This Vaccine Will Kill A Number of Children
By Anne Dachel
Very strong words from Andrew Wakefield: "This vaccine will kill a number of children"
Here's another part of my talk with Andy. He doesn't mince words about what they know and who's culpable. Notice that the issue isn't vaccines and autism. It's about covering up deadly side effects from vaccination.
Q: Currently there is pressure on the Italian and French governments and in other places as well to mandate vaccines in those countries. Why don’t these governments recognize the possibility that a one-size-fits-every-child vaccine schedule puts large numbers of children at risk for neurological damage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ9UlR_z2Yo&t=3s
Andy: “…Where have all the young men gone? The film title I’d come up with is, No Country for Young Men, ...but of course, where is a country for young anymore in the western world? We just talked about Italy and France and Germany and Poland and the mandatory vaccination laws that they are trying to pass now in Italy.”
Andy went on to explain how the vaccine proponents in Italy tried to pass mandated vaccines as “an emergency measure, so it would go through the Senate, and wouldn’t have to go back through the Parliament. …They have now sent the bill back to the Parliament to be voted on. …”
He went on to talk about “the will of the Italian people to get out on the streets…to protest this…”
“The situation in Italy is not just, why don’t the government recognize the possibility that harm is being done to children, and that one size does not fit all—It’s much, much worse than that, and it comes down to a vaccine by GlaxoSmithKline that’s not used in this country. I think it’s the Hexavalent vaccine, a six valent vaccine, which, in a nutshell, has killed children. It is demonstrably killing children. And Dr. Puliyel has done an outstanding analysis on this, …
“What happen was that data were kept back from the public in a secret report from GlaxoSmithKline about the outcomes from this vaccine.
“And I’ll just be very brief, … There were, I think, 69 deaths following this vaccine. When you looked at the temporal relationship of those deaths to the administration of the vaccine, they occurred very shortly afterwards and declined thereafter rapidly.
“There was a clear, clear temporal association between the exposure and [the deaths.]
“Glaxo decided, in their report, not to present the data in that way, in other words, deaths by tying up the vaccination. They presented them as cumulative deaths over a longer period, in other words, …that is deliberately misleading, in my opinion.
“They had the data, they knew what they found, and they concealed it from the regulators. The regulators should have been smart enough to pick it up. They obviously didn’t care enough, or they knew and ignored it. …
“This is in the context of murder—a situation where you have foreknowledge of the consequences of what you are doing.
“This act, this administration of this vaccine will kill a number of children. They know that, and yet they are mandating it. That, in my opinion is murder.
“And this is why—part of the reason why the Swedes have refused violate their constitution and go to mandatory vaccinations.
“So it’s much worse than just ignoring the possibility of one size doesn’t fit all. It is a certain knowledge based on information provided that this vaccine is killing children.
“So that knowledge is now possessed by the industry, GlaxoSmithKline, by the regulators, and should of course, be known to the politicians, because they are voting on this law. And if they don’t know it, they should know it. And not knowing it—ignorance of these facts—is no excuse.
“It is far, far more dangerous, more insidious, more concerning, and more corrupt than simply failing to acknowledge that there is a possible link between vaccines and neurological injury in children.”
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.
Until more research is done, this shouldn't be an issue. If Vaccines are safe, there wouldn't be this conversation. Parents should have the right to decide any issues regarding their child's health. End of story. Until there can be a way that pharmaceutical companies, scientist, biologists, can definitively prove the safety of vaccines at 100 percent, and pharmaceutical companies are responsible for their products, I would not let anyone put those toxic chemicals in my body nor my children's.
Posted by: Kathy Sutton | August 06, 2017 at 08:59 AM
David Weiner, Thank you very much for your explanation.
Posted by: susan welch | August 05, 2017 at 03:04 PM
@ Susan Welch , no problem. Allow me to clarify.
Actually, the reference in this interview to a "one size fits all vaccine schedule" was in the question posed, not a statement by Dr. Wakefield. Furthermore, many people in our movement have made this criticism, so I am not really directing my comments toward any particular individual.
I greatly appreciate what Dr. Wakefield has done, what the folks who write for this website have done, and what many other activists are doing to advance our cause. That said, it is clear that we are fighting an uphill battle and that it always pays to do whatever we can to improve our arguments and make the strongest possible case. So this is where I am coming from.
When we say that "we shouldn't have a one size fits all vaccine schedule", that is technically correct, for reasons that you well understand. But the problem with this argument is that it implies that we SHOULD have ANY type of vaccine schedule. That the problem is that it is "one size". If the problem is that the schedule is "one size", then it could be solved by making it "2 size" or "3 size", or whatever. So, no, my comment was not meant to be sarcastic. It was made to demonstrate the weakness in the argument that we are using.
And this is why I contend that the stronger, more robust argument that we should be making is that governments should not be centrally planning the health care of their subjects, whether via vaccines, or in any other respect. There is a great deal of scholarship and historical experience that demonstrates that whenever governments try to centrally plan anything, failure ensues. This is the argument that I have put forth in my writings and the one I believe that our movement should adopt.
Posted by: David Weiner | August 05, 2017 at 12:10 PM
David Weiner in my opinion hit the nail on the head with his statement;
"The fundamental problem is that there is a schedule to begin with."
Indeed. If we lived in a halfway sane society, instead of being forced to lead this mental asylum type, idiocracy-is-now style of existence, vaccination would have been abolished a long time ago, or this insane medical practice would never been allowed to raise its ugly head in the first place.
"That it is proper for governments to centrally plan the health care of their subjects" is arguable. Maybe we would all be better off if we as individuals took personal responsibility for our health and health care. What the government provides is in any case not health care, but sickness care, and SICKNESS CREATION - by way of vaccination, fluoridation, geoengineering etc. Governments work hand-in-glove with corporate interests and the psychopathic elites.
The reason why governments don't care about making vaccines safer is because making vaccines safer would defeat the very purpose of vaccination programmes, which is NOT to prevent, but to PROMOTE ill-health and neurological damage. Why?
Because the sale of drugs used to treat the chronic ill-health vaccines cause is a major or even the leading source of income for the medical-pharmaceutical establishment. The part governments (and the psychopathic elites who run them) are interested in is the neurological damage vaccines cause, because children growing up neurotypically, with normally developing and maturing brains, would be a threat to the parasitic existence of the psychopathic elites engaged in large scale organised crime at the highest levels.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable...”
― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: Third Series
Posted by: Erwin Alber | August 05, 2017 at 09:08 AM
@David Weiner, I'm sorry if I am being obtuse, but I'm finding it difficult to understand where you are coming from.
You obviously disagree with Andrew Wakefield and, of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, it is unclear from your comments whether or not you think 'one size fits all' is appropriate.
The families of vaccine/brain injured children would wholeheartedly agree that 'one size' does not fit all. Indeed, after vaccine injury most families would not agree to any vaccine. Are your comments about '2 size' and '10 size' meant seriously or sarcastically?
Again, apologies for not understanding.
Posted by: susan welch | August 05, 2017 at 03:42 AM
"No Country for Old Men" scared me, so bad I had to watch it from the hallway. One eye peeping around the corner, so I could shut my eyes.
"No Country for Young Men" is scarier.
Worse still; we all are not just watching it, but living it.
So harden are the hearts of men, they just don't care how many children will die, just as long as they don't die from an infectious disease then death by vaccine is considered controlled and okay
Posted by: Benedetta | August 04, 2017 at 10:21 PM
Andy was interviewed before the law was passed.
Posted by: Anne McELroy Dachel | August 04, 2017 at 07:19 PM
Dr Wakefield standing up and being counted once again.We don't deserve this great man.
Pharma for Prison
MMRRIP
Posted by: Angus Files | August 04, 2017 at 06:35 PM
what date did Andy make this video.? everything I pull up says the Italian law passed the Parliament on July 28th.
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | August 04, 2017 at 05:23 PM
I should have said "considered proper" in my previous comment. In case I wasn't clear.
Posted by: David Weiner | August 04, 2017 at 12:02 PM
We talk about the problem with a "one size fits all" schedule.
Yet there is something problematic about this way of framing the problem.
The fundamental problem is that there is a schedule to begin with.
That it is proper for governments to centrally plan the health care of their subjects.
Would it be better if there were a 2-sized schedule? 10-sized?
Posted by: David Weiner | August 04, 2017 at 12:01 PM
Yes, but Bob, you have to think of the greater good. All those infants who were not at risk from Hepatitis B, are now protected from it.
Posted by: John Stone | August 04, 2017 at 06:31 AM
Dr Wakefield:
"“Glaxo decided, in their report, not to present the data in that way, in other words, deaths by tying up the vaccination. They presented them as cumulative deaths over a longer period, in other words, …that is deliberately misleading, in my opinion.
“They had the data, they knew what they found, and they concealed it from the regulators. The regulators should have been smart enough to pick it up. They obviously didn’t care enough, or they knew and ignored it. …"
As I understand it .. "the regulators" were "smart enough to pick up Glaxo's BILLION dollars" .. no?
Apparently .. the MONEY meant more to "regulators" .. and .. the "regulator's" paid a willing PRICE .. to "not care" .. "not know" .. or .. "ignore" .. the deliberately "mis-leading data" ..
I agree with Dr Wakefield ..
"“This act, this administration of this vaccine will kill a number of children. They know that, and yet they are mandating it. That, in my opinion is MURDER.
Posted by: bob moffit | August 04, 2017 at 06:25 AM