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
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter » Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:21 pm

Before I started my own investigation on vaccines, I had already seen some stories by anti-vaxxers that made me suspect that vaccines do more harm than good. I first tried to find any evidence that vaccines actually prevent disease, but there isn’t.
As there is not a single shred of evidence, that we let ourselves be poisoned with vaccines is completely insane.

There has never been a proper placebo controlled study to prove the efficacy of vaccines. Ironically pro-vaxxers in turn claim that it would be “unethical” to demand a study comparing placebo to vaccines.
See for example the following video, in which Colleen Boyle of the CDC admits to Rep. Posey, that there has never been a placebo study that compares vaccinated to unvaccinated.
https://youtu.be/fFaesqMozQA

The inventor Edward Jenner - Freemason
Edward Jenner is the legendary “scientist”, who has been credited with proving the wonderful benefits of vaccination:
In 1796, Jenner enlisted a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes and an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to test his theory. Jenner transferred pus from Nelmes’s cowpox blisters onto incisions he’d made in Phipps’s hands. The boy came down with a slight fever, but nothing more. Later, Jenner gave Phipps a standard smallpox inoculation – which should have resulted in a full-blown, albeit mild, case of the disease. Nothing happened. Jenner tried inoculating Phipps with smallpox once more; again, nothing.

In 1798 Jenner published his results, claiming lifelong protection against smallpox using “vaccines”. Some doctors of the time challenged this myth, because they had seen smallpox follow cowpox.
In 1799, Mr. Drake vaccinated some children with cowpox matter obtained from Edward Jenner. The children were then tested by being inoculated with smallpox; all of them developed smallpox. Jenner received the report, but ignored the results.
Vaccination was quickly embraced by the medical esteblishment. By 1801, an estimated 100,000 people had already been vaccinated in England with the belief that it would produce lifelong protection.
Early reports indicated that there were cases of people who were vaccinated, and then developed cowpox - and some still died of smallpox.

In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that after vaccinating 1,200 people, he became disappointed. He saw that, after vaccination, people could still contract and even die from smallpox.
Because arm-to-arm vaccination was used, other diseases could spread causing epidemics, including tuberculosis and syphilis.

Then in one of those great examples of science, the medical profession no longer claimed lifelong protection against smallpox from a single vaccination. Instead, revaccination had to be performed anywhere from yearly to every 10 years.
As it became increasingly clear throughout the 1800s that vaccination was not what it was promised to be, refusals increased. To solve this “problem”, in 1855 Massachusetts created a set of comprehensive laws to provide for widespread vaccination.

Data from Boston that begins in 1811 shows that, from 1837 on, there were periodic smallpox epidemics. After 1855, there were smallpox epidemics in 1859-60, 1864-65, and 1867 and the infamous epidemic in 1872-73. This was the most severe smallpox epidemic since the introduction of vaccination.
These repeated smallpox epidemics showed that the vaccination laws instituted by Massachusetts in 1855 had no positive effect at all. More people died in the 20 years after the Massachusetts vaccination compulsory laws than in the 20 years before.
Image
EDIT - original article was deleted (including 2 pictures): http://archive.is/MytAK

I don’t think I’m the only one to find this is a reason to never take a vaccine, but the inventor of vaccines, Edward Jenner, joined the masonic Royal Berkeley Lodge of Faith and Friendship on 30 December 1802.
Jenner even became “Worshipful Master” of this lodge in 1812 and 1813.
Edward Jenner attended his last lodge meeting on 4 July 1822, 6 months before his death.

Jenner was born in a family of freemasons. Edward’s nephew, Henry Jenner, was Master for the first 2 years of the Lodge and later Provincial Grand Master for Bristol. Edward’s son, Robert F. Jenner, was Master of the Lodge in 1827, 1828, 1847 and 1848. Another of Edward’s nephews, Rev. G.C. Jenner, was Lodge Secretary and Provincial Grand Chaplain for Bristol: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/jen ... ner_e.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/a3zOO)

Edward Jenner was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1789, for his research on the nesting habits of the cuckoo.
His lodge was regularly visited by the Prince of Wales – George IV: http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/more-ne ... hilosopher


Leicester refused vaccines
Leicester in Britain refused to vaccinate their residents for a long time. They thought that vaccination for smallpox wasn’t necessary. Lower vaccination rates correlated to an overall decrease in smallpox deaths. Leicester showed that by abandoning vaccination, death rates from smallpox were far lower than where vaccination rates were high.
Image
The Leicester Anti-Vaccination League was formed in 1869. The stalwart little band of pioneers, numbering less than twenty persons, laboured on, until they grew numerically to such an extent that, whereas in 1867 over 94 per cent of the children born were vaccinated, in 1897 only 1.3 per cent, of the infants were subjected to the trying ordeal. And that low percentage of vaccinations in the last-mentioned year was arrived at in spite of—and perhaps, to some extent, as the natural outcome of—many thousands of prosecutions against defaulters. These were instituted under the oppressive Act of 1867, and resulted in the infliction of fines, the levying of distress warrants, and the commitment of parents to prison. Obviously, those figures demonstrate that the people of Leicester were following the lead of the Anti-Vaccination League, and that not one class only, but all sections of the townspeople, were equally resolute in their opposition and detestation of the hateful legal enactments.

The experience of the terrible smallpox epidemic of 1871-73, when many thousands of vaccinated persons contracted the disease, and several hundreds died as the result of the alleged "protection" (!) having lamentably failed in its hour of trial, produced in the minds of the thinking people of Leicester pronounced hostility against the blood-polluting quackery, which was found to be more baneful in its ultimate results than the disease it was supposed to prevent.

In 1895 and 1896 the smallpox death rate was around 20%, as it had been historically, but then something strange happened; after 1896 the death rate fell off rapidly, starting with 6% in 1897 to as low as 0.26% by 1908. So when the death caused by smallpox was already declining, they quickly administered a vaccine…
That the mild form of smallpox replaced the classic type was not the result of any vaccination. By the 1920s it was known that the new form of smallpox produced almost no symptoms, even though few had been vaccinated.

See for example the following figure that shows that the unvaccinated Leicester had much lower small pox fatality rates than a couple of vaccinated cities and the vaccinated British army and navy.
Image

See for example the correlation between the vaccination rate (red) and the death rate of a number of diseases (including smallpox).
Image

J.T. Biggs - “LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION” (1912): http://www.whale.to/a/biggs.html


Wallace – Vaccination delusion (1898)
I’ve found another historic book that shows that vaccines are a fraud.
My only problem with this book, are the graphs that are presented only at the end. It would be easier for the reader if the arguments were presented with the graphs...
The following is a summary of the most important evidence from the book.

No evidence for vaccines
There has never been any proof that vaccinated people are more healthy than the unvaccinated.
All the evidence shows that if the whole population of a country lived under healthy conditions - pure air, pure water, and wholesome food – all infectious disease would die out as completely as the plague and leprosy have died out.

Only 6 years after the announcement of small pox vaccination, in 1804, Dr. B. Moseley, reported many cases of properly vaccinated persons that contracted small pox anyway and even death resulting from vaccination.
In 1805, Dr. William Rowley and Dr. Squirrel published similar bad results of vaccination.
In 1809, Thomas Brown wrote that many of his patients caught the disease 2 to 8 years after vaccination.
In 1810, William Tebb brought before the Commission a paper by Dr. Maclean, with 535 cases of small pox after vaccination, of which 97 were fatal.

Falsifying the numbers
In 1802, Dr. Lettsom estimated the small pox deaths of Great Britain and Ireland before vaccination at 36,000 annually; by taking 3,000 as the annual mortality in London and multiplying by 12.
In 1812, and again in 1818, it is stated that the average number of deaths by small pox in London was 2,000 annually. In the last 2 decades before vaccination, there were 1,751 and 1,786 on average.
But in the Reports for 1826 and 1834, to advertise vaccination, it is stated that the London death toll (before vaccination) by small pox “was annually about 4,000”.
In 1836 and 1838, they further increased the London annual death toll before vaccines by small pox to “exceeded 5,000”, while claiming that the “last year only 300 died of the distemper.”
In 1839, based on these falsified numbers, the conclusion was drawn "that 4,000 lives are saved every year in London since vaccination”.

In 1881, Dr. W. B. Carpenter claimed that:
a hundred years ago the small-pox mortality of London alone, with its then population of under a million, was often greater in a six months’ epidemic than that of the twenty millions of England & Wales now is in any whole year.
The highest annual small pox mortality for London in the 18th century was 3,992 (in 1772), while in 1871 it was 7,912 (almost double).
In 1871, the annual small pox mortality in England and Wales was 23,000 (5.8 times 3,992).

In 1880, Ernest Hart reported that in the years 1728—1757 and 1771—1780, the average annual small pox mortality of London was about 18,000 per million living.
The actual average mortality, was a little more than 2,000 . Even when the worst periods were chosen, with the lowest population estimates, the mortality per million was lower than 3,000.

