From Hell To Veins

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.

July 24, 2015

Why We Don’t Trust Vaccine Science OR The People Who Push It. Insanity On Full Display.

Not only are vaccines genetically altered with lab created ‘Franken-viruses’ but, the use of nano-tech vaccines takes ‘GMO-vaccines’ to an entirely new level of danger and insanity.

People’s Exhibit A

In a rare moment of ‘vaccine industry’, honesty ‘Science Direct’ states that nano tech in vaccines has been approved for human consumption, but admits….

“However, challenges remain due to a lack of fundamental understanding regarding the in vivo behavior of nanoparticles.” 

Full article here (Science Direct). Nanoparticle Vaccines

Why on earth would the powers that be a.) approve a technology for human consumption that the people behind the science don’t even know how it will affect the general population and, b.) how can legislatures force vaccinate people with this technology in the vaccines?  If this is ‘not’ the true definition of insanity, I don’t know what else is.

If this does not demonstrate the insanity behind the entire vaccine industry / agenda nothing is going to open your eyes.

Related? Maybe.

What Did These Doctors Discover?

July 23, 2015

Vaccine Lobby Disinformation Exposed. Vaccine Viral Shedding Does Occur.

The vaccine corporate lobby and their fake grassroots organizations have stated that it is a ‘myth’ where vaccinated individuals can ‘shed’ viruses and other vaccine goodies, like toxins, to non-vaccinated individuals. Even though this deceitful BS by the vaccine lobby has been thoroughly shown to be dishonest information, I felt, it is always important to source yet another double blind study demonstrating how this occurs.

The vaccine lobby had a short field day because people holding vaccines accountable used the ‘street terminology’ shedding when speaking of viruses transfer from vaccinated to non vaccinated where, the ‘industry’ term is called, ‘horizontal transfer’ of disease from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated.

Without further ado, here is the link for the double blind study of the ‘Horizontal transmission of a human rotavirus vaccine strain—A randomized, placebo-controlled study in twins’.

NOTE:

The ‘industry study’ admits that the transfer of the vaccine’s viral genome to the unvaccinated however, they reassure us that the unvaccinated will not get the disease itself. If I’m reading the highlighted correctly. However, excuse my skepticism. These are, after all, the same people who swore on a stack of vaccine schedules that this ‘transfer’ in no way could possibly happen in the first place.

July 5, 2015

Bombshell!! Mayo Clinic Admits Vaccines Affects All People Differently. Their Solution….

Bombshell!! Mayo Clinic Admits Vaccines Affects All People Differently.  Their solution to this ‘known’ problem, is to create more genetically ‘altered’ vaccines!! (click on link)

The reason this admission by the Mayo clinic that vaccines do in fact, affect ‘all people’ differently is bombshell, is that mothers / fathers have been saying all along that ‘vaccines’ are NOT a one size fits all medical solution.  The established medical community obviously knows this but, the corporate media that receives 75% of their funding now from large pharmaceutical corporations, do not dare share this common knowledge with the general public.

This admission also underscores the fact that since vaccines affect ‘everyone’ differently, many more people are effected differently by vaccines than what is being told to the pubic by the medical industrial complex. The medical establishment harps over and over that only a minuscule number of people are affected adversely by the vaccines.  This admission by the Mayo clinic should force the medical establishment to admit many more people are adversely affected by vaccines then we have been told.

So, what is the Mayo Clinic’s solution to this problem?  Well, admitting the science is horribly flawed, obviously is not one of them.  The Mayo Clinic’s solution to an already ‘out-of-control’ problem is to complicate the problem even further by tinkering with the genetics in viruses and DNA / RNA protein strains.  Which BTW- big pharma has been doing hardcore since the 1970’s as sourced to on this blog. If you are opposed to GMO’s you better get a good grip on GAV’s ‘genetically altered vaccines’ because they are in current vaccines. Because the ‘altered’ viruses and DNA / RNA protein sequences big pharma has F’ed with are proprietary, they legally do NOT have to disclose what they are in the vaccine insert. ScienceDaily“Researchers at Mayo Clinic are hacking the genetic code that controls the human response to disease vaccination” The crux of the article outside of using the disastrous technology that gave us GMOs to solve the problem that vaccines simply don’t work, is the complete bafflement that… wait for it… their vaccines don’t work. The ‘claim’ (according to the article) is that vaccines work for some people but, not for others.  Big pharma’s vaccine pushers seem to leave out the bigger questions.  First of all, if these vaccines don’t work for some, how in the world can we be shown concrete proof these vaccines work at all. Now for the 2000Lb elephant in the room.  If the vaccines have a ‘spectrum’ effectiveness, it’s only logical that the very same vaccines have spectrum of side effects as well.

