By: Mike Adams
Source: NaturalNews.com
Breaking news: According to two Merck scientists who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010 — a complaint which has just now been unsealed — vaccine manufacturer Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood Continue reading
By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com
Faster than a speeding bullet, closer to the speed of sound―in the very near future your next vaccine may be injected into your body quicker than the blink of your eye.
And it’ll be nearly painless, if scientists at Continue reading
By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com
A new amendment to California’s Health and Safety Code as it relates to vaccinations will take effect this fall for the 2012-2013 school year, and will require all incoming seventh graders, as well as eighth and twelfth Continue reading
By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com
It is a common myth today that the vaccines administered to children no longer contain the toxic additive thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative linked to causing permanent neurological damage. But a recent federal case involving the U.S. Food Continue reading
By: S. D. Wells
Source: NaturalNews.com
It’s been only 70 years since World War II, and the mad scientists from companies like I.G. Farben, BASF, Hoechst, Dow and Bayer, who created the gas chambers and tested dangerous vaccines on innocent Jews, didn’t just Continue reading
By: Mike Adams
Source: NaturalNews.com
Another shocking case of tyrannical, overzealous social workers and hospital staff has unfolded in Pennsylvania, where a mom who just gave birth in an ambulance to a healthy baby girl was threatened by a government social worker and Continue reading
By: P. E. Winchester
Source: NaturalNews.com
In the continued effort by government and the pharmaceutical industry to push increasing amounts of vaccinations on the general public, the California Center for Disease Control advocates for an adult immunization schedule including:
Seasonal Influenza (flu)
Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (TDaP)
Shingles (for adults 60 and older)
Pneumococcal disease (for 65 and older, or specific health concerns)
Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
Hepatitis A and B
Chicken Pox,
Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)
The CDC puts forth completely misleading articles designed to convince the individual that all this is actually required for a healthy life. The page begins: “Immunizations are NOT just for kids! Whether a young adult, middle-aged adult, or senior citizen, we ALL need immunizations to keep us healthy.” This is directly from the CDC, unaltered; notice the emphasis and the terms. That is called propaganda, designed specifically to make you feel a certain way, and it is combined with graphics depicting smiling happy older folks with a little bandage on their arm where they got the shot, implying that you will be creating a happy world by getting vaccinated. The pharmaceutical companies sure are smiling, carrying out their eugenics program.
This is designed to continue the trend of having life long pharmaceutical customers riddled with disease. The evidence that these vaccines are effective is negligible at best. Recent whooping cough outbreaks in California involved more than 90% immunized children, proving that there is no such thing as “herd immunity.” As well, it is well documented that with the increase in immunization, an increase in chronic illness, allergies, auto-immune disorders, cancers, and neurological disorders is seen.
The recent discovery of recombinant HPV DNA bound to the aluminum adjuvant in the HPV vaccine is very concerning; there is no reason to inject people with aluminum, known to have neurologically damaging effects. Many vaccines contain thimerosal, which is made with mercury – also very damaging. This and the other serious health effects of the HPV vaccine and others have been covered in depth by Natural News.
The CDC is also guilty of misrepresenting state law regarding children’s vaccines, thus perpetuating the lie that they are required for school. In a recent back to school vaccine push, the California CDC put forth that proof of administration of the TDaP vaccine was required for 7th graders to return to school. When the law is inspected however, it says specifically that the shot is “recommended” and not required. It also makes note that there is a religious and personal belief waiver. Why doesn’t the CDC say that? That would be an honest government using tax dollars to inform the public about laws, but obviously that is not what we have. It’s time to hold these institutions to a higher standard, or eliminate them altogether.
Combine all this with the modern industrial diet, which exposes the body to more cancer and disease causing elements. Mercury is in the corn syrup. GMO products are shown to cause sterility in 3 generations of rodents who eat them, and they are linked to livestock death. This is a recipe for disaster, causing a society that is chronically unhealthy, yet the CDC does not address this. They push the pharmaceutical angle with no real debate, regardless of the fact that the CDC themselves have record of vaccines causing damage.
Humans have an amazingly powerful immune system, which is strengthened through the power of whole nutrition and contact with the natural world (like getting sunlight and touching the earth to get minerals and to ground the body’s electrical charge). This is how to be healthy and strong, not with vaccinations.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com
The medical community is in the process of unveiling a “universal” influenza vaccine that it claims will prevent all flu strains with a single jab. The only problem is that, in the process, the system has inadvertently admitted that current flu shots are medically useless because they fail to target the correct flu strain in many cases, and they do not stimulate a natural flu-fighting immune response even when the strain is a match.