From 1803 to 1851, among 31,705 well-vaccinated boys in the asylum, there were 39 cases and 4 deaths – an average mortality rate of 126 per million. This was reported by Balfour and John Simon as: "most conclusive proofs of the value of vaccination".
Because there is no comparison with other unvaccinated boys of the same age and similar living conditions, this isn’t sound evidence.
In the period of optional vaccination (1847-1853) the death rate from small pox of children from 10-15 years (similar to the age of the boys in the asylum) was 94 per million (thus lower than 126).
I note that this comparison by Wallace isn’t proper either, as the time period isn’t the same (from 1803 to 1853 the small pox death rate declined)...

Graph 1 - small pox, zymotics and total death rate London
The lower line shows the small pox death rate.
The middle line shows the zymotics death rate.
The upper line shows the death rate from all causes.
The left part, from 1760 to 1836, is from the "Bills of Mortality" which is less complete than the right part, from 1838 to 1896.
Image

From 1760 to 1820, amid great fluctuations and some epidemics, a steady decline is seen - a difference of about 2,000 per million living.
The decline from 1820 is much slower.
The right part starts with the great epidemic of 1838. Until 1885 the decline is very slow; while, if we average the epidemic of 1871 with the preceding 10 years, there is no decline at all.
From 1886 to 1896, there is a rather sudden decline to a very low death rate.
Since 1854 vaccination was compulsory and almost universal; yet from 1854 to 1884 there is almost no decline of small pox perceptible, and the severest epidemic of the century occurred in 1871.
The clearly marked decline of small pox in the 10 years from 1886 to 1896 occurred, when there was a falling off in vaccination.

From 1838 to 1870, the zymotics death rate actually rose.
From 1871 to 1875, the zymotics death rate is lower.
In that last period the vaccination rate had diminished.

The decline of the total death rate from 1760 to 1820 is relatively great, and it continues somewhat slower to 1830.
Then from 1830 to 1870 there is hardly a perceptible decline.
From 1871 to 1896 the death rate declines.
In that last period vaccination was greatly diminished.

Graph 4 - small pox, measles, scarlet fever (zymotics) death rate Ireland and Scotland
Image
Ireland obviously had a much lower death rate than Scotland.
Since 1883, small pox death has been almost absent from Ireland, Scotland, and England. In the 20 years of repeated epidemics from 1864 to 1883, we find the average small pox death rate of Scotland to be about 139, and of Ireland 85 per million.
Of the 2 countries, Scotland is better vaccinated against small pox, while the small pox mortality in Ireland is much lower.

But even Scotland had a much lower small pox mortality than England - in the years 1871-1873 (including the epidemic):
Ireland had a death rate of 800 per million.
Scotland had a death rate of 1,450 per million.
England had a death rate of 2,000 per million.
A possible explanation for this difference in mortality rate is that: in Ireland only 11% of the population live in towns of more than 100,000 inhabitants; in Scotland 30%; and in England and Wales 54%.

Graph 5 - small pox and total death rate Sweden
Image
Vaccination was introduced in Sweden in 1801, probably first in the rural districts. Sweden was reported as a striking example of the value of vaccination.
Like in England, there was a great and sudden decrease of small pox mortality after 1801; by 1812 the whole reduction of mortality had already been achieved.
Since 1823, for more than 50 years, there were epidemics every decade (with the exception of the 1840s).
In Stockholm the first vaccinations were at the end of 1810. The earlier Stockholm epidemics in 1807, before vaccination, and in 1825, were less severe than the 6 later ones, when vaccination was more common.
The 1874 epidemic of Stockholm had a much higher death rate, of more than 50%, than in Britain.
The medical establishment explained the enormous small pox mortality in Stockholm as the result of deficient vaccination; but the Swedish Board of Health states that "the low figures for Stockholm depend more on the cases of vaccination not having been reported than on their not having been effected".

Graph 9 - small pox and total death rate Leicester
Image

Starting in 1872, after the great epidemic, Leicester vaccinated their children less and less. By 1888 almost no children were vaccinated.
There is clearly a strong decline in death rate since Leicester refused vaccines.

Following are tables that compare not-vaccinated Leicester with well-vaccinated populations.
In the “great epidemic” of 1871, both Leicester and Birmingham were well-vaccinated, and both suffered severely by the epidemic.
Image
The last column in the last table should have read “Navy”...

Alfred Wallace – VACCINATION A DELUSION (1898): http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/comp.html


McBean – Poisoned needle
And another (historic) book on vaccines, published in 1957. The book shows that 60 years ago the anti-vaxxer movement mostly used the same, still valid arguments as in 2018.
I agree with most of the book, but some of the conclusions go too far for me. In particular I disagree with “fasting” for a health treatment and the section on cancer…

Other than general believe, it isn’t the freemason Edward Jenner, who bought his “Doctor” title for a mere 15 pounds, that invented vaccines.
Dhanwantari, the earliest known Hindu physician, who lived about 1,500 BC, is reportedly the first to practice inoculation for smallpox. It has been claimed that the ancient Hindus even employed a vaccine, by the transmission of the smallpox virus through a cow.
Even if the Hindu medical malpractices aren’t considered to be vaccines, the farmer Benjamin Jesty, years before Jenner’s first inoculation, discovered cow-pox inoculation. After Jesty, came teacher Plett, and another farmer Jensen, who were experimented with cow-pox vaccination – all 4 before Jenner…

Chapter 1
The following diseases increased “in the past 70 years” (that’s from 1887-1957).
Insanity increased 400%
Cancer increased 308%
Anemia increased 300%
Epilepsy increased 397%
Bright’s Disease increased 65%
Heart Disease increased 179%
Diabetes increased 1800% (In spite of or because of insulin)
Polio increased 680%
Most of these diseases have continued to increase in the following (past) 70 years (from 1957-2017)...

Chapter 2
In 1902 when vaccination was endorsed by the majority, the death-rate from smallpox was 2,121. By 1910, vaccination disasters had caused it to lose favour to such an extent that the smallpox death-rate dropped to 202.
The pharmaceutical industry worked up a nationwide vaccination campaign that raised the smallpox death-rate to 358 (1919) and 642 (1921).
When the people noticed that the vaccinated were the ones who suffered most from smallpox and flu, they lost faith and by 1927 the deaths had dropped to 138 where it has been fluctuating since.

Although in 1929 the League of Nations reported India as the greatest centre of smallpox in the world, it has improved since gaining its freedom from Britain and relaxing its vaccination enforcement program.
Image

France had rejected immunisation after the previous disasters, but was pressured into submitting to it after German occupation. By 1941 most of the French children had been inoculated after which the diphtheria incidence rose to 13,795 by the end of that year. By 1943, diphtheria had increased to 46,750.

Chapter 4
From the report of Dr. William Farr, Compiler of Statistics of the Registrar-General, London:
Smallpox attained its maximum mortality after vaccination was introduced…..The mean annual (smallpox) mortality to 10,000 population from 1850 to 1869 was at the rate of (only) 2.04, whereas (after compulsory vaccination) in 1871 the death rate was 10.24 and in 1872 the death rate was 8.33, and this after the most laudable efforts to extend vaccination by legislative enactments.

Re-vaccination experiments published by the German Vaccination Commission in 1884, showed that smallpox vaccination was unsuccessful in about 2 out of 3 cases. I believe that McBean didn’t describe this experiment accurately…
The experiments were performed on 30 boys aged 8 to 14. Five of them had had smallpox within the previous two years; 4 of them had been vaccinated. The vaccinations were repeated every 8 days.
From the (first) 30 boys, 23 (77%) were unsuccessfully vaccinated.
From the remaining 23, 14 (61%) were unsuccessful.
From the remaining 14, 9 (64%?) were unsuccessful.
From the remaining 9 (?), 6 (67%) were unsuccessful.
From the remaining 6, 2 (33%) were unsuccessfully vaccinated.

Between 1886 and 1892, there were 25,474,370 vaccinations and re-vaccinations performed in Japan, which meant that about two-thirds of the entire Japanese population, already vaccinated by the law of 1872, were re-vaccinated. During that 7-year period (1886-1892) of thorough re-vaccination, there were reported 165,774 cases of smallpox with 28,979 deaths.

Chapter 10
In Australia, after several children died from smallpox vaccination, the government abolished compulsory vaccination and smallpox declined to the vanishing point. Australia had only 3 cases of smallpox in 15 years; compare this to Japan...

Chapter 5
In 1907, cancer was unheard of among children. But in 1957, a substantial amount of children dies from cancer.
The cancer death rate has more than doubled from 65 persons per 100,000 in 1900 to 134.8 persons per 100,000 in 1948.

