Conventional Medicine | Gaia-Health.link

Background Mortality Rate for Vaccines, or Pseudo Study?

Parents of vaccine-injured children call for a study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. So the CDC has come up with a study that, at first glance, appears to provide just that. But that’s just the first glance. A closer view shows that it looks more like another attempt to obscure the truth.

by Heidi Stevenson

A study claims to do what should have been done decades ago: identify the background rate of mortality so that an accurate rate of vaccination risk can be determined. It’s fairly obvious that such information would be of great value. If you know how many people die in an unvaccinated population, then the rate of death after a vaccine is introduced can beidentified fairly accurately. This study, though, suffers from a multitude of problems that negate any possibility of providing a genuine background rate of mortality to determine a vaccine’s risk.

Most Obvious Flaws

The most obvious concern is that the new study does not determine the death rate in an unvaccinated population. In fact, only vaccinated people are included! So how can it possibly provide information about the background death rate in unvaccinated people?

Nonetheless, the study, published in the American Review of Preventive Medicine, states that its goal is to:

Provide background mortality rates and describe causes of death following vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

The study investigates only the death rate within 60 days of vaccination. In fact, most of the conditions association with vaccines are long term, not ones that kill quickly. Therefore, most people harmed by vaccines would not be detected through such a simplistic approach. Another consideration is that the study specifically eliminates anyone who has not been vaccinated, since the date of vaccination is the start time for each person’s entry into the study.

The study was produced by Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and 10 managed care organizations (MCOs), including 6 Kaiser facilities, Group Health Cooperative of Seattle, Washington, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, both of Boston, Massachussetts, and Marshfield Clinic of Marshfield, Wisconsin. The VSD is supposed to provide, according to the CDC, “immunization safety studies” and states:

The VSD has proven to be a highly effective tool for evaluating immunization safety. Since 1990, investigators from the VSD has [sic] published numerous scientific studies on the best ways to use existing immunization safety data.^[2]

Interestingly, the VSD consistently finds absolutely nothing wrong with vaccine safety—not even for the so-called cervical cancer vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, for which extremely high rates of severe adverse effects compared to any other vaccines have been documented, based on the CDC’s and FDA’s own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Claims of No Conflict of Interest Exaggerated

It’s fairly obvious from this alone that the CDC itself is vested in covering up the harms done by vaccines. Serious research, including laboratory studies like those done by Christopher Shaw and Romain Gherardi and their groups, or mathematical analyses, like those done by Neil Z. Miller and Gary Goldman—to name only some of the best known researchers—has documented the strong link between vaccines and severe harm, including autism and a range of autoimmune and neurological disorders. Yet, virtually everything vaccine-related that comes out of the CDC serves to whitewash them.

This study claims that only one of its researchers has any conflict of interest. That one, Roger Baxter, receives research grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, which are all major vaccine makers. However, we need to go deeper than such obvious links to vaccine manufacturers in determining whether there’s any untoward influence. In this case, the lead researcher, Frank DeStefano, by virtue of his position as Director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, which funded this study, cannot truly be considered free of bias. DeStefano recently produced a study claiming that there is no link between autism and vaccinations. Gaia Health documented how deeply flawed it is in CDC Claim of No Autism-Vaccine Link Based on Junk Science.

The previous director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, left that position to take on the highly lucrative position of Merck’s vaccine division president and is also director of MSD Wellcome Trust Hilleman Laboratories Private Limited. She is an example of the routine movement of people from the CDC to lush positions in the pharmaceutical industry that they’re supposed to be regulating.

It begs credulity to suggest that there is no conflict of interest between the CDC and the vaccine industry. This study stands as a monument to that fact.

Subtle Flaws

Aside from the obvious flaws of not even looking at the unvaccinated and only considering deaths up to 60 days after a vaccination, there are other less apparent flaws.

Types and Numbers of Vaccinations

No consideration was given for what type of vaccination was given or whether they were combination or multiple vaccinations. That most likely has a significant effect on the results. People of all ages were included in the study, and it’s highly unlikely that people of different ages received the same vaccines. After all, adults are rarely given vaccines usually given for childhood disease, such as measles, mumps, and rubella. Adults receive far fewer combination or multiple vaccines. Thus all vaccinations and vaccines were treated as equal. How did this affect the results? We simply do not know.

Time of Enrollment in Study

Time in the study is counted only until an individual’s death. That may seem okay on the surface, but it means that those who died earlier are weighted less than those who died later or survived. A person who died the day after a vaccination compared to someone who lived for 60 days counts only one-sixtieth as much. That gives more weight to the person who lived longer.

Person-Years

The study provides its primary results in terms of person-years. This is simply not a valid measurement for this type of study. It’s useful in a study that’s concerned with time of exposure to something, such as a toxin. It can demonstrate that short term exposure is less harmful than long term exposure, or that harm develops within a certain period of time.

However, this study was not like that. Instead, it was about harm produced by a single event, vaccination. In such a study, person-time results do not provide the needed information. What’s needed in a study like this is a figure that tells us what percent of people are harmed. It can be interesting and helpful to learn how long after an event the harm occurred, but the salient concern is simply whether the event occurred or didn’t occur.

Assumption of Health at Time of Vaccinaton

The authors state:

Generally, people are more likely to receive a vaccine when they are in a relatively healthy, disease-free state, and the VSD mortality rates demonstrate this healthy
vaccinee effect.

Is this true? The fact is that public health authorities tend to focus on people who are considered to be immune-compromised or otherwise unhealthy in their vaccination programs! That’s the antithesis of the assumption made by the authors of this study. It could very well be that the average vaccinee is less healthy than the average person, not the opposite.

No Limits to Evade Doing a Study Comparing Vaccinated with Unvaccinated

It’s quite obvious that the only way to allay concerns of vaccinations risks—or to prove them valid—is with an honest, large-scale study comparing outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. If our health agencies were interested in the truth, the first thing they’d have done is such a study. But they refuse to do one. Instead, they have trotted out this pseudo science, which gives the impression that they’re providing the basis for making such a comparison.

The CDC promotes it with the following statement:

Determining the baseline mortality rate in a vaccinated population is necessary to be able to identify any unusual increases in deaths following vaccine administration.^[3]

That sounds true, but notice that they there’s no clarification about what group of people is included in the background. As it happens, in this study the background consists of people who are vaccinated! They go on to say:

Although there is currently no evidence to support a causal relationship between vaccinations and death, this study provides background mortality rates following vaccination to be used as a baseline when examining the safety profiles of new vaccines and during mass immunization campaigns.^p3[

A casual read gives us the impression that this study looks at the mortality rates of unvaccinated people, but careful reading shows otherwise. The CDC has absolutely no interest in discovering whether the current vaccine schedule is harming and killing people.

Science is being perverted by the very agencies that are tasked with protecting the public’s health. There appears to be no limit of subterfuge and use of junk science in the effort to support these agencies’ true agenda: to provide cover for and enforce the will of their true masters, Big Pharma.

Sources:

Mortality Rates and Cause-of-Death Patterns in a Vaccinated Population; American Review of Preventive Medicine; McCarthy et al; doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.020.
Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)
Background mortality rates crucial to interpreting post-vaccination deaths

Tagged background mortality rate, big pharma, big pharma vaccination, cdc, cdc pseudo science, cdc vaccines, centers for disease control, destefano vaccine background mortality, destefano vaccine study, health time of vaccination, health vaccination, junk science, person-years, person-years mortality, person-years vaccine study, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals vaccines, pseudo-science, study of background mortality rate for vaccines. vaccination mortality, vaccine, vaccine background mortality rate, vaccine mortality, vaccine mortality rate, vaccine safety data link, vaccines, vaccines background mortality

Health Agency Officials Knowingly Mislead on Vaccines

Big Pharma collaborators make key decisions about vaccines in health agencies like the CDC & FDA. As this review of official responses to a congressional inquiry clearly demonstrate, the agencies don’t care that it results in the destruction of children’s lives & they will never do the studies that can prove vaccines’ harms.

Lies in Stained Glass, photo by Leo Reynolds

by Christina England (VacTruth)

For many years, parents have believed that multiple vaccinations have caused their children to become autistic. Governments from around the world, however, have categorically denied this possibility.They continue to bury their heads in the sand and ignore what is happening. They refuse to carry out relevant studies and will not answer any questions that may uncover the truth about vaccines.

Their actions are clearly demonstrated in a video titled AutismOne & Generation Rescue 2013 Conference Congressional Panel, featuring Congressman Burton (R-IN), Congressman Weldon, MD (R-FL) and Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL), published on May 11, 2013.

The video highlights what has been going on behind closed doors over the years and gives parents the rare opportunity to witness first hand the lies that are being told and the sheer enormity of the vaccine deception.^[1]

Vaccines, Lies, and Videotape

The video begins in the year 2000.

Representative Dan Burton, chairman of the 2000 House Government Reform Committee on Autism and Childhood Vaccines, opened the conference by stating that autism, once considered a rare disorder, has become a near epidemic. He said that it is a top priority to carry out as much research into the potential connection between vaccines and autism as possible. He finished his introduction to Congress by stating that we must stop burying our heads in the sand and ignoring this possibility.

Turning to Dr. Coleen Boyle, the Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), he asked:

We have been checking all the financial records of the FDA, the HHS, the CDC. Do you believe that anybody who is getting funds from Merck or any of the other pharmaceutical companies should be on advisory panels that are making judgements about pharmaceuticals coming from those companies, or do you believe that is a conflict of interest?

Now, for many of us, this question would appear to be relatively simple for someone of Dr. Boyle’s standing to answer. However, it was not simple for Dr. Boyle; she appeared to be rendered speechless, before stating:

I think that is a difficult question to answer.

Congressman Burton then turned to Dr. Paul Offit and said:

You talk about collaboration, I guess with the Merck pharmaceutical company?

To which Offit stuttered:

Yes, I, um, as I, um, disclosed in my written report, I have been in collaboration with Merck and Company on the development of the Rotavirus vaccine since 1992.

To which Congressman Burton simply replied:

They produce the MMR, don’t they?

Looking back towards Dr. Boyle, Burton asked her why the CDC did not include the possibility that some of these vaccines may have caused the autism increase as one of the potential causes they were investigating, asking her to check out this matter. Despite replying that she would, it appears that once again this relatively simple task was too difficult for Dr. Boyle, because thirteen years later, we are still awaiting her answer.

After speaking to other members of Congress, Congressman Burton turned back to Dr. Boyle and stated very firmly:

Dr. Boyle, for your information, at a public meeting in Brick Township in January in 1997, and you should know this, with

the CDC and others present, several of the audience members asked about the vaccines and the possible autism link and they asked for that to be checked.

He continued:

And I submit that maybe, just maybe, it’s because the pharmaceutical company that manufactures it had some influence on the people in that meeting and they said, ‘Hey, we don’t want to get into that,” and if that’s the case, that is damn near criminal.

Concluding the 2000 clip, I feel that Dr. Bernard Rimland made the most honest response of the day, when he answered Dan Burton’s question as to whether, after listening to the comments made at the meeting and carrying out his own scientific research, there was any possibility that vaccines were contributing to the increase in autism.

Dr. Rimland answered:

There is not only the possibility, there is an extremely high likelihood, from all the evidence available.

Those are strong words, so why has he been ignored?

Government Agencies Continue to Ignore Pleas for Intervention

Moving on to 2002, it appeared as if nothing much had changed. Once again, Congressman Dan Burton can be seen chairing the panel meeting, opening with an extremely poignant and moving piece of film of a child suffering with severe autism to demonstrate what parents cope with on a daily basis.

This piece of film moved the audience to tears and Congressman Burton commented that his grandson, along with thousands of other children across the country, were perfectly normal until they received multiple vaccines and continued by adding this extremely strong statement:

So, we can’t let the pharmaceutical industries and our government cover this mess up today because it ain’t gonna go away and it’s going to cost the taxpayers trillions more if we wait around on it and for our FDA, the HHS and the health agencies to continue to hide behind this facade that there have been studies that conclusively prove otherwise, is just wrong, too!

In fact, the whole video from beginning to end clearly shows evidence that this heated debate has carried on for more than a decade. Each year the same issues and the same problems appear to be discussed, and yet the panel comes to the same conclusion that studies are not being carried out to investigate the link between vaccines and autism.

So, why is this happening and why is nothing being done?

Government Investigator Turned Fugitive

In 2012, we see Congressman Bill Posey has taken over the task of trying to question the elusive and now somewhat greying Dr. Boyle from the CDC, about vaccinations and autism.

Congressman Posey asks:

Dr. Boyle, my predecessor Congressman Welder was a well-respected, competent medical doctor and I glean from him with some certainty he felt thimerosal in vaccinations definitely was a contributory factor to autism and I wonder if the CDC has conducted or facilitated a study comparing vaccinated children with unvaccinated children yet? Have you done that?

As expected, instead of answering the question asked of her, Dr. Boyle avoids his question completely and answers by stating:

We have done a number of studies looking at the relationship between thimerosal vaccines and autism and other developmental disabilities.

Not to give up on his line of questioning, Congressman Posey rephrased his question in the hope that he may have gotten a direct answer, asking:

So, clearly, definitely, unequivocally, you have studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated?

To which she replied:

We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Just as she tried to continue with yet more waffle, Congressman Posey stopped her in her tracks, saying:

Never mind, that was the meaning of my question, you have wasted two minutes of my time.

He then asked:

What steps has the CDC undertaken to ensure the integrity of the research that was performed by Dr. Thorsen, who, as you know, has been indicted for misconduct in the misallocation of resources?

Once again Boyle can be seen avoiding his question. Instead of answering Congressman Posey directly, she tried to palm him off with incorrect data, stating that Dr. Thorsen was a co-investigator in just two of the studies carried out. This was immediately refuted by Posey, who asked if he would be allowed to submit, for the record, information proving that Dr. Thorsen was in fact involved in 21 of the 24 studies undertaken.

At no time in any part of the video did Dr. Boyle answer any question without evading the issue put before her, even when Posey asked:

Have you gone back to validate the variety of studies he participated in? I mean, you know this guy is a humongous scumbag, one of the most wanted men on earth, and you relied on him for data to determine whether thimerosal had a negative effect?

Rather than admit to Dr. Thorsen’s failings, Dr. Boyle immediately jumped to Thorsen’s defense, even though this is a man who tops the federal most wanted list for 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering, facing a total of 260 years in jail for his crimes.^[2]

Conclusion

It is obvious from listening to the video that not one person whom Congressman Burton or the panel questioned had any conclusive evidence that vaccines did not cause autism. Instead, leading figures gave false information and avoided all of the questions being asked of them. Many had conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry manufacturing the vaccines and saw no problem with this.

Members of the CDC, the FDA and other organizations sanctioning vaccinations are supposed to be independent. If, like Paul Offit, they hold patents to vaccines or are in collaboration with the companies manufacturing the vaccines, they are not independent and therefore not impartial.

Surely, parents trusting those officials with their children’s lives deserve better than this. It is time for change. For parents to have faith in the vaccine programs, they need to see concrete evidence proving that the vaccines are safe. Instead of bringing out more and more vaccines and trying to mandate vaccinations, governments and their representatives need to answer the questions being asked of them. This video is conclusive evidence that this is not happening.

Sources:

The AutismOne & Generation Rescue 2013 Congressional Panel
The curious case of Poul Thorsen, fraud and embezzlement, and the Danish vaccine-autism studies; D. Gorski

Tagged autism, autism vaccines, big pharma, big pharma collaborators, cdc vaccines autism, congress autism, congress vaccines autism, congressman burton autism, congressman posey autism, dan burton autism, study vaccinated vs unvaccinated, thorsen autism study, vaccine, vaccine harm, vaccines

Polio Elimination by Vaccine Is a Hoax

The idea that vaccines have nearly eliminated polio is taken as virtually axiomatic. But is it? This review demonstrates that the evidence demonstrates something entirely different. What do polio and acute flaccid paralysis have in common? Everything—literally.

by Paul Fassa

Perhaps you’ve seen those fierce trolling vaccine shills pop into comment sections of articles that report truthfully on vaccines. They often talk about vaccine merits that heavily outweigh risks from adverse effects—which they don’t even believe actually exist … though by now everyone should at least know there are risks from vaccinations.

A common argument whose purpose is to throw people off says that polio was eradicated by vaccinating entire populations with polio vaccines. You may think for a moment that it’s a valid argument, one that you cannot counter. But that’s simply not true.

You can strengthen your own anti-vaccination resolve or fortify your arguments by printing and using several quotes from real physicians, scientists, and other medical professionals commenting on vaccine failure in the Vaccines Uncensored website, which is full of brilliant quotations that demonstrate the absurdity of health agencies’ push for universal vaccination. Many sites that are attacked in by vaccination advocates offer some insightful information.

The ‘Change the Name’ Game

The disappearance of iron lungs, those huge devices resembling miniature, individually customized decompression chambers in which polio victims were placed to help them breathe, has led most to believe that the problem of polio is over. But the iron lung has merely been replaced with another, much smaller portable medical device known as the ventilator. Ventilators are used now to help those stricken with breathing limitations, whether from completely congested lungs, polio, or other paralysis that makes it impossible to breathe normally.

According to Dr. Suzanne Humphries M.D, shortly after 1955, the fact that the polio vaccine was even spreading polio was covered up. Dr. Humphries went on to explain how a deadly live polio virus strain had infected the Salk vaccines and created an epidemic of polio-type diseases, which were labeled aseptic meningitis or acute flaccid paralysis (AFP). The term AFP includes Guillain-Barré syndrome, aka “French Polio”, traumatic neuritis, Reye’s syndrome, enteroviral encephalitis, transverse myelitis, and poliomyelitis.

Dr. Humphries displayed a graph in her article showing how reports of polio leveled out while AFP cases have continually soared since the mid-1990s, demonstrating that polio has not disappeared.

Dr. Lorraine Day, who is an orthopedic surgeon and professor of medicine, healed herself from cancer naturally and stayed away from mainstream medicine’s harsh interventions after being “sent home to die”. She explains that vaccines don’t work in this video interview.

After polio vaccinations had begun, polio was assigned different names to hide the vaccines’ ineffectiveness. Dr. Day asserts that 80 to 100 percent of polio cases were created by the vaccine itself—but few knew it, because the name of most cases had been changed to aseptic meningitis.

Polio peaked in the early 1950s and was on its way out prior to the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine.

Then came the oral polio vaccine (OPV) using attenuated live viruses, which was invented by Albert Sabin. These weakened microbes are shed by people recently vaccinated, which can result in infections in people around them.

Sadly, the reality has proven to be even worse. Live viruses contained in OPVs tend to mutate into a more virulent strain of polio. There have even been cases in the United States where parents were stricken with paralytic polio from OPV viruses while changing their recently vaccinated babies’ diapers.

The dangerous oral polio vaccines were eventually banned in America and other industrialized nations, but the vaccine manufacturers managed to push them onto third world countries that not only paid for them, but often agreed to force the OPV on their populations.

A Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation program in India was promoted as “The Last Mile: Eradicating Polio in India”. The video displays numbers indicating thousands of Indian polio cases decades ago, with the number of cases dropping to 42 by 2010.

But those wild polio virus stats have been traded for former polio cases under a different name: non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP).

Simply change the name of a disease and it disappears, while another one appears with the same symptoms! It’s a great way for the vaccine industry’s PR campaigns to sell their junk to poor and developing nations.

In case you’re wondering why the mainstream media helps the pharmaceutical industry hide this dirt, consider that the media protects the sources of its income, and the pharmaceutical industry provides them with enormous advertising revenue.

Tagged acute flaccid paralysis, aseptic meningitis, change the name game, opv, oral polio vaccine, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceuticals, polio disappearance, polio elimination, polio vaccine, vaccine, vaccine risks, vaccines, wild polio

MMR Vaccination’s Abject Failure in Measles and Mumps

Herd immunity is the clarion cry to press everyone into vaccination. It’s trumpeted by every health agency, in spite of the abject failure of the MMR in both measles and mumps. Even the vaccine’s failure is used to demand that everyone be vaccinated. There is no absurdity too great that it won’t be used to press for forced vaccination.

by Heidi Stevenson
(with appreciation to Hilary Butler’s insight into this issue)

The mumps portion of the MMR vaccine is failing, according to Public Health England (PHE).^[1] Therefore, according to the Guardian, they say that all those who are unvaccinated should be vaccinated.^[2] Seriously! The PHE says:

[S]ome waning immunity may be contributing to transmission.^[2]

So, the failure of the vaccine is somehow the fault of people who choose not to vaccinate!

But the insanity doesn’t stop there. During the recent measles outbreak in Wales, the death of a young man was blamed on measles, though it was later admitted that the cause of death was unknown. Now, though, they’re returning to the original claim that he did die of measles. The reason is that the official cause of death was giant cell pneumonia, which is generally believed to be caused only by measles.

It’s now reported by the pathologist Dr. Maurizio Brotto that he tested positive for measles. There’s a good deal more about this story, though, which we’ll discuss a bit later. For the moment, we’ll simply note that, for some reason, they were unable to come up with a positive measles test until after it was confirmed that he had died of a disease presumed to be cause by measles.

Herd Immunity: Moving Goal Posts

Herd immunity is the belief that, if enough people (or animals) are vaccinated for a particular disease, then everyone is protected from that disease. The problem is that the percentage of people who must have antibodies to provide that herd immunity is a moving target. Over time, the figure has increased. At various times, it’s been believed that everyone would be protected from measles if 55% … 76% … 85% … well, maybe 95% of the population were vaccinated for it. ^[4]

A 2010 estimate for mumps herd immunity by the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) Dr. Preeta K. Kutty was that 90 – 92% of the population must have mumps antibodies to protect everyone.^[5]

Whoops! Wales’ MMR vaccination rate, according to Health Protection England, is 95 percent.^[1] Apparently, herd immunity isn’t doing Wales much good in preventing the current outbreak of mumps!

So, although PHE has admitted that the MMR vaccine does not last long enough to produce herd immunity, they continue with their policy stating:

The immunity that MMR gives is probably lifelong. We know that people remain immune for at least 30 years against measles, 23 years against rubella and 19 against mumps.

Of course, that’s just plain ridiculous, so there’s a fair amount of shuffling going on. They would like to change the question, “Is MMR protection lifelong?” to “How long does protection from MMR last?” To that, they want to respond:

Most studies suggest that protection following MMR vaccine is very long lasting. For measles and rubella almost all people (more than 99%) will be protected after two doses of vaccine. In contrast, protection against mumps after two doses is a little lower (90-95%) and appears to gradually decline.

In other words, they would like to issue mealy-mouthed propaganda and pressure the unvaccinated to get vaccinated! Of course, they never even consider the fact that a vaccinated person could come down with mumps and be the first person to spread it around to others. In fact, they have not identified the first person who got mumps in Wales, so they cannot possibly claim that the outbreak was started in an unvaccinated person. But still, they blame the unvaccinated for the outbreak.

So, they just resort to using deceptive language, à la Brave New World—and, of course, blame the people who are actually paying attention and not falling for it, the unvaccinated.

Blaming Measles for Failure to Treat a Serious Illness

The young man who tragically died during the Wales measles outbreak died of giant cell pneumonia, also known as Hecht’s pneumonia, which is usually believed to be an adverse outcome of measles. Therefore, the pathologist blamed his death on measles and stated that he had confirmed measles. This is odd, since earlier, when the health department was coming under criticism for promoting his case, the public was told that they had not been able to confirm measles in him … but there’s more to this case than that.

Hecht’s pneumonia usually strikes only the very weakest and immune compromised, like people with leukemia. It’s virtually never seen outside of such severe underlying ill health.

The young man in question was in very poor health. The pathologist called him, “extremely underweight”. He had asthma, and on top of these problems, he was an alcoholic being treated with a detoxification drug for alcohol withdrawal.

I will not stand in judgement of this young man. No one knows what stresses he had to deal with. Nonetheless, the fact is that his health was far from good. But to make matters worse, it’s difficult to make a case that he was properly treated medically.

This unhealthily thin young man with asthma and an obviously severe alcohol problem went to three GPs the day before he died. His mother stated that he could barely stand. He was simply sent home. He went to a hospital. The inquest found that he had complained of a rash, fever, and hallucination. He was clearly extremely ill—but he was sent home.

And found dead the next day.

What was the cause of death? Measles? Hecht’s pneumonia? Alcoholism? Detoxification? Or could it have been lack of proper treatment by several doctors who saw him? No history was taken. He was not diagnosed with the pneumonia he had. Nothing that the hospital should have done was done. He might have survived if he’d been diagnosed and treated properly, but he stood no chance because the doctors turned him away—sent him home.

But there’s even more to this tale. It’s so very easy to simply say that Hecht’s pneumonia is a sequela of measles, but the truth is that it isn’t necessarily the case. It’s actually an opportunistic disease that can happen only to someone with a severely weakend immune system, such as that described by people with an AIDS diagnosis.^[6]

He may have been vaccinated with the MMR, or he may not. His mother originally said that he had been, but the doctors now say he wasn’t—and, of course, blame the lack of a vaccination for his death … though they apparently never considered whether he had a wise GP as a child who determined that his health was not robust enough to handle that vaccination.

So what caused this young man’s death? It’s easy to say that it was measles, but that’s simplistic. The young man’s health was severely compromised. On top of that, his lack of even a diagnosis on entering a hospital so ill that he had hallucinations and could barely stand suggests that the doctors should, at the very least, have acknowledged that his death was largely due to lack of proper treatment.

Who to Blame? Why, the Unvaccinated … of Course!

But it’s ever so much more convenient to blame measles … and then, to take just one more step and place the blame for measles on people who choose not to be vaccinated. And that is, of course, what’s happening. Those people who believe that health is not found artificially in vaccines and are not willing to risk the potentially terrible adverse effects of the MMR, such as autism, are now being blamed.

What they’re saying is that people who have damaged immune systems—even if they’ve done it to themselves—should be protected by forcing everyone else to be vaccinated. But what happens to those people who are maimed or even killed by their sacrifice? Is there any help for them? Do they get medals for their sacrifice?

No. They’re ignored … brushed aside as so much excess weight on society. These people—usually children—pay horrific prices to save the lives of others. Surely they deserve at least a bit of acknowledgment for their sacrifice, don’t they?

And those who suggest that the unvaccinated are responsible for people with weak immune systems also ignore the fact that even the vaccinated succumb to the diseases. They ignore the fact that their vaunted herd immunity has never been shown to work. It’s nothing but a theory, and the goal posts for it keep getting pushed farther out. They presume to have the ethical right to force the risk of harm on some to protect others. But they never explain why those others are more deserving of protection than the innocent child who is sacrificed on the altar of herd immunity.

Sources:

Tagged autism vaccines, giant cell pneumonia, hecht’s pneumonia, herd immunity, lifelong immunity, measles mumps rubella, measles vaccine, mmr, mumps vaccine, unvaccinated blamed, vaccine, vaccine immunity wanes, vaccines, wales measles outbreak, waning mmr immunity

Rotavirus Vaccine: Diarrhea of Deceit

The rotavirus vaccine is a textbook example of what’s wrong with the vaccine industry. It works for only a limited number of rotavirus types, causes severe adverse effects including death, was approved via corrupt agencies & officials with financial ties to the manufacturer—and it results in far more cases of a far more deadly disease.

Photo of man in jeans (original knives replaced by hypodermics) by David Goehring

by Jagannath Chatterjee

When doctors prescribe the Rotavirus vaccine as a preventive against diarrhea, the deception begins. Parents are not informed that diarrhea can be caused by a host of factors, including bacterial and viral infections. Bacterial infections resulting from unclean water are more harmful. Viral infections leading to diarrhea do not pose any danger if the child is treated with an oral rehydration solution or is breastfed, which can prevent dehydration.

There are many strains of rotavirus and most are yet to be identified. Besides the rotavirus strains, diarrhea can also be caused by astroviruses, calciviruses, other pathogens, and toxins. The rotavirus vaccine, delivered orally, contains just four of the many rotavirus strains and can protect against only these strains, leaving the child unprotected against the major factors.

The first rotavirus vaccine was licensed in the USA in 1998 and was recommended in March 1999. Parents did not know that this vaccine was recommended by ignoring serious side effects noticed in clinical trials. As a result many children suffered inversion of part of the intestine into an adjacent section—a condition called intussusception—a very serious, painful, and often fatal condition. Deaths for unexplained reasons were reported. Consequently the vaccine was withdrawn in October 1999.

When the US Congress investigated, serious procedural problems and negligence came to the fore, prompting a hearing on June 15, 2000. It revealed that both the FDA and CDC, US regulatory bodies, were aware about the vaccine’s serious adverse effects. There was also conflict of interest as two members on the advisory committee profited from the decision. Dr. Kathryn Edwards had received research funds worth $255,000 per year from the vaccine manufacturer. Dr. Paul Offit held a patent on another rotavirus vaccine and his travel around the country to advise about vaccine safety was funded by vaccine manufacturers. Moreover, 60% of FDA advisory committee members and 50% of CDC members had financial ties with the manufacturers of the vaccine. Clearly, the greed of both officials and the pharmaceutical industry prompted the flouting of all rules and the health of children took second place.

One would have expected serious action on the basis of these findings, but nothing happened. The erring agencies, which ought to maintain very high standards of honesty and integrity, instead justified their actions by saying that there was no bar to officials with ties to the industry recommending vaccines. In 2006 two more versions of the vaccine, containing live viruses and orally administered, were out in the market and recommended by those very tainted officials and doctors.

A peep into the clinical trials revealed alarming facts:

The vaccine had not been compared to an inert placebo, but against the same vaccine with all the ingredients, minus the virus so that it could be declared safer than it was.
The viruses used were an assortment of human and cow viruses propagated in cells of African green monkeys, the same specimen that has resulted in the oral polio vaccine (OPV) being contaminated with monkey viruses.
The cells are kept alive in a cow serum medium, which further opens the door to unknown viruses.
The chemical ingredients of the vaccine contain polysorbate 80, a known reproductive toxin.

The clinical trials have recorded a lower incidence of intestinal blockage, signifying that even the new vaccine is not free from that risk. Vaccinated children have a three times greater risk of suffering from intestinal bleeding, even after accounting for many cases that were denied by the supervising team. The trials revealed:

Gangrene and necrosis of the intestines
Severe vomiting leading to hospitalization
Seizures caused by abnormal electrical discharges in the brain that in some cases became chronic
Eczema
Diarrhea (the very disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent)
Frequent ear infections
Difficulty in breathing
Asthma
Nasopharyngitis, which is a viral infectious disease of the upper respiratory tract

Recent media reports have noted that the use of this vaccine in the USA has caused an alarming increase in cases of a far more lethal norovirus infection, which is causing 21 million cases and 800 deaths annually—against the 20 to 40 annual deaths that occur from rotavirus infections. There has also been a dramatic increase in cases of inflammatory bowel disease. Instead of reviewing the situation and withdrawing the rotavirus vaccine, which has caused the shift to a more lethal virus, a vaccine for norovirus has been developed and is ready for marketing.

Alarmed by the adverse effects of the vaccine in India and noting that rotavirus-related diarrhea is easily treated without complications, not to mention that the rates for India are based upon estimates kept high to alarm the public, ethical Indian doctors have pointed out that the high cost of the vaccine makes it prohibitive and not cost effective. A study has revealed that the incidence of diarrhea and related deaths in India is directly related to poverty, lack of clean drinking water, and sanitation, and that in most cases it requires the presence of other pathogens for rotavirus to cause diarrhea.

Doctors trying to report cases of adverse effects have been stopped from doing so by the Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) – an agency that is entirely dependent on funds from vaccine manufacturers for its operations—under the plea that the safety profile of the vaccine should not be tarnished! The IAP is lobbying for its inclusion in the government program.

Recently, to counter the cost effectiveness argument, Indian scientists provided great publicity to an indigenously prepared and low priced rotavirus vaccine. Even as the publicity, backed by the Department of Biotechnology in India, was picked up by the national and international press, it emerged that the results of the clinical trials are yet to be made public. It has also been pointed out that the vaccine has only one rotavirus strain, and has been tested on 4,532 infants, whereas to fully determine the adverse events it needs to be tested on more than 50,000. Incidentally, the Indian vaccine requires that mothers stop breastfeeding their children during its period of administration and for a time afterwards—a highly controversial aspect.

Providing publicity to clinical trial findings before the results are published is a violation of medical ethics. This would make it difficult for a peer reviewed journal to publish the findings. The involvement of controversial agencies like PATH and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the evolution of this vaccine has also riled the health activists because of their recent active connivance with government agencies in India to illegally test the highly controversial and unsafe cervical cancer vaccine on tribal girls in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat without parental consent, which resulted in several deaths and adverse effects.

It remains to be seen whether the industry-backed attempt to mass administer a questionable and unsafe corporate product for diarrhea prevention will succeed and take preference over genuine public health needs, like eradication of poverty, provision for clean water and sanitation, and nutrition for the mother and child. Now the ball is in the court of the government of India, which sadly has a tainted record for allowing the administration of the OPV, which has caused paralysis cases in the country to soar from 3,000 to 60,000 cases annually, and is now claiming credit for a “polio free” India.

Sources:

Tagged big pharma, bill & melinda gates foundation rotavirus, pharmaceutical companies, rotavirus norovirus, rotavirus vaccine, rotavirus vaccine corruption, rotavirus vaccine india, rotovirus vaccine adverse effects, vaccine, vaccines

A Doctor’s Awakening on Flu Vaccines in Pregnancy

The flu vaccine is now being pushed on pregnant women, supposedly to protect their babies. As this doctor explains, nothing could be further from the truth. Skip the vaccine. Protect yourself and your baby with good health and a healthy immune system. You can’t fake it with a vaccine.

by Kelly Brogan, MD

As a conventionally trained, dyed-in-the-wool psychiatrist, I learned that mental illness is a manifestation of an imbalance of brain chemicals that can be largely reduced to too little serotonin and/or norepinephrine, too little dopamine, or messed up excitatory signals at the membrane level. These deficits required pharmaceutical intervention for repair, just as one of my attendings once patronizingly said to an inpatient post-suicide attempt: if you had poor vision, you would need glasses. There would just be no way for you to navigate the world without those glasses no matter how much you wanted to.

I don’t believe this anymore. I’ve left the church and I’ve run into the woods where I’m listening to the sermons delivered by the natives there … those who believe in a natural order, in the body’s capacity to heal, in the sanctity of a clean environment, and in the interconnectedness of spirit, nourishment, and movement. But this was a journey for me. I started to open my eyes during my first pregnancy, when I began my fellowship in treating pregnant and postpartum women. I learned how to consent them, and what informed consent really looked like, around treatment with psychotropics in pregnancy and lactation. Many of these women had been on medication for the better part of their adult lives and either found themselves pregnant, were planning to become, or developed symptoms despite treatment. I pored over the literature for hundreds of hours, memorizing authors and statistics, distilling complex analytic concepts, and building a rational path, with some forks in the road, for these women to travel. I helped them to understand the known risks, the unknown risks, the alternatives, and allowed them to assess the perceived benefits. This process would often culminate in a 90-120 minute session involving all and any interested family members and extensive communication with other providers—general psychiatrists, obstetricians, therapists, so that everyone was on the same page.

You can imagine that it began to rub me the wrong way when these very same patients would come in and casually mention that they had gotten a “flu shot”, often without a single medical provider involved (at CVS!), no consent, no discussion. I didn’t know much about the flu vaccine other than that, when I entered medical school, pregnant women and babies were in the “contraindicated” demographic. I also knew that doctors, residents and med students almost never got the flu shot voluntarily.

I began to look into the literature through my lens of best quality pregnancy data: a prospective cohort study, well-controlled, looking at outcomes during pregnancy, at birth, and up to 5-7 years of childhood age or longer. I investigated the ingredients (egg proteins and associated unidentified viral DNA from this animal tissue, the allergen gelatin, polysorbate 80, which crosses the blood brain barrier, the carcinogen formaldehyde, the detergent triton x100, sucrose, resin, the antibiotic gentamycin, and thimerosal/mercury) and found that no study has looked at the effect of injecting any one of the ingredients, let alone the combination. I was hoping to find large studies done annually for each preparation assuming that if there were 25,000 cases in the literature of SSRI exposure, there must be at least that for something formally recommended to pregnant women. Herein lies the important philosophical leap: women are educated to avoid elective exposures to medication in pregnancy. When there is an indicated intervention, medical, pharmaceutical, surgical, the personal risks and benefits are weighed of treatment vs no treatment vs alternatives. But, here we have a one-size-fits-all recommendation with no risk-stratification according to immune status, personal medical history, genetic risk factors, or comorbidities. A formal recommendation of a category C intervention whose package insert states:

Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with influenza virus vaccine. It is also not known whether influenza virus vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Although animal reproductive studies have not been conducted, the prescribing health care provider should be aware of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The ACIP states that if used during pregnancy, administration of influenza virus vaccine after 14 weeks of gestation may be preferable to avoid coincidental association of the vaccine with early pregnancy loss.

Who is blowing air into this trumpet? I think we know.

To this day, I remain appalled at the double-speak on the part of the CDC around this intervention that has been conclusively found to be ineffective and dangerous in the general population and is grossly understudied in the pregnant population. Here are some tidbits about vaccinating for influenza:

As Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, an enlightened pediatrician, discusses in his writings and patient education, we are awash in viruses and bacteria. Exposure does not equal infection. Presumption that 4 strains (the three chosen for the vaccine and the H1N1) are worthy of specific action is not based in evidence, nor common sense.
Incidence of flu at the population level is grossly inflated as a fear-mongering tactic. When patients present with flu-like symptoms, they are rarely diagnostically confirmed as being Influenza type A or type B, and the vast majority of the time, may be neither. A brilliant 7 year old assessment by Ayoub and Yazbak states:

In general, most symptoms of the “flu” are not caused by influenza virus but by a variety of noninfluenza viruses, bacteria, other infectious organisms, or even noninfectious conditions. According to the CDC, only about 20% of the cases of ILI are actually caused by the influenza virus. If this is true, then theoretically only 20% of all cases of ILI are preventable by influenza vaccination, and only when there is a perfect antigenic match between the vaccine strain and the circulating virus. Furthermore, even a perfect antigenic match does not guarantee an adequate antibody titer, nor does measurable antibody assure protection.
A Cochrane analysis of 50 studies (15 of which were industry funded) demonstrated that in the likely event that the included strains did not match circulating virus, there was a 2% incidence in the unvaccinated vs a 1% incidence in the vaccinated population of presumed influenza. There was no effect of vaccination on hospitalizations of complications. This review also discusses concerning signal for incidence of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (autoimmune paralysis).
Pregnant patients are not at higher risk, do not die more frequently or suffer more complications from influenza. Ayoub and Yazbak dispute the two non-rigorous studies that are the basis for the claim that pregnant women suffer impaired immunity. Additionally, based on this study of 250,000 pregnant women in Australia and New Zealand, only 0.03% were admitted to the ICU for H1N1 complications and there is suspicion that obesity was the underlying driver of these complications. Analysis of CDC statistics reveals that there was 0-1 death per year of identified influenza in reproductive age women from 1997-2002. By comparison, vaccine-induced Guillain-Barre incidence is estimated at 20-40 annually.
Documented risks of vaccination as sanctioned by a neat little government table include vasculitis, seizure, encephalomyelitis, facial palsy, facial paresis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hypoesthesia, myelitis, neuritis, neuropathy, paresthesia.
Common side effects include symptoms like fatigue, fever, body and headaches (aka…the flu!) In the pregnant population, the largest conducted assessment of 49, 585 pregnant women in the Kaiser Permanente Healthcare System over 5 flu seasons demonstrated that no deaths occurred from influenza in the vaccinated or unvaccinated population, and that even in an “at risk” asthma subpopulation, vaccination did nothing to minimize hospitalizations, as the only admissions (0.018%) were for pneumonia. Two wonderful posts on this subject explore the applicability of this study to decision-making for the pregnant woman – Aviva Romm MD, holistic women’s health practitioner and Jennifer Margulis PhD, investigative journalist and women’s health advocate.

So, if we do not know true incidence because we are lumping pneumonia with presumed influenza and typically confirming neither by standardized diagnosis, we have evidence of inefficacy through Cochrane, through Kaiser, and even here at the Lancet where they admit that efficacy was “moderate”, “variable”, “reduced”, or “absent” depending on the season, then at what cost are we administering this intervention? Well, I’m just going to go ahead and assume that if there were even a one in a billion chance of life long paralysis or death, most people would take their chances with a week of the flu instead. And these are obvious adverse events.

Perhaps the most concerning study I came across implicated the influenza vaccination in a strong inflammatory response in the pregnant woman. Here, the investigators identified significantly elevated CRP two days after vaccination and a similar (but non-significant) pattern for TNF-alpha. They address the notion of vulnerable subgroups as being more important than generalizable findings. For example, the most depressed women at the time of vaccination exhibited an increased inflammatory response to vaccination—suggestive of inflammatory priming by the depressed state or an impairment of the inflammatory attenuation that is typical of a pregnant state. I study and lecture nationally about the inflammatory underpinnings of antepartum and postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. Inflammation in pregnancy is something I am not interested in actively promoting. If a woman’s real risk of developing severe flu is vanishingly remote, comparing that to active exposure to a CRP and IL6 elevating injection approximates malpractice.

This immune activation has been implicated, not only in development of postpartum depression, but in abnormal child behavioral development including autism and schizophrenia. IL6, the very cytokine that was specifically raised by the flu vaccine, is the one that has been implicated in rodents in abnormal behavior in offspring. In this study, the H1N1 vaccine (a popular version since 2009) was found to induce oxidative stress (the driving force behind every chronic disease we now struggle with as a population). In a study by Munoz et al intended to affirm the safety record of influenza vaccines in the pregnant population, careful review of the results indicates that infants who died after birth were not included in the statistical analysis that determined there was no risk to offspring, and vaccinated women suffered higher rates of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and hypertension (all inflammatory in nature).

Maternal infections may promote a similar (or worse depending on biochemical individuality) inflammatory response and have been associated with the development of schizophrenia and cerebral palsy in children exposed in utero, but if the vaccine is not only ineffective at preventing infection, but promotes its own inflammatory response, and potentially other acute and long-term adverse effects, what are we doing here?

As Ayoub and Yazbak conclude:

Because the benefits of influenza vaccination during pregnancy appear lacking, a safety-benefit analysis should not tolerate any risk to vaccine recipients or their offspring, even at a theoretical level.

I couldn’t agree more.

A red flag was also raised for me this past flu season when I received a Department of Health advisory in my inbox that stated that pregnant women may be given thimerosal-containing immunizations in the setting of a thimerosal-free vaccine shortage. Tough to make sense of the prohibition of tuna, but the injection of 25 mcg of ethylmercury (the EPA’s allowable limit is 0.1µg/kg/day, which is far exceeded by this amount in an average weight female) into the tissue of a woman growing a fetus. Especially when the only primate study that has ever been done on vaccines demonstrates that injection of neonates with thimerosal resulted in definitive abnormal neurodevelopment in these animals.

Mercury has been dubbed the most toxic element on the face of the earth. Any agency that sanctions its active delivery to the most vulnerable in our race is not one I plan to follow blindly. I encourage my patients to do their own homework on all of the exposures that their bodies encounter. My homework on this one left me thrilled that I know of other ways to promote immunity and resilience, and have never had the flu in my life despite more than 13 years of hospital exposure and 4 years of parenting. Sleep, stress-management, whole, colorful, and fermented foods, garlic, ginger, vitamin C, sunshine (or NYer’s sunshine – vitamin D3), a high quality multivitamin/mineral to compensate for any nutrients lost in transit and used up in managing toxic exposures. There’s a better way.

This better way embraces periodic sickness as part of comprehensive wellness. The only way to truly protect ourselves and our infants is through natural immunity bolstered by wild-type exposure in the community. Once you have a particular flu strain, when it comes around again, you will be uniquely protected, and you will pass on this protection to your newborn. There is no replacement for this. We cannot outsource our health to pharmaceutical companies. They just don’t know what health is.

Republished with permission from the author. Originally produced under the title Your Body, Your Baby, Their Flu.

As an undergraduate at M.I.T, Dr. Brogan studied Cognitive Neuroscience and worked with Harvard undergraduates to create a public forum for the discussion of alternative medicine, directing conferences for the Hippocratic Society. She attended Cornell Medical School where she was awarded the Rudin Scholarship for Psychiatric Oncology and began her work in Reproductive Psychiatry, which she went on to train in during her residency at NYU/Bellevue. A strong interest in the interface of medicine and psychiatry led her to pursue a fellowship in Consultation Liaison/Psychosomatic Medicine at NYU/Bellevue/VA Hospital. Since that time, she remains on faculty and has focused her efforts on her private practice where she cares for patients with medical illnesses, as well as women at all stages of their reproductive life cycle. A passion for holistic living, environmental medicine, and nutrition are the bedrock of her functional medicine practice. She has published in the field of Psycho-Oncology, Women’s Health, Perinatal Mental Health, Alternative Medicine, and Infectious Disease. She is Board Certified in Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine, as well as Board Certified in Integrative and Holistic Medicine.

You can find Dr. Brogan’s website at http://kellybroganmd.com.

Tagged acip flu vaccine, ayoub yazbak flu vaccine, cdc flu vaccine, cochrane analysis flu, flu fear mongering, flu vaccine contraindicated in pregnant women, flu vaccine inflammation, flu vaccine literature, flu vaccine safety, influenza vaccine reproduction, kelly brogan md, lancet flu, lawrence palevsky flu vaccine, psychiatrist kelly brogan, vaccine, vaccines

Vaccines Cause Shaken Baby Syndrome Symptoms

Shaken Baby Syndrome cannot possibly cause the damage claimed without also producing other harm, like obvious neck and back injuries. It has never been documented to exist. Yet, on the basis of nothing more than the claims of self-styled medical ‘experts’, parents are sent to prison for an injury that’s been proven to be caused by vaccines.

Baby in Parent's Hand, by Black Photo Studio

Baby in Parent’s Hand, by Christi Sebastian, Black Photo Studio

by Christina England, VacTruth

Over the years, parents have more and more commonly been blamed for child abuse if their child is diagnosed with the “triad” of injuries associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) after receiving a vaccine. The “triad” includes bleeding inside the brain, bleeding behind the eyes and swelling or inflammation of the brain.

A medical professional who suspects that a baby has been violently shaken will examine the baby for the “triad” of injuries associated with SBS. These are subdural hematoma (bleeds inside the brain), retinal haemorrhages (bleeds behind the eyes) and cerebral edema (swelling or inflammation inside the brain).

The Triad of Injuries

Bleeding Inside the Brain

Norma Guthkelch, a retired neurosurgeon, wrote the first description of Shaken Baby Syndrome in 1971 in his paper Infantile Subdural Haematoma and its Relationship to Whiplash Injuries, in which he discussed 23 cases of strongly suspected parental assault on children under the age of three. He concluded that:

It has been shown that there is a discrepancy between the frequency of subdural hematoma occurring in battered children and of the same condition complicating head injuries of other origin, the incidence in the former being unexpectedly high, though in most of those in whom there was no actual skull fracture there was not even clear evidence of the application of direct violence to the head. This suggests that when the head is not the main target of attack the likely mechanism of production of the hematoma is one in which repeated sheering strains of one sort or another are applied to the cranial contents.

It follows that since all cases of infantile subdural hematoma are best assumed to be traumatic unless proved otherwise, it would be unwise to disregard the possibility that one of these has been caused by serious violence, repetition of which may prove fatal, simply on the basis that there are no gross fractures or other radiological bone changes in the limbs, nor any fractures of the skull.^[1]

However, the violent shaking of a young child is not the only cause of the triad of injuries. These injuries can also occur after short falls, illnesses such as encephalitis and meningitis, birth trauma, vitamin deficiencies and genetic illnesses such as brittle bone syndrome. These causes are identified on the British Medical Journal’s online guide Best Practice: Abusive Head Trauma in Infants.^[2]

Bleeding Behind the Eyes

The paper written by attorney Dermot Garrett entitled “Overcoming Defense Expert Testimony in Abusive Head Trauma Cases” indicates this fact very strongly when the author discusses retinal bleeding on page 35.^[3] Garrett writes that a presentation at the 2010 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Annual Meeting analyzed the results of 62 studies of pediatric retinal hemorrhages published since 1965.

Garrett says that all of the children studied were younger than 11 years of age, had undergone a detailed examination by an ophthalmologist and had been diagnosed with retinal hemorrhages due to confirmed accidental head trauma or non-accidental head trauma. The results of the analysis showed that seventy-eight percent of patients with confirmed accidental head trauma had retinal hemorrhages, in comparison to just 5.3 percent of the non-accidental head trauma patients, proving that not all cases of retinal bleeds are necessarily caused by child abuse.

Swelling Inside the Brain

Another cause of the triad of injuries associated with SBS is vaccine-induced meningitis/encephalitis, a severe reaction to vaccinations.

In 2012, Mahendra K. Patel et al. published a paper in the Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, which discusses the case of a five month-old baby boy diagnosed with suspected post-vaccination encephalopathy following the DPT vaccination. Tests concluded that a reaction to the DPT vaccination was probable and in their discussion, the authors discussed several other worrying cases of similar reactions from India.^[4]

In 2010, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic wrote an extensive paper exposing evidence that she uncovered surrounding many cases in which children developed encephalitis or meningitis after they received vaccinations from as early as 1983, which she says were deliberately covered up by the UK government’s JCVI (Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunization).^[5]

Dr. Viera Scheibner mentions vaccine-induced encephalomyelitis, characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging, in 1998 when she wrote a paper published in Nexus titled Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Vaccination Link. She had become so worried that parents were being falsely accused after their children had suffered a vaccine injury that she opened her paper by stating:

Some time ago I started getting requests from lawyers or the accused parents themselves for expert reports. A close study of the history of these cases revealed something distinctly sinister: in every single case, the symptoms appeared shortly after the baby’s vaccinations.

While investigating the personal medical history of these babies based on the care-givers’ diaries and medical records, I quickly established that these babies were given one or more of the series of so-called routine shots-hepatitis B, DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus), polio and HiB (Haemophilus influenza type B)—shortly before they developed symptoms of illness resulting in serious brain damage or death.^[6]

Finally, Dr. Harold Buttram and F. Edward Yazbak wrote on the subject of false accusations of SBS and vaccine-induced encephalitis in their paper titled Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis: The Story of Baby Alan.^[7]

Dr. Buttram opens his paper by stating:

In the following report Dr. Yazbak and myself have reviewed the case of an infant death which we believe to have been mistakenly diagnosed as shaken baby syndrome, the true cause of death in our opinions having been a vaccine-induced encephalitis. Having carefully followed the case and its developments for nearly a year, the report represents untold numbers of hours of study and investigation into the many technical parameters of the case. From this study we have come to realize that this case is representative of an emerging pattern of increasingly frequent vaccine reactions on the modern scene, which are being overlooked or misdiagnosed by our present health-care system.

The Story of Baby Alan is a poignant one, all the more so because it is something that could happen to any young couple or parent. Although the story is necessarily technical, nevertheless we urge that you read it. If you are a young person contemplating having a family, it is something that could happen to you.

Despite all of this evidence, however, parents continue to be blamed for shaking their babies before all other possible diagnoses have been fully explored.

The Reid Technique

When SBS or non-accidental head injury is suspected, the police will interview the parents or caregiver who was caring for the child at the time the child became ill. According to parents who have undergone this interview, the interview process is extremely intimidating, and many succumb to the bullying tactics used, either by admitting that they injured their child or by accepting a plea bargain.

This may be due to the use of the ‘Reid Technique,’ a technique which is often used when interviewing a person suspected of shaking their child.^[8,9]

The Reid Technique is used in police departments around the world. It is basically made up of nine steps, and in my opinion, it is put in place to intimidate and force a confession out of innocent people. The nine steps are:

The police officer will present the suspect with evidence that they committed the crime. (This evidence can be real or fake.)
The officer comes up with a story as to why they believe the suspect committed the crime.
If the suspect tries to deny that they committed the crime, the detective will immediately interrupt the suspect.
If the suspect tries to give a logical explanation as to why it is not possible for them to have committed the crime, this explanation will be refuted.
At this stage, the detective will pretend to be the suspect’s ally.
The suspect, at this point, is studied for body language to see if they are about to surrender.
The interrogator provides the suspect with contrasting possible motives for the crime.
The detective will urge the suspect to talk about the crime.
The confession: At this stage the suspect usually feels intimidated and anxious and a confession is taken.

The evidence that Sergeant Christopher Savage, a former police officer, gave to me in an interview last year discussing SBS demonstrates that this procedure is commonly used.^[10]

Researchers Uncover The Truth

Early this year, Dr. Michael Innis published his latest peer-reviewed study in Clinical Medicine Research. His paper titled Autoimmunity and Non-Accidental Injury in Children discusses the cases of five children suffering from brain injuries and fractures after vaccinations. After studying each case in depth, he concluded that vaccination could be responsible for the triad of injuries commonly associated with SBS.^[11]

In his paper, Dr. Innis outlines that the response to antigenic stimulation damaged the beta cells in the pancreas causing hypoinsulinemia (unusually low levels of insulin in the blood), which inhibited the cellular uptake of vitamin C, resulting in liver dysfunction, failure of carboxylation of the vitamin K dependent proteins, resulting in hemorrhages and fractures associated with the triad. He concluded that fractures, retinal and subdural hemorrhages and encephalopathy in children are autoimmune responses to antigenic stimulation in a genetically susceptible individual.

He explains that common antigens are mandated vaccines, viral, bacterial and parasitic infections.

To understand exactly how cases of vaccine damage are frequently misdiagnosed as SBS, please read Dr. Innis’ paper in full.

I found his paper easy to read, interesting and revealing and I was particularly enlightened to see him open his paper by quoting the work of psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown, who in 1995-1996 became the first professional to identify that parents were being falsely accused of child abuse after their child had suffered a vaccine injury.

Do You Need More Proof?

Many other professionals support the fact that parents are being falsely accused of SBS. In 2008, Kent R. Holcomb published the paper Shaken Baby Syndrome: Actual Innocence Petition, in which he demonstrated that the Shaken Baby Syndrome theory was unstable by using a “hypothetical case.”^[12]

In his paper, Holcomb states that the biomechanical branch of science is the one and only discipline with the expertise, experimental data, and responsibility to determine if a biomechanical event such as human shaking (SBS) or lethal minor falls (LMF) can or cannot cause potentially fatal injuries such as subdural hematoma (SDH).

For years, the triad of injuries has been the only evidence used in criminal procedures to convict parents of shaking their babies. According to a growing number of professionals, this misguided trust has resulted in many innocent parents being charged and convicted of murder.

However, times are changing, and as Holcomb explains, the history of medicine is full of examples of practices that, during their times, were generally accepted by a consensus of medical opinion, only to be later rejected as useless, potentially harmful, or sometimes even lethal.

Professionals are recognizing that Shaken Baby Syndrome is an unsafe diagnosis, due to the evidence being presented with the use of biomechanics. According to Holcomb, the study of biomechanics has proven that humans lack the physical strength needed to cause fatal brain injuries from manual shaking alone. He says that if a child were to be shaken as described in SBS cases, then this violence would result in a high incidence of spinal paralysis from neck injuries in infants, which has never been reported in association with SBS.

In 2009, Holcomb published a paper titled Justification for a Federal Injunction to Suspend All Vaccine Licenses Based on Unreasonable Health Risks and Causal Links to Chronic Disease Pandemics.

Holcomb states very clearly that vaccines are unsafe at all levels. He says that a hypothesis is not proven until all the data have been read. He says:

When evaluating vaccine-safety-hypotheses, like all other hypotheses, the SHHS (Secretary of Health and Human Services) cannot accept the hypothesis as proven nor upgrade it to scientific theory, until said hypothesis is submitted to vigorous scientific testing and until all attempts at falsification have failed.

Assessing all the clinical trial and epidemiological studies that are available to support the “vaccines-are-safe” hypothesis, the SHHS would recognize that each one of these studies have flaws that would prevent them from earning QER I or QER II ratings. 21-day clinical trials that lack proper controls cannot support long-term safety claims. Every SHHS population study failed to either apply proper methodology/design or represent the proper population group. Other population studies, such as the secret VSD studies, though published, could not be classified as valid science since their methodologies and data sets were not disclosed. A hypothesis that cannot be examined or tested is not science but rather a faith-based belief system.

Holcomb makes very clear throughout his paper that vaccinations have not been adequately tested or evaluated and states that when assessing the quality of data, the SHHS would know that “repeated opinions based on poor quality data cannot improve the quality of evidence.”

Holcomb states on page three of his paper, “[A] hypothesis that cannot be examined or tested is not science but rather a faith-based belief system.”

This statement is absolutely correct and I believe that the same could be said for the SBS hypothesis. The hypothesis that the “triad” of injuries can be caused by manually shaking a child has never been proven; therefore, it is a “faith-based belief system.” In fact, biomechanics have proven that it is not physically possible to manually shake a child with enough force to cause the “triad,” which is supported by the work of Dr. John D. Llyod and many others.^[13]

Conclusion

There are many papers stating that children have died within weeks, if not days, of receiving multiple vaccinations. Many of these children have been misdiagnosed as suffering from Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Shaken Baby Syndrome is a hypothesis—a theory—as it has never been conclusively proven that a baby has been shaken to death. I have yet to find concrete evidence of someone physically shaking a baby so hard that the baby has later died solely from the “triad” of injuries. There are, however, a number of biomechanical studies stating that it is not physically possible to manually shake a baby to such a degree that it causes the triad of injuries associated with SBS.

Therefore, this leaves us with the question, Can vaccinations cause the “triad” of injuries associated with SBS?

There are no studies conclusively proving that vaccinations can cause the SBS triad, but since vaccinations have never been conclusively proven to be safe, as it is deemed unethical to withhold vaccinations from children, this hypothesis cannot be examined or tested. It is, therefore, not science, but simply a faith-based belief system, as Holcomb suggested. Unfortunately, this belief syndrome has caused the incarceration of many innocent parents.

Not all parents who are accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome are child murderers, and as we have seen, there are many causes to explain why children die from these horrendous brain injuries. The medical profession needs to examine the real causes of Shaken Baby Syndrome, especially vaccination, and stop using parents as their “get out of jail free card”.

Sources:

Tagged bleeding behind the eyes, bleeding in the brain, brain swelling, buttram shaken baby syndrome, christina england, holcombe vaccines unsafe, reid technique, shaken baby syndrome, shaken baby syndrome vaccines, swelling in the brain, vaccine, vaccines, vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome, yazbak shaken baby syndrome

Malaria Vaccine Success? Not If You Look at Adverse Effects!

Before accepting claims of a vaccine’s efficacy, it’s wise to look at the study and who financed it. A new study for a malaria vaccine is a case in point. It was financed by the manufacturer and the lead researcher is a co-patent holder! It should come as no suprise that there are gaping flaws in the study, as discussed here.

African Women and Children Waiting for Vaccine, by HDTPCAR. Syringe superimposed.

African Women and Children Waiting for Vaccine, by Humanitarian and Development Partnership Team in the Central African Republic. Syringe superimposed.

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study claims a never-before seen efficacy rate of 72% for a new malaria vaccine. The researchers have drawn the attention of the Bill Gates Foundation, which may give them $100 million in funding to try to bring it to market. But have they really achieved such a result?

At first glance, it seems likely that this study is valid. They did something rather unusual in today’s vaccine-hyped world: They used a real placebo, a saline solution, in their control group. That, though, is not the only thing that must be assured. Before discussing problems with this study, let’s first take a look at an outline of how it was done along with its results.

Note: If you’d like to skip the study summary, and go straight to the critique, click here.

The Study

The study was set in Africa and done in two stages. The tested vaccine was labeled BK-SE (also referred to as BK-SE36). Doses of 1.0 milliliter and 0.5 milliliter were trialed on the children, but only the larger dose was trialed on adults.

Stage 1

Stage 1 used healthy adults aged 21-40. After screening 100 people primarily for health, 56 were accepted into the study. Subjects were tested for serum levels of the specific malaria antibodies for the variety of malaria endemic in the area of the study. They were divided as follows:

Seropositive:
- 18 injected with 2 doses of BK-SE1.0.
- 10 injected with 2 doses of saline. One discontinued because of pregnancy.
Seronegative:
- 18 injected with 2 doses of BK-SE1.0.
- 10 injected with 2 doses of saline.

The results on day 82 were:

Seropositive at beginning of study:
- 13 tested positive for malaria antibodies.
- 10 tested negative for malaria antibodies.
Seronegative at beginning of study:
- 13 tested positive for malaria antibodies.
- 9 tested negative for malaria antibodies.

Stage 2

Stage 2 was done on children and young adults. It was similar to Stage 1, but had two major distinctions:

No testing was done to determine serum levels of antibodies. It assumed that they were all seronegative. The authors wrote, “[O]ur earlier studies showed that most individuals below 20 years were seronegative.”
They tested two concentrations of the vaccine, one at half the antigen level of the other.

150 potential subjects were screened primarily for health. 84 were accepted into the study. They were divided as follows:

16-20 years old:
- 11 injected with 2 doses of BK-SE1.0.
- 11 injected with 2 doses of BK-SE0.5.
- 6 injected with 2 doses of saline. One discontinued because of pregnancy.
11-15 years old:
- 11 injected with 2 doses of BK-SE1.0.
- 11 injected with 2 doses of BK-SE0.5.
- 6 injected with 2 doses of saline.
6-10 years old:
- 11 injected with 2 doses of BK-SE1.0.
- 11 injected with 2 doses of BK-SE0.5.
- 6 injected with 2 doses of saline.