A recent report by CBS 11 News in Dallas / Fort Worth explains that researchers from the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas have identified a compound they say spurs the growth of a key protein known as REDD-1, which prevents cells from becoming infected. By injecting this compound into patients, REDD-1 will increase, say the researchers, and thus effectively prevent any strain of flu from taking hold.
But what about current flu vaccines? Dr. Beatrice Fontoura, one of the head researchers involved with the new universal flu shot, explained to CBS 11 that it works differently than current flu shots because it “stimulates our own (immune) response which is already there and boost[s] it to fight an infection.”
In other words, flu shots being sold today at pharmacies across the country do not actually promote natural immunity at all, which begs an important question. If current flu shots do not boost the immune response, then what, exactly, are they good for?
Not much, according to a recent study published inThe Lancet. Though the mainstream media widely reported that the study’s findings showed an effectiveness rate of 60 percent for flu shots, actual data in the study reveal that flu shots help about 1.5 out of every 100 adults. This, of course, translates into a measly 1.5 percent effectiveness rate.
And yet, for years, medical professionals everywhere have been hounding the public to get their flu shots or else face horrific sickness and even death. And those who continue to avoid the flu shot based on concerns about its safety and effectiveness have been routinely dubbed “anti-science,” or worse.
Ironically, the CBS 11 piece about the universal flu shot also contains an interview with a woman who admits that she stopped getting the flu shot because it made her sick every single year. Once she stopped getting flu shots, she stopped getting the flu. So why, again, do we even need a universal flu shot?
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com
Pertussis vaccine in the combination DPT shot for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis that is supposed to prevent whooping cough has been associated with brain inflammation, permanent brain damage and infant death since it was used on a mass basis in the U.S. starting in the late 1940′s.
A 1985 book DPT: A Shot in the Dark by Coulter and Fisher book described the questionable safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, which was replaced in the U.S. in 1996 by an acellular version (DtaP).
Recently, there have been reports of B. pertussis whooping cough outbreaks in California among both vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults.
In fact, in 2010, the majority of confirmed or suspected reported whooping cough cases were in vaccinated people.
In an eye-opening report, the Watchdog Institute found that DtaP vaccine immunity only lasts about three years.
In addition, there is evidence that bacterial organism that causes whooping cough has evolved to become vaccine resistant, which is another big reason there is a rise in reported cases of B. pertussis whooping cough.
The DtaP vaccine, although reported to be less reactive, can still cause brain inflammation and brain damage in some individuals.
While infants and young children are at greatest risk, NO ONE is exempt from the potential serious complications of vaccination, one of which brain inflammation after DPT or DtaP vaccinatoin.
In the video profile of pertussis vaccine injury above, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), interviews a Houston family with a history of vaccine reactions that spans three generations. Now, a 12 year old child in the family has become permanently disabled from a reaction to the DtaP vaccine that was given to her, along with 6 other vaccines, at age 15 months.
This family has chosen to share their heartbreaking story to help those, who have had the same experience, feel less alone, and to educate others about what it means to be vaccine injured. What happened to this family is a potent reminder of just how important it is to make well-informed decisions about vaccinations.
Infant Death Reports After DTP Vaccination in Africa
As discussed in Barbara’s featured video, vaccine reactions can run in families, causing some people to be more susceptible to damage than others. There may even be differences between the sexes in general. We don’t really know, as few studies have focused on teasing out such details.
However, a number of observational studies have suggested that many female infants in Africa below 12-months of age die after the “non-specific” effects of vaccination with diphtheria-tetanus toxoids and killed (whole-cell) Bordetella pertussis (DTwP).
According to a recent Danish study published in the Journal of Tropical Medicine:
“From an immunological point of view, we hypothesize that the adverse effects of DTwP vaccine may occur because of the Th2-polarising effect of the aluminium phosphate adjuvant in the vaccine and because intramuscular administration of the vaccine may cause chronic inflammation at the site of injection.
… Sexual dimorphism [sex related differences] affecting immune functions and vitamin A supplementation may influence both the deleterious and beneficial nonspecific effects of immunization.”