Chapter 7
The common diseases mentioned by Morgan, more than doubled after the annual June vaccination campaign (measles more than tripled).
Image

Eleanor McBean - The Poisoned Needle (1957): http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html


Polio
For more information on the adverse effects of polio, including from the McBean book not in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1151#p4382


Reclassifying adverse reactions Quinvaximvaccine
To cover-up the “Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI)” of the Quinvaximvaccine, the WHO simply changed the assessment methodology.
Sri Lanka introduced the pentavalent vaccine from Crucell in January 2008. Within 3 months, 4 reports of deaths and 24 reports of adverse effects from the vaccine prompted a suspension of the initial vaccine batch. A subsequent death caused by the next batch in April 2009 led the authorities to suspend pentavalent vaccine use and resume DTwP and hepatitis B vaccination.
Bhutan introduced pentavalent vaccine from Panacea in September 2009. The identification of 5 cases with encephalopathy and/or meningoencephalitis shortly after vaccination prompted the authorities to suspend vaccination on 23 October 2009. Subsequently, 4 additional serious cases related caused by vaccination were identified.
India introduced pentavalent vaccine from the Serum Institute of India in December 2011. To date, 83 AEFI cases were reported, some of which died.
Vietnam introduced pentavalent vaccine from Crucell in June 2010. Through May 2013, a total of 43 serious AEFI cases were investigated, including 27 deaths. Following reports on 9 deaths following vaccination between December 2012 and March 2013, health authorities suspended use of the vaccine.
The team of “independent” experts of the WHO that reviewed the AEFIs, classified the fatal cases as not being caused by the vaccine: http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/commi ... l_2013/en/
(archived here: http://archive.is/wi6hD)

To cover this up, the WHO simply changed how AEFIs” were reported and made it impossible to classify vaccination as the cause of death.
The WHO team which “investigated”, first reported that in 3 of the deaths there was plausible temporal association with vaccination, and the deaths could not be attributed to concurrent disease or other drugs or chemicals. According to the standard WHO Brighton classification of AEFI, these 3 deaths had to be classified as “probably” related to immunisation. During this controversy, the AEFI classification was revised; the WHO simply deleted the categories “probable” and “possible” from the Brighton classification and concluded the AEFI were “unlikely” to be related to the vaccine.
Deaths during post-marketing surveillance cannot be classified as “consistent with causal association with vaccine”, if the vaccine did not cause a statistically significant increase in deaths in the small phase 3 trials. After licensure, all deaths that are seen in the larger post-marketing phase are labelled as “coincidental” deaths or “unclassifiable”. This effectively means that any vaccine that passes the phase 3 trials, per definition – in a great example of science – can never “cause” a single death.
The WHO team that “investigated” the Vietnam deaths used the revised WHO classification of AEFI.

The consequences of using the new classification can be seen in the causality assessment of 132 serious AEFI cases in India between 2012 and 2016. Of these 132 cases, 78 babies survived hospitalisation and 54 died. Among those who survived, 37 (47.4% of reactions) were labelled “vaccine-product-related reactions”. On the other hand, 51 (94.4%) of those who died, had reactions that were classified as “unclassifiable” or “coincidental due to something other than vaccine”. Not a single death case was classified as a “vaccine-product-related reaction”:http://ijme.in/articles/deaths-followin ... alley=html
(archived here: http://archive.is/1OxNc)
Image


Vaccines cause mental disorders
The following scientific “study” shows that vaccination causes Anorexia Nervosa, Compulsive Disorder, Tic Disorder and Anxiety Disorder. in the following thread. This is evidence that these disorders are caused by vaccines.
The study shows that vaccines have a higher Hazard Ratio, in 3 6, and 9 months, (see Table 2):
Anorexia Nervosa (AN) - 1.80, 163, 1.47 [especially high for Flu vaccines];
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) - 1.23, 1.27, 1.23 [especially high for Flu and Hep. A vaccines];
Tic Disorder - 1.11, 1.25, 1.19 [especially high for Flu an Meningitis vaccines];
Anxiety Disorder - 1.12, 1.13, 1.14 [especially high for Flu vaccines].
Varicella is chicken pox by the way…
Image

These results are very troubling and significant (it shows a “causal role”).
To make it even more damaging, the conclusion shows that this report was written by a pro-vaxxer, who came with the ridiculous conclusion:
Conclusion: This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuropsychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals. However, our findings do not demonstrate a causal role of vaccination in the pathoetiology of any of these conditions. This is especially important given the clear public health benefits of the timely administration of vaccines in preventing mortality and morbidity (38). Vaccines are among the most successful and cost-effective preventive public health interventions (39).

D.L. Leslie et al “Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case–Control Study” (2017): http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/ ... 00003/full
(archived here: http://archive.is/n603x)

I’ve found an even better article, but it’s just too long.
It shows that there have been a number of studies that show that shortly after administering vaccines, a small percentage of the children get encephalopathy. Because these effects occur both with DPT and DT (DT without Pertussis vaccine), the causal relation between the pertussis component of DPT and infantile spasms is doubtful.

The following tables 4.2 and 4.3 present information on the amount of incidences shortly after vaccination:
TABLE 4-2 Studies of Acute Neurologic Events Occurring Within 48 Hours of DPT Immunization in Defined Populations
Image

TABLE 4-3 National Childhood Encephalopathy Study Estimated Relative Risks of Specific Acute Neurologic Conditions Following DPT Immunization Within the Previous 7 Days
Image
The article is based on a huge amount of information, and is difficult to read: https://www.nap.edu/read/1815/chapter/5#68
(archived here: http://archive.is/Qqoza)

I’ve searched for “scientific” reports on this topic, but most of them aren’t freely viewable on the internet.
I did find the following 2 reports.
Among 516,276 triple-vaccinated children in Sweden from 1959 to 1965 neurological reactions to the vaccination occurred in 167 cases-destructive encephalopathy 3, convulsions 80, hypsarrhythmia 4, shock 54, uncontrollable screaming 24, serous meningitis 2. Serous meningitis was also found in three out of nine examined cases of convulsions, and elevated protein in cerebrospinal fluid in one out of four examined cases of shock. Apart from these objective signs of meningeal involvement in certain cases, the study shows that in conjunction with both convulsions and shock there may be no or very little rise of temperature. The convulsive symptoms therefore cannot be classified as a matter of course as simple febrile convulsions.

The incidence of neurological reactions was 1: 3,600 vaccinated children (1: 3,100 if cases of persistent uncontrollable screaming are included), a rise in relation to the figure of 1: 6,000 reported in a study from the years 1954 to 1958. The rise is probably merely apparent, however, owing to the more watchful eye that is kept on these conditions. The more severe reactions leading to permanent injury seem to have decreased.
Strom – “Further experience of reactions, (…): a study based on vaccinations in Sweden, 1959-1965” (1967): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 4-0034.pdf

CONCLUSIONS--Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine may on rare occasions be associated with the development of severe acute neurological illnesses that can have serious sequelae. Some cases may occur by chance or have other causes. The role of pertussis vaccine as a prime or concomitant factor in the aetiology of these illnesses cannot be determined in any individual case. The balance of possible risk against known benefits from pertussis immunisation supports continued use of the vaccine.
Miller et al – “Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children” (1981): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 6-0021.pdf


Adverse events – VAERS, Canada
I’ve found an interesting article that adresses the amount of adverse reactions from vaccines. It focuses on the VAERS system.
VAERS was created as an integral part of the vaccine safety provisions secured in that law by the co-founders of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). Because most medical quacks don’t report adverse vaccine reaction in VAERS it can’t be used to determine the percentage of adverse reaction. Estimates of the percentage of reactions to vaccines that are actually reported to VAERS range between 1 and 10%.
According to Steven Rubin:
Because the reports are submitted voluntarily, many patients and doctors do not report vaccine reactions. Different estimates exist for the amount of underreporting and range from a factor of 10 to as much as a factor of 100 (meaning that the true number of vaccine reactions is between 10 and 100 times higher than what is reported to VAERS).
Suzanne Humphries, who worked as a doctor, said in a 2016 interview:
It was never told to me, there were no posters in the hospital about the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. I didn’t know that there was a reporting system for any drug, let alone for vaccines.
http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/ ... on/#_edn18
(archived here: http://archive.is/h82ZU)

Although experts are less willing to openly disclose the fact that adverse reactions can and do include death, one has only to look at reports to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to see that mortality is a possible outcome. From 1990 through 2010, for example, VAERS received 1,881 reports of infant deaths following vaccination, representing a 4.8% mortality rate.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/07/no_ ... ed-deaths/

See tables 2, 3 and 4 from the report in the last link with the hospitalisation and mortality rate as recorded in VAERS: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 7112440111
Image

A study conducted in Canada shows that after their 12-month vaccinations after vaccination 1 in 168 children had to go to an emergency room and 1 in 730 children after their 18-month vaccinations (most between day 10 to 12 after vaccination).
Using the self-controlled case series design we examined 271,495 12 month vaccinations and 184,312 18 month vaccinations to examine the relative incidence of the composite endpoint of emergency room visits or hospital admissions in consecutive one day intervals following vaccination. These were compared to a control period 20 to 28 days later.
(…)
The observation period for each patient begins with pediatric vaccination date (leftmost upward arrow) and continues for a total of 28 days.
(…)
In total, we examined 455,807 separate vaccination events in these 413,957 children that occurred at 12 and 18 months plus 60 days (Figure 2).
(…)
The primary reason for the elevation in the combined endpoint was an increase in ER visits (relative incidence 1.34(1.29–1.39)). There were an excess of 598 children experiencing 1 or more ER visits during the risk interval per 100,000 vaccinations or 1 additional child for every 168 children vaccinated. There was no increase in hospital admissions (relative incidence 1.08 (0.93–1.25)). There were five or fewer deaths (Table 3). The average CTAS score for ER visits during the risk period was 3.27 compared to 3.26 for the control period. (p = 0.74), suggesting no differences in severity of presentation between ER visits in the risk and control periods. There was an increase in presentation for multiple conditions during the risk period compared to the control period.
(…)
184,312 children received vaccinations between 545 and 605 days of age. Consecutive statistically significant elevations in combined endpoints began on day 10 and continued to day 12. A total of 1275 children experienced at least one event included in the combined endpoint during the combined three day at risk period compared to 3065 during the nine day control period.
(…)
While our study cannot establish causality it has many features that support a causal relationship between vaccination and delayed adverse events. These include the consistency with other studies and a compelling biological model which explains the diagnoses in the affected children and the reduction in effect with the 18 month vaccinations. Furthermore, our historical analysis demonstrates that the effect seen at 18 months after MMR vaccination in 2006–2009 is not present in 2002–2005, when the MMR vaccine was given only at 12 months and not at 18 months. The effect is still clearly visible after the 12 month vaccination in the 2002–2005 data.