The results on day 82 were:

16-20 years old:
- BK-SE1.0: 11 seropositive.
- BK-SE0.5: 7 seropositive.
- Saline: 5 seropositive.
11-15 years old:
- BK-SE1.0: 7 seropositive.
- BK-SE0.5: 9 seropositive.
- Saline: 6 seropositive.
6-10 years old:
- BK-SE1.0: 10 seropositive.
- BK-SE0.5: 9 seropositive.
- Saline: 5 seropositive.

A one-year follow-up was done that included 69 of the 83 children and young adults who completed the Stage 2 trial. They were compared with 50 age-matched controls. These controls were not selected at the same time as the study participants, so they were not examined during the earliest 2 or 3 months of the screening. These results were:

Saline controls: 2 had malaria.
Age-matched controls: 9 malaria cases.
Vaccinated: 0 malaria cases.

Adverse Effects

The primary purpose of the study was not to discover efficacy, but to investigate safety. Reporting mostly on efficacy, the secondary end point, rather than safety, is premature. However, as we’ll see, even the reports of safety are wildly exaggerated.

One 21-year-old was hospitalized for acute bacterial gastritis after vaccination. The authors stated that it was “unlikely related to vaccination”. They reported that he “admitted” taking metronidazole on the day of the vaccination. Why this should be considered mitigating, as the study seems to imply, is mysterious. The drug is given for malaria and can cause severe, even deadly, adverse effects. However, it is not known to cause gastritis. It is, in fact, used as a gastritis treatment.

There were significant numbers of less severe adverse effects (AEs). The authors state:

Most AEs were common/similar across treatments groups and considered not related to BK-SE36 vaccine. Upper respiratory tract infection was the most frequently recorded besides malaria.

Let’s examine this statement. First, the suggestion that most AEs were “considered not related to BK-SE36 vaccine” sounds quite similar to what doctors routinely tell parents who note adverse effects after their children’s vaccinations: “It’s just a coincidence.”

That simply is not an acceptable statement, especially in light of the fact that doctors are all too willing to claim the credit for any benefits seen from any of their treatments, and also tend to dismiss claims of adverse effects from prescribed drugs unless the symptoms described are already accepted as typical.

Now, let’s take a look at just the mild adverse effects:

How, exactly, can they justify the claim that most adverse effects were not associated with the vaccine? Look at the first few and you can readily see that the majority of people who received the vaccine were affected, while hardly any of those who got the saline solution were. Among adults, it was only in blood pressure increase (5:6) that the saline group exceeded the vaccine group—and it’s the item where the two were closest. Among children, only the headache result (0:0:1) was greater in the saline group.

Clearly, mild adverse reactions occurred far more often in those who received the actual vaccine.

Now, let’s look at more serious concerns. Malaria is a gastrointestinal disease. It does not produce respiratory symptoms. Traditional weakened live vaccine antigens, as are used in the BK-SE vaccine, are expected to produce a mild version of the disease. They should not, however, produce symptoms of a different disease, as it would present an additional danger to the subject.

The following table shows adverse effects that were experienced by at least 10% of the subjects:

You can ignore the reported results for malaria. Any positive blood smear was labeled as malaria and is, therefore, meaningless to us. However, the rest of the results are more significant. Notice that:

9 (25%) of the adults (Stage 1 study) who got the vaccine experienced upper respiratory tract infections, while only 4 (20%) who got placebo (saline) did.
19 (28.8%) of the children and young adults (Stage 2 study) who got the vaccine experienced upper respiratory tract infections, while only 3 (16.7%) who got placebo (saline) did.

Apparently, the researchers didn’t consider this to be significant. However, when you consider the relatively small size of this study compared with the millions who would be vaccinated if BK-SE were approved, the seriousness of these results becomes quite apparent.

Let’s say that one million children receive this vaccine. Then, if the adverse effects occur at the same rate, an extra 127,000 children would suffer from upper respiratory tract infections. Since the targeted population is poor, that means many would not be healthy enough to manage it, and some would likely die. Add to that the gastritis case that occurred in the trial, and you’d have more than 25,000 people who’d suffer severe gastritis.

Then, consider that studies like these, because of their small size, generally do not come even close to finding the true rate of adverse effects. There can be little doubt that this vaccine would probably result in an enormous amount of harm.

Efficacy?

The authors claim that the vaccine reduces malaria infections by 72%, which is far greater than any previous malaria vaccine has been able to accomplish. That sounds quite impressive, but just how realistic is it? They wrote that they did not test the children for antibodies because earlier work had demonstrated that very few children had developed them. That’s an intriguing statement.

Children Were Untested for Malaria on Trial Entry

First, it should be noted that we do not know if subjects in the saline-placebo group had contracted malaria before the study. The omission of seroconversion testing makes it impossible to know, leaving the study’s legitmacy in question.

Second, it seems rather strange to suggest that children and young adults will not have had malaria—and then, at an arbitrary age 20-21 cut-off, assume that people drawn from the same location are likely to have contracted the disease, so require seroconversion testing.

It is, at best, a huge leap of faith to accept that suggestion. Worse, evidence contradicts any claim that children and young adults are unlikely to have had malaria in that region.

Thus, there is no reason to believe that children who were in the saline control group were free of malaria at the start of the study, so these results are, at best inconclusive.

Post-Study Control Group

The post-study so-called control group had 9 cases of malaria, has compared to 0 in the vaccinated group and 2 in the saline group. There is, though, a major problem with this portion of the trial. A significant rule of setting up control groups is that they be equivalent. However, in this study, they were not. The authors wrote:

There was a delay in obtaining ethical approval for the start of the follow-up period and thus recruitment of additional control group only took place during Jan-Feb 2011. For Stage2 subjects this meant the absence of active monthly visits during Dec 2010-Feb 2011.

That is, the study group was selected later. This is significant because it’s well known that malarial rates vary both seasonally and annually.^[3,4,5] Thus, the both active and control malaria study partipants must be chosen at the same time. The fact that they weren’t should invalidate the entire post-study, which includes their most significant results of 9 cases of malaria.

Study Funding

This study was funded by the vaccine’s manufacturer, BIKEN. The company was also directly involved in the study, including its design, conduct, and “logistical support”. Further, the following members of the research team had significant associations with the manufacturer:

Toshihiro Horii (study leader): With BIKEN, a patent coholder for the vaccine
Nirianne Marie Q. Palacpac: BIKEN employee (employed as BIKEN researcher during the trial)
Nahoko Suzuki: BIKEN employee
Takuya Okada: BIKEN employee
Edward Ntege: received honorarium from BIKEN to perform the study
Christopher Nsereko: received honorarium from BIKEN to perform the study
Betty Balikagala: received honorarium from BIKEN to perform the study
Bernard N. Kanoi: received honorarium from BIKEN to perform the study
KT was named as formerly a BIKEN staff member. None of the authors listed has those initials.

Obviously, the majority of researchers are beholden to the manufacturer, and one is a coholder of the vaccine’s patent!

Study Flaws

Flaws in this study are amazing, leaving little reason to take it seriously. Add in the facts that the study was financed by the manufacture, BIKEN, which also was involved in its design, conduct, and logistical support, and that the majority of researchers—including one who’s a patent holder for the vaccine—are deep into BIKEN’s pockets, leads one to suspect that the study was set up to achieve a particular result.

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the following flaws exist:

Efficacy, the primary point being hyped, was not the primary end-point of the study.
The primary end-point, adverse effects, were significant, likely resulting in a very large percentage of subject developing serious health effects. Though the authors of the study toss off a claim that they were not related to the vaccine, looking at the numbers makes that claim appear quite doubtful.
The section of the trial that that utilized children as test subjects failed to test them for prior exposure to malaria. This seems highly questionable and may be part of the reason that the efficacy results seem so good.
The other reason for apparently good efficacy results may be that the post-trial study used a control group that was chosen at a different time than the rest of the subjects. Looking at the results would tend to suggest that this is the most significant factor in apparently good efficacy.

The authors wrote:

Being a phase 1 trial, the study was not designed to detect efficacy.

Yet, that’s precisely the focus of reports on the trial! Why would this happen? The press acts primarily as a lapdog, rarely investigating the stories that they produce. Instead, the read press releases and blindly reports what they say. Who produces press releases? Those who hope to benefit from them.

In this case, the study was announced by the researchers at the Tokyo International Conference on African Development—and they initiated the focus on the study’s secondary results. The study’s leader, Toshihiro Horii, stated:

The vaccine’s effect is greater than those hitherto reported of any other antimalaria vaccines.

[and he further added that he hopes to put BK-SE36 to use:]

in five years after conducting a clinical trial on infants between zero and five, who account for the bulk of malaria deaths.

Of course, as a co-patent holder, he would hope to profit from the vaccine!

Sources:

Phase 1b Randomized Trial and Follow-Up Study in Uganda of the Blood-Stage Malaria Vaccine Candidate BK-SE36, PLoS ONE; Nirianne Marie Q. Palacpac, Edward Ntege, Adoke Yeka, Betty Balikagala, Nahoko Suzuki, Hiroki Shirai, Masanori Yagi, Kazuya Ito, Wakaba Fukushima, Yoshio Hirota, Christopher Nsereko, Takuya Okada, Bernard N. Kanoi, Toshihiro Horii; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064073.
Malaria – Symptoms
Annual variations in the number of malaria cases related to two different patterns of Anopheles darlingi transmission potential in the Maroni area of French Guiana; Malaria Journal; Florence Fouque^*, Pascal Gaborit, Romuald Carinci, Jean Issaly and Romain Girod; doi:10.1186/1475-2875-9-80.
Annual variations in the number of malaria cases related to two different patterns of Anopheles darlingi transmission potential in the Maroni area of French Guiana. BioMed Central; Florence Fouque, Pascal Gaborit, Romuald Carinci,² Jean Issaly, and Romain Gir; doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-80.
High annual and seasonal variations in malaria transmission by anophelines and vector species composition in Dielmo, a holoendemic area in Senegal; The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 1997 Mar;56(3):247-53; Fontenille D, Lochouarn L, Diagne N, Sokhna C, Lemasson JJ, Diatta M, Konate L, Faye F, Rogier C, Trape JF;
New Japan malaria vaccine cuts infections ‘by 72%’

Tagged african malaria vaccine trial, african vaccine trial, big pharma, BK-SE, BK-SE36, junk science, malaria research flaws, malaria study flaws, malaria study hype, malaria vaccine, malaria vaccine efficacy, malaria vaccine gates foundation, malaria vaccine study, Phase 1b Randomized Trial and Follow-Up Study in Uganda of the Blood-Stage Malaria Vaccine Candidate BK-SE36, plos one, pseudo-science, pseudoscience, vaccine, vaccines

Flu Vax Causes 5.5 Times More Respiratory Infections

The utter absurdity of vaccination ‘science’ is revealed in this study. It claims a flu vaccine results in less disease risk because it causes antibodies to develop, in spite of not reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease and also resulting in 5.5 times more incidents of similar diseases!