April 17, 2014

Voices For Vaccines: Task Force For Global Health’s Russian Doll.

Voices_For_Vaccines

Voices For Vaccines responded to this post and said that “I was being dishonest” because I can’t prove one way or the other that VFV has taken money from ‘The Task Force For Global Health’. They infer that I am just a ‘dummy’ that doesn’t understand how a “fiscal agent” works with organizations. Well, if I don’t, then does the general public that VFV lobby’s for support know either? What does ‘fiscal agent’ really even mean to the general public? It certainly could mean any number of things that VFV could either choose or not choose to disclose with the public.

I simply pointed out the fine print that is on Voices For Vaccines own website (at the very bottom of their ‘About’ page). The fine print says that Voices For Vaccines is an ‘ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECT BY The Task Force For Global Health’ (TFGH). There is NO mention in the disclaimer that the (TFGH) is a “fiscal agent” nor does it call VFV an organization. I think it’s safe to assume for legal purposes that the (TFGH) and VFV has to disclose to the public that VFV is a ‘project’ for and by the Task Force For Global Health itself.

Here in lies my distrust with both VFV and TFGH

So, taking their disclaimer on face value, I certainly have a right to believe that not only is Voices For Vaccines disingenuous with the public, so to is The Task Force For Global Heath. Neither party has disclosed to the general public (except for lip service) where does the so-called ‘organization’ begin and where does the ‘project’ end?

As just a guy out in the general public their own disclaimer says Voices For Vaccines IS THE TASK FORCE itself.

Universities have numerous projects that are EVEN FUNDED OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY however, those projects are STILL A PART OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM ITSELF.

Nether Voices For Vaccines nor The Task Force have given ANY documentation to the public that they both are NOT one in the same. From every way I look at it, VFV is nothing more than a Russian Doll of it’s bigger parent, the Task Force.

The Global Task Force For Health maybe legal to pop out a project (like a Russian doll) and that project ‘claim’ that it is ” independent from it’s parent” however, it certainly does NOT make it ethical. There is a difference.

Legal to do so or not, If Voices For Vaccines is acting as a silent agent for the Task Force and their donors, the public has the right to ‘legal disclosure’.

I’m spearheading a coalition to investigate Colorado Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver. in working behind closed doors with Sundari Kraft in creating the actual bill. As reported in the press. This is a gross violation of ethics and conflict of interest to the people of Colorado. Specially those who oppose this bill.

You see, Sundari Kraft spins off ‘parent organizations’ like Russians dolls popping out of the larger doll. It was reported that Sundari Kraft worked with Rep Pabon behind close doors (fronting as a concerned parent organization) drafting Colorado HB 14-1288. However, at the House Health, Insurance and Environment Committee, session Kraft represented herself as the head organizer of ‘Vaccinate for Healthy Schools’. ( another PARENT organization) Here’s the big problem with all this ‘fronting’ by Kraft…

In reality, Sundari Kraft is a direct representative for ‘The Global Task Force For Health’ a fiscal agent for the ‘who’s who’ in the vaccine / pharmaceutical industries, CDC, foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation…

Essentially what the coalition wants to know is…
When Rep Pabon was working on Colorado HB 14-1288 with Kraft, did he or his staff know that by doing so, he was working with what is essentially a ‘quasi’ lobbying group / fiscal agent for ‘a number of’ vaccine industries, lobby’s and vaccine organizations, claiming he was simply working with a ‘parent organization’?

What we really want to know is if ANY of the The Global Task Force For Health’s members / representatives contributed to drafting ANY part of the legislation or if legislators received any donations OR future donations moneys from MEMBERS of the task force?

What we found out is that besides the Russian doll ‘parent organization’ ‘Vaccinate for Healthy Schools’ Sundari Kraft is also in charge of the ‘quasi’ parent organization ‘Voices For Vaccines’ in Colorado .

Voices For Vaccines distracts the public by claiming they don’t receive money from the fiscal agent HOWEVER, and this is a ‘big’ however, that’s only a smaller problem with VFV. The FACT is, that Voices For Vaccines IS The Global Task Force For Health itself.

So, does Lincoln / Mercury receive money from the Ford Motor company?

VFV’s claims that they are two separate organizations is absurd. The fact they are one in the same is in black and white on VFV’s own website at the very bottom of their ‘about’ page! Voices For Vaccines is NOT even called an organization by the task force, they are called “a PROJECT of and by the task force”!

This fact should NOT be taken lightly.

I publicly denounced Voices For Vaccines as being knowingly deceitful and begged them to take me to court for liable & slander. I wanted the world to see what their relationship is with one another in the ‘discovery’ process and learn, how this relationship played a part in the drafting of the Colorado HB 14-1288 bill.

VFV reps quickly left this blog and never returned. My question to them was simply… ‘where does the task force end and where does the VFV ‘PROJECT’ begin?’. By reading their own website I can’t tell. Therefore, the ‘claim’ they are simply a “parent organization” separate from the task force IS deceptive. They NEVER had an answer to that very important question. At this point, a would NOT simply trust any answer they would give.

REAL concerned parents ACROSS THE COUNTRY need answers to these questions… Was Colorado HB 14-1288 a bill lobbied by big pharma special interest groups AND EVEN WRITTEN BY THEM while posing as ‘parent organizations’?

The answer to these questions may not only get this bill stopped / repealed, it also my stop this from happening in the remaining states that still have medical freedom of choice.

—————————————–
Original Post Voices For Vaccine responded to.

Voices For Vaccines is absolutely 100% disingenuous to the general public and, what is really scary, is that REAL concerned parents are up against a multi-billion dollar drug lobby whose end game is to FORCE medicate ALL children. (UPDATE: 8-9-15 At the time this blog post was written, these venomous serpents swore they were NOT up to force medicating the public with big pharma drugs fronting themselves as vaccines, please read California’s ‘forced’ vaccine legislation, California now has adults in the forced vaccine crosshairs.)

We now live in a day and age where the Internal Revenue ‘Service’ in the United States is doing a ‘disservice’ to the American people by demanding the names of people who financially contributed to Ron Paul’s non profit organization ‘Campaign For Liberty’.

The IRS has no legal grounds to do so and the IRS has NO reason to ask for the names of donors of Ron Paul’s not for profit.

If anyone should have the right to know about contributors to non for profits it’s the American people themselves. They sure as hell deserve to know more than the IRS, that’s for damn sure in cases where non for profits are really nothing more than giant corporate lobbies pushing their agendas by stealth and payoffs.

Americans should demand ‘The Task Force For Global Health’ disclose their FULL donor list so we can see EVERYONE and EVERY ORGANIZATION Voices for vaccines gets their funding from.

You see, ‘Voices For Vaccines’ peddles itself to the public as a ‘parent organization’. Their own disclaimer ‘PROVES’ they are totally, and 100% NOT what they say they are.

Go to Voices For Vaccines website. Then, go to their ‘About’ page. At the very bottom of the page they disclose who, or should I say, ‘WHAT it is they actually are. What they are NOT is a parent led organization. What they are is a PROJECT by big pharma, big genetics, and lots of big money via a non for profit called ‘Task Force For Global Health’.

AT the very bottom of Voices For Vaccines ‘About’ page is their disclaimer…

Voices for Vaccines is an administrative project of the Task Force for Global Health, an Atlanta-based 501(c)(3) organization. Contributions to Voices for Vaccines are tax-deductible.

They are a mega corporate lobby’s ‘PROJECT’ and NOT a parent led organization. Having parents work for the Task Force’s ‘project’ does not mean these parents are ‘leading’ Voices For Vaccines in ANY capacity. Voices for Vaccines are deceivers of the general public.

What else would you expect from anything that is coming out of a big pharma lobby ‘non for profit’?

The Task Force’s objectives through their ‘puppet project’ Voices for Vaccines is straight forward. Their objective (or ‘end game’) is to eliminate ANY ‘voices’ that demand ‘vaccine accountability’ and to force medicate all children, silencing ANY objection form concerned parents.

The mega drug lobby front group ‘Voices For Vaccines’ conspired with Colorado state reps in crafting the exemption legislation to ‘force’ schools into disclosing the number of children exercising their God given right of what goes into their bodies. This, so the drug lobby’s front group can, at some future time, mobilize their psychotic forces to harass and menace both the children and the schools with end game of taking away ones right to CHOOSE what goes into their body.

Since Voices For Vaccines wants private school information to be disclosed for the sake of THEIR agenda, we the people of our communities should ask The Global Task, (Voices for Vaccines), to come clean on their donor lists. This donor list has to come from LEGAL DISCLOSURE because, we the people can NOT trust the mega lobby ‘Task Force’ to give us an ‘honest, just trust us’ account on who is paying their piper. We the people of our community need to know of ANY conflict of interest with state and local reps passing Voices For Vaccines crafted vaccine exemption legislation..

What I really want to know is, did ANY campaign contributions from ANY of ‘The Task Force’s donors’ go towards Colorado state rep’s campaign contributions who voted to chip away at Colorado’s precious vaccine exemption laws that The Task Force’s puppet project (Voices for Vaccines) lobbied Colorado state reps to do?

April 14, 2014

A New Autoimmunity Syndrome Linked to Aluminum In Vaccines

Editors Note:
Aluminum heavy metal poisoning causing any number of auto immune disorders has been known for decades. Volumes of medical literature on this subject is easily available to anyone who has any doubt or questions. I strongly suggest to mothers to read the ingredients in the vaccines FOR YOURSELF, look up aluminum heavy metal poisoning then, take a good look at your baby in the eyes and ask… “Do I really want to inject that garbage into his / her veins?”

All sourced links are found at original article linked below.
————————————–
A New Autoimmunity Syndrome Linked to Aluminum In Vaccines
LINK

While “anti-vaxxers” are being smeared in public campaigns as backward and unscientific fear-mongers, a growing body of cutting edge research is emerging from the top echelons of medical immunology to confirm what the cranks have been saying for years about the devastating effects of vaccine ingredients. The biggest names in the field of study of the human immune system are attached to current papers in the most prestigious immunology literature that link widely used vaccine ingredients such as aluminum to terrifying modern epidemics of immune-mediated diseases including autism and Alzheimer’s. As well, they’ve identified an entirely new post-vaccine syndrome: Autoimmune Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA). And while the study of ASIA is shining light on the underlying mechanisms through which vaccine ingredients trigger disease, it is also exposing cracks in the foundation of a century of vaccine orthodoxy .

Nearly 3,000 doctors and scientists from around the world gathered last week at the 9th International Congress on Autoimmunity (ICA) in the Nice Acropolis Convention Center on the French Riviera. Dozens of seminars and panel discussions of causes and treatments for scores of autoimmune diseases were scheduled. But an entire day of the four day event held every two years was devoted to the 3rd International Vaccine Symposium held under the umbrella of the ICA.

Ignasi Rodriguez-Pinto, an autoimmunologist at the Barcelona Hospital Clinic and former fellow of the pre-eminent Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases at Tel Aviv University’s Sheba Medical Center was at the symposium to announce the creation of a world registry for ASIA.

ASIA was first identified in the Journal of Autoimmunology in 2011 by Dr. Yehuda Schoenfeld, founder of the Zabludowicz Center. It includes a broad spectrum of neurological and immune-mediated phenomena seen following vaccine injections which result from exposure to their ingredients, including aluminum. Among ASIA’s diagnostic criteria: weakness, anxiety, rashes, chronic fatigue, sleep disorders and the onset of a range of autoimmune diseases from Systemic Lupus Erythematosis to Rheumatoid Arthritis — sometimes years after an initial reaction.

ASIA is also dubbed “Schoenfeld’s Syndrome” for Schoenfeld who has published more than 1,700 articles in the medical literature and is widely regarded as the world’s leading authority on autoimmunity — disease that results when certain proteins in the body lose their “immune privilege” or protected status, and the machinery of the human defence system mistakes them as foreign invaders and launches an assault on its own body.

“ASIA is a wide concept that includes any environmental factor which is demonstrated to trigger autoimmune conditions,” said Rodriguez-Pinto. Cases of Gulf War Syndrome, which result from exposure to the chemical squalene – a component of vaccines used on military personnel during the Gulf War, and siliconosis – immune-mediated symptoms triggered by silicon exposure in prostheses and breast implants – are now being considered under ASIA’s umbrella, he said.

The registry was established in January of this year as a tool to enable researchers to analyze cases of ASIA globally, to compare clinical manifestations after exposure, and to establish common instigators of autoimmunity and compare efficacy of treatments. In its first month of operation, 283 confirmed cases of the syndrome were registered — 73% followed vaccination while the remainder were exposed to other known toxins.

Most currently registered cases of ASIA have followed vaccination for Hepatitis B (70.7 percent), said Rodriguz- Pinto. Forty percent of the cases developed defined autoimmune conditions including Multiple Sclerosis and a subgroup of 20 percent had more than one diagnosed autoimmune disease.

“Adjuvants have been used for decades to improve the immune response to vaccines, and among this large group, alumimum and silicone are most commonly described,” explains a paper in the July 2013 Immunologic Research, penned by four leading immunologists including Schoenfeld. “Nonetheless, as supported by increasing reports, although rarely vaccines are able to trigger the development of [autoimmune diseases] ADs in genetically susceptible humans, this could be ascribed to the presence of containing adjuvants. The time relationship between the vaccine delivery and overt disease can last from a few weeks to even years.”

The paper adds that a “now abundant literature shows that exposure of human and animals to aluminum from various sources can have deleterious consequences on the nervous system, especially in adults.”

Among the authors of that abundant literature is Canada’s Christopher Shaw, chairman of the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute and a researcher at the University of British Columbia who , at the IAC last week described aluminum as “insidiously unsafe.”

“That the aluminum ion is very toxic is well known,” said Shaw. “Its toxicity was recognized as long ago as 1911 and evidence of that has only been amplified since,” he said, especially in a growing body of evidence of aluminum’s role in Alzheimer’s disease and autism.

Though found in some food and water sources, since the 1920s, aluminum has been used in many and a growing number of vaccines, Shaw said, and “the compartment in which you put it in and the route of administration makes all the difference.”

“Aluminum is a demonstrated neurotoxin,” he added. “From the molecular level between ions and molecules, to the genome, to the protein and cellular level to the circuit level, there is no level of the nervous system that aluminum does not negatively impact.”

Shaw reported on his research on mice injected with aluminum doses equivalent to those in vaccine injections. They showed progressive loss of muscle strength and endurance, and at the cellular level, “profound loss of motor neurons.”

He and other researchers also demonstrated “social interaction deficits” and elevated anxiety levels among the vaccinated mice, reflected by their obsessive stair climbing and reluctance to move between light and dark regions compared to controls, for example. Shaw’s forthcoming research demonstrates the impact of aluminum on gene proteins and gene expression and how these relate to autism.

Celeste McGovern’s article first appeared on GreenMedInfo.

April 13, 2014

Fully Vaccinated Patient Behind Measles Spread

Editor’s Note:

The headline should actually read… ‘

    Big Pharma Vaccine Lobby Admits Vaccines Spread Disease While, At The Same Time, They ‘SHAMEFULLY’ Persecute Completely Health Happy People Who Don’t Want Their Poison Injected into Their Veins.

There is a story within a story here.

‘Despite the image twisting by the heavily funded vaccine / drug industry recently, that somehow, 2 unvaccinated children with whooping cough gave SIXTEEN VACCINATED children the whopping cough (so much for ‘effectiveness’) out in California…

Despite all the hysteria in media blitzes about unvaccinated children spreading disease in order to ‘push’ legislation in Colorado and other states to end ones right to ‘CHOOSE’ what medication they want or don’t want into their bodies…

Despite ALL the BS put out by ALL the usual suspects with financial ties to the vaccine money machine, once again, vaccines are behind yet another measles outbreak. DUH!

You inject a cocktail of viruses into someone and you don’t expect those ‘INFECTED’ by vaccines to ‘shed’ those viruses? Think Again!

Remember, the liars that make up the mega vaccine pharmacological lobby continues to put out the incredible disinfo that vaccines do NOT transmit disease, even though, throughout history they ALWAYS HAVE.

The real story behind the story…

Take note that even though this pro vaccine publication admits vaccines spread disease they whitewash and down play this very FACT, and use what is called ‘double speak’, promoting vaccines as safe and effective.

I also see that at the end of the article they blame ‘perfectly healthy and happy non vaccine infected children for spreading measles with NO prof what-so-ever to back up their claims IN THE FACE OF PROOF THAT VACCINES SPREAD THE VERY DISEASES THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO PREVENT IN THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS!
——————————————
Fully Vaccinated Patient Behind Measles Spread
http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time

Get the measles vaccine, and you won’t get the measles—or give it to anyone else. Right? Well, not always. A person fully vaccinated against measles has contracted the disease and passed it on to others. The startling case study contradicts received wisdom about the vaccine and suggests that a recent swell of measles outbreaks in developed nations could mean more illnesses even among the vaccinated.

When it comes to the measles vaccine, two shots are better than one. Most people in the United States are initially vaccinated against the virus shortly after their first birthday and return for a booster shot as a toddler. Less than 1% of people who get both shots will contract the potentially lethal skin and respiratory infection. And even if a fully vaccinated person does become infected—a rare situation known as “vaccine failure”—they weren’t thought to be contagious.

That’s why a fully vaccinated 22-year-old theater employee in New York City who developed the measles in 2011 was released without hospitalization or quarantine. But like Typhoid Mary, this patient turned out to be unwittingly contagious. Ultimately, she transmitted the measles to four other people, according to a recent report in Clinical Infectious Diseases that tracked symptoms in the 88 people with whom “Measles Mary” interacted while she was sick. Surprisingly, two of the secondary patients had been fully vaccinated. And although the other two had no record of receiving the vaccine, they both showed signs of previous measles exposure that should have conferred immunity.

A closer look at the blood samples taken during her treatment revealed how the immune defenses of Measles Mary broke down. As a first line of defense against the measles and other microbes, humans rely on a natural buttress of IgM antibodies. Like a wooden shield, they offer some protection from microbial assaults but aren’t impenetrable. The vaccine (or a case of the measles) prompts the body to supplement this primary buffer with a stronger armor of IgG antibodies, some of which are able to neutralize the measles virus so it can’t invade cells or spread to other patients. This secondary immune response was presumed to last for decades.

By analyzing her blood, the researchers found that Measles Mary mounted an IgM defense, as if she had never been vaccinated. Her blood also contained a potent arsenal of IgG antibodies, but a closer look revealed that none of these IgG antibodies were actually capable of neutralizing the measles virus. It seemed that her vaccine-given immunity had waned.

Although public health officials have assumed that measles immunity lasts forever, the case of Measles Mary highlights the reality that “the actual duration [of immunity] following infection or vaccination is unclear,” says Jennifer Rosen, who led the investigation as director of epidemiology and surveillance at the New York City Bureau of Immunization. The possibility of waning immunity is particularly worrisome as the virus surfaces in major U.S. hubs like Boston, Seattle, New York, and the Los Angeles area. Rosen doesn’t believe this single case merits a change in vaccination strategy—for example, giving adults booster shots—but she says that more regular surveillance to assess the strength of people’s measles immunity is warranted.

If it turns out that vaccinated people lose their immunity as they get older, that could leave them vulnerable to measles outbreaks seeded by unvaccinated people—which are increasingly common in the United States and other developed countries. Even a vaccine failure rate of 3% to 5% could devastate a high school with a few thousand students, says Robert Jacobson, director of clinical studies for the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, who wasn’t involved with the study. Still, he says, “The most important ‘vaccine failure’ with measles happens when people refuse the vaccine in the first place.”
—————————–
Related:Vaccines Spreading Disease A History Lesson

April 6, 2014

Califorina Recent Measels Outbreak & The War On Truth

The main stream corporate media who, does NOT like this blog mentioning that they are ALL tied to the wallet of those companies PROFITING from vaccines and the medical carnage they are causing, recently started fear mongering over the recent measles outbreak in ocean county California.

The media blitz has, once again, ATTEMPTED to ‘persecute’ and NOT report the facts of yet another measles outbreak where the majority of the infected are in fact vaccinated for measles.

So, instead of ‘correctly’ reporting that out of the 21 measles outbreak cases, a whopping 16 of the 21 children were in fact vaccinated, The corporate media instead, focuses ALL their attention on the 5 children who were not. Why is the FACT that the majority of infected children being vaccinated not the ‘highlight’ of these so-called corporate media reports on the orange county Measles outbreak? Is it that a.) the MSM is distracting away from the fact that it is the vaccines themselves that are most likely causing the measles outbreaks as it is almost always the case with these measles outbreaks and b.) that the corporate media is using the ‘over hyped’ news coverage to engage in a witch hunt against those who do NOT want forced heavy metals, chemicals, a number of stealth viruses (none of which are tested for cancer) into the veins of their children. All while the medical industry cheerleads this media circus / inquisition pandering to the lowest common denominators in our society.

Of course the fear mongering by the MSM would NOT be complete without a medical panel composed of Joesph Mengele types ‘selling / marketing’ this old idea of forced vaccines onto the population. For the greater good of course

It Was even brought to these doctor’s attention by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos ‘fill in host’ that force medicating of the population (for the greater good) was exactly what the Nazis did.

I guess force medicating the population with heavy metals, chemicals… is OK as long as guys in white lab coats on TV tell you it’s OK. Eyes rolling.

After watching this ‘wild west medicine show’ unfold on network television, print and establishment social media, I came to the conclusion that the entire measles outbreak made for TV drama was to push an old Nazi agenda of forced medication while covering up the fact that their vaccines are INDEED SPREADING THE VERY DISEASES THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING US FROM?

Related:
Could polio or other vaccinations be behind the new “polio-like” Illness outbreak in California?

December 22, 2013

There is No Such Thing as a Safe Vaccine and there Never Will Be

Vaccines: The Greatest Con Job On Earth (since 1790’s)

Every Year the vaccine pushers tell the public… “The Flu vaccine is ineffective and may give you the flu” out of one side of their mouth while, out of the other side, saying… “You need to get a flu shot to prevent the flu.” Ladies and gentlemen that is called ‘MIND CONTROL’, the kind a sleazy used car sales man could only dream of having.

It should be said first and for most that Dr Suzanne Humphries should be thanked for her courage in this day and age where, doctors who do NOT sellout and take payola from their big pharma pimp daddies like some sleazy DJ at a radio station who’s getting paid under the table by the equally sleazy recording industries, get the full wrath of the corporate media that, not only takes money from big pharmaceutical but, is heavily invested into big pharmaceutical. Doctors who do NOT play ball and tow the corporate bottom line, also have medical boards to go after them like the days of the religious zealots with witch burnings and inquisitions. We as a society should NOT be tolerating this outrageous sickening behavior in our so-called modern society.

Let’s step back in time and really put some perspective on what Dr Suzanne Humphries is saying. If you think Dr Suzanne Humphries is a ‘radical quack’ who does not know what she is talking about especially, people in the medical profession who believe this about Dr Suzanne Humphries, you have no clue about the profession you work in.

Dr Suzanne Humphries is in very good company in what she is saying which, mirrors what medial giants such as Dr. Charles Creighton debated successfully in the last century concerning vaccine science. Dr. Charles Creighton most famous quote was… ‘Vaccines will one day be looked at by the world the same way we look at blood letting today.

Dr. Charles Creighton was both a scientist’s scientist and, a doctor’s doctor. It’s very important when we discuss vaccines in our so-called modern society that, we understand in Dr. Charles Creighton’s era with medical professionals, there were two camps in America. The first camp you had truly ‘independent’ medical scientists, doctors, medical schools and laboratories. In the other camp you had a very sketchy group who were, like today, taking money from both big pharma and big oil companies. This second group won out, thanks mostly to John D Rockefeller’s oil, railroad money and political muscle. He who wins the war writes the history books. In this case ‘medical’ history.

Looking back in time American medical professionals were divided when it came to vaccine science. By the late 19th century the smallpox vaccine had killed so many people in Europe that their population refused to be ‘forced’ vaccinated even though the punishment for NOT taking the smallpox vaccine was imprisonment. History shows us which camp in America was behind vaccines and which were not. Read the very thoroughly documented and sourced book… ‘The Drug Story’

Medical giants such as Dr. Creighton sited the carnage in Europe as proof on human guinea pigs that the smallpox epidemics stopped as soon as people stopped taking the vaccine. Dr. Creighton and other colleagues of that time, sited all the European deaths caused by that continent’s smallpox vaccine programs as irrefutable proof that vaccines not only do NOT work preventing the very diseases they are ‘supposed to be preventing but, are extremely hazardous to the welfare of the population in general.

Our modern medical schools, are no longer independent from the same big pharma vaccine pushers that our American independent medical professionals of Dr. Creighton’s era were up against. Medical schools have completely omitted from their textbooks all the death and suffering brought on by the smallpox vaccine programs in Europe (1790’s – 1880’s) but, instead present the smallpox figures POST IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM AND SELL IT TO MEDICAL STUDENTS AS A VACCINE VICTORY!!!! Turning the reality of what actually happened upside down on it’s head. It’s for underhanded tricks like this by the big pharma run medical schools why, we as a society, have to know the REAL history of vaccines. This brings us to the polio cure whopper of a hoax.

The Smallpox vaccine disaster is not the only vaccine tragedy that has been rewritten by the Medical Industrial Complex, the polio cure hoax is the mother of all ‘tall tails’ disseminated into our society.

The truly evil people behind vaccines were certainly in a panic when their holiest of grails, getting their snake oil into the veins of EVERY human being on this planet took a hit when the smallpox vaccine scam went down in flames. This, in the day and age where people saw what these smallpox vaccines did and, weren’t so easy to bullshit like people have been today. Then came polio, just in time like the calvary to save vaccines but, there to was a problem.

Scientists in the age of the electronic microscope and with tremendous funding by both the federal government and big pharma COULD NEVER ISOLATE ANY of the so-called wild polio viruses that was blamed for crippling so many children in America.

Troubles for the vaccine pushers at big pharma started to mount when good and well meaning scientists started to ask logical questions that ANY real ‘objective’ scientist would ask. Questions like… “Why can we not isolate a polio virus (with an electron microscope!) when we have so many people PRESUMEDLY stricken with it.” The second big question that was asked… “why has what was known forever as a normally MILD SUMMER VIRUS, all of the sudden, causing mass epidemics of paralysis for the first time in human history and why concentrated primarily in North America?

These were two big glaring questions that were becoming a big problem for the vaccine agenda. Many scientists were putting together the evidence that what all these children and, some adults were being crippled from was NOT the polio virus at all but, they were being chemically poisoned. Chemical poisoning has the very same earmarks as polio. Including the slow crippling to the point where someone would have to be put on what is called a ventilator today or what was known as an ‘iron lung’ back in those days.

Big pharma which is tied to the billfold of big petroleum and all the political muscle behind both were NOT going to allow these scientists to let the cat out of the bag that, all these crippled people were NOT polio victims BUT instead, had been crippled due to the pesticides being used at the time by big agro.

The money and political muscle was used to ridicule these scientists and their federal funding stopped. If you worked for a big pharma laboratory you were taken off the work and worse. This history is in fact, taught in big pharma run medical schools today, only to ridicule those scientist’s findings and NEVER informing the medical student of the FACTS that led all the other scientists to the chemical poisoning conclusion.

As a matter of fact, ANY medical student can easily research this themselves, Jonas Salk NEVER did isolate ANY wild polio strain. All three of his polio strains used in his vaccines where lab produced which, has to this day, given rise to multiple strains of ‘LAB’ produced polio viruses that never even existed before, with some of those now ‘weaponized’. The weaponized version that was produced by the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation, just within this decade, crippled over 40,000 children alone in India.

Because of all these lab created polio viruses being injected into the veins of so many children, there is more polio now than ever before and most of it under about 10 different names.

Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis…….According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That’s where all those 30,000 – 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination“—Viera Scheibner

What FACTS had been kept out of all the media PR hype that lead to the RELIGION of the polio cure was 1.) all the cases of polio caused by the vaccines and 2.) over a hundred million polio vaccine victims infected with the SV-40 cancer virus. (Meaning that there were 39 OTHER viruses in Sulk / MERCK’s polio vaccine!) However, cancer rates being traced back to the polio vaccine is an entire topic into itself and has been covered extensively at this blog. If you take all the Hollywood fanfare out of the polio cure public relations and marketing schemes (The Media had a lot of their stock invested into the vaccine manufacture MERCK) you’ll very easily see the polio cure was NO cure what-so-ever but a complete disaster. So much so that the same big pharma created medical institutes like the CDC in 1964 had changed the criteria for polio and labeling ALL polio cases as aseptic meningitis to mask the fact big pharma infected even more children with polio than they went into the polio campaign infected with polio.

TO BE CONTINUED…

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.