Vaccines | Gaia-Health.link

Vaccines Sold by Marketing Fear of Disease: BMJ Report

Influenza vaccines are killers, life destroyers, and provide little or no benefit. The evidence is clear. A report published in the BMJ clarifies how these facts are ignored by health agencies. To get around them, they simply push fear of disease well past the point of absurdity. But the CDC and other health agencies have no other way to sell the unsellable.

by Heidi Stevenson

The British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the world’s most highly revered scientific medical publications, has published an article that condemns influenza vaccines and their marketing. The last sentence reads:

It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.^[1]

Influenza vaccines don’t work as advertised. Nonetheless, they’re heavily marketed by governmental agencies through one consistent tactic: fear. Dr. Doshi describes how influenza vaccinations are sold:

[I]nfluenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives.

In other words, he’s saying that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which supposedly exists for the benefit of the people’s health, is selling influenza vaccines by trying to scare people into it. It’s pure fear mongering and as we’ll see later, outright lies, to market flu vaccines. He goes on to state that looking through the CDC’s vaccine-marketing lens gives the impression that:

… the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities, precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.

Dr. Doshi is telling us that a combination of fear mongering and force are now being used to compel people to accept forced drugging by vaccination. Then, he states:

Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims.

The science supporting influenza vaccines is poor. Surely the CDC must know this. After all, it’s their job to know! So, the fact that they use junk science to support a massive program of vaccination clearly demonstrates an utter lack of faith towards the people. There can be no explanation for this dereliction of duty other than having sold out to the manufacturers and the medical system itself.

By the way, those quotes all comes from the first paragraph of Dr. Doshi’s report. Because they’re all provocative statements, it’s imperative that he support them—and that he does, with clarity and force.

Who’s at risk?

When the flu vaccine was originally recommended in the United States in 1960, only adults age 65 or older were considered at risk if they got the flu. Now, the CDC calls for everyone age 6 months or more is considered “at risk”. If the CDC is believed, then the entire population is now as weak as only those over 65 were about 50 years ago.

Does the influenza vaccine save lives?

The CDC wants us all to believe that flu vaccines save lives. However, as Dr. Doshi points out, the evidence does not support the claim. The so-called evidence cited by the CDC consistently contains flaws so severe that they should be discounted completely. He points out one study that appears to show a huge improvement in the odds of death from influenza. But, the study was done outside the influenza season, a time that he refers to as, “when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit.” Even the authors found the results implausible, stating that their result:

… is simply implausible, and likely the product of the “healthy-user effect”.

Dr. Doshi points out that this same bias is present in many studies. Further, he points out that the CDC itself acknowledges this particular bias in studies. Of course, they buried the admission deep inside a 68 page document:

These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not controlled adequately for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination.^[2]

This point is only one flaw in the studies cited by the CDC. Also significant is that the CDC completely ignores studies that do not support their chosen vaccination program. They do not admit that the evidence simply does not support their claim that lives are saved.

Is the flu vaccine safe?

The CDC claims that the influenza vaccine is safe. The reality has proven to be the complete opposite. The National Institutes for Health (NIH) actively promoted a video by their director, Anthony S. Fauci, in which he claims:

[T]he track record [of the H1N1 vaccine] for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event.

This same swine flu vaccine resulted in these massive adverse effects:

It was suspended by Australia in children under 5 years because of febrile convulsions. 1 in 110 children were affected.
It caused narcolepsy, a life-devastating neurological illness, in hundreds of adolescents in Europe. 1 in 55,000 adolescents lost their futures to narcolepsy as a direct result of this vaccine.^[3]
Just recently, the UK has admitted that it caused narcolepsy.^[4]

Yet the CDC continues claiming that these vaccines are safe!

Have influenza vaccines reduced mortality?

Flu Mortality, 1930-Present Vaccine-choice advocates have been pointing out that vaccination has not affected mortality rates from other diseases. Dr. Doshi makes exactly the same point about influenza vaccines, and provides a graph that clearly illustrates the point.

As you can see, it’s obvious that any benefit has been, at best, minimal, making a mockery of the CDC’s claims that thousands die from influenza every year.

How much flu is genuine influenza?

Dr. Doshi is particularly troubled by the abuse of terminology. He states:

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza.

Influenza Graph: Positive or Negative He focuses on the distinction between real influenza and influenza-like illness. People often say that they have “the flu”, when they really don’t. Doctors often diagnose “the flu” when their patients don’t have it.

The fact is that most cases of “flu” aren’t. They’re actually influenza-like diseases, and there are many of them.

This graph documents how few people who’ve been diagnosed with influenza actually have it. This is one of the sneakiest tricks used by the CDC, NIH, and such agencies all over the world.

They give the impression that influenza is a far more common disease than it is. That, in turn, is used to drum up yet more fear to sell vaccines.

Is this a legitimate review?

With so much junk science being passed off for the purpose of selling products, it’s always a fair question to ask if the authors are legit. In this case, of course, the question is a bit different. Why would this author write this paper?

Dr. Peter Doshi is a post-doctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, which is generally considered to be one of the world’s finest. His career is ahead of him, but this paper may have derailed it. We’ve seen what’s been done to the career of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was already a world-renowned researcher with impeccable credentials. Dr. Doshi cannot be unaware of that, so the only conclusion to be drawn is that he feels conscience-bound to tell the truth and to inform people of the fact that influenza vaccines are both dangerous and, if not entirely ineffective, certainly they provide only minuscule benefit.

Dr. Doshi has eviscerated both the claims in support of influenza vaccination and the inherent character of our health regulatory agencies. So, will we see any change in the health regulation agencies’ push to vaccinate every human and animal on the face of the earth?

Not a chance. The CDC and virtually all the other so-called health agencies ceased to be protectors of people’s health decades ago, and likely never were. They are nothing but a marketing front for Big Pharma and Big Medicine.

Sources:

Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease; British Medical Journal; Peter Doshi; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3037.
Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010.
Swine Flu Vaccine Caused Narcolepsy in Thousands: BMJ Claim
U.K. gov makes U-turn on link between GSK vaccine and narcolepsy

How the Flu Vaccine Causes Narcolepsy

You’ve heard that a swine flu vaccine causes narcolepsy, but do you know why? Here’s the explanation of what is causing it and why it’s happening. The worst part, though, is that narcolepsy is likely just the beginning.

by Heidi Stevenson

Recent horrifying news has shown that influenza vaccinations in Sweden and Finland cause narcolepsy in children. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has done an in-depth and very cautious study of the outbreak and reports that it is, indeed, a result of the vaccine.

Two factors are significant in explaining why these two countries had such serious outbreaks of narcolepsy. One is that their vaccination coverage in children was exceptionally high—significantly higher, in fact, than for any other European country. The other is that the brand used was Pandemrix, made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

Narcolepsy is an autoimmune disorder. It’s caused when the immune system turns on hypothalamus cells that excrete the hormone hypocretin, which helps control wakefulness and sleep.

Pandemrix contains the adjuvant AS03. The active ingredient in AS03 is squalene. It is known to cause autoimmune disorders when injected.

Squalene

Squalene sounds innocuous, and therein lies its danger. You can eat it with no harm resulting. You can slather it on your skin with good effect. It acts as an antioxidant and is a precursor to another critical substance, cholesterol. It may even help prevent cancer.

Squalene is found in many foods, including super-healthy olive and palm oils, amaranth, and shark liver oil. However, it is this friendliness that makes it so dangerous when injected.

That vaccines are injected is no accident. The act of injection is an injury, and the body responds to injuries rapidly, both to heal and to address foreign substances. The problem is that virtually anything injected can be seen as a foreign substance, including things that are normally found in the body.

The very fact that squalene is a normal body substance is the problem. By injecting it, the immune system sees it as an enemy and treats it as an antigen. Therefore, squalene can trigger a process that results in creating antibodies to it.

When the immune system creates antibodies to a substance that normally exists in the body, that substance will be attacked and destroyed. That is the definition of an autoimmune disease. Squalene is seen as the enemy, but this enemy exists throughout the body and is a critical component involved in many functions.

That the particular effect of narcolepsy in children would be the first autoimmune disorder noted as a result of its injection with the swine flu vaccine wasn’t predictable. However, the fact that there is an autoimmune disorder should not be a surprise. It was a virtual certainty. The only real question now is just how much more autoimmune disease will be seen.

A Macchiavellian Approach to Vaccines

In Gary Matsumoto’s book,Vaccine A, on the autoimmune diseases caused by injection of squalene with an experimental anthrax vaccine during the first Gulf War, a compelling tale is told of both the devastation wrought on unwitting soldiers and the Macchiavellian thinking that went into it.

The dangers of squalene are well known. In fact, they’ve been known for decades, ever since Freund’s adjuvant was developed.

An adjuvant’s purpose in a vaccine is to increase the activity of the immune system so that a strong enough response to a weak antigen can be developed, thus creating antibodies to the antigen. Freund’s adjuvant is highly effective at doing that. However, it’s also highly effective at causing antibodies to be created against itself. The problem is that the primary ingredient of Freund’s is an oil that’s also found in the human body. As a result, a large and terrible array of autoimmune disorders can result, including rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, allergic aspermatogenesis (blocking sperm formation, resulting in sterility), allergic neuritis, and allergic uveitis (resulting in blindness).