In the last report only visits to Emergency Room are taken into account, so the total number of adverse events is even higher.
K. Wilson et al - Adverse Events following 12 and 18 Month Vaccinations: a Population-Based, Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis (2011): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0027897
(archived here: http://archive.is/VDHCD)


Flu outbreak scare
Every single year we are made afraid by some massive flu outbreak, to immediately get a flu shot
Jon Rappoport has reported that there is, was no massive flu outbreak at all.
It’s just another media hype to make us get poisoned with flu vaccines. Health authorities even admit this year’s flu vaccine is only 10% effective

Dr. Peter Doshi wrote that only 16% of respiratory samples taken from “flu patients” in the US show the presence of a flu virus. In other words: 84% of the reported cases don’t have the flu.
Therefore the vaccine couldn’t possibly work in 84% of the reported “flu” cases
In 2005, Doshi reported that of the “influenza and pneumonia” deaths that took 62,034 lives in 2001 — in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.

In 2009, Sharyl Attkisson reported “that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all”: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018 ... e-scandal/
(archived here: http://archive.is/7QXc5)


Big pharma protection by legal system
In effect the pharmaceutical industry is protected by our legal system that protects the big criminals.
Over here in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, according to the rules of conduct (Gedragsregelsadvocatuur) attorneys have the obligation to put the “public interest” before the interest of their clients…
If that isn’t enough to prevent attorneys from actually trying to et an adequate compensation (for themselves), “No cure, no pay” is prohibited.
This means that the victims of the big corporations and government over here get no real compensation for injuries caused.

In the 1970s and 1980s in the USA, a relatively large amount of money was paid out to the (parents of) victims of the pertussis component in vaccines, which caused permanent brain damage in rare cases (pertussis vaccine encephalopathy).
Ronald Reagan, playing the role of US President for real, had the “National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act” passed, that effectively restricted compensation for the damage of vaccines.
The state media have since claimed that the evidence that was convincing enough in the courtroom, is “junk science”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... Injury_Act

Later the state media invented that it weren’t the vaccines didn’t cause the brain damage, because the children supposedly would have gotten this brain damage anyhow, and the vaccines only made this happen sooner. This claim by the state media sounds like “junk science” to me…
I haven’t found a good article on the effects of “pertussis vaccine encephalopathy”; pertussis vaccine these days is still a part of DPT vaccines (pertussis is whooping cough by the way).

The following propaganda piece by Slate has some interesting information to give an idea on what the controversy is about. Obviously I don’t agree with the conclusion that there is no correlation between encephalopathy and vaccination.
A study is mentioned “in England in the late 1970s” that “estimated as many as 1 in 140,000 children were affected by PVE”.
It is further mentioned that “at least five well-designed studies conducted between 1976 and 1994 eventually vindicated the vaccine”.
The name of these studies aren’t mentioned, nor are the results of these studies discussed, so I’m not satisfied with the groundless conclusion that “a disorder these children would have developed whether or not they were vaccinated. The fever from the vaccination may have “simply moved [the epilepsy] forward in time”.
Slate concludes that the encephalopathy is “caused by genetic disorders” (Nazis sure love to claim that “disorders” are caused by genetics…): http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ement.html


Introducing vaccines when diseases are decreasing
One of the great tricks big pharma uses is to quickly administer vaccines after the “epidemic” is already over. And then when the disease becomes less (this can even be caused by changing the reporting) this is subsequently reported as hard evidence that the vaccines prevent diseases!
The following picture shows that the decline in death rate had nothing to do with vaccines, including: Measles for which a vaccine was introduced in 1963, Whooping cough (Pertussis) - vaccine 1949, and Diphtheria - vaccine 1920.
Image


Sterilisation vaccines
As far as I can tell the main objective of vaccines is sterilisation; see more information in the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=278
Last edited by Firestarter on Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Vaccines and autism

Post by Firestarter » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:25 pm

At this time, in the US 1 in 36 children are diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
The CDC acknowledged that no proper studies have been done on vaccine safety in the US.
While there have been done some (manipulated) studies on the relation between autism and the MMR vaccine and thimerosal, the correlation with other “scheduled” vaccines is essentially unstudied.

Recently a report was released that found out that after parents had a child diagnosed with autism they often refused vaccines (for all their children). Obviously some of these parents thought that vaccines can cause autism. I wouldn’t call such a study “medical” however.
The “reputable” CNN subsequently published an extremely deceptive article —“Children with autism less likely to be fully vaccinated”. By its title CNN insinuated that vaccines prevent autism.

A 2004 report was fraudulent, as the 5 authors conspired to withhold data that that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine for specific subpopulations causes autism.
Another 2003 paper cited by the JAMA Pediatrics authors, involving thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark, was debunked by a later CDC report that showed that autism rates reduced after thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 1992: http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... denialism/

In 2017, Brian Hooker wrote a letter to complain on the blatant manipulation of a report to hide the statistically significant relationship between autism in children and the prenatal flu shot given in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Image

Despite suppressing evidence by the CDC that vaccines cause autism, more than 80 independent studies show a correlation between (the toxics mercury and thimerosal in) vaccines and autism: https://worldmercuryproject.org/wp-cont ... 4.2.18.pdf
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by editor » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:22 pm

Thanks, Firestarter, for putting all this info together for us.

I'd like to inject some rational thinking into the vaccination debate.

Governments, by their very nature, seek a monopoly of power, and I think we can agree the media is simply a tool of government. One of their most common tactics is the old divide and conquer. They seek to divide us in every way imaginable-- race, culture, affluence, education, religion. Anywhere a prybar can be inserted and wiggled a bit. Keep people from organizing, and government can always remain the big kid on the block. Keep them arguing about petty differences, and they won't notice the really important things.

People make it easy for them; they are so easily divided. This issue divides us into vaxers, and anti-vaxers. The division is artificial. It is made to feel like an ideology, but that's just silly. Most everyone wants health and long life, so how can debate over vaccinations become about ideology? As usual the real division comes down to rational thinking, versus knee-jerk reactionism. We've had enough of the latter, courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk. So let's try some deductive reasoning:
  1. The alleged purpose of vaccinations is to create immunity in each individual to whom the vaccine is given.
  2. There isn't only one vaccine, but many. Each vaccine is alleged to be targeted toward a very specific illness for which it is tailor made.
  3. The theory behind vaccines is based on our best working knowledge of the human immune system which, according to convention wisdom, is basically this...
    • Each virus has a distinctive shape-pattern;
    • The human immune system works by first designing and then creating a specific antibody which has a shape that allows it to efficiently attach itself to the virus cell and neutralize it;
    • This is presumably done by trial and error, and is a process which takes time;
    • Once an individual is infected a race begins between the virus and the immune system. If the virus replicates faster than the immune system can design, create, and distribute a working antibody, the individual dies. If the immune system wins the race it eradicates the virus and the individual lives.
    • Each individual's immune system keeps a record of all the patterns for successful antibodies, and continues to produce them, at least in small quantities, for the remainder of the individual's life. This way if the immune system detects a virus for which it has already designed an antibody, it can step up production and eradicate an invading virus quickly, often even before the individual notices any adverse symptoms.
    • This ability to quickly vanquish an invading virus with which the individual's immune system has prior experience, is what we call "immunity".
  4. Vaccines are alleged to work by introducing a harmless version of a known virus into the bloodstream, which triggers the individual's immune system to create a natural antibody with the desired pattern. This primes the pump, so to speak. If the individual ever encounters the actual virus, then in theory his immune system already knows how to fight that virus. He has immunity.
  5. I frequently see stories in the news with this basic story line--
    An outbreak of [pick your virus] was reported in [random city], where [X number of] people have been diagnosed. The outbreak is believed to be the result of [X number of] people who [either failed to be vaccinated or had a religious exemption].
    The implication of these stories is that innocent people, who have done the right thing and gotten their vaccinations like good little boys and girls, were rudely and unjustly infected with a virus by bad and inconsiderate people who were not vaccinated.
  6. Such a story contains both facts (alleged), and suppositions.

