Curious about who I am? Posts about health and natural birth Resources and posts regarding vaccines and informed consent Posts about Parenting and Relationships Spirituality and Life Lessons Email me Home

Neglected Research and the Administration of Tdap During Pregnancy

 
On October 24 of last year (2012), the ACIP voted 14 to 1 in the recommendation of administering a pertussis booster (Adacel or Boostrix) during every pregnancy regardless of vaccination history, preferably after 20 weeks gestation.[*][*][*]
 
This over ruled the earlier suggestion of the administration of just one booster during the first pregnancy because antibody levels were found to wane substantially during the first year after vaccination. Hence, leading the ACIP to conclude a single dose of Tdap at one pregnancy would be insufficient to provide protection for subsequent pregnancies.[*]
 
In the post below, I will provide published literature as to why this particular approach is not well-founded on actual science or research. I will also provide some information on the relevant risks of pertussis during infancy, the safety concerns of administering Tdap during pregnancy and the modification of pertussis epidemiology due to the current vaccination program.
 
 
Problematic Ambitions in Administering Tdap During Pregnancy
 
The underlining goal in this particular vaccination strategy (according to the CDC) is twofold:[*]
 
Mainly (1) “reduce the burden of pertussis in infants by providing some protection until they are old enough to be vaccinated themselves” [*]
 
Secondly (2) “protect the mother from pertussis around the time of delivery, making her less likely to become infected and transmit pertussis to her infant.” [*]
 
Let us address these individually with published data…
 
 
Reducing the burden of pertussis in infants
 
The goal of reducing pertussis infection within the infant population via vaccination is ambitious and nothing new (Clinical Infectious Diseases 1990).[*][*][*] 
 
Decades of research examining newborn vaccination against pertussis has been amassed; none of which has been enough to implement a national recommendation from the ACIP…until now, with a twist.
 
The CDC now feels strongly that this particular new approach, vaccinating women late term during pregnancy, will provide the protection they are hoping for.
 
Unfortunately, relying on transplacental antibodies to provide protection against pertussis in infants is not based on published evidence.
 
In fact, the very board that recommended Tdap during pregnancy (ACIP) states the effectiveness of maternal anti-pertussis antibodies in preventing infant pertussis is not yet known (ACIP 2011, CDC 2011).[*][*]
 
This is one of two major concerns the ACIP voiced, acknowledging the complete “lack of evidence evaluating that transplacental maternal antibodies induced by Tdap in the protection of infants against pertussis” (Journal of Perinatology 2010).[*]
 
Even if data reflects an increase in infant antibodies to pertussis via maternal vaccination, because there is currently no correlate of protection in pertussis infection, it is uncertain whether this increase could be considered clinically protective (The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2011).[*]
 
This is significant since the transfer of antibodies against pertussis to the offspring is influenced by various factors and determining a benchmark for correlation would aid in establishing if any protection is conferred. (Current known factors that influence transplacental antibodies: the age of women at delivery, mothers’ vaccination history, mothers’ immune response and ability to generate IgG immunoglobulins).[*- Tdap in risk groups 2012]
 
In fact, it is becoming more evident that the (aP) pertussis vaccines do not yield any correlation between antibody levels and protection against pertussis.[* source 17]
 
Currently, I am aware of two completed published studies (as mentioned by the CDC in 2011) providing data that evaluates antibody levels in newborns whose mothers received tdap during pregnancy, neither produce confirmation of protection against infection.[*][*][*]
 
What is certain is the evident “need for larger studies with longer follow-up to help understand the immunologic responses in pregnant women and the consequences on neonatal immunity” (Clinical Infectious Diseases 2013).[*]
 
 
Interference with Infant Immune Response to Primary DTaP Vaccination
(also known as blunting)
 
Data to consider, several studies have suggested that maternal pertussis antibodies can inhibit active pertussis-specific antibody production after administration of DTaP vaccine to infants of mothers vaccinated with Tdap during pregnancy, referred to as blunting (CDC 2011).[*] 
 
In fact, the ACIP states that this phenomenon known as blunting could result in an increase in pertussis susceptibility to children under 12 months (Journal of Perinatology 2010).[*] 
 
The ACIP assumes that maternal pertussis antibodies might reduce an infant's risk for  infection in the first few months of life, but neglects to apply actual data illustrating an increase in risk for disease after receipt of primary DTaP doses (CDC 2011).[*]
 
Instead, the ACIP applies data used in naturally acquired maternal pertussis-specific antibodies, stating that one study completed shows little or no interference between naturally acquired transplacental antibodies and the DTaP series (Clinical Infectious Diseases 2012).[*] 
 
No published literature is available yet for review examining vaccine-induced transplacental antibodies.
 