Therefore, it was quickly realized that Freund’s adjuvant had only one valid purpose: the creation of autoimmune disorders in animals so that they can be used in laboratory testing. This is, in fact, how autoimmune disorders are routinely created to study methods of treatment. However, the misery and suffering that animals undergo has also resulted in recognition that it’s unacceptable cruelty to put them through it—though it continues to happen.

The fact that it’s an oil like much of what’s found in the body is what makes Freund’s so devastating. Squalene is also an oil. In early testing, squalene was found, like Freund’s, to be exceptionally good at triggering an immune response. However, just as Freund’s also proved to trigger the development of antibodies to itself, so did squalene. In fact, it may even be more dangerous than Freund’s!

However, there is a significant problem in vaccine development, and this problem is overcome through the use of a strong adjuvant. Aluminum has been used for decades, but cannot compare with the action of squalene, or of Freund’s, for that matter. Until the last few years, all vaccinations were made from either killed bacteria or viruses, or from live attenuated (weakened) ones. Both approaches, though, are time consuming, expensive, and risky, making vaccines a less-than-effective method of making profits.

Recombinant DNA technology—genetic engineering—changed that picture dramatically. By using it, massive amounts of antigens could be created both quickly and cheaply. Instead of using entire viruses or bacteria as antigens, just bits of them could be used. The disadvantage, though, was that these vaccines tend to be ineffective. Therefore, they require strong adjuvants. But there aren’t many available. Freund’s is not allowed. Aluminum works, but not well enough for most of this technology. The only thing that works and is allowed is squalene.

Therefore, Big Pharma wants squalene. And that’s why it was used in the swine flu vaccines, GSK’s Pandemrix and Novatis’ Focetria. Pandemrix is the one that was used in Sweden and Finland. On top of that, those two countries had high rates of coverage among children—significantly more than other European nations.

Gulf War Syndrome

The result of squalene in Pandemrix is now known, an epidemic of the autoimmune disorder narcolepsy in children. However, we must ask whether this is merely the first round of autoimmune diseases that these children will be suffering. Autoimmune disorders can take time to manifest.

In the aftermath of the Gulf War, a new and devastating syndrome developed among huge numbers, possibly tens of thousands, of American and British soldiers, including those who deployed to Iraq and those who remained stateside. Many fell ill rapidly, but symptoms developed over years. As described in Vaccine A, these autoimmune disorders were devastating. Lupus erythematosus, which is a system-wide attack of connective tissues such as the skin, was a focus. In one case described by Matsumoto, the young man died because his own skin was seen as the enemy and attacked to the point that virtually none was left. Another young man’s cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls muscles was attacked by his autoimmune system, causing it to shrink drastically, with associated loss of his ability to function. These, though, were not the only problems or diagnoses, but they all had one thing in common: they were the result of the autoimmune system attacking squalene-like particles in the body.

Pandemrix contains squalene. We now know that it has caused an outbreak of narcolepsy in Sweden and Finland, the likes of which has never before been seen. Where will it end? What other disorders could develop? What will become of the children given this devasatingly poisonous substance?

We don’t know. The only thing that’s sure is that we will find out—just as we have learned with Gulf War Syndrome. Governments, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine will surely try to cover it up, just as they are still doing with Gulf War Syndrome. But the truth will eventually come out. The only questions are the exact form of autoimmune dysfunction and how many people’s lives will be devastated.

Sources:

Narcolepsy in association with pandemic influenza vaccination, A multi-country European epidemiological investigation
Narcolepsy Is An Autoimmune Disorder, New Research Shows
The hypocretin/orexin system
History of Narcolepsy
Statins Inhibit Squalene Synthesis
Histological and histochemical Studies of H1N1 Vaccine on Testes of Adult Male Albino Rats
Vaccine A, Gary Matsumoto, pub. Basic Books, Perseus Book Group, 2004. ISBN 0-465-04400-X

Tagged big pharma, big pharma vaccine, genetically engineered vaccine, gm vaccine, gmo, gsk pandemrix, matsumoto vaccine a, narcolepsy autoimmune disorder, narcolepsy gsk, narcolepsy pandemrix, narcolepsy vaccine, squalene narcolepsy, squalene pandemrix, squalene vaccine, swine flu vaccine narcolepsy, vaccine, vaccines

Minnesota Law Bans Formaldehyde—Except in Vaccines

Does it make any sense whatsoever to acknowledge that formaldehyde is a dangerous and deadly compound and banning it in all children’s products—with the exception of vaccines and foods and beverages and supplements and any biological product, including vaccines? That’s just what Minnesota did. They banned formaldehyde from the least harmful products, but allow it to be ingested or injected. Where are the lawmakers brains?

by Jeffry John Aufderheide

first published in VacTruth under the title New Minnesota States Law Bans Cancer-Causing Formaldehyde in Children’s Products, Stays in Vaccines

Lawmakers in the state of Minnesota have decided formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent, is too dangerous for children’s products. According to section 325F.175 of HF458, products containing formaldehyde are banned from being sold starting August 1st, 2014, for manufacturers and August 1st, 2015, for retailers.^[1]

Finally, an answer to one of the many toxic ingredients being injected into your child?

Not so fast.

At first blush, it appears Minnesota is addressing at least one of the many toxic chemicals found in vaccines. However, a carefully crafted paragraph creates a loophole for excluding vaccines from this ban.

The Pharmaceutical Loophole

So, how is formaldehyde banned in toys and clothes but permitted to still be in vaccines? The new Minnesota state law exempts vaccines through this passage in a section entitled “[325F.174] DEFINITIONS.” It reads:

(c) “Children’s product” means a product primarily designed or intended by a manufacturer to be physically applied to or introduced into a child’s body, including any article used as a component of such a product and excluding a food, beverage, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical product or biologic, children’s toys that are covered by the ASTM International F963 standard for Toy Safety, or a medical device as defined in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, United States Code, title 21, section 321(h), as amended through February 15, 2013.^[1] [emphasis mine]

Frankly, I’m puzzled. Lawmakers don’t want your child to play with or put into their mouth products containing formaldehyde, but if your doctor injects it into your baby, it is perfectly fine?

Let’s Look at Which Vaccines Contain Formaldehyde

You may be asking, “Why is there formaldehyde in vaccines?”

The very short answer is this chemical has been used for over half a century in the vaccine manufacturing process. It was originally used as an attempt to inactivate the poliovirus in the first vaccines produced by Jonas Salk in the late 1940s and early 1950s,^[2]

After the polio vaccine, formaldehyde was heavily used in manufacturing pediatric vaccines.

To see how many vaccines contain this cancer-causing chemical today, let’s take a look at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia website. The formaldehyde content of vaccines licensed for use in the United States (quantity per dose converted from mg to mcg):^[3]

Trade Name: Quantity (per dose)

Td / DT: ≤ 20 mcg – 100 mcg
Daptacel: ≤ 100 mcg
Infanrix: ≤ 100 mcg
Tripedia: ≤ 100 mcg
Pediarix: ≤ 100 mcg
Havrix: ≤ 50 mcg (pediatric)
Vaqta: 4 mcg (pediatric)
Twinrix: ≤ 100 mcg
Comvax: < 0.4 mcg
IPOL: ≤20 mcg
JE-Vax: < 200 mcg
ADACEL: < 5 mcg
Boostrix: < 100 mcg
Fluarix: ≤ 5 mcg
FluLaval: < 25 mcg
Fluzone – intradermal: < 20 mcg

Get a closer look at the vaccine schedule to see how much formaldehyde will be injected into your child.

What Do The Experts Say?

There seem to be conflicting views as to how safe formaldehyde really is. On the one hand, research on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website cautions us by saying:

Formaldehyde can damage cells by binding to DNA and thereby forming formaldehyde-DNA adducts; this process may interfere with accurate DNA replication and lead to mutations and cancerous tumors.^[4] [emphasis mine]

This should be extremely concerning for you because within every vaccine product insert is the following passage:

This vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic [cancer-causing] or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.

Personally, I take this as a very serious warning, especially since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be the ones making this evaluation.

The other side of the argument made by the FDA justifies formaldehyde in vaccines by stating:

The amount of formaldehyde present in some infant vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern, according to a study using a mathematical model developed by scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).^[5] [emphasis mine]

Did you catch it?

Please remember this point: The assumption being made is based on a mathematical model. FDA experts should be ready to meet higher standards, in my opinion. Maybe that is why the FDA plays hot potato when answering the question?

Here are 7 basic questions I think parents should be asking at this point:

Was a mathematical model the only criteria used to make the determination formaldehyde was safe to inject into babies?
Did they test on animals? If so, what are the results and where is the data?
What scientific measurements are used to measure harm on infants?
What tests can I ask my doctor about right now to see if formaldehyde injured my child?
Not every baby is the same and has the same metabolism. Did their mathematical model compensate for different genetics or did it assume all children are the same?
What considerations were given to repeatedly injecting this chemical into infants potentially sensitizing them and creating lifelong allergies to formaldehyde?
Many pharmacists recommend not mixing drugs and, after all, vaccines are drugs. What are the synergistic effects of having multiple vaccine and ingredients, like mercury or aluminum, injected into your baby at the same time?

Here is the fatal flaw. The pharmaceutical literature cautions arrogant scientists from making large assumptions with “harmless” ingredients and children.

Pharmaceutical products may contain, in addition to the active or therapeutic agent(s), a variety of other ingredients, termed inactive or inert, which are categorized as excipients or additives (flavorings, sweeteners, preservatives, stabilizers, diluents, lubricants, etc.). The words inert or inactive may be misnomers for some excipients because some have been shown to cause adverse effects. Neonates and young children are at risk for such effects because they may not be able to metabolize or eliminate an ingredient in a pharmaceutical product in the same manner as an adult. (pp. 344) [emphasis mine]

Swarbrick, James and Boylan, James C. Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology. Vol. 11. 1995. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Are you sure there isn’t a hidden agenda?

Get the full list of vaccine ingredients being injected into your child right now by clicking on this link.

Conclusion

If legislatures are concerned with your children wearing clothes or playing with toys containing formaldehyde, why give pharmaceutical products that are injected a free pass?

At the end of the day, government officials do not know your child’s name or face. They care about keeping their jobs and making sure they uphold the policies put in place. The simple truth is this: Vaccine manufacturers are protected by law if your child suffers from an adverse reaction.

Lastly, as a starting reference point, I recommend you read an older but brutally honest review of what happens when formaldehyde is injected into animals by Martin H. Fischer entitled The Toxic Effects of Formaldehyde and Formalin.^[6]

Sources:

Study Reaches Pro-Flu Vax Conclusion with No Support from Data

A study concludes that cough & fever illnesses can represent influenza rates, in spite of the fact that the study’s results don’t even come close to supporting the statement. Are they giving a green light to fraudulent vaccine studies? Perhaps vaccine science should follow the evidence, rather than ignore it? Here’s what the study really says.

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study, funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and performed by researchers who receive research funding from the pharmaceutical corporation MedImmune, came up with results in an influenza vaccination study that can only be called confounding. Their results seem to demonstrate that there is little or no correlation between flu vaccination status and confirmed influenza rates. Nonetheless, they conclude:

[A]bsence due to fever or cough illness may be a useful surrogate endpoint in school-based studies if identification of laboratory confirmed influenza is not feasible.

If that makes your mouth drop open and your head wobble back and forth, welcome to the real world! These scientists, whom we generally expect to use good logic, are stating that it’s okay to use fevers and coughs to determine whether flu vaccines are beneficial—though they found nothing to support the use of fevers or coughs as indications of influenza infection!

Some studies appear to demonstrate that high flu vaccination rates result in lower absenteeism in schools. However, they have never shown that the lowered rate of absenteeism is actually the result of fewer influenza infections. Whether absenteeism is a result of an illness similar to influenza or the real thing is rarely investigated. No study has, thus far, demonstrated that flu vaccines result in lower rates of absence as a result of influenza infections. A new study published in PLoS is no different, though they set out to produce:

… an observational pilot study to assess the feasibility of identifying absences due to laboratory-confirmed influenza in vaccinated and unvaccinated students, and to compare absenteeism due to fever or cough illness in schools with and without the school-based vaccination initiative.

So, these scientists set out to compare absenteeism between vaccinated and unvaccinated elementary school students, and apparently they figured they might as well also investigate whether testing for flu infections correlates to absenteeism or vaccination rates. They ended up with a big Oops! The results seemed to make little sense. But did that bother them? Apparently not.

It looks like they had a predetermined conclusion, and come hell or high water, they stuck with it. That’s not too surprising, since the study was wholly funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the two researchers who designed and controlled the study receive research funding from the influenza vaccine-producing pharmaceutical firm, MedImmune.

The Study

Titled Elementary School-Based Influenza Vaccination: Evaluating Impact on Respiratory Illness Absenteeism and Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza, the researchers examined the results of a Michigan school district’s influenza vaccine policies, which varied from school to school because of limited funding. They focused on the four elementary schools (through grade 6, about age 11/12 years). Two of them pushed a school-based flu vaccine delivery program, while the other two used a program that expects parents to obtain vaccinations.

Misleading Terminology

Oddly enough, they did not use the term “exposed” for exposure to an infectious agent. They used the term “exposed” to refer to children who were enrolled in the two schools that had a school-based flu vaccination program. So, children who were enrolled in the two schools that relied on parents to arrange for vaccinations were termed “non-exposed”.

There were 982 students in the “exposed” group and 658 in the “non-exposed” group.

Is this getting confusing? Perhaps that’s why they chose to use the terms exposed and non-exposed as names for the vaccination programs. So, to make it clearer:

Exposed: Children who went to a school that vaccinated on-site will be referred to as the On-site vaccination group.
Non-exposed: Children who went to a school that relied on parents to obtain vaccinations will be referred to as the Off-site vaccination group.

All tables reproduced here have changed “Exposed schools” to read “On-site vaccination”, and ”Non-exposed schools” to read “Off-site vaccination”. I hope this helps clarify the data presented.

Confounders

Usually, different schools serve different communities. The financial status, general health, race, and many other characteristics vary from school to school. These characteristics can easily affect the outcome of a study. There’s a term used for such things in research: confounders. Yet, the authors make no reference of any sort to any potentially confounding traits!

Incomplete Definitions of Terminology

A child was defined as vaccinated if 14 days had elapsed since receipt of the vaccination. Children under the age of 9 were defined as fully vaccinated if two or more doses had been received at any time. Children under age 9 who’d received only one flu vaccine were defined as partially vaccinated. In the exposed group, 52% were fully vaccinated; 28% were fully vaccinated in the non-exposed group. No information was given about how the vaccination status of children over age 9 was defined.

The study ran 12 weeks. The acronym FERPA refers to the Family Educational Rights and Protection Act and its requirements to properly inform trial subjects. The researchers say they adhered to FERPA regulations, and all indications appear to be that they did.

Vaccination Rates

Here is their table showing the percentages of vaccinated children in the on-site and off-site groups:

In the schools where vaccination took place on-site, 52.2% of the children were “fully vaccinated”. In schools where parents were responsible for obtaining their children’s vaccines, 27.6% were “fully vaccinated”. Since we know nothing of the relative demographics between these two groups of children, no definitive conclusion can be drawn. However, it does demonstrate why there’s a strong move toward vaccinating children at schools, rather than leaving it up to the parents—and that clearly implies that parents are not considered reliable in determining what’s best for their children.

Absenteeism

This table shows the absentee rates, comparing on-site and off-site vaccination systems:

The rate of absenteeism because of fever or cough was 26.5% in children who attended schools with on-site vaccination and 38.9% in children who attended schools with off-site vaccination. Children who attended schools with an on-site vaccination policy were less likely to be absent (26.5% vs 38.9%), and they were also less likely to be absent for any other reason (42.7% vs 46.6%).

What accounts for this distinction? The fact is that we have absolutely no idea. Any suggestion that it has anything whatsoever to do with the flu vaccine, though, is shown to be utter nonsense in the next table.

Laboratory-Tested Flu

This table depicts the absentee rates of children whose parents agreed to have them tested for influenza:

Among children whose parents agreed to laboratory testing to see if their fever and cough illnesses were actually flu, the results were quite different compared to untested illnesses. The rate of absenteeism because of fever or cough was 64.1% in children who attended schools with on-site vaccinations and 38.0% in children who attended schools with off-site vaccinations. These results are dramatically different from those displayed in the previous table! Significantly, they imply that it’s in the best interests of children to avoid flu vaccinations—the exact opposite of the results for children whose parents did not agree to get lab verification of their illnesses.

How can that be explained? Clearly, it cannot.

Actual Cases of Flu

Because of “resource constraints”, students with cough or fever illnesses were tested for influenza for only a 4-week period of time, further confounding the results.

The story is even more dramatic than the results displayed in Table 3! The authors did not produce a table to show how many of the children whose fever-cough illness was laboratory verified to be flu, and the reason will be quite obvious.

Only 9% of the children tested for influenza actually had the disease!

That means that 91% of the children who stayed at home for coughs or fevers did not have influenza. The fact is that, during flu season, the CDC reports flu-like illnesses as if they were actually flu. The reality is entirely different. The CDC’s campaign to push vaccinations is based on irrelevant data.

The Truth

The results of this study are so confounded that it’s ludicrous to take any part of it seriously. If anything, the study demonstrated that the government’s use of statistics must be designed to mislead. The one factor that seems to make any sense at all in this study—that fewer than one-tenth of the cases of flu-like illness are actually influenza—demonstrates clearly that the CDC is knowingly whipping up unwarranted fear about the number of flu cases based on numbers that are grossly inflated.

It’s difficult to believe that these researchers would have held back if a single student had come to harm as a result of influenza, thus demonstrating yet another reality about the fear mongering whipped up every year in attempts to scare people into getting vaccinated.

The authors of this study claimed that:

[A]bsence due to fever or cough illness may be an effective surrogate endpoint in school-based studies if identification of laboratory confirmed influenza is not feasible.

Could there be any doubt that this was the result they were determined to reach? Their data clearly do not support the statement. Yet, because few doctors actually read studies and the news media generally reports only what is in the conclusions or press releases, this bit of nonsense will be reported again and again and again, until it takes on a veneer of legitimacy by simple repetition.