Earlier this summer, I posted a report on the research of Dr. Peter Aaby, who has spent more than 30 years studying the causes of excessively high child mortality in Guinea-Bissau. His research has been published in dozens of professional journals, yet few are taking any notice. With archives of more than 1 million research files to back up his findings, Dr. Aaby has published several papers questioning the safety of the DTP vaccine (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis).
Over the past decade alone he’s published 34 papers—all questioning the safety of the DTP. (For clarification, the DTP is the older whole cell pertussis vaccine associated with a high number of cases of convulsions, brain inflammation and permanent brain damage and was, in the US, replaced with the DTaP vaccine in 1996.) Dr. Aaby’s studies on the DTP vaccine given to infants in Guinea-Bissau showed that:
Furthermore, just like the featured Danish study above mentions, vitamin A supplementation was found to influence mortality. Dr. Aaby discovered that girls were 41 percent more likely to die if they were given vitamin A at birth, while boys seemed to receive minor benefit from the supplement.
Taken together, the Danish study and Dr. Aaby’s work indicate that there are differences between the sexes that are completely ignored, and vaccines alone or in conjunction with vitamin supplementation may impact girls and boys very differently.
In the groundbreaking 1985 book DPT: A Shot in the Dark by Harris Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher, the authors described the ingredients in whole cell pertussis vaccine (DPT) that include a number of toxic components, with bioactive pertussis toxin (PT) and endotoxin being among the most lethal. Pertussis toxin is the component thought to be primarily responsible for the most feared complication of B. pertussis (whooping cough) and the pertussis vaccine: brain inflammation (encephalitis).
Brain inflammation and permanent brain damage was associated with whole cell pertussis vaccine from the time it started to be used in the U.S. and Europe in the 1920′s. Pertussis toxin is still used in labs to deliberately induce experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) in lab animals during experiments. Another toxin in the whole cell pertussis vaccine – endotoxin – can cause shock and death in humans and animals.
I’ve written quite a bit about the potential health dangers of vaccines containing toxic preservatives and adjuvants. One of the immune stimulating adjuvants in vaccines, including whole cell and acelullar pertussis vaccines, is aluminum.
In the featured Danish study, the researchers hypothesize that the aluminum adjuvant in DTP may be associated with the increased death rate in infant girls. (It is important to note that DTP vaccine also contains a mercury preservative (thimerosal) and mercury, like aluminum, is a known neurotoxin).
And, while the study focused only on African children, who may be more susceptible to vaccine damage due to poor nutrition and other environmental factors that can affect healthy immune function, it does highlight the fact that some vaccine components carry significant risks and may harm individual children, who could otherwise have gone on to live healthy lives. In the U.S., most childhood vaccines (except influenza vaccine in multi-dose vials) are now delivered in thimerosal-free single dose vials.
Some vaccines used in the U.S. and around the world contain mercury preservatives, including the ones listed below. You can find a complete list of mercury content in U.S.-licensed vaccines here. You can also calculate the amount of mercury in shots that your doctor recommends by using the Vaccine Ingredient Calculator.
The aluminum-derivatives used in the manufacturing of some vaccines have been shown to affect brain and immune function in lab animals and humans and a number of other vaccine ingredients also have also been associated with health problems in humans, such as:
That said, I believe that studies such as the ones mentioned here are like smoke signals, reinforcing the fact that there are significant health risks associated with vaccines, even though science still has a long way to go to pin down the exact biological mechanismsinvolved when vaccines cause injury and death.
The authors of the DPT study simply state that the deaths are due to the “non-specific effects” of vaccination, although their hypothesis is that the aluminum adjuvants may play an important role. As mentioned previously, DPT vaccine also contains pertussis toxin and endotoxin and there is inadequate scientific knowledge about exactly how those toxins interact with aluminum adjuvants and mercury preservatives to cause acute inflammation in the body that may contribute to sudden infant death or encephalitis that that leads to chronic brain inflammation and permanent brain damage.
In the US, children are given multiple doses of an acellular pertussis vaccine (DtaP, Tdap) to try to prevent B. pertussis whooping cough. Acellular pertussis vaccines do not contain mercury preservatives and have reduced amounts of bioactive pertussis toxin and endotoxin. They appear to cause fewer cases of brain inflammation and permanent brain damage but are still not entirey safe for every child. Pertussis containing vaccines (DTaP) are given five times to children under age six, plus booster doses (Tdap) for teenagers and adults.
The question is, are whole cell and acellular pertussis vaccines as safe as they can be?
As Barbara Loe Fisher discussed in a previous article, pertussis vaccines can contain various amounts of bioactive toxins, including aluminum and mercury additives, and are known to have killed and brain injured some children. In fact, over half of the 2,480 awards for vaccine injury and death totaling $2 billion dollars made under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act involved the pertussis vaccine in DPT or DtaP shots.
There is also evidence in the scientific literature that suggests universal use of the pertussis vaccine for more than 60 years has put pressure on the B. pertussis organism to evolve and become vaccine resistant and there is evidence that whooping cough outbreaks are occurring in highly vaccinated countries, such as the U.S. as a result!
In related news, another preliminary study (presented at the American Society for Microbiology conference in Chicago in September) has revealed that the acellular pertussis vaccine loses much of its effectiveness after just three years. This is much faster than previously believed, and could also help explain the recent whooping cough outbreaks in the U.S.
According to CBSNews:
“[I]ts authors said the results need to be confirmed through more research. Nevertheless, the findings are likely to stir debate over whether children should get a booster shot earlier than now recommended. ”I was disturbed to find maybe we had a little more confidence in the vaccine than it might deserve,” said the lead researcher, Dr. David Witt…”
Unfortunately, stacking on additional booster shots is likely to make matters worse rather than better, especially in light of the fact that the mass use of existing pertussis vaccines has already led to vaccine resistant strains that are evolving and could become much more virulent. If anything, all of these findings taken together—the increased infant mortality in baby girls, the mutation factor, and the faster-than-thought wane in effectiveness—offer a potent illustration of how a perfect storm is created if we do not change how we think about public health policy that relies so heavily on mass vaccination.
It is becoming increasingly necessary to continue to educate yourself and your family on the issues surrounding vaccinations of all kinds. There are so many problems; no one article can possibly cover them all.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com
Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) is not contagious.
It is an autoimmune disorder that develops when a person’s own immune system attacks and damages the myelin sheath of the body’s nerves, causing muscle weakeness and paralysis.
GBS symptoms can last for a few weeks or months or can become permanent.
In rare cases, people die from GBS, usually because they cannot breathe.
In the U.S., an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 people develop GBS annually.
Some healthy people, who develop GBS, have recently recovered from a viral or bacterial infection within the previous 4-8 weeks but others have recently been vaccinated.
The inactivated influenza vaccine has been associated with development of GBS since 1976, when an inactivated “swine flu” shot given to millions of healthy Americans caused GBS in several hundred previously healthy Americans and there were 30 deaths.
The CDC says: ”In 1976 there was a small increased risk of GBS following vaccination with an influenza vaccine made to protect against a swine flu virus. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS.
Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.”
When there is total paralysis, GBS becomes life-threatening because it can impair breathing and interfere with the heart rate and cause high or low blood pressure that can lead to serious complications, such as heart attack and stroke.
It is important to recognize the early symptoms of GBS, whether you have been vaccinated or not, and seek immediate medical care.
While infants and young children are at greatest risk, NO ONE is exempt from the potential serious complications of vaccination, one of which is GBS.
In the video profile of vaccine injury above, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), interviews a Connecticut artist and her mother, a former professor of nursing, who developed Guillaine-Barre syndrome after getting a seasonal flu shot in 2008 and today is permanently disabled with total body paralysis. This family has chosen to share their heartbreaking story to help those, who have had the same experience, feel less alone, and to educate others about what it means to be vaccine injured. What happened to this family is a potent reminder of just how important it is to make well-informed decisions about vaccinations.
While many have become used to vaccines being considered “routine,” there’s really nothing routine about them. Each and every vaccine carries an inherent risk of causing a reaction, injury or death that can be greater for some individuals than others. The seasonal flu vaccine is no exception when it comes to serious health risks, both short- and long-term, for some people. This is why the trend of getting your flu shot at the local drugstore, grocery store or other non-medical setting is so troubling.
According to a recent article in NPR:
“In 2010, 18.4 percent of adults who were immunized received the flu vaccine at a supermarket or drugstore, just edging out workplace vaccinations for the second most popular venue, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
… [W]hile more people are going to the pharmacy, the number of Americans who get the flu vaccine each year has remained fairly constant at about 40 percent of all adults. Drugstores and supermarket pharmacies are eager to stake out a bigger piece of that market. Nationwide, the number of pharmacists trained to deliver vaccines has nearly quadrupled since 2007, from 40,000 to 150,000.”
