From Hell To Veins

August 3, 2016

Colorado Vaccine Exemptions. What You Need To Know.

Update: 8/27/16

Colorado Pediatrician’s Office Caught ‘Opting-In’ Patient WITHOUT The Parents Knowledge Or Consent.

You need to verify if YOUR pediatrician’s office did the same in your children’s case.  

Parent’s children opted into Colorado’s privacy violating Vaccine Tracking System by stealth.

I ‘caught’ that my daughter’s pediatrician’s office had opted her ‘INTO’ the Colorado vaccine tracking system WITHOUT my knowledge or consent.  Even if we had ‘signed something’ (which I don’t believe I had) the facts concerning the vaccine tracking database,  (i.e. ALL information sent to the database can be given to ANY third parties),  was not verbally explained to us.  Even more troubling, we the parents, were NEVER given the option to ‘opt-out’.

The way it was relayed to me by the office workers on how she was ‘opted into’ the database, was that my daughter was simply opted in as a “new patient”.  Which, says to me, that opting in ‘new patients’ is a ‘protocol procedure’ by the pediatrician’s office rather than an option given to the parents AFTER the nature of the vaccine tracking database was explained to the parents.

You need to verify with your pediatrician’s office that your child / children has or has NOT been ‘opted into’ the Colorado vaccine tracking database.  It’s imperative that you opt your child out of the medical information privacy violating tracking system.

————————————————–

ATTENTION COLORADO PARENTS

BY LAW’ YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT YOUR CHILD’S IMMUNIZATION INFORMATION TO THE PRIVACY VIOLATING CHILD ONLINE VACCINE TRACKING SYSTEM!

COLORADO SCHOOLS BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MUST ACCEPT YOUR HARDCOPY IMUNAIZATION / EXEMPTION FORMS.  IT IS THE LAW.

Big pharm’s lobbyists camped inside the Colorado state capitol have done an  ‘end around’ on  our laws protecting our children’s privacy.

whether you give your child all the vaccines, just some, or no vaccines at all, you as a parent,  have an obligation to protect your child’s information from unknown third parties.

As of July 1 2016, lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry will use and give your child’s medical information to whomever they feel fit to do so.  Our state fathers once protected us from such scalawags but, not in this day and age any longer.

The good news is that we fought hard the bill presented to Colorado  representatives and senators by the big pharmaceutical lobby.   Your children’s privacy can ONLT be handed over if YOU allow them to do so by filing your child’s immunization records / exemption forms ‘ONLIE’.  DO NOT DO THIS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

How do you protect your children in the state of Colorado?

Colorado schools by state law CAN NOT TURN YOUR CHILDREN’S PRIVATE INFORMATION OVER TO ANYONE WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.  Therefore, do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE file your child’s immunization information / exemption information through the  Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).  The CDPHE will give your child’s private information to third parties as the Colorado department of education commissioner states in black and white…

In fact, exemption forms submitted to CDPHE would no longer be covered by the confidentiality provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Colorado Child Privacy

Big pharma hated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act because children’s information was protect from big pharma’s predators (i.e. lobby groups) and finally got a bill passed to bypass ‘the privacy law’.

 

THE STATE OF COLORADO IS MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO AQUIRE VACCINE IMMUNIZATION / EXEMPTIONS IN HARDCOPY FORM.

As I write this 8-12-16  at the  Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s own website (CDPHE) website it appears that the public is NOT able to print an exemption form.  It also appears that the state of Colorado is forcing parents to have to get them from their pediatrician who has ‘access’ to the printable version of the form.

YOUR PEDIATRICIAN MUST GIVE YOU A PRINTABLE VERSON OF THE EXEMPTION FORM TO GIVE TO YOUR CHILD’S SCHOOL.  THIS IS THE LAW.  ALSO, BY REQUESTING A COLORADO IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTION FORM FROM YOUR CHILD’S PEDIATRICIAN, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR PEDIATRICIAN’S OFFICE OPTED YOUR CHILD INTO THE VACCINE TRACKING SYSTEM WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

Print this letter (at link below) from the Colorado Department of Health commissioner if your pediatrician refuses to give you a hard copy form.  It spells out the law clearly for him / her.

Colorado Immunization Law

I am not sure if your child’s school as the ability to print the exemption form so you may want to they that avenue as well.

The New Non Medical Exemption Form, guilt tripping you to sign it.

The new Colorado exemption form contains pharma lobby propaganda and makes the signee feel guilty for exercising THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS to immunize their children the way they feel is best for their child.

What to do about it.

1.) You can seek legal council.  The form most likely violates the first amendment.

2.) What I would do is simply right one concise sentence under the signature that simply states…  By signing this form does NOT mean in any way, that I agree with the content contained within the form itself

File your immunization with your child’s public or private school.  Do not under any circumstance, file your immunization information with the CDPHE.  Protect your child’s privacy.

For more information / specifics click link below

New Colorado Immunization Law

 

 

 

February 24, 2016

Stop Colorado Bill HB 1164 A Major Privacy Violation

Filed under: HOME — nwqfk @ 3:15 p02
Tags: , , , ,

As usual, conflict of interest has it’s fingerprints all over this medical privacy violating bill.

CALL YOU STATE REP.

This latest stunt attempting to be pulled off by the vaccine / drug lobby will work just like gun registration.

HB 1164 is being proposed by the state of Colorado to BYPASS federal privacy laws between public and privates schools and third parties who want your child’s medical information.  Namely vaccine exemption information.

It works just like gun registration where it provides a ‘legal’ loophole for third parties like CPS with the full backing of big pharma controlled ‘health organizations’ to come in to your families private lives.  So, instead of gun confiscation think of ‘child confiscation’.
———————————————————-
Colorado Health Department Wants to Track Parents Filing for Vaccine Exemptions

REASONS WHY HB 1164 SHOULD BE OPPOSED:  The state health department is trying to hijack control of vaccine exemptions for school and daycare attendance and force all families using a vaccine exemption to submit it online directly to them for their storage and use instead of directly to a school or daycare.

There is the potential for this private information to be abused:

Immunization information systems like CIIS are being used for interventions including home visits, reminder and recall systems, community based interventions implemented in combination and standing orders.

Vaccine tracking systems and other public health databases can be and have been used to harass those who have chosen to delay or decline vaccines
.
Data breaches happen frequently.
HIPAA provides no protection as the so-called current “opt-out” from the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS) does not remove private information. The new database created by HB 1164 would put you in a separate, internal database and protecting “confidentiality” is not the same as protecting privacy.  Once in the hands of CDPHE, because of permissions for unconsented disclosure for public health purposes authorized by HIPAA, this information could be used to identify and target individuals who are legally not vaccinated by choice for interventions and harassment. This information could also be used to discriminate against these families down the road or even integrated with the information in Colorado’s onerous vaccine tracking and enforcement system called the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS).
There is a lack of trust and transparency between CDPHE and parents who choose not to follow the one-size-fits-all vaccination schedule:

The Colorado Dept. of Health has a history of trying to adopt rules that go beyond their legislative authority, including in 2011 when a workgroup tried to drastically change and restrict the exemptions provided by state law.   It appears that the Colorado Department of Health has presumptuously already set in place the hijacking of the exemption process and implementation of the long standing state law by announcing these drastic changes in the Parent/Guardian FAQs posted on the web site even before HB 1164 has had a first hearing.  2014 HB 1288 required the health department to provide assistance to schools with the analysis and interpretation of the immunization data.  It DID NOT give the health department the authority to create a new separate database and to hijack the current exemption process
.
In a recent state audit, the health department was found to have engaged in activity with the Colorado Children’s Immunization Coalition that was considered a conflict of interest.  As reported by the Durango Herald on Jan. 26, 2016, Audit finds conflict of interest at state health department, the health department contracted with the Colorado Children’s Immunization Coalition awarding $1.8 million in contracts to the coalition from November 2008 through July 2015. From 2012 through 2014, more than half of the vendor’s revenue came from health department contracts.  Given that department personnel were members of the vendor’s board, state auditors raised concerns about a conflict of interest. The Colorado Constitution states that government employees should avoid conflicts of interest to ensure that the state obtains maximum value.

The disrespect and contempt for families exercising their legal right to a vaccine exemption demonstrated by supporters of bills like HB 1164 and HB 1288 in 2014 which created this mess, illustrate exactly why families don’t want CDPHE to have their school and daycare vaccine exemptions and identifying information associated with them.

HB 1164 violates privacy and federal law (FERPA).  If HB 1164 passes there will be NO PRIVACY PROTECTIONS for this most sensitive data:

Once the health department has possession of the exemption information, FERPA privacy protections no longer apply. Because CDPHE is considered a public health authority under HIPAA, they are authorized to use this private information once they have it for preventing or controlling disease and public health interventions without your knowledge or consent. CDPHE and CIIS are not covered entities under HIPAA, so HIPAA provides NO privacy protection for this information.

The current opt-out system for the state vaccine surveillance database (CIIS) does not truly allow anyone to purge their record because personal information is permanently retained. If HB 1164 passes, exemption information also will be retained by the health department in a separate, internal CDPHE database. The result of this will be for families who don’t want to be tracked or receive vaccines is that their information will be stored in two separate databases without their consent.

When CIIS was expanded to allow direct contact for reminders and recalls in 2005 and the again in 2007 to include adults, legislators refused to require prior written consent before information is put into the tracking system.  Requiring prior written consent before any information is put into the system, or an “opt-in” system is the only way to ensure that the only people being tracked are those who want to and have given their permission.  Once the schools hand over this information under HB 1164, it is gone and the parent has no control over what the health department does with it.

Many parents do not even realize their child is already in the tracking system because it is populated without consent by the electronic birth certificate, practitioners, clinics, hospitals and health insurance plans.  These entities are only required to inform you of your right to the so-called opt-out and that you have a right to exemptions, but most don’t even do that.  The only time your prior written consent would be required is when schools covered under FERPA provide that information.   If you are not sure if you or your child is already in the tracking system (CIIS), you can call them at 303-692-2437, option 2, or 1-888-611-9918, option 1.
HB 1164 is costly and unnecessary:

2014 HB 1288 required schools post vaccination and exemption rates on request.  However, there was no fiscal note attached to the bill. It was stated that the work required by HB 1288 aligned with current department workload and no new appropriations were required.  Now the department has asked for additional funding for the tracking system via HB 1247. As reported by The Denver Post, some legislators are looking for $1.35 million in the state budget to bolster vaccine programs, including a statewide vaccination registry.

HB 1288 created the unnecessary burden for schools to provide this information without any funds to support it and now supporters of HB 1164 and the department of health want to take control of the very burden they have created.  This is going to be costly and unnecessary.  The rule that was adopted by the Colorado Board of Health on April 15, 2015 requires all religious and personal belief exemptions to be submitted every year, even though the only required vaccine for 7th through 12th grade in Colorado is a Tdap booster shot.  Prior to kindergarten entry, a nonmedical exemption form must be submitted at each interval in the 2015 ACIP Birth-18 years immunization schedule when immunizations are due.  Medical exemptions would also have to be submitted to the health department. This extra reporting requirement is designed to harass and make the process for parents utilizing exemptions  more difficult.

Supporters of HB 1288 that passed in 2014 argued that parents of immune compromised children wanted to know the exemption rates in schools.  Exemption information for any given school does not give a parent of an immune compromised child all the information they need to decide if that school is a safe place for their child.

Some people are non-responders to some vaccines and vaccine effectiveness for some vaccines, especially for pertussis containing vaccines, wanes rapidly.

Some students are provisionally enrolled and not fully vaccinated. Federal law, the McKinney-Vento Act, requires that homeless students be allowed to attend school without proof of immunizations.

There are no requirements (and there shouldn’t be) that teachers, staff, and administration be vaccinated with the same childhood vaccine schedule
.
These all are people who are no different immunologically than a healthy student with a vaccine exemption and yet they represent a much larger percentage of the school population than the small number of students using a vaccine exemption targeted by this bill.

On the other hand, students with active HIV infections are not only allowed to attend school, the confidentiality of their infection status is protected in state and federal law. Students infected with Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C also attend school without parents of other students being told.

Students who are vaccinated with live viral vaccines experience viral shedding and can infect susceptible individuals for a period of several weeks post vaccination and yet no notices are published in schools and classrooms warning of viral shedding of recently vaccinated students.
Some people who are vaccinated still get the illness (vaccine failures) while some have subclinical infections and can still transmit vaccine preventable diseases and not show symptoms because the vaccine suppresses them
.
Nothing is being done to disclose these real risks to families of immune compromised children.

The bottom line is 2014 HB 1288 should have never been passed because it doesn’t give any useful information on keeping children safe in schools while it isolates and marginalizes healthy children whose parents don’t agree with all government mandated vaccines by focusing schools and parents on misleading and incomplete information.  2014 HB 1288 also forces parents and schools to waste time and resources repeatedly submitting and collecting the same exemption information.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.  Handing over sensitive confidential vaccine exemption information directly into the hands of the health department for school attendance requirements due to a bad bill being passed last session is not acceptable.  Schools should be responsible for personal information in the school record where the privacy and use of this information is protected by federal law. OPPOSE HB 1164.
Sincerely,

November 10, 2015

Parents Stop State’s Unethical HPV Vaccine Push

Where will the forced vaccine trail takes us, and when will it ever end?

Parents who choose or, do not choose to vaccinate themselves or their children need to ban together in each and every state to oppose ‘FORCED’ medical treatments by the pharmaceutical companies.

Most parents who ‘do’ vaccinate their children, do NOT take every single shot in the CDC’s vaccine. Parents who ‘do’ vaccinate their children do NOT always want all the CDC recommended ‘boosters’.

Not all pregnant women want to be forced vaccines while pregnant.

Not all patents in a medical emergency want vaccines forced on them to get treatment.

Most people do NOT want to be forced the hundreds of new vaccines that are ready to come to market, just to be a human Guinea pig.

Get active, stay anonymous but join the millions of people JUST LIKE YOU, who do NOT want forced vaccines simply call your local state rep and tell him / her “NOT NO BUT HECK NO!”. We will preserve are rights to choose what goes into our own bodies and the bodies of our children.

Start a coalition in your state today. Click on link to see how a successful state coalition of people just like you works.
Pennsylvania Coalition for Informed Consent
——————————————————–
Parents Stop State’s Unethical HPV Vaccine Push
Jefferey Jaxen
Contributor, ZenGardner.com

It took exactly one month to the day for an activated Indiana population to turn back efforts by their state’s health department to coerce and pressure parents, outside of law, into having their children receive the potentially dangerous human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV). Independent health journalist, Jefferey Jaxen, was contacted by two separate families telling of letters they received by their state’s health departments regarding their child’s HPV vaccine status. An article chronicling the incidents was immediately published to raise awareness on October 5th, 2015.

Investigation revealed that the official health department letters received did not state whether or not the HPV vaccine was mandatory. This grey area created confusion and anger as many states are currently moving to pass mandatory vaccination laws with potentially severe penalties. What was more striking was the fact that the children, who were named in the official state letters, were found because of their inclusion into a vaccine tracking list. The problem was that the parents never knowingly consented to their child’s participation and inclusion onto this list. Investigations revealed that every state has a vaccine tracking list, or immunization information system, for children. With each step to coerce parents, omit vital information, and unethically push vaccines on children, states are losing major integrity.

Activated Communities are Unstoppable

Indiana parents, along with the American Family Association of Indiana, sent letters, emails, and made phone calls protesting the intrusion by the State’s government into private affairs along with other vaccine related concerns prompted by the letter. After one month, obtuse officials caved and were forced to comply with the will of its citizens. The (Fort Wayne) Journal Gazette reported on November 6th, 2015 that the Indiana State Department of Health has revised a letter sent to about 305,000 parents of Indiana children with no record of having started the three-dose vaccine for human papillomavirus, or HPV. The revised letter now truthfully states that the HPV vaccine is not required by the State of Indiana, information that was previously omitted. The new letter also prominently points out that the Indiana State Department of Health regularly reviews immunization records reported to the state’s Children and Hoosier Immunization Registry Program, or CHIRP, and includes a link to have a child’s information permanently removed from the registry. Commenting on state intrusion into a parent’s medical choice Indiana Governor Mike Pence commented, “I think it is a decision that’s best left to parents in consultation with their doctors.”

The Greater Good for Who?

It should always be remember that the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, are private products of a corporation. Glaxo Smith Kline, the makers of Cervarix, have paid out more that $9.1 billion in a variety of lawsuits and major convictions since 2003. Worldwide, the damage and efficacy of Gardasil and Cervarix is being reviewed by many regulatory health agencies and oversight bodies. In addition, the vaccine has been the center of countless lawsuits and legal actions worldwide. The European Union’s European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recently convened a Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) in response to mounting HPV vaccine damage among European Union teenagers. The SAC is looking at 13,915 cases of HPV related damage. In 2013, the Japanese Health Ministry rescinded its recommendation for the use of HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix. The removal of these shots was prompted after mounting evidence of serious adverse side effects and incongruent science. Japan has refused to add the shot back to the schedule to date. A report in 2014 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office looking at the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which has paid out well over $3 billion in vaccine damages, stated:

“11 percent of claims filed since fiscal year 1999 were still in process (pending) as of March 31, 2014…”

“In some instances, however, a vaccine can have severe side effects, including death or an injury requiring lifetime medical care.”

For those unaware of the current battle to turn back mandatory vaccination and secure medical choice in the United States, this move by the Indiana State Department of Health is a major victory. It represents a previously rare acknowledgement from a governmental body to the demands and concerns around vaccines raised by parents. In addition, this is a win for independent journalists and the alternative media who represents the true voice of the people and the free expression of ideas.

October 28, 2015

E coli As Ingredient In Not One, But Two Meningococcal Vaccines

My question is… “Have the E coli been genetically altered with a gene gun?”

Congress is being lobbied hard by big pharma to give drugs and vaccines GMO ‘NON LABEL STATUS‘ so, the drug and vaccine manufactures do NOT have to include ingredients listing for their dangerous products.

E coli is something you don’t want to be fooling around with, let alone, injecting it into your veins.  Meningitis was hardly ever heard of on college campuses BEFORE the vaccine campaigns.  With E coli already prepackaged in the meningococcal vaccines, it now makes sense why we not only see so much meningitis on college campuses but extremely unusually aggressive meningitis as well.

Please use your common sense and do NOT put E coli into your veins!  No matter what the person in the white lab coat tells you this is extremely dangerous.

Here is an argument for E coli in vaccines by the vaccine lobby.

Live E Coli is not an ingredient. This is idiotic nonsense.

Transgenic E Coli is used to produce the meningococcal antigen material. But no live E Coli is present in the final product.

Vaccine critics undermine their credibility by spreading rumors and nonsense like this. This is the reason why most people ignore us and dont look at the evidence. When they do look at the evidence they too often see stupid material like this, and thereafter ignore everything we have to say.

My Rebuttal

First of all, these are NOT ‘rumors’. E Coli is listed in the package insert for the vaccines. What is ‘live’ and NOT live? Is “NOT” live simply ‘dormant’? Science itself can NOT agree on these questions.

The credibility of the vaccine manufactures have been PROVEN to be fraudulent over and over, time and time again.

ANY part of E coli should NEVER be inject into the bloodstream. Injecting E coli into your veins is much more idiotic than to be alarmed by it’s presence in the vaccines. My bet is that these E Coli bacteria in the vaccines have been genetically altered and it is unknown what this crapola will do to the host.

The claims by the author above are along the same lines of reasoning these SAME pill ushers used when selling us on the idea that bacteria “is KILLED” by antibiotics. Now we have a mess with antibiotic ‘resistant’ bacteria because as it turns out, the pill pushers really don’t know if bacteria is dead or is just in a dormant state. So-called “dead” bacteria is well known in science to be ‘resuscitated’ and the science community still really has NO clue how, when or why bacteria does this. To believe this Bacteria acts any different is FOOLISH and RECKLESS by the author and the drug companies.

Do NOT chime back in unless you have long term SAFTEY research on the E Coli listed in the vaccines demonstrating that the E coli will simply remain ‘inert’ / ‘harmless’ in the host.

—————————————————

Please click on link

E. Coli In Two Meningococcal Vaccines!

October 8, 2015

Flu Shots / High Crimes By Corporate News Networks & Conflict Of Interest

IF YOU ARE PREGNANT AND YOU ARE CONSIDERING GETTING A FLU SHOT,  PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THE ADVISE FROM YOUR LOCAL NEWS NETWORK.  PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH BEFORE YOU GET INJECTED!

USA’s Corporate News Networks Pushing Vaccines On Children & Pregnant Women in Local Areas And, NOT Disclosing Conflict Of Interest With Drug Companies Is A Crime.

People, you need to be wise about this. The major networks that give you the ‘so-called’ news are heavily funded by the drug companies and NEVER pushed shots on their audience UNTIL the struggling networks started taking drug money from big pharma.  This pushing vaccines for the drug companies USED TO BE considered UNETHICAL by the news industry. This conflict of interest is a HIGH CRIME, because the local networks do NOT disclose their conflict of interest when ‘claiming’… “It is perfectly SAFE for pregnant women to receive a flu shot” Where are the peer reviewed double blind safety studies to make such claims?

You need to ask yourself… why are the local news networks NOT telling pregnant woman what science has known about the influenza virus for decades, and how the flu shot could actually quadruple schizophrenia in their unborn child, along with the numerous toxicity issues related to the flu vaccine?  Even though the cat has long been out of the bag, that you greatly increase your chances of getting the flu if you get a flu shot.  Plain insanity!

Pregnant women and children can boost their immunity so many ways WITHOUT taking a damn vaccine!

TELLING PREGNANT WOMEN TO GET A FLU SHOT SHOULD BE A HIGH CRIME.  WHAT THE CORPORATE VACCINE PUSHERS DO ‘NOT’ DISCLOSE ABOUT FLU SHOTS.

Confirmed! Flu Vaccine INCREASES Risk of Serious Pandemic Flu Illness

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/18/flu-shot-increases-flu-illness.aspx

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/study-flu-vaccine-causes-5-5-times-more-respiratory-infections-a-true-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study/

http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Headline/flu-shots-vaccine-thimerosal/2014/11/20/id/608614/

http://saveourbones.com/flu-shot/

Even the corporate conflict of interest news had to admit “OOPS” the H1N1 vaccine gave rise to the pandemic.

Flu Vaccination: The Hidden Risks

http://vactruth.com/2013/02/01/8-damn-good-reasons/

http://www.naturalnews.com/037323_flu_vaccines_junk_science_toxicity.html 

http://www.naturalnews.com/045418_flu_shots_influenza_vaccines_mercury.html

October 3, 2015

Glaxo’s Live Polio Virus River Spill And The SB277 Mandatory Vaccine Connection / Hypocrisy.

Quick Note: PLEASE support the SB277 referendum.

——————————————-

Was It An Accident?  Really?

You may not be aware of this but, GlaxoSmithKline had a ‘OOPS’ and dumped 45 liters of “concentrated” live polio virus into a river in Belgium.  If that wasn’t bad enough because, the local population uses the river to swim in, there are a couple of issues making this ridiculous vaccine event worthy of your attention.

Unfortunately, you are not going to hear about this so-called OOPS by GlaxoSmithKline within the context in which I will present it to you, so please, use your common sense and spread the word after you have read what I am pointing out here.

Before I get into the this Belgium spill and the obvious connection to the hypocrisy by the vaccines manufactures with regards to it, and the California mandatory vaccine SB277 bill, I would like to first discuss the issue of the live virus Glaxo spilled into the Belgium river.

When you have researched the links I provide you, it will come as NO surprise that NO ONE at GlaxoSmithKline got in any kind of trouble what-so-ever.  Why do WE put up with this kind of NON accountability?

Here’s the ‘rub’ on this Glaxo live virus which was spilled into the river.  In this day and age of the deadly ‘gene gun’ there is no such thing as a ‘simple’ virus (in this case polio virus) ‘manufactured’ by the drug companies.  It’s very likely that the polio virus that was dumped into the Belgium river has been genetically altered.   You need to think GMO contamination when you consider this latest OOPS by GlaxoSmithKline.  The fact that there is NO accountability for anything these drug companies do (for the most part) when things go horribly wrong, automatically dismisses ANY claims by the drug company or ‘agencies’ that follow their orders (A.K.A. ECDC, CDC…) that this concentrated virus dumped into the river is NOT a ‘Franken-virus’ which will cause a terrible problem down the road.   The non accountable drug company will simply issue a statement via their controlled outlets… “Don’t worry we have yet ANOTHER vaccine for that”.  We should NEVER tolerate this nonsense.

The SB 277 Connection / Contradiction

What I find very interesting about how the pharma controlled ECDC (Europe’s CDC counter part) excused away any public worries of the water polio virus contamination is that, it ‘directly’ contradicts the very ‘reasoning’ the drug company agencies used behind the passing of California’s SB 277 mandatory vaccine edict.

California’s SB 277 mandatory vaccine law was created, according to it’s authors… “to protect the high percentage vaccinated against the low percentage non vaccinated”.  Which in of itself is a contradiction to the so-called ‘science’ of vaccines.  I mean, if the vaccines don’t do what they are advertised to do, why are we bothering getting shot up with them in the first place?

However, when it’s the drug company who is posing a very REAL disease threat to the population their agencies are directed to brush it off because… “95% of the local population (in Belgium) have had their polio vaccine.”

OK, so by CDC logic, healthy vaccine free children pose a threat to vaccinated children BUT, concentrated live genetically altered polio virus dumped in a local river does NOT pose a threat at all.

We should hold these agencies that work for the drug companies and drug companies responsible for this absolute nonsense that absolutely threatens our existence.

Research Note:

I found conflicting reports on the polio vaccinated population in Belgium (at the spill location).  As usual health ‘authorities’ (in this case Belgium) were talking out of two sides of their mouths.   When it came to pushing the polio vaccine onto the ‘local’ population, the population… “had a low vaccine rate”, BUT if you listen to the ECDC’s song and dance the local population has a… “95% vaccine compliance rate”.  So, take the data for what it’s worth .

Today’s vaccines are manufactured with ‘preparatory’ gene sequencing using what is called ‘Molecular Modeling’ (or 3D modeling of genetic material.) Below is an example how these lab created Franken-Viruses are applied to vaccines.  In the linked example of blocking a lab crated malaria virus vaccine candidate protein Pfs25.
.

​The ECDC Communicable Disease Threats Report is a weekly bulletin intended for epidemiologists and health professionals in the area of communicable disease prevention and control. This issue covers the period 7–13 September 2014 and includes updates on:
The accidental release of 45 litres of concentrated live polio virus solution into the environment – Belgium
As reported to ECDC by Belgian authorities, on 2 September 2014, following a human error, 45 litres of concentrated live polio virus solution were released into the environment by the pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), in Rixensart city, Belgium. The liquid was conducted directly to a water-treatment plant (Rosieres) and released after treatment in river Lasne affluent of river Dyle which is affluent of the Escaut/Scheldt river. Belgium’s High Council of Public Health conducted a risk assessment that concluded that the risk of infection for the population exposed to the contaminated water is extremely low due to the high level of dilution and the high vaccination coverage (95%) in Belgium.
ECDC’s assessment is that the accidental release in the environment of large amounts of live polio virus represents a risk to public health if susceptible populations, such as areas with low polio vaccine coverage, are exposed to contaminated waters or mud. Particularly since the Lasne and Dyle rivers are joining the Escaut/Scheldt river which flows in the southwestern part of the Netherlands where various orthodox protestant communities present a lower polio vaccination coverage, before reaching the North Sea.

– See more at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/press/news/_layouts/forms/News_DispForm.aspx?List=8db7286c-fe2d-476c-9133-18ff4cb1b568&ID=1065#sthash.XlbmKW96.dpuf

September 7, 2015

Ben Carson, Yet Another Big Pharma Corporate Fascist Sellout.

Mannatech DISTRACTION Update:

The corporate media has a golden rule… “NEVER ask the ‘right’ questions and the public will be none the wiser.”

The mainstream media is pulling out ALL the stops to get you distracted from THE REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE concerning ‘big pharma’ Ben Carson.

The ‘corporate’ media is flapping it’s collective gums over Ben Carson’s ‘endorsement’ of the supplement Mannatech. Big pharma pusher / promoter MSNBC brought up the Mannatech issue during their GOP debate. Neither MSNBC nor, any of the other ‘copy cat’ corporate media outlets want to disclose Ben Carson’s REAL connection to the vaccine industry via ‘Vaccinogen‘.

The corporate media beating this Mannatech drum admits that big pharma Ben Carson is not nor, ever was, on the Mannatech payroll. He simply takes the product and endorses it. If Carson wants to take that stuff that’s his business. HOWEVER, and it’s a BIG however. If big pharma Ben Carson wants to FORCE me / my children to take big pharma products that have more false claims and side effects than ANY supplement on the market, then Ben Carson is invading MY personal space, and he is getting into MY business. That’s the ‘news’ the corporate media seems to loose.

What should have been asked by MSNBC
Did you not say US citizen should be forced to take vaccines? Yes or No.

Is this statement of yours NOT a conflict of interest since you where the chairman of a vaccine manufacture, ‘Vaccinogen’?

Mr. Carson. Why is it that the cancer vaccine industry sees cancer vaccines as a “BOOMING FUTURE MARKET”? Isn’t the medical industrial complex SUPPOSED to be spending the billions of dollars on cancer ‘CURE’ research which is ‘supposed to actually’ lessening cancer? So tell us ‘why’ do vaccine manufactures see cancer as a “booming” business. (Please read ‘Vaccines Cause Cancer‘)

We heard NO such questions asked by the same corporate media that receives a great part of ‘THEIR’ income from the pharmaceutical industry.

All of these questions are explored in detail in this Ben Carson article

Update On Ben Carson’s Exposure

I would like to share with you some interesting developments on the ‘exposure’ doctor Carson has received over his conflict of interest between his ‘mandatory’ vaccine stance and his direct connection to the vaccine / biotech industry.

The exposure issue for ‘ANYONE’ serving or wanting to serve in a ‘public’ office is one of great importance to the vaccine / drug / pharma lobby machine.  The pharma lobby ‘fears’ this very REAL exposure between their ‘agents’ and public SERVANTS like a vampire fears the light of day.  It can NEVER be underestimated just how important exposing public servants link to the mega pharma lobby is in regards with shutting down their criminal takeover of our God given rights to choose what goes into our OWN body.

Conflict of interest is such a damning issue for the drug companies that I strongly believe that California’s draconian health violating law SB 277 could be overturned if, a PUBLIC investigation was conducted linking the very members who proposed and passed the SB 277 law to the pharma lobby.  Case in point… Colorado Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver. had been working behind closed doors with Sundari Kraft who has her very own pharma front groups posing as ‘grassroots’ vaccine organizations.  see… ‘Voices For Vaccines Task Force For Global Health’s Russian Doll‘ to better understand the blatant pharma lobby connection concerning Kraft.  After meeting behind closed doors with pharma rep Kraft, Colorado Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver introduced a big pharma friendly bill requiring anyone seeking a vaccine exemption, would have to ‘first’ be tied to a chair and lectured on vaccine lobby propaganda (by a doctor who already has a conflict of interest) with NO information on all the science / facts behind the dangers to the very vaccines they’re claiming as “safe”.  Just like in California, there also was a ‘corporate’ media blackout on this proposed legislation.   After ‘exposing’ the lobby connection and the bill itself, the colorado vaccine bill has gone dormant.  Exposure linking conflict of interest between legislation and vaccine policy pushers, is extremely important to our fight for health freedom no matter your stance on vaccines.

Ben Carson Update:

The FACT of Ben Carson’s connection to the vaccine industry has been picking up traction, and this fact has even been making it’s way into the corporate media.  As a response to these revelations, Ben Carson first toned down his ‘mandatory’ vaccine rhetoric.  Momentum continued to grow over his blatant conflict of interest over the vaccine mandate issue that, it should be NO surprise,  Ben Carson needed to ‘deflect’ this growing awareness by getting himself tied up with the muslim issue.  Ben Carson’s muslim issue has taken attention away from the issue of his conflict of interest with big pharma.

How big of a deal is this conflict of interest with Ben Carson anyway?  Let me give you a ‘real life’ example of just how big a deal his (or any other politician’s) connection to the pharma lobby is…

I was emailed information that a caller to a corporate media LOCAL talk show, had brought up the facts of Ben Carson’s conflict of interest with regards to the vaccine issue.  The corporate media talk show host blew a gasket with the caller and the hour (out of three) which the caller presented these facts was OMITTED from the archives and rebroadcast.  You see, the corporate entities that owns your local ‘talk show’ (and the host I might add) gets a tremendous amount of revenue from the pharma corporations (they may own stock in them as well) and act as a ‘lobby’ for them.   To omit an entire hour of a show to keep the ‘conflict of interest’ issue censured is a VERY big deal.

A Reminder To Those In The Alternative Media…

Very good people in the ‘alternative’ (NOW ‘mainstream’) media, have been making an issue as to whether Ben Carson still sits on the board of Vaccinogen.  I want to strongly suggest that, while it is good to know his current status with the company, it must be explained to the public that, at this point, whether he is or is NOT on the board of Vaccinogen is moot.  We must never forget the lessons we have had to learn about the FDA / USDA and the revolving door with government players and big pharma corporations.  Once an individual leaves a pharma entity they are ALWAYS tied to that or those entities and can reconnect or receive payola at anytime in the future.

—————————————————

Original September 7, 2015 Article

There once was a day when doctors were extremely cautious about dolling out vaccines to their patients, specially children.  They knew better than to give pregnant women vaccines.  What on earth happened to that caution?  It all went out the window in America after 1986, once absurd laws were passed exempting them from the prosecution in front of juries of their peers in a court of law.

Ben Carson’s proclamation to make vaccines mandatory in the United States is so rife with conflict of interest and corporate fascism, it stinks to high heaven, and this is what this blog post is about.

Dr. Ben Carson.  Your medical resume is impressive to say the least however, your knowledge of history is pathetic.  Are you even aware why we in the United States of America, even have ‘medical exemptions’ to begin with?   In a word, ‘eugenics’.  In a couple of words, ‘Nazi Germany’ (A.KA fascism).   In three more words, ‘the Nuremberg trials’.

Please don’t give us your complete horse shit on the ‘greater good’ from your days as a socialist democrat.  You Ben Carson, are deeply tied to the investment end of the pharmaceutical industry spectrum, and you know full well that forcing your toxic products on ALL Americans will greatly line the pockets of you, and your investment cronies over at big pharma Inc.

Let’s start with your last job over at the vaccine biotech corporation ‘Vaccinogen‘ where you were the Chairman of the board of directors.  Here, you as chairman, somehow raised $80 million in new investments and was able to move the company to Baltimore to be plugged directly into Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine which was another employer of yours.

Just because you stepped down from the board over at Vaccinogen Ben, does NOT mean in any way you are independent of them or John’s Hopkins as a (for now) would-be US president.   We know all to well how the revolving door in Washington DC and big pharma work to undermine the ‘general welfare’ of the public’s best interests.

Biotech Stocks To Surge As State’s Abolish Human Right To Informed Consent.  

It’s a no brainer, that if Ben Carson get’s his way with mandatory vaccinations, that he and his corporate cronies in the biotech stock investment business will make huge profits.  We have already seen biotech / vaccine stocks rise due to the passing of California’s forced vaccine laws.

Ben Carson will argue… “but Vaccinogen has nothing to do with mandatory childhood vaccines.”  My rebuttal to Dr. Carson is.. “Au contraire”  Mandating childhood vaccines is only the first step to mandating vaccines for ALL people.  As California is already adopting mandatory adult vaccines in their draconian state.  

The U.S. judicial system is already ‘playing doctor’ by mandating Kemo for cancer patients and barring them from alternative treatments.  It’s not a stretch that cancer vaccines will ALSO be mandated if vaccines are ‘mandated’ by the state.

Your Vaccinogen corporation is in the cancer vaccine business, is it not Ben?

Ben Carson Represents The Multibillion Dollar Global Cancer Vaccine Industry NOT The American People.

According to BCC Research…
Global Cancer Vaccine Market to Reach $4.3 Billion in 2019

According to the biotech industry itself, the United States where Ben Carson wants to become president is… “by far and away the largest regional segment, is anticipated to reach $2 billion in 2019”   That’s almost double the entire global market for cancer vaccines just in the USA!  How on earth will the USA become double the cancer vaccine global market?  Is this where a nation of mandatory vaccinations equates market share?

The same industry research group has India, Japan and China market for cancer vaccines in decline of 1billion dollars, and why is that?  “The suspension of the HPV Vaccine”  Why on earth have these countries suspended the HPV vaccine?  Oh yeah, because it’s causing harm in a great number of people.

Imagine Ben, living in a country where that country actually cares enough for it’s people to remove a dangerous vaccine.  What a novel concept!  Not in Ben’s country.  In the USA, the Ben Carson’s of this world have passed draconian laws making holding vaccine manufactures accountable, like his very own ‘Vaccinogen’, impossible when their vaccines harm or kill those people.  Ben Carson’s very near and dear ‘OncoVax’ seems to be more ‘drug’ than vaccine but it manages to get vaccine legal protection status.  Must be nice, right Ben?

Forced Vaccination.  A Great Revenue Stream In The Cancer Vaccine Business?  Think SV40 Ben.

The question must be asked again….

Why does the cancer vaccine industry see the United States as it’s biggest cash cow in the next few years?  Could future mandatory vaccine laws play a key roll in this?  If so, who stands to gain?  Obviously industry insiders like Ben Carson.

Vaccines And Cancer. A Boom For Cancer Vaccine Treatments?

It may come as a surprise to some, that the data clearly shows that the countries with the highest cancer rates also have the highest vaccination rates.  The new medical model is to make statements regarding such data as… correlation does NOT prove causation”. Now, that makes for great lawyer speak but, the truth is, that any criminal investigator who uses scientific methods to solve a crime would certainly use correlation data as the starting point to solve the crime or the ‘causation’ behind the crime.

People’s Exhibit A. The SV40 Cancer Virus In The Polio Vaccine. 

Right now as of 2015, there is so much scientific peer reviewed data on this polio vaccine cancer disaster dating back from the 1950’s to date, that this blog recommends the reader to research this topic and stay current on it, as it continues to unfold every year.  A gift that keeps on giving.

The one point I do want to make on the SV40 cancer virus that was in the oral polio vaccine is that, in 1950’s Time Magazine had published a story on cancer, and Time’s own report said that this ‘cancer discovery’ was so ground breaking that it… “would revolutionize the understanding of cancer and how to cure it”.  It was discovered and proven that the majority of cancers were ‘VIRAL’ in nature.  The two women who were feature in this story were not only up for Nobel prizes but, they had worked on the infamous polio vaccine.

The pharmacological industrial complex soon realized they had a massive problem on their hands with the revelation of the viral cancer discovery.  The problem was, that the polio vaccine was tainted with the SV40 cancer virus.  The fact is, that the industry absolutely knew cancer was in the shot because one of the scientists in the Time’s featured article on viral cancers (Bernice Eddy, Ph.D., of the National Institute of Health) warned the government NOT to administer the vaccine.

Today we have many related cancers due to this virus getting into the population.  It’s been discovered that people (particularly in the U.S.) have been passing this cancer viruses on to their children now grandchildren.

The ironic thing about the SV40 vaccine cancer virus is that it is ‘rumored’ to have been hatched out of the idea of developing a ‘CANCER VACCINE’.  Just like the vaccines Ben Carson has invested in.

People’s Exhibit B FDA Report On Cancer In Vaccines…

I wish to share with you, how the FDA itself sees the roll of cancer stemming from vaccines.  Here is an excerpt…

3.1.1 Oncogenic Viruses

Viruses can be oncogenic in several ways. They can carry dominant oncogenes that directly induce a transformed phenotype in the infected cell or they can integrate into the host genome and cause the activation of cellular oncogenes or the inactivation of tumor- suppressor genes. For example, viruses such as papillomaviruses, adenoviruses, polyomaviruses, gamma herpesviruses (such as EBV), and replication-defective and replication-competent retroviruses, such as MC29 and RSV, respectively, have been shown to carry oncogenes. However, in most cases, expression of the viral oncoproteins alone is insufficient to result in cancer, and subsequent genetic and/or epigenetic changes are necessary to convert the initially transformed cell into a malignant cell.

Even though the FDA report states that the viruses in vaccines need a “epigenetic” trigger to turn them on or, make the’ ‘cancerous’, by mandating vaccines the FDA admits people who never even had these cancer viruses to begin with would NOW be potential customers for the ‘cancer vaccine treatment industry’.   This fact alone makes Dr. Ben Carson guilty as hell of conflict of interest by pushing for mass vaccination of the Untied States.

It should also be pointed out to the reader that, it is easy to research ‘stealth viruses’ and vaccines.  This is extremely important to this blog post because, vaccines are known to many, many of these ‘stealth viruses’.   If you add up all the shots in current U.S.A. vaccine schedule this would include 1000’s of these stealth viruses.  So, when the FDA speaks of ‘epigenetic’ triggers (cancer triggers) these triggers could certainly include the combination of certain stealth viruses within vaccines or even the cancer viruses being triggered by the adjuvants themselves.

At any rate it doesn’t take genius to figure out that mandating vaccines to people who would NOT normally be putting all this garbage in their veins will be lucrative to pharmacological industry on many, many levels.

September 4, 2015

Epidemiologist for CDC Says He’d NEVER Give His Pregnant Wife a Flu Shot

I just wanted to add this important information…

With the amount of healthy young people dying after taking the H1N1 (Swine Flu) vaccine, history appears to be repeating itself.

Here is an investigative account of what happened with regards to the 1977 swine flu deaths.  The same seems to be the case today where the vaccine pushers are using the same ‘time table’ game they used in the 1970’s (USA) to hide the fact that the current Swine Flu (H1N1) vaccine deaths.

Swine Flu Expose 

a book by Eleanora I. McBean, Ph.D., N.D.

DEATH COUNT MAY NEVER BE KNOWN

Up to January 7, 1977 the death count from swine flu vaccine was 113 (people) and paralysis was 139. We have reason to believe that this is only a fraction of the actual casualties. During the polio vaccine drive in the early 1950’s when the shots caused so many deaths and cases of paralysis, Dr. Dale, of the Los Angeles Epidemiology Department, said that for every case that was reported there were an estimated 15 unreported cases. Many vaccine deaths were recorded as from other causes, to conceal the hazards of the vaccine.

During my 30 years of research and writing I have uncovered facts that prove the medical records and death certificates are sometimes deliberately falsified and changed to cover up guilt of doctors and lab. technicians. (See the chapter on FALSIFIED DEATH CERTIFICATES AND MEDICAL RECORDS.) –

All vaccines are poison, and therefore, cause death and disease. This is a known fact, and every vaccination campaign has brought on a large number of disasters. Those of us who knew this, tried to warn the people and ward off the vaccine drive. But the din of the well financed vaccine juggernaut drowned out our cry, and the high pressure advertising scare campaign panicked millions into the vaccination centers. We knew death and disease were inevitable — but none were announced in the papers at first. Therefore, Ida Honorof (head of Citizens Against Political Vaccinations) decided to do what the health officials should have done; she went to the L.A. County coroner and made a check on the deaths. She found that five people there had died within 48 hours after their flu shots. Some were young and didn’t have other ailments that could be blamed for their deaths. The vaccine promoters including the health departments had intended to cover up the vaccine deaths and disasters. But Honorof brought it out in the open. She contacted the National Health Federation (a non medical group which tries to protect the people from health hazards from medical, commercial and political sources. They called a public meeting in Glendale, Calif. where they aired some startling facts about the vaccination campaign and the mounting disasters caused by the poison vaccine. Some of the relatives of the flu victims were there and gave account of the state of health of those who were killed by the vaccine.

After this expose’ the papers had to announce some of the deaths as it was no longer possible to conceal them. The coroner and doctors tried to gloss over it by saying that the deaths were all from heart trouble and they would have died anyway without the shots. Naturally, the heart stops when a person dies from any cause, so heart failure is an “easy out” for the coroner.

For a few days, deaths were announced in the papers until the count rose to 52. Then suddenly the death reports stopped. People got suspicious because the vaccinations were continuing and we knew that all vaccines are poison and that means that people do die from the shots.

Honorof did a little more detective work and learned that Dr. Shirley Fannin, Chief of Acute Disease Control Center of L.A. had met with the vaccine promoters and medical boards to decide what they could do to keep the people from finding out how many were being killed by the vaccine. They decided among themselves not to count as vaccine casualties those who didn’t die suddenly within 48 hours after getting the shots.

This was a shocker. The idea that these poison promoters who were killing the people with wild abandon, had set themselves up to be so high and mighty that they could lay down the law as to what hour people could die, and if they happened to die 49 hours after the shots they would not be dead from their poison vaccine. Dr. Fannis then wrote a letter to the Coroner ordering him to not announce the deaths as vaccine casualties unless they died within her 48 hour time span. This gives us an idea of the tricky business they have been carrying on all through the years, and we didn’t suspect a thing.

The 48 hour “cut off time” of theirs, cuts out those thousands who died a little later. It also cuts out Private David Lewis, the man who died at Fort Dix, New Jersey of what the doctors diagnosed as swine flu. He died more than six weeks after his vaccinations at camp. He was the one and only case of swine flu the doctors have found in the whole world. He was all they had to hang their whole nation-wide swine flu scare on. And now, their own medical decree that it isn’t swine flu unless he dies within 48 hours, knocks out their one and only case. Actually, the official diagnosis by military doctors was that Pvt. Lewis died of A-Victoria flu (vaccine), not swine flu.

Now, without one authentic case of swine flu and without any epidemic except the epidemic of vaccine poisoning, the vaccine promoters and all the doctors who participated in giving or endorsing the shots, as well as the political heads who financed it, are all guilty of hundreds of vaccine deaths–murders. What are we going to do about it? Are there enough honest and concerned officials to prosecute them and make them pay all the damages and then put them out of circulation?

————————————————————————-

Epidemiologist for CDC Says He’d NEVER Give His Pregnant Wife a Flu Shot

By Christina Sarich | Natural Society

Dr. William Thompson used to work for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US. The CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine for everyone 6 months and older, but Dr Thompson admits he would never give his pregnant wife a flu shot because many contain thimerosal, a mercury-containing adjuvant that he warns can be linked to toxic effects and “autism-like-features.”

You can watch a video here, uploaded by the Autism Media Channel, of Dr. Thompson speaking very clearly about his concerns. The question is – why is this not in the mainstream media? The notion that a CDC official would make this statement is very interesting.Dr. Thompson has co-authored papers on the subject that have shown up in the New England Journal of Medicine, one, for instance, titled, “Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years.” This paper was published in 2007.

Mercury Studies By CDC Rife With Corrupt Conflicts Of Interest.

Truth In Media

 

He has said, specifically:

“I don’t know why they still give it to pregnant women . . . That’s the last person I would give mercury to.”

He also states that:

“. . .tics are four times more prevalent in kids with autism. . . There is biologic plausibility to say that thimersol is causing autism-like features.”

These findings have been dismissed even considering the fact that the New England Journal of Medicine is considered one of the most authentic journals in which to public’s medical information. It’s the CDC’s gold standard. The journal is even listed on their website as a reference point, yet they continue to promote vaccines containing thimerosal.

This adjuvant has been used in vaccines since the 1930s; however, the dosing schedule for vaccines has continued to increase since that time (and the American Dental Association also started telling dental patients that mercury fillings were O.K. to put in their teeth.)

The University of Calgary has a video showing what happens to a neuron at even low-level exposure of mercury – after only twenty minutes of exposure of mercury in tiny amounts, neurons began to rapidly degenerate.

A global treaty was even signed last year to reduce the prevalence of mercury. If even a former employee of the CDC says that thimerosal is dangerous, why then are vaccines still made with this adjuvant at all, and people not given very clear warning before they consent to an injection with this substance? The issue is with this additive.

The mainstream media continues to promote thimerosal-containing vaccines made by companies like the RAND corporation. Major retailers like Walgreen’s and CVS can’t wait to give you a flu shot. They even offered ‘flu shot’ gift cards over the holidays.

Source

August 27, 2015

National Library of Medicine’s Look Into Vaccines & The Rise In The United States’ Infant Mortality Rates

NOTE:

Vaccine researcher Neil Z Miller is on the cusp (as of August 2015) of releasing a ‘fully documented’ book on multiple studies that ‘scientifically’ refute the big pharma propaganda that vaccines are safe and effective.  The scientific documentation proves vaccines are anything BUT safe and effective.  This book will consolidate ALL the vaccine hazards information that the CDC (according to CDC whistle blower / vaccine researcher  Dr. William Thompson et al) threw in a garbage can to make the outrageous claim that vaccines were NOT responsible for chemical / heavy metal / viral poisoning (AKA Autism) in children who are vaccine victims.

When this vaccine ‘fact’ book get’s published, I strongly recommend that you get it out to everyone including your legislators who are being lobbied heavy by the drug dealers.

——————————————————————-

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

Abstract

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.

Introduction

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of child health and overall development in countries. Clean water, increased nutritional measures, better sanitation, and easy access to health care contribute the most to improving infant mortality rates in unclean, undernourished, and impoverished regions of the world.13 In developing nations, IMRs are high because these basic necessities for infant survival are lacking or unevenly distributed. Infectious and communicable diseases are more common in developing countries as well, though sound sanitary practices and proper nutrition would do much to prevent them.1

The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes 7 out of 10 childhood deaths in developing countries to five main causes: pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and malnutrition—the latter greatly affecting all the others.1 Malnutrition has been associated with a decrease in immune function. An impaired immune function often leads to an increased susceptibility to infection.2 It is well established that infections, no matter how mild, have adverse effects on nutritional status. Conversely, almost any nutritional deficiency will diminish resistance to disease.3

Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country,4 33 nations have better IMRs. Some countries have IMRs that are less than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are below 2.80. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening.”5

There are many factors that affect the IMR of any given country. For example, premature births in the United States have increased by more than 20% between 1990 and 2006. Preterm babies have a higher risk of complications that could lead to death within the first year of life.6 However, this does not fully explain why the United States has seen little improvement in its IMR since 2000.7

Nations differ in their immunization requirements for infants aged less than 1 year. In 2009, five of the 34 nations with the best IMRs required 12 vaccine doses, the least amount, while the United States required 26 vaccine doses, the most of any nation. To explore the correlation between vaccine doses that nations routinely give to their infants and their infant mortality rates, a linear regression analysis was performed.

Methods and design

The infant mortality rate is expressed as the number of infant deaths per 1000 live births. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which keeps accurate, up-to-date infant mortality statistics throughout the world, in 2009 there were 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States (Table 1).8 The US infant mortality rate of 6.22 infant deaths per 1000 live births ranked 34th.

Table 1.

2009 Infant mortality rates, top 34 nations8
Immunization schedules and vaccine doses

A literature review was conducted to determine the immunization schedules for the United States and all 33 nations with better IMRs than the United States.9,10 The total number of vaccine doses specified for infants aged less than 1 year was then determined for each country (Table 2). A vaccine dose is an exact amount of medicine or drug to be administered. The number of doses a child receives should not be confused with the number of ‘vaccines’ or ‘injections’ given. For example, DTaP is given as a single injection but contains three separate vaccines (for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) totaling three vaccine doses.

Table 2.

Summary of International Immunization Schedules: vaccines recommended/required prior to one year of age in 34 nations

Table 2.

Summary of International Immunization Schedules: vaccines recommended/required prior to one year of age in 34 nations

Nations organized into data pairs

The 34 nations were organized into data pairs consisting of total number of vaccine doses specified for their infants and IMRs. Consistent with biostatistical conventions, four nations—Andorra, Liechenstein, Monaco, and San Marino—were excluded from the dataset because they each had fewer than five infant deaths, producing extremely wide confidence intervals and IMR instability. The remaining 30 (88%) of the data pairs were then available for analysis.

Nations organized into groups

Nations were placed into the following five groups based on the number of vaccine doses they routinely give their infants: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26 vaccine doses. The unweighted IMR means of all nations as a function of the number of vaccine doses were analyzed using linear regression. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of determination (r 2) were calculated using GraphPad Prism, version 5.03 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA, www.graphpad.com). Additionally, the F statistic and corresponding p values were computed to test if the best fit slope was statistically significantly non-zero. The Tukey-Kramer test was used to determine whether or not the mean IMR differences between the groups were statistically significant. Following the one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) results from the Tukey-Kramer test, a post test for the overall linear trend was performed.

Results

Nations organized into data pairs

A scatter plot of each of the 30 nation’s IMR versus vaccine doses yielded a linear relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.46–0.85) and p < 0.0001 providing evidence of a positive correlation: IMR and vaccine doses tend to increase together. The F statistic applied to the slope [0.148 (95% CI, 0.090–0.206)] is significantly non-zero, with F = 27.2 (p < 0.0001; Figure 1).

Figure 1.

2009 Infant mortality rates and number of vaccine doses for 30 nations.

Nations organized into groups

The unweighted mean IMR of each category was computed by simply summing the IMRs of each nation comprising a group and dividing by the number of nations in that group. The IMRs were as follows: 3.36 (95% CI, 2.74–3.98) for nations specifying 12–14 doses (mean 13 doses); 3.89 (95% CI, 2.68–5.12) for 15–17 doses (mean 16 doses); 4.28 (95% CI, 3.80–4.76) for 18–20 doses (mean 19 doses); 4.97 (95% CI, 4.44–5.49) for 21–23 doses (mean 22 doses); 5.19 (95% CI, 4.06–6.31) for 24-26 doses (mean 25 doses; Figure 2). Linear regression analysis yielded an equation of the best fit line, y = 0.157x + 1.34 with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009) and r 2 = 0.983. Thus, 98.3% of the variation in mean IMRs is explained by the linear model. Again, the F statistic yielded a significantly non-zero slope, with F = 173.9 (p = 0.0009).

Figure 2.

2009 Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses (five categories).

The one-way ANOVA using the Tukey-Kramer test yielded F = 650 with p = 0.001, indicating the five mean IMRs corresponding to the five defined dose categories are significantly different (r 2 = 0.510). Tukey’s multiple comparison test found statistical significance in the differences between the mean IMRs of those nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and (a) those giving 21–23 doses (1.61, 95% CI, 0.457–2.75) and (b) those giving 24–26 doses (1.83, 95% CI, 0.542–3.11).

Discussion

Basic necessities for infant survival

It is instructive to note that many developing nations require their infants to receive multiple vaccine doses and have national vaccine coverage rates (a percentage of the target population that has been vaccinated) of 90% or better, yet their IMRs are poor. For example, Gambia requires its infants to receive 22 vaccine doses during infancy and has a 91%–97% national vaccine coverage rate, yet its IMR is 68.8. Mongolia requires 22 vaccine doses during infancy, has a 95%–98% coverage rate, and an IMR of 39.9.8,9 These examples appear to confirm that IMRs will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care. As developing nations improve in all of these areas a critical threshold will eventually be reached where further reductions of the infant mortality rate will be difficult to achieve because most of the susceptible infants that could have been saved from these causes would have been saved. Further reductions of the IMR must then be achieved in areas outside of these domains. As developing nations ascend to higher socio-economic living standards, a closer inspection of all factors contributing to infant deaths must be made.

Crossing the socio-economic threshold

It appears that at a certain stage in nations’ movement up the socio-economic scale—after the basic necessities for infant survival (proper nutrition, sanitation, clean water, and access to health care) have been met—a counter-intuitive relationship occurs between the number of vaccines given to infants and infant mortality rates: nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates give their infants, on average, more vaccine doses. This positive correlation, derived from the data and demonstrated in Figures 1 and and2,2, elicits an important inquiry: are some infant deaths associated with over-vaccination?

A closer inspection of infant deaths

Many nations adhere to an agreed upon International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for grouping infant deaths into 130 categories.1113 Among the 34 nations analyzed, those that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst IMRs. Thus, we must ask important questions: is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health? Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with over-vaccination? Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.14 Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.15,16 In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD. SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system.17 By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.18

In 1992, to address the unacceptable SIDS rate, the American Academy of Pediatrics initiated a ‘Back to Sleep’ campaign, convincing parents to place their infants supine, rather than prone, during sleep. From 1992 to 2001, the postneonatal SIDS rate dropped by an average annual rate of 8.6%. However, other causes of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) increased. For example, the postneonatal mortality rate from ‘suffocation in bed’ (ICD-9 code E913.0) increased during this same period at an average annual rate of 11.2%. The postneonatal mortality rate from ‘suffocation-other’ (ICD-9 code E913.1-E913.9), ‘unknown and unspecified causes’ (ICD-9 code 799.9), and due to ‘intent unknown’ in the External Causes of Injury section (ICD-9 code E980-E989), all increased during this period as well.18 (In Australia, Mitchell et al. observed that when the SIDS rate decreased, deaths attributed to asphyxia increased.19Overpeck et al. and others, reported similar observations.)20,21

A closer inspection of the more recent period from 1999 to 2001 reveals that the US postneonatal SIDS rate continued to decline, but there was no significant change in the total postneonatal mortality rate. During this period, the number of deaths attributed to ‘suffocation in bed’ and ‘unknown causes,’ increased significantly. According to Malloy and MacDorman, “If death-certifier preference has shifted such that previously classified SIDS deaths are now classified as ‘suffocation,’ the inclusion of these suffocation deaths and unknown or unspecified deaths with SIDS deaths then accounts for about 90 percent of the decline in the SIDS rate observed between 1999 and 2001 and results in a non-significant decline in SIDS”18 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Reclassification of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths to suffocation in bed and unknown causes. The postneonatal SIDS rate appears to have declined from 61.6 deaths (per 100,000 live births) in 1999 to 50.9 in 2001. 

Is there evidence linking SIDS to vaccines?

Although some studies were unable to find correlations between SIDS and vaccines,2224 there is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT “may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study.”25Walker et al. found “the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization.”26 Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.27

Ottaviani et al. documented the case of a 3-month-old infant who died suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after being given six vaccines in a single shot: “Examination of the brainstem on serial sections revealed bilateral hypoplasia of the arcuate nucleus. The cardiac conduction system presented persistent fetal dispersion and resorptive degeneration. This case offers a unique insight into the possible role of hexavalent vaccine in triggering a lethal outcome in a vulnerable baby.” Without a full necropsy study in the case of sudden, unexpected infant death, at least some cases linked to vaccination are likely to go undetected.28

Reclassified infant deaths

It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to over-vaccination. Some infants’ deaths categorized as ‘suffocation’ or due to ‘unknown and unspecified causes’ may also be cases of SIDS reclassified within the ICD. Some of these infant deaths may be vaccine related as well. This trend toward reclassifying ICD data is a great concern of the CDC “because inaccurate or inconsistent cause-of-death determination and reporting hamper the ability to monitor national trends, ascertain risk factors, and design and evaluate programs to prevent these deaths.”29 If some infant deaths are vaccine related and concealed within the various ICD categories for SUIDs, is it possible that other vaccine-related infant deaths have also been reclassified?

Of the 34 nations that have crossed the socio-economic threshold and are able to provide the basic necessities for infant survival—clean water, nutrition, sanitation, and health care—several require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses and have relatively high infant mortality rates. These nations should take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes. Of course, all SUID categories should be re-inspected. Other ICD categories may be related to vaccines as well. For example, a new live-virus orally administered vaccine against rotavirus-induced diarrhea—Rotarix®—was licensed by the European Medicine Agency in 2006 and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008. However, in a clinical study that evaluated the safety of the Rotarix vaccine, vaccinated babies died at a higher rate than non-vaccinated babies—mainly due to a statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related fatalities.30 (One biologically plausible explanation is that natural rotavirus infection might have a protective effect against respiratory infection.)31 Although these fatalities appear to be vaccine related and raise a nation’s infant mortality rate, medical certifiers are likely to misclassify these deaths as pneumonia.

Several additional ICD categories are possible candidates for incorrect infant death classifications: unspecified viral diseases, diseases of the blood, septicemia, diseases of the nervous system, anoxic brain damage, other diseases of the nervous system, diseases of the respiratory system, influenza, and unspecified diseases of the respiratory system. All of these selected causes may be repositories of vaccine-related infant deaths reclassified as common fatalities. All nations—rich and poor, industrialized and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals. Progress on reducing infant mortality rates should include monitoring vaccine schedules and medical certification practices to ascertain whether vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified as ordinary mortality in the ICD.

How many infants can be saved with an improved IMR?

Slight improvements in IMRs can make a substantial difference. In 2009, there were approximately 4.5 million live births and 28,000 infant deaths in the United States, resulting in an infant mortality rate of 6.22/1000. If health authorities can find a way to reduce the rate by 1/1000 (16%), the United States would rise in international rank from 34th to 31st and about 4500 infants would be saved.

Limitations of study and potential confounding factors

This analysis did not adjust for vaccine composition, national vaccine coverage rates, variations in the infant mortality rates among minority races, preterm births, differences in how some nations report live births, or the potential for ecological bias. A few comments about each of these factors are included below.

Vaccine composition

This analysis calculated the total number of vaccine doses received by children but did not differentiate between the substances, or quantities of those substances, in each dose. Common vaccine substances include antigens (attenuated viruses, bacteria, toxoids), preservatives (thimerosal, benzethonium chloride, 2-phenoxyethanol, phenol), adjuvants (aluminum salts), additives (ammonium sulfate, glycerin, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium chloride), stabilizers (fetal bovine serum, monosodium glutamate, human serum albumin, porcine gelatin), antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B), and inactivating chemicals (formalin, glutaraldehyde, polyoxyethylene). For the purposes of this study, all vaccine doses were equally weighted.

Vaccine coverage rates

No adjustment was made for national vaccine coverage rates—a percentage of the target population that received the recommended vaccines. However, most of the nations in this study had coverage rates in the 90%–99% range for the most commonly recommended vaccines—DTaP, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib (when these vaccines were included in the schedule). Therefore, this factor is unlikely to have impacted the analyses.9

Minority races

It has been argued that the US IMR is poor in comparison to many other nations because African–American infants are at greater risk of dying relative to White infants, perhaps due to genetic factors or disparities in living standards. However, in 2006 the US IMR for infants of all races was 6.69 and the IMR for White infants was 5.56.13 In 2009, this improved rate would have moved the United States up by just one rank internationally, from 34th place to 33rd place.8 In addition, the IMRs for Hispanics of Mexican descent and Asian–Americans in the United States are significantly lower than the IMR for Whites.6 Thus, diverse IMRs among different races in the Unites States exert only a modest influence over the United States’ international infant mortality rank.

Preterm births

Preterm birth rates in the United States have steadily increased since the early 1980s. (This rise has been tied to a greater reliance on caesarian deliveries, induced labor, and more births to older mothers.) Preterm babies are more likely than full-term babies to die within the first year of life. About 12.4% of US births are preterm. In Europe, the prevalence rate of premature birth ranges from 5.5% in Ireland to 11.4% in Austria. Preventing preterm births is essential to lower infant mortality rates. However, it is important to note that some nations such as Ireland and Greece, which have very low preterm birth rates (5.5% and 6%, respectively) compared to the United States, require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses (23) and have correspondingly high IMRs. Therefore, reducing preterm birth rates is only part of the solution to reduce IMRs.6,32

Differences in reporting live births

Infant mortality rates in most countries are reported using WHO standards, which do not include any reference to the duration of pregnancy or weight of the infant, but do define a ‘live birth’ as a baby born with any signs of life for any length of time.12 However, four nations in the dataset—France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland—do not report live births entirely consistent with WHO standards. These countries add an additional requirement that live babies must also be at least 22 weeks of gestation or weigh at least 500 grams. If babies do not meet this requirement and die shortly after birth, they are reported as stillbirths. This inconsistency in reporting live births artificially lowers the IMRs of these nations.32,33 According to the CDC, “There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.”32 Nevertheless, when the IMRs of France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland were adjusted for known underreporting of live births and the 30 data pairs retested for significance, the correlation coefficient improved from 0.70 to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.52–0.87).

Ecological bias

Ecological bias occurs when relationships among individuals are inferred from similar relationships observed among groups (or nations). Although most of the nations in this study had 90%–99% of their infants fully vaccinated, without additional data we do not know whether it is the vaccinated or unvaccinated infants who are dying in infancy at higher rates. However, respiratory disturbances have been documented in close proximity to infant vaccinations, and lethal changes in the brainstem of a recently vaccinated baby have been observed. Since some infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated, and babies vaccinated against diarrhea died from pneumonia at a statistically higher rate than non-vaccinated babies, there is plausible biologic and causal evidence that the observed correlation between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants should not be dismissed as ecological bias.

Conclusion

The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.

Efforts to reduce the relatively high US IMR have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Gerard Jungman, PhD, Paul G. King, PhD, and Peter Calhoun for their assistance in reviewing the manuscript and sharing their expertise.

Footnotes

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

1. Wegman ME. Infant mortality in the 20th century, dramatic but uneven progressJ Nutr 2001; 131: 401S–408S [PubMed]
2. Beck MA. The role of nutrition in viral diseaseJ Nutri Biochem 1996; 7: 683–690 
3. Scrimshaw NS, SanGiovanni JP. Synergism of nutrition, infection, and immunity: an overviewAm J Clin Nutr 1997; 66: 464S–477S [PubMed]
4. Anderson GF, Hussay PS, Frogner BK, Waters HR. Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized worldHealth Affairs 2005; 24: 903–914  [PubMed]
5. MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ. Recent trends in infant mortality in the United States. NCHS Data Brief (CDC), no 9. Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, 2008.  [PubMed]
6. Kent MM. Premature births help to explain higher infant mortality ratePopulation Reference Bureauwww.prb.org/articles/2009/prematurebirth.aspx (accessed December 2009). 
7. Xu Jiaquan, Kochaneck KD, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: preliminary data for 2007Natl Vital Stat Rep2009; 58: 6 
8. CIA Country comparison: infant mortality rate (2009)The World Factbookwww.cia.gov (accessed 13 April 2010).
9. WHO/UNICEF Immunization Summary: A Statistical Reference Containing Data Through 2008 (The 2010 Edition). www.childinfo.org
10. Up-to-date European vaccination schedules may be found herewww.euvac.net (accessed 13 April 2010).
11. WHO International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1979. 
12. WHO International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1992. 
13. CDC Table 31. Number of infant deaths and infant mortality rates for 130 selected causes, by race: United States, 2006Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009; 57: 110–112 
14. Iannelli V. Immunization timelineKeep Kids Healthy. keepkidshealthy.com (accessed 21 April 2010)
15. Bergman AB. The “Discovery” of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. New York, NY, USA: Praeger Publishers, 1986. 
16. MacDorman MF, Rosenberg HM. Trends in infant mortality by cause of death and other characteristics, 1960-88 (vital and health statistics)Volume 20 Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Government Printing, 1993. 
17. National Center for Health Statistics Vital Statistics of the United States 1988, Volume II, Mortality, Part A. Washington, DC, USA: Public Health Service, 1991. 
18. Malloy MH, MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths: United States, 1992-2001Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1247–1253 [PubMed]
19. Mitchell E, Krous HF, Donald T, Byard RW. Changing trends in the diagnosis of sudden infant death.Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2000; 21: 311–314  [PubMed]
20. Overpeck MD, Brenner RA, Cosgrove C, Trumble AC, Kochanek K, MacDorman M. National under ascertainment of sudden unexpected infant deaths associated with deaths of unknown causePediatrics2002; 109: 274–283 [PubMed]
21. Byard RW, Beal SM. Has changing diagnostic preference been responsible for the recent fall in incidence of sudden infant death syndrome in South Australia? J Pediatr Child Health 1995; 31: 197–199[PubMed]
22. Vennemann MM, Butterfass-Bahloul T, Jorch G, Brinkmann B, Findeisen M, Sauerland C, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome: no increased risk after immunisationVaccine 2007; 25: 336–340 [PubMed]
23. Stratton K, Almario DA, Wizemann TM, McCormick MC. Immunization safety review: vaccinations and sudden unexpected death in infancy. Washington DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2003. 
24. Silvers LE, Ellenberg SS, Wise RP, Varricchio FE, Mootrey GT, Salive ME. The epidemiology of fatalities reported to the vaccine adverse event reporting system 1990-1997Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2001; 10: 279–285  [PubMed]
25. Torch WC. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). American Academy of Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, Apr 25-May 1, 1982Neurology 32(4): pt. 2 
26. Walker AM, Jick H, Perera DR, Thompson RS, Knauss TA. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death syndromeAm J Public Health 1987; 77: 945–951  [PMC free article]  [PubMed]
27. Fine PE, Chen RT. Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccinesAm J Epidemiol 1992; 136: 121–135 [PubMed]
28. Ottaviani G, Lavezze AM, Matturri L. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) shortly after hexavalent vaccination: another pathology in suspected SIDS? Virchows Archiv 2006; 448: 100–104 [PubMed]
29. CDC About the sudden unexpected infant death investigation (SUIDI) reporting formDepartment of Health and Human Services (accessed 20 May 2010). 
30. GlaxoSmithKline Rotarix® (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral) Oral Suspension. Product insert from the manufacturer (April 2008): 6. 
31. FDA Center for biologics evaluation and research, vaccines and related biological products advisory committee meeting (20 February 2008): 127–128 
32. MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ. Behind international rankings of infant mortality: how the United States compares with Europe. NCHS data brief, no 23 Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, 2009.  [PubMed]
33. Euro-Peristat Project, with SCPE, Eurocat, Euroneostat European Perinatal Health Report: Data for 2004 (The 2008 Edition): Table 3.1:40 www.europeristat.com

July 30, 2015

Breastfeeding -vs- Vaccines

Filed under: HOME — nwqfk @ 3:15 p07
Tags: , ,

Well, well, well. Look who has joined the so-called ‘anti-vaccine’ “kooks”, mother’s very own milk!

Just for the record, I’m personally (like the late great Doctor Charles Creighton before me.) against vaccines and the eugenics behind it. So, I guess it does make me an ‘anti-vaccine’ person. However, I do strive very hard to make this blog about ‘vaccine accountability’ because, right now, there is no accountability in regards to vaccines.

On the subject of vaccine accountability: Mother’s very own milk…
I’ve read many reports, from the original CDC report on delaying breastfeeding babies to, the so-called “eeeeeevil” over-reacting anti-vaxers take on the subject.

Quite frankly, the CDC has unwittingly opened a Pandora’s box that should raise obvious questions about vaccines and vaccine science in general, in regards with this research on breast milk and breastfeeding by the CDC.

First to echo similar analysis on the subject, it appears the scientists at the CDC are too stupid to realize is that they have discovered that mother’s milk is a ‘natural’ vaccine that, as the CDC admits, “neutralizes” at least two strains of the Roto-virus. So, the obvious question… outside big pharma profits and control, why inject infants with a chemical / heavy metal stealth virus filled dangerous vaccine when mother’s very own milk does a great job neutralizing the viruses?

Second, something very obvious has been over looked by those of us who have read the CDC report and question vaccines safety and effectiveness.

breastfeeding -vs- Vaccines
When I was an infant 1962, doctors would never give an infant a vaccine and, the CDC report reaffirms what doctors knew then and why they would ‘NEVER’ vaccinate infants.

Mother’s milk obviously sees and handles a vaccine as the foreign invader it truly is. As it has been known for decades, infants do not have a fully functioning immune system and, mothers milk obviously as stated in the CDC report, acts as the infant’s immune system.

So, the question has to be asked, why are we jacking infants with chemicals, heavy metals, 1000’s of stealth viruses when a human infant does NOT have an immune system to deal with this assault? It’s obvious via this CDC report that the doctors in 1962 knew something todays doctors have thrown in the garbage can when it comes to vaccine safety. We didn’t get these vaccines until we were in grade school after our immune systems were developed. Oh, back then a vaccine was DEFINED as a ‘one and done ‘single shot’ that gave “live long immunity”. Which, we were later told by the vaccine pushers, vaccines are really NOT vaccines but simply ‘drugs’ that have to be taken over and over for life and we’ll just keep calling them vaccines.

The next question is…
Why are dangerous adjuvants which would be everything from nanotech to chemicals / heavy metals put in vaccines with live viruses since, according to this CDC report, mother’s milk acting as an immune system nautiluses the live viruses in the vaccine?

Another question this report raises…

If big pharma is putting more and more ‘live viruses’ in vaccines why take a vaccine to begin with? If you want a ‘live virus’ why not do what has prevented disease for 1000’s of years? That is, maintain sanitation, nutrition, build up your own ‘natural’ immune system to combat the live wild virus without injecting and building up toxins in you / your infant / child’s body?

In conclusion
If you read the report, the CDC is using the report to panic the vaccine pushers into possibly delaying breastfeeding for ALL the vaccines. Insanity, and just plain stupid.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.