The Big Pharma Profiteers and their promoters, the Profiteers’ wholly-owned governmental agencies, foundations raking in whatever they can manage from the money being flung around, and pseudo scientists producing whatever results are desired for a price—none of them are interested in the truth. The truth doesn’t serve the Profit God. This piece of junk science funded by the taxpayer via the CDC promotes the pharmaceutical corporations’ cash cow, vaccines. It has nothing to do with the health of our children.

Source:

Elementary School-Based Influenza Vaccination: Evaluating Impact on Respiratory Illness Absenteeism and Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza; PLoS; Sonia A Kjos, Stephanie A. Irving, Jennifer K. Meece, and Edward A. Belongia; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072243.

Lack of Infectious Diseases Causes Alzheimer’s: Vaccines & Hygiene

A new and well-done study clearly documents the relationship between hygiene and Alzheimer’s disease throughout the world. The lower the exposure to microbes, the greater the rate of Alzheimer’s. They name several hygiene issues, but have ignored the most significant according to modern medicine’s own claims: vaccines. Their research clearly shows that vaccines, along with other hygiene issues, are associated with dementia.

Alzheimer’s and Vaccines, Photo of elderly lady by Tim & Selena Middleton
(Syringes superimposed)

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study has documented an association between hygiene and Alzheimer’s disease. The usual interpretation is that too much cleanliness has led to the epidemic of Alzheimer’s, but that isn’t the whole story. There is an elephant in the hygiene room called vaccine.

To the non-medical eye, the term hygiene refers to cleanliness. However, in medical jargon, hygiene has a much broader meaning. It refers to practices intended for the preservation of health. These practices include, of course, cleanliness, but in today’s medicine, the term also encompasses vaccines, which are considered a primary tool of health preservation and, therefore, hygiene.

Thus, the study titled Hygiene and the world distribution of Alzheimer’s Disease documents a very strong connection between vaccines and the modern plague of Alzheimer’s disease. They concluded:

Based on our analyses, it appears that hygiene is positively associated with AD [Alzheimer’s disease] risk. Countries with greater degree of sanitation and lower degree of pathogen prevalence have higher age-adjusted AD DALY rates. Countries with greater degree of urbanization and wealth exhibit higher age-adjusted AD DALY [disability-adjusted life-year] rates. …

… Variation in hygiene may partly explain global patterns in AD rates. Microorganism exposure may be inversely related to AD risk.

The Autoimmune Disease Connection

The authors’ introduction starts with:

Exposure to microorganisms is critical for the regulation of the immune system. The immunodysregulation of autoimmunity has been associated with insufficient microorganism exposure. … The inflammation characteristic of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) shares important similarities with autoimmunity.

These authors are stating quite clearly that lack of exposure to microbes is harmful to the immune system, that autoimmune disorders are associated with lack of exposure to microbes, and that Alzheimer’s disease is an autoimmune disorder.

The primary goal of modern governmental health systems is to limit exposure to disease-inducing microbes. Of course, clean water and sewage are primary factors, but vaccination has become the clarion call, and it’s vaccination that modern medicine claims to be its greatest success in preventing communicable diseases.

How Lack of Microbes May Cause Alzheimer’s

The authors point out that low levels of microbial exposure lead to lack of lymphocyte turnover in the developing immune system, which leads to a deranged immune system. If the immune system is not adequately stimulated, regulatory T-cells (T_Regs) do not proliferate adequately, resulting in inflammation. Alzheimer’s disease is associated with both system inflammation and deficiency in T_Regs.

On this basis, the authors suggest that excessive hygiene is a cause of Alzheimer’s disease. They focused on such hygiene issues as antibiotics, sanitation, clean drinking-water, and paved roads. Note that antibiotics are included in that list, so why not vaccines, especially in light of the fact that vaccines are treated as their crowning glory?

The authors further state:

The period from gestation through childhood is typically thought to be a critical window of time during which the immune system is established, with some authors limiting this critical window to the first two years of life. However, proliferation of TRegs occurs throughout the life course: there are age-related increases in number of TRegs with peaks at adolescence and in the sixth decade. Therefore, it may be not only early-life immune stimulation that affects AD risk (and perhaps risk of other types of immunodysregulation), but also immune stimulation throughout life. Our study is designed based on the hypothesis that microorganism exposure across the lifespan may be related to AD risk.

Could these authors offer a more insidious description of why modern medicine’s vaunted herd immunity, if true, would be a complete disaster? The fact is that Alzheimer’s disease is not the only autoimmune disorder plaguing the modern world.

Autoimmune Disorders and Vaccines

These disorders include some of the worst humans have ever experienced, and all interfere with the ability to lead a full life. They include allergies, asthma, diabetes, autism, chronic gastrointestinal disorders, lupus erythematosus, macrophagic myofasciitis, antiphospholipid syndrome, multiple sclerosis, and a host of others.

Some of these autoimmune disorders, such as macrophagic myofasciitis, didn’t exist a few decades ago. Some of them, such as asthma and allergies, were extremely rare, but now are virtually normal. Some were found only in the aging, but now are found in children, such as type 2 diabetes.

These authors have found the smoking gun, hygiene, yet refrain from naming the single most significant hygiene factor—in spite of the fact that conventional medicine is forever naming vaccines as their greatest success!

Ironically, this claim isn’t based in fact, because it can readily be shown that the infectious disease rates were falling before the vaccines were introduced, and that the rate of reduction was not changed with their introduction. Yet, it’s clear that the rise in autoimmune disorders is well correlated with the introduction of vaccines and their increased rate of usage.

That fact makes the authors’ lack of inclusion of vaccines in their discussion of hygiene even more egregious. It isn’t just hygiene as defined in their article that correlates with Alzheimer’s, but also—and probably even more significantly—vaccines.

These researchers demonstrate quite clearly that the third rail of medicine is vaccines’ adverse effects. Nothing is allowed to interfere with the massive push to vaccinate everyone everywhere for anything that the vaccine profiteers can imagine.

Source:

Hygiene and the world distribution of Alzheimer’s Disease; Evoloution, Medicine & Public Health; Molly Fox, Leslie A. Knapp, Paul W. Andrews, Corey L. Fincher; doi: 10.1093/emph/eot015.

Tagged autoimmune disease alzheimer’s, conventional medicine, conventional medicine alzheimer’s, elephant in the room vaccines, Hygiene and the world distribution of Alzheimer’s Disease, infectious diseases alzheimer’s, lack of infectious diseases causes alzheimer’s, modern medicine, modern medicine alzheimer’s, science, third rail of medicine vaccines adverse effects, vaccine, vaccine profiteers, vaccines, vaccines adverse effects, vaccines alzheimer’s, vaccines elephant in the room

Method by Which Aluminum May Cause Breast Cancer

The devastation of breast cancer is a growing menace, with more cases each succeeding decade. Researchers associated with the Keale Conference on the Biological Effects of Aluminum are producing compelling research showing that aluminum may be a cause. This study supports an aluminum carcinogenic function in breast cancer, and they offer a method of how the toxic metal may do it.

by Heidi Stevenson

Breast cancer is one of women’s greatest fears, and the numbers have been growing for decades. Some serious, and generally underfunded, scientists have zeroed in on aluminum as a possible cause and almost certain accelerator of it, and they’ve identified a primary source as antiperspirants. New research has now found a likely sequence of events triggered by aluminum that may be the cause of so much breast cancer.

Dr. Ferdinando Mannello, of the Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Section of Clinical Biochemistry and Cell Biology, at the University ‘Carlo Bo’ in Italy, is the lead author of this study. It documents a highly significant association and linear relationship between aluminum presence and breast cancer:

Protein oxidative carbonyls are associated with cancer. They found a significant relationship between aluminum concentrations and carbonyls.
Proinflammatory cytokines IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-12 p70, and TNF-a are associated with cancer. They found significant and linear relationships between these cytokines with breast cancer.
Chemokines are a type of small cytokine associated with cancer metastasis. They found a strong linear association between cancer and chemokines called IL-8, MIP-1a & MCP-1.

The researchers analyzed nipple aspirant fluids (NAFs) of women with and without breast cancer. 19 of the samples were from cancerous breasts and 16 from noncancerous breasts. The NAF samples were analyzed for each of the substances just described. The authors not only described their results, they included clear graphs to show each of their NAF analysis results and some of the statistical regression results, which are reproduced here.

Aluminum and Carbonyls

The graphs below show the aluminum and carbonyl concentrations in cancer and noncancerous breasts:

Aluminum and Carbonyls in Cancerous and Noncancerous Breasts

In these and all other graphs, the cancerous breasts are identified as “Ca” and the noncancerous breasts are identified as “NoCa”.

It’s quite easy to see from the left-hand graph that the concentration of aluminum in cancerous breasts is highly significant. In fact, there is no crossover between the two. That is, the highest aluminum concentration of noncancerous (NoCa) breasts is lower than the lowest concentration of cancerous (Ca) breasts. The same kind of relationship between carbonyls and cancerous/noncancerous breasts can be seen in the graph on the right. (Incongruously, the Ca results are shown on the left in the aluminum graph, but it’s the opposite in all others.)

Aluminum and Carbonyls Linear Relationship,
r² = 0.6628.

The graph to the right displays the linear relationship between aluminum and carbonyls. R-squared (r²) is a statistical figure that rates how well the graphed points correlate to each other. In a small sample like this one of 19 Ca and 16 NoCa samples, the r² of 0.6628 is good. A perfect correlation would be 1.00 and an r² of 0.00 would indicate no correlation.

Cytokines

Relationship Between Cancer and Cytokines IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-12 p70, and TNF-a

The above graph shows the results of analysis for the presence of the cytokines IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-12 p70, and TNF-a in NAF. The left-hand bar (white colored) in each graph displays the concentration of a cytokine in noncancerous breasts, and the right-hand bar (dark gray colored) in each graph represents the concentration of acytokines in cancerous breasts. The concentrations of these cytokines was 4-7 times higher in cancerous breasts.

Chemokines

Chemokine-Carbonyl Regression:
IL-8/Carbonyl r2 = 0.8192 (graph on right). MIP-1/Carbonyl r2 = 0.9495 (graph on left).

Chemokines IL-8, MIP-1a & MCP-1 and Cancer

The two graphics show the results of analysis of the chemokines IL-8, MIP-1a, and MCP-1 in nipple aspirant fluid.

The three graphs on the right show how much more of each chemokine is present in NAF. In the case of MCP-1, it’s truly dramatic, as much as 17 times greater in cancerous breasts.

The graphs above document the results of regression analysis for the relationships between two of the chemokines, IL-8 and MCP-1. IL-8/carbonyl regression, shown on the right, presents a clear correlation. The r²result is a high 0.8192. The r² for MCP-1/carbonyl, shown on the left, is a remarkable 0.9495. You will rarely see such a close correlation.

How Aluminum May Cause Cancer

After presenting their latest research, the authors discussed how it applies to the full picture of breast cancer. The scientific bar for outright proving whether aluminum causes it is extremely high, and they don’t make that claim. They do, though, suggest a strong association and offer a means by which breast metabolism is changed so that cancer could be the result. Here’s a graphic they provide, and below it is a discussion of what it shows:

Aluminum in Breast Microenvironment

By far, the largest source of aluminum to the breasts is antiperspirants. The active ingredient in all of them is aluminum. It’s absorbed through the skin—epithelial cells, myoepithelial cells, and the basement membrane—and into what they refer to as the breast microenvironment. The authors state:

Although our results do not support an“absolute”cause-effect relationship between BC [breast cancer] and aluminium, we have hypothesized in Fig. 7 that aluminium salts (accumulated in breast cells/tissues/fluids mainly by underarm cosmetics/antiperspirants) may be able to alter within the breast cancer microenvironment the expression of
iron-binding proteins (like L-chain ferritin and transferrin).

It’s known that aluminum interferes with the metabolism of ferritin and transferrin, as discussed in Do Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer?, which reviews research by Dr. Phillippa Darbre, another Keale Conference on the Biological Effects of Aluminum researcher, and Dr. Mannello, of this paper. Therefore, the suggested chain of events outlined here is entirely reasonable. The process that Dr. Mannello and his fellow researchers suggest is:

Aluminum interferes with the metabolism of iron (Fe⁺³), reducing it to Fe⁺². (The numbers, +3 and +2, refer to positive electrical charges of the iron ion.) This would be done by the aluminum super-oxide, AlO₂⁺².
The altered iron metabolism and the aluminum super-oxide fuel a Fenton reaction, in which free radicals (molecules with a negative charge) produce damage. In particular, the authors refer to previous research that documents the ability of aluminum salts to cause breaks in double-strand DNA, which they state predisposes “human breast cell lines to proliferative and carcinogenic stresses”.
Oxidative damage and the alterations in ferritin and transferrin metabolism result in an increase of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, such as those investigated in this study.

The authors documented that IL-6, which they documented is increased in the presence of aluminum, has recently been shown to be a likely factor in the development of beast cancer.

In conclusion, the authors state that, whether a cause-and-effect relationship between aluminum and breast cancer exists:

… the evidence for the presence of aluminium in the breast is building and further investigation is warranted using both in vitro and in vivo models in order to discern
the possible link among aluminium intake by antiperspirants, tissue accumulation and alterations of crucial biomolecular pathways involved in cancer initiation/progression.

From my point of view, though, the question isn’t so much whether we have absolute proof that aluminum causes cancer or aggravates existing cancer. The solid scientific evidence now in existence documenting a strong association between aluminum and breast cancer is quite clear. Therefore, the use of aluminum needs to be strongly modified. Its use in products that don’t require it should be eliminated. Products that are not necessary and require aluminum, such as antiperspirants, should be eliminated.

It seems to me that we’re well past the precautionary principle on this issue. The evidence is simply too strong to ignore. There cannot possibly be a justification for continuing the use of a toxic substance like aluminum in most everyday products. Humans have existed through most of their time on earth without the benefit of antiperspirants. Clearly, they are not necessary and, as far as I know, no one has ever suggested that they benefit health.

The time to bring the travesty of continued production of this product known to be toxic is now, not later when every detail of aluminum’s toxic effects are known—because that day will never arrive.

Source:

Aluminium, carbonyls and cytokines in human nipple aspirate fluids: Possible relationship between inflammation, oxidative stress and breast cancer microenvironment; Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry; F. Mannello, D. Ligi, M. Canale; doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2013.07.003.

Tagged Aluminium, aluminum antiperspirant, aluminum antiperspirant breast cancer, aluminum breast cancer, aluminum breast cancer cause, aluminum breast cancer science, aluminum cancer, aluminum chemokines, aluminum cytokines, aluminum science, carbonyls and cytokines in human nipple aspirate fluids: Possible relationship between inflammation, cause and effect aluminum cancer, journal of inorganic biochemistry, keale conference on biological effects of aluminum, mannello breast cancer, oxidative stress and breast cancer microenvironment, precautionary principle aluminum, science

Japan Orders Disclosure of HPV Vax Severe Adverse Effects

Which is more important to you, the safety of vaccines or the level of uptake? In Japan, vaccine safety seems to matter more to officials than it does in the US or Europe. On learning that Gardasil and Cervarix were causing severe and crippling adverse effects, the recommendation was removed. After further investigation, Japan has ordered that their information inserts carry warnings of the real risks.

Godzilla vs GSK and Merck

by Norma Erickson, President of SaneVax, Inc.

Are acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) and Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) adverse reactions to HPV vaccines? Health authorities in Japan are not sure at this point, but they have chosen to apply the precautionary principle and inform medical consumers just in case.

On March 26, 2013, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare informed GlaxoSmithKline they had 30 days to alter the package insert for Cervarix by adding the following to the Precautions/Adverse Reactions section:

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM): Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) may occur. In such cases, pyrexia, headache, convulsion, movement disorder, and disturbed consciousness, etc., generally occur within several days to 2 weeks after vaccination. If ADEM is suspected, diagnosis should be made by MRI etc., and appropriate measures should be taken.

Guillain-Barre syndrome: Guillain-Barre syndrome may occur. If any symptoms such as flaccid paralysis originating from the distal extremities, decreased or absent tendon reflexes, appropriate measures should be taken.

The directive was not addressed to Merck because the package insert for Gardasil already had a reference to the risks of ADEM and GBS at the time of the directive’s issuance.

The reason for this action? During the first three years of using HPV vaccines, 3 cases of ADEM and five cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome had been reported after Cervarix injections for which a causality to the drug could not be ruled out.^[1]

As a point of reference, there have been 31 cases of ADEM and 121 reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome filed with the United States VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) after HPV vaccinations^[2] during the last seven years. The FDA has made no request that these conditions be added to the package inserts. What is wrong with this picture?

How many reports of ADEM or GBS have been filed in your country after HPV vaccinations? Have your government health officials required any modifications to the HPV vaccine package inserts?

Why did Japan take this bold step?

At first glance, the Japanese ministry’s action may give the impression that they acted on their belief in the principle of informed consent.

However, Toshie Ikeda, secretary general of the Nationwide Liaison Association of Cervical Cancer Vaccine Victims and Parents in Japan and Dr. Sotaro Sato, director of the Sato Cardiovascular Internal Medicine Hospital in Osaki, Miyagi Prefecture, believe the ministry’s action requires deep analysis. Two motivations appear to be behind their move, with one outweighing the other.

They said the first possible motive is a sincere desire to make medical doctors and other intellectuals aware of the essential nature of severe adverse effects of the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, in order to prevent further cases of severe damage to the health of millions of teenage girls who would otherwise be administered injections of the two vaccines during coming years.

The other possibility is fear of potential lawsuits being filed by the association on behalf of numerous desperate families whose beloved, previously healthy daughters have been seriously impaired, paralyzed or horribly devastated by HPV vaccinations. Japanese courts would be likely to find health bureaucrats responsible for the serious adverse effects inflicted on the girls if they did not take precautionary measures beforehand and leave some evidence that could later be used to prove they had at least tried to do something to block the further spread of health impairments to upcoming generations of teenage girls. This would be a particular problem if the government moves to reinstate their recommendation of these vaccines during the current fiscal year ending on 31 March 2014, due to pressure from politicians and academics with financial ties or other links to the vaccine manufacturers, lobbying activities, and consulting ‘experts’ hired by the manufacturers.

You see, under Japanese law bureaucrats found to have neglected their duty to inform medical consumers of serious risks involved with taking medicines, vaccines and other medical products can be prosecuted and severely punished.

A high-profile precedent was established in 2008, when the Supreme Court upheld a Tokyo High Court ruling imposing a sentence of one year imprisonment on former senior ministry bureaucrat Akihito Matsumura¸ with a two-year stay, for neglecting his obligation to order pharmaceutical companies to stop selling unheated blood coagulants contaminated with the AIDS virus.

Chief Justice Yuki Furuta, of the nation’s top court, stated in the decision issued on March 3:

Unheated blood products in this case were being used widely at the time of this (infection) incident and the products included a sizable number of products contaminated with the AIDS virus. The accused could have foreseen that if the products were used, numerous people would nearly inevitably get infected with the virus and develop the AIDS, causing many of the users to die eventually.

Ikeda, who spearheaded the association, is currently being assisted by some of Japan’s best medical scientists, some politicians with strong morals, and intellectuals concerned about the fate of numerous teenage girls who have been victimized, or may be victimized in the future, unless the HPV vaccination policy is discontinued. She stated Saturday:

It is still unknown which motivation was the bureaucrats’ primary concern when they demanded the revision of the package insert on March 26. The movements of the association have been closely monitored by the health ministry’s bureaucracy.

Dr. Sato stated Friday he is also aware of the two possible implications of the directive issued by the ministry. He said:

It is truly commendable that some conscientious bureaucrats at the ministry appear to have made serious efforts to alert relevant people with the directive and instruct pharmaceutical manufacturers to add references to a possible outbreak of ADEM and GBS to their package inserts. But, bureaucrats’ desire to avoid being held responsible by courts at a later date for neglecting their supervisory and regulatory duties; thus increasing the number of victims appears to have played a greater part in motivating the ministry to issue the directive.

The revision to the package inserts would make a meaningful difference, if a lawsuit were filed down the track. With the issuance of the directive, bureaucrats would be able to tell victims, parents and their supporters that the ministry had issued an important warning on possible adverse effects and that the victimized are therefore responsible, as they simply did not notice the reference to the risks thus included in the insert.

Dr. Sato called attention to the coincidental dates: with the association holding the first meeting of vaccine victims and their parents on March 25 – one day before the issuance of the directive. The ministry must have been following a string of events leading to the establishment of the association for which people of good intentions joined forces to free victims from their agony and prevent the drug manufacturers, medical associations and government from producing more victims, whether unintentionally, through half-awareness and knowledge of adverse events, or due to callous indifference to possible serious consequences of HPV vaccines on girls’ health.

Dr. Sato called attention to another key dimension of the HPV vaccination issue now being faced by numerous doctors in Japan and elsewhere, when he stated:

When a doctor sees a girl who developed various symptoms caused by ADEM or GBS following vaccination, he or she would not be able to recognize the symptoms as those resulting from ADEM or GBS unless that doctor had deep knowledge of neurological disorders or diseases. It is not easy for doctors to associate symptoms they are seeing with ADEM or GBS. In Japan, the percentage of doctors who can recognize the symptoms of girls who one day come to see them as consequences of ADEM must be less than 0.1 percent of our doctors’ population.

Government authorities need to draw up and issue unified diagnostic criteria to help doctors recognize symptoms induced by ADEM and GBS as such and call the attention of doctors to said criteria. Most doctors who may see vaccine-ravaged girls in the future must be made familiar with the symptoms.

Dr. Sato warned:

Merely getting drug makers to alter the package insert is not adequate to increase the awareness of doctors and medical consumers of the potential risks of these two vaccines. Unless the government makes very serious efforts to direct attention to the possible horrible adverse effects of these vaccines, it is likely many doctors will continue administering injections of the vaccines without being able to pay necessary levels of attention to the causal link between the vaccines and their adverse effects.

Japanese politicians speak

28 March 2013, a select Committee for Health, Welfare and Labor held a special session so questions about HPV vaccines could be addressed prior to a parliamentary vote on whether to add three diseases, cervical cancer being one of them, to the list of vaccines whose cost should be fully covered by the government under the nation’s existing Preventive Vaccination Law.^[3]

Of the 722 members of Japan’s Parliament, two voices have repeatedly questioned the sanity of universal HPV vaccinations in Japan, particularly strongly both on the parliamentary floor and via the mass media. One voice was Ms. Tomoko Hata, Member of Parliament, but not a member of the Committee for Health, Welfare and Labor. The other was that of Mrs. Eriko Yamatani, a former aide to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party toppled the leftist-dominated Democratic Party of Japan in a general election for the House of Representatives, the more powerful of Japan’s bicameral parliamentary system, only on December 16, 2012, with Abe assuming the premiership on December 26.

Ms. Hata made sure those present at the question and answer session were made aware of the following facts about HPV and cervical cancer in Japan:

The proportion of Japanese women who carry HPV types 16/18 is much lower than women in western countries. (0.5% for HPV 16 and 0.2% for HPV 18)
More than 99.1% of the carriers of human papillomavirus will not get cancer.
90% of those exposed to HPV will discharge/clear the virus in 2 years.
90% of those who develop very early signs of cervical cancer (cervical dysplasia) will recover spontaneously.
The number of serious adverse effects reported was 52 times greater after Cervarix than reports after flu vaccinations; 26 times higher after Gardasil than after flu vaccinations.

The same day, Japan’s Parliament voted to include cervical cancer in the list of vaccines that are fully subsidized by the government under the law. Hata voted against the proposed inclusion, while Yamatani and a few others abstained on the vote.

Four years earlier, on October 16, 2009, the government of Japan, which was still under the control of the leftist DPJ-led government approved the sale of Cervarix in Japan. Then, on February 1, 2011, the government began spending taxpayer money via a partial subsidy program, under which the cost of HPV vaccines was split between the central government and local prefectural governments across the nation. Under this program, the central government put up 15 billion yen under the “emergency promotion program.” After the subsidy program was put in place, the marketing of Gardasil was approved on July 1, 2011. The DPJ-led government and the health ministry jointly adopted a policy of fully subsidizing the vaccines on May 23, 2012, despite the fact they were aware of reports of outbreaks of numerous cases of adverse reactions among recipients. This was followed by a change of power last December.

Since the coalition government of Abe’s LDP and the New Komeito Party, as well as opposition parties overwhelmingly voted to start fully subsidizing HPV vaccines on March 28, 2013, the government set aside 100 billion yen for the fiscal year that started on April 1^st.

Because the LDP-led government took over the health ministry’s bureaucracy, which had cooperated with the DPJ-led government, it also took over the agreement to fully subsidize HPV vaccine administration. The new administration found it difficult to correct and jettison the wrong policy while the vaccine manufacturers continued to lobby to preserve the full subsidization policy through various channels and connections with powerful political circles.

Cervical cancer vaccine victims and parents organize

Meanwhile, victims of serious adverse reactions throughout Japan organized under the Nationwide Liaison Association of Cervical Cancer Vaccine Victims and Parents. Through the collection of adverse event reports from individuals (see link to chart below^[4]), they began to understand that the officially reported adverse events were merely the ‘tip of the iceberg.’

This organization is currently petitioning government health officials to:

Ban the use of HPV vaccines in their country and acknowledge HPV vaccine injuries
Establish treatment for HPV vaccine victims
Provide financial relief for HPV vaccine victims
Investigate all who have been inoculated with HPV vaccines
Include the nation’s top neurological scientist, who saw dozens of victims, in a health ministry committee on the fate of the vaccines

Japan suspends HPV vaccine recommendation

The Nationwide Liaison Association of Cervical Cancer Vaccine Victims and Parents has apparently made an impression on their government health officials.

In an unprecedented move, less than three months after pushing legislation through Parliament granting full subsidization of HPV vaccines, government officials in Japan suspended that recommendation pending the outcome of investigations into the safety of Gardasil and Cervarix.[5,6]

On the same day the HPV vaccine recommendation was suspended, 14 June 2013, the health ministry issued another directive to the chairman of the committee on safety of medicines at the Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association of Japan in the name of Tomiko Tawaragi, Director of Safety Division, Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau.^[7] This letter required the manufacturers of Gardasil and Cervarix to add the following to the ‘Precautions’ section of their package inserts within the next 30 days:

Although the mechanisms of pathogenesis are unclear, severe pain which is not localized at the injection site (e.g. muscle pain, arthralgia and skin pain, etc.), numbness, weakness, etc., may occur after vaccination and these symptoms may persist for long time. Vaccine recipients and their guardians should be instructed to consult a healthcare provider who can provide appropriate medical care including making neurological and immunological differential diagnosis if any abnormalities are observed after vaccination.

Please note, the paragraph above instructs vaccine recipients and/or their guardians to consult a physician if ANY abnormalities are observed after vaccination. Have medical consumers in your country been made aware of these possible adverse reactions?

Japan’s actions raise questions for medical consumers worldwide

1) Do your health authorities believe in the right to informed consent?

2) Will the risks associated with HPV vaccines be explained, as well as the benefits?

3) Will alternative cervical cancer preventive measures be explained?

4) Will the risk factors for developing cervical cancer be explained?

5) Do health authorities in your country understand what adverse effects are possible after HPV vaccines?

6) Are your healthcare providers trained to recognize these events as possible vaccine reactions?

7) What happens if you experience an adverse reaction to an HPV vaccine?

Think about it—if HPV vaccines are as good as they should be, all of these questions should be easy to answer. You have a right to know. It is called the right to informed consent.

What is more important to you – vaccine safety, or vaccine uptake?

Article originally published under the title, HPV Vaccines: Japan requires disclosure of side effects.

Sources:

Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Safety Information, no. 301, May 2013 (pages 7-13); Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan
VAERS search for ADEM; VAERS search for GBS; conducted 25 Aug 20113
Health, Welfare and Labor ~ question HPV vaccine (translation of video kindly provided for SaneVax by Shinji Sato)
Individual Adverse Event Reports from Japan – collected by MS Toshie Ikeda (G=Gardasil; S=Cervarix; each vertical line is one person, with their symptoms indicated by a green circle)
Breaking News: Japan Suspends Recommendation of HPV Vaccines, Erickson, June 2013
HPV Vaccines: Japan Leads the Way; Erickson, June 2013
Letter from Director of Safety, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare to Chairman of Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association of Japan, June 14, 2013

Flu Vaccines Can Make Influenza Worse: Study

A universal flu vaccine sounds like a good idea, especially if you’re on the fence about vaccinations. There would, at least, be fewer injections. However, one researcher has shown that a flu vaccine can result in far more virulent infection when exposed to a similar strain of flu virus—and another has found out why & also demonstrated that the risk of worse infection applies to upcoming universal flu vaccines.

Pig with Gas Mask, by Guilherme Tavares (Hypodermic added)

by Heidi Stevenson

As documented by a new study, getting a flu vaccination can result in coming down with a more virulent influenza. This phenomenon was noted during the swine flu pandemic-that-wasn’t a couple of years ago, but pooh-poohed by skeptics.

In the study^[1] published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, pigs were given a universal flu vaccine of the type currently under development. They developed a more virulent form of influenza that readily turned into pneumonia when exposed to a strain similar to the variety used in the vaccine.

This supports the work of Dr. Danuta Skowronski, of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, who investigated the data related to the 2009 swine flu “pandemic”. She noted that people who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in the fall of 2008 were more likely to fall ill when the “pandemic” swine flu came around the following spring and summer. Skeptics, of course, denied her findings. Regarding Skowronski’s research, she stated to The Canadian Press^[2]:

I think … what they’re showing is a biological mechanism that warrants further evaluation in terms of its relevance to the use of seasonal vaccines in humans and what that may mean for the next pandemic threat. …

… It’s concerning, obviously, because if this is the mechanism, then it means there needs to be a lot more … attention paid to these universal vaccine candidates that are targeting that stalk antibody.

The “stalk antibody” refers to the part of a virus that the developers of a “universal” vaccine hope to target. Here’s what Dr. Skowronski is referring to:

Hemagglutinin

The old way of making flu vaccines requires that flu viruses be grown in a medium, generally eggs. This process is time consuming and expensive. Now, recombinant DNA—that is, genetic engineering—is used. Bacteria are engineered to grow flu antigens—in some cases, adjuvants, or combinations of the two.

The antigens that are grown in bacteria are similar to bits of the hemagglutinin (HA) of a flu virus. This HA grown by bacteria is processed to become the antigen in a flu virus vaccine.

There are a limited number of HA types – 17 – and most of them do not infect humans. However, there are far more than 17 types of influenza viruses. Ten possible subtypes, called neuraminadases (NAs) can be associated with each HA type. These combinations determine the different types of flu, which are labeled as H-number-N-number.

H refers to HA , N refers to NA, and the numbers refer to the particular type of each. There are 17 types of HA and 10 types of NA, and each combination defines a particular type of influenza. Swine flu is the familiar H1N1, and H5N1 is a type of bird flu that’s been known to infect humans.

Here’s a summary:

Bacteria are genetically engineered to grow flu virus antigens that duplicate bits of HAs.
Each type of influenza is identified by a combination of one of 17 types of HA and one of 10 types of NA.
Thus, flu types are named according to the HA/NA combination, such as H5N1 or H7N9.

Universal Flu Vaccine

Hemagglutinin, that part of a virus that sticks out and becomes the target of antibodies, can be thought of as shaped like a lollipop, so that there’s a stem and a head. The entire lollipop-shaped HA is classified as one of the 17 types. Current flu recombinant DNA vaccines target molecules of the head, making them effective only for a single HxNx variety. That is, a vaccine against H1N1 is effective only against type H1N1 flu, but cannot protect against H1N2 flu.

The goal of universal flu vaccine development is to target the stem. The idea is that targeting the stem would create antibodies to all flus of a single HA type. Thus, the researchers believe that a “universal” flu vaccine against type H1 hemagglutinin would be effective against all H1 type flus, not just a single type. Likewise, a “universal” flu vaccine against type H2 would protect against all H2 type flus, and so forth.

Confirmation

The study produced by Dr. Vincent and her team demonstrated that pigs vaccinated against H1N2 type flu suffered an “enhanced pneumonia and disease” on being infected with H1N1 flu. Their investigation showed that antibodies created by the vaccine formed against the stem area of HA, not the head.^[3]

Note that both the HA types involved in the pig experiment were H1. They were vaccinated against the H1N2 type of flu, but infected with the H1N1 type. The vaccine against H1N2 caused some of the antibodies to respond to the stem of the HA, not just the head, resulting in cross reactivity. This resulted in a reaction with the lungs of pigs when infected with H1N1 type flu, resulting in a more virulent flu and pneumonia. The authors stated:

These findings should be considered during the evaluation of universal influenza [of a certain type].

This appears to confirm Dr. Skowronski’s observations that people who had been vaccinated against one flu type were at risk for a more virulent infection by a different, but similar one. It should also, according to Dr. Vincent and her co-researchers, be cause for concern in the development of universal flu vaccines that utilize this approach.

Precautionary Principle?

As ever, what we’re seeing in the mad rush to develop new influenza vaccines is an utter lack of concern for the precautionary principle. Where there’s money to be made in the massive antigen quantities that recombinant DNA can produce, the approach is to go full-steam ahead. Simply make claims that the vaccines are fully tested for effectiveness and safety. Whether it’s true is not a concern—only whether they can sell the product.

When risks show up, as they did when Dr. Skowronski found that previous vaccination resulted in more severe cases of swine flu, they’re denied and ignored.

What do you suppose will happen now that a scientific study has clearly documented that influenza vaccination can result in significantly worse cases of flu if the vaccine strain is similar to the infectious strain? You can be fairly sure that nothing will slow these insane pharmaceutical firms and their mad scientists. After all, the major news media haven’t touched this story.

This information about the serious risk inherent in the development of a universal flu vaccine is already being suppressed.

Big Pharma and their regulatory toadies will see to it that nothing gets in the way of universal flu vaccines—and the propaganda to be vaccinated will be ratcheted up to spread lies about how your health and that of everyone around you is dependent on getting your flu vaccine.

You may find this article on new recombinant DNA technology used in vaccines, but with a focus on its use in adjuvants: New Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants: Worst Ever?

Sources:

Vaccine-Induced Anti-HA2 Antibodies Promote Virus Fusion and Enhance Influenza Virus Respiratory Disease; Science Translational Medicine; Surender Khurana, Crystal L. Loving, Jody Manischewitz, Lisa R. King, Phillip C. Gauger, Jamie Henningson, Amy L. Vincent, and Hana Golding; DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006366.
Study raises red flag for universal flu vaccine; The Canadian Press; Helen Branswell; 28 August 2013.
Influenza, an ever-evolving target for vaccine development. Understanding Evolution, February 2013.

Gardasil Provides No Benefit: CDC Study

The recent Gardasil study by the CDC claims that the vaccine has significantly reduced HPV infections. The authors’ claim bears little resemblance to the study’s results. Here’s an analysis demonstrating that, in reality, no conclusions can be drawn—that the study’s results are inconsistent, based on non-matched samples, and mixed the groups being compared.

Junked Science

by Heidi Stevenson

Recently, the mainstream news media was worked up about a study claiming that Gardasil has proven to be effective in preventing HPV (humanpapillomavirus) infections, and thereby, the implication that it will also prevent cervical cancer. However, careful perusal of the study shows something entirely different—that the vaccine provides no discernible benefit.

Lest there be any doubt about the study’s claim, the title is “Reduction in Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Prevalence Among Young Women Following HPV Vaccine Introduction in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2003–2010″. Clearly, the point the authors wanted to get across is that Gardasil, the HPV vaccine in question, works.

It sounds outrageous to claim that a study with that title doesn’t live up to its promise. However, the authors focused the spotlight on only a small portion of their results to give that impression. When placed into proper perspective, the only legitimate conclusion to be be drawn is that Gardasil does not provide any benefit.

The study, financed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) relied on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), an ongoing CDC group of studies “to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States.” The researchers of this study looked at data from two sampling periods, 2003-2006, the “pre-vaccine era”, and 2007-2010, the “post-vaccine” era, because vaccinations were started in 2007 (with a few exceptions at the end of 2006).