Based on data that has been completed, blunting does occur, we just don’t know to what degree and what the effects may be.
 
The theorized benefit of vaccinating pregnant mothers is a decline in risk for disease and death in infants aged <3 months, but the trade-off is a potential increase in the occurrence of pertussis in older infants (CDC 2011).[*]
 
According to the ACIP, the potential benefit of protection from maternal antibodies in newborns outweigh the potential risk for shifting disease burden to later in infancy (CDC 2011, The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2011).[*][*]
 
Worth noting, two clinical trials are currently underway (one in Canada, the other in the USA) to evaluate the assess the immune response of infants receiving DTaP immunization at ages 2, 4, and 6 months whose mothers received Tdap during the third trimester of pregnancy (Vaccine 2012).[*][*- Tdap in risk groups 2012]
 
It is unfortunate (and, in my opinion, inappropriate) that this data was not completed prior to recommendation .
 
 
Evidence for Safety
 
Although in prelicensure evaluations, the safety of administering a booster dose of Tdap to pregnant women was not studied. The ACIP Pertussis Vaccines Work Group declares safety and expresses it as well established (CDC 2011).[*]
 

What does ‘well established’ mean exactly….
 
The data that is used to established safety which resulted in the ACIP’s recommendation was collected from:

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

Sanofi Pasteur pregnancy registry

GlaxoSmithKline pregnancy registry
 
 
The ACIP asserts that no data collected suggests any elevated frequency or unusual patterns of adverse events in pregnant women who received Tdap (CDC 2011, Can Fam Physician. 2013).[*][*]
 
It is worth noting, all three are passive surveillance programs which have several limitations which include: unverified reports, underreporting, inconsistent data quality and absence of an unvaccinated control group (Drug Safety 2008).[*] 
 
 
Data Evaluated From VAERS:
 

-Only 130 reports met safety research criteria (AJOG 2012).   [*] 
 

-The data was collected before Tdap was routinely recommended in pregnancy (AJOG 2012). [*]
 

-Only 3% of women were administered the vaccine in the recommended third trimester (77% in the first trimester, 19% second trimester, 3% third trimester) (AJOG 2012). [*] 
 

The most frequent pregnancy-specific adverse event was spontaneous abortion occurring in 16% of reports (AJOG 2012). [*] 
 
 
GlaxoSmithKline Registry:


From GSK pregnancy registry: “The safety of Boostrix (tdap) during pregnancy has not been established, and no adequate human studies have been performed. [*]


None of these products, except RETROVIR® (zidovudine, AZT) after the first trimester, is approved for use during pregnancy.”[*] 
 
 
Sanofi Pasteur Registry:
 

From the Sanofi Pasteur pregnancy registry: “This is a company-run, passive, pregnancy surveillance system designed to collect and analyze the outcome of vaccination.” [*]


“There are no adequate and well-controlled studies of Adacel in pregnant women and data are limited. Sanofi Pasteur does not recommend the use of Adacel vaccine in any manner other than that described in the package insert.”[*][*][*]
 
 
From a safety perspective, ACIP adds that administration of Tdap after 20 weeks' gestation is preferred in the hope to minimize the risk for any low-frequency adverse event and the possibility that any spurious association might appear causative.[*]
 
 
Risk of pertussis infection


In all honesty, when it comes down to it – expecting mothers are going to make the decision to get the Tdap booster if the perceived benefits outweigh any risk.
 
One could read 30 peer reviewed publication arguing for (and against) Tdap during pregnancy, but it always comes down to perceived risk.
 
To estimate risk and the potential impact of Tdap administered during pregnancy, let us evaluate the data and statistics from 2010-2011.
 