While pharmacists are trained to administer the vaccine, they’re not necessarily trained to address a sudden and life threatening health emergency that may arise after the shot is given. It’s important to understand that ALL vaccines carry a risk for provoking an acute adverse reaction, such as fainting or having a seizure, which could be truly life threatening if you’re driving a car or crossing a street after you have left the store, for example.
Vaccines can also be immune suppressive—that is, they can suppress your immune system, which may not return to normal for weeks to months. Here are just some of the ways vaccines can impair and alter your immune response:
The flu vaccine may also pose an immediate risk to your cardiovascular system due to the fact that they elicit an inflammatory response. One 2007 study published in the Annals of Medicine concluded that:
“Abnormalities in arterial function and LDL oxidation may persist for at least two weeks after a slight inflammatory reaction induced by influenza vaccination. These could explain in part the earlier reported increase in cardiovascular risk during the first weeks after an acute inflammatory disorder.”
Thimerosal, which is 49 percent mercury by volume, is a widely used vaccine preservative.
It is present in many different vaccines used in the U.S., including the majority of seasonal flu vaccines, although there are a few million doses of thimerosal-free single dose vials of influenza vaccine manufactured by drug companies that are supposed to be reserved for infants and pregnant women.
However if you are pregnant or have an infant and want to get a flu shot, be aware that you may have to specifically insist on getting the thimerosal-free single vial version as many health practitioners and pharmacists are still clueless about the health risks associated with thimerosal.
Some don’t even know that thimerosal is a mercury derivative!
A typical dose of thimerosal-containing flu vaccine contains 25 micrograms thimerosal. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the safe limit for human exposure to mercury is 0.1 mcg per kilo of weight per day.
Since almost half of the thimerosal is mercury, this means that each flu shot contains just over 12 mcg’s of mercury, which would be considered unsafe for anyone weighing less than 120 kilos, or just under 265 pounds.
There’s really no debate about whether or not mercury is a neurotoxin. It’s a well-established fact that it is. It’s also well understood that mercury is particularly damaging to young, developing brains, and this is one of the core concerns about vaccines. If it’s unsafe to breathe or ingest mercury, why would it suddenly become harmless when injected directly into your body, bypassing all of your body’s natural detoxification pathways?
If anything, the damage is likely to be far more profound! The following video offers a powerful illustration of how mercury literally destroys brain neurons.
On October 18, The Australian published an article questioning the omission of research showing a dramatic uptick in side effects from the flu vaccine in 2006. As you may recall, last year, Australia temporarily suspended all seasonal flu vaccinations for children under the age of five after noticing a 200 percent increase in unusual fevers and convulsions. At that time, CSL submitted updated research from 2006 showing a sharp rise in fevers linked to its vaccine, which they had omitted from the legally required product information sheets given to doctors.
The product sheets instead listed figures from 2005.
The 2005 information showed 22.5 per cent of children under three, and nearly 16 percent of children aged three to nine experienced fever as a side effect. Meanwhile the updated figures for 2006 showed the rate of unusual fevers had nearly DOUBLED, to 39.5 percent in children up to three, and 27 percent for three to nine-year olds.
According to The Australian:
“Both sets of results were published in 2009, but CSL has still not included the more alarming set of figures in the product information. The Medical Journal of Australia reported… that CSL did not give this information to Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, until last year when the spate of serious febrile convulsions in young children given the annual flu jab triggered a suspension on the use of such vaccines for children under five.”
The CSL’s explanation for the omission is that they didn’t think the 2006 figures were “clinically substantially different” to the 2005 figures. Really? If a doubling of side effects is not substantially and clinically different, then what is?
CSL now claims to have pinpointed the potential problem causing their H1N1 vaccine (Fluvax) to be so much more reactive than seasonal flu vaccines of the past. According to a September 3 article in The Australian:
“CSL followed World Health Organisation recommendations when it concocted its controversial Fluvax vaccine, which combined swine flu with two seasonal strains of influenza for the first time… CSL yesterday revealed a breakthrough in its 18-month scientific investigation… It said the interim findings pointed to a problem with how the three virus strains interacted.