The vaccine is designed to prevent infections of four types of HPV: types 6 and 11, which cause genital warts, and types 16 and 18, which can cause cervical cancer—though in the vast majority of cases, they are naturally healed by the body and cause no known problems.

The result that the authors and news media have heavily promoted is that the 14-19 year old age range saw a reduction between the two time periods of 11.5% to 5.1% in types 16 and 18 HPV infections. That does sound significant. It seems to indicate that Gardasil has reduced the incidence of infection by 56 percent, a highly significant amount.

Different Ages, Different Results

However, by their own estimation, the sample size is too small to make any real conclusions. Yet, that’s precisely what they did, as their title clearly demonstrates! But the truth is significantly worse than that little slip. The vaccine was not given only to 14-19 years olds, it was also given to young women up through age 26. So what were the results in the age ranges of 20-24 and 25-29?

Ages 20-24 saw an infection rate increase from 18.5% to 19.9%—1.08 times more infections!

Ages 25-29 saw an infection rate increase from 11.8% to 13.1%—1.11 times more infections!

If the Gardasil vaccine had worked as claimed, wouldn’t there have been an infection reduction in those two age groups, too? Though they weren’t vaccinated as frequently, many young women did get it. Therefore, if there’s a reduction in HPV infections that can be attributed to the vaccine in 14-19 year olds, then surely there would be a reduction in ages 20-29, albeit smaller since fewer young women were vaccinated than teens. Instead, there was an increase!

Mixing Ages

No information was provided about how long after vaccinations the interviews and examinations were done. It appears that there was no consistency, that some may have been interviewed 6 months after vaccination, while others could have been interviewed 3 or 4 years later. For example, a girl might have been vaccinated in early 2007 at age 16, but not interviewed until she was 20 in 2010. That would put her in a different age range.

A large percentage of the girls who were in the 14-19 age group when vaccinated would have been in the 20-24 age range when questioned by NHANES. So that would also serve to decrease the percentage of 20-24 year olds infected with types 16 & 18 HPV—certainly not result in the increase this study shows. The same logic can be used for the next age range, 25-29.

Therefore, the groups are not discretely separated, as the authors would seem to imply.

Oversampled Group

Another anomaly could explain the discrepancy between the results of girls aged 14-19 and those 20-29. The sampling done between 2007 and 2010 was different for girls aged 14-19. According to the study:

To increase the precision of estimates, NHANES oversampled certain subdomains. In NHANES 1999–2006, Mexican Americans, blacks, low income white and others, and adolescents aged 12–19 years were oversampled. In 2007–2010, Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks, and low income white and others were oversampled. Because adolescents were not oversampled in 2007–2010, there was a reduced number of individuals aged 14–19 years.

In the 2007-2010 timeframe, Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks, and low income people were oversampled … except among adolescents! In other words, the groups were not similar; they were intentionally made dissimilar. Did that make a difference? Perhaps—but we do not know. What we do know is that the researchers may have been comparing apples with oranges in teenaged girls between the two timespans.

Researchers’ Conflict of Interest

So why didn’t the authors tell the whole story? That seems quite obvious. They’re all CDC employees. The CDC has been promoting Gardasil very heavily. They not only financed the study, their own employees produced it. In an agency that was headed by Julie Gerberding, who left to take a highly lucrative position as vice president of Merck’s vaccine division, it isn’t difficult to see that no one who does anything counter to the prevailing vaccines-for-everything-for-everyone is likely to have a future with the CDC. As one research fellow with the agency stated on GlassDoor.ca:

Whether you become an FTE (full time employee) depends exclusively on politics, not on your hard-work and accomplishments.

The study that promotes the claim that Gardasil has reduced HPV infections has done nothing of the sort. In fact, it may provide better evidence for a contention that it has increased infection rates. After all, only one of the three age groups involved actually appeared to have a reduced rate of HPV infections. Let me clarify that I am not making that claim, as I do not believe that this study comes close to demonstrating any valid conclusions. However, such a claim would hold every bit as much validity as what the authors concluded.

Summary

There are four highly significant concerns with the results of this study:

The authors acknowledged that the sample size was inadequate.
The results were anomalous. All of the three age groups, 14-19, 20-24, and 25-29, should have had similar results. That is, they should all have shown an increase or decrease in infection rates. Yet they most assuredly did not.
The groups were not distinct from each other, so that age ranges between vaccination and examination could result in a subject starting out in one age range, but being examined after entering the next age range.
The 14-19 age group was not oversampled for the 2007-2010 timespan, which means that group is not homologous with the 14-19 2003-2006 group.

The authors are all employed by the CDC, which financed the study and actively promotes the Gardasil vaccine. The fact that they have presented the results in a highly biased manner is clear. It would appear that the study was spun to give the impression of a certain result, with little concern for whether the data actually supports it. It wouldn’t be out of line to label the study as pseudo science or junk science.

Here is a copy of the results presented by the study:

Source:

Reduction in Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Prevalence Among Young Women Following HPV Vaccine Introduction in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2003–2010. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. Lauri E. Markowitz, Susan Hariri, Carol Lin, Eileen F. Dunne, Martin Steinau, Geraldine McQuillan, and Elizabeth R. Unger. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jit192.

Vaccine Cause & Effect Simplification Hides Adverse Effects

As far too many parents know, adverse events from vaccines are routinely hidden away behind glib words, like “coincidence”. Even so, more people are becoming aware, which is the likely reason that the WHO limits vaccine adverse event causation determinations to yes or no. This oversimplification is a means of hiding adverse effects.

Dr. King’s Thoughts on AEFI (adverse event following inoculation) classification issues for serious adverse events (SAEs) following vaccine inoculation focused on the “new” vaccination program case (e.g., the “new” pentavalent vaccine being “introduced” into Asia):

In general, the designation of an infant’s death following shortly after an inoculation session as “SIDS” is inappropriate absent a complete detailed autopsy that rules out any brain, brain stem or cardiovascular inflammation as well as any and all out-of-control immune-system aberrations.

Thus, in many cases, the “SIDS” label is misused to hide “death by vaccination” especially when high fever, wailing, seizures, convulsions, body rigidity and/or body flaccidity are observed just after vaccination.

As to the true cost-benefit, since only a small percentage of AEFIs are reported to VAERS, the VAERS-reported deaths underestimate the vaccination-associated deaths by a factor of 10 to 100+.

Moreover, in those instances where the vaccine contains a live-virus component, whether the virus is intended to be present or is present as a contaminant, the inoculation infects the inoculee—leading to a greatly reduced reporting of cases of infection that, when they manifest as clinical disease, should be reported but generally are not!

As I have stated previously, the classification of SAEs leading to reported AEFIs should have multiple categories:

“caused by”,
“probably caused by”,
“possibly caused by”,
“unclassifiable at present” (because of a lack of critical information),
“possibly not caused by”,
“probably not caused by” and
“proven not caused by”.

When there are only a few AEFIs for a new vaccine, categories “1.” through “3.“ should be considered as “causal” but only category “7.” should be considered as “not causal”—the other categories, “5.” And “6.”, should be considered as “indeterminate” because of the scarcity of AEFIs.

As the number of AEFIs common to a particular vaccine increases, the AEFIs in category “2.” will probably move toward category ”1.” or stay put while the AEFIs in category “3.” will move toward category “2.” or stay put. The AEFIs in category “4.” will tend to move into another category as the growing number of AEFIs narrow the information needed to classify a given AEFI properly, and the SAEs in categories “5.” and “6.” may move toward “causal” or “not causal” as the understanding of the pattern(s) of SAEs associated with a given vaccine or vaccine set expands.

In a population of millions, the noise from genetic diversity and other factors (e.g., diet, sanitation, hygiene, housing, war, clothing, availability of adequate amounts of safe food, and availability of clean potable water) preclude any valid black/white classification scheme for AEFIs, such as that being proposed by the WHO, as does the lack of universal availability of in-depth differential diagnostic work-ups on those who are injured and/or detailed microscopic and immunological work-ups on those who die after vaccination or, for that matter, after other medications and/or medical procedures.

In the scientific world of “cause and effect”, the scientific method initially presumes that, for apparently healthy persons (only those to whom prophylactic vaccines are supposed to be administered), the adverse events that develop after inoculation (AEFIs) are directly or indirectly caused by the inoculation, unless there is proof that the inoculation cannot be a: a) direct causal, b) contributing causal, or c) triggering causal factor for the reported AEFIs following that inoculation.

Thus, finding that the inoculee has some other medical condition that may also be causal does not, as those who are attempting to ignore the scientific method claim, rule out the vaccination as also being a causal factor. [Note: A recognized example of this is “asbestosis”, where those who smoke are at higher risk, but some non-smokers are diagnosed with “asbestosis”. In this simplistic example, in the vaccine defenders’ (WHO’s) world, asbestos could not be a causal factor for lung disease unless the person did not smoke—an absurd assumption—one that is as absurd as claiming that a child’s merely having some other medical condition (diagnosis) somehow prevents a vaccination from being a causal factor for the post-inoculation SAE observed.

Paul G. King, PhD,
President, FAME Systems