Hera
Re miscarriages and vaccines
This excerpt from Pam Weintraub's The Bitter Feud over Lymerix,
Speaks to reason not to trust on this issue in an account of GSK defending Lymerix in an Fda hearing.

"Finally, the company touted a pregnancy registry with "no unexpected findings" and only 4 miscarriages out of 13. "You make it sound as though you find no consequences. I don't consider that...no pattern of anything," the Mayo clinic's Michael O'Fallon fumed. The comment really disturbs me," he said. That was when a tall well-dressed man swept up to the podium from somewhere in the back and motioned the presenting scientists away. It was time for damage control, and David Wheadon, vice president of regulatory affairs at GSK, took charge. "Certainly spontaneous abortion, within the context of pregnancy, in an overall population, is not something that is unexpected" Wheadon told the panel, "and I think that was indeed, what was intended to be said."

Political Buff:
Wakefield FACT: It was not a study, it was a report. The Lancet supposeably removed the paper for some sort of abuse which a British High Court dismissed:
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court)
Decision Between: PROFESSOR JOHN WALKER-SMITH Appellant- and - GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL- Respondent.
MR STEPHEN MILLER QC AND MS ANDREA LINDSAY-STRUGO
(instructed by EASTWOODS SOLICITORS) for the Appellant MISS JOANNA GLYNN QC AND MR CHRISTOPHER MELLOR (instructed by FIELD FISHER WATERHOUSE LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 13th. 14th, 15th, 16th & 17th February 2012
____________________
But following the successful appeal of the paper’s senior clinical investigator – John Walker-Smith – the GMC findings that served as the basis for Lancet’s retraction have since been overturned.
-With regard to the GMC’s false claims that the patients in the paper were not “consecutively referred”:
“157. …Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the [GMC] panel. The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that thechildren were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the
Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology.”
-Similarly, the GMC’s rulings that the children in the Lancet paper were subjects of a research project that did not gain ethical approval also proved unfounded:
“158. …The [GMC] panel’s finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.”

The judge found only one misleading statement in the paper, but it was not because investigations undertaken were unethical experiments described as gaining ethical approval in the paper according to the now-overturned findings
on which the paper’s retraction was based. On the contrary, it was because investigations in the paper were described as being ethically approved when most were clinically indicated and required no such approval, although a few investigations were ethically approved. This may require an erratum, but it does not justify keeping the paper fully retracted.
Read the entire adjudication at: http://www.bailii (dot) org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html.

Hmm, lets see. Dr. Wakefield Report was so egregious that it took the British Medical community 12 years to discover it?????

The BMJ, a medical journal that is more open to controversial subjects than most, published an investigative piece and editorial claiming that Andrew Wakefield et al's research on children with developmental and gastrointestinal disorders and the MMR vaccine was "fraud." Wakefield's original research paper was retracted by the Lancet, following a decision by the General Medical Council (GMC) to pull Wakefield's license to practice medicine in the UK on the basis of his work on autism, 12 years AFTER initial publication. The paper had been, in its day, the exemplar of research on vaccine safety problems until Wakefield suggested it would be safer to seperate the shot.

This is what Brian Deer has to say today: “Who Can Say?” -- Journalist Who Alleged Wakefield Committed Fraud Backs Off Key Claim: http://www.ageofautism (dot) com/dr-andrew-wakefield/. Brian Deer finally admitted he filed the complaint. Not the parents of the children, not another doctor-a journalist-and not a very good one. He currently trolls the comment boards looking for his name so he can explain his part in the Wakefield witch hunt.

"Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brian Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccine: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program." Pediatrics Vol. No. 3 March 1998

This Pediatrics abstract says the same thing that Wakefield and his co-horts reported on. The Peds article was posted in the journal less than a month after the Wakefield's report. The difference: Wakefield suggested it may be prudent to separate the combo shot and there needed to be more research into the affects of the combo shot on the neurological system of children. Ironically, Dr. Wakefield was not opposed to vaccination. Never spoke against it. Never questioned the science.

The abstract discussed, shows that DHHS ( Dept of Health & Human Services) doctors came to a similar conclusion (that measles vaccine and neurological damage in children should be investigated) the same year as Wakefield. Those authors were never put on trial, had retracted nothing.

Why did the Lancet retract the paper? The editors list two reasons: the children were not "consecutively referred" and the studies weren't approved by the local ethics committee. Well, after the many prior investigations of this paper, I am astonished that it took 12 years for Lancet to discover the lack of IRB approval. No one was surprised that the British High Court adjudicated the way it did. (see above)

Anyone bother to read the Lancet paper? Obviously the person who wrote this piece didn't. The Lancet paper stated:
The Lancet, Volume 375, Issue 9713, Page 445, 6 February 2010
Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.

We did not prove an association between measles,mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve
this issue.

If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordancerate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins...

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles,mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

Now the Pediatric Journal study published about 3 weeks after the Lancet report:
CONCLUSIONS: This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles
immunization.

Basically the same conclusion. So the paper was removed not for fraud or ethical reasons-it was POLITICAL. Wakefield made the mistake of voicing a concern for the children this stuff was being pumped into and "suggested" that maybe, just to be cautious, the combo shot be be separated so children can have just the measles part. Blasphemy !!!! Do you know how much it would cost to separate the combo shots. They were combined to save money even thought none of the shots had been studied for their combined affect of a human body. The idea is to make money -not spend it. That's the Wakefield saga.

Obviously you did not VERIFY any of the bogus information you stated. The only resource that continued to pile on lies was Brian Deer. You'd have a much better understanding of what occurred if you'd have researched the writer who initiated the entire witch hunt.

Politics Buff says:- "You see, once I did believe that there was something to Wakefield's work. But the smoking gun for me was when it came out that he had a patent, and stood to make millions of dollars off of a single measles vaccine. Now, that's a real conflict of interest."

Ah Yes - this litigious false rubbish is straight out of Brian Deer's BMJ article:- http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full Secrets of the MMR scare
"How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money" Brian Deer, journalist
London, UK 11th January 2011

Brian Deer deals in lies and smears. Unfortunately mud sticks, but this BMJ content is still potentially defamatory and technically litigious, even when repeated on comment threads like this one Politics Buff.

The truth? Dr Wakefield's 'Transfer Factor' is NOT a vaccine as such, but was designed to 'transfer' immunity to measles in the same way as breast milk confers the mother's immunities to her child. Dr Wakefield hoped his discovery would protect children who were immune compromised, and so could not be immunised with conventional vaccines. In that sense, 'Transfer Factor' could possibly be loosely defined as a vaccine, but hardly a 'competing' one. It's very sad, post implementation of MMR vaccine in the UK, two immune compromised children died from measles (the only UK child measles deaths recorded since 1988). Transfer Factor might have given these children, who could not be vaccinated with the MMR live viruses, a chance of survival. Instead Dr Wakefield got accused of 'murdering' them on CNN and ITV, how unfair is that?

The Patent for TS is held by the Royal Free Hospital, London, and any profits would go directly to the hospital, NOT Dr Wakefield. Incoming Medical Director, Professor Mark Pepys, who has publicly admitted he was instrumental in getting rid of Dr Wakefield, stated he was not in favour of manufacturing Transfer Factor. Instead he set up his own company Pentraxin Therapeutics,in partnership with MMR Manufacturers GSK, ostensibly to find cures for dementia.

After many years of apparent failures in the dementia field, including a plethora of unused patents, Prof Pepys was last heard of going cap in hand for cash to develop research into immunology cures and prevention, more than 12 years after his refusal to support Dr Wakefield's immunology research.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zm328
Pepys on Wakefield:-
"One of the activities he [Wakefield] wished to pursue was in relation to a company he himself set up, together with others ... and as far as I could gather, the role of this company was to commercialize various treatments for complications of measles vaccination and MMR vaccination ... including treatments which in my opinion were not scientifically robust, for example the use of transfer factor, something which was always very controversial ... comes from an earlier era of immunology, certainly not the current era, and which has long been discredited as something which is a viable scientific or medically acceptable procedure. So I wasn't at all happy that anybody in my department should be involved with that, or try to promote it, particularly in the context of an alarm about safety of vaccination, which had originated from the same source."

Politics Buff

Wakefield's patent was for a treatment for MMR induced inflammatory bowel disease which might possibly have had a secondary application as a vaccine (patent lawyers look for secondary applications of inventions) but it was not a rival commercial product to MMR. Wakefield might have had a commercial interest in the continued application of MMR (except he had assigned all profits to the medical school) but what he advised was the use of single vaccines in which he had no commercial interest.

The BMJ article was drivel.

As to Paul Offit's Rotavirus vaccine:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/02/paul-offit-and-rotavirus-vaccine-deaths-on-vaers.html

ZyklonB & the concentration camps were the product of science , no ?
The nucear arms race is the product of science ? no ?

Vaccines are the product of science ! evil science

Sophie Scholl

Not that it's any of your business, but yes, my family, including my 18 year old autistic daughter, are up to date with vaccines. She has also had the HPV, and both Hep A and Hep B, as we love to travel. The only exception is her MMR booster, because at that time, Wakefield's study still had credibility with both me and my doctor, so her immune levels (she was immune) were checked instead. And, my daughter has never shown any signs of becoming "more autistic" after her vaccines. She's doing great, finishing high school, and will be taking part in a coop program next year, where she will work. She volunteers in a retirement home, and has done so for several years.

You see, once I did believe that there was something to Wakefield's work. But the smoking gun for me was when it came out that he had a patent, and stood to make millions of dollars off of a single measles vaccine. Now, that's a real conflict of interest.

Yes, Paul Offit has done financially well off his vaccine inventions. But he has also saved hundreds of thousands of children's lives, and he deserves to profit from his life-long work. How many lives has Wakefield saved?

Politics Buff posted:-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+safety+children+double+blind

"Let's see, there are over 300 articles which come up from that search, and none of them are by Paul Offit."

Too True - Offit doesn't bother with conducting his own scientific research. Instead he cherry picks vaccine friendly research (often commissioned and paid for by the vaccine researchers), for inclusion in his vaccine promoting books, including of course, promoting his own cash generating Rotateq vaccine. Some of Offit's unscientific utterances are downright dangerous, like the time, on a Canadian Radio Talk-In, when he told listeners that child febrile seizures following vaccine administration (a listed side effect)are nothing to worry about. The official medical advice states child seizures MUST always be medically checked out. They CAN sometimes be due to encephalitis. Offit's 'safe to administer 10,000 vaccine's at once' -originally 100,000-will go down in history.

I'm afraid I laughed like a drain when Offit's 'Deadly Choices' book got pulped in the UK, ahead of some much publicised book signing sessions, which had to be cancelled. Offit made the big mistake of including some of Brian Deer's dodgy 2011 BMJ 'Wakefield Trilogy' stuff, which falsely accused Dr Wakefield and Solicitor Richard Barr of fraudulently converting Legal Aid money to themselves. An enraged Mr Barr threatened litigation unless the book was withdrawn. The damages claimed would have been punitive. I suspect the unfortunate publishers were left to pick up the tab for their expenses!!

What Offit and most folks in the US don't fully understand, is Deer's BMJ trilogy 'sank like a stone' in the UK after the UK Press associaton issued warnings to members about possible defamation proceedings if they took up this story. Deer and Godlee had to travel to the US to make an impact. (Remember THAT CNN Anderson Cooper lynch inciting report?)

Linda1,

You know, it is very easy to find articles that are double-blind, placebo controlled, and without any conflict of interest.

Here's one on the HPV vaccine, done by a group of doctors at a hospital in Brazil, which reported excellent efficacy and no safety concerns, with 437 women.

pubmed id: 25424918

Here's another one about diptheria and pertussis vaccination of mothers during pregnancy, with authors from the USA, but only from universities and hospitals, with no authors from vaccine companies. It found that good levels of antibodies against pertussis were created in the infants, and that there were no safety considerations.

pubmed id: 24794369

Here's one about human rotavirus vaccine (RIX4414), by Chinese authors, studying a GlaxoSmithKline vaccine. There were no safety concerns, and the infants became immune.

pubmed id: 23807360

Angus Files wrote: "Ehh! put in the search (top left corner white box)

Pharma Witch Hunts....

55,700 results"
___

You do know that AoA is a blog. This is not pubmed. Let's put "pharma witch hunts" into pubmed....

And we get ZERO hits.

Hi Mercky business,

Try this search:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+safety+double+blind+placebo

Double blind, placebo controlled vaccine safety studies. 563 hits.

As for the free speech in the rest of the world being determined by Clinton - that is ridiculous and American-centric. Are you telling me that Germans, Russians, Koreans, Australians are all being controlled by Clinton's laws? Have you ever visited any of those countries? Do you think that they are subject to Clinton?

Political Buff:
You say the media is bought out because of Bill Clinton. Supposing that was true, what about the media in the rest of the world? It's not all the USA.

-CDC EXPOSED! http://anticorruptionsociety.com/center-for-disease-control-exposed/.
---------------------------------------------------------
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+safety+children+double+blind
Government financed study. First rules of studies, research the researchers and the financing. Who funded the study:
Present address: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
------------------------------------
"vaccines are safe and effective"

Please provide the following:
-An INDEPENDENT double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

-Independent scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

- Independent scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

- Please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?
------------------------------------
"there is real consensus in science"
Scientific validity isn't determined by majority vote. It was Galileo - not the consensus of his time - who had it right. When French researcher Pierre Louis concluded, in the early 1800s, that bloodletting was of limited use in treating pneumonia, he was challenging 2,000 years of standard medical practice." Freemon Dyson
----------------------------------------------------
"you'd see a raging debate in the scientific literature,"
-Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020138.

-Is Academic Medicine for Sale? http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200005183422009

-Dr. Angell interview by PBS
The entire interview is available at http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/Exprts_intrvw/m_angell.htm

-Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
Marcia Angell: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/?page=1

Quote "since the pharmaceutical industry has no direct access to people,The medical people are the link and they are heavily influenced by brainwashing. This industry rolles some enormous amounts of money on the backs of the patients.
Drug companies insist as a condition for providing funds that they will be intimately involved in all aspects of the study, they are the sponsors and they can easily tilt things in their favor, so their medications seem more reliable and secure than what they are in actuality. Therefore, it is not surprising that industry-funded studies published in medical journals, consistently biased in favor of drugs that receive positive results.On the negative results we rarely hear".

I don't think it's relevant who is right and who is wrong. I should have the right to decide what medical treatment I or my children receive. It's not really about the vaccines. It's about what we will allow the government to do to us. Today, it's about the measles. Tomorrow, it will be about 'anti-violence' vaccine. The next year it will be about the 'mainstream vaccine'. And then it will be about the 'independent thinking vaccine'.

The control is the key word here. Shut up and listen to the 'science'. The same 'science' that told us that fat is bad 20 years ago but tells us today that it's actually not that bad. The same 'science' that claimed the benefits of asbestos, flame retardants, artificial sweeteners, etc. The same 'science' that made us believe that 1 day old babies need Hep vaccine because somewhere down the road the baby vould contract the dreadful disease.

I may be wrong. But I resent that I am considered to be too stupid to make my own decision about what goes in my body. If I am wrong, I will die of measles (or whatever deadly plague decides to punish me for being wrong). But even that should be my own decision, not that of someone who 1) doesn't know a dam about me, 2) could benefit from a decision about me, 3) can't help me if his decision hurts me.

If you want to vaccinate, go ahead and do it. Just don't tell me what to do. And don't tell me that it's my duty to risk an injury to prevent you from getting injured. You wouldn't ask me to jump in the front of your car to stop you from falling of the cliff. Or would you?

Politics Buff,
Many of the people here, including me, have seen serious and disabling vaccine damage in our families. The truth is out there, in many books by many sources, supported by thousands of scientific studies on the dangers of vaccines. I wouldn't trust a single word any doctor says about anything. If it were on a neutral subject, I'd research it independently to decide if I think the doctor was giving accurate information or not. I wouldn't trust anything he or she said about any vaccine or vaccine-preventable disease, period. And I don't have to. It's every man for himself, sauve qui peut, at this juncture. The vaccines are much more dangerous than the vaccine-preventable diseases.

"it means that the vast majority of parent do vaccinate"

Why coercion?

"You are supposing that there is a vast, world-wide conspiracy theory to suppress what you see is "the truth" about vaccines."

Ehh! put in the search (top left corner white box)

Pharma Witch Hunts....

55,700 results

What are you on??keep taking them the sooner your gone the better.

MMR RIP

Mercky Business,

A response like that shows that you have never visited pubmed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+safety+children+double+blind

Let's see, there are over 300 articles which come up from that search, and none of them are by Paul Offit. The first few are from

United Kingdom
South Africa+Mozambique+Netherlands
USA
Korea
India+USA
Philippines+Australia+France
India+Korea+Philippines+USA
Korea

Contrary to what you say, there is real consensus in science that vaccines are safe and effective. It's not just bureaucrats. If there was any real controversy, you'd see a raging debate in the scientific literature, but if you again look at the papers in that search, you will see that isn't the case.

You say the media is bought out because of Bill Clinton. Supposing that was true, what about the media in the rest of the world? It's not all the USA.

“At some point you have to trust somebody.”

Snake (psychopath) talk.

'Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around

Slip into silent slumber
Sail on a silver mist
Slowly and surely your senses
Will cease to resist

Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me''

Offit: "I think questioning vaccines is perfectly reasonable. But I think that when one looks at the data, and sees that vax are safe and effective and...still...says, 'Well, I think there's a conspiracy to sell vaccines' or 'I think my doctor's lying to me,' I think that's when you cross some sort of critical line," says Offit. "What I'm asking is that people trust their experts. And that's sort of a hard thing to politically accept." (CBS) 60 MinutesOctober 20, 2004

Vaccination is a well exposed psychopath racket, why they want u to trust/obey authority http://whale.to/vaccines.html

Jenny Allen,

You say: "These days science and epidemiology graduates, employed to conduct 'research' know full well they must not 'discover' anything which might cause difficulties for their employers. The huge army of pharma sponsored pro-vaccine propagandists, including politicians, doctors and scientists, have commandeered the word 'science' to promote their own political and corporate agendas."

You are supposing that there is a vast, world-wide conspiracy theory to suppress what you see is "the truth" about vaccines. Everyone, including university professors, all around the world are all in the pockets of pharma? Really? There are none at all who have any ethics, or seek the truth? Not a single rogue scientist? Where are all the whistle-blowers?

Your single example of a whistle-blower, Thompson, has been singularly ineffectual. He's still employed by the CDC, and not in jail or eliminated. If there was a vast world-wide conspiracy, why was he not hunted down? Why is Andrew Wakefield still allowed to speak freely? Still live in his mansion in Austin? Still allowed to raise money on crowd-funding sites? Surely "big pharma" which has enough influence to stop any anti-vaccine science from being published has enough influence to stop that pesky Wakefield.

Thanks, Cathy. I think you are right, we have to trust ourselves, mainly because our very health and lives are dependent upon all of us seeing that our "untrained" judgements are closer to reality than the "mainstream" pronouncements. We have to trust ourselves to the point of not being afraid of the responsibility we thought we didn't need to take in our healthcare choices.

We thought we had institutions in place to guarantee not only prevention of atrocities various states have historically demonstrated they are capable of committing without checks on their power, but to continue to allow the progress possible through a society free to act under good guiding principles to find the best outcomes possible.

Now "the mainstream" is pretending that they are only asking for "trust" when they are really moving for the color of "law" to protect and further their current practices of unacknowledged force, and this after they have demonstrated quite fully they are perfectly capable of completely violating trust, harming many for very little to no value in exchange, and walking around blind to it and/or accepting of it...

Julie Gerberding sells 2.4m $ worth of merck shares reports Anne Dachel - rats leaving a sinking ship !

Julie you are criminal number1 !
former cdc head and now chief of mucks vaccine division.

Julie oversaw the cover up of the William Thompson 2003 fraud !

Politics Buff states:- "We should trust scientists because, with a few exceptions who are in a conflict of interest, they are trained to weigh the evidence and understand the issues."

Few Exceptions in conflicts of interest??? These days science and epidemiology graduates, employed to conduct 'research' know full well they must not 'discover' anything which might cause difficulties for their employers. The huge army of pharma sponsored pro-vaccine propagandists, including politicians, doctors and scientists, have commandeered the word 'science' to promote their own political and corporate agendas. 'The science is in' they scream, as they produce their flawed statistical and other so called 'research' studies, many of them with 'weird and wonderful' research subjects.

ANY scientific research or data which does not support the so called 'mainstream' science position is branded as pseudoscience. A tame press and media, reliant on the advertising revenues from the huge pharma' agricultural and chemical industries, is collectively terrified to publish anything which might upset the powerful industries, which support their livelihoods.

REAL science is NEVER 'in'. Science is about questioning, observing, evaluating and reassessing when the unexpected happens, or new evidence is found. Science is dynamic. A science degree, or even a PhD does not confer universal knowledge, but should result in 'scientific thinking'. Sadly, in the present corrupt world, scientists are no longer able to think scientifically.

Yes, we should trust the parents, the vast majority of whom vaccinate.

We should trust scientists because, with a few exceptions who are in a conflict of interest, they are trained to weigh the evidence and understand the issues.

Great points, Cathy!

I just want to put Michaud's quote in the context of the sentence he said RIGHT BEFORE, which makes it all the more chilling:

Peter Michaud, J.D., R.N., representing the Maine Medical Association:
“I heard some one say today, 'The CDC is rife with scandal,' and it may be true. But at some point you have to trust somebody.”

Translation: "Pay not attention to the corruption at the CDC, which I admit is true. Trust them anyway."

Think about that one.

A minute later in the video, he says, “At some point you have to trust somebody.” Peter Michaud, JD, RN, a lobbyist for the Maine Medical Association.

No Mr. Michaud we have just found out why we shouldn't trust anyone with connection to the pharmaceutical industry-period.

Where did the Tsunami of Vaccine Bills come from? (110 bills in 36 states)

ALEC: AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

ALEC prepares model bills to run through the nation state capitols based on government intention and corporate interest. Legislators from all over the nation are members of ALEC.

This is how a tsunami of bills suddenly shows up in states across the nation. BILL GATES FOUNDATION & ALEC: This is what I just found. I would think now Gates Foundation would get another associate organization of theirs to support ALEX.
Support for the American Legislative Exchange Council

In November 2011, the Gates Foundation made a $376,635 grant to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php
/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council, which it claims was “to educate and engage its membership on more efficient state budget approaches to drive greater student outcomes, as well as educate them on beneficial ways to recruit, retain, evaluate and compensate effective teaching based upon merit and achievement.”[3] In April 2012, during a public campaign by public interest groups targeting ALEC supporters and urging them to cut ties with ALEC, during which the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Progressive_Change_Campaign_Committee,
specifically targeted the foundation, Gates spokesman Chris Williams told the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call, that it does not plan to make future grants to the conservative nonprofit and specifically noted that the foundation was never a dues-paying member of ALEC.[4] Williams also told BuzzFeed that the foundation does not plan to withdraw that grant “for now. . . . We have already paid out a significant portion of it,” he said.[5]

In Iowa for example, a majority of Republicans a members of ALEC.

Watch this video:
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/05/22/watch-this-atlanta-tv-station-expose-alecs-infl/203745.

INSIDE THE ROPES (article on ALEC)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/09/on-the-ropes-inside-alecs-annual-meeting/189205

http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2015/05/24/cdc-receives-millions-of-dollars-in-industry-gifts/

Vaccines Are Not Safe: Dr. Russell Blaylock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVkJo0HMVQ8

MMR RIP

Thought provoking article. My trust is in God. Or, if you prefer, "god".

You'll know whom to trust when the hair on the back of your neck stands up - like when you discover that in 1999 the CDC found in its own study a significant correlation between the mercury in vaccines and the incidence of speech and learning disorders and autism, and never said a word about it to American parents, even after their initial, pointed efforts to find flaws in the findings failed.

"We wont be fooled again" by the WHO pop band rings loud in my head reading your article Cathy many thanks.

Anyone thinking about vaccines and vaccinating ,DONT.
I we were all pro- vaccine at one point..we wont be fooled again.

Trust a doctor biggest joke of the day!!

MMR RIP