“Our scientific studies indicate that the interaction between the particular virus strains used in the 2010 . . . vaccine contributed to the reactions, but we are still working to understand the how and why,” a CSL spokeswoman told The Weekend Australian. “We have completed comprehensive investigations into our manufacturing operations (which) have not identified any change or deviation in our standard registered manufacturing process that could have contributed to the increased reactions.”"
However, the World Health Organization (WHO) has rebutted CSL’s conclusions stating that:
“None of the other manufacturers have seen the same sort of effects with these strains,” Dr [Ian] Barr [deputy director of the WHO's influenza research laboratory in Melbourne] said. He ruled out testing the WHO’s flu-shot recipe — which tends to change each year — before new vaccines were used on people. “It’s just not possible because this is more or less a just-in-time vaccine,” he said.”
Both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Australian counterpart, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), have blamed the problem on manufacturing deficiencies, poor management, and inadequate cleaning and testing at the CSL facility.According to The Australian:
“The TGA said yesterday different manufacturing processes could explain why only CSL’s vaccine caused such widespread side-effects in children last year.”While the different brands of seasonal influenza vaccines use the same strains of virus, there are differences in manufacturing processes that may result in differences in the biology of the vaccines,” an administration spokeswoman said.
The 2009-2010 H1N1 swine flu vaccine wreaked uncommon havoc in many countries. For example, several European countries noticed a staggering uptick in narcolepsy —a rare and devastating sleeping disorder. Unfortunately, vaccine makers are completely shielded from liability for any harm caused by a pandemic vaccine, which is what the H1N1 flu vaccine was, so the fact that this vaccine turned out to be so harmful is a red flag for everyone to carefully weigh potential benefits and risks, and not trust blindly when health officials and doctors give standard assurances of vaccine safety and effectiveness.
In a rare and welcome demonstration of compassion and respect for the vaccine injured, the Finnish government and major health insurance companies recently announced they will pay for lifetime medical care for all the children diagnosed with narcolepsy after receiving the swine flu vaccine.
As reported by Yahoo News:
“Finnish and international researchers recently found a conclusive link between the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine and new cases of narcolepsy… The Finnish Pharmaceutical Insurance Pool (LVP), which represents insurance companies, said… it would honor all insurance claims in this category… The Finnish government meanwhile agreed to cover any medical costs exceeding the insurance claims.
In Finland, 79 children between the ages of four and 19 developed narcolepsy after receiving the Pandemrix vaccine in 2009 and 2010. Of these cases, an unusually high number, 76, also suffered from bouts of cataplexy, suffering hallucinations or paralysing physical collapses, according to Finnish research.”
In the U.S., trivalent influenza vaccination is universally recommended for all pregnant women, but a new study now calls this practice into question. The study examined “the magnitude, time course, and variance in inflammatory responses following seasonal influenza virus vaccination among pregnant women.” The women were assessed prior to, and at one day, two days, and one week following vaccination..
The analysis showed significant increases in C-reactive protein (CRP) and other markers of inflammation following the vaccinations.According to the authors:
“Trivalent influenza virus vaccination elicits a measurable inflammatory response among pregnant women … There was considerable variability in magnitude of response; coefficients of variation for change at two days post-vaccination ranged from 122 percent to 728 percent, with the greatest variability in IL-6 responses at this timepoint.
… As adverse perinatal health outcomes including preeclampsia and preterm birth have an inflammatory component, a tendency toward greater inflammatory responding to immune triggers may predict risk of adverse outcomes, providing insight into biological mechanisms underlying risk… further research is needed to confirm that the mild inflammatory response elicited by vaccination is benign in pregnancy.”
The issue of inflammation is very important, and may be a crucial concern for pregnant women and infants. Pregnant women experiencing acute inflammation, whether from natural infection or from a vaccination, may well suffer an increased risk of their unborn child suffering health damage as a result.
It has always been a principle in medicine that one should not expose pregnant women to unnecessary risks from smoking or ingesting drugs or alcohol or other toxins because the risk to the unborn child is too great. Until a decade ago, most women were not routinely advised by doctors to get vaccinated during pregnancy but, today, there is a big push by the CDC and medical trade organizations to vaccinate all pregnant women in any trimester. The really big push began in earnest during the much-hyped pandemic “swine flu” influenza scare of 2009, a flu that turned out to be less severe than most annual “flu seasons.”
Researchers are now questioning the assumed safety of giving flu shots to pregnant women because stimulating a woman’s immune system during midterm and later term pregnancy may significantly increase the risk that her baby will develop autism during childhood and schizophrenia sometime during the teenage years and afterward. This risk is not minor. According to Dr. Blaylock, it’s a well-accepted fact within neuroscience that eliciting an immune response during pregnancy increases the risk of autism and schizophrenia in her offspring seven- to 14-fold!
In fact, a number of neurodevelopmental and behavioral problems can occur in babies born to women immunologically stimulatedduring pregnancy. For example, in one study done by Dr. Laura Hewitson, a professor of obstetrics at the University of Pittsburg Medical Center, found that a single vaccine used in human babies, when used in newborn monkeys, caused significant abnormalities in brainstem development.
It’s true that serious flu infections or E. coli infections during pregnancy are a major risk for all these complications, but a woman’s risk of actually becoming infected is quite small.
Two years ago, I interviewed Dr. Blaylock, a board certified neurosurgeon and author of Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills, on this topic. At the time, we were discussing the swine flu and H1N1 vaccine, but one particular segment relates to the issue of vaccinations during pregnancy in general. As stated above, vaccines elicit an inflammatory response, and according to Dr. Blaylock, this is of considerableconcern for pregnant women.
Based on the data Dr. Blaylock shared in that interview, pregnant women had about a 99.97 percent chance of NOT becoming so ill from the swine flu that they would require any type of hospital care. Put another way, a pregnant woman only had a 0.03 percent chance of contracting a life-threatening case of influenza. These statistics would likely be applicable for most “regular” flu seasons as well. With the risk of suffering complications from naturally-acquired influenza being so low, why is the US government insisting on vaccinating ALL pregnant women; thereby significantly increasing the risk to ALL unborn infants?
Each year, the CDC and medical trade associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urge pregnant women and young children to get a flu shot because, they say, pregnant women and young children are “particularly at risk” for flu complications and death. However, the statistics simply do not support this recommendation.
Neither does the science…
Unfortunately, many obstetricians and pediatricians strongly recommend the flu vaccine to their pregnant patients because they simply don’t know any better.
Doctors typically do not read neuroscience journals, perhaps because they don’t have the time or because it is a lot easier to just blindly trust and follow the CDC or AAP “recommendations” without every checking them out. But the link between inflammatory cytokine production during pregnancy and subsequent health problems in infants and young children is well explained in the medical literature; it’s been published in well-respected journals and is already accepted within the field of neuroscience.
Fortunately, avoiding a serious case of the flu doesn’t require a flu vaccine. By following these simple guidelines, you can keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you’re far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with or, if you do get sick with the flu, you are better prepared to move through it without complications and soon return to good health.
Ideally, you’ll want to get all your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, but as a last resort you can take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. According to the latest review by Carole Baggerly (Grassrootshealth.org), adults need about 8,000 IU’s a day.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com
There is currently no known threat of a bioterrorism attack, let alone any sort of tangible threat of widespread anthrax poisoning. And yet a group of advisers to the federal government’s National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB) are now suggesting that healthy children be injected with an untested anthrax vaccine just to see if it offers any sort of protection from anthrax poisoning.
This outlandish proposal marks a new low in the federal government’s public display of respect for human life, and is one that many are decrying as completely unethical and just plain dangerous. And yet the Obama administration’s NBSB is very seriously considering approving it, and will vote on it this upcoming Friday.
Daniel B. Fagbuyiof from the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, DC, recently tried to defend the proposal to the Washington Post (WP) by generating fear about a potential future biological attack. He alleges that if children do not get the vaccine now for research purposes, they will end up getting an untested version of it later.
But not everyone is buying into the fear-mongering, including Joel Frader, a pediatrician and bioethicist from Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. He and others suggest that any proposal to use healthy children as vaccine guinea pigs is absurd, and that “it would be difficult to justify testing [the vaccine] on kids simply on the hypothetical possibility that there might be an attack.”
The other issue is that the same vaccine, which has already been tested on adults and administered to military servicemen, leaves much to be desired in the effectiveness department. It is also linked to causing serious health conditions such as hearing loss, neurological problems, and Guillain-Barre syndrome.
“Unlike measles, mumps and other diseases, the chance that children will be exposed to anthrax is theoretical, making the risk-benefit calculus of testing a vaccine on them much more questionable,” wrote Rob Stein from WP concerning the vaccine.
“There are serious questions about the vaccine’s effectiveness in adults as well as concerns about sometimes serious complications among those vaccinated in the military. A variety of complications have been reported, including nervous system and autoimmune disorders.”
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
By: Mike Adams
Source: NaturalNews.com
A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that “flu vaccines are 60% effective!”
This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn’t even bother to read the study itself (as usual).
NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these “scientific” studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.
The “60% effectiveness” claim is a total lie – here’s why
What we found is that the “60% effectiveness” claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that “60% effectiveness” means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won’t get the flu!
Thus, the “60% effectiveness” claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.
This is utterly false.
In reality — and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, “Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis” — only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!
Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots
Let’s start with the actual numbers from the study.
The “control group” of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.
The “treatment group” consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.
The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.
So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly “scientific” conclusion from this is rather astonishing:
Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!
Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines
In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines “don’t work on 99 out of 100 people.” Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).
So where does the media get “60% effective?”
This is called “massaging the numbers,” and it’s an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.
First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.
You can then say that 0.43 is “43% of 2.73,” and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a “57% decrease” in influenza infections. This then becomes a “57% effectiveness rate” claim.
The overall “60% effectiveness” being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.
So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are “60% effective,” what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.
But you’ve probably already noticed that the mainstream media won’t dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are “60% effective,” whatever that means.
How to lie with statistics
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these “relative numbers” are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.
You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is “50% effective at preventing breast cancer!”
But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.
But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a “50% breast cancer prevention rate!” And most consumers will buy into this because they don’t understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, “Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!”
And yet that’s utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.
Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies
At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don’t), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.
In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let’s suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:
“This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!”
You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality — scientifically speaking — you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)
How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?
Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don’t tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!
It’s very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines “work” better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer’s. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.
So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)
Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help
Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may “shrink tumors” in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as “cancer survivors” are, for the most part, actually “chemo survivors.”
Good news for children?
If there’s any “good news” in this study, it’s that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.
So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).
Guess who funded this study?
This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.
For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics.
The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called “Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine,” which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.
Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study
Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:
Problem #1) The “control” group was often given a vaccine, too
In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the “control” groups were given so-called “insert” vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The “control” group, in other words, wasn’t really a proper control group in many studies.
Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children
It’s the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It’s no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against “never vaccinated” children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.
Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D
Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots. Read the article to see the actual “absolute” numbers in this study.
Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines
Vaccines are considered “effective” if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer’s two decades later? Is that still a “success?” If you’re a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer’s pills, too. That’s probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.
Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis
There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were “selected” for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.
Remember: Scientific fraud isn’t the exception in modern medicine; it is the rule. Most of the “science” you read in today’s medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.
Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers
I haven’t had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I’m willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in “scientific” circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn’t been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don’t expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They’d rather not reveal what happens when you follow the money.
Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!
Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we’re going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?
That’s a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?
Just for fun, let’s conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?
Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That’s the far more likely reality of the situation.
Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That’s why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask ‘em yourself this coming winter, and you’ll see.)
What the public believes
Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are “70 to 90 percent effective.” This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.
It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be “only” 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, “Vaccines don’t work as well as you might have thought.” These headlines were followed up with explanations like “Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!”
I hate to break it to ‘em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.
Outright fraudulent marketing
Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!
So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?
It’s truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit’s foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as “science” today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.
That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn’t difficult these days. Just shroud it all under “science” jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!
The real story on flu shots that you probably don’t want to know
Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren’t for halting the flu. We’ve already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the “science” on that.
So what are flu shots really for?
You won’t like this answer, but I’ll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to “soft kill” the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated “public health” message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.
Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and “weed out” those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.
And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Anthony Gucciardi
GreenMedInfo.com
October 3, 2011
Experts have asserted that the H1N1 vaccine, now having been added to the regular seasonal flu shot, can lead to a killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndromeand even death. The link has been confirmed by studies, anecdotal evidence, and even the vaccine insert itself. The insert, detailing information about the Influenza A (H1N1) Monovalent Vaccine, details risks far beyond Guillain-Barre Syndrome. For all of the details you can read the insert yourself in PDF form.
Here are some of the conditions associated with the H1N1 vaccine, according to the insert:
To view the original article visit www.greenmedinfo.com/
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines