Note: Below is a an article from Professor Christopher Exley, expert in Aluminum's effect on the human body.
At the bottom of this post, you will find the website info about how SAFE injected aluminum is from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, home of Dr. Paul Offit, whose career has been enriched by his vaccination patent & crusade against children with autism on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.
To appear in: Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology
This is a .pdf of the full Exley Commentary that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier.
Exley C, An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium, Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2019.09.010
Aluminium salts are common adjuvants in vaccines given to children. Their physical, chemical and biological properties have recently been reviewed . However, a debate continues as to whether neonate and infant exposure to aluminium through vaccination is biologically significant with respect to their exposure to aluminium through other routes and especially diet. For example, paediatricians, responsible for administering the vaccine schedule for children, seem in particular, to be uninformed about the properties of aluminium adjuvants and their mode of action in vaccines. This apparent ignorance of the published scientific literature is unexpected in those charged with the wellbeing of neonates and infants and especially in the light of Janeway’s description of alum adjuvant as ‘the immunologist’s dirty little secret’ . Paediatricians such as recently (07/04/2019) Andrew Pollard in The Sunday Times, have a habit of reverting to pure ‘baby talk’ when for example; describing
how much aluminium is present in an infant vaccine. They use terms such as ‘minuscule’ and ‘teeny-weeny’ to tell anyone, who asks, how little aluminium there is in a vaccine. They usually then proceed to compare the amount of aluminium in a vaccine with the amount of aluminium in (an adult’s) diet. There are, of course, more accurate, understandable ways to inform parents and other interested parties how much aluminium is present in a vaccine, and I shall endeavour to achieve this herein. An appreciation of how much aluminium is present in a single injection of a vaccine is critical to understanding how aluminium adjuvants are effective in stimulating the immune response.
2. How much aluminium is found in vaccines?
Currently about 20 childhood vaccines include an aluminium adjuvant. Vaccine industry literature (for example; https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/2586/smpc) expresses the aluminium content of an individual vaccine as an amount (weight) of aluminium (not aluminium salt) per unit volume of a vaccine (usually 0.5 mL). Industry does this to account for the fact that there are no strict molecular weights for the polymeric aluminium salts that are used as adjuvants in vaccinations. They prepare acid digests of the adjuvants and measure their total aluminium using ICP MS. This is not explained in the literature they provide with vaccines and can cause confusion for some as the actual weight of hydrated aluminium salt (e.g. aluminium oxyhydroxide, aluminium hydroxyphosphate and aluminium hydroxyphosphatesulphate) in any vaccine preparation is actually approximately ten fold higher. The aluminium salt is the major component of a vaccine (after water) and its high content is why vaccine preparations are invariably cloudy in appearance . As an example, GlaxoSmithKline’s Infanrix Hexa vaccine is reported by the manufacturer to contain 0.82 mg of aluminium per vaccine (0.5 mL). Thus, the weight of aluminium salt in this vaccine is approximately 8 mg, which is approximately ten times the weight of all of the other components of the vaccine when combined. An aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine is essentially a very high concentration of an aluminium salt (8 mg/0.5 mL or 16 mg/mL or 16 g/L) in which just g of other vaccine components including antigens and other excipients are occluded.
Download the full Exley Commentary here.
HOW TO PROMOTE ALUMINUM AS SAFE FOR FROM CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA:
They even have a video featuring a doe eyed, gorgeous baby girl.
Note: Below is a an article from Professor Christopher Exley, expert in Aluminum's effect on the human body.
Note: Parents are losing their right to say "no" to even partial vaccination of their children. Exemption laws are being ripped apart and thrown away from coast to coast. Most recently in Connecticut. Politicians' knowledge of vaccine science, safety, testing, efficacy and side effects is spoon fed to them by the loving hand of the lobbyists hired by the pharmaceutical companies who make billions off the CDC mandated schedule. Below are 20 facts from an MD who is not held captive by the religion of vaccination. Dowload the list in .pdf form here
TWENTY PROBLEMS WITH VACCINE SCIENCE
Alvin H. Moss, MD, FACP, FAAHPM*
*Dr. Moss has more than 40 years of medical practice, research, and teaching experience. His interest in vaccine safety and vaccine injury was first prompted by ethical concerns regarding conflicts of interest in vaccine research and in public policy. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent those of his employer.
1) No inert placebo-controlled studies with saline injection
2) Short duration of follow-up (as little as days to weeks)
3) No human or animal studies involving SC or IM injections of aluminum to establish the safety of injecting infants & children with aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate or amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate
4) One-size-fits-all. Newborns have 20% of the kidney function of a 2 year old (excretion of aluminum through the kidneys is the main route to remove systemic aluminum) yet both receive the same dose of aluminum-containing vaccines; the one-size-fits-all approach is in stark contrast to precision medicine, an emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person.
By Laura Hayes
Below is a "Vaccine IQ" test which I am calling a "Vac-Q" test. My hope is that people will print it out and use it as a resource to take to legislators' town hall meetings, school board meetings, doctor appointments, and anywhere else it might be used to give people a quick quiz.
After taking this test, the hope is that people's eyes will be opened to important facts about vaccines, and that their horror will be awakened knowing that these toxin-and-poison-containing invasive medical procedures are being injected into pregnant women, newborns, infants, toddlers, young children, teens, and people of all ages every single day here in the U.S. and across the globe on an ever-increasing basis.
Should you print out and use this "Vac-Q" test, please be sure to post a comment in the Comments section below to let us know the results!
Vac-Q Test for Legislators, Doctors, Nurses, School Board Members, and Parents
Vac-Q Test in .pdf format.
- In the most-widely used flu vaccines, including those given to the vast majority of infants and toddlers, the amount of mercury contained in one dose is how many times greater than the EPA maximum-allowed limit for drinking water? Answer: 25,000 times greater if thimerosal is listed as an ingredient; up to 1,000 times greater if labeled “thimerosal-free”.
- Was the original relative risk data found by Thomas Verstraeten in 1999 for the mercury in thimerosal-containing vaccines being a causal factor in the development of autism higher than the legally-required relative risk rate of 2.0? Answer: Yes, it was 11.35, which is exponentially higher than the 2.0 level typically required in a court of law to prove a causal link.
- At an infant’s 2-month “well-baby” appointment, the amount of aluminum injected via the 8 recommended vaccines is how many times greater than the FDA maximum-allowed limit for IV feedings of an infant? Answer: 49 times greater.
- Do children have any need for mercury or aluminum? Answer: No.
- Are there ingredients in vaccines that are classified as hazardous materials/poisons, with accompanying Material Safety Data Sheets? Answer: Yes, including, but not limited to: formaldehyde, phenol, thimerosal, deoxycholate, polysorbate 80, and sodium borate.
- Do children have any need for these hazardous materials/poisons? Answer: No.
- Are there ingredients in vaccines that are known or suspected to be cancer-causing? Answer: Yes, including, but not limited to: glyphosate, MSG, polysorbate 80, phenol, formaldehyde, deoxycholate, and Triton X-100.
- Do children have any need for these cancer-causing substances? Answer: No.
- Are there ingredients in vaccines that are known or suspected to damage reproductive organs and impair fertility/cause sterility? Answer: Yes, including, but not limited to: aluminum, polysorbate 80, phenol, and sodium borate.
- Do children have any need for these fertility-damaging substances? Answer: No.
- Are there ingredients in vaccines that are known or suspected to alter and damage the recipient’s genes? Answer: Yes, including, but not limited to: thimerosal, formaldehyde, phenol, and Triton X-100.
- Do children have any need for these gene-damaging substances? Answer: No.
- Should children be repeatedly injected with numerous substances that have Material Safety Data Sheets which include stringent and dire warnings about how to best protect oneself from harm if handling or in the presence of these substances? Answer: No.
- Are there antibiotics in vaccines? Answer: Yes, including, but not limited to: neomycin, gentamycin, polymyxin B, kanamycin, streptomycin, chlortetracycline, and amphotericin B.
- Do children have any need for these antibiotics if not seriously ill? Answer: No.
- California’s Senator Richard Pan, who is also a practicing pediatrician, and who was called a “hero” by TIME magazine, said in a public address at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health on Nov. 5th, 2015: “You know what’s the most dangerous substance in the vaccine? Water!”. According to the information above, was Senator Pan telling the truth? Answer: No.
- At this same 2015 public address, Senator Pan stated: “Thimerosal is not in childhood vaccines.” In the 2015-2016 flu season alone, based on a reported 70% coverage rate for those aged 6-35 months, 11.2 million doses of Sanofi-Pasteur’s “preservative-free” flu vaccine (the only flu vaccine produced that year without any thimerosal) would have been needed to ensure that no infant or toddler in the U.S. received a flu vaccine containing thimerosal. However, Sanofi-Pasteur delivered only around 200,000 preservative-free flu vaccines that year, meaning that 11 million American infants and toddlers received thimerosal-containing flu vaccines. Given that fact, was Senator Pan telling the truth? Answer: No.
- Are vaccine safety tests conducted using double-blind, placebo-controlled studies? Answer: No. Inert placebos are not used as controls in vaccine safety studies, nor is there always a control group, and study length is as short as 4 days.
- Knowing that the scientific gold standard is not used for vaccine safety studies, can any valid claims about vaccine safety or efficacy be made? Answer: No.
- How many vaccines are currently recommended by the CDC from gestation to age 18? Answer: 74 vaccines.
- If the word “vaccines” was replaced with the words “drugs”, would the recommending of 74 drugs be of concern to you? Answer: Hopefully, yes.
- According to a 2011 HHS survey, what percent of American children suffer from one or more chronic health conditions? Answer: 54%.
- According to the latest CDC statistics, what is the current rate of autism in American children? Answer: 1 in 36 American children has a diagnosis of Autism.
- Do the above 2 statistics denote that American children are healthy and developing typically? Answer: No.
- The U.S. helped to author, and also signed, the Nuremberg Code, which states: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” Given that defining hallmark of the practice of ethical medicine, are vaccine mandates compliant with the Nuremberg Code? Answer: No.
- The U.S. Constitution guarantees parents the right to direct the care, education, and upbringing of their children as they see fit. Does that include making healthcare and medical decisions for one's children, without government interference, coercion, cost, or penalty? Answer: Yes.
- Can medical mandates, including vaccine mandates, exist in a free and ethical society? Answer: No.
- Legislators, are you willing to immediately initiate legislation to ban vaccine mandates? If not, please explain why not.
- Doctors and Nurses, are you willing to immediately stop purchasing and administering vaccines? If not, please explain why not.
- School Board Members, are you willing to refuse to implement vaccine mandate laws in your state? If not, please explain why not.
Parents, are you ready to stop permitting vaccines to be injected into your child? If not, please ask yourself why not.
Review of the United Kingdom National Health Service webpage ‘Why vaccination is safe and important’ (media reviewed 30 July 2019).
As Britain's new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, calls for reassuring messaging about vaccination on the web, AoA's British editor looks at an NHS web-page on vaccination safety and finds it full of holes. Unfortunately, the problems with the vaccine program do not lie with its critics. A copy of this review will be sent to the NHS web editors.
I am responding to claims or statements in this web-document ' Why vaccination is safe and important'  (not following the original order of presentation).
I begin with the statement:
“(Vaccines) do not overload or weaken the immune system - it's safe to give children several vaccines at a time and this reduces the amount of injections they need”
It is not clear what the evidential basis is for this statement. Formerly, at least, British health officials were keen to cite a paper by Offit et al (2002) which suggested absurdly an infant could withstand 10,000 vaccines at a time. However far-fetched, this was based on a theoretical claim about routine exposure to environmental antigens. Evidently some environmental exposures are more dangerous than others, otherwise people would not be at risk from infectious diseases at all, but the basis of exposure through vaccination is different (injected), and involves adjuvants so it is perhaps not relevant at all to talk about the number of antigens (as in Offit). In August 2004 Dr Salisbury distinguished in an e-letter to me between the increased risk of adverse reactions in an extended schedule and “overload”, which begs the question what is meant by “overload” and what people are supposed to understand by such a statement. A paper by Aaby et al (2012) was entitled “Vaccine programmes must consider their effect on general resistance”, which is evidently a warning that there is no such blank cheque for expanding the schedule. I covered this ground in my published submission to the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into anti-microbial resistance last year . The NHS need to clarify what they mean, but also state what the evidential basis is for this claim.
Another statement apparently contradicts the proposition that there is anything inherently safe about vaccinating:
“(Vaccines) get safety tested for years before being introduced - they're also monitored for any side effects”
This is a follow up to my brief article at the end of February British MPs are Front for Gates and the Pharmaceutical Industry
The deadly charade continues. British television viewers were told on ITV NEWS on Thursday night that an All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) was to investigate "the resurgence of the anti-vaccination movement". They should not be deceived into thinking however that the APPG "Vaccinations For All is the equivalent of a parliamentary committee. The secretariat for the group - which itself consists of five little known members of the House of Commons and two of the House of Lords - is listed as an organisation called Results UK, which is in turn a satellite of GAVI, which we all know is a partnership of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WHO, Unicef, the World Bank and the Pharmaceutical Industry etc. Every single vaccine manufacturer is represented within GAVI.
The strategy has been apparent since the summer of 2017 when the director of GAVI, Seth Berkley, had an article published in the on-line Spectator - a British news journal - calling for "anti-vaxxers" to be banned from the web, when what he was really setting out to do was ban all criticism of vaccines from the web while simultaneously indulging in hate rhetoric. In the British context it might perhaps be a modestly hopeful sign that the present move comes from an undistinguished ad hoc group of parliamentarians rather than a standing committee: less helpful is the continuing treachery of the mainstream media which cannot any longer report anything without a having devious agenda behind it.
The deadline for submissions to this inquiry is 30 August. Many people from the vaccine injury/vaccine critical community are apparently writing but if they do they should be aware that the group is an industry lobby organization and not one of the standing parliamentary committees which regularly hold inquiries as part of their remit - there may be some point in trying to embarrass them but their standpoint is essentially hostile, and their avowed concern is to silence families of the injured not listen to them.
Just moments away, airing at 11:00am Pacific, 2:00 Eastern Daylight time. Join Del Bigtree in Mexico as he talks to experts about aluminum in vaccinations.
By Laura Hayes
What if your baby could talk? Here are some things I think they would surely say:
- Please don’t poke me with sharp needles! Those hurt! You wouldn’t let anyone pinch or hit me, so why are you letting someone in a white coat pierce my skin, multiple times, in a very painful way? I am trusting you to protect me and not let others hurt me.
- Please don’t trust others over your own common sense and God-given maternal and paternal instincts. I am yours. No one knows me like you know me. No one will protect me like you will. No one loves me like you do. You are, and will continue to be, the one responsible for me.
- Please don’t ever leave me unattended at a hospital or in a doctor’s office. I need your eyes on me at all times…to ensure that your directives are being followed to a tee, to prevent procedures and treatments from being implemented on me to which you have not consented and/or to which you have made clear that you do not want for me, to ward off mistakes, and to protect me at every turn.
- Please don’t think that someone wearing a white coat is smarter than you are. Turns out that they can be some of the most inexcusably uninformed, pompous, close-minded, resistant to truth, and unethically coercive people around! I am not kidding you! I want you to take responsibility for me and my health. Please do not delegate your responsibility to some self-appointed “expert” who was taught using a curriculum designed by those who make their money (we are talking trillions) when others become chronically ill and permanently disabled.
- Please don’t let me be injected with things you wouldn’t even consider feeding me! They won’t have an escape route, and they will be left inside me where they will hurt and harm me both now and in the future.
- Please don’t ever permit me to be injected with metals of any sort! We know that lead is bad for children, but guess what? Mercury and aluminum are far worse, and are in the syringes that doctors are sticking into babies and children. Mercury and aluminum cause severe damage inside the body, to all parts and to all systems, and this damage will hurt and haunt me for the rest of my life! As if those two metals weren’t health-destroying enough, there are others in vaccines: lead, stainless steel, tungsten, a gold-zinc aggregate, platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, and chromium. One flu vaccine for children tested as having 11 metals and aggregates of metals, which are similar to those prevalent in cases of leukemia. Please don’t let the pediatrician cause me to develop cancer!
- Please don’t mess around with my immune system, it’s the only one I have…and it has to last me a lifetime! Things that mess with and harm my immune system include nearly every ingredient in vaccines. Again, I am not kidding! Please tell me which one of these ingredients will induce good health in me: mercury, aluminum, lead, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (which enables other ingredients to enter my brain and cells), MSG, phenol, anti-freeze, human fetal tissue material from aborted babies, viruses cultured in the body parts of various animals including African green monkeys, chickens, and dogs, viruses from other humans, viruses from animals, retroviruses that are just beginning to be understood of both human and animal origin, nanoparticles of many different metals that are not listed on the ingredients lists, dangerous bacteria, glass shards, food proteins that don’t belong anywhere other than in my stomach, glyphosate (designed to kill things), insect parts and viruses, DNA from other humans and from animals, squalene (I hear it caused Gulf War Syndrome in our soldiers), and who knows what else, Mom and Dad, because all ingredients are not required to be listed under the guise of “trade secrets”, and there is little to no oversight of the vaccine manufacturing process!
- Please don’t permit anything to be injected into me that you are not willing to inject into yourself.
- Please don’t permit anything to be injected into me that the nurses and doctors administering it, those approving and recommending it, the legislators mandating it, and the manufacturers making it have not injected into themselves, their children, and their grandchildren, without your own eyes witnessing it. If they aren’t willing to personally demonstrate for you how “safe” it is (which should be required to mean won’t cause harm) and personally demonstrate their trust in it, then please don’t trust in it, either! (Ask yourself when the last time was that you saw any state legislator rolling up their shirt sleeves and dropping their drawers to show those whom they supposedly represent how safe the scores of vaccines that they just mandated for babies, children, and teens are? If they are virtually harmless, as claimed and constantly touted, then they should be willing to get the whole lot of them at once, publicly.)
- Please don’t “go along to get along”. I know at some point I will hear you ask me, “If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you, too?” I put a similar question forth to you, “If everyone else chooses to permit the poisoning and harming of their baby, would you follow suit just to fit in?” Please be strong and stand firmly, saying boldly and with conviction, “I will not permit you, or anyone, to inject poisons, toxins, and heinous ingredients into my baby…ever!”
- Please learn why it is important for me to be breastfed for at least one year, hopefully longer, with Mom eating a nutrient-dense, non-toxic diet. If Mom is unable to breastfeed me, please source breastmilk from another healthy, lactating mom who is willing to share.
- Please learn why it is important for me to contract certain infections naturally, during childhood.
"Where is the Church?"
A great many of us who are Christians have been asking this question in regard to vaccine injury and corruption for years. We read the very errant missives put out by often well meaning, professing Christians, pastors, elders and physicians that seemed to have never looked beyond the CDC's home page on vaccine safety and efficacy, and give up hope that our voices, and our cries for our children, will ever be heard in what should be our spiritual homes.
This week, one of those errant missives was answered with a stunning five part series by Jordan Wilson in the New City Times. Wilson has not only bothered to actually search the scriptures to inform his writing to the church on vaccine questions, he watched the Plotkin videos.
If you are looking for a good source to begin to talk about the vaccine problem in your church, I offer you...
Jordan Wilson July 29th, 2019
This article is the intro to a 5-Part series on Vaccines. See the full list of (and links to) the rest in this series below.
A recent article at the Gospel Coalition manifests one contributor's decision to wade into the debate regarding vaccines. Contributing Editor, Joe Carter, planted his flag firmly on one side of the debate.
If I had to summarize the gist of Carter's position in three statements, they would be:
- The debate is settled: modern vaccination programs are safe, ethically sourced, and the results are amazing, let's celebrate!
- Skepticism of the vaccine program is unwarranted, and results in practices which are unloving to neighbor, harmful to their children and society.
- If Christian parents ultimately decide against vaccinating, they should reasonably be prepared to accept banishment from public institutions, and they are also to be held morally responsible if their child (or someone else's child) dies because they chose not to vaccinate.
An Uncritical, One-Sided Perspective
I'm not sure to what degree, if any, Carter is willing to be persuaded from his position. I used to passionately write the same things he wrote, before really opening myself up to hear both sides of the debate. Regardless, my goal in writing is not mainly an attempt to persuade Joe Carter; it's to offer an alternative viewpoint which I firmly believe deserves consideration for many reasons.
By Norma Erickson
In an unprecedented move, pathologist/clinical microbiologist, Dr. Sin Hang Lee has decided to invite the international community of scientists and medical professionals to peer-review and/or discuss his latest research “Toll-like receptor 9 agonist in HPV vaccine Gardasil 9” in an open public forum.
According to Dr. Lee, during 2011/12, when he tried to publish papers describing HPV DNA fragments he had discovered in Gardasil 4, his first paper was rejected by three medical journal editors despite the fact that the manufacturer had assured health authorities worldwide no such fragments were in the final product.
The first of his papers regarding this subject was favorably peer-reviewed by three scientists who recommended publication. However, upon subsequent review by a journal editor publication was inexplicably denied.
Both papers were subsequently published in non-medical journals which deal with ‘pure science’ thereby limiting access to most medical professionals.
Dr. Lee also states that after submission of his latest research to “Vaccines” the editor-in-chief sent his paper out requesting a peer review. However, the editor’s subordinates refused to process the manuscript even though the journal claims to be “an international, peer-reviewed open access journal focused on laboratory and clinical vaccine research, utilization and immunization.”
Dr. Lee believes this unusual response illustrates a top-level concerted effort by vaccine stakeholders to suppress any information which could potentially impact the published safety profile of HPV vaccines.
Dr. Lee decided to release the paper to an open forum because:
- He believes medical professionals need access to all information which might impact their analysis of the safety profile of HPV vaccines so they can help their patients make intelligent choices regarding cancer prevention options.
- He believes the only way for medical consumers to make intelligent choices is to be informed of known potential risks as well as the promised benefits of any medical intervention, including HPV vaccines.
- He believes the process of discovering mechanisms of action associated with serious adverse events after HPV vaccinations will be expedited if the medical/scientific community is aware of any new research in that arena.
- He believes that discovering the mechanisms of action as quickly as possible will enable researchers to better define biological plausibility and causation, thereby allowing medical professionals to help those most susceptible to serious reactions avoid unnecessary risks.
- He believes open discussion and honest debate may help restore the public’s faith in science.
Therefore, in the interest of public health and safety, Dr. Lee cordially invites any medical/scientific professional interested in the benefit/risk profile of HPV vaccines to review and/or discuss his latest research via the comment section below. He has kindly agreed to answer any scientific questions regarding the following paper.
Toll-like receptor 9 agonist in HPV vaccine Gardasil 9
Author: Sin Hang Lee; Milford Molecular Diagnostics, Milford, CT, 06460, USA
* Correspondence: email@example.com ; Tel: +1-203-878-1438
Gardasil9 is a recombinant human papillomavirus (HPV) 9-valent vaccine, containing purified major capsid L1 protein of HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 re-assembled into virus-like particles (VLPs) as the active ingredient. Since the antigens are purified recombinant proteins, Gardasil9 needs a potent adjuvant to enhance the initiation of the immune response through activation of innate immunity of the host to generate high and sustained levels of antibodies for maintaining efficacy of vaccination. Historically, the aluminum salt, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate or AAHS which is listed as the adjuvant for Gardasil9, was known to require a Toll-like receptor agonist, such as phospholipids, to work in combination to achieve its potent adjuvant effects in the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine, Recombivax HB®. However, there are no phospholipids in the purified HPV L1 proteins or in the Gardasil9 formulation. Since the Food and Drug Administration has informed the public that Gardasil4 does contain recombinant HPV L1-specific DNA fragments, these HPV DNA fragments may serve as Toll-like receptor 9 agonist in Gardasil9 vaccination. The author has tested 5 samples of Gardasil9 from 4 manufacturing lots by PCR amplification with a set of degenerate primers followed by heminested PCR or by another 5 sets of non-degenerate nested PCR primers in an attempt to detect all 9 vaccine-relevant HPV type-specific L1 gene DNAs bound to AAHS in the vaccine. Sanger sequencing of the PCR products confirmed the presence of HPV 18, 11, 16 and 6 L1 gene DNA bound to insoluble AAHS nanoparticles, but unevenly distributed even within one vaccine sample. In addition, these genotype-specific HPV DNA fragments were at least partially in non-B conformations. Since no L1 gene DNA of HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 was amplified by the commonly used degenerate PCR primers, the results suggest that these latter 5 type-specific HPV DNAs may all be in non-B conformations or have been removed as contaminants by a special purification protocol. Further research is warranted to standardize the HPV DNA fragments in Gardasil which are known to be potent Toll-like receptor 9 agonist.
Keywords: Gardasil 9; Gardasil; HPV vaccine; HPV DNA; non-B conformations; topological conformational change; Toll-like receptor 9 agonist; AAHS; amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate; DNA sequencing
It was difficult to read this story about a Queen's Dad who used his brand spanking new CPR training to save his beautiful, baby daughter after she had a serious seizure following her mandated 12 month vaccinations. What if Mom had not been with her baby? What if Dad had not just been trained in CPR? Perhaps a death certificate that would read, "SIDS."My heart races thinking about the panic they felt. I've watched my daughters seize. The first seizure I saw sent me into paroxysms of fear. So did the next 500. "Febrile. Won't happen again, Mrs. Stagliano." I hope every politician who voted to remove the religious exemption in New York is him- 0r herself mandated to visit this heroic Dad in person to tell him that his little girl MUST undergo every single vaccine on the pediatric schedule to attend school in Queens.
How do you think Dad (and Mom) will feel about that?
Sure, their pediatrician will tell them that post-vaccination seizures are "benign." They cause no harm. They are no reason to stop vaccinating. They won't even trigger a medical exemption. At age 12 months 18, the CDC schedule includes the following thirteen vaccinations (source https://cp.doh.wa.gov/Immunization/Infants/12Months) But what if Mom and Dad want to take their time going forward with vaccinating their daughter? What if they want to stop?
• Hepatitis B (HepB)
• Diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (DTaP)
• Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
• Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)
• Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV)
• Flu (influenza), yearly
• Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)
• Chickenpox (varicella)
• Hepatitis A (HepA)
There should be a bill in play as soon as the politicians return from their break that pays for CPR for every single parent in the state of New York, with the very clear precaution that they should stay near their children for at least 48 hours after every vaccination visit. Free of charge. With pay covered for time off of work and childcare too.
Annie Annie are you OK?
Queens dad saves his own daughter with CPR training he’d used for the 1st time
A children’s worker trained in CPR used his life-saving skills for the first time to revive his own daughter when she suffered a terrifying seizure the day after a round of immunization shots.
8 July 2019.
Vaccine Deaths in India Have Not Been Evaluated: Uppsala Monitoring Center
Government records show there have been many deaths after Pentavalent vaccine (PV) administration. Not one of these deaths has been investigated as a ‘vaccine reaction’, according to Rebecca Chandler of the Uppsala Monitoring Center in Sweden - the global hub for drug reaction monitoring.
Chandler revealed this shocking information in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), responding to Jacob Puliyel (pictured) who has asked for a revision of the way adverse events after immunization (AEFI) are investigated in India using the WHO-AEFI classification.
Chandler clarified that the WHO-AEFI classification used in India is deployed only in developing countries. This classification helps to identify reactions caused because of the improper administration of vaccines and the use of a contaminated multi-dose vial; but not new vaccine-product-related reactions. Vaccine-product-related reactions occur even when the vaccine has been administered properly. The WHO-AEFI classification reports are not fed to databases that allow pharmacovigilance for these rare occurances.
In developed countries, on the other hand, adverse-event-reports for drugs and vaccines are maintained within a single database and this allows for pharmacovigilance – to pick up an increase in the frequency of unusual symptoms.
Chandler’s response explains why the numerous deaths after the administration of the Pentavalent vaccine (combined diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, H influenza b and Hepatitis B vaccine) in India and Asia have not been acknowledged as a possible ‘signal’ for investigation.
Puliyel notes that data from states with good reporting of adverse events imply that there are likely to be 7020–8190 additional deaths each year in the country, because of the shift from DPT to Pentavalent vaccine. This is a huge mortality burden.
He has called for the Uppsala Monitoring Centre to examine the data from the Government of India (and other Asian countries where the vaccine is used) and confirm or deny a possible causative association with vaccination.
“If not the Uppsala Monitoring Centre, then who? If not now, then when?” writes Jacob Puliyel
Also, the Indian Government must stop using WHO-AEFI classification and develop a proper database for pharmacovigilance like all developed countries.
“Only such a transparent appraisal can reassure the public and build trust, and only this will reduce vaccine hesitancy,” Puliyel said. (END)
The correspondence in the British Medical Journal can be accessed here.
Jacob Puliyel MD MRCP M Phil
Thank you to Robert Kennedy Jr and his team at Children's Health Defense for this scientific dissection of the lies that come out of our CDC regarding the real outcome of our vaccination program. A program that is now being rammed down the throats and into the arms and legs of American children from coast to coast. By law. Below is part 2. Please visit their site to donate to their work. We need all hands on deck and CHD is doing important behind the scenes work to protect American children, adults and our medical rights as the pharma/public health juggernaut tries to steamroll us into submission.
[CHD Note: This is Part 2 of a compilation of research on fully vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children. Part 1 examined studies on HepB, DTP, Tetanus and Flu vaccine and subsequent increased rates of Autism, Neurodevelopmental, Speech and Sleep disorders, Mortality, Special Education/Learning Disabilities, and Allergies. Part 2 summarizes some of the research on MMR, Polio, HPV and HepB vaccines and their affect on incidences of Crohn’s Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, Type 1 Diabetes, Autism, Asthma and Premature Puberty.]
The data in CDC’s 1999 Verstraeten study clearly inculpated thimerosal as the principle culprit behind the autism epidemic. Contemporary emails among CDC officials— obtained under the FOIA— and the transcripts from a secret 2000 meeting between government regulators and vaccine makers at Simpsonwood, Georgia, show HHS officials plotting to create phony studies to exonerate vaccines. CDC officials hired a Scandanavian, Poul Thorsen, giving him $10 million to create a series of fraudulent reports from Denmark. Thorsen dutifully produced the predetermined results but allegedly stole at least $1 million of the grant from CDC. He is now an international fugitive under Federal indictment and on HHS’s “Most Wanted” list.
CDC continues to cite Thorsen’s studies as the bedrock for its claim that vaccines don’t cause autism. CDC officials Frank DeStefano and Coleen Boyle knew they needed to study an American population to convincingly debunk the vaccine/ autism link. They believed it would be safe to study the MMR vaccine because the MMR did not contain thimerosal. They assigned senior scientist and CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, and three other researchers from the Immunization Safety Office to study the MMR vaccine in Georgia children. Thompson worried about being dragged into another “circus” like the Verstraeten study. His bosses promised Thompson that this time there would be no mid-course shenanigans to bury unpleasant data. They would agree on protocols up front and stick to them no matter what the data revealed.
Nevertheless, when the data showed a shocking 364% increase in autism among African American boys given the MMR on time, Destefano ordered the four CDC scientists to destroy the damning information in large garbage cans. “I can’t believe we did what we did, but we did it”, recalls Thompson. That sanitized study is now cited in 97 subsequent publications as the proof that vaccines don’t cause autism. “I have great shame now when I meet the parent of a child with autism because I have been part of the problem.” Slide three shows the true results of Dr. Thompson’s original data. (See full-sized slides)
Read the full article at Children's Health Defense HERE.
Press Release: UN Headquarters to host groundbreaking discussion on vaccine misinformation and growing distrust
Experts, UN officials and private sector representatives to convene to address drivers of vaccine hesitancy and stagnating immunization rates worldwide
27 June 2019
WHAT: UNICEF and the Permanent Mission of Japan are hosting a high-level event at the United Nations in New York to bring together technical experts, policy makers, governments, civil society and the private sector to combat misinformation on vaccines. This will be the first event of its kind to take place at the United Nations in New York, focusing on building trust on vaccines. Experts will analyze how we can improve stagnating or declining vaccination rates, and champion children’s right to immunization. At the event, UNICEF will also release a brief on the causes of vaccine hesitancy, based on trend data over the past four years. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org for an embargoed copy of the brief.
• UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore
• H.E Mr Koro Bessho, Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations
• Ethan Lindenberger, vaccine advocate
• Laura Trevelyan, BBC correspondent
• Dr. Stewart Simonson, Assistant Director General, World Health Organization
• Dr. Chris Wolff, Deputy Director, Vaccine Delivery, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• Dr. Gillian Steelfisher, Senior Research Scientist, Harvard
• Mr. Jason Hirsh, Head, Health Policy, Facebook
WHEN: 13:15 - 14:30 pm, Friday, 28 June 2019
WHERE: UN Secretariat Conference Room 11, UN Headquarters, New York or watch live through this link
WHY: Vaccines save millions of lives, yet in low- and middle-income countries, large numbers of children go unvaccinated mainly because of limited availability and access to services. But in some countries, an emerging threat is misinformation, largely through social media. Anti-vaccine groups have effectively exploited social media, creating confusion and stoking fears among parents, potentially undermining progress in reaching all children with vaccines. For example, global cases of measles have surged to alarmingly high levels in 2019, including in countries which had previously been declared measles free.
MEDIA CONTACT: Sabrina Sidhu, UNICEF New York, +1917 476 1537, email@example.com
Note: We encourage to read this series from Robert Kennedy Jr's Children's Health Defense site. Below is an excerpt from the first installment called "The Science." You know, the stuff we're accused of not having, not understanding and barely being able to spell.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has repeatedly asked CDC to create studies which explain, “How do child health outcomes compare between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children?”
During a November 2012 Congressional hearing on autism before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Dr. Coleen Boyle, the Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, gave evasive answers to lawmakers pressing her on this point. After considerable badgering, she finally stated, “We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated [children].” That was perjury.
Boyle knew that CDC had commissioned an in-house researcher, Thomas Verstraeten to perform vaccinated/unvaccinated study on CDC’s giant Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) in 1999 (I summarize Verstraeten’s secret findings on slide 2). Verstraeten found a dramatic link between mercury-containing hepatitis B vaccines and several neurological injuries including autism and prepared the study for publication. CDC shared Verstraeten’s analysis with the then four vaccine makers but kept it secret from the American public.
The world’s largest vaccine maker GSK whisked Verstraeten off to a sinecure in Brussels and CDC handed his raw data to his CDC boss Frank DeStefano and another researcher, Robert Davis who served as a vaccine industry consultant. Those two men tortured the data for 4 years, removing all unvaccinated children, to bury the autism signal before publishing a sanitized version purporting to exculpate the vaccine. The CDC then cut off public access to the VSD and to this day aggressively blocks any attempts by researchers to study health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations. Read more HERE at Children's Health Defense.
Note: Printable version of this post is here.
By Laura Hayes
- No one, including the government, has the right to insist that another person, or another person’s child, be injected with anything.
- Without the right to refuse vaccinations, one cannot protect oneself and one’s children from the known, and yet to be known, harm from vaccinations, including death.
- Medical mandates of any sort, including vaccine mandates, cannot exist in a free and ethical society.
- Vaccinations are not benign. They are invasive medical procedures. Each and every one has the potential to injure, make chronically ill, permanently disable, and kill. The risks increase when they are given together, as is routinely done, beginning in utero, then continued during infancy, toddlerhood, throughout childhood, and now into adulthood. Today’s American child will receive 74 vaccines from gestation through age 18, with more vaccine recommendations/mandates likely to be added with each passing year. The majority of those will be given before age 6, during the most vulnerable and prime time of the child’s development. Substitute the word “drugs” for “vaccines”, and then ask what parent would want their child to receive scores of drugs, beginning in utero, then continued at regular and frequent intervals throughout childhood…drugs which then lead to more drugs, due to resultant ear infections, asthma, allergies, type 1 diabetes, seizure disorders, attention issues, GI issues, skin problems, paralysis, POTS, ovarian and fertility problems, cancer, and more.
- Vaccines contain ingredients that are known and admitted to be unsafe for humans. These include: mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, phenol, MSG, sodium borate, antibiotics, viruses and retroviruses of both human and animal origin, aborted fetal material from human babies, food proteins (injected vs. ingested), glass shards/particles, lead, stainless steel, tungsten, HCG, egg and yeast proteins, glyphosate, and more. Furthermore, vaccines contain ingredients that are not required to be listed on their ingredient labels, so neither those administering vaccines nor those receiving them can fully or accurately know what is being injected. Additionally, recent studies performed in Italy have revealed that vaccines contain nanoparticles and nanocontaminants which are not listed on the ingredients lists. These are ingredients for which the human body has no use, and which it may not be able to expel.
- The listing above includes ingredients that are classified as poisons, carcinogens, toxins, neurotoxins, immune-and-nervous-system disruptors, allergens, fertility inhibitors, and sterilizing agents. They are known and admitted to cause and/or purposefully induce both toxicity and inflammation, which are known drivers of chronic illnesses, autoimmune issues, learning and developmental disabilities, infertility, premature deaths, and sudden deaths.
- One vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, is known and admitted to be so dangerous to human health that it has been banned from topical use. Unbelievably, however, it is still permitted to be included in vaccines, which are far more dangerous as they are injected.
Note: For Dr. Moskowitz's original, formatted document, please Download Some Thoughts on Vaccination.
By Dr. Richard Moskowitz
In Vaccines: a Reappraisal, my intention was to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject, including some politics and history as well. Now I want to focus more narrowly on those parts of the book that address the science of the vaccination process in general. Many years of practicing medicine and studying the scientific literature have convinced me that all vaccines pose a serious threat of chronic disease and death, and that these most dreadful outcomes are neither rare aberrations nor unrelated coincidences, but direct consequences of the physiological mechanisms by which vaccines achieve their intended and seemingly laudable goals. In what follows, I will briefly mention what is and isn't known about those mechanisms, what clinical observations have led me to this hypothesis regarding them, what scientific evidence appears to support it, and what kind of research will be needed to validate or refute it.
Immunity, True and False.
In the early years of my practice, a deep misgiving led me to stop vaccinating before I could say why. Reviewing basic immunology reminded me that acute febrile illnesses like the measles are essentially the concerted effort of the immune system to expel the offending virus or bacterium from the blood, requiring an elaborate array of defense mechanisms, namely,
1) inflammatory sensitization of the epithelium lining the nasal, oral, and pharyngeal cavities through which it entered,
as preparation for expelling it, by sneezing and coughing;
2) activating and signaling macrophages and monocytes, wandering phago-cytic cells that detect, engulf, and digest
invading viruses (or neutrophilseosinophils, and basophils, in the case of bacteria, allergens, and toxins, respectively);
3) activating the complement system, serum proteins that attach to and fragment them;
4) releasing interferons, interleukins, and other inflammatory cytokines, peptides that direct the phagocytes to where
they are needed;
5) synthesis of specific antibodies by lymphocytes and plasma cells in the thymus and bone marrow, which clump the viruses together, render them insoluble, and initiate phagocytosis; and
6) encryption of a permanent "memory" of the infection within the genetic material of these cells, to help them recognize and respond to viruses even more promptly and efficiently in the future.1
In sum, it seems reasonable to conclude that natural immunity requires the removal of foreign viruses and bacteria from the blood, a collaborative project of the immune system as a whole, and cannot be achieved by any of these mechanisms acting independently of the others.
For most healthy people, the immunity that results is absolute, lifelong, and profoundly health-giving, in two important senses. It is specific, in that virtually everyone who recovers from the measles will never again be susceptible to it, even if large-scale epidemics are active in their neighborhood.2 But it also involves a nonspecific priming of the cellular immune mechanism to respond acutely, vigorously, and in concert, to whatever other infections it may encounter in the future.3
Since vaccination is intended to substitute for this splendid outpouring and indeed render it unnecessary, it's easy to forget that coming down with and recovering from such illnesses represent a huge net gain for the general health of individuals, their descendants, and ultimately of their communities, their country, and of human life on the planet, indeed that they are the formative experiences by which natural immunity, a fundamental prerequisite of good health, is achieved and maintained throughout life.
Overturning a Supreme Court decision is a tall order, necessitating a constitutional amendment or a new Court ruling. Despite the effort and obstacles, the eventual repeal of SCOTUS’s 2011 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth ruling is behind four resolutions discussed by Minnesota legislators and advocates at a Capitol press conference May 14 in St. Paul.
The 2011 SCOTUS Bruesewitz verdict eliminated vaccine injury victims’ option to sue pharmaceutical companies after first working through the problem-ridden National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or “Vaccine Court.” A 6-2 majority of the Supreme Court held that “the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects.”
HF2862, HF2825, SF2781 and SF2831 are Minnesota resolutions to reverse Bruesewitz, by “memorializing the President and Congress to hold vaccine manufacturers liable for design defects that result in adverse side effects from vaccines.” Local vaccine safety advocates helped develop the language with legislators, in an attempt to restore the NCVIA to its original Congressionally mandated intent.
Since Oct. 1, 1988, the Vaccine Court has paid out $4.1 billion to victims of vaccine injury, and is hardly the free-and-easy road to generous compensation that industry-linked critics claim. The resolutions ask Congress to “override the Supreme Court decision, and remove Bruesewitz to allow petitioners to file suits in state or federal court,” according to speaker Wayne Rohde, father of vaccine-injured child and author of The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Minnesota’s Capitol was chaotic Tuesday because its legislative session ends May 20. Rep. Jeremy Munson (Dist. 23B) made
time to lead the half-hour press conference, organized primarily by the Vaccine Freedom Coalition and Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota. In attendance were reps from metro TV stations, radio and a newspaper, and lobbyists including the Minnesota Medical Association.
Rep. Munson stated that he is not anti-vaccine; rather:
“I am for making sure we that have a balance in the system that allows vaccine manufacturers to be held accountable if their products are dangerous. If everyone believes that vaccines are safe, that they cause no injury or they can’t cause injury, then there should be no problem with… going back to the law that we used to have, that allowed people to seek civil cases against vaccine manufacturers.”
Sen. Jim Abeler, chief author of SF2781, noted the large number of vaccine injury claims filed – and “how tortuous the route is to actually get a claim resolved” after an injury or death. And he questioned public health officials’ definition of “safe” – which differs from Webster’s Dictionary. “We’re in a world where the Department of Health calls them ‘exceedingly safe’ – I think that nothing is further from the truth.”
Sen. Abeler stated that vaccines are safe for some people but not all, and compared them to peanuts. “Nobody disbelieves the peanut allergy family. Unfortunately when somebody has a reaction to a vaccine, they are somehow considered to be unbelievable.”
Vaccines are classified as biologics, not drugs, so safety testing requirements differ. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that U.S. vaccines are “as safe as possible,” but critics point to contaminants, lack of true placebos, and data fraud in vaccine research.
A 2012 American Medical Association Journal of Ethics article states, “…[V]accine manufacturers are now not liable for failing to improve vaccine designs and defects, unlike manufacturers of other products.” When a manufacturer bears no professional or financial liability for unsafe reactions, “Then they’re much more casual with their safety testing,” said Abeler.
At 4:25 in the Senate video, Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter J. Patrick Coolican suddenly interrupted Sen. Abeler’s presentation with an irrelevant question:
“Do you think that gun manufacturers should also be protected from liability? Because they currently are, by an act of Congress.”
Sen. Abeler replied that Coolican’s question was another topic for another day, but added, “I appreciate the joke.” (To folks in the know, Minnesota’s legislative progress has been held up recently by polarizing partisan gun policy debates.)
Next Coolican half-asked:
“So you’re not pro-vaccine.”
Clearly Coolican had an agenda and was baiting Sen. Abeler, rather than:
(1) listening to the full presentation content, or
(2) asking a question pertinent to the material being presented.
Only two minutes before (at 2:58) Sen. Abeler had stated most distinctly:
By John Stone
"Jonathan Ashworth in his one specific example of social media misinformation has almost certainly misunderstood what he is reading. The cases he was reading about were almost certainly in the US where the Hep B vaccine is administered on the day of birth. Given that he himself seems horrified by the idea should not people be allowed to talk about it?"
(My comment in The Times, London)
Jonathan Ashworth, British Labour Party Spokesman on Health and Social Care, finds the idea of vaccinating an infant on the day of birth repugnant. He wrote in a Times of London editorial yesterday:
"The anti-vaccination content I’ve been able to find on Facebook in just a matter of minutes has been eye-opening. There appears to be a deep distrust in these closed groups of both the medical community and governments.
"I’ve found posts from terrified parents asking for advice on how to make sure their newborn babies aren’t taken away from them shortly after birth to be vaccinated.
"Other posts completely misinform the public about the science behind vaccinations. It’s why Tom Watson has called for a legally enforceable duty of care to be placed on these firms backed by hefty fines."
It is of course impossible know whether the other posts he read and felt challenged by were genuinely misinforming or whether he was just briefed to find them so, but in this instance what is almost certainly being referred to is the US practice of administering the Hepatis B vaccine to infants at birth, and it is quite interesting that he finds the idea - this does not happen in British hospitals - repugnant.
On a similar note I wrote to André Spicer, professor of organisational behaviour, Cass Business School (University of London)
about his article last Friday in the Guardian(so far no reply):
Dear Prof Spicer,
I checked out this paper by Chiou and Tucker you linked to in your Guardian article yesterday
The nearest that they ever get to providing evidence of “fake news” p.8-9 fig 2, is saying a website misrepresented an article by exaggerating an associated risk of vaccines with neurological-psychological disorders. It doesn’t reproduce the “fake news” article and doesn’t link to the study they say has been misrepresented (which is also not in the bibliography) and has not as far as I can see been misrepresented at all (if I have identified it correctly). It contains very troubling information.
NOTE: The following is excerpted from the Corvelva website. Grazie mille a la nostra amici a Corvelva. Visit their site at Corvelva.it
We want to take stock of the situation together with you. Eight months have passed since July 2018 and in these lenght of time we have achieved extremely satisfying results. We have presented a research program and regarding the vaccines analysis we are able to make a point of reference, with the objectives achieved, those being finalised and those only planned for now.
To begin with, the analyses of 2 compounds for each vaccine have been verifyed by means of standards, using certified control standards with a concentration in the order of micrograms / mL. The compounds we have chosen are among those known for their critical hazard profile. We are talking about a cumulative quantity, a total amount of those recognized as identities and those to be identified, which can be estimated within the order of 50 micrograms / mL, in contrast to the EMA / FDA guidelines.
These tests have given positive results, therefore they fully confirm the analysis method! The contaminations observed are probably due to different and variable manufacturing process’ phenomena and topics. What has been observed in the course of the studies is an “inter-batches” variation of the composition, which makes us assume that there are some steps along the whole product manufacturing process that are difficult to control.
Summary table showing the results of analyses (Priorix tetra)
- Antigens - 3 out of 4 attenuated viruses were identified and sequenced. Rubella was detected in a very low number of copies. Varicella, mumps and measles viruses have higher mutations, probably derived from the attenuation of a large number of minor variants (quasipecies).
- Chemical Contaminants (signals) - 115-173 (29-43% known)
- Chemical toxins - NO
- Protein Contaminants - Sarcoplasmin calcium-binding protein, Actina e Vimentina
- Free peptide contaminants - NO
- Residual DNA/RNA deriving from cultured cells - Total amount of DNA: 1.7-3.7 μg/dose, the 80% of which was human (Human fetal DNA / RNA from the MRC-5 cell line). Other amount of DNA: chicken
- Adventitious viruses - Human endogenous retrovirus K, Equine infectious anemia virus, Avian leukosis virus, HERV-H/env62
- Other microbial contaminants - Proteobacteria, nematode-helminth
- Processing residues of genetic material - NO
In-depth information on the vaccines analysed
Priorix Tetra (GlaxoSmithKline) 1 Chemical composition profile study 2
READ THE FULL REPORT WITH CITATIONS HERE.
Dr. Plotkin was deposed in relation to a trial involving vaccines. Plotkin agrees that there is no proof
DTap does not cause autism. Plotkin will lie about vaccines and autism to push vaccines. Plotkin
admits calf serum proteins in vaccines can sensitize (cause development of allergy to the protein).
Plotkin speculates that calf serum protein is completely removed from vaccines. He is wrong.
Admission of this fundamental flaw in vaccines, automatically implies that vaccines cause asthma,
autism and autoimmune disorders as well.
Aircraft are designed and engineered for safety by experts who understand aeronautical engineering and safety engineering. Vaccines are developed by tinkerers using trial and error, who fail to apply basic safety engineering principles and admit that they lack understanding of the mechanisms involved in the immune response to vaccines.
Aircraft safety problems are immediately obvious. Vaccine safety problems manifest over a longer term and are easily hidden by other factors.
Boeing is liable for product safety. Vaccine makers have no liability.
Greed and incompetence defeated the hard work that went into engineering the 737 aircraft.
CDC lies about autism. It took the incompetent FDA 25 years to find out that the pertussis vaccine does not prevent transmission. They still don’t understand the difference between injected and ingested proteins. The incompetent CDC/ACIP flip-flopped on the Flumist vaccine - twice.
Vaccine “expert” Dr. Plotkin “believes” calf serum proteins used in vaccine manufacturing is completely removed from the product. It is not. He admits, residual protein can cause sensitization (development of allergy). He speculates that casein in milk is somehow different than calf serum proteins in regards to sensitization. He is wrong again. Dr. Richet showed us a hundred years ago, that all injected proteins sensitize. Drs. Plotkin and Offit admit it is ok to lie to parents about vaccines and autism and they do lie about it.
The Seattle Times investigated and reported the root cause of the 737 MAX disasters. They are not being dismissed as “anti-MAXXERs”. But anyone who investigates and reports the root cause of vaccine-induced diseases are dismissed as “anti-vaxxers”. Why?
Boeing has made numerous safety improvements in the past. HHS admitted there have been no safety improvement in vaccines for three decades. Aeronautical engineering is well understood. Immunological mechanisms involved in vaccines are
poorly understood The vast majority of vaccine safety claims are based on broken epidemiological studies.
Unsafe vaccines and the corrupted science that covers it up is the worst scandal in the history of medicine.
Vinu Arumugham; Trushin, Maxim V
Vaccines contain numerous animal and plant proteins (soy, peanut, sesame, maize, wheat, etc.). Vaccine excipients are derived from plant or animal sources. The mechanism of animal protein induced autoimmunity was previously described. Following a report associating maternal gluten intake to type 1 diabetes in the offspring, plant proteins were investigated.
The Pandemrix vaccine induced narcolepsy due to molecular mimicry between a H1N1 nucleoprotein peptide in the vaccine and the human hypocretin receptor 2. The BLASTP match score for this peptide was used as a baseline. BLASTP showed strong sequence alignment between gliadin, a wheat protein, and the human ionotropic N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR).
Analyzing further, strong sequence alignment was found between soy, peanut, sesame, maize, wheat and human glutamate receptors (GR), both ionotropic and metabotropic. There are reports of boosted wheat allergy and de novo synthesis of NMDAR antibodies following immunization. Once immunized with plant derived antigens, antibody levels will be increased by dietary exposure to these antigens.
GR are expressed in the brain, heart, pancreas and the T cells of the immune system. Vaccine induced GR antibodies (GRA) disrupt or destroy GR thus precipitating numerous disorders. This explains the epidemic of food intolerances and food associated immune mediated disorders.
Intestinal barrier disruption has been proposed as a cause for food associated autoimmune disorders. However, intestinal barrier disruption may itself be the result of GRA. GRA also disrupt the blood-brain barrier. This allows other anti-brain antibodies access to their targets. Vaccine-induced GRA can therefore explain a wide variety of disorders including autism, type 1 diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity, epilepsy, schizophrenia, autoimmune encephalitis, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, dementia, cancer and allergies.
The ultimate solution is to immediately remove all non-target proteins from all vaccines.
by Ginger Taylor, MS
Welcome to the intersection of the two most volatile issues in medicine, abortion and vaccines. The discussion of one is controversial, for good reason. When you try to discuss both at the same time, almost everyone either loses their minds, or completely shuts them down. I am someone who has tended to do the latter.
I spent almost a decade running up against the aborted fetal cell lines used for making vaccines and thinking, "I'm sure that can't be true... Alex Jones... hey look... shiny object!"
But in the last few years God has tapped on my shoulder and said, "are you sure you are not overlooking something?" And last year I had to apologize to my readers, because I had put myself out there as offering them informed consent in vaccination, while being in denial of something on which people deserve informed consent. And failing to inform them.
Abortion is an issue that strikes at the heart of who we are, and our base drives to keep control over our bodies and also to create our next generation. I don't think that there is any issue that should be approached with more humility and care. Talking about it blithely can set off landmines in the people around you, and you are unlikely to hear a bomb go off in their heart that can knock them down for a long time.
But the American Academy of Pediatrics proudly announced last month that their number one goal in 2019 is to remove the religious vaccine exemption from every state in the Union, before remembering that pesky 1st Amendment, and changing the headline.
Thus the need to look the difficult issue squarely in the face, as the loss of the right not to participate in the abortion industry in order to fully participate in public life is now at stake, and there are a large number of people who will be very upset when they find out after the fact that they have lost that right.
Because if you can extort a pro-life Christian into injecting aborted fetal cell line remains, and a Muslim into injecting porcine products, and a Hindu into injecting bovine serum, and a vegan into injecting monkey kidney cells, then religious freedom is gone in America, and no one has a right to exercise their conscience.
Our community has put a toe in the water, mostly only because we have had to, but the challenge is... how to open this discussion with individuals a political system who, more so than most, will have a fight or flight response to the phrase, "aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines?"
So last month, humbly and prayerfully, I started writing a letter to our state representatives, to prepare them for hearing this phrase, as we knew that they would be confronted with it repeatedly in our hearings on the vaccine exemption removal bill here in Maine.
And I managed to draft a letter about the use of aborted fetal cell line remains in vaccines, without using the word "abortion," or "fetus." It went to every member of the Maine Legislature.
I submit it to you, for your consideration, to use in broaching the difficult subject with your legislators in the most gentle way I could come up with:
Grazie mille a la nostra amici a Corvelva.
Click here to see this full report at the Corvelva site.
We want to take stock of the situation together with you. Eight months have passed since July 2018 and in these length of time we have achieved extremely satisfying results. We have presented a research program and regarding the vaccines analysis we are able to make a point of reference, with the objectives achieved, those being finalised and those only planned for now.
To begin with, the analyses of 2 compounds for each vaccine have been verified by means of standards, using certified control standards with a concentration in the order of micrograms / mL. The compounds we have chosen are among those known for their critical hazard profile. We are talking about a cumulative quantity, a total amount of those recognized as identities and those to be identified, which can be estimated within the order of 50 micrograms / mL, in contrast to the EMA / FDA guidelines.
These tests have given positive results, therefore they fully confirm the analysis method! The contaminations observed are probably due to different and variable manufacturing process’ phenomena and topics. What has been observed in the course of the studies is an “inter-batches” variation of the composition, which makes us assume that there are some steps along the whole product manufacturing process that are difficult to control.
Such analyses have allowed us to achieve the following steps:
- Conformity assessment of composition as outlined in the vaccine datasheet
- Screening for chemical and protein/peptide contaminations, as well as those deriving from genetic material
- Confirmatory study of chemical and protein target compounds through con standard certificates of inspection
The following vaccines have been submitted to an initial screening:
An attack on leading aluminium toxicity expert Christopher Exley in the Sunday Times yesterday begins with the false claim in the title that his funding has been halted. This seems like a blatant attempt to mislead: what was halted the week before last after political pressure was a Go Fund Me page for supporting his research, while the Keele University website has remained open for donations. Another false claim is that there were no controls for his autism brain study. While there were no "normal" brains in the study there were comparisons:
"The aluminium content of brain tissues from donors with a diagnosis of ASD was extremely high (Table 1). While there was significant inter-tissue, inter-lobe and inter-subject variability the mean aluminium content for each lobe across all 5 individuals was towards the higher end of all previous (historical) measurements of brain aluminium content, including iatrogenic disorders such as dialysis encephalopathy , , , , , . All 4 male donors had significantly higher concentrations of brain aluminium than the single female donor. We recorded some of the highest values for brain aluminium content ever measured in healthy or diseased tissues in these male ASD donors including values of 17.10, 18.57 and 22.11 μg/g dry wt. (Table 1). What discriminates these data from other analyses of brain aluminium in other diseases is the age of the ASD donors. Why, for example would a 15 year old boy have such a high content of aluminium in their brain tissues? There are no comparative data in the scientific literature, the closest being similarly high data for a 42 year old male with familial Alzheimer’s disease (fAD) ."
The professional attack in the report is led by Andrew Pollard who is said to be a professor of "paediatric infection": it does not mention Pollard's manifold roles as leader of Oxford Vaccine Group, which develops vaccines with the industry (mostly containing aluminium), as chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation which recommends vaccines to the British schedule, as leading adviser to the British and European licensing agencies, and board member of the Jenner Vaccine Foundation. In July 2017 he also called in the Guardian newspaper for compulsory vaccination without disclosing any of these roles. Real investigative journalists might be asking what research Pollard has ever undertaken into the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccine products which he helps develop, recommend and license?
John Stone is British editor of Age of Autism
“Skepticism is the first step towards truth,” Denis Diderot, 1746.
Has our government ever been wrong? Has it ever been deceptive? The answer of course, to anyone who knows our history, is yes! Here are a few examples:
Forced sterilization and eugenics
History is fraught with the horrors that eugenics inflicted on the world. The most prominent example is, of course, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, but what isn’t well known is that Hitler was actually influenced by eugenics-inspired policies implemented in the United States during the early part of the 1900’s. Eugenics is the belief that in order to “improve” the human species, only people with “desirable” traits should be allowed to reproduce. This philosophy was responsible for the forced sterilization, perpetuated by the U.S. government, of thousands of “unfit” or “socially inadequate” Americans.
Toxic chemicals in Vietnam
From 1962 to 1975, tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel were exposed to the toxic herbicide Agent Orange, while serving in Vietnam. Agent Orange was part of the U.S. military’s warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, and was used to eliminate forest cover and crops of the North Vietnamese army. Contamination by this toxic mix of chemicals has been linked to dozens of serious health problems in Vietnam veterans and continues to pollute portions of Vietnam where the chemicals were sprayed.
The Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsored Maine Chapter Of The AMA Admits It Wrote The Maine Vaccine Exemption Removal Bill, Then Claims That It Is Not Sponsored By The Pharmaceutical Industry.
Maine is small. It is really hard to get away with stuff here without anyone noticing. And our legislators don't have offices, so you can just walk up to them while they are milling around in the hallways. (No one can accomplish a #PanRan here.) So news travels fast, and it didn't take long for everyone to hear that lobbyist Peter Michaud wrote LD 798, the single worst vaccine exemption removal bill ever introduced in the US.
I have been super busy fighting this bill, so apologies that I have not gotten around to telling non-Mainers about it.
Right now Maine has all three exemptions, but our medical exemption is severely restricted as of 2016. It is near impossible to get one now, but no need, right? We have both religious and philosophical.
Enter LD 798, sponsored by democratic representative Ryan "Every Child In Maine Should Have The Opportunity To Receive An Excellent Education" Tipping of Orno, Maine, which removes the religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions from all Maine education and health care law. Throwing thousands of Mainers out of daycare, preschool, k-12 (public and private, kids with 504s, all incoming kids with IEPs), colleges and universities, and all medical professions. Also any new groups, such as EVERY ADULT IN MAINE, for whom they decide to issue new mandates. (No I don't know how they plan to violate federal law and keep 504 and IEP kids out of school. They don't either. But apparently it MUST be done for the good of society.)
It is a complete eradication of 1st Amendment vaccine rights in the state of Maine if you want to fully participate in society.
And it was written by Peter Michaud, Esq. RN, lawyer and lobbyist for the Maine Medical Association (MMA) which is the Maine branch of the American Medical Association (AMA.)
Peter is trying a Reverse Pan here in Maine. California first ditched their Personal Belief Exemptions in 2015, and is now going for restricting medical. Poor Pete had to wait on messing with the PBEs in Maine because we had a Governor who vetoed it in 2015, so he and his hit squad first restricted the medical exemption by fiat (because the law allows the Maine DHHS to do it with the wave of a pen,) and had to wait for new Governor that would allow this. He got one in Janet Mills. Sister to Dora Mills, pediatrician and primary vaccine PR Queen in Maine for as long as I can remember.
Regular AoA readers will remember Pete. He is the guy who testified against our bill to educate health care providers on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, while testifying that he didn't know anything about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Did I mention that he is also an RN? Which is a health care provider?
He is the guy same guy who offered the the super scientific and legally air tight case for coerced vaccination to our Health and Human Services Committee because, sure there might be some risk, but, “At some point you have to trust somebody.”
Additionally, and I have never highlighted this before, Michaud testified, speaking on behalf of the MMA no less, that he didn't believe the women telling the Committee about the poor treatment they were receiving in pediatricians offices.
"As you know I represent the Maine Medical Association. I have heard a lot of horrible things about doctors today. And you'll believe what you believe based on what you've heard. I refuse to believe that so many doctors in this state are unfeeling, are horribly rude, are bullies, don't have the best interests of their patients in mind.”
The MMA officially not believing women would explain a lot.
But Peter Michaud has topped himself this year.
When I heard that he had actually written the bill, I, as I am want to do, flipped out and made a loud video announcing it. Me and all my friends then wrote to and called the MMA and pretty much demanded confirmation from them. No such confirmation or denial was forthcoming.
But we did ask our legislators to ask good ol' Pete what the deal was. And we mentioned in a flier distributed on the floor of the Maine House of Representatives that, “LD 798 is a vaccine sales bill sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.”
Apparently that was enough to get him to respond. And his response was stunning.
Peter Michaud is General Counsel and a registered Lobbyist for the Maine Medical Association. On March 13, 2019, in his testimony in support of LD 798, and in opposition to LD 987 to expand medical exemptions, before the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs, made the admission that he is the co author of LD 798, and then made the bizarre claim that he is not sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry:
“There was a claim made in a floor sheet that was distributed in the house... That, “LD 798 is a vaccine sales bill sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.” I can assure you, that is not the case. The the bill was written in part by Representative Tipping, and in part by me. My authorship was pretty simple. X Y Z is repealed, but neither one of us is sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.”
(Wait... isn't that "X Y Z is repealed" the important bit?)
Except that he IS sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Very, very sponsored. Not by pejorative “Big Pharma,” in some roundabout way, but by actual PhRMA. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America®, who proudly represents “the country’s leading biopharmaceutical researchers and biotechnology companies.”
Merck as in MMR II Merck.
BCG Vaccine, Gardasil, Gardasil 9, MMR II, PedvaxHIB, Pneumovax 23, ProQuad, Recombivax HB, RotaTeq, Vaqta, Varivax, and Zostavax Merck.
As in #CDCWhistleblower in that Vaxxed movie with William Thompson and Frank DeStefano, Merck.
Merck as in US v. Merck, and Chatom v. Merck, and Robi v. Merck, and Everyone Who Took Zostavax v. Merck.
Vaccine encephalopathy inducing Merck.
Actual friggin' Merck & Co., Incorporated.
(Begging the question... should he now be “PhRMA Pete” or “Merck Michaud”?” Vote in the comments.)
The following are entities listed as "Corporate Affiliates” on the Maine Medical Association's website:
MERCK & CO., INC.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.
IPSEN BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION
OTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. (OAPI)
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT & COMMERCIALIZATION, INC. (OPDC)
PURDUE PHARMA L.P.
SUNOVION PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
TEVA US SPECIALTY MEDICINES
I am exceedingly proud to report that I sat perfectly still and quiet as Pharma Pete said these words to the committee not 30 feet away from me. I didn't even jump up, point at him and yell, “ARE YOU SERIOUSLY KIDDING ME! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!”
For this act of restraint I expect your high praise. (Leave in the comments.)
No one on the committee seemed to notice or question the claim, but why would they really. They have probably never visited the MMA website, and they assume that of course, the MMA represents doctors, not pharmaceutical companies. Why wouldn't they?
But one dad did notice. He was sitting in the overflow room listening to Michaud's testimony in the afternoon and was all, “That doesn't sound right.” And he checked the MMA website.
His daughter is vaccinated, but he cares about choice, so he put him self on the list to speak and waited until 2:10am, testifying very last from his hand written notes. He asked the most important question of the day:
“How is this just not disclosed?”
AoA links to Lyons-Weiler's review of the new paper by Hviid:"
An Autopsy on Hviid et al. 2019’s MMR/Vaccine Science-Like Activities
JUST IN TIME to be sandwiched between two one-sided Senate Hearings, a new cohort study by Hviid et al. has all of the hallmarks of a completely well-done study. Well done as in overcooked. Here is my initial assessment.
The burnt ends on this brisket are obvious. Just like all the past studies on the MMR/autism question, the study focuses on one vaccine. This is a problem because the variable they call “genetic risk” (having an older sibling), which is the most significant variable, is confounded with health user bias (there is no control over vaccine cessation). It’s an important variable, but genetic risk of what? Of autism? Or of autism following vaccination? It’s impossible to tell because the study never tests a VACCINE x FAMILY HISTORY interaction term. Or any other interaction term that includes vaccines.
Were it not such an imporant question for which so much “science-like activities” have occurred, we could just shrug our shoulders, one could argue that defining the data analysis strategy is just about how one like to season their meat. But there is real evidence Hviid (who did the data analysis) appears to be up real data cookery here.
(1) The smoking gun is the study-wide autism rate of 0.9-1%. The rate of ASD in Denmark is 1.65%. Where are the missing cases of ASD? Given past allegations of this group’s malfeasance and fraud, the rest of the study cannot be accepted based on this disparity alone: the study group is not representative of the population being studied.....(continue reading at JamesLyonsWeiler.com)
Chief Medical Officer to the British Government Defends MMR Safety: Autism Up by 15 Times And Still No Explanation
Since November I have been writing, on and and off about my correspondence with Dame Sally Davies, the out going Chief Medical Officer of England, and to the British Government. This correspondence is now published under Freedom of Information (barring my address and telephone number). It began when I asked Dame Sally to support her comment on the BBC about MMR "It's a a safe vaccine - we know that".
Recently, I made this list of points which I believe emerged from the exchange:
- ASD in schools is at least 15 times the level of 25 years ago
- 1.74% of all schoolchildren in the recent Northern Ireland census (the most complete data we have at the present time) had a severe/complex level of ASD disablement (education Stage 5)
- The overall rate is 2.9% for the province but 4.7% for Belfast
- Epidemiologists trying to explain the rise in ASD at the beginning of the millennium were still only talking about a rate of 0.2%
- 1999 National Statistics for schools’ mental health showed a rate of 0.2% for ASD/PDD for those born between 1984 and 88 but by the 2004 survey the overall rate was 1%
- The rate appears to have risen 5 times during the years following the introduction of MMR and 3 times since, and the majority of cases are not fringe diagnoses
- There is still no robust or adequate evidence of a large ASD population over the age of 35 and Dame Sally was unable to cite any
- Our schools, and their finances, are breaking down under the burden of disablement, with ASD being frequently mentioned as the major cause
- The social cost of ASD, once almost invisible, is set to outstrip old-age in the near future and is only likely to keep rising
- There is no robust or adequate evidence base for MMR safety: the six studies in the single review cited by Dame Sally were flawed and inadequate
- The first of these studies was only published 14 years after the products were introduced in the UK, and Dame Sally failed to cite any pre-marketing data, so the question also arises what the evidence base was for safety before they were introduced?
- The MHRA yellow card scheme would be incapable picking up long term neurological effects of vaccination
- The government has no coherent or convincing explanation of these events which are set to engulf everybody
A pdf of the correspondence can be read and downloaded here.
John Stone is UK editor of Age of Autism.
The Guardian has been attacking charitable donations made to Age of Autism through the Amazon. Julia Carrie Wong, the journalist, seems to think she knows something about it.
"Age of Autism, for example, styles itself as the “daily web newspaper of the autism epidemic”. The site publishes a steady stream of content emphasizing the dangers of vaccination and promoting the discredited idea that autism is caused by “excessive vaccinations”. "
Well, Julia, perhaps you ought to take note that it was not Andrew Wakefield that said vaccines cause autism, it was the US government. Following the Hannah Poling award in 2008 Julie Gerberding, at the time Director for the centers for Disease Control, told Sanjay Gupta on CNN:
"Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism."
"The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures."
But while autism spins out of control and is now approaching unsustainable 3% of children in the UK, and the cost of autism to the community is beginning to outstrip that of old age it becomes ever more difficult to get any serious or sensible answers out of our health officials. I recently had an exchange with the outgoing government Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davis, asking her what the evidence base for MMR safety was and she could not cite anything more convincing than the new paper from the Danish State Serum Institute: a review of six weak and flawed papers the first of which was published 14 years after the MMR was added the schedule in the UK. She was unable to mention any pre-marketing studies, or studies against placebo - it was a very poor answer. The full correspondence has now been published under freedom of information.The new paper like three of the six papers in the review, shows a protective effect against autism,indicative of bias. It sets the autism rate at 1% when in the UK is near three times higher. It is hopelessly conflicted with vaccine industry and CDC attachments, just as the Guardian is.
So, Julia, what do you think your opinion is really worth?
John Stone is UK editor of Age of Autism.
Children’s Health Defense Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., calls such discussions “reckless” based on the available safety information.
Washington, DC – The CDC Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) will consider recommending the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine to both women and men ages 27 to 45 in a meeting Feb. 27-28, 2019. This recommendation would possibly expose over 80 million adults to the Gardasil 9 vaccine.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. sent a letter to Chairman Jose R. Romero and ACIP members on February 25th, on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a non-profit organization devoted to children’s health. Kennedy has diligently followed the work of the committee to evaluate and recommend vaccines to the American public for over a decade and is well aware of the dangers of this vaccine given its track record with children.
Kennedy states that CHD considers an expansion of the HPV recommendations reckless based on the safety information available and outlined numerous reasons to support his concerns.
These include the fact that during Gardasil’s clinical trials an extraordinary 49.5% of the subjects receiving Gardasil reported serious medical conditions within seven months of the start of the clinical trials. Because Merck did not use a true placebo in its clinical trials, its researchers were able to dismiss the trial participants’ injuries as coincidences, employing the term “new medical conditions,” rather than classifying their injuries as “adverse events.”
HPV Vaccines have been reported to cause death and serious adverse events in the children and young adults age group at a rate higher than for any other ACIP-recommended vaccine. Since 2006, when Gardasil came on the U.S. market, people have reported over 450 deaths and over 61,000 serious medical conditions from HPV vaccines to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). While these numbers reflecting reported vaccine injuries are startling, they likely only represent a fraction of injuries. A HHS-funded study established that the voluntary VAERS system captures less than 1% of vaccine injuries and deaths.
In September, CHD released an ordered stipulation from Health and Human Services (HHS) where officials admitted that they were not in compliance with statutory requirements for regular childhood vaccine safety reviews and reports to Congress, as required in the “Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines” section of the 1986 law: “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.” In early February, in a similar ruling, FDA admitted that they had no records of clinical trials relied upon to approve any currently licensed influenza or Tdap vaccine used in pregnant women.
Kennedy’s letter informs Romero that CHD will seek to hold ACIP members supporting the recommendation accountable for endangering this population with a product that has little proven efficacy but which likely puts them at higher risk of developing cancers and other grave health conditions.
The US House of Representatives Oversight & Energy Subcommittee, of the Energy and Commerce Committee, will hold a hearing on the current measles outbreak and response efforts this Wednesday, February 27 at 10 am in the John D. Dingell Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The focus of the hearing was obvious in the press release, “Measles is a highly contagious, life-threatening virus that was previously eliminated in the United States thanks to the success of the measles vaccine,” the four bipartisan Committee leaders said. “Unfortunately, measles cases are on the rise as a consequence of the virus’s transmission among unvaccinated groups.” No critics of federal vaccine policy or the vaccine industry will be allowed to speak.
Please call Rep. Frank Pallone, the Chair of the Oversight & Energy Subcommittee and let him know you do not want the federal government to endanger our right to say “no,” and to let vaccine critics speak at the hearing:
And call Pallone’s boss, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has ultimate control over what hearings are held and who is allowed to speak, with the same message:
Please click on the link below to send messages to your member of the House and the two US Senators from your state letting them know that you support vaccine choice.
The hearings appear to be the next phase in a script the vaccine industry has been following around the world to eliminate vaccine choice. First, predictable outbreaks of measles, which was considered little more than a childhood inconvenience a generation ago, has been rebranded as a killer disease. Outbreaks that until recently were considered insignificant are used to whip up hysteria by corporate media outlets that rely on advertising dollars from the big four drug companies, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Glaxo (who also control more than 80% of the global vaccine market). Governments are frightened and bribed into eliminating vaccine choice for their populations delivering unimpeded access to captive markets. This scenario has played out in Italy, France, Croatia, Romania and California, and now appears to be slated for all of the United States.
Please share this message with friends and family, and please post to social networks. And if you support the work of the Autism Action Network please make a donation at www.autismactionnetwork.org
FYI & Action
History is repeating itself! Once again, a massive propaganda machine has fomented disease hysteria, preempting rational public health policy decisions. Last time around, coercive medical sterilizations were performed in the U.S.; their goal was to “cleanse the genetic pool of undesirables”. This time around, the objective is to increase utilization of vaccines, and thereby increase ever higher profit-margins.
The pharmaceutical industry in partnership with the U.S. government is determined to increase vaccination uptake by stripping parents of their human right to exercise their parental responsibility, which is to protect their child from risks of harm.
A growing number of parents have raised doubt about the assurances given that all vaccines are “safe and effective”. Parents are raising concerns about the empirical evidence of an ever increasing number of vaccinated children who suffer from debilitating chronic illnesses as never before. The failure of public health officials to examine the evidence and identify the cause of children’s chronic ailments, focusing solely on vaccination rates, has resulted in the loss of trust...(Continue reading at AHRP)
Robert F Kennedy jr has said that he is being prevented from giving evidence at two Congressional hearings on the grounds that they are full. It is ever more essential that everyone contacts their representatives to insist that all sides should be heard, particularly if their representatives are members of those committees.
We re-publish the letter from last week giving details of the two hearings.
Maintaining Medical Freedom: Urgent Action Required!
Threats to end religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions have just been ratcheted up to an unprecedented federal level. If parents and caregivers are stripped of the ability to make healthcare decisions for their children, reinstating that ability may be nearly impossible. We need to take action now to prevent the government from dictating what is injected into our children.
On Wednesday, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb hinted in a CNN interview that if non-medical vaccine exemptions were not abolished at the state level, federal health agencies may intercede. This is especially ominous considering two critical upcoming vaccine-related hearings recently announced on Capitol Hill:
- Wednesday, February 27, 10:00 a.m. The Energy & Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the current measles outbreak and response efforts.
- Tuesday, March 5, 10:00 a.m. The HELP Committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) will hold a hearing, Vaccines Save Lives: What is Driving Preventable Disease Outbreaks?
We absolutely must have representation at these hearings. It’s crucial that we have as many parents and advocates as possible in attendance at both. And if your Senator or Congressional representative is on one of these committees, it is critical that they hear from you! Click here for the Energy & Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee members and here for the HELP Committee members.
- These hearings need to be fair, balanced, and include opposing viewpoints. We have many highly qualified individuals to present those viewpoints.
- Issues related to vaccines should be governed by the states.
- Over $4 billion has been paid out for vaccine injuries and deaths and HHS estimates less than 1% of adverse events are reported. Mandating any procedure involving such risks is unethical.
- HHS has failed in its Congressional directive to study vaccine safety for 30 years.
- Mandating liability-free vaccines that have not been properly safety tested is in direct opposition to the first tenet of the Nuremberg Code: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
If you have a vaccine-injured child, tell your story. This personal input to those who represent you in our nation’s capital illustrates the harsh reality of a vaccine program geared towards industry profit rather than public health.
We have much more information on all the many ways our government has failed to protect our children here and factual information that may aid in the defense of health freedom and pushing back mandates here.
The future of medical freedom is at stake. Ensuring that our federally elected representatives hear from all of us through emails, faxes and phone calls to both their DC and district offices has never been more important than it is at this moment. If we are to maintain medical freedom and protect the health of generations to come, we need to raise our united voices now! Please share this alert with friends and family and urge them to do the same.
Following the Hannah Poling award in 2008 Julie Gerberding, at the time Director for the centers for Disease Control, told Sanjay Gupta on CNN:
"Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism."
"The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures."
The United States Government told you vaccines cause autism.
Having raised the issue of Heidi Larson's intervention in the vaccine debate on the BBC last week, it is worth considering - given her global status as vaccine confidence chief - how much she actually knows, but also her lack of professional accountability. Indeed, the first time she came to the attention of Age of Autism was when she wrote an article in New Scientist helping to lobby the United Nations (successfully as it turned out) not to place a ban on mercury in vaccines under the title: "Poison pill: Not all mercury is toxic". Troubling perhaps in retrospect apart from the very poor argument is that the case was not being made by a medical doctor or toxicologist, but someone who was not professionally accountable for such an opinion. We met the same problem with her recent broadcast:
Well, I think the main thing is there most incredibly extensive safety around vaccines - the processes that go around vaccines, the reasons there is quite a while between when vaccines are developed and when children actually get them is because the system has become more and more and more robust around safety. Frankly, partly because of the public cry for this, but it has always been that way from a safety perspective because the government frankly is accountable and if it is recommending and requiring in some senses these vaccines in some senses it is not in the interest of the governments or the producer to be recommending something which is going to cause any damage.
You could say this sounds like a satirical parody of someone defending vaccine safety. It is not merely that we find ourselves in disagreement over facts, it is actually that the language is vague and she does not seem to remotely know what she is talking about. Of course, it would be much easier to advocate that vaccine are safe, carefully trialed and monitored, if you really did not know anything much about it beyond your own propaganda.
Previously, Larson has pronounced herself concerned about vaccine safety. She told Johnson & Johnson website in 2017:
Yes, there are potential risks—there will always be potential risks with any medical treatment. And we don’t talk enough about that.
Which is all very well perhaps until you accuse the people who are talking about it of the equivalent of "hate crime". Adriana Gamondes reported in these columns last month:
The corporation was so uninterested in Brabant’s adverse reaction [to a yellow fever vaccine] that even Dr. Heidi Larson—lead researcher for the Gates Foundation’s Vaccine Confidence Project—called the company’s response “inadequate” and suggested that the vaccine formulation—which has not changed since the 1960’s—is not only outdated but being given in too large a dose. Interestingly, Larson holds up Sanofi-Pasteur’s conduct in this case as an example of the damage corporations do to public confidence in vaccination.
But is it going too far to suggest that Brabant's injuries seem real to Larson because she and he had both worked for UNICEF: they are part of the same class - the rest of us can apparently go hang. And you become credible because you move in the right circles:
HL: Well, I think the main thing is there most incredibly extensive safety around vaccines - the processes that go around vaccines, the reasons there is quite a while between when vaccines are developed and when children actually get them is because the system has become more and more and more robust around safety. Frankly, partly because of the public cry for this, but it has always been that way from a safety perspective because the government frankly is accountable and if it is recommending and requiring in some senses these vaccines in some senses it is not in the interest of the governments or the producer to be recommending something which is going to cause any damage.
VD: Should Facebook take these private groups down?
HL: I think the issue with Facebook is a difficult one because on the one hand they are asked not to dig into people's personal areas and on the other hand being asked to go and take things down so I think from a Facebook perspective its difficult to do that. From a public health perspective as we saw in the letter from Andrew Schifft (sic) to Mark Zuckerberg that this is something in the league of like hate crime....
Of course, it is hard to know where to begin. Heidi may pronounce herself satisfied with vaccine technology but frankly she is just emoting - and she has no right to take the matter out of the public's hands. To the best of my knowledge since I have been involved in these matters, the only attempts I have seen to reassure the public have been socially repressive. Obviously, we are in a situation of accelerating unpleasantness with every last measles case being hyped as if it was Ebola. But as readers will be aware when I quizzed the UK's outgoing Chief Medical Officer about the evidence basis for MMR safety she came out only with generalities and only named the very weak Luke Taylor "meta-analysis" for the safety of the products. Dame Sally could not cite pre-marketing trials against placebo (or any pre-marketing trials at all), she could only cite a paper published 26 years after the products were introduced in the U.K. 1988, while the earliest of the papers reviewed in it was published no earlier than 2002. It may be that this is what Larson had in mind: that before the public concern there had been no proper studies, and then there were the studies our governments did produce when they were in a corner - and these studies were anything but "more and more and more robust". As I wrote to Dame Sally:
A recent interview with British general practitioner, Dr Jayne Donegan, talking about her strange story to Polly Tommey when in 2007 she was tried before a General Medical Council tribunal and completely exonerated. With thanks to Peeps TV.
In November we published an extract from a letter to myself from the British Government's chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, and the full text of her letter has now been published by the British Government under Freedom of Information. However, the timing is somewhat interesting. While the text was apparently released by her department on 21 Dec last year it was not actually published to the web till two days before she announced her retirement on 8 February. Clearly you would expect someone in her position to present the best evidence available.Here is the full text of her letter below with my original article underneath (with thank to Angus Files for pursuing this matter). I had asked Dame Sally to support her statement "It's a safe vaccine -we know that". This was her reply:
Vaccine safety is extremely important and taken seriously, and the safety of MMR vaccines has remained under continual review. As with any vaccine, MMR vaccines can have side effects in some people, and these are listed in the product literature. The potential for side effects has to be balanced against the benefits of protection against what can be very serious and potentially life threatening infections. When safety issues have been confirmed in the past these have been acted upon. Your e-mail refers to the action taken with Urabe mumps-containing vaccines, and another example includes the identification and precautions around the risk of immune thrombocytopenic purpura with MMR vaccines. Should emerging evidence confirm any new risks, I can assure you that appropriate action would be taken.
Specifically in relation to whether MMR vaccines may be a cause of autism, a substantial body of population-based research has found no evidence to suggest a causal association. This ev-idence (not just for MMR, but other types of vaccine) is available for review in the published medical literature, and was summarised in a meta-analysis in 2014 which is free to download (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367?via%3Dihub).
In relation to vaccine safety monitoring more generally, I can assure you that systems are in place to keep safety under review. This includes continual review of suspected adverse reac-tion reports (such as those submitted through the Yellow Card Scheme), evaluation of GP and hospital-based health records linked to immunisations, review of worldwide data and close collaboration with international health authorities.
We know that confidence in the UK vaccine programme is at very high levels and the vast ma-jority of parents choose to have their children protected by vaccination. Vaccines are one of the best public health interventions we have - saving lives and preventing millions of people from getting life-threatening diseases.
By John Stone
I recently wrote to Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer of England and to the British government, asking her for the basis of her statement to the BBC regarding MMR: "It's a safe vaccination - we know that", and was a lucky enough to receive a reply (letter of 12 November, from which I extract):
Dr. Loretta Bolgan's Speech at the Vaccinating Safety Convention for the National Association of Chartered Biologists
Note: From Corvelva in Italy. The speech is translated by an interpreter.
Dr. Loretta Bolgan’s Speech at the covention “Vaccinating safely” organized by the National Association of Chartered Biologists - January 25th 2019
Dr. Bolgan reports on the studies conducted in cooperation with Corvelva association, presenting the analysis preliminary results on some vaccines vials commissioned by the association to accredited laboratories. These results have raised serious questions about the vaccines (in use in Italy and not just) safety and efficacy that need further examinations, that is why it seemed appropriate to disclose them to the public and also to the authorities responsible for protecting public health.
Dr. Bolgan mentions here the most important points, highlighting the quali-quantitative aspect of these products on the market, on both chemical-protein and metagenomic-biological profiles.
It is to be hoped these first observations will open an honest scientific debate on the topic of safety and efficacy of these products currently on the market and in use by the population, in the light of the regulations on mandatory vaccination and of the compliance with international guidelines.
No US Childhood Vaccines Were Placebo Tested: Why the Pharma/Government Complex Is Getting Desperate To Shut Down The Web
A special tribute to Del Bigtree (pictured) and his team at ICAN for his stunning 88 page letter to the HHS regarding vaccine safety. As Del reported - in the latest edition of Highwire - the letter, in response to an earlier reply from the then acting Director National Vaccine Program Office, Melinda Wharton, took virtually a year to compile, and is a meticulous piece of research. Most sensationally they researched the HHS claim through US government archives that at least some pediatric vaccines had been trialed against genuine placebo, and came to a negative conclusion. Not only that, they established that none of the vaccines those vaccines had been trialed against had ever been trialed against genuine placebo either. At the end of the line the toxic products were only being compared with other toxic products, rather than against saline.
Leave aside the sceptics, for any believer in the vaccine program as a necessary intervention in public health, this should be a devastating finding. Fundamentally, the research into the safety of any of the products before marketing was simply not there. The manufacturers apparently had no faith that their proto-products could withstand this scrutiny, and for the rest they just did not care: under the alleged imperative of protecting the population it seems anything went. So even before all the sham monitoring procedures and reviews which Del and his team dismantle in forensic detail we are left with the proposition that none of the present products being given to US children – and frequently other children across most of the developed world – have any meaningful pre-marketing safety data all. If you are believer in the program you have been let down: if you wanted a program with any pretensions to safety - supposing such a thing to be possible - it looks like you would have to start from scratch. The manufacturers did this: the governments, the politicians and the regulators (internationally) let it happen.
This damning document is published simultaneously with a demand in the UK from the Royal Society for Public Health (which I had never heard of) to shut down comment about vaccines on the web. It echoes calls from Seth Berkley of GAVI, Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project and the European Parliament. The pamphlet airily dismisses concerns that vaccines have side effects or that you could possibly have too many. It is pure public relations, and if the RSPH claims to be "independent" it also admits that the publication was paid for by Merck, a detail which was reported by British Medical Journal and the Guardian, but not true to form by the BBC. We have, in truth, been building to this moment for two decades: as the evidence piles up that every single aspect of the program lacks integrity or is simply rotten to the core all the perpetrators can do is call for the silencing of their critics, and maintain the products are safe because they say so.
Watch Del introduce the letter on Highwire January 24, 2019:
Please help give the ICAN letter the widest possible distribution, particularly to politicians.
The full correspondence can be found here.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
Australia has been hostile toward those who warn about vaccine injury. From the "Don't Punish Progress" files, comes this story. Whooping cough is exhausting and dreadful. Anaphylactic food allergies are terrorizing for families. And sometimes deadly. A vaccine outcome or side effect should not be worse than the disease for which is purports to prevent. A parent should have a right to refuse this and every vaccine. Where there is risk, there must be choice.
A multi-million dollar trial has been launched to see if a whooping cough vaccine is linked to the dramatic rise in children with food allergies.
The number of Australian children with food allergies has skyrocketed since the late 1990s – about the same time a new whooping cough vaccine was introduced.
Before responding to the [New York Times] editorial, "How to Inoculate against Anti-Vaxxers" (January 20, 2019), I want to point out that the opposite term, "Pro-vaxxer," is rarely seen or heard, as if belief in the safety and efficacy of vaccines were so universal and such a no-brainer that there would be no need to coin a word to single it out, much less imply that the naysayers might also have a valid point of view. This subtext is evident throughout the editorial in question, which merely accepts as gospel the authority of the World Health Organization on the subject, as if there were nothing more to be said, other than how to combat those with the temerity to question it.
The obvious corollary is that the epithet "anti-vaxxer" is pejorative, but another less obvious is that it's inaccurate, since most of the thousands upon thousands of parents who must live with their conviction that their kids were killed or irreversibly damaged by vaccines are not against all vaccines on principle, but simply have questions and doubts about them, want them to be made safer, and above all seek some public recognition of and validation for the truth of their experience, including their right to choose not to continue vaccinating in the future.
As a family doctor with fifty years of experience caring for many such families, I cannot remain silent about the enormous weight of vaccine-related suffering and disability, sufficient to break any heart, that continues unabated, remains largely hidden and unacknowledged, and cries out at the very least for caution, restraint, and simple compassion for the viewpoint of those whose lived experience, whatever may have caused it, is so tragically different from that of everyone else privileged enough to be ignorant of or somehow unmoved by their loss.
When these tragedies do occur, they are almost always dismissed by their doctors, friends, and relatives alike as coincidental or the result of some genetic defect, unfortunate to be sure, but in no way related to the vaccine or vaccines that more or less recently preceded them. This amounts to saying that these parents are either lying, ignorant, or stupid, and that modern science knows what really happened to their kids better than what they have actually experienced and lived through, and that the science of vaccines is settled beyond any reasonable doubt.
Which brings me to my second reason for writing, namely, to remind your readers that questioning and doubting are at the heart of the scientific endeavor, that science by definition must never be "settled." The late Richard Feynman of Caltech, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, said it best:
There is no learning without having to pose a question, and a question requires doubt. Before you begin an experiment, you must not know the answer. If you already know the answer, there is no need to gather any evidence; and to judge the evidence, you must take all of it, not just the parts you like. That's a responsibility that scientists feel toward each other, a kind of morality.1
Note: Our John Stone works tirelessly in the UK to dissect the vaccine safety narrative. Congratulations and thank you to him for this letter published on the NY Times site. Check out the clever headline, "How to inoculated against anti-vaxxer yadda yadda." This presents those of us in the vaccination choice community as dangerous, like a disease. WHO recently named "us" a top ten public health thread. Move over Dengue and HIV, "vaccine hesitancy" just beat you in line. Jokes aside, can you imagine that vaccine choice is deemed more of a public health threat than HIV?
The Times switched off comment at around 3 pm Eastern Time before comments got out of hand.
The no-vaccine crowd has persuaded a lot of people. But public health can prevail.
By The Editorial Board
"The World Health Organization has ranked vaccine hesitancy — the growing resistance to widely available lifesaving vaccines — as one of the top 10 health threats in the world for 2019. That news will not come as a surprise in New York City, where the worst measles outbreak in decades is now underway. Nor in California or Minnesota, where similar outbreaks unfolded in 2014 and 2017, respectively. Nor in Texas, where some 60,000 children remain wholly unvaccinated thanks in part to an aggressive anti-vaccine lobby..."
"This article is an ideological folly, and it is also deceptive - it is deceptive because vaccine critics are already and have always been completely outgunned in the mainstream media. If the NYT are paranoid enough to claim otherwise there is surely something else going on.
"Secondly, what is currently at issue is both freedom of choice and freedom of speech, and this is a dangerous combination. It is coming that we may not either criticize these liability free products or the lobby that produces them. Nor may we refuse the products. And this is entirely unreasonable - they are being placed on a pedestal, yet there are hundreds of things that can go wrong both singly and in combination (with the certainty that all or anything will be denied in advance as in this editorial). Furthermore, the industry has hundreds of more products in the pipeline, which in turn can and will be mandated for our children. The industry needs this debate kicked into oblivion because it cannot stand scrutiny.
"There is nothing in the history of either medicine or the pharmaceutical industry which suggests that this is a safe or wise way to proceed, not is it as if all doctors or medical scientists are in agreement about it.
The New York Times has just come out with an editorial and a backgrounder that favor the elimination of vaccine exemptions. The means by which vaccines are coerced is via denying a public (and in some states a private) education to children who have not received every state-designated immunization. The myth justifying this tyrannical penalty is that unvaccinated children pose a considerable risk of infection to their schoolmates and friends.
Yet vaccines are the only category of products in the United States for which manufacturers are faced with absolutely no liability when they cause injuries, cause deaths, or fail to generate immune responses.
While the New York Times has correctly gone after the Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharma, a small pharmaceutical company, for misleading marketing of Oxycontin and ushering in the opioid epidemic, the Times has shut its eyes to the epidemic of chronic neurological illnesses in children and adolescent caused by vaccines that are produced by some of the most profitable corporations on earth. (Two examples include narcolepsy in adolescents due to Pandemrix vaccine, and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) in adolescents due to HPV vaccine.)
After a child suffers a vaccine injury, parents subsequently often choose to reduce their childrens' vaccinations. By requiring children from families in which there is a pre-existing vaccine injury to be vaccinated or forgo an education, we can expect a higher rate of vaccine injuries in those who are forced to comply.
Do Vaccine Mandates Improve the Public's Health or Pharma's Health? The Examples of Measles, Mumps and Rubella (German Measles)
The NY Times editors write that "public health can prevail." And it should. Let's examine the true magnitude of the risk to public health we face today from 3 well known childhood viruses.
Measles is said to be the most severe of the common childhood viral diseases, and it is the most contagious. Yet despite all the hoopla over measles, there have been only 3 measles deaths in the US since 2000. According to CDC, "...Measles cases in the United States occur as a result of importations by people who were infected while in other countries and from transmission that may occur from those importations..." Apart from cases coming in from overseas, measles does not otherwise circulate in the US.
In 2003, two Americans died from measles: a 75 year old male who was exposed to measles in Israel, and a 13 year old who had received a bone marrow transplant 3 months before his death, and was severely immunocompromised. "Despite an intensive search, no additional cases were detected in the surrounding area."
The next (and last) time someone died in the US with measles was in 2015. A middle-aged, immunosuppressed woman with pre-existing conditions died from pneumonia, and on autopsy was found to have measles.
It is unclear whether any of these 3 deaths were due to a measles virus originating from a vaccine, but it is certainly possible. The vaccine for measles is a live, attenuated virus that can occasionally cause measles disease and/or be transmitted to immunocompromised individuals by a vaccine recipient.
On average, there are about 250 cases of measles reported annually in the US, and 0.2 deaths annually.
On average, there are 2,500 cases of mumps reported in the US yearly. The mumps vaccine is less efficacious than the measles or rubella vaccine, with an estimated 86% efficacy after the recommended two doses. Immunity wanes significantly 3-5 years following vaccination.
RUBELLA (German Measles)
What about rubella, a virus that can cause fetal malformations? Rubella was declared eliminated from the US in 2004. "Since 2012, all rubella cases had evidence that they were infected when they were living or traveling outside the United States."
I hope I have made it clear that the risk of measles, mumps and rubella posed by unvaccinated children to both healthy Americans, and to immune-compromised Americans is very close to zero. The same holds for other conditions for which children are vaccinated. Here is an article detailing the evidence of risk to the immune compromised from unvaccinated children that I wrote in 2015.
Vaccinating high risk children will produce a larger public health problem than not vaccinating them
In fact, there exists no reliable evidence that unvaccinated children in the US pose a serious threat to anyone; the claim that they do is an urban legend promulgated by Big Pharma and its wholly owned subsidiary, CDC. (Note that CDC purchases $5.0 Billion in vaccines annually for the Vaccines for Children program, by far its largest line item. Then CDC must convince the country to consume them.)
Yet how many columns inches, how many hours of TV news programs have been devoted to scaring the American public about the dire threat of measles? Fear of measles has been the major driver of the campaigns to eliminate vaccine exemptions. Parents of immunocompromised children have been incited to frenzy about the risks posed to their children by unvaccinated classmates. Yet they are rarely told their immunocompromised child might actually develop measles due to vaccination, or catch it from a newly vaccinated classmate.
Who really benefits from this hue and cry? Only vaccine manufacturers, whose market is forcibly expanded, while these same manufacturers face no liability for consequent vaccine injuries.
The greater public health risk is actually posed by vaccines--to children who are at higher than average risk of a vaccine injury. CDC acknowledges this risk in its Vaccine Information Statement for the measles, mumps rubella vaccine, which says, "Some people should not get this vaccine." Included in the list of who should not receive the vaccine are those with allergies to vaccine components or to a prior dose; those possibly pregnant; the immunocompromised; those with immune system problems; or those who have a close relative with immune system problems; and other conditions.
Yet some children with these conditions will surely be required to be vaccinated if exemptions are removed. In the 30 years' duration of the Department of Health and Human Services' Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 89,000 adverse reactions and 445 deaths in total have been reported for measles vaccines. These numbers dwarf the tiny number of infections that might be related to unvaccinated children. Remember, no deaths--zero--from measles, mumps or rubella have been attributed to infections carried by unvaccinated children during the past 20 years in the US. Very few infections have been imputed to them, either.
There is no scientific or public health reason to force children who are perceived by their parents to be at high risk of a reaction to be vaccinated, when the facts show that the threat they pose to the rest of us is marginal to none. How could the NewSpeak Times get this so wrong?
Corvelva Releases "Vaccinegate" Analysis of Gardasil 9, Turns Out To Be Gardasil 7, With 338 Contaminants...
by Ginger Taylor MS
... 10 of which are toxic chemicals, and 264 of which are unknown.
"We arrive with this analysis to the fourth vaccine analyzed with this method, which aims to determine the chemical-protein composition of the analyzed vials.
On this occasion we focused on a vaccine that is not mandatory in Italy, the one against the papilloma virus, but that has done much to discuss in the recent past for the numerous reports of suspected adverse reactions received over time. The anti-Hpv vaccines have made much debate, even outside Italy; hence the decision to dedicate our attention also to this product.
ATTENTION: Gardasil 9 is an anti-Hpv vaccine that should contain 9 antigens as a leaflet, for 9 different subtypes of the Hpv virus (subtype 6 -11 - 16 - 18 - 31 - 33 - 45 - 52 - 58). However, all the antigens that are declared are not detected, but only 7 out of 9.
With reference to the methodology, the technical complaints and criticisms made in the last few weeks, we have responded (link report https://goo.gl/WfRBJB) with the final report of the analyzes. We suggest the reading and the diffusion of this document, together with the rest, because the explanations are rather detailed and precise.
In this sample of Gardasil 9 were found, as for the previous vaccines analyzed:
Chemical contamination from the manufacturing process or cross-contamination with other production lines
ANTIGENI: as anticipated, Gardasil 9 is an anti-Hpv vaccine that should contain, from package insert, 9 antigens, for 9 different subtypes of the Hpv virus (subtype 6 -11 - 16 - 18 - 31 - 33 - 45 - 52 - 58 ). Of these, they were NOT detected:
L1 Type 11 Protein of Human Papillomavirus (one of the subtypes that are most commonly associated with cervical lesions)
L1 Type 58 Human Papillomavirus (one of the subtypes that is most frequently associated with cervical cancer)
These two subtypes were not detected with the method in use (unlike the remaining 7).
Also in this case, therefore, we are faced with a product that does not seem to contain what it should contain. That is, of 9 antigens, only 7 were detected.
This opens up an important question about product compliance. A question that is not up to us to resolve, and that as always we turn to those in charge.
In addition, 338 signals of chemical contaminants were detected, of which 22% known. This data is also in continuity with the previous ones.
Among these signals were also identified 10 chemical toxins, probably from the process of processing antigens or other production processes present at the site of production of the vaccine.
In conclusion, also Gardasil9 - as well as the hexavalents Hexyon and Infanrix hexa as well as the quadrivalent Priorix Tetra - according to the method we commissioned, leaves enormous doubts on both efficacy and safety."
The full report in Italian: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mEkosZVnZMGH7lD-U1LP83gFqDQhs2pH/view
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Used Forced Vaccination Laws to Justify Forced Sterilization Laws
by Ginger Taylor, MS
"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."- Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Buck v. Bell, 1927
In the horrifying 1927 case, Buck V. Bell, the Supreme Court ruled, in an 8 to 1 decision, that it was constitutional for Virginia to perform forced sterilization on its citizens.
"Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927),is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell."
This, many of us have heard of, as it is our children that the states would be targeting if this policy of Nazi eugenics was being carried out today as it was in the 20th century, both in Nazy Germany and the US during the "Progressive Era," which was embracing the idea of creating a superior society.
The case of Buck v. Bell was the atrocious matter in which Dr. Albert Sidney Pridd (and his successor, Dr. John Hendren Bell) Superintendent of The Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, decided that one of his patients, an 18 year old rape-victim with a sixth grade education, should not be able to give birth again. Her mother was also "feebleminded" you see, and the good doctors believed society should be rid of their kind.
Again with the Wikipedia (yes I know I being lazy by quoting the Wiki but I have to get back to my kids homework):
"The concept of eugenics had been put forward in 1883 by Francis Galton, who also coined the name. The trend first became popular in the United States, and found proponents in Europe by the start of the 20th century; 42 of the 58 research papers presented at the First International Congress of Eugenics held in London in 1912, were from American scientists. Indiana passed the first eugenic sterilization statute (1907), but it was legally flawed. To remedy this situation, Harry Laughlin of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, designed a model eugenic law that was reviewed by legal experts. In 1924 the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted a statute authorizing the compulsory sterilization of the intellectually disabled for the purpose of eugenics. This 1924 statute was closely based on Laughlin's model. Looking to determine if the new law would pass a legal challenge, on September 10, 1924 Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, filed a petition to his Board of Directors to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old patient at his institution who he claimed had a mental age of 9. Priddy maintained that Buck represented a genetic threat to society."
But even those who know about poor Carrie Buck may not know that the mandatory vaccine laws were the justification for this decision. They used our old friend Jacobson, the Massachusetts minister who refused to pay a five dollar fee imposed by the state on those rejecting the smallpox vaccine during a deadly outbreak in 1905, and took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The venerated Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision upholding the Virginia law that ended a woman's right to be a mother, by saying it was no different than vaccination:
Institutional Confirmation Bias and the United Kingdom Department of Health: Letter to Dame Sally Davies
Below is the text of my recent letter to Dame Sally Davies (pictured), Chief Medical Officer since 2010 to the British government. Davies has now replied twice to my original challenge to substantiate her comment on the BBC regarding the MMR: ""It's a safe vaccination - we know that". My original reply was published last November. It is evident that if she had a strong reply to make she ought to have made it the first time around, and the second reply was only an amplification of the first, to which I have in turn responded in more comprehensive detail. I believe it demonstrates how a government department had come to justify its choices made originally on weak evidence, and how as the decades went by the resulting decisions got worse and more desperate: and as the problems got more drastic the denial - even if believed - got more implausible.
It is interesting and likely significant that when I asked about MMR safety it was Davies who brought up the issue of autism (which I had not mentioned). This mirrors the situation two decades ago when I tried to raise the subject with the department of the rising autism numbers and they brought up Andrew Wakefield (though I had mentioned neither Wakefield or vaccines). The message is that they make the connection as a reflex, the safety of MMR and the claimed stability of the autism figures are inextricably entwined and in both instances the department are making a “leap of faith”.
My title refers to “the Department of Health", but to clarify at the beginning of this period when the original decisions were being made it was part of the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS), and since January last year it has been called the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), but for the three decades during which most of this happened it was the DoH or DH.
Dear Dame Sally,
Re: MMR Safety and Autism Numbers
Thank you for your further courteous reply (20 December), however I must point to a host of anomalies (apologies for the length and detail of my reply). The MMR programme was introduced to the UK in 1988 but the earliest of the autism safety studies included in the Cochrane review 2005  was published only 11 years after this (and apparently based on illegally obtained children’s records, which cannot be cross checked ), while the first listed in the review by Luke Taylor (2014), which you cited, comes from 14 years after the introduction of the products . Indeed, in 1988 the DH recklessly favoured SKB’s Pluserix MMR vaccine although it was already withdrawn in Canada  and contrary to your first letter it never made an attempt to withdraw the product until the decision was made to do so unilaterally by the manufacturers in 1992 .
The safety of the products had not been established at the time of introduction (quite the reverse as the main one in use was known to be hazardous), and the featured studies only began when, following the intervention of Andrew Wakefield, health officials came under pressure to justify the policy. The picture became further complicated in 1999 when the problem of mercury in other vaccine products, previously unacknowledged, came to light in the US. The problem of the Cochrane paper of 2005 is that the bland reassurance it gave regarding MMR and autism is in stark contrast to the cool to scathing comments about the six autism related studies it reviewed (three of which overlap with the Luke Taylor review of 2014 which you previously gave as your evidence for MMR safety and MMR not causing autism) . The manifest contradiction in the review should in itself raise red flags.
Yesterday, Sharyl Attkisson aired a critically important piece of journalism that will go unnoticed or be buried by mainstream media. Please join us in thanking her and her guests Robert Kennedy, Jr., Rolf Hazelhurst and Beth Clay.
You can read the full article excerpted below at the Full Measure website.
Visit her YouTube channel for replays as well.
Today we investigate one of the biggest medical controversies of our time: vaccines. There’s little dispute about this much-- vaccines save many lives, and rarely, they injure or kill. A special federal vaccine court has paid out billions for injuries from brain damage to death. But not for the form of brain injury we call autism. Now—we have remarkable new information: a respected pro-vaccine medical expert used by the federal government to debunk the vaccine-autism link, says vaccines can cause autism after all. He claims he told that to government officials long ago, but they kept it secret.
Yates Hazlehurst was born February 11, 2000. Everything was normal, according to his medical records, until he suffered a severe reaction to vaccinations. Rolf Hazlehurst is Yates’ dad.
Rolf Hazlehurst: And at first, I didn't believe it. I did not think that, I did not believe that vaccines could cause autism. I didn't believe it.
But there's a hard reality for Yates. The trademark brain disease, pain and inability to communicate that’s common with severe autism.
By Ginger Taylor, MS
We have all heard it from our peers (and our elders) when we say that we are not vaccinating any more because the vaccine program is corrupt and high risk.
“But I was vaccinated and I am fine.”
Then we attempt to launch into a 30 minute educational session on the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, Hannah Poling, Poul Thorson, William Thompson, Thomas Verstraeten, Julie Gerberding, HHS's failure to do their legally mandated vaccine safety research for 32 years, and no this is not really about Andrew Wakefield.
In an attempt to stop having to tell my story over and over again, I even managed to get a Johns Hopkins bioethics journal to print my very wordy reason for “No,” so that I could just hand it to people rather than explaining over and over and over.
Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics: “Families are Under No Obligation to Put Their Children at Risk By Participating in the Corrupt Current US National Immunization Program”
I ended my piece with this statement:
“The controversy surrounding vaccinations will never be resolved until the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is repealed, and until families 7th amendment rights to have their complaints heard in civil court, under established legal procedure and ruled on by a jury, is restored.
Until there is a way to force public health officials, vaccine industry representatives and medical professionals to testify under oath, and under penalty of perjury, to either defend or retract their fraudulent claims, to pay for the damages done to children (including my child) for their institutionalized abuse and negligence, I will never consent to another member of my family participating in the vaccine program under any circumstances.”
I could have put it more succinctly by just saying, “we won't use liability-free vaccines any more.”
After doing this for 15 years I am a bit exhausted by the whole exercise of explaining, and expounding, and reminding, so as we here in Maine start up our fight against what promises to be an “SB277” type bill coming to our legislature, I have decided there is a more simple way to make this case without a 30 minute conversation, 30 times a day.
As there has not been a simple “vaccine” administered to a child for school entry since the 80s, I am going to stop talking about “vaccines,” and talk about “liability-free vaccines.”
I am going to point out that what the Maine mandatory vaccine law was written before 1985, was applicable to “vaccines,” when families had legal recourse against vaccine makers for corruption and hidden risks, and that current law should not apply to “Liability-Free Vaccines.” Which is what we have now.
I am philosophically opposed to my child receiving liability-free vaccines. Boom. Done.
“But you HAVE to! Do you want polio to come back?!”
No, I don't have to. If you were really afraid of polio coming back, you would replace liability to vaccine makers and fix the corruption in the vaccine program. You have not done your job to protect my children for the last 30 years. I'm out.
What I received as a child, even though in some cases they may be sold by the same company under the same brand name, was a fundamentally different product than what my children were given. Vaccine makers were subject to liability to harm from their products. That ended the year I graduated from high school.
Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg have correctly pointed out that vaccines free from liability when they are defectively designed, give no reason for vaccine makers to improve design, to mind how they are distributed, or to even keep up with basic or emerging science:
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RUSSELL BRUESEWITZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC., FKA WYETH LABORATORIES, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[February 22, 2011]
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, dissenting.
Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent.
Legislatures are ignorant of vaccine liability protection, and think vaccination has not changed since the mid-20th century.
“But I was vaccinated and I am fine.”
Poor Moms. We want to do what's best for our infants. It's our instinct to protect and raise them out of childhood. Merck and Sanofi have a partnership for a new vaccine that covers six diseases. SIX. Moms will think they are protecting their kids while avoiding multiple needles into the body and feel good. Until that spell wears off. That's the voodoo that you do when you are Sanofi Merck.
Sanofi developed the new vaccine, dubbed Vaxelis, in partnership with Merck.
Vaxelis is designed for children aged 6 weeks to 4 years old and is designed to keep them from contracting diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, hepatitis B, and invasive disease due to haemophilus influenza type B.
Sanofi and Merck are now working on the production and supply of Vaxelis aiming to make it available on the market in 2020 or later.