Vaccine Vials, by Sanofi Pasteur, Vaccine Profiteer

by Heidi Stevenson

Would you be interested in a vaccination that results in more than 5 times as much illness? If you take the seasonal influenza vaccination, that’s what you’re doing. The seasonal trivalent flu vaccine results in 5.5 times more incidents of respiratory illness, according to a study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

The study is particularly noteworthy because it was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial—and the researchers used saline solution, a genuinely inactive placebo, as a standin for the trivalent flu vaccine. Most vaccine trials utilize active placebos, which are substances that include ingredients used in the vaccines, making the studies meaningless—though this fact is almost never revealed in the writeups.

Subjects were followed for an average of 272 days. The active influenza vaccine adminstered was Sanofi Pasteur’s Vaxigrip. The trial included children aged 6-15 years. 69 were given Vaxgrip and 46 received the saline placebo. Results were reported in terms of episodes per 1,000 person years of follow up.

With regard to effectiveness against influenza, the authors wrote:

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of confirmed seasonal influenza infection between recipients of TIV [trivalent influenza inactivated vaccine] or placebo.

The flu vaccine provided no benefit!

The authors tried to cover that by adding:

TIV recipients had significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on
serologic evidence.

In other words, the authors are trying to suggest that, in spite of the fact that vaccine recipients suffered as much genuine influenza as those who’d received a placebo, they still benefited because of “serologic evidence”. This “serologic evidence” consists of antibodies produced as a result of the vaccine, which is the standard method of determining a vaccine’s effectiveness.

In other words, a vaccine’s effectiveness is not determined by whether it prevents disease, but rather by whether it causes antibodies to be produced!

But the story is even worse than this. The study also demonstrated that the vaccine resulted in recipients having 5.5 times more respiratory illness. Here’s a partial breakdown of their results:

	Vaccinated	Placebo (saline)
Any Seasonal Influenza	58	88
H1N1 (Swine Flu ‘Pandemic’)	58	0
Total Influenza Cases	116	88
Noninfluenza Viruses
Rhinovirus (common cold)	230	59
Coxsackie/Echovirus	160	0
Other Respiratory Viruses	97	29
Total Other Viruses	487	88

As you can see, even though the authors claim that there was no distinction in cases of influenza between the subjects who received a vaccine and those who received the placebo, the reality seems to be quite different: There were a total of 116 influenza cases in the vaccinated group and 88 in the placebo group.

The authors play with statistics in this study by using assumptions about whether people actually had diseases, because there were many reported instances that couldn’t be verified. They came up with a relative risk of 4.4. In any case, relative risk is actually a meaningless statistic here, because it requires that exposure to the causative agent be known, which it clearly wasn’t in this study.

I prefer a simpler, more straightforward—and, I believe, more honest—approach of simply comparing the numbers of cases of disease. Doing that, we get 487 ÷ 88, which tells us that those who were vaccinated were 5.5 times more likely to contract a confirmed respiratory illness!

Now, let’s take a look at the other respiratory illnesses that people were more likely to contract as a result of being vaccinated for influenza. The rhinovirus is the common cold, so it isn’t a big deal. However, coxsackievirus and echovirus are quite different. Both of them are known to cause meningitis, paralysis, hepatitis, and heart disorders. This is not common, but the same thing is true of poliovirus. It also causes a usually minor respiratory illness, but in rare cases can result in much the same harm that coxsackievirus and echovirus can.

It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that the rate of severe crippling diseases may also be increased by the influenza vaccine, and potentially by any vaccine against a respiratory illness.

Implications

This study’s implications are quite serious. The authors suggest:

Receipt of TIV could increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to
noninfluenza respiratory viruses, by some unknown biological mechanism. Alternatively, our results could be explained by temporary nonspecific immunity after influenza virus infection, through the cell-mediated response or, more likely, the innate immune response to infection.

In other words, the act of injecting antigens probably damages the innate cell-mediated immune response, the part of the immune system that protects without the need of resorting to development of antibodies. They go on to state:

The phenomenon of virus interference has been well known in virology for >60 years.

The interference of vaccinations with the innate cell-mediated immune response is well known! The authors go on to cite several sources supporting this fact.

In summary, this study demonstrates:

Influenza vaccines provide no benefit.
Influenza vaccines cause a hugely increased number of respiratory illnesses.
Influenza vaccines—and very likely other vaccines—harm the innate cell-mediated immune response, which results in a significant increase in infectious disease incidents.

Nonetheless, our agencies of health destruction, such as the US’s alphabet soup of FDA, CDC, and NIH, the UK’s NHS, MHRA, and DOH, Australia’s ANPHA, and Canada’s Health Canada, plus the international WHO and massive foundations such as the Gates Foundation and GAVI—these and so many more routinely lie about the reality of vaccinations. They use fear tactics and lies to promote the profiteering of Big Pharma and Big Medicine at the expense of the populace, and worse, of our children.

The reality of all these agencies is that, though they may have been created for the purpose of benefiting our health, they’ve been coopted by Big Pharma and Big Medicine, who have managed to buy their way into them. The result is that these agencies now actively promote, and even enforce, the use of products and methods whose first purpose is to make profits. If that means the public’s health must suffer … apparently, it’s a small price to pay when it doesn’t affect the bottom line.

Sources:

Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine; Clinical Infectious Diseases; Benjamin J. Cowling, Vicky J. Fang, Hiroshi Nishiura,
Kwok-Hung Chan, Sophia Ng, Dennis K. M.lp, Susan S. Chiu, Gabriel M. Leung} and J. S. Malik Peir; DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis307

Tagged big pharma, Clinical Infectious Diseases, conventional medicine, flu vaccine infectious disease, flu vaccine no benefit, flu vaccine respiratory disease, flu vaccine study, Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, influenza vaccine, influenza vaccine effectivness, influenza vaccine infectious disease, influenza vaccine respiratory disease, influenza vaccine study, pseudo-science, vaccine, vaccines, vaxigrip, vaxigrip effectiveness, vaxigrip sanofi, vaxigrip sanofi pasteur

Statins Provide No Benefit: Study of 4 Million People

Aside from demonstrating that statins provide no benefit to most people, this study also demonstrates that the so-called gold standard, randomized double blinded placebo controlled, study is a farce. Add to that, though, the fact that statins have severe and deadly adverse effects, it’s apparent that these drugs are doing great harm while providing no benefit.

by Heidi Stevenson

A population-based study in Sweden shows that the massive deployment of statins has provided no benefit. Three times as many statins were being taken by Swedish people in the year 2000 than in 1998. Yet, the numbers of people suffering or dying from heart attacks were unchanged by the increase!

Not only does this demonstrate that the massive push to press people into taking statins has been based on flawed science, it also turns the claim that randomized double blinded placebo controlled (RDBPC) drug trials are the gold standard upside down.

The study with the unwieldy name, “No connection between the level of exposition to statins in the population and the incidence/mortality of acute myocardial infarction: An ecological study based on Sweden’s municipalities”, was published today in Biomed Central’s Journal of Negative Results in Medicine.^[1] We can count our blessings for this journal that produces reports of studies that did not get the expected results. The shame is that such results are not generally valued as highly as those that were expected. They are, after all, every bit as significant and important. The only usual problem with them is that they don’t support the results that Big Pharma wants to promulgate.

The authors’ conclusion is quite clear. They do not hem and haw about it:

Despite a widespread and increasing utilisation of statins, no correlation to the incidence or mortality of AMI [acute myocardial infarction] could be detected. Other factors than increased statin treatment should be analysed especially when discussing the allocation of public resources.

There is no truth behind the claims of benefit from statins.

Even though three times as many Swedish people between ages 40 and 79 were taking statins, there was no reduction in heart attacks. It’s unfortunate that the study didn’t also investigate the adverse effects caused by them. Then we would know how many people were harmed by these drugs that are known to cause muscle pain and destruction.

The study covered nearly the entire Swedish population aged 40-79 for the years 1998-2000. They included the data from 289 municipalities, which included all areas of the country, urban, suburban, country, industrial, and everything inbetween. The only one left out could not be included because of missing data. The total numbers were 1,926,113 men and 1,995,981 women—for a total of 3,922,094 people.

Here’s the study’s graph of results:

Incidence and mortality of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and statin utilisation in the Swedish population, 40-79 years old, 1998-2002. DDD: Defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants and day

Results from virtually the entire Swedish population demonstrated that the threefold increase in statins use provided no benefit.

Randomized Double Blinded Placebo Controlled Trials (RDBPC Trials)

So, what does that mean for all those pseudo-scientific RDBPC trials touted as being the gold standard in testing drugs? Obviously, it means that they’re worthless—at least in the way that they’re currently applied in pharmaceutical drug trials. Clearly, they are easily and routinely subverted.

The effects of a drug when the entire populace is examined are obviously more important than carefully designed trials, especially when they’re done by or for the people who stand to profit from them.

Adverse Effects

But the story is even worse than this study demonstrates, because it doesn’t address the adverse effects of statins, which can be quite severe. They include pancreatitis, rhabdomyolysis (muscle pain and wasting), hepatitis, angioedema, urticaria, shortness of breath, edema, pruritis, and blood in the urine. All of these can be life threatening or indicative of the onset of life-threatening conditions. It is, therefore, safe to assume that statins are among those drugs that do far more harm than good.

Gaia Health has been telling you the truth about statins, digging through the trials to point out the flaws and telling you about their risks. Based on these deeply-flawed studies, so-called experts have been pressing more and more people to take these devastatingly dangerous drugs. There’s even a push to put everyone over a certain age on them, and suggestions by doctors that they should be handed out like condiments at fast food restaurants.

The inherent flaws and corruption at the heart of modern medicine are demonstrated by this single incontrovertible study. They are exemplified by simply noting that:

Disease is not caused by a lack of drugs!

Source:

No connection between the level of exposition to statins in the population and the incidence/mortality of acute myocardial infarction: An ecological study based on Sweden’s municipalities

Tagged big pharma, biomed central statins, conventional medicine, Journal of Negative Results, modern medicine, no truth to statin claims, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, science, statin claims, statins, statins provide no benefit, statins study, swedish statins study