitamin K2
Lutsey points out that excessive vitamin D may cause over absorption of calcium, which in turn may result in calcium deposits in your heart and kidneys. Indeed, it is important to maintain not only the proper balance of vitamin D and calcium, but also magnesium and vitamin K2. Lack of balance between these four nutrients is why calcium supplements have become associated with increased risk of heart attack and stroke, and why some experience symptoms of "vitamin D toxicity."
I use quotation marks here, because the problem is not so much excess vitamin D as it is a lack of vitamin K2. Part of the explanation for these adverse side effects is that vitamin K2 keeps calcium in its appropriate place. If you're K2 deficient, added calcium can cause more problems than it solves, by accumulating in the wrong places. Similarly, taking megadoses of vitamin D supplements without sufficient amounts of K2 can lead to inappropriate calcification, which is what Lutsey is alluding to.
While the optimal ratios between vitamin D and vitamin K2 have yet to be established, Dr. Kate Rheaume-Bleue (whom I've interviewed on this topic) suggests that for every 1,000 IUs of vitamin D you take, you may benefit from about 100 micrograms of K2, and perhaps as much as 150 to 200 micrograms (mcg).
Maintaining an appropriate calcium-to-magnesium ratio is also important, as magnesium helps keep calcium in your cells so they can function better. Historically, mankind ate a diet with a calcium-magnesium ratio of 1-to-1,14 but Americans tend to have a higher calcium-to-magnesium ratio in their diet, averaging about 3.5-to-1.
Magnesium and vitamin K2 also complement each other, as magnesium helps lower blood pressure, which is an important component of heart disease. So, all in all, anytime you're taking any of the following: magnesium, calcium, vitamin D3 or vitamin D2, you need to take all the others into consideration as well, since these all work synergistically with each other.
Discouraging Vitamin D Supplementation Is Inadvisable
So, to recap:
The best way to optimize your vitamin D levels is to expose enough of your skin for long enough periods to increase your vitamin D levels so they are between 40 and 60 ng/mL.
If you cannot get adequate sun exposure, then it would be wise to use oral vitamin D3 in the dosage recommended below
Current RDI for oral vitamin D underestimates need by a factor of 10 due to a simple mathematical error. Correcting this error would result in an RDI of 6,000 IUs, and 8,000 IUs if you're over 70
Ideal dosage can only be determined through blood testing, as dosage response to supplemental vitamin D varies widely from one person to the next
You need a blood level of at least 40 ng/mL to significantly impact your risk of chronic disease, including heart disease, cancer and all-cause mortality
No toxicity has been found in trials using 10,000 IUs per day of vitamin D, and toxicity does not become a concern until you reach a level of about 200 ng/mL
The risk of calcification is ameliorated by taking vitamin D supplements with vitamin K2 and balancing your calcium and magnesium ratios
Considering this, the notion that many Americans are endangering their health by taking in excess of 4,000 IUs of vitamin D per day is unreasonable at best. Research shows higher vitamin D levels can help prevent and/or treat:
Dry eye syndromes15,16 and macular degeneration17,18
Autoimmune diseases
Neurodegenerative diseases, including multiple sclerosis19,20
Gastrointestinal diseases and related cancers21
Infectious diseases, including influenza and HIV22,23
Inflammatory rheumatic diseases24
Neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's disease25,26 and epilepsy
In one study,27 epileptics given a one-time megadose of vitamin D3, ranging from 40,000 IUs all the way up to 200,000 IUs, followed by a daily dose of 2,000 to 2,600 IUs a day for three months, to bring each individual's vitamin D status to at least 30 ng/ml, resulted in significant improvements.
Ten out of 13 had a decrease in the number of seizures, five of which experienced more than a 50 percent reduction. Overall, the group had a 40 percent reduction in the number of seizures
Lupus
According to researchers in Cairo,28 most patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have some level of vitamin D deficiency, defined as a level of 10 ng/mL or less, or insufficiency, a level between 10 and 30 ng/mL
Depression
A vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL may raise your risk for depression by as much as 85 percent, compared to having a vitamin D level greater than 30 ng/mL
Pregnancy complications
Optimizing your vitamin D during pregnancy is crucial not only for your own health, but also for the short- and long-term health of your child.29
Studies30 reveal you need a vitamin D level above 40 ng/mL to protect your baby from serious complications such as premature delivery and preeclampsia, and studies have confirmed there's a lifelong impact of vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy — ranging from childhood asthma,31,32 colds and flu, dental cavities, diabetes and even strokes and cardiovascular disease33,34 in later life
Cancer
Studies indicate a dosage range of 1,100 to 4,000 IUs a day and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration of 60 to 80 ng/mL may be needed to reduce cancer risk.
One 2011 study35 led by vitamin D experts Drs. Cedric Garland and Heaney found the supplemental dose ensuring 97.5 percent of the study population achieved a vitamin D blood level of at least 40 ng/mL was 9,600 IU/day. It also concluded that intake of up to 40,000 IUs per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.
Vitamin D also helps improve health outcomes for cancer patients. A 2009 study36 showed cancer-free survival during four years of follow-up was 77 percent higher among patients receiving calcium and vitamin D supplements compared to those receiving a placebo.
Here, the minimum year-round blood level of vitamin D required to prevent breast and colorectal cancers was 40 to 60 ng/mL. According to the authors, "The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium."
Breast37 and prostate38,39 cancers are just two examples where low vitamin D also renders you more vulnerable to more aggressive forms of the disease. Recent research40 has also found that low vitamin D levels are associated with more severe peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients
Falls, fractures, dental health and more
A 2006 review41 looking at vitamin D intakes and health outcomes such as bone mineral density, dental health, risk of falls, fractures and colorectal cancer, found "the most advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 30 ng/mL, and the best are between 36 to 40 ng/mL"
Obesity
Research42 has shown vitamin D supplementation (4,000 IUs/day) combined with resistance training helps decrease your waist-to-hip ratio — a measurement that is far better at determining your risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease than BMI 
Diabetes
Abdominal obesity in combination with a low vitamin D level has also been shown to "synergistically influence" your risk of insulin resistance.43 According to this study, 47 percent of the increased odds of insulin resistance can be explained by the interaction between insufficient vitamin D levels and a high BMI
All-cause mortality
A meta-analysis44 of 42 randomized controlled trials found supplemental vitamin D significantly reduced mortality from all causes when taken for a minimum of three years



Vitamin D and Omega-3 — Two Crucial 
Nutrients for Optimal Health
Considering there are well over 30,000 studies on vitamin D, and vitamin D receptors have been found in virtually all bodily tissues, from your brain to your bones, the above list is far from complete. The main point is that your risk of experiencing adverse effects from vitamin D supplementation are slim, and the notion that people are endangering their health by taking 4,000 IUs or more of vitamin D3 per day is not supported by a majority of the evidence.
On the contrary, vitamin D experts are becoming increasingly convinced that an ideal vitamin D blood level is somewhere between 40 and 60 ng/mL, and the most appropriate dosage is whatever dosage will put you within that range. For some, that may be 2,000 IUs a day; for others it may be 10,000 IUs.
I don't know ANY single physical factor that could improve your health more than understanding and finally applying what we now know about vitamin D. Getting your blood levels tested and making sure your vitamin D levels are in the optimal range is especially important, no matter what your age is, or where you live.
GrassrootsHealth has now released a consumer-sponsored research kit that includes both vitamin D and omega-3. This kit is part of the D*Action + Omega-3 Project, and you can get it either from my online store or directly from GrassrootsHealth. To learn more about this project, see their FAQ page.
Vitamin D and omega-3 are two of the most important nutrients your body needs to maintain optimal health, and the only way to evaluate your status is to test them. GrassrootsHealth D*Action + Omega-3 Project is the largest project in the world that allows scientific researchers to study the links between these nutrients, and participating in the project is an inexpensive way to take control of your health and help advance science at the same time.

……….

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

THE THREE AGES OF THE EARTH

THE  EARTH  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  THE  WATERS  COVERED  IT....

GENESIS  1: 1 and  2

BY  KEITH  HUNT

I  HAVE  SHOWN  AND  PROVED  ELSEWHERE  ON  THIS  WEBSITE,  THAT  THE  EARTH  WAS  NOT  CREATED  IN  A  CHAOS,  COMPLETE  DISORDER  AND  CONFUSION.  IT  WAS  CREATED  TO  BE  INHABITED!
[Job 38:1-7;  Isaiah 45:18 “vain” same Hebrew as in Genesis 1:2 “without form and void]

YES,  THERE  WAS  A  WORLD  THAT  IN  MANY  WAYS  WAS  DIFFERENT  THAN  THE  EARTH  MADE  FOR  MANKIND.

IT  WAS  A  WORLD  OF  MYRIADS  OF  CREATURES,  SOME  SMALL  AND  SOME  VERY  LARGE;  A  WORLD  OF  LAND,  SEA,  AND  AIR  CREATURES.

IT  WAS  THE  WORLD  OF  THE  DINOSAUR   AGE!

IT  WAS  THE  WORLD  WHERE  THE  GREAT  BEAUTIFUL  CHERUB  WAS  PUT  IN  CHARGE,  THAT  CAME  FROM  THE  VERY  THRONE  OF  GOD.
[Isaiah 14: 12-14; Ezekiel 28: 11-17, king of Tyrus as type of covering cherub]

DID  THAT  WORLD  HAVE  A  NORTH  AND  SOUTH  POLE,  AS  WE  HAVE  TODAY?  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD,  MAYBE  SO  AND  MAYBE  NOT  SO.  THAT  WORLD  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  VERY  BALMY  WEATHER  WISE,  ALL  OVER  THE  EARTH,  BUT  ALSO  MAYBE  NOT.

IT  MAY  HAVE  BEEN  A  WORLD  OF  CREATURES  THAT  DID  NOT  EAT  OTHER  CREATURES  AT  FIRST;  THEN  THE  GREAT  ANOINTED  CHERUB  THAT  COVERED,  WANTED  TO  BE  GOD....WAR,  SPACE  WAR  WAS  CALLED  FOR.  THE  BEAUTY OF  THE COVERING  CHERUB  AND  HIS  1/3  OF  THE  ANGELS  THAT  HE  GOT  TO  FOLLOW  HIM;  BECAME  THE  DEVIL  AND  DEMONS.  THERE  WAS  A  MIGHTY  HEAVENLY  WAR,  BETWEEN  THE  EVIL  AND  GOOD.
[Rev. 12: is part of the story of Satan the Devil; he tried to kill the Christ child…. Jesus said He beheld Satan fall from heaven -   Luke 10:18. Satan fell from heaven after he rose up from the first age of earth; he with 1/3 of the angels rebelled and tried to conquer heaven - Rev. 12. Stars are sometimes used for angels - Rev. 1:20]

SATAN  LOST  THAT  WAR  AND  WAS  THROWN  BACK  TO  EARTH;  [Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven - Luke 10:18] THERE  TO  STAY  UNTIL  FINAL  SENTENCING, THOUGH  AT  TIMES  HE  IS  ALLOWED  BACK  IN HEAVEN  AS  HE  WAS  IN  THE  TIME  OF  JOB (see  first  chapters  of  JOB).

IT  COULD  BE  THAT  AFTER  THAT  WAR  IN  HEAVEN  WHEN  SIN  ENTERED  THE  UNIVERSE,  SOME  OF  THE  ANIMALS  ON  EARTH  BECAME  MEAT  EATERS [GOD  CHANGING  THE  DNA].

THE WAR  BETWEEN  SATAN  AND  HIS  ANGELS  WHO  BECAME  DEMONS  AND  GOD’S  RIGHTEOUS  ANGELS,  BROUGH  DEVASTATION  ON  THIS  EARTH  THAT  IS  HARDLY  COMPREHENDED  BY  THE  HUMAN  MIND.  THE  FORCES  AND  TIDAL  WAVES  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  LIKE  A  SCIENCE  FICTION  MOVIE.

THIS  WAS  THE  TIME, AND  AFTER,  THAT  THE   COAL  AND  OIL  BEDS,  THE  NATURAL  GASS,  THE  GOLD  AND  DIAMONDS  IN  THE  EARTH  WERE  ALL  LAYED  AND  FORMED.  THE  TIME  WHEN  ALL  CREATURES  OF  THAT  AGE  WERE  KILLED  AND  BURIED,  SOME  WITH  FOOD  STILL  IN  THEIR  MOUTH.  THERE  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  THE  MOVEMENT  OF  ALL  CREATURES,  INCLUDING  SEA  CREATURES  TO  ALL  PARTS  OF  THE  EARTH;  SOME  BURIED  DEEP,  SOME  NOT  SO  DEEP;  SEA  CREATURES  WITH  LAND  CREATURES.

THE  WATERS  COVERED  THE  EARTH  FOR  A  LENGTH  OF  TIME  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  DECADES,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  CENTURIES,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  THOUSANDS  OF  YEARS.

WHATEVER  THE  TIME…… THE  LORD’S  SPIRIT  MOVED  ON  THE  WATERS.

THEN  GOD  SPOKE!

THEN  GOD  BROUGHT  ABOUT  WHAT  WE  READ  IN  GENESIS  1  AND  2.  THE  EARTH  AND  WATERS  DIVIDE  AND  THE  7  CREATION  DAYS  WERE  STARTED.

GOD  BROUGHT  FORTH  THE  LAND  FROM  THE  SEAS.  GOD  BROUGHT  FORTH  THE  GREAT  MOUNTAIN  CHAINS  AROUND  THE  EARTH.  I  BELIEVE  THE  NORTH  POLE  WAS  THEN  CREATED  ALONG  WITH  THE  ANIMALS  THAT  LIVE  IN  THE  NORTH  POLE.  THE  SOUTH  POLE  I  BELIEVE  THEY  SAY  DOES  HAVE  LAND  UNDER  IT.  THE  SOUTH  POLE  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  LAND,  THEN  SOMETIME  AFTER  BECAME  WHAT  IT  IS  TODAY.  I  BELIEVE  PLACES  LIKE  AUSTRALIA  AND  NEW  ZEALAND  WERE  CREATED  WITH  THE  ANIMAL  CREATURES  PECULIAR  TO  THOSE  LANDS.  I  BELIEVE  SOME  DESERTS  WERE  CREATED  ALONG  WITH  THE  CAMEL  TO  TRANSVERSE  THOSE  DESERTS,  AND  OTHER  CREATURES  THAT  LIVE  IN  THE  DESERT. OR  GOD  FOREKNEW  THAT DESERTS WOULD COME AND SO THE CAMEL WAS CREATED.

I  BELIEVE  THERE  NEVER  WAS  AN  ICE  AGE  OVER  NORTH  AMERICA;  I  BELIEVE  IT  WAS  ENOUGH  FOR  THE  LAND  OF  CANADA  AND  SOME  OF  THE  NORTHERN LAND  OF  THE  USA,  TO  BE  A  COLD  FROZEN  LAND  FOR  6  OR  MORE  MONTHS  OF  THE  YEAR,  AS  CANADA  WAS  ONCE  FAMOUS  FOR  NOT  LONG  AGO.  WHEN  I  CAME  TO  CANADA  IN  1961  IT  WAS  STILL  FAMOUS  FOR  ITS  LONG  COLD  WINTERS, AND THROUGH  THE 1960s  WE  SURE  HAD  THEM, LIVING  AS  I  WAS  IN  SASKATOON,  SASKATCHEWAN. I CAN REMEMBER WINTERS OF -30 F FOR 5 WEEKS STRAIGHT, TODAY UNHEARD OF EXCEPT UP IN THE ARCTIC, AND EVEN THEN THE ICE AND SNOW IS MELTING THERE, WITH WINTERS SHORTER AND MILDER.

THE  SEA  CREATURES  FOUND  SAY  IN  NORTH  AMERICA,  WERE  FROM  THE  FIRST  AGE,  AND  WERE  DEPOSITED  IN  THAT  ONE  AND  ONLY  DESTRUCTION  TIME  WHEN  THE  EARTH  WAS  COVERED  WITH  WATER.

THE  STRATA  OF  LANDS  WAS  FORMED  IN  THAT  SAME  AGE  AS  THE  WATERS  WERE  COVERING  THE  LAND  OF  THE  EATH. THINK OF EARTHQUAKES, TSUNAMIS, ALL OVER THE EARTH…..DESTRUCTION SO GREAT THE MIND CANNOT REALLY FATHOM.    

THE SPIRIT OF GOD MOVED UPON THE WATERS;  WHEN  GOD  BROUGHT  UP  THE  LAND  FROM  THE  SEA,  SOME  OF  THE  STRATA  WAS  LIFTED  AND  TURNED  UP-SIDE-DOWN. THE STRATA IS CLEARLY VISIBLE IN THE GRAND CANYON AND THE CANADIAN ROCKIES.

SOME  OF  THE  LAND  CONTAINED  THE  DINOSAUR  CREATURES  NEAR  THE  TOP  AS  LIKE  AT  DRUMHELLER    IN  ALBERTA,  CANADA.  DELIBERATELY  DONE  SO  MANKIND  WOULD  EVENTUALLY  FIND  THEM,  AND  KNOWING  WHAT  IS  WRITTEN  IN  THE  BIBLE,  WE  WOULD  KNOW  THERE  WAS  AN  AGE  BEFORE  MANKIND,  A  DINOSAUR  AGE,  AN  AGE  THAT  THE  COVERING  CHERUB [LATER  BECAME  SATAN  THE  DEVIL  WHEN  HE  AND  A  THIRD  OF  THE  ANGELS  REBELLED]  RULED  AND  WAS  GIVEN  CHARGE  OVER.  

AT  THE  REBELLING  OF  SATAN,  THAT  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  THE  TIME  WHEN  THERE  WAS  A  CHANGE  IN  SOME  ANIMALS  TO  FLESH  EATING.  A  CHANGE  IN  THE  DNA  TO  PRODUCE  FLESH  EATING  CREATURES.  WE  STILL  HAVE  THAT  CHANGE,  BUT  WE  ARE  PROMISED  IT  WILL  DISAPPEAR  IN  THE  NEW  AGE  TO  COME,  WHEN  THE  LION  WILL  EAT  STRAW  LIKE  THE  OX  ETC.  THAT  MANY  PASSAGES  OF  BIBLE  PROPHECY  PREDICT.  A  DNA  CHANGE,  THEN  THE  RESTITUTION  OF  ALL  THINGS  WILL  TAKE  PLACE.  THINGS  WILL  THEN  BE  AS  IT  WAS  FROM  THE  VERY  BEGINNING  BEFORE  THE  COVERING  CHERUB  SINNED  AND  BECAME  THE  DEVIL.

THERE WAS AT THE BEGINNING AND FOR WHATEVER LENGTH OF TIME DURING, BEFORE THE COVERING ANGEL SINNED; A WORLD OF SUCH BEAUTY AND PEACE IN ALL CREATURES, THAT THE GREATEST FAIRY-TALE COULD ONLY BRING TO THE HUMAN MIND.

THE  CREATION  OF  MANKIND  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  20, 30, 40  THOUSAND  YEARS  AGO. THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY, NOR CAN IT BE USED TO PROVE MANKIND WAS CREATED ABOUT 6 THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

BEFORE THE DISPERSING OF THE PEOPLE TO FAR AWAY LANDS, THERE WAS A TIME OF GROWTH IN LIVING AND TECHNOLOGY THAT THE ATHEISTS WILL NOT ADMIT TO. MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN  DISCOVERED THAT EVOLUTION WILL NOT RECOGNIZE, SO THEY HAVE BEEN HIDDEN FROM HUMAN SIGHT AND NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN MODERN SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.  SEE  THE  BOOKS  ON  MY  WEBSITE  UNDER  "HISTORY" - SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM. TWO BOOKS YOU WILL FIND THAT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND.

AT  THE  DISPERSING  OF  THE  PEOPLE  BY  GOD  AND  ALL  THE  NEW  LANGUAGES  THAT  THEN  CAME  INTO  BEING [Genesis 11: 1-9],  THE  SO-CALLED  “INDIAN”  PEOPLES  MADE  THEIR  WAY  TO  NORTH  AND  SOUTH  AMERICA  OVER  CENTURIES  OF  TIME.  IT  WOULD  NOT  HAVE  BEEN  HARD  TO  CROSS  THE  NARROW  STRETCH  OF  WATER  FROM  RUSSIA  TO  ALASKA,  DOWN  INTO  CANADA  AND  THE  USA  AND  FURTHER  SOUTH.  SOME  MAY  HAVE  COME  VIA  BRITAIN,  ICELAND,  AND  GREENLAND,  THEN  ACROSS  TO  NORTH  AMERICA.  SOME  OF  THESE  PEOPLES  DECIDED  TO  STAY  AND  LIVE  IN  THE  ARCTIC  LANDS  AND  BECAME  WHAT  WAS  CALLED  AT  ONE  TIME  “ESKIMOS” -  SOME  ARE  STILL  THERE  BUT  UNDER  MODERN  LIVING  OF  HOUSES  ETC.   THE POLAR BEAR WAS CREATED FOR THE NORTH POLE TOGETHER WITH OTHER ANIMALS OF THAT REGION WHO DO NOT MIGRATE. THERE IS NO WORD AMONG THESE PEOPLE THAT THEIR ANCESTORS  BROUGHT WITH THEM THE ANIMALS WE SEE AS THE WHITE MAN SAW, WHEN THEY CAME TO NORTH AMERICA.  THE BUFFALO,  DEER,  MOOSE,  BEARS,  SNAKES,  WILD CATS, COYOTES, THE LITTLE GOFFER  AND ETC. WERE CREATED FOR NORTH AMERICA. HORSES WERE NOT IN NORTH OR SOUTH AMERICA….IT WAS THE SPANISH THAT BROUGHT THEM, AS THE WHITE MAN BROUGHT CATTLE AND SHEEP, GOATS, AND OTHER COMMON FARM ANIMALS OVER RECENT CENTURIES.

WITH  THE  CREATION  OF  MANKIND,  THERE  WERE  “DINOSAUR”  CREATURES  OF  ONE  TYPE  OR  ANOTHER  ALSO  CREATED;  THE  FOOT  PRINTS  OF  MAN  AND  THAT  CREATURE  HAVE  BEEN  FOUND  TOGETHER.  LIKE  AS  IS  HAPPENING  TODAY,  THOSE  CREATURES  IN  TIME  BECAME  EXTINCT.  THE  TWO  CREATURES  MENTIONED  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  JOB,  ARE  NOT  LIKE  ANY  WE  HAVE  TODAY….. THEY  BECAME  EXTINCT.

THE  BUFFALO  AND  OTHER  CREATURES  OF  NORTH  AMERICA  I  BELIEVE  WERE  CREATED,  WHEN  THE  LANDS  OF  THE  EARTH  WERE  BROUGHT  UP  FROM  THE  WATERS  OF  GENESIS  ONE,  AS  LIKE  THE  NATIVE  ANIMALS  OF  AUSTRALIA  WERE  CREATED  FOR  THAT  LAND  BROUGHT  UP  OUT  OF  THE  WATERS., I.E. KANGAROO,  PLATYPUS.  CERTAIN ANIMALS WERE CREATED FOR CERTAIN PARTS OF THE EARTH.   

AT  THE  PRESENT  THIS  IS  WHAT  I  BELIEVE  AS  TO  THE  THREE  AGES  FOR  THIS  EARTH;  THE  FIRST  AGE  -  THE  DINOSAUR  AGE;  THE  SECOND  AGE  -  MANKIND  AGE  TO  THE  COMING  OF  CHRIST  IN  GLORY;  THE  THIRD  AGE  -  THE  AGE  YET  TO  COME,  THE  1,000  YEAR  AGE,  AND  THE  RESTITUTION  OF  ALL  THINGS.

………………..




Sunday, July 23, 2017

SERVER DOWN AGAIN

SADLY  MY  SERVER  IS  DOWN  ONCE  MORE....

I  GUESS  MAINTERANCE....

HANG  IN  MY  SITE  WILL  BE  BACK  UP  SOON'''

WELL  HOPE  SO.

THIS  TIME  I  CANNOT  EVEN  EMAIL  THEM;  THEY  REALLY  DID  NOT  WANTED  BOTHERING  THIS  TIME;

WILL  JUST  NEED  TO  PATIENT  WITH  THEM.

HAVE  SOME  GREAT  STUDIES  READY  TO  BE  UPLOADED  UP.

AS  OF  JULY  25  IT  IS  BACK  UP :-)
.........................

Saturday, July 15, 2017

VACCINES...WHAT YOUR NEVER TOLD!!!

THE  OTHER  SIDE  OF  THE  VACCINE
COIN....what  is  hidden  from  you!!

Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Parents and Pediatricians Need To Be Aware Of

By Dr. Mercola
Vaccines: Are they safe? Are they effective? To help answer those questions is Neil Z. Miller,1 a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute.
Miller has investigated vaccines for three decades and written several books on the subject, including:
 "Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?," 
"Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners" 
"Miller's Review," published in 2016, is a magnificent piece of work. In it, he reviews the concern about vaccine safety and efficacy raised by 400 peer-reviewed published studies. The book doesn't review studies that support vaccination (almost all of which are funded by the industry and the government, by the way) as those studies are available on the CDC website.
"I got started when my own children were born … over 30 years ago … When my wife was pregnant, I felt I had to do due diligence about vaccines. I have to be honest, though. Before I even started to research vaccines, my wife and I pretty much knew intuitively that we were not going to inject our children with vaccines.
When I give lectures, I often tell people, 'How can you expect to achieve health by injecting healthy children with toxic substances?' I intuitively knew that … but still felt an obligation to do my due diligence and to do the research," Miller says.
"The thing is that when I do things, I do them pretty thoroughly … I was doing my research at medical libraries. I was gathering everything and I started to collate it and coordinate it … People started to find out about the information I had organized. They were asking me about vaccines even way back then. I organized it into a booklet. I started to share that with people. Everything snowballed from that first booklet."
Don't Believe the 'There's No Evidence' Argument
"Miller's Review" was created in response to the common refrain that "there are no studies showing vaccines are unsafe or ineffective."
"I hear this often," Miller says. "Parents come to me all the time, saying, 'My doctor told me that vaccines are safe and there are no studies that prove [otherwise].' I've been doing the research for 30 years. I know of literally thousands of studies that document [concerns]. My books all document [those] studies."
"Miller's Review" is unique in that it summarizes 400 studies in bullet points with direct quotes from the study — with one study per page — plus citations so that you can find and read the study in full should you decide to do so. All of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and indexed by the National Library of Medicine.
"These are valid studies by valid researchers in many journals that people have heard about — The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, all the mainstream journals (and some of the smaller journals, but they're still valid peer-reviewed studies) that show there are problems with vaccines: There are safety problems, there are efficacy problems.
They're all in one place so that people, like doctors, can get this information all in one convenient place. This book has been very effective with medical doctors. When medical doctors who are on the fence, or who are pro-vaccine, get this book and read it, I hear back from parents that their doctor is no longer pressuring them to get the vaccines.
Their doctor is now respecting their decisions to not vaccinate or to go to some sort of alternative vaccine schedule if that's the choice these parents make …
I am all about having uncensored, unfettered access to all of the available information out there about vaccines. Not just what your medical doctor wants you to know. Not just what the pharmaceutical companies want you to know and not just what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is telling doctors to share with their patients.
I want [parents] to be absolutely free to make a decision whether or not they want to vaccinate their children … It's really a human rights issue. It's really about the mandatory aspect of vaccines. I think all vaccines are problematic. I think this not just based on my own feelings, but based on the evidence I've researched over the years."
Uninformed Decision-Making Is Part of the Problem
Ultimately, every parent will make a decision about whether or not to vaccinate. The problem is, most of the time, it's an uninformed decision. An issue brought up in some of his earlier books is that there's been a deliberate misinformation campaign aimed at making you believe vaccines are far more effective than they actually are.
For example, disease incidence data is used to suggest vaccines have dramatically reduced the incidence of a given disease, when in fact the disease rate had already declined by 90 percent, or more in some cases, before a vaccine was ever available. Measles has been problematic in developing nations, mostly because of malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency, lack of clean water, sanitation and quick access to medical care. As these measures are addressed, the mortality from measles declines on its own.
Vitamin A appears particularly important, and studies sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) have confirmed that high doses of vitamin A supplementation protect children against complications and death associated with the disease.
"By the time the measles vaccine was introduced in the United States in 1963, by the late 1950s, the mortality rate from measles had drastically dropped. This was due to the [fact] that the population had gained protection against the more dangerous ravages of the disease. This happens with a lot of different diseases.
In my book, I've got many different types of graphs and illustrations to help the reader understand the main points I'm making … [M]any of these graphs show that these diseases were declining significantly on their own, well before vaccines were introduced.
For example, scarlet fever. Where did scarlet fever go? Why don't we see cases of scarlet fever when we didn't have mass vaccinations with a scarlet fever vaccine? That's an important point to be made."
Many Childhood Diseases Are Protective Against Cancer
Another significant point is there are dozens of studies demonstrating that contracting certain childhood diseases actually protects you against various types of cancer later in life — everything from melanoma to leukemia.
It's important to realize that when you have a naturally-acquired infection, you're really exercising your immune system quite profoundly, developing authentic, lifelong immunity in the process, which is radically different from the type of artificial and temporary immunity you get from a vaccine.
One of the reasons for this is because vaccines stimulate a completely different part of your immune system than does fighting off a naturally-acquired infection. There's even evidence suggesting childhood diseases help protect against future heart disease.
"[A] Japanese study … looked at over 100,000 men and women of elderly age. They looked back at their history of catching these common childhood illnesses. Did they catch chickenpox, rubella, measles and mumps? What they found was it's actually protective against heart disease.
You're protected against heart attacks and various types of arteriosclerotic disease of the artery systems. It's protecting the arterial system so that you are protected not only — when you catch these diseases — from cancers, but from heart disease, heart attacks and strokes as well … There are different theories on why that takes place. But the important thing is that study after study confirms that it takes place."
Vaccines Create Problematic Mutations
Another vaccine-related problem that many are completely unaware of is the fact that vaccines cause mutations in the disease-bearing microorganisms, much in the same way antibiotics cause bacteria to mutate. The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), for example, has caused the pertussis microorganism, Bordetella pertussis, to mutate and evade the vaccine. The same thing happened with the pneumococcal vaccine and the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine.
"They're finding, for example, when you've got a vaccine that targets only certain strains of disease where multiple strains are actually causing the disease, the vaccine is pretty effective at reducing the incidence of disease from that particular strain. But what happens is the other strains come and take their place …  They come back even stronger.
That's what [happened] with Prevnar, a vaccine for pneumococcus, pneumococcal disease. All infants that receive vaccines according to the CDC's standard immunization schedule receive a pneumococcal vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. That vaccine only targeted seven strains. Pneumococcal has 90 different strains capable of causing pneumococcal disease.
They were pretty effective at reducing the amount of disease caused by the pneumococcal strains targeted by the vaccine. But what happened within just a few short years, the other strains became more prevalent … taking the place of the original strains [and] they became more virulent.
They came out with a new vaccine in 2010 … to deal with the vaccine losing its efficacy because of what I just explained. The new vaccine included the original seven strains plus six additional strains, the ones that were causing most of the pneumococcal disease now. Within two years of the new upgraded, updated pneumococcal vaccine, the strains had already mutated … "
Tragically, parents are being blamed and harassed for many of these vaccine failures. Parents are being told that if you don't vaccinate your kids, you are responsible for spreading the disease. That's the idea the CDC, the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry are promoting.
However, if you actually read the studies, you'll find what the scientists know —the real problem is evolutionary adaptation. Dr. Meryl Nass expounded on this issue in a 2013 interview. The microorganisms adapt. "What's happened with pertussis [is] the pertussis microorganism has changed. It's now not only become more virulent; it's become more prevalent," Miller explains. "It's evaded the actual vaccine."
Herd Immunity Cannot Be Achieved Through Immunizations
Another core argument for mass vaccinations is achieving herd immunity. Miller believes, and I agree with this belief that herd immunity may never be achieved through vaccination because high vaccination rates encourage the evolution of more severe disease-causing agents. In a vaccinated population, the virulence increases due to selective pressure, as the pathogen is strengthened and adapts in its fight for survival against the vaccine.
Meanwhile, in an unvaccinated population, the environment actually promotes lowered virulence, as the pathogen does not want to kill its host. A wise pathogen is one that's able to infect many hosts without killing them, because when the host dies, the pathogen loses the environment upon which its own survival depends.
However, once the disease organism mutates and becomes more virulent within the vaccinated population, it raises the stakes not only among the vaccinated but also among the unvaccinated, who are now faced with a far more virulent foe than normal.
"In terms of herd immunity, you not only have … this selective pressure that's keeping you from being able to achieve herd immunity (because the microorganisms are always attempting to evade the vaccine), but pertussis vaccine is only 60 percent effective. That's with the best estimates. And that's only for a couple of years.
Studies show that even after three, four or five years, you're back to almost no efficacy whatsoever, almost back to the pre-vaccine period.
How can you expect to achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that is only 60 percent effective? You can vaccinate 100 percent of the population and you cannot achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that is only 60 percent effective. Influenza vaccines — many years, these vaccines are not good matches for the circulating virus — so you have zero percent efficacy. In the best years, you only have 30, 40 or 50 percent efficacy."
Studies Show Vaccinations Increase Infant Mortality
One of the tenets of conventional medicine is that if you vaccinate a population, everyone is going to be healthier. There will be less disease. But when you compare vaccination rates and health statistics, you find the converse is actually true. This is some of the most compelling information Miller shares in his book.
For example, when comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations, they found a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants received. Developed nations like the United States that require the most vaccines tend to have the highest infant mortality. You can read this study here.2
"I'm the lead author on that study, actually. My co-author was Gary Goldman [Ph.D., who] worked for the CDC for seven years. He quit when he found that the CDC was not allowing anything detrimental [to get out]. Goldman found problems with the chickenpox vaccine and wanted to publish that data. The CDC said, 'We're not going to allow you to do that.' That's when Goldman quit …
Goldman and I did two peer-reviewed studies … The children in the United States are required — if they follow the CDC's immunization schedule — to receive the most vaccines in the developed world, actually throughout the world. Globally. Twenty-six vaccines. Other developed nations require less.
Some nations only require 12 vaccines — Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland and other European nations — yet they have better infant mortality rates. That's what our study looked at. [V]accines are promoted as being lifesaving. They're given to children to protect them against dying from infectious diseases.
We gathered all the immunization schedules from the 34 nations [and found] the United States had the 34th worst infant mortality rate ... It had the worst. Thirty-three nations in the developed world had better infant mortality rates. We did the study and we found what many people would find to be a counterintuitive relationship.
We found a statistically significant relationship. There was a direct correlation between the number of vaccines that a nation required for their infants and the infant mortality rate. The more vaccines that a nation required, the worse the infant mortality rate."
Why Is This Not Front-Page News?
Many naïvely believe that if all of this is true, if vaccines truly were doing more harm than good, it would be front-page news. The reason you rarely if ever hear anything about studies such as this one is because the vaccine industry has an iron grip on the information being publicly disseminated. Collusion between federal regulatory agencies, the government and the industry is just one of several hurdles preventing this kind of information from being widely known.
You have individuals like Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed up the CDC and was in charge of infectious disease recommendations for seven years before moving on to become president of Merck Vaccines, one of the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world. That's just one of many dozens of examples of this revolving door, which in turn has led to the breakdown of true science-based medicine.
"We have a serious problem where top scientists admit that they drop data points from studies that they've been influenced by the people who are funding their studies to sometimes not publish the study because it didn't come up with the results they wanted, and so on," Miller says.
"We have a serious problem with the pharmaceutical industry controlling which studies get published. Also, there's a serious problem because the pharmaceutical companies are controlling the advertising dollars that go out to the major media.
Mainstream media makes approximately 70 percent of its income from pharmaceutical ads. They do not want to publish or promote anything, even in their newscasts that would be critical of vaccines because it could compromise their potential to keep bringing in these millions of dollars they make every year from the pharmaceutical companies."
The greatest, most serious problem we currently face is the concerted push to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions. For example, to go to school in California, you now have to be fully vaccinated. No exemptions are allowed, which is really a violation of human rights.
Giving Multiple Simultaneous Vaccines Is Extremely Risky, Study Shows
The second study3 Miller and Goldman published analyzed nearly 40,000 reports of infants who suffered adverse reactions after vaccines. Here, they found that infants given the most vaccines were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die compared to those who received fewer vaccines.
It's worth noting that this data was obtained from the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) database, a passive reporting system, and that research has confirmed passive reporting systems underreport by 50 to 1.
What this means is that when you find one report in VAERS, you have to multiply that by 50 to get closer to reality because, on average, only 1 in 50 adverse events are ever reported. 
Doctors have a legal obligation to report side effects to VAERS, but they don't, and there are no ramifications for failure to make a report. 
Parents can also make a report to the database, and I encourage all parents to do so, should your child experience a vaccine reaction.
At present, VAERS has over 500,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines, and every year, more than 30,000 new reports are added to it. 
Miller and Goldman downloaded this database and created a program to extract all the reports involving infants. In all, they extracted the reports of 38,000 infants who experienced an adverse reaction following the receipt of one or more vaccines.
They then created a program that was able to determine the number of vaccines each infant had received before suffering an adverse reaction, and stratified the reports by the number of vaccines (anywhere from one to eight) the infants had received simultaneously before the reaction took place. They specifically honed in on serious adverse reactions requiring hospitalization or that led to death. Here's what they found:
  • Infants who received three vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving their vaccines than children who received two vaccines at the same time
  • Infants who received four vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who received three or two vaccines, and so on all the way up to eight vaccines
  • Children who received eight vaccines simultaneously were "off-the-charts" statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving those vaccines
  • Children who received vaccines at an earlier age were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive those vaccines at a later age
Childhood Vaccination Schedule Is Based on Convenience, Not Science or Safety
As noted by Miller:
"The industry, the CDC and Dr. Paul Offit tell us that you can take multiple vaccines. Offit said you could theoretically take 10,000 vaccines at one time; that an infant can be exposed to that many pathogens simultaneously without hurting the child. The CDC's immunization schedule requires that children receive eight vaccines at 2 months of age, eight vaccines at 4 months of age and eight vaccines at 6 months of age.
I ask parents, 'When did you ever take eight drugs at the same time? … If you did take eight drugs at the same time, would you think it was more likely that you would or would not have an adverse reaction?' Because toxicologists know that the more drugs you take at the same time, the more potential for some kind of a synergistic or additive toxicity … What this study confirms is that it's a dangerous practice to give multiple vaccines simultaneously.
The CDC has put together a schedule based on convenience. They say '[G]ive eight vaccines at 2 months, give eight more vaccines at 4 months and give eight more booster shots at 6 months' because it's convenient. They're afraid that parents will not come to the pediatrician again and again and again if they have to keep coming back for more vaccines, so they get multiple [shots all at once].
They said, 'We're going to make this schedule based on convenience.' Not based on evidence. Not based on science. There's nothing scientific about the CDC's recommended immunization schedule. We've shown it with our study …
We also showed that children who received vaccines at an earlier age are statistically significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive it at a later age. We divided it up to children who receive their vaccines in the first 6 months of age versus children who receive their vaccines in the last six months of infancy.
Again, off-the-charts statistically significant, it's much more dangerous to give younger infants multiple vaccines than to give older infants multiple vaccines. This makes sense because they're giving the same dose to a newborn or a baby that might be 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 pounds at 2 months of age versus a child who might be 15 or 17 pounds … at a later age."
More Information
You can find "Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers" on ThinkTwice.com. This book is an invaluable resource for parents who want to do their due diligence before making up their mind about whether or not to vaccinate their children. On his website, you will also find his other books, along with studies and publications relating to vaccine safety and efficacy concerns.
Another resource is the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). NVIC is leading the charge when it comes to educating the public about efforts to impose mandatory vaccinations, and how to preserve our health freedoms on the local, state and federal levels.
Ultimately, everyone will have to make a choice about vaccinations. They key is to make it an informed one — to understand and weigh the potential risks and benefits. To do that, you need access to both sides of the debate, and Miller has done us all a great favor by making the largely hidden side of the equation more readily accessible.
....................
AS  A  KID  GROWING  UP  IN  BRITAIN  IN  THE  1940s  and  1950s  THERE  WAS  NO  SUCH  THING  AS  BABY  AND  REGULAR  CHILD  VACCINATION;  AS  A  CHILD  UNDER  TEN  YEARS  OLD, I MAY  HAVE  BEEN  VACCINATED  A  FEW  TIMES.  YEP  I  DID  GET  ALL  THE  BACIS  CHILDHOOD  DISEASES  EXCEPT  FOR  HOOPING-TOUGH  AND  MUMPS. ALL  THE  KIDS  I  WENT  TO  SCHOOL  WITH  OVER  THOSE  12  YEARS,  I  NEVER  HEARD  OF  ONE  COMING  DOWN  WITH  ANY  SERIOUS...  WHATEVER..... WHEN  I  LEFT  FOR  CANADA  I  HAD  TO  HAVE  A  SMALL  POX  VACCINE....I  JUST  PRAYED  TO  GOD  IT  WOULD  HAVE  NO  EFFECT  ON  ME,  AND  IT  DID  NOT.
THE  WAY  OF  LIFE  IN  THE  1940s  and  1950s  WAS  A  WAY  OF  LIFE  THAT  WAS  MUCH  HEALTHIER  IN  FOODS,  MAINLY  ORGANIC,  AND  WE  KIDS  IN  SCHOOL  GOT  TONS  OF  EXERCISE  IN  AND  OUT  OF  SCHOOL.
I  PERSONALLY  WAS  ALSO  DOING  AND  FOLLOWING  THE  "HEALTH  AND  STRENGTH"  COURSE  BY  THE  SUPER  STRONG  MAN  CHARLES  ATLAS....GLAD  TO  SAY  HIS  COURSE  IS  STILL  AVAILABLE  TODAY - LOOK  HIM  UP  ON  THE  INTERNET.
..........