    Facts (alleged):
    • The story contains two groups of people, those who have been vaccinated, and those who have not.
    • Both groups were exposed to the virus.
    • Both groups became sick. This includes the vaccinated group, all of whom were supposed to be immune.
  7. If we assume the vaccination argument is black and white, then such a story is ridiculous on its face. Obviously the vaccine did not work. This calls the suppositions into question. How can it be the right thing to do something so ineffectual? Why is Group A demonized, and Group B rewarded with victim status? After all, both groups got sick.
Here's where I am forced to leave the standard rhetoric behind, and do some supposing of my own. To be fair, I want to look at all sides.

What if the vaccines are partially effective? That seems reasonable doesn't it? It follows then, the reasonable argument would be:
Vaccines have been shown to be statistically effective on [X]% of the population. By vaccinating everyone, or nearly everyone, we reduce the number of people who can become infected with a given virus. Over time, by leaving the virus with fewer places to gain a foothold, we gradually eradicate it.
Is this what we're told? Not in my experience. No, we are told,
If you are vaccinated you won't get sick.
The first statement may or may not be true. The second is obviously a lie.

Why lie? If the first statement is true, then people who are vaccinated are mostly safe-- and why should it matter to a vaccinated person who is safe, that others may choose to not protect themselves in the same manner? If people can see the statistics for themselves, and the efficacy percentage is high enough, then most people will choose to vaccinate, and the virus will still be gradually eradicated over time, whether or not everyone is vaccinated. No one should ever need to be compelled to vaccinate.

If the first statement is not true, if the vaccines are not effective, or only marginally effective, then vaccines will have no effect on the number of people who become sick, whether people take them or not.

Instead of relying on ideology, such a statement is easily made quantifiable. Conduct studies. Use control groups of people who are not vaccinated. Compile statistics, and come up with a percentage of efficacy.

While you're at it, you'll also be compiling statistics on how many people were made sick or sicker by the vaccine, and how many died.

It's also important to realize that many vaccines contain known toxic ingredients, such as mercury. The companies which produce these vaccines say they are safe, but offer no evidence in support.

What's wrong with being fully informed? Jonas Salk alleged the development of the "first fully safe and effective" polio vaccine in 1953. According to Firestarter's research, there has never been an extensive study on the efficacy/failure/mortality of that or any other vaccine.

That's sixty-five years! Maybe Firestarter's research is wrong, and the studies are out there? Then why the ideology? If these issues are easily proven, all the vaxers need do is trot out the proof, and you can be sure they would.

If you are a Vaxer, and this idea of trotting out the proof has only just now occurred to you, I invite you to take this opportunity and use our forum (or any forum) to publish it.

I can only guess at the reasons we haven't seen the evidence-- It could be any combination of the following...
  • Government looks at this as just another way to divide us, and prefers to keep it this way.
  • The studies have been done but are kept confidential because they reveal inconvenient or damning truths.
  • Big Pharma, which now controls the F.D.A., makes huge profits from vaccines.
  • Is it possible some more nefarious motive exists? Conditioning people to take a yearly flu vaccine opens the possibility that someone, whether authorized by government or not, could easily introduce any foreign virus or other substance into the bloodstream of millions of people, practically overnight. Even absent nefarious motive, mistakes can be made. How can this possibly be a good idea?
From what I've seen the Vaxer argument is simply, "If you don't vax, you're an idiot." I hope I've set up a framework for discussion which can bring more facts to light, and take this issue out of the scope of ideology, into the realm of reason.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter » Sun May 06, 2018 4:10 pm

I once read about the following steps to get a vaccine approved by the CDC...
1 - They inject lab animals with either vaccine or a placebo.
2 – They inject the supposed virus into the lab animals.
3 – If the vaccinated animals have better survival rates with the injected virus than the placebo (control) group, they say the vaccine is effective.
4 – Then they test the vaccine on humans: not to see if it prevents any disease, but merely if the adverse effects aren’t too drastic.
5 – Vaccine accepted.
This doesn’t prove that the vaccines actually prevent any disease that humans (or even animals) contract naturally. But medical “science” is obviously not objective in our Brave new world...
But this DOES show that “they” can make us ill.

editor wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:22 pm
What if the vaccines are partially effective? That seems reasonable doesn't it? It follows then, the reasonable argument would be:
Vaccines have been shown to be statistically effective on [X]% of the population. By vaccinating everyone, or nearly everyone, we reduce the number of people who can become infected with a given virus. Over time, by leaving the virus with fewer places to gain a foothold, we gradually eradicate it.
Is this what we're told? Not in my experience. No, we are told,
If you are vaccinated you won't get sick.
The first statement may or may not be true. The second is obviously a lie.
If I understand correctly we are told that vaccines make us “immune”. Medical “doctors” are actually instructed to leave out negative information on the products of big pharma.
When you look further there are claims that vaccines are xx% effective. As there have never been proper placebo-controlled studies for vaccines performed, there is no “evidence” on any sort of efficacy for vaccines.

What does for example 75% effective mean? I think this means the following.
When in an unvaccinated group 4 people get ill, only 1 in the vaccinated group of the same size gets this disease – this is 75% effective. This 75% (if there would be evidence...) is thus just another example of statistical trickery (not even counting that adverse events are ignored).
For example 4 out of a 100 unvaccinated people get ill, compared to only 1 of a vaccinated 100 gets the same disease would be called 75% effective.
It would be better to compare the 96 unvaccinated people that didn’t get ill to the 99 vaccinated people that didn’t get ill. When I do this based on the same numbers, the vaccine is only 3% effective...


Metal nanoparticles in vaccines
In 2017, some Italian “scientists” discovered all sorts of toxic “nanoparticles” in vaccines. The only vaccine for animals, for cats, they tested, ironically was also the only “clean” vaccine!
They used X-rays to measure what elements were in the vaccines - EDIT only archived version available: http://archive.is/Wnaeh

They found all sorts of dirty stuff in vaccines.
Table 2 contains a summary of the highly toxic chemicals found in which vaccine, including.
Al – Aluminium
Bi – Bismuth
Cr - Chromium
Fe – Iron
Pb – Lead
Ni – Nickel
Si – Silicon
Ti – Titanium
W – Tungsten
Zn – Zinc
Zr – Zirconium

The following nanoparticles for example contained: Lead (Pb), Iron (Fe), Chromium (Cr), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), and Tin (Sn).
Image

Table 3 describes the size and amount of “debris” found in the vaccines (I have no reason to believe that these were in the vaccines by “accident”).
Infanrix hexa – 1821 “debris”.
Varilrix - 2723 “debris”.
Fluarix – 1317 “debris”.
Cervarix – 1569 “debris”.
Agrippal S1 – 1029 “debris”.

Similar toxics have been found in the blood of leukemic patients and in patients with cryoglobulinemia...

A.M. Gatti and S. Montanari New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination (2017): http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.php
(archived here: http://archive.is/yyce3)

These Italian scientists were later harassed by the cops and had their research material, including computers, confiscated: http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... discovery/

Recently, a scientific looking paper was published, showing that when cellular barriers are exposed to metal nanoparticles (like that found by the Italian “scientists”), cause damage to the DNA of developing brain cells. This makes it more likely that these nanoparticles cause neurodegenerative conditions, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

During their interactions with cell membranes, key cell processes are altered. In addition to affecting the directly exposed cells, the nanoparticles also detrimentally affect neighbouring cells in a manner similar to radiation-induced bystander effect: https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology ... =49854.php


Vaccine induced immune deficiency
There is also evidence that being poisoned yearly with the advised flu vaccines results in lower antibody responses - immune deficiency.
The more influenza vaccinations you get poisoned with in your lifetime, the less your immune system can fight the flu virus in subsequent seasons.

After the 2009 “flu epidemic”, the Canadian flu surveillance network reported that Canadians who had received a flu shot in late 2008 were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to suffer from an adverse reaction from an H1N1 infection that required medical attention, compared with those who didn't get a shot.

In 2016, Skowronski published a report that people, who were consecutively vaccinated in 2012, 2013 and 2014, have a higher risk of being infected with the flu.

Big pharma supporting “doctors” maintain that people should take their flu shot - especially seniors, children younger than two and people suffering from chronic medical conditions (like immune deficiency?): https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/serial-fl ... -1.3147903
(archived here: http://archive.is/1afvT)

A study was done to track how prior vaccination affects immune responses in 141 expectant mothers - 91 were poisoned with a flu shot the previous year, 50 were not.
They found that women, who hadn't received a flu shot in the previous year, had better immune responses to the vaccine.

They also claim that their results “suggest it does not meaningfully affect protection in their babies”.
This really is an amazing conclusion. They found that the vaccines cause immune deficiency, but concluded that the babies were still protected just as well by the antibodies that they received from their mother...

According to the big pharma supporting “scientists” that published these results, there can’t be any reason to not take flu shots: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101718.htm


Flu vaccine induced abortions and other adverse effects
In 2009 and 2010, foetal deaths caused by vaccines reported in VAERS increased by 4,250%. Probably caused by the additional H1N1 vaccine that was advised.
Despite that the CDC knew of the 4,250% rise, it published a report authored by Dr. Pedro Moro in the fall of 2010 that there were only 23 miscarriages caused by the single flu vaccine in 19 years between 1990 – 2009, an average of 1.2 miscarriages per year.

Eileen Dannemann accused the CDC of “wilful misconduct” in causing the deaths of thousands of unborn babies and deliberately misleading obstetricians and gynaecologists by advertising the flu vaccine as safe for pregnant women:
The CDC, aware of their own incoming stream of early vaccine adverse events reports, clearly decided to allow the obstetricians to continue, unwittingly, murdering and damaging the unborn so that the CDC’s blunder of recommending the double-dose vaccination of pregnant women could be kept under the radar.
http://vactruth.com/2012/11/23/flu-shot ... tal-death/

In 2017, the CDC published a report by Donaheu et al on data for the flu seasons from 2010 to 2012.
Women vaccinated with the influenza vaccine (IIV) in the 2010-2011 season had 3.7-fold greater odds of experiencing an abortion within 28 days than women not receiving the vaccine.
From 2010 to 2012, the odds for a spontaneous abortion for vaccinated women were 2.0 times greater than for women that weren’t poisoned with the flu vaccine.
In women who also were poisoned with the H1N1 vaccine the previous year, the odds of spontaneous abortion in the 28 days after receiving a flu vaccine were even 7.7 times greater.

The 2017 study confirms the findings of a previous report by Goldman.
Using CDC’s VAERS database, Goldman showed a similar rise in the rate of miscarriages; this increased 11-fold in 2009 when the H1N1 vaccine was added to the recommended vaccine schedule (on top of the seasonal flu shot).

In a 2014 report, Giuseppe Traversa et al found that in over 86,000 pregnancies H1N1-vaccinated women had significantly higher rates of gestational diabetes and eclampsia.
Eclampsia is the development of seizures in women with severe toxaemia (high blood pressure and protein loss in the urine). Eclampsia is fatal in 2% of women and can result in long-term health problems. Foetal complications, including neurological damage and death, are also common.

In another paper published in 2017, Zerbo et al showed that the maternal flu shot in the first trimester of pregnancy, causes autism (ASD).
Between 2000 and 2010, vaccinated pregnant women were 25% more likely to give birth to a child that would later be diagnosed with ASD.

A 2014 report by Alan Brown et al of over 1.2 million pregnant women found that elevations in CRP, which is caused by flu vaccination, are associated with a 43% greater risk of having a child with autism.

In 2016, Chambers et al found an elevated risk for birth defects for children born to mothers who received one flu vaccine during the 2010-2014 flu seasons. “Scientists” working for the CDC were involved in this study.
Shortly before this report was published, the CDC issued a gag order forbidding any CDC employee from talking to the press without first getting clearance from the communications office. This could not have been coincidental, could it?

Vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that flu vaccines have not been shown to be safe for pregnant women.
Most vaccines contain 25 micrograms of mercury via thimerosal. Health officials have warned women to avoid eating mercury-containing tuna.
Overwhelming science shows that thimerosal is neurotoxic and deadly and that it may be particularly dangerous to the foetus.

It has repeatedly been found that thimerosal exposure is associated with:
- Birth defects - Heinonen et al 1977;
- Tics – Thompson et al;
- Speech delays – Andrews et al, Verstraeten et al: https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/cd ... a-vaccine/
(archived here: http://archive.is/LXxdt)
Last edited by Firestarter on Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Sanofi’s dengue vaccine

Post by Firestarter » Fri May 18, 2018 2:16 pm

In the Philippines, a major controversy has erupted over drug giant Sanofi’s Dengvaxia vaccine, for dengue fever.
Philippines suspended it, after growing public anger over its use in 830,000 schoolchildren. Filipino health secretary Francisco T. Duque III said the government is demanding a refund from Sanofi for the about $69 million it spent.

Dengvaxia was first approved in 2015. It’s approved in 19 countries and is the first vaccine for dengue.
Brazil and the Philippines initiated government-sponsored vaccination campaigns. Brazil’s government said it would continue vaccination, but avoid vaccinating people who have never had dengue.

It was already known in 2015, that children younger than 9, poisoned with Dengvaxia, suffer more hospitalisations in 3 years. They approved the vaccine anyway; with Sanofi’s advice to restrict Dengvaxia to children 9 and older (this advice was followed by the Philippines).
Brazil decided to limit the vaccination program to people over age 15.

The explanation is almost as bizarre as for Zika.
According to Dr. Scott B. Halstead, and the medical establishment, the second time somebody is infected with dengue is the worst. So they claim that the vaccine before somebody suffered dengue fever makes the second (worst) infection happen sooner.

Only at the end of November 2017, Sanofi changed its advice to not recommend vaccination for people who have never had dengue. But that only adds to the confusion, because there is no useable test. Current tests take too much time (money), and are unreliable as there’s trouble distinguishing dengue from Zika (supposedly both spread by the miraculous Aedes aegypti mosquitoes).
Sanofi stated in its official statement:
For those not previously infected by dengue virus, however, the analysis found that in the longer term, more cases of severe disease could occur following vaccination upon a subsequent dengue infection.
Vaccination should only be recommended when the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.
For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended.

Sanofi has recorded 22 million Euros ($26 million) in sales of Dengvaxia in the first 3 quarters of 2017.
The similar Takeda vaccine and another by the US National Institutes of Health, mainly sold by Merck, are expected to be approved soon.

Dengue infects about 400 million people, puts 500,000 people in the hospital yearly and kills 25,000, mostly in Latin America and South Asia.
For some reason, the dengue fever is rapidly progressing. According to the state media this is caused by global climate change: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/17/heal ... pines.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/3XYDW)


Of course the fast increasing reported cases of dengue fever could also be explained with: changes in reporting, higher vaccination rates or that spraying more pesticides, against “mosquitoes”, causes illness...


It sounds almost like Sanofi timely announced that no people should be poisoned with the Dengvaxia vaccine that had not suffered from dengue fever before...

In July 2016, the WHO (besides not recommending the vaccine for children younger than 9) already advised that the vaccine only should be given where more than 70% of the population (age group) has suffered from dengue before:
This variability in efficacy likely reflects at least in part the baseline seropositivity and circulating serotypes, both of which affect the performance of the vaccine.
In defining populations to be targeted for vaccination, prior infection with dengue virus of any serotype, as measured by seroprevalence, should be approximately 70% or greater in the age group targeted for vaccination in order to maximize public health impact and cost-effectiveness. Vaccination of populations with seroprevalence between 50% and 70% is acceptable but the impact of the vaccination programme may be lower.
The vaccine is not recommended when seroprevalence is below 50% in the age group targeted for vaccination.

The number of dengue cases reported annually to WHO has increased from 0.4 million in 1996 to 1.3 million in 2005, 2.2 million in 2010 and 3.2 million in 2015 (an 8-fold increase in 20 years).
The WHO simply also claims that there’s “substantial under-reporting”, without “evidence”. It is acknowledged that dengue fever isn’t understood completely. How could they know that the mosquitoes cause it...

Vaccine trials showed a highly unpredictable “efficacy”: only 31.3% in Mexico, but 79.0% in Malaysia.

It’s even bizarre that only children of 9 years and over are targeted with the vaccine (including older than 16), as:
NRAs have approved the use of the product in individuals over 16 years of age, although vaccine efficacy data were available only up to 16 years of age. Safety and immunogenicity studies were undertaken in 294 individuals aged 18–45 years in endemic settings.
http://www.who.int/wer/2016/wer9130.pdf?ua=1


Here’s the 2015 report that showed that more children younger than 9 years are hospitalised in the third year because of the vaccine - Sri Rezeki Hadinegoro et al; Efficacy and Long-Term Safety of a Dengue Vaccine in Regions of Endemic Disease: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa ... lm.nih.gov&

This “study” was really, really “independent”, funded by Sanofi Pasteur...
Dr. Chotpitayasunondh reports receiving lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur; Dr. Reynales, participating in recruiting participants for clinical trials in multiple therapeutic areas for Merck, GlaxoSmtihKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Takeda; Drs. Bouckenooghe, Chansinghakul, Cortés, Forrat, Frago, Gailhardou, Jackson, Noriega, Plennevaux, Wartel, Zambrano, and Saville, being employees of Sanofi Pasteur; Drs. Chansinghakul, Cortés, Forrat, Frago, Gailhardou, Jackson, Noriega, Plennevaux, Wartel, Zambrano, and Saville, having an equity interest in Sanofi Pasteur; and Ms. Fanouillere, being employed by Sanofi R&D.

The dengue vaccine was assessed in 3 trials involving more than 35,000 children between ages 2 and 16 years in Asian–Pacific and Latin American countries.
During year 3, in the 3 trials combined, hospitalisation for virologically confirmed dengue occurred in 65 of 22,177 participants in the vaccine group and 39 of 11,089 participants in the control group. Hospitalisation for severe dengue occurred in 18 of 22,177 participants in the vaccine group and 6 of 11,089 participants in the control group.
Table 1. Annual Incidence of Hospitalization for Virologically Confirmed Dengue.
Image

Efficacy rates for symptomatic dengue during the first 25 months were estimated at: 65.6% for those 9 years or older; 44.6% for those younger than 9 years; and 60.3% for all ages.

For some reason (the text of) the document, doesn’t present that the higher hospitalisation occurred mainly in the children younger than 9 that were poisoned with the vaccine...
Among subjects younger than 9 years of age: 8 of 19 participants in the vaccine group and none of 6 participants in the placebo group were hospitalised for severe dengue.
In the CYD14 trial, there were 12 cases of severe dengue in the vaccine group and none in the placebo group.
--------------------------------------------

The obvious conflicts of interest in the previous study are worrisome, but it’s not completely useless as there was an actual placebo (control) group.
My main problem is that overall health effects aren’t reported, but only dengue. This is all the more a problem as dengue fever isn’t even properly understood...


The following 2016 paper, is a completely ridiculous modelling exercise, where first a model is fitted to the results, and then that model is used to make predictions...
Neil M. Ferguson et al – Benefits and risks of the Sanofi-Pasteur dengue vaccine: Modeling optimal deployment: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... /1033.full

It gives some information on the previous study.
Fig. 1, shows that the model was fit to the Asian phase 3 clinical trial (but this doesn’t “prove” that the model is good...).
Strangely it’s claimed that while at the same time a lot less children poisoned with vaccine are reported to suffer from dengue, in age group 2-5 years, much more children on vaccines end up in hospital...
Image

This report claims that vaccination of subjects with one prior dengue infection results in a boosting of immunity to levels comparable with someone who has had 2 natural infections.
If this is the case one could argue that people with 2 prior dengue infections shouldn’t be targeted, but I guess there is no test for that. If there is no test to establish this, they couldn’t even know that the second infection is the worst. Like so often stories on vaccines, don’t bear a critical review...
The vaccine protection in seronegative recipients (who never had dengue) decays rapidly, with a mean duration of 7 months. They claim not to know how “transient” the supposed “protection” is in seropositive recipients (who have had dengue before).

They predict tremendous positive results from the Dengvaxia vaccine in 30 years, based on their worthless model...

This worthless “study” was also really, really “independent”...
The authors acknowledge research funding from the UK Medical Research Council, the UK National Institute of Health Research under the Health Protection Research Unit initiative, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIH) under the MIDAS initiative, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the funders. N.M.F., I.R.-B., and D.A.T.C. have advised Sanofi Pasteur Ltd., without payment, on the implications that this work has on the use of their vaccine. We thank N. Grassly for comments on the manuscript and N. Jackson and L. Coudeville at Sanofi Pasteur for useful discussions.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Inappropriate placebos in vaccine trials

Post by Firestarter » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:30 pm

When I read that a medical study is double-blind, placebo controlled I’m almost automatically convinced that it’s a reasonably good study.
After I found out that in most vaccine trials, that claim to have used a “placebo” for controls, no proper placebos are used; I feel like a gullible fool...

In the first link are recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) to NOT use placebos in vaccine trials...

In short: the only medical vaccine trials in which a “placebo” can be used, is the situation that no appropriate existing vaccine exists for the specific disease.
This means that only when no vaccine exists for the disease a placebo should be used.

According to the WHO, it is unethical to conduct a proper placebo-controlled trial when already a “highly efficacious and safe vaccine” exists, because the participants in the study are deprived of the beneficial effects of the (already) existing vaccine.
So in these situations instead of a placebo a previously approved vaccine will be used.
According to the WHO, it wouldn’t be interesting to know the effects of the “new” vaccine compared to a placebo, but more relevant “how the new vaccine compares to the one that is currently in use”.

In some situations, according to the WHO, “it may be appropriate to use a vaccine against a disease that is not the focus of the trial (e.g. an ongoing malaria vaccine trial provides non-malaria vaccines to participants in the control arm)”.
The WHO motivates this preposterous advice with to “avoid giving an injection with an inert substance”. Obviously we can’t “waste” an injection to actually give a placebo (inert substance)…

It are the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) that enforce that no vaccine trials are performed with actual placebos.

Anette Rid et al – Placebo use in vaccine trials: Recommendations of a WHO expert panel (2014): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157320/
(archived here: http://archive.is/NcK9e)


To NOT use a placebo (that’s actually inert) and then call it a “placebo” anyway in a medical trial should be a criminal offence...

The result is that every new version of a vaccine could be made with more adverse effects...
If the first version of a vaccine has only mild (insignificant) adverse effects, comparing the second version to the first, could mean that the adverse effects are insignificant compared to the first, but would be significant compared to a placebo.
The third version of the vaccine could be made even worse (while of course the medical quack doctors will advise that the newest version of the vaccine is clearly the best)...


If a “scientist” would want to compare the vaccine to a placebo, for example because the study (or studies) that led to the approval of the vaccine didn’t look into certain types of adverse effects; this would (per definition) be prohibited by the REC…
Because Gardasil and Cervarix are approved they could be used, according to the WHO guidelines, in following HPV-vaccine trials instead of a placebo. This makes it even more important that these vaccines are properly evaluated...

The following article presents some questions on the controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil - 27 “little secrets” not known about Gardasil.
In my opinion it would be appropriate, to find out more about the (adverse) effects of Gardasil by a proper placebo-controlled trial.
Following is a list of some of the “secrets” not known about Gardasil.

1. Whether Gardasil prevents cancer
3. Whether Gardasil increases the risk of cancer.
A May 2006 FDA VRBPAC document stated girls previously exposed to vaccine-relevant human papillomavirus and get inoculated with Gardasil have a 44.6% increase in getting cervical cancer in their life time.

5. Whether there is increased risk of autoimmune disorders due to the recombinant HPV DNA
6. If HPV is necessarily an infection transmitted by sexual intercourse
12. Long term serious side effects
13. What the results would be if a true placebo had been used in all the clinical trials
The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo. A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial.
http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/292-g ... crets.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/joMG6)


There you have it: instead of a placebo they allowed the use of a “reactive aluminum containing placebo”. That’s a “placebo” with adverse effects...
Maybe I’m the only one to think that it’s bizarre that according to the WHO it is unethical to use a placebo when already a vaccine exists, because the participants would be deprived of the existing vaccine. But participants in vaccine studies are injected with “placebos” with “aluminium” with adverse effects.
To use a "placebo" with adverse effects should be a criminal offence...

So not only are inappropriate “placebos” used in vaccine trials when another vaccine for the disease had already been approved, but also when no such vaccine had already been approved!
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

HPV-vaccines

Post by Firestarter » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:38 pm

I’ve found 2 literature reviews, with criticism on HPV-vaccines.


The incidence of cervical cancer in India is 27 per 100,000 women with a mortality of 15.2 per 100,000 women.
Cervical cancer has been rapidly declining in India over the past 2 to 3 decades, without screening or vaccination. A study from Mumbai showed an average annual decline in cervical cancer incidence of 1.8% between 1976 and 2005. The average annual decline was even steeper between 1991 and 2005 (2.8%).
The age standardized incidence rate of cervical cancer in Mumbai dropped from 41.1 in 1976 to 26.6 in 2005 (per 100,000 female population in age group 30-64 years).

Although both approved HPV-vaccines (Gardasil and Cervarix) are reported as safe, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the US suggests that the rate of Gardasil-associated adverse reactions is 4.3/100.000 - 2.5 times higher than the death rate from cervical cancer.
The adverse event rates in the VAERS database are probably highly underestimated.

According to the official statistics…
About 90% of HPV infections clear “naturally”.
Of the remaining 10% - 85-90% will take a little longer to clear “naturally” in time.
Of the remaining 1.0-1.5% - only 5% progress to “higher grade” cervical cancer (CIN II/III). CIN II/III can also “naturally” resolve in time.
Of those remaining 0.050-0.075%, about 40% will progress to cervical cancer in 20-30 years.
So about 0.02-0.03% of the women that get infected with HPV eventually get cervical cancer. Not all of those women die.

Because there have been no trials at all with cervical cancer as an end point, because sample size and trial duration would be impractical – there is no evidence that any vaccine prevents cervical cancer.
The trial size and duration would be impractical… because cervical cancer is a very rare outcome of HPV infection! If cancer is such a rare outcome of HPV; a “surrogate endpoint” like HPV infection isn’t very relevant.

The longest available follow-up data from phase II trials for Gardasil and Cervarix are 5 and 8.4 years, respectively.
If we suppose that immunity becomes less within 20 years after vaccination, it seems unlikely that HPV-vaccines could prevent cancer.
Data suggest “immunity” for up to 5-8 years after vaccination. Even if this is true this doesn’t show that cervical cancer could be prevented 2 to 3 decades after vaccination.

In “developed” countries on the other hand, with cervical cancer screening, vaccination programs would only be cost-effective if the vaccine provides complete and life-long efficacy and there is at least 75% coverage of the pre-adolescent population.
This makes the cost-effectiveness of these vaccines in “developed” countries also very doubtful.

Sudeep Gupta et al – Is human papillomavirus vaccination likely to be a useful strategy in India? (2013): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889025/
(archived here: http://archive.is/rBod0)


In response to the many adverse events, Japan has suspended the HPV vaccination program in 2013.

Three different types of HPV-vaccines are currently sold: Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline); Gardasil or Silgard (Merck&Co); and the newest Gardasil 9.
Most HPV vaccine randomized trials didn’t use inert placebo in the control group, but aluminium.

Only one double blind trial with an inert placebo for the quadrivalent HPV-vaccine was done. In this trial, 842 boys and 939 girls from 9 to 15 years: 1184 were injected with the HPV-vaccine and 597 with saline placebo.
The efficacy outcomes described boys and girls separately. The adverse events were displayed in a single group. This could have been done to hide something...
46.4% in the vaccine group compared to 44.5% in the placebo group experienced adverse events. That is almost half (even for the placebo)!
Serious adverse events occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the vaccinated subjects and none in the placebo group. These serious events were considered to be caused by something else than the vaccine.

The 4-year follow-up VIVIANE study compared 2881 healthy women older than 25 years injected with the bivalent HPV-vaccine with 2871 women injected with aluminium “placebo”.
There were more “symptoms” in the week after vaccination in the HPV-vaccine group (65%) than in the control group (58%). In the HPV-vaccine group 41% and in the aluminium group 36% of the symptoms were reportedly caused by the injection.
There were 14 deaths (later corrected to 13 as 1 was caused by breast cancer) in the HPV-vaccine group compared to 3 in the aluminium group. None of the deaths were believed to be caused by the injections.
Again many “symptoms” (also in the aluminium group)...

In another large study 7078 women were injected with the 4-valent HPV vaccine, compared to 7071 young women with the (new) HPV 9-valent vaccine.
Vaccine-related events occurred more frequently in the 9-valent group in the 4-valent group - 2086 (29.5%) vs 1929 (27.3%).
The 9-valent group had more serious adverse events than the 4-valent group - 3.3% vs 2.6%. Only 2 serious adverse events in each group were considered to be “vaccine-related”.
Severe injection site swelling was also more frequent in the 9-valent group - 3.8 vs 1.5%.

Pooled analysis of all trials comparing 29,953 healthy girls and women poisoned with bivalent HPV vaccine vs. hepatitis A vaccine showed significantly more symptoms in the HPV vaccine group.

M. Martínez-Lavínand L. Amezcua-Guerra – Serious adverse events after HPV vaccination: a critical review of randomized trials and post-marketing case series (2017): http://www.autoimmunity-network.com/med ... 202017.pdf


These HPV-vaccines that cause so many adverse reactions have been approved!
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:08 pm

In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the only government agency required to track vaccine safety. Under Title 42, U.S.C. 300aa-27(c), since 1987, the HHS has to report every 2 years about vaccine safety, adverse reactions, and other aspects of vaccinations in the US to Congress.

Last week, in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) demanding the required bi-annual reports to Congress since 1987, HHS admitted that there are no such records.
Image

That the HHS never submitted any of the required reports to Congress basically means that the US government violates its own laws. An organisation that violates the law for 30 years is – per definition – a criminal organisation.

Robert F. Kennedy of the World Mercury Project was involved in this FOIA lawsuit. President Trump has NOT appointed Kennedy to the “Presidential Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety: http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php ... red-by-law
(archived here: http://archive.is/Z7X26)
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

HPV-vaccines – infertility

Post by Firestarter » Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:41 pm

The following “scientific” report from 2017 suggests that the controversial HPV vaccine causes lower birth rates. This study analysed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing 8 million 25 to 29-year-old women in the US between 2007 and 2014.

Birth rates in the US have recently fallen to record lows from 118.1 in 2007 to 104.5 in 2015 per 1000 females aged 25–29.
See the birth rates in the US from 1995 to 2015.
Image

One factor could be the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) that “coincidentally” was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and recommended for females aged 11–26 (and since 2011 also for males of the same age group).

Adverse effects of the HPV vaccine include menstrual disturbances and mood swings. Shortly after the HPV vaccine was licensed, reports of women experiencing Primary Ovarian Failure (POF) emerged.
The estimated incidence of POF for females under the age of 40 is 1 in 100, but this could be considerably higher because it’s masked by the birth control pill. Between 10% and 30% of women with POF also have (other) autoimmune disorders.

Approximately 60% of women who had not been poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, compared to only 35% of women who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine. The difference was especially large for women that had been married. Of the married women 75% that didn’t get the vaccine gave birth, while only 50% who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant.
61.1% of the women not poisoned with HPV gave birth, compared to only 35.3% of the women poisoned with the HPV vaccine.
The pregnancy frequency decreased with increasing numbers of HPV vaccine shots.

See (part of) Table 3 - Ratios of having been pregnant for women who received an HPV shot versus women who did not.
See (part of) Table 5 - Births of females aged 25–29 in the US, by number of HPV shots.
Image

This suggests that at least part of the reason for the recent decline in US birth rates is caused by the HPV vaccine. Why did it take so long before this link was found (some studies have even denied this link)?
If all married women had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, the number of married women having conceived could have fallen with another 1 million.

There are other (possible) causes for the lower birth rates...
Higher employment rates (of women) decreases birth rates.
No epidemiological study on the influence of Aluminium (a component of vaccines) on fertility exists but Karakis et al in 2014 found an association between prenatal exposure to Aluminium and death of the (unborn) baby.
There could also be a link between Aluminium exposure and POF.

Gayle DeLong – A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection (2017): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 18.1477640
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter » Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:41 pm

In this post are: 1) a 34 page paper about vaccines and 2) one of the referenced studies, showing that non-influenza disease rates more than quadrupled by a flu vaccine.

Since passage of the 1986 Act, the number of required pediatric vaccines has grown rapidly. In 1983, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule included 11 injections of 4 vaccines.10 As of 2017, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule includes 56 injections of 30 different vaccines.11
(…)

Unfortunately, unlike all non-vaccine drugs licensed by the FDA, vaccines are not required to undergo long-term double-blind inert-placebo controlled trials to assess safety. In fact, not a single one of the clinical trials for vaccines given to babies and toddlers had a control group receiving an inert placebo. Further, most pediatric vaccines currently on the market have been approved based on studies with inadequate follow-up periods of only a few days or weeks.

For example, there are two Hepatitis B vaccines licensed for one day old babies in the United States – one manufactured by Merck and the other by GlaxoSmithKline. Merck’s Hepatitis B vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for only five days after vaccination.17 Similarly, GlaxoSmithKline’s Hepatitis B vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for only four days after vaccination.18
(…)

Similarly, the HiB vaccines man-ufactured by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline were licensed by the FDA based on trials in which adverse reactions were monitored for only three days and four days, respectively, after vaccination.19 The only stand-alone polio vaccine in the United States was licensed after a mere 48-hour follow-up period.20
Even more amazing is that unlike every drug licensed by the FDA, the control groups in these vaccine trials did not receive an inert placebo.21 Rather, the control group was given one or more previously licensed vaccines as the “placebo.”22
(…)

A pilot study comparing 650 vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschooled children in the United States provides a glimpse of the potential scope of vaccine harm.119 The study found that, compared to completely-unvaccinated children, fully-vaccinated children had an increased risk of 390% for allergies, 420% for ADHD, 420% for autism, 290% for eczema, 520% for learning disabilities, and 370% for any neuro-developmental delay.120 Fully-vaccinated pre-term infants had an increased risk of 1,450% for a neurodevelopmental disorder, which includes a learning disability, ADHD or autism, compared to completely unvaccinated preterm infants.121

Another recent study compared children receiving the flu shot with those receiving a saline injection in a prospective randomized double-blind study.122 Both groups had the same rate of influenza but the group receiving the flu shot had a 340% increased rate of non-influenza infection.123
(…)

Children vaccinated with Hepatitis B vaccine in the first month of life, compared to children receiving no vaccines in the first month of life, had an increased risk of 829% for ADHD, 762% for autism, 638% for ADD, 565% for tics, 498% for sleep disorders, and 206% for speech delays.126
ICAN – Introduction to Vaccine Safety Science & Policy in the United States (2017) - EDIT original was gone: http://web.archive.org/web/201803281812 ... 2-2017.pdf


The best reference from this white paper is the following “scientific” report.

In this study, 115 children (6–15 years) were injected with the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo on average they were followed for some 272 days (unlike the couple of days in “normal” vaccine trials…).

There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of respiratory illness (ARI or FARI) or confirmed seasonal influenza between subjects injected with TIV and those who received placebo, but TIV recipients did have a significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on serologic evidence…

TIV recipients had an enormous increased rate of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (390) compared to the subjects that got placebo (88) - a 340% increase in the rate of non-influenza infections.
Image

Benjamin J. Cowling et al – Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (2012): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/
(archived here: http://archive.is/xz5sb)
Last edited by Firestarter on Thu May 30, 2019 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply