Vaccine madness

General healthcare discussion, and Obamacare news.
Please note that specific help and support for Gregory Allan's book "How to Survive Hospital Costs Without Insurance" must be directed to the private Forum used for that purpose.
User avatar
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine - mortality

Post by Firestarter »

Thousands of babies in the Third World were injected with the Edmonston Zagreb (EZ) measles vaccine in an experiment by the CDC and Johns Hopkins University to overwhelm their natural maternal antibodies and replace them with vaccine-induced antibodies. It shouldn´t be surprising that this caused chronic immune suppression.
The experimental Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine was first injected into infants in Mexico, Haiti, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau.
The measles vaccine caused suppression of the children's immune system for six months up to three years. As a result, the (immunodepressed) children died from diseases in greater numbers than children who had not been positoned with the vaccine (from apparent causes like infections, diarrhea and malnutrition that usually kill babies in the third world). Because African girls were given twice the dose of boys, they suffered a higher death rate.

In the 1980s, the World Health Organization (WHO), had declared measles a life-threatening illness in Third World countries. They recommended that the EZ measles vaccine would be injected - in doses 10 to 500 times the standard - in infants younger than 15 months old. The EZ vaccine studies were sponsored by the CDC, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Johns Hopkins University.
In Haiti, the study was done on a population that included HIV-positive infants, so basically these vaccines could “prove” that HIV causes AIDS...

In October 1989, WHO declared the EZ vaccines a success and recommended the high-titer EZ vaccine to Third World infants from six months of age.
From 1989 to 1991, Kaiser Permanent, the LA County Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), injected more than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in inner city Los Angeles with experimental vaccines. The parents did sign something for consent, but they weren´t informed paper that it was an experimental vaccine, associated with increased mortality.
This trial included the same Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine that had already killed almost 1 in 13 infants before their second birthday in studies in Senegal, Guinea Bissau and Haiti. At least one baby in the LA County experiment died before the age of 2 years.
The study was halted in October 1991...

In January 1990, the directors of one of the African sites notified WHO and CDC of a link between increased mortality and the EZ vaccine. In April 1990, director of the Senegal site Dr. Goran, alerted the WHO to the problem of increased mortality but was simply ignored.
In January 1991, Goran presented the mortality data at an international meeting of the vaccine team. He expected that the rest of the team would admit, ‘Oh my God, yes, he’s right, the vaccine is causing deaths’. But his data was set aside and the studies continued.
Goran decided that he had no choice but to publish his data. When it appeared in The Lancet in October 1991, the Johns Hopkins team quickly confirmed that Goran might be right. The WHO called for an independent analysis of mortality for a meeting in June 1992.
In June 1992, it couldn’t be denied anymore that children were dying in large numbers from the EZ measles vaccine. The WHO pulled the EZ vaccine off the market.
By then, the EZ vaccine had already been used in about two dozen countries, from Bangladesh to Zanzibar, in “studies” involving at least 15,000 children. Nobody knows how many of those children died.

Because the deaths by the "high titre" Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine only started after 6 months and continued until 4 years after vaccination (did it really stop?), it surprises me that they found out at all.
And if similar death-causing vaccines, that start 6 months after vaccination, are given to children now, I don’t see how anybody could ever blow the whistle (maybe call it AIDS)...

If it wasn´t for the brave Dr. Goran these sick epxeriments with the dead causing EZ vaccine, would have continued.
The press hardly covered this, and when they did they only reported on the fact that in the LA study the parents weren´t told that the vaccine was experimental. They only mentioned as “sort of an afterthought” that the vaccine had caused deaths in Third World countries. The CDC and Kaiser even got the chance to tell that there had only been one death, unrelated to the vaccine.

According to Worth Coolie Prost:
We should be very alarmed about this for two reasons in particular, the first being that if the mainstream press hadn’t touched Tuskeegee we never would have known about it. And secondly, we should be alarmed because precisely the same government agencies, research institutions, and very often even the same researchers are... doing AIDS vaccine research in Third World countries and in the United States.
The same folks who did the EZ measles vaccine - this non-story - are doing HIV vaccine research. There’s been no accountability, no disclosure... Why should we expect different behavior now? And if the press doesn’t cover it, how will we know when things go wrong?
(archived here: ... v/ez2.html)
User avatar
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Vaccines and mental disorders

Post by Firestarter »

The following study investigated if vaccinations cause obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), anorexia nervosa (AN), anxiety disorder, chronic tic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder in children aged 6–15 years, between January 2002 and December 2007.

Receipt of any vaccine in the previous 6 months was highest for children with AN (21.4%), followed by OCD (15.9%) and tic disorder (15.8%), and was lowest for children with open wounds (10.3%).

Influenza vaccinations during the prior 3, 6, and 12 months were also associated with diagnoses of AN, OCD, and anxiety disorder.
A vaccination in the previous 3 months was associated with more new diagnoses of autism (hazard ratio (HR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.21–2.68).

Several other vaccines were also asociated with HRs greater than 1.40:
Hepatitis A vaccine with OCD and AN;
Hepatitis B vaccine with AN;
Meningitis vaccine with AN and Chronic tic disorder.

They used for control conditions: Broken bones and Open wounds. I don´t think that these are proper controls. If for example vaccines would cause only a temporarily confusion, vaccines could be asociated with more broken bones and open wounds...

Children also had more broken bones after a vaccination in the preceding period, although the HRs were smaller.
There was no increase in open wounds following vaccinations.
Children with major depression and bipolar disorder were less likely to have had a vaccination in the preceding period.

In Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, England, and France increased incidence of narcolepsy after vaccination with AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine was observed.
Studies also found a threefold increase in the incidence of narcolepsy following the vaccination after the 2009 H1N1 “pandemic” in China.

Douglas L. Leslie et al. – Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case–Control Study (2017) ... 00003/full
(archived here:

A study on mice found a correlation between rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and aluminum.

Baby mice were injected with either 550 μg of aluminum hydroxide gel or saline (for placebo) in the first 2 weeks after birth. The injection schedule was intended to mimic the 2010 US pediatric vaccination schedule.

The mice were subjected to behavioral tests at 8, 17 and 29 weeks after birth.
The aluminum injected mice showed:
Diminished social interest at week 8 (p=0.016) and 17 (p =0.012).
Abnormal social novelty at week 8 (p=0.002) and week 29 (p =0.042) compared to controls: ... -behavior/

Firestarter wrote: Fri May 03, 2019 3:57 pmBrooklyn judge Lawrence Knipel has dismissed the lawsuit brought by 5 anonymous parents against the mandatory measles vaccination order imposed by the mayor earlier this month.

Judge Knipel called the mandatory vaccination order “a rare but necessary step” and dismissed the parents’ arguments that it violates “individual autonomy, informed consent and free exercise of religion”, medical ethics, “the Nuremberg Code” and that the authorities had not proven a genuine public health crisis.
NYC has claimed that a total of 329 New Yorkers, out of of 8.6 million people, have been infected with measles since September 2018.
On 13 June, New York’s state senate and assembly voted to repeal the exemption, which allows parents to refuse vaccinating their school children for religious reasons.
This was prompted by the supposed “worst measles outbreak in decades”.
According to federal officials this year’s measles outbreak has surpassed 1,000 illnesses, out of a state population of 19.5 million, the highest in 27 years (if measles vaccination rates are increasing this could support the claim that more vaccines CAUSE measles outbreaks)...

Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the law into effect immediately after the final vote, which will give unvaccinated students only 30 days to show they’ve had the first dose of each required vaccination.
The bill won´t change the existing state exemption for children who cannot have vaccines for medical reasons, like a weakened immune system (why children with a well-functioning immune system would “need” vaccines is beyond my comprehension).

Mississippi and West Virginia also do not allow religious exemptions.
California removed belief vaccine exemptions for school children in 2015, after a measles outbreak at Disneyland of 147 people that “spread across the US and into Canada”.
Maine ended its religious exemption earlier this year.

Politicians are working hard to introduce new legislation to eliminate similar vaccine exemptions in the 45 states that still allow parents to refuse vaccines for their school going children, for religious reasons.

Some parents are contemplating to leave the state of New York over this fascist legislation in the “land of the free”: ... s-religion
User avatar
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter »

Before operation Warp Speed, the fastest approved vaccine was the swine flu (H1N1) vaccine Pandemrix in 2009.
Pandemrix was produced by British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Before a massive amount of children were poisoned with Pandemrix, it was promised to be safe...

Firestarter wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:29 pmIt is now known that of the about 60 million people, most of them children, that were poisoned with the Pandemrix vaccine, about one in 16,000 people will suffer from narcolepsy and cataplexy.

The UK government will pay each of the 60 victims about £1 million (approximately £60 million in total).
Across Europe, more than 800 children have gotten severely ill from the vaccine

Children were poisoned with (other) swine flu (H1N1) vaccines in the US starting in December 2009.
In 2010, 3,894 adverse vaccine “AEFI” events were registered, a 63% increase over the 2,396 in 2009 and the highest number reported in any year. In 2010, there was a 58% higher rate of registered adverse vaccine events per 100,000 people compared to 2009.
The increase was almost entirely caused by the seasonal flu (2,354) and H1N1 influenza vaccines (514), particularly in children.

In children younger than 7 years, the number of adverse events after influenza vaccines increased almost 100-fold from 17 in 2009 to 1,693 in 2010 and for victims aged 18 or over, (only) an almost threefold increase from 135 to 496.

See adverse vaccine events from 2000 to 2010 (ADRS database)

See adverse vaccine events from 2000 to 2010, per 100,000 people, by age and year of vaccination (ADRS database).

In children younger than 7, there were 169 reports of convulsions (127 febrile) in 2010, compared with 19 in 2009.
The adverse reactions for H1N1 influenza vaccines were similar to that for the “seasonal” flu vaccine.
There were 4 cases of anaphylactic reaction and 4 of Hypotonic-Hyporesponsive Episodes (HHE), 1 case of the fatal Guillain–Barre syndrome (GBS) following Pandemrix: ... i3504a.htm
Last edited by Firestarter on Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by editor »

This is a little long, but worth it. The good doctor needs some voice lessons to become a little less monotone, but what she has to say is well worth the time.
User avatar
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter »

editor wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:17 pm This is a little long, but worth it. The good doctor needs some voice lessons to become a little less monotone, but what she has to say is well worth the time.
I find it a bigger problem that the arguments of Mikovits on mouse retroviruses in vaccines that supposedly cause amongst others AIDS (and the coronavirus pandemic) are difficult to follow.

Mikovits was the “star” of the movie “Plandemic” that was deleted by Youtube. When you search the internet for more information, it’s difficult to find other results than the kind of stories that “debunk” the claims of Mikovits.
I couldn’t find the full “Plandemic” movie on the internet, but here’s a segment of almost half an hour:

I’ve earlier posted on Judy Mikovits here: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=895&start=10#p5480

After people had been poisoned with the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix, a lot of those victims in 2010 suddenly started to suffer from narcolepsy. Pandemrix was approved under special rules by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) but was never licensed in the United States.

In September 2018, BMJ Associate Editor Peter Doshi showed that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) had reasons to know that Pandemrix caused significant “adverse events” (even before it was approved with the promise it was “safe”). GSK’s 2 swine flu vaccines without adjuvants (toxic materials that are intentionally inserted into vaccines to increase the damage they cause) showed much less adverse effects that Pandemrix – for example 47 deaths compared to 6 or 0.

While GSK had promised that it had passed all relevant safety data to regulatory agencies, it took 8 years before this information finally surfaced, and then only in response to independent research and lawsuits.

Since 2013, studies were published showing that Pandemrix caused narcolepsy in children. An estimated 1300 Europeans developed narcolepsy as a result of being poisoned with Pandemrix.
Studies showed up to a 14-fold increased risk of narcolepsy in children and adolescents and a significant (but lower) risk in adults (in amongst others England, Finland, France, Ireland, Norway and Sweden).

The German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that top politicians and government employees wouldn’t be poisoned with Pandemrix, but instead with Celvapan, Baxter’s H1N1 vaccine without so-called adjuvants: ... old-of.pdf
User avatar
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter »

In the US, women poisoned with the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in the 2010-2011 flu seasons had 3.7-fold greater odds of experiencing a spontaneous abortion within 28 days.
From 2010 to 2012, the odds for a spontaneous abortion for vaccinated women were 2.0 times greater than for pregnant women not poisoned with the flu vaccine.

In women who were poisoned with the swine flu (H1N1) vaccine in 2010-2012, the odds of spontaneous abortion in the 28 days after getting a flu shot were even 7.7 times greater.
Since the end of 2010 until (at least) 2018, for every flu season there has been a swine flu vaccine inserted in regular flu shots in the United States.

Goldman has earlier reported, based on the CDC’s VAERS database, that flu shot resulted in a rise in spontaneous abortions, especially when pregnant women were poisoned with both the seasonal flu shot and the pandemic swine flu shot.
The rate of miscarriages increased 11-fold in 2009 when the H1N1 vaccine was added to the recommended vaccine schedule.

Even according to flu shot package inserts, flu vaccines have never been shown to be safe for pregnant women.
According to the CDC, the thimerosal in vaccines is the “safe” mercury but this has never been “scientifically” proven. Several studies have shown that the ethylmercury in thimerosal is even more persistent in human organs than the methylmercury in fish.
In pregnant women, mercury specifically goes to the placenta and into the foetus that is poisoned like this.

Pregnant women that are poisoned with the recommended flu shot in the first trimester of pregnancy, are also associated with a rise in rate of autism (ASD).
A paper from insurance giant Northern California Kaiser Permanente shows that women who received the seasonal flu vaccine between 2000 and 2010, when most vaccines contained thimerosal, were 25% more likely to give birth to a child who would later be diagnosed with ASD.

Pregnant women being vaccinated with thimerosal also causes birth defects, tics and delayed development of speaking: ... a-vaccine/

In 2013, in the UK, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) finally accepted that the Pandemrix vaccine of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) can cause narcolepsy.
The DWP agreed to re-evaluate the cases of 100 people turned down for compensation in 2012.

GSK admitted that around 900 people from 14 countries were vaccinated and then developed narcolepsy (around one in every 55,000): ... colepsy-uk
User avatar
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter »

If we don’t learn from history they will use the same tricks against us over and over again...

Even though it was already established that there was no genuine global H1N1 swine flu “pandemic”, industrial counties (including France and the UK) in their greatest philanthropic disguise donated millions of doses of dangerous, untested vaccines to those poor (never developing) countries through the World Health Organization.
Some noted that there were more urgent health concerns (nutrition, clean drinking water); while in general flu is a minor problem in countries with abundant sunshine…

According to Danish professor Jens Lundgren:
My first thought is that the developing countries have greater problems to fight than this flu. If you really want to do something for the developing countries, you should probably do something else.

According to Dr. Thomas Jefferson:
Why do they give the vaccines to the developing countries at all? The pandemic has been called off in most parts of the world. The greatest threat in poor countries right now is heart and circulatory diseases while the virus figures at the bottom of the list. What is the medical reason for donating 180 million doses?

Dr. Claus Hancke noted:
From my point of view the developing countries have no need whatsoever for H1N1 vaccine. Flu is a minor problem in countries where there is a lot of sunshine. Furthermore it has turned out, that the swine flu is not particularly dangerous.

It seems we would like to find a solution to the problem of waste, and are doing so by sending the surplus vaccine to the developing countries. Following this logic it seems to be better to inject the waste into people instead of destroying it. ... 05&lang=en

Here’s an official document from the World Health Organization over the wonderful global effort to poison the world with dangerous swine flu vaccines.
Even GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) donated 60 million doses of H1N1 vaccines (how much profit did GSK make over this so-called “pandemic”?).

In November 2009, the WHO began distributing the swine flu vaccines to poor countries.
Almost 70% of all vaccine doses were delivered to Africa and South-East Asia.

According to the WHO, the amount of vaccines distributed was (only) 122.5 million doses (instead of the 180 million reported in the previous article): ... report.pdf
User avatar
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter »

The following study concludes that “unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated”.

There are other hypothetical (but unlikely) explanations, because maybe parents of unhealthy children would have them vaccinated more often or possibly parents that vaccinate their children go to the doctor for every little thing, while “normal” parents wouldn’t.
The visual impact of the cumulative office visit plots is striking; more so than other plots, the time element (day of life) provides an index by which to compare the accumulation of human pain and suffering from potential vaccine side effects (Figure 5). These results are worth studying closely and noticing the variation among the cumulative office visits per condition and the stark differences between the rates of billed office visits in the most and unvaccinated patients born into the practice.

Figure 5. Analysis 5. Cumulative office visits in the vaccinated (orange) vs. unvaccinated (blue) patients born into the practice: the clarity of the age-specific differences in the health fates of individuals who are vaccinated (2763) compared to the 561 unvaccinated in patients born into the practice over ten years is most strikingly clear in this comparison of the cumulative numbers of diagnoses in the two patient groups. The number of office visits for the unvaccinated is adjusted by a sample size multiplier factor (4.9) to the expected value as if the number of unvaccinated in the study was the same as the number of vaccinated.

We have found higher rates of office visits and diagnoses of common chronic ailments in the most vaccinated children in the practice compared to children who are completely unvaccinated. The data clearly show different odds of developing many of these adverse health conditions. We have demonstrated in many ways that most of the statistical associations found tend to be robust to age in cohort (days of care), vaccination range, and family history. The first of these is the contrast in the increase in fever cf. “Well Child” visit (Figure 3). The second is robustness of the results to adjustment to days of care provided and of course robustness to the age-matched design as well.

Vaccination appears to have had the largest impact on anemia and respiratory virus infection on the number of office visits in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated groups. Due to a small number of cases and corresponding low power, neurodevelopmental conditions and seizures are not well studied using the data available. Autism, at a study-wide rate of 8 per 1000, is far lower than the national rate (18.5–21 per 1000). Speech, learning, and social delays were found to have different full-cohort practice-wide incidences of 0.023, 0.003. and 0.009, respectively. Future studies with less restrictive inclusion criteria that also avoid temporal confounding by matched DOC may help us better characterize these populations in the practice.

Concerned over healthy user bias (HUB), i.e., healthier individuals accepting more vaccines leading to differences in study outcome are alleviated in this practice, the physicians and patients overtly came to a joint decision on whether to vaccinate on a patient-by-patient and vaccine-by-vaccine basis. As originally described, if “healthy user bias” was the explanation problem, we would see more illness in the unvaccinated; we found the opposite. We do see the potential signal of informed avoidance of vaccine injury with informed consent and without coercion potentially weakening associations of vaccine injury. This type of effect has historically been interpreted as a form of healthy user bias, but it can be equally interpreted as the signal of avoidance of vaccine injury due to informed consent. Our design of analysis allows the detection of some potential instances (e.g., autism, in which some individuals at risk of adverse outcome who otherwise would have been in quartiles 3 and 4 stopped vaccinating).
James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas – Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination (2020):

The following is from one of those notorious anti-vaxxers… Peter Doshi.
This article (in the “scientific” BMJ) is more about the marketing of flu vaccines than about science…
In the US, the first recommendations for annual influenza vaccination were made in 1960 (table1).⇓ Through the 1990s, the key objective of this policy was to reduce excess mortality. Because most of influenza deaths occurred in the older population, vaccines were directed at this age group. But since 2000, the concept of who is “at risk” has rapidly expanded, incrementally encompassing greater swathes of the general population (box 1).

And in its more technical guidance document, CDC musters the evidence to support its case. The agency points to two retrospective, observational studies. One, a 1995 peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded: “many studies confirm that influenza vaccine reduces the risks for pneumonia, hospitalization, and death in elderly persons during an influenza epidemic if the vaccine strain is identical or similar to the epidemic strain.”12 They calculated a reduction of “27% to 30% for preventing deaths from all causes”—that is, a 30% lower risk of dying from any cause, not just from influenza. CDC also cites a more recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, funded by the National Vaccine Program Office and the CDC, which found an even larger relative reduction in risk of death: 48%.13

If true, these statistics indicate that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.

If the observational studies cannot be trusted, what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none. Theoretically, a randomized trial might shine some light—or even settle the matter. But there has only been one randomized trial of influenza vaccines in older people—conducted two decades ago—and it showed no mortality benefit (the trial was not powered to detect decreases in mortality or any complications of influenza). This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes. Approval is instead tied to a demonstrated ability of the vaccine to induce antibody production, without any evidence that those antibodies translate into reductions in illness.

At a press briefing this winter, CDC director Thomas Frieden said a preliminary CDC study had found “the overall vaccine effectiveness to be 62%,” He explained that this estimate of relative risk reduction: “means that if you got vaccinated you’re about 60% less likely to get the flu that requires you to go to your doctor.” On the evening news, the CDC’s message was translated into a claim that influenza vaccines will cut the risk of death by 62%, despite the fact that the CDC study did not even measure mortality (box 2). Reflecting on the same CDC study, two authors editorialized in the Journal of the American Medical Association that there exists an irrational pessimism about influenza vaccine: “A prevention measure that reduced the risk of a serious outcome by 60% in most instances would be a noted achievement; yet for influenza vaccine, it is seen as a ‘failure.’” Here, too, the authors appear unaware that the CDC study they cite did not measure any “serious outcome” like pneumonia, only medically attended acute respiratory illness with influenza confirmed by the laboratory.

All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.
Peter Doshi – Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease (2013): ... eytype=ref
Post Reply