Using the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System during 2000–2011, the annual mean of pertussis cases in infants aged <12 months was 2,746 cases - with deaths equaling to 18.[*]
 
Using the 2010 birth rate (4,007,000 live births) and this data, we can determine the following risk assessment for 2010:[*]


Without Vaccination:

Risk pertussis infection under 12 months = 0.007%

Risk of death = 0.000004%

 

With Vaccination:

Risk of pertussis infection under 12 months = 0.005%

Risk of death = 0.000002%
 
 
Not to make light of pertussis infection, but more people died of being struck by lightning (count = 29)  then babies dying of pertussis infection in 2010.[*]
 
Yet, I’m pretty sure mothers perceive the risk of pertussis as more glaring then being struck by lightning.
 



Changing epidemiology due to vaccination and the increased risk to infants
 
 
Everyone is quick to  proclaim the benefits of herd immunity when vaccinating, yet not so many are so swift as to declare its faults (such as protecting some while placing others at greater risk).
 
The implementation of a vaccine against pertussis infection, with decreasing natural boosting,  has changed the epidemiology of infection to the disease.[*]
 
The resurgence of pertussis in the post-vaccination era has been widely documented. In fact, it is the chief reason for the ACIP recommendation in vaccinating pregnant mothers. 


The overall incidence of pertussis has been increasing steadily
 since 2007 and has now surpassed peak rates observed
 during 2004-2005. source


Yet, a shift of cases from school-age children to adolescents, adults and children under 1 year of age has been described in the last decade. As a consequence, pertussis circulating in these new populations is considered  being the source of infection for infants and newborns (The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2011, BMC Infectious Diseases 2013). [*][*]
 
One study that examined the increase of pertussis in California between 2006 and 2011, demonstrated decaying protection against pertussis during 5 years after a child’s fifth dose of the Tdap booster. The authors state this waning might be one of the causes of reported increased infection in adolescents which increases the risk of transmission to infants (Can Fam Physician 2013).[*]

source here - CDC
 
The solution for a severely limited booster vaccine? Cocooning.
 
Unfortunately, this strategy of cocooning (vaccinating pregnant women immediately postpartum and all other close contacts of infants with Tdap) to reduce the risk for transmission of pertussis to infants is an insufficient strategy (CDC 2011).[*]
 
The ACIP recognizes this as well as the CDC(CDC 2011).[*]
 
The solution for this latest failing strategy and inadequate vaccine? Simply, vaccinate during pregnancy. 


 

Which to choose
 
If you still regard the risk of pertussis infection to outweigh any known and unknown risks of vaccinating during pregnancy, then consider this: Please request the Adacel vaccine.
 
The Adacel vaccine contains antigens that intend to elicit antibodies against fimbriae (types 2 and 3) which play a critical role in the attachment of the bacteria to the respiratory cells (which would, in theory, make a mother less likely to transmit the disease to her child).[*][*][*]
 
Boostrix contains mainly antigens that intend to modify and lessen symptoms of disease, which would make a mother more likely to become an asymptomatic carrier of the disease, which places her child more at risk.[* sources 3-8]
 
Information on Tdap boosters:


Boostrix contains: pertussis antigens (inactivated pertussis toxin [PT] 361 and formaldehyde-treated filamentous hemagglutinin [FHA] and pertactin). also  - contains aluminum hydroxide as adjuvant (not more than 0.39 mg aluminum by assay), 4.5 mg of sodium chloride, ≤100 mcg of residual formaldehyde, and 387 ≤100 mcg of polysorbate 80 (Tween 80).
 

Adacel contains: 2.5 mcg detoxified pertussis toxin (PT), 5 mcg filamentous hemagglutinin  (FHA), 3 mcg pertactin (PRN), 5 mcg fimbriae types 2 and 3 (FIM). Also dose includes 1.5 mg aluminum phosphate (0.33 mg aluminum) as the adjuvant, ≤5 mcg residual formaldehyde.
 
 
I would also encourage you to read more about pertussis infection here: CDC Pinkbook Pertussis.




Similar posts:
 
The Perfect Storm - How the increase in pertussis vaccine usage is causing an 'epidemic'


A House of Cards: Vaccine-Induced Herd Immunity

House of Cards: a structure, situation, or institution that is insubstantial, shaky, or in constant danger of collapse [*]
 

 
In the 17th century, John Milton, a poet and writer, was the first to use this idiomatic expression and it has changed little in meaning over the centuries.
 
If you’ve ever attempted to build a house out of cards you know that it has the outward appearance of strength and  stability – all the while, the house is threatened by imminent collapse by a simple puff of air or a slight tilt of the foundation. 
 
This House of Cards analogy is ideal for understanding what herd immunity refers to when encompassing an introduction and reliance on a vaccine (and boosters) for protection throughout life.
 
*Incorporating a vaccination schedule (whether select, delay or on schedule) into your healthcare practice is your decision and, in my humble opinion, should be made on the grounds of examining data that both supports its use and challenges it. Vaccine induced immunity must be explored in further detail to ensure we are making the most sound choice for our children.
 
 

The Manipulation of Pre-existing Herd Immunity
 

Fundamentally, herd immunity exists/existed prior to vaccination.
 
With each national vaccine campaign, epidemiology (and herd immunity) is modified, benefiting some while actually placing another group at higher risk than before.[*][*][*][*]

While it is perceived beneficial that some vaccinated diseases have diminished over time (such as measles, chicken pox), it is very likely that these infections existed in a precise biological niche that was very much intentional – benefits in which our current understanding cannot yet comprehend.[*]

This massive disruption of previously acquired immunity results in a destabilization of epidemiologic patterns for many years.[* p297]
 
It also results in a precarious House of Cards - a reliance on vaccine-induced herd immunity.
 
 

Acquired immunity:  occurs as a result of exposure to an infectious agent or its antigens or of passive transfer of maternal antibody or immune lymphoid cells, renewed throughout life from continual cyclical re-exposure to the disease.[*]
 

Artificial immunity:  acquired immunity produced by deliberate exposure to an antigen.[*]
 
 
Infectious systems are highly complex biological structures.
 
In reference to herd immunity, a system may contain hundreds of demographic and epidemiological variables (which can be seen as the puff of air or tilt of the foundation in the House of Cards)  – all of which influence a population’s immunity to a virus/bacteria.
 
The science and intuition built on decades of practical epidemiological experience still often fail to predict outcomes/implications of vaccination programs. Below, is a brief list of some factors that may be considered threats to the house of vaccine-induced immunity.[*]
 
 

Dependence on Boosters Throughout Life
 
Currently, US vaccine recommendations target 17 “vaccine-preventable” diseases across a lifespan.
 
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2020 (which provides a 10-year national objectives for improving the health of all Americans) state that:
 

“As the demographics of the population continue to shift, public health and health care systems will need to expand their capacity to protect the growing needs of a diverse and aging population.”[*]
 
This means the House of Cards (vaccine-induced immunity) depends on you, me and grandma to get our booster vaccinations throughout life to maintain this newly invoked herd immunity.
 
Currently, we have boosters for young children, for preteens, for teens, for adults, for pregnant women, for college kids, for healthcare workers, for seniors – oh, and don’t forget your annual flu shot.[*]
 
The list is growing, not diminishing – this should raise concerns.
 
When vaccination initially began, the administration of a vaccine and the immunity to follow was thought to be similar to the naturally acquired immunity. However, we now know vaccines offer waning and incomplete protection which may lead to resurgence and epidemic outbreaks.[*]
 
Booster dose vaccination is not a pinch-hitter, rather boosters throughout life is just one of many fundamental keys to maintain vaccine-induced herd immunity within a population.
 
 

A Traveling Population
 
In 2012, over 30 million Americans traveled internationally, at the same time welcoming 67 million international visitors.[*][*] 
 
International travel (business/leisure) and migration represent a risk to herd immunity, particularly vaccine-induced herd immunity.[*]
 
According to the CDC, exposure to diseases brought into the US by American who travel abroad or from incoming visitors may overcome vaccine protection.[*][*]
 
Unfortunately, the manipulation of existing epidemiology does not change globally when a national vaccine program is implemented.  Unless we restrict international travel and migration, this pillar in the House of Cards will always be at risk of crumbling.
 

Example: 2010 Mumps outbreak in New Jersey and lower New York

Source of infection: 11-year-old boy at the camp. He had recently returned from the United Kingdom

Vaccine Protection: 88% had received at least 1 dose of mumps-containing vaccine, and 75% had received 2 doses[*][*][*]
 
 
The response to an outbreak such as the one in 2010: administer another booster.[*]
 
 

A Mother’s Protection (or Lack Thereof)
 
There’s nothing quite like a mother’s love and protection, particularly in the case of humoral and passive immunity.
 
Prior to vaccination, it was a newborn’s birthright to receive his/her mother’s antibodies to disease (intended to last long enough to prevent infection until immune function is mature enough).
 
Prior to the vaccination campaigns we see today, a newborn received antibodies against infectious diseases from their mother, who themselves had been infected as children (and re-exposed to the diseases later in life). Today, babies born to mothers who were vaccinated and never exposed to these diseases lack this protection.  
 

(2013) Babies born to unvaccinated mothers maintain their antibody protection about 61% longer than vaccinated mothers. That’s significant, a clear indication that vaccinations reduce newborn babies’ immunity to measles, and very likely to other infectious diseases for which vaccinations are given.[*]

 

(2001, 1994) Maternal antibodies erode faster than previously estimated, especially in infants who were born to mother’s that have been vaccinated.[*][*]
 
The protection this newborn population had prior to vaccination is being eroded with each national vaccine campaign.
 
One answer to alleviate this threat: targeting new vaccines for pregnant mothers.[*]
 
 

The Catch 22 of Disease Elimination and Wild-type boosters
 
An infectious disease has the ability to offer lasting protection. Even with natural immunity waning over time, subsequent enhancement (boost) is provided by asymptomatic encounters with the infection. [*]
 
However, when vaccination is introduced the prevalence of infection declines, which in turn reduces the amount of boosting and hence the level of immunity. What is more surprising is that the interaction between vaccination and waning immunity can lead to pronounced epidemic cycles.[*]
 
This data leads researchers to rest their hope of eliminating vaccinated diseases (‘vaccine-preventable disease’) by relying on protection promoted by circulating wild-type viruses.[*]
 
Nonsensically, that means we hope to attain elimination of disease while depending on the continuation of the wild-type disease.
 
??
 
How can you have elimination if the disease if it is still in circulation boosting vaccine-induced herd immunity?
 
 

Evolution
 
From the rise in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) causing deadly skin infections to the bacterial colonies on your hands evolving to resist your antibacterial soaps and hand gels, evolution is present in our daily lives.[*]
 
The two strongest examples of evolution in disease within our current vaccination programs is influenza and pertussis.
 
Of the former (influenza), everyone is well aware of – every year, starting in early September, we are reminded that the old vaccine we administered last year is useless and we need to get the updated vaccine to protect ourselves, our children and our community.[*]
 
The influenza virus experiences constant single-point mutations which renders the prior vaccine unidentifiable, requiring a new one every year.[*][*][*]         
 
Unfortunately, data continues to support that annual  influenza vaccination inhibits our body to fight other strains of flu not included in the vaccine and other respiratory virus infections.[*][*][*][*]
 
With the less discussed pertussis vaccine (the ‘ap’ part of the Tdap booster and the DTaP vaccine), mutation is more apparent than ever before but receives a lot less buzz.
 
If I had to render a guess as to why, it could be because of the key role the vaccine plays in the mutation of the bacteria.

 
 
Pertussis (aP) vaccination not only makes a person more susceptible to B. parapertussis infection but it also enhances the performance of the pathogen. Research completed in 2010 illustrates a 40-fold increase in B. parapertussis lung colony-forming units after vaccination of aP injections.[*][*]


(2012) Study completed by Kaiser Permanente Medical Center concluded that pertussis occurs more among vaccinated children than children not vaccinated for pertussis with the DtaP vaccine.[*]

 
The answer to alleviate this problem: earlier or more numerous booster doses of acellular pertussis vaccine.[*]
 

****
 
It seems the continual response to any weakness or flaw in vaccine-induced herd immunity is an increase in booster doses, occurring earlier and more often throughout life.
 
It is clear that each infectious system that has a current national vaccination program hold their own complex biological structure with numerous variables.

Involuntary Pediatric Chemotherapy

"Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease."

[Source: US Patent #5,605,930 Compositions and Methods for Treating & Preventing Pathologics including Cancer filed 3/7/94 Approved 2/25/97 Dr. Divorit Samid; The USA Dept. of HNS page 56]
 


Today, in a town only minutes away from the my home, a 10 year old girl is being forced to undergo chemotherapy treatment against her will and the wishes of her family.  
 
Even after the local County Probate Judge ruled *TWICE* in favor of the girl's parents, the hospital (Akron Children’s Hospital) continued their relentless attack against the family without any regard to what the girl and her family desired.[*][*]
 
After a third try, with inexhaustible funds, the hospital eventually had the ruling overturned and a hospital representative is the currently guardian of the young girl.
 
This story from my own hometown is alarming to say the very least. I mean, I’ve been in that hospital when I was little. My daughter has been in that hospital.
 
What may be more alarming is that this is not the only story of its kind.
 
2013
Ladon Riddle 3yrs
<Click here to read the story>
 
2011
Sarah 9 yrs
Oncologist turned mother into Child Protective Services and forced 13 months of chemotherapy even though she was cancer free.
<Click here to read the story>

 
2009
Daniel Hauser 13yr
A mother and her son fled after a court ruled for forced chemotherapy treatments.  
The parents said they "believe that the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time."
<Click here to read the story>
 


2008
11 yr Ontario boy taken from parents
<Click here to read the story>

 
 
 
A more notable case spurned the emotional and compelling 2010 documentary Cut, Poison, Burn where a family was forced to administer chemotherapy to their 4 yr old son, Thomas, after objecting to conventional treatment, choosing instead to seek out less invasive, less damaging, and less life threatening approach.
Their son was cancer free at the time of forced administration of chemotherapy.
Thomas Navarro died during the treatments. His death certificate states the cause of death as: Respiratory failure due to chronic toxicity of chemotherapy.
 
 
Neglect versus Informed Choice

 
Most people, myself included, have had first or second-hand experience with cancer.
 
Whether you’ve watched a mother or friend struggle, or if you happen to be a survivor yourself – then you understand how difficult the battle is.
 
In my experience, in cancer treatment (especially chemotherapy) a key element is the patient having a positive outlook and attitude on the treatment received. Forcing a chil) against their will to undergo horrendous treatment for several months is questionable and will no doubt impact any treatment’s influence over the disease.
 
Obviously, there are cases in which parents act irrationally without data/counsel which seriously neglects the health of a child – but these cases are not relevant to that scenario.
 
Cancer, not that long ago, was a rare disease and now it is a leading cause of death among Americans.
 
Over the century, we have dramatically altered the way we live and eat which is obviously having a significant effect on our (and our children’s) health.
 
Today, the majority of members in our society are freely selecting to adopt unhealthy habits. In fact, we are encouraged to do so – each one of us encouraged to let our children learn and live a lifestyle that promotes disease, while at the same time, we are losing the right to select which medical therapies to treat our children’s diseases with.
 
The majority of chemotherapy drugs used on children and not approved by the FDA for pediatric use and are known to be carcinogenic (meaning it causes cancer).[*][*]
 
 
 

Alternative Treatment

 
If you have witnessed someone going through chemotherapy, you know it is not a health-promoting treatment. Chemotherapy utilizes a mixture of toxins to eliminate and kill cancer cells (which also does not discriminate against the healthy cells in the body).
 
Getting the correct diagnosis is critical and conventional medicine excels at this. Another important factor in curing cancer is to know all your options for conventional and alternative treatments.
 
Chemotherapy is only one of several cancer treatments  - If you are interested in alternative treatments, start here:





 
 
It can be said with most certainty that when someone donates their time or money to a pink-ribbon walkathon or cancer charity, they believe that are doing a good thing.
 
They believe they are funding cancer research that is vital to curing cancer. However, the money donated to these charities perpetuates the status quo of cancer treatment (namely toxic pharmaceuticals and expensive machines).
 
The National Cancer Institute's annual budget was $5.2 billion (2010).
 
Alternative treatments that are witnessing real progress against cancer do not receive any money from the government or these charities 
 
The most promising cancer therapies to emerge in the past three decades from the Burzynski Clinic is all self-funded.



Action

If you find what Akron Children’s Hospital is doing to be deplorable, consider going to their facebook page and making a public statement. You find you are not alone – adding your voice to many others who are speaking up.  



If you have not yet seen the documentary Cut, Poison, Burn – you can purchase it here or view the official trailer: