From Hell To Veins

May 10, 2017

Vaccine Injury / Death Reporting System

Filed under: HOME — nwqfk @ 3:15 p05
Tags: , , , ,

What We (the people) Need, a ‘public’ crowd sourced vaccine injury / death reporting system website (or network of websites) that the public can access and report the injury or death of a loved one for all the world to see.

Right now, the bad guys over at big pharma are using ‘THEIR’ bought and paid for corporate media (yeah the same media that run never ending drug ads) to wage a PR campaign against the human beings of this planet, to give up their basic human right to determine what get’s injected into their bodies.

A few measles cases that are relatively harmless are being fanned up by the bought and paid for corporate media (by no coincidence)  in states (in the USA) that still have the ‘fundamental freedom to ‘opt out‘ of being given vaccines by force.

Conversely, the same bought and paid for corporate media are totally ‘blacking out‘ the thousands of much more serious deaths and injuries caused by the ingredients that are in big pharm’s vaccines.

Once the public is forced to see the horror families of the vaccine injury and death are suffering from, the court of public opinion will in no doubt cause a backlash to the pharma far greater than a few isolated measles cases have been to everyone who wants control of what goes into their bodies..

Because in USA, the ‘right’ to take a corporation to court over an unsafe product was taken away from the American people back in 1986, with regards to vaccines, an open source reporting system would at minimum, give these victims and the families of these victims a place for their injustice to be heard by all.  No more, can this ongoing carnage by both the pharma lobby and their partners in crime, the corporate media hide the death and destruction brought on by vaccines.

I also strongly believe, that a sister system should exist for injury and death caused by big pharma drugs.

I’ll be updating the progress at this website.


August 27, 2015

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


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?


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.


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, 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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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


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 (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 (accessed 13 April 2010).
9. WHO/UNICEF Immunization Summary: A Statistical Reference Containing Data Through 2008 (The 2010 Edition).
10. Up-to-date European vaccination schedules may be found (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. (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

April 17, 2014

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


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?

November 10, 2013

Vaccines For Bio Warfare.

Filed under: HOME — nwqfk @ 3:15 p11
Tags: , , ,

I’ve posted numerous articles linking the medical industrial complex to the military industrial complex in where the vaccine creators  are joined to the bio-weapons industry.    Not really that hard to do unless you’re one of the three blind mice and couldn’t find your own ass if was handed to you.

I have also posted AND SOURCED plenty of data showing how the entire bio-warfare program came out of vaccine bio-weapon science going all the way back to the days of Jenner.

I’ve also ‘sourced’ where the Rockefeller money that created the medical industrial complex we have today was responsible for the Spanish Flu.  Which got it’s name from US troops injected with particular ‘vaccines’ that mutated on troop ships during the first world war and was given the name ‘Spanish flu’ because the US troops that spread this lab created virus were first stationed in Spain for training before deploying to the trenches, where they would spread the killer virus.

Below is a another report on the creation of the Spanish flu via a vaccine.



Title: Vaccine – Not Virus – Responsible For Spanish Flu Of 1918
Date: May 8, 2003
Source: Irish Examiner

Abstract: How did they know it was the virus of Spanish flu that killed millions of civilians and soldiers?

This disaster occurred when viruses were unknown to medical science.

It took a British science team to identify the first virus in man in 1933.

As regards the origin of the outbreak, he relates that a senior US army officer suggested that the Germans might have been responsible for the bug as part of their war effort, by spreading it in theatres or where large numbers of people assembled.

Did they also spread it among their own people, killing 400,000 as reported?

Ryle would have us believe that all those American soldiers who died from non-combatant causes may have died from Spanish flu.

But US Army records show that seven men dropped dead after being vaccinated.

A report from US Secretary of War Henry L Stimson not only verified these deaths but also stated that there had been 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis as a direct result of yellow fever vaccination during only six months of the war.

That was only one of the 14 to 25 shots given to recruits.

Army records also reveal that after vaccination became compulsory in the US Army in 1911, not only did typhoid increase rapidly but all other vaccinal diseases increased at an alarming rate.

After America entered the war in 1917, the death rate from typhoid vaccination rose to the highest point in the history of the US Army.

The deaths occurred after the shots were given in sanitary American hospitals and well-supervised army camps in France, where sanitation had been practiced for years.

The report of the Surgeon-General of the US Army shows that during 1917 there were admitted into the army hospitals 19,608 men suffering from anti-typhoid inoculation and vaccinia.

This takes no account of those whose vaccine diseases were attributed to other causes.

The army doctors knew all these cases of disease and death were due to vaccination and were honest enough to admit it in their medical reports.

When army doctors tried to suppress the symptoms of typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid paratyphoid.

But when they concocted an even stronger vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease Spanish flu.

After the war, this was one of the vaccines used to protect a panic-stricken world from the soldiers returning from WWI battlefronts infected with dangerous diseases.

The rest is history (Irish Examiner, 2003)

Title: Lethal Virus From 1918 Genetically Reconstructed

Date: October 9, 2003
 Sunshine Project
Abstract: The ‘Spanish Flu’ influenza virus that killed 20-40 million people in 1918 is currently under reconstruction. Several genes of the extraordinarily lethal 1918 flu virus have been isolated and introduced into contemporary flu strains. These proved to be lethal for mice, while virus constructs with genes from a current flu virus types had hardly any effect. These experiments may easily be abused for military purposes, but provide little benefit from a medical or public health point of view.The 1918 Spanish Flu was highly infectious and – in comparison to contemporary flu viruses – killed a very high percentage of those infected, including many younger people. The Spanish Flu alone caused the medium life expectancy in the US in 1918 to drop by 10 years. Hence, flu viruses are perceived today as a serious biological warfare threat. Just two weeks ago, a 15 million dollar research grant was awarded in the US to develop protective measures especially against a bioterrorist attack with flu viruses.Despite the very dangerous nature of the 1918 virus, efforts to reconstruct it started in the mid 1990s, when Dr Jeffrey Taubenberger from the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington DC succeeded in recovering and sequencing fragments of the viral RNA from preserved tissues of 1918 victims. In the current issue of the scientific journal Emerging Infectious Diseases new genetic details of the 1918 flu virus will be published.

But after (partially) unravelling the genetic sequence of the virus, the scientists went a step further and began bringing the Spanish flu back to life. Unnoticed by the public, they succeeded in creating a live virus containing two 1918 genes that proved to be very lethal in animal experiments. This experiment is only one genetic step away from taking the 1918 demon entirely out of the bottle.

A resuscitation of the Spanish flu is neither necessary nor warranted from a public health point of view. Allegedly, the recent experiments sought to test the efficacy of existing antiviral drugs on the 1918 construct. But there is little need for antiviral drugs against the 1918 strain if the 1918 strain had not been recreated in the first place “It simply does not make any scientific sense to create a new threat just to develop new countermeasures against it.” says Jan van Aken, biologist with the Sunshine Project, “Genetic characterization of influenza strains has important biomedical applications. But it is not justifiable to recreate this particularly dangerous eradicated strain that could wreak havoc if released, deliberately or accidentally.”

Construction of new maximum security (BSL-4) laboratories for biodefense research has been justified in part by citing the potential of the Spanish Flu as a biological weapon. Influenza usually requires a low level of containment; but when scientists begin recombining virulence-related genes, the danger dramatically increases. The University of Texas Medical Branch’s BSL-4 plans influenza ‘gene reassortment’ experiments in maximum containment. “This kind of research is creating a vicious circle, and could prompt a race by biodefense scientists to genetic engineer unthinkable diseases”, says Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project, “What disease comes after influenza? Biodefense laboratories must not become self-fulfilling prophesy centers. The world does not need biodefense programs to create a ‘genetically engineered disease gap’.”

From an arms control perspective it appears to be particularly sensitive if a military research institution embarks on a project that aims at constructing more dangerous pathogens. “If Jeffery Taubenberger worked in a Chinese, Russian or Iranian laboratory, his work might well be seen as the ‘smoking gun’ of an offensive biowarfare program,” says van Aken.

A Sunshine Project briefing paper on the ‘Reconstruction of the Spanish influenza virus‘ provides further details and a comprehensive literature list (Sunshine Project, 2003).

Title: Biosafety Irregularity In Spanish Flu Experiments: Highlights The Need to Strengthen Biodefense Transparency
Date: October 21, 2003
Source: Sunshine Project

Abstract: Genetic experiments to recreate one of the most devastating viruses of the past century were not reviewed or approved by a biosafety committee. The University of Georgia claims that it was too troublesome to convene its Institutional Biosafety Committee to review research to genetically reconstruct the Spanish flu. Instead, the University signed off on the experiments based on ad hoc talks between only four members of its biosafety committee. As a result, no minutes were taken to describe safety review of the experiments. In fact, by not convening its committee, Georgia’s actions ensured that there was no timely opportunity to raise concerns at all.

The case demonstrates a severe weakness in the public disclosure provisions of federal research rules (the NIH Guidelines) and underscores the need for mandatory committee-level (or higher) review of research projects with disease agents. By approving the experiments with an ad hoc subcommittee, requirements for public disclosure were avoided. The existence of the experiments only came to light through journal articles. According to Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project, “Genetic engineering of bioweapons agents has national and international implications for health, biosafety, and security. But Georgia shied away from these and simply rubber-stamped the Pentagon-led project to recreate the Spanish flu.”

More stringent, more public review is required, says Hammond, “Weighing the merits and hazards of these kinds of experiments requires open discussion. Georgia’s claim that reconstituting Spanish flu doesn’t merit a biosafety committee meeting is scandalous, and will diminish public trust in the biosafety committee system.”

In 1918-19, the Spanish flu killed 20-40 million people worldwide. In the US, deaths from the flu strain resulted in a 10 year drop in life expectancy. Recreating the deadly flu may create international unease, in particular because of the leadership of the US military in the project. The experiments were described by the Sunshine Project on October 9th. (See News Release “Lethal Virus from 1918 Genetically Reconstructed” and the briefing paper “Recreating the Spanish flu?“, both available online.)

The Spanish flu reconstruction began at a University of Georgia biosafety level three (BSL-3) facility in 1999. Researchers from US universities, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are involved. The lab specializes in diseases of poultry, including avian influenza. The Sunshine Project has confirmed – and reconfirmed – under the Freedom of Information Act that USDA has no biosafety committee minutes related to the experiments. The Project also directly contacted the University of Georgia and requested Institutional Biosafety Committee meeting minutes that are required by the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research. Georgia’s Biosafety Officer stated that no minutes exist.

Scientists have recently begun to accept the need to reinforce the Institutional Biosafety Committee system established under the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research. But the discussion, including that in a recent report on biosafety by the National Academies of Science, is out of balance because it is taking place almostly exclusively between scientists, government regulators, and the Pentagon.

“There is a need to make more room at the table. The public has a right to help determine if, and under what conditions, risky research proceeds.” says Hammond, “Biosafety review must be a matter of law, and public access provisions of federal research rules must be strengthened. Otherwise, risky experiments such as this one will take place with little or no transparency, and that will decrease international security and create environmental and health risks.”

A Sunshine Project briefing paper on the ‘Reconstruction of the Spanish influenza virus‘ provides further details and a comprehensive literature list (Sunshine Project, 2003).
Title: US Vaccines Caused ‘Spanish Flu’
Date: December 1, 2003
Source: Rense

Abstract: Following is an addition from Sheri Nakken on the “Spanish Flu” epidemic of 1918.

More quotes on the webiste

“It was a common expression during the war that “more soldiers were killed by vaccine shots than by shots from enemy guns.”–E. McBean

“The 1918 ‘Spanish Flu’ started in American military Camp Funston, Fort Riley, USA amongst troops making ready for W.W.I – taking on board vaccinations, recruit training and all. It eventually killed about 40,000,000 people worldwide. That flu strain only appeared briefly once again, according to the US Atlanta CDC. This was in 1976 and again it struck at the US army camp Fort Dix, USA, amongst recently vaccinated troops (and no one else EVER); Fort Dix is known to have been a vaccine trial centre. Was the world’s greatest ‘influenza’ scourge another well-hidden vaccine disaster?”—John P Heptonstall

In 1918, the US Army forced the vaccination of 3,285,376 natives in the Philippines when no epidemic was brewing, only the sporadic cases of the usual mild nature. Of the vaccinated persons, 47,369 came down with small-pox, and of these 16,477 died. In 1919 the experiment was doubled. 7,670,252 natives were vaccinated. Of these 65,180 victims came down with small-pox, and 44,408 died. In the first experiment, one-third died, and in the second, two-thirds of the infected ones died. —– from Dr. William Koch’s book, The Survival Factor in Neoplastic and Viral Diseases.

“Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) collected 26,795 cases of (191 influenza treated by homeopathic physicians with a mortality rate of 1.05 percent while the average old school (traditional medicine/drugs) mortality was 30 percent.”

“The Journal of the American Institute for Homeopathy, May, 1921, had a long article about the use of homeopathy in the flu epidemic. Dr. T A McCann, from Dayton, Ohio reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically had a mortality rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%. This last figure was supported by Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) who collected 26,795 cases of flu treated with homeopathy with the above result….. Dr. Herbert A. Roberts from Derby, CT, said that 30 physicians in Connecticut responded to his request for data. They reported 6,602 cases with 55 deaths, which is less than 1%. Dr. Roberts was working as a physician on a troop ship during WWI. He had 81 cases of flu on the way over to Europe. He reported, “All recovered and were landed. Every man received homeopathic treatment. One ship lost 31 on the way.”—Julian Winston


Vaccine not virus responsible for Spanish flu

Thursday, May 08, 2003

Ryle Dwyer writes on the horror of the 1918-20 pandemic which the propaganda says was caused by Spanish flu (Irish Examiner, May 1). How did they know it was the virus of Spanish flu that killed millions of civilians and soldiers?

This disaster occurred when viruses were unknown to medical science. It took a British science team to identify the first virus in man in 1933.

As regards the origin of the outbreak, he relates that a senior US army officer suggested that the Germans might have been responsible for the bug as part of their war effort, by spreading it in theatres or where large numbers of people assembled.

Did they also spread it among their own people, killing 400,000 as reported? Ryle would have us believe that all those American soldiers who died from non-combatant causes may have died from Spanish flu.

But US Army records show that seven men dropped dead after being vaccinated. A report from US Secretary of War Henry L Stimson not only verified these deaths but also stated that there had been 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis as a direct result of yellow fever vaccination during only six months of the war.

That was only one of the 14 to 25 shots given to recruits.

Army records also reveal that after vaccination became compulsory in the US Army in 1911, not only did typhoid increase rapidly but all other vaccinal diseases increased at an alarming rate.

After America entered the war in 1917, the death rate from typhoid vaccination rose to the highest point in the history of the US Army.

The deaths occurred after the shots were given in sanitary American hospitals and well-supervised army camps in France, where sanitation had been practised for years.

The report of the Surgeon-General of the US Army shows that during 1917 there were admitted into the army hospitals 19,608 men suffering from anti-typhoid inoculation and vaccinia.

This takes no account of those whose vaccine diseases were attributed to other causes.

The army doctors knew all these cases of disease and death were due to vaccination and were honest enough to admit it in their medical reports.

When army doctors tried to suppress the symptoms of typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid paratyphoid.

But when they concocted an even stronger vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease Spanish flu.

After the war, this was one of the vaccines used to protect a panic-stricken world from the soldiers returning from WWI battlefronts infected with dangerous diseases

The rest is history.

Patrick J Carroll,

Lady Lane House, Waterford  (Rense, 2003).

Title: Disease By Design: 1918 “Spanish” Flu Resurrection Creates Major Safety And Security Risks
 October 5, 2005
 Sunshine ProjectAbstract: The resurrection of 1918 influenza has plunged the world closer to a flu pandemic and to a biodefense race scarcely separable from an offensive one, according to the Sunshine Project, a biological weapons watchdog.

“There was no compelling reason to recreate 1918 flu and plenty of good reasons not to. Instead of a dead bug, now there are live 1918 flu types in several places, with more such strains sure to come in more places,” says Sunshine Project Director Edward Hammond, “The US government has done a great misdeed by endorsing and encouraging the deliberate creation of extremely dangerous new viruses. The 1918 experiments will be replicated and adapted, and the ability to perform them will proliferate, meaning that the possibility of man-made disaster, either accidental or deliberate, has risen for the entire world.”

The 1918 experiments are part of the US biodefense program and are of no practical value in responding to outbreaks of “bird flu” (H5N1). The 1918 virus is a different type (H1N1) of influenza than “bird flu”. 1918 flu is more than eighty five years old and no longer exists in nature, posing no natural threat. While it is reasonable to determine the genetic sequence of 1918 and other extinct influenza strains, there is no valid reason to recreate the virulent virus, as the risks far outweigh the benefits.

But the most significant story isn’t Tumpey, Taubenberger, and colleagues. It is the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) attitude about the experiments and its implications. “The biggest news about resurrecting 1918 flu is the US government’s enthusiastic embrace of designer disease and the impact that it will have on our future.” says Hammond, “By encouraging genetic riffs on influenza and other viruses with the explicit intent of building more dangerous pathogens, CDC is fueling the gathering dangers of competition to discover the worst possibilities of biotechnology applied to bioweapons agents. Some might do it just to keep up with the Americans, resulting in a further blurring of defense and offense and heightening the biological mistrust evident in US foreign policy.”

In addition to the potentially broad damage to international security and cooperation in the biological sciences if novel diseases continue to be created, the 1918 experiments heighten the chance that a flu lab will be the source of the next pandemic.

CDC says that it plans to keep its vials of 1918 flu under close guard in one place. But that’s a red herring according to the Sunshine Project. Influenza with as many as five 1918 flu genes, and which are potentially pandemic, have already been handled at labs in at least four places other than CDC, including labs in Athens, GA, Winnipeg, MB (Canada), Seattle, WA, and Madison, WI. With the exception of the Canadian lab, none of these facilities has maximum (BSL-4) biological containment, and it is a virtual certainty that more labs will begin 1918 flu work now.

In fact, the only possible source of a new 1918 influenza outbreak is a laboratory. The situation of the 1918 flu is not dissimilar to SARS, whose natural transmission is believed to have been halted. The experience with SARS accidents is chilling: It has escaped three different labs to date. A 1918 influenza escape would be very likely to take a higher human toll. The US biodefense program has also had a number of lab accidents since 2002, including mishandling of anthrax and plague and laboratory-acquired infections of tularemia. In Russia, a researcher contracted ebola and died last year.

Importantly, human error and equipment failures aren’t the only ways for a disease agent to escape a lab – something vividly illustrated by the anthrax letters in the US four years ago. Unlike anthrax, however, 1918 influenza would transmit from human to human.

“We are no safer from a pandemic today than yesterday. In fact, we’re in greater danger, not only from influenza; but from the failure of the US to come to grips with and address the threats posed by the research it sponsors, in terms of legislation, ethics, and self-restraint.” concludes Hammond (Sunshine Project, 2005).

Title: The Spanish Influenza Epidemic Of 1918 Was Caused By Vaccinations
Date: May 4, 2009
Source: Holistic Helper
Abstract: As has been stated before, all medical and non-medical authorities on vaccination agree that vaccines are designed to cause a mild case of the diseases they are supposed to prevent. But they also know and admit that there is no way whatsoever to predict whether the case will be mild or severe – even deadly. With this much uncertainty in dealing with the very lives of people, it is very unscientific and extremely dangerous to use such a questionable procedure as vaccination.

Many vaccines also cause other diseases besides the one for which they are given. For instance, smallpox vaccine often causes syphilis, paralysis, leprosy, and cancer. (See the chapters on smallpox and plagues.) Polio shots, diphtheria toxin-antitoxin, typhoid vaccine, as well as measles, tetanus and all other shots often cause various other stages of disease such as post-vaccinal encephalitis (inflammation of the brain,) paralysis, spinal meningitis, blindness, cancer (sometimes within two years,) tuberculosis, (two to twenty years after the shot,) arthritis, kidney disease, heart disease (heart failure sometimes within minutes after the shot and sometimes several hours later.) Nerve damage and many other serious conditions also follow the injections.

When several shots are given (different vaccines) within a few days or a few weeks apart, they often trigger intensified cases of all the diseases at once, because the body cannot handle such a large amount of deadly poison being injected directly into the bloodstream. The doctors call it a new disease and proceed to suppress the symptoms.

When poison is taken by the mouth, the internal defense system has a chance to quickly eject some of it by vomiting, but when the poisons are shot directly into the body, bypassing all the natural safeguards, these dangerous poisons circulate immediately throughout the entire body in a matter of seconds and keep on circulating until all the cells are poisoned.

I heard that seven men dropped dead in a doctor’s office after being vaccinated.This was in an army camp, so I wrote to the Government for verification. They sent me the report of U.S. Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson. The report not only verified the report of the seven who dropped dead from the vaccines, but it stated that there had been 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis as a direct result of the yellow fever vaccine during only 6 months of the war. That was only one of the 14 to 25 shots given the soldiers. We can imagine the damage that all these shots did to the men. (See the chapter on What Vaccinations Did to Our Soldiers.)

The first World War was of a short duration, so the vaccine makers were unable to use up all their vaccines. As they were (and still are) in business for profit, they decided to sell it to the rest of the population. So they drummed up the largest vaccination campaign in U.S. history. There were no epidemics to justify it so they used other tricks. Their propaganda claimed the soldiers were coming home from foreign countries with all kinds of diseases and that everyone must have all the shots on the market.

The people believed them because, first of all, they wanted to believe their doctors, and second, the returning soldiers certainly had been sick. They didn’t know it was from doctor-made vaccine diseases, as the army doctors don’t tell them things like that. Many of the returned soldiers were disabled for life by these drug-induced diseases. Many were insane from postvaccinal encephalitis, but the doctors called it shell shock, even though many had never left American soil.

The conglomerate disease brought on by the many poison vaccines baffled the doctors, as they never had a vaccination spree before which used so many different vaccines. The new disease they had created had symptoms of all the diseases they had injected into the man. There was the high fever, extreme weakness, abdominal rash and intestinal disturbance characteristic of typhoid. The diphtheria vaccine caused lung congestion, chills and fever, swollen, sore throat clogged with the false membrane, and the choking suffocation because of difficulty in breathing followed by gasping and death, after which the body turned black from stagnant blood that had been deprived of oxygen in the suffocation stages. In early days they called it Black Death. The other vaccines cause their own reactions — paralysis, brain damage, lockjaw, etc.

When doctors had tried to suppress the symptoms of the typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid which they named paratyphoid. But when they concocted a stronger and more dangerous vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease which they didn’t have a name for. What should they call it? They didn’t want to tell the people what it really was — their own Frankenstein monster which they had created with their vaccines and suppressive medicines. They wanted to direct the blame away from themselves, so they called it Spanish Influenza. It was certainly not of Spanish origin, and the Spanish people resented the implication that the world-wide scourge of that day should be blamed on them. But the name stuck and American medical doctors and vaccine makers were not suspected of the crime of this widespread devastation — the 1918 Flu Epidemic. It is only in recent years that researchers have been digging up the facts and laying the blame where it belongs.

Some of the soldiers may have been in Spain before coming home, but their diseases originated in their own home-based U.S. Army Camps. Our medical men still use that same dodge. When their own vaccines (required for travel) cause vaccine diseases abroad they use this as grounds for a scare campaign to stampede people into the vaccination centers. Do you remember the Hong Kong Flu and the Asian Flu and the London Flu scares? These were all medically-made epidemics mixed with the usual common colds which people have every year.

Now (1976) we are being worked on again by the vaccine -epidemic makers in their effort to force another multi million dollar vaccine sale caper. Their con men have already talked President Ford into handing over $135 million dollars to start their vaccine racket. Even the insurance companies refused to become involved with such an obviously dangerous and crooked scheme. So, again the medical and drug con men induced the appropriate government officials to guarantee insurance against the, possible billions of dollars in law suits which could be brought against the vaccine promoters if the vaccine campaign is carried out as planned. It’s a good thing Ford was voted out of office. It’s too bad he wasn’t “dumped” before he paid the poison squad the MONEY’ to poison the whole population. However, we don’t yet know if President Carter will be any better. Will he be held in the grip of the medical and drug dictatorship? Or will he investigate — learn the truth — reverse the decisions and make the vaccine makers return the money taken from the taxpayers under false pretenses?

The statement of the swine flu vaccine promoters to the effect that the vaccine is harmless, is false, and the statement that it will protect against flu is false. Fifty-six people died after the shots, some within 48 hours. There is confusion and disagreement among the doctors about all aspects of the vaccine, from the safety and effectiveness to the necessity for it, who should have it and who should be warned against it.

Their scare-head campaign cry is that the swine flu is like the 1918 flu which killed 20,000,000 people. They don’t have any usable and provable blood samples from the 1918 flu epidemic to prove it. That was 58 years ago, and the doctors were just as confused and inefficient then as now. However, one thing is certain — the 1918 Spanish Influenza was a vaccine-induced disease caused by extreme body poisoning from the conglomeration of many different vaccines. The soldiers at Fort Dix who were said to have had Swine Flu had been injected with a large variety of vaccines like the vaccines which caused the 1918 flu epidemic. The flu epidemic at Fort Dix was in no way related to swine. There were no swine at camp (unless we want to sarcastically call the vaccine promoters who caused the diseases -“swine.”)

To add to the confusion, the doctors tell the people that there are a lot of various kinds of flu; the one which the soldiers at Fort Dix had was AVictoria flu, there are other strains of flu virus, and also, that the swine flu vaccine which so many people have taken already will not protect them against the many other types of flu. This will be used as an “out” in case of law suits later on when more casualties begin to show up. The doctors will say that the vaccine failed because it was the wrong kind of flu for the vaccine. Of course, no one can prove it one way or the other because viruses are illusive, invisible organisms which are unstable and unpredictable. One dictionary definition of virus is “a morbid poison.” The vaccines injected into the body are poison and cause the typical poison reactions. Virus (poison) does not fly around and attack people.

Therefore, there will be no swine flu epidemic unless the vaccine promoters make one like they did in the 1918 flu epidemic. It will not kill 20,000,000 people unless the people submit to the disease-producing shots. There are also, other causes of disease besides vaccines, such as bad food, which has been devitalized and contaminated with poison preservatives and artificial drug concoctions. There are many more causes of disease but no diseases are contagious(See the chapter on the germ theory).

Vaccine drives come and go as often as the vaccine promoters can cook up the slightest pretense of a reason.n Back in1957 they were trying to stir up a vaccination campaign for what they decided to call Asiatic flu. An editorial in theHerald and Express for August 29, 1957 was captioned, “Fear of Flu Propaganda.” Part of the piece is as follows:

“What a tempest in a teapot has been blown up over the probability that this country will experience an epidemic of the Asiatic flu in the fall and winter months ahead.

“Even the United States Department of Health is stooge for the panic — and has issued statements which are frightening the public, rather than reassuring them by pointing out that this epidemic, while widespread, gives no indication of being any more dangerous than our usual flood of influenza-like colds when winter comes on.

“Those who read between the lines even wonder whether the whole thing might not be a bit of super salesmanship on the part of those who are making and selling the vaccines which are being prepared.. . .”

All the doctors and people who were living at the time of the 1918 Spanish Influenza epidemic say it was the most terrible disease the world has ever had. Strong men, hale and hearty, one day would be dead the next. The disease had the characteristics of the black death added to typhoid, diphtheria, pneumonia, smallpox, paralysis and all the diseases the people had been vaccinated with immediately following World War 1. Practically the entire population had been injected “seeded” with a dozen or more diseases — or toxic serums. When all those doctor-made diseases started breaking out all at once it was tragic.

That pandemic dragged on for two years, kept alive with the addition of more poison drugs administered by the doctors who tried to suppress the symptoms. As far as I could find out, the flu hit only the vaccinated. Those who had refused the shots escaped the flu. My family had refused all the vaccinations so we remained well all the time. We knew from the health teachings of Graham, Trail, Tilden and others, that people cannot contaminate the body with poisons without causing disease.

When the flu was at its peak, all the stores were closed as well as the schools, businesses — even the hospital, as the doctors and nurses had been vaccinated too and were down with the flu. No one was on the streets. It was like a ghost town. We seemed to be the only family which didn’t get the flu; so my parents went from house to house doing what they could to look after the sick, as it was impossible to get a doctor then. If it were possible for germs, bacteria, virus, or bacilli to cause disease, they had plenty of opportunity to attack my parents when they were spending many hours a day in the sick rooms. But they didn’t get the flu and they didn’t bring any germs home to attack us children and cause anything. None of our family had the flu — not even a sniffle— and it was in the winter with deep snow on the ground.

When I see people cringe when someone near them sneezes or coughs, I wonder how long it will take them to find out that they can’t catch it — whatever it is. The only way they can get a disease is to develop it themselves by wrong eating, drinking, smoking or doing some other things which cause internal poisoning and lowered vitality. All diseases are preventable and most of them are cureable with the right methods, not known to medical doctors, and not all drugless doctors know them either.

It has been said that the 1918 flu epidemic killed 20,000,000 people throughout the world. But, actually, the doctors killed them with their crude and deadly treatments and drugs. This is a harsh accusation but it is nevertheless true, judging by the success of the drugless doctors in comparison with that of the medical doctors.

While the medical men and medical hospitals were losing 33% of their flu cases, the non-medical hospitals such as BATTLE CREEK, KELLOGG and MACFADDEN’S HEALTH-RESTORIUM were getting almost 100% healings with their water cure, baths, enemas, etc., fasting and certain other simple healing methods, followed by carefully worked out diets of natural foods. One health doctor didn’t lose a patient in eight years. The very successful health treatment of one of those drugless doctors who didn’t lose any patients will be given in the other part of this book, titled VACCINATION CONDEMNED, to be published a little later.

If the medical doctors had been as advanced as the drugless doctors, there would not have been those 20 million deaths from the medical flu treatment.

There was seven times more disease among the vaccinated soldiers than among the unvaccinated civilians, and the diseases were those they had been vaccinated against. One soldier who had returned from overseas in 1912 told me that the army hospitals were filled with cases of infantile paralysis and he wondered why grown men should have an infant disease. Now, we know that paralysis is a common after-effect of vaccine poisoning. Those at home didn’t get the paralysis until after the world-wide vaccination campaign in 1918 (Holistic Helper, 2012).

Title: Discovery Sheds Light On Flu Infections
Date: June 28, 2012
Source: University of Edinburgh

Abstract: Scientists have discovered a new gene in the influenza virus that helps the virus control the body’s response to infection.

Although this control is exerted by the virus, surprisingly it reduces the impact of the infection.

The findings will help researchers better understand how flu can cause severe infections, as well as inform research into new treatments.

Role of key gene
Researchers found when the virus gene – called PA-X – was active, mice infected with flu subsequently recovered.

When the PA-X gene did not work properly, the immune system was found to overreact.

This made the infection worse, and did not help destroy the virus any quicker.

The study looked at how the gene affected the behaviour of “Spanish flu”, a virulent strain of influenza that caused a pandemic in 1918.

It was carried out by the Universities of Cambridge, Cork, Edinburgh and Utah, the Institute of Systems Biology in Seattle and the United States National Institutes of Health.

Scientists discovered the PA-X gene some 30 years after flu genome was first decoded.

The researchers, whose study is published online in the journal Science, found the hidden gene by analysing patterns of changes in the genetic information of thousands of different flu strains.

“The flu virus has a very, very small genome – just 12 genes. Finding a new gene makes a pretty significant change to our understanding of this virus.” ~Dr Andrew Firth, University of Cambridge

The research was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the U. S. National Institutes of Health, Science Foundation Ireland, and the Wellcome Trust (University of Edinburgh, 2012).

May 9, 2011

Ex Vaccine Researcher Tells All.

Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher

Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher

Jon Rappoport Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.
Dr. Mark Randall A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won’t say which ones.
Q: Why not?
A: I want to preserve my privacy.
Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?
A: I believe I could lose my pension.
Q: On what grounds?
A: The grounds don’t matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.
Q: Harassed by whom?
A: The FBI.
Q: Really?
A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.
Q: So much for free speech.
A: I was “part of the inner circle.” If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.
Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?
A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall “brilliance” of modern medicine.
Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?
A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It’s one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.
Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.
A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.
Q: And then?
A: I did my own investigation.
Q: What conclusions did you come to?
A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.
Q: What conditions?
A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don’t contract the diseases as easily.
Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I’m concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases – say, meningitis – that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.
Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
Q: Which is?
A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
Q: So you’re saying that we have been treated to a false history.
A: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.
Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.
A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.
Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
A: Well yes, that happened. But that’s not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I’m talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors – that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don’t know are in those kidneys.
Q: Okay, but let’s ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?
A: All right. I’ll give you some of what I came across, and I’ll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here’s a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called “brain-eating” amoeba.
Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I’ve found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don’t belong in the vaccines.
A: That’s right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don’t really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It’s a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don’t know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time – which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn’t be there, but you don’t know exactly what you’ve got. I have found what I believed was a very small “fragment” of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called “foreign protein,” which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.
Q: How were your findings received?
A: Basically, it was, don’t worry, this can’t be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals’ tissue, and that’s where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I’m not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I’m just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don’t find because we don’t think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn’t work that way. A vaccine is supposed to “create” antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related “killer cells.”
Q: The immune system is?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It’s all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you’ve concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it’s circular reasoning. It’s a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the vaccine.
Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.
Q: What was the turning point for you?
A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.
Q: What do you mean?
A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.
Q: Why doesn’t it make sense?
A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn’t that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn’t that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?
Q: And that is what you found?
A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.
Q: Has it been enough?
A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
Q: Which is?
A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.
Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.
A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It’s discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.
Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?
A: Yes I did.
Q: What happened?
A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with “guilt by association”. All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didn’t create problems for myself.
Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no “if”. They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn’t. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you’ve said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it’s true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.
Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?
A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.
Q: This network you speak of.
A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.
Q: And in the industrialized nations?
A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.
Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.
A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles – is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from “unknown causes,” and that’s why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,000 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.
Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.
A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair’s wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his “personal and family life.” In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.
Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.
A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.
Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.
A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.
A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?
A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don’t need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers – a few – might start leaking information.
Q: A good idea.
A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.
Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?
A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.
Q: Then we have the fall flu season.
A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.
Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?
A: Yes. But after this interview, I’ll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.
Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?
A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.
Q: The things that are not there.
A: Yes.
Q: To avoid any confusion, I’d like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.
A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn’t get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what’s called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.
Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?
A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I’m saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don’t get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe. In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.
Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn’t get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?
A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.
Q: How long did you work with vaccines?
A: A long time. Longer than ten years.
Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?
A: No, I can’t. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I’m not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.
Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.
A: The operative word is “appear”. What about all the children who can’t focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.
Q: So we come to the level playing field.
A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.
Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don’t get shots.
A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person’s responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.
Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government’s National Institutes of Health.
Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was “disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines.”

March 20, 2011

The Poisoned Needle. Vaccine Facts.


Suppressed Facts About Vaccination
Eleanor McBean
Click Here, Read Book.


For the past 2000 years physicians have been looking in the wrong direction for the cure of disease. Their worse than useless practice of killing germs with poison drugs has never — and can never — solve the problem of disease.

During the Dark Ages, before the introduction of improved nutrition and sanitation, the world was intermittently visited with epidemics of smallpox. The cause was stubbornly ignored and the seeds for more disease were sown when vaccination was brought into popular use. This infusion of poison injected into the blood stream of the masses only served to intensify the disease in some cases, suppress the symptoms in others and create new and more serious diseases in still others. So, with the passing of years we have seen this misbegotten child of

ignorance grow into a Frankenstein monster of immense proportions that moves relentlessly forward, grinding under foot the multitudes that throng its path.

Through the lethal power of this poisoned needle, the simple zymotic (contagious) diseases of the past have been devolved into the horrors of the present — our terrifying and expanding crop of “killer diseases”. Many of these strange “mystery diseases” that baffle the entire medical world, are the sordid products of vaccine poisons that disturb the chemical balance of the body and interfere with normal functioning.

All these medically-made atrocities are far worse than smallpox or any of the other eruptive diseases that nature provides as a means of expelling the accumulated poison waste from the abused body. This interference with the balanced economy of nature has multiplied the problems beyond the power of science to control.

Our worst epidemics now are epidemics of vaccination in which more people are killed every year by “vaccinal diseases” than by the diseases that the vaccinations were supposed to combat.

Complete freedom from disease can scarcely be found except in remote islands or isolated communities that have not been invaded by medical mischief and commercialized products. Is our proud civilization to be degraded, corrupted, and destroyed by its own inventions designed for selfish profit and exploitation of the race?

Vaccination, instead of being the promised blessing to the world, has proved to be a curse of such sweeping devastation that it has caused more death and disease than war, pestilence, and plague combined. There is no scourge (with the possible exception of atomic radiation) that is more destructive to our nation’s health than this monument of human deception — this slayer of the innocent —this crippler of body and brain — THE POISONED NEEDLE.

Eleanor McBean

February 1, 2011

Doctors, Nurses and Scientists Break Silence On Vaccines

Editors Note:
Can you imagine buying a new car that it’s gas tank is susceptible to exploding or it’s breaks are susceptible to going out on a steep road grade? Also, imagine the government protecting the auto manufacture from any liability. To PROVE manufacture liability for the exploding gas tank or break problem, the event WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN AT THE CAR DEALERSHIP or both the government and manufacture COULD CLAIM THAT THE PROBLEM WITH THE CAR WAS NOT THE FAULT OF THE CAR MANUFACTURER. If that wasn’t bad enough, the government then MANDATES that you
have to
buy the faulty automobile OR YOU WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE ROADWAY.

You are 100% correct if you say the above scenario is absolutely ludicrous. However, that is as close to an analogy of the vaccine industry as it gets. No other industry on this planet is treated like the vaccine industry. NOT EVEN THE ‘DRUG’ INDUSTRY GETS THIS TYPE OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!!!! ONLY VACCINES. This is why the government, corporate media and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the pharmaceutical industry will not put their money where their mouth is and side by side compare children / adults who have NOT been vaccinated with those who have. They fight that kind of research tooth and nail. Once Dr. Wakefield suggested THIS VERY RESEARCH BE DONE THE MEDIA COOKED UP THE, NOW, PROVEN LIES AGAINST HIM. They fear the TRUTH of such research becoming main stream.

Doctors who have seen the difference first hand KNOW that unvaccinated children and adults ARE FAR MORE HEALTHIER THAN THEIR VACCINATED COUNTER PARTS. Doctors, Nurses, Scientists are starting to break out of their silence because vaccines are effecting the people they personally know. Speaking out is NOT as easy as you may think. If you go back to my faulty car example, and apply it to the way the medical system works, an auto mechanic would LOSE HIS LICENSE if he blamed the exploding gas tank on the auto manufacture. In the case of Dr, Wakefield he DIDN’T EVEN BLAME THE MANUFACTURE!!!. He simply SUGGESTED more tests were needed on the MMR vaccine, and for that the got burned on the proverbial stake of the Lame Stream Media.

If vaccines were as promoted by those who profit the most from them (big government, big media and big pharma) why then do they need product protection like NO OTHER PRODUCT on this planet?

Below is a PDF link from Natural News with the names and statement from these medical / scientific professionals who form the International Medical Council on Vaccination
Before clicking on link, this must be known and understood. This professional council is NOT a NEW concept what-so-ever! Vaccines WERE NEVER UNANIMOUSLY agreed upon to be safe by both the medical or scientific profession. Not only was there NO agreement about vaccine safety but, there NEVER was unanimously agreement that the science behind vaccines was EVER CREDIBLE to begin with. It is FORBIDDEN to even teach this HISTORY in these Rockefeller / government controlled medical schools.

America USED TO HAVE the most free and the most independent medical system in the entire world BEFORE it was bought off then by the Rockefeller / Carnegie fortune foundations in 1910. Laws were then passed that formed medical boards where ANY opposition to the Rockefeller et al Pharmacological Medical Industrial Complex would mean retribution. There are plenty of historic cases of this up to the current lie, smear and loss of licensing job on Dr. Wakefield. Before ANY of this type of nonsense against professionals NOT TOWING THE BIG PHARMA COMPANY LINE, the medical and scientific professionals could and often did speak out against things like vaccines. These were NOT lightweight professionals by ANY STRETCH. Dr. Creighton was one of the most prestigious medical minds of ANY generation. When he called vaccination a “pseudo science on the same level as blood letting”, when he asked to write about vaccines for the Encyclopedia of Britannica, it led to what was known as the ‘Medical Inquisition‘. It really was a joke, because Dr. Creighton and his fellow colleges credentials OUT WEIGHED those of his accusers WHO ALL WORKED FOR ROCKEFFELLER ET AL’S pharamcological industry. They could NOT Wakefield Dr. Creighton in those days and the attempt backfired badly. Dr. Creighton sat on the board of what was called the ‘Anti Vaccination League’. The medical schools won’t touch this history today with a 50 foot poll. It is for this reason WHY the controls had to be put into place to make it VERY DIFFICULT for medical professionals to stand up against both the joint partnership between the pharmaceutical industry and big federal government. Which really is the TEXTBOOK definition of fascism. The Siamese twinning of both government and corporate industry blocking out ANY REAL competition. Old man Rockefeller said that “competition was a sin.”
From Natural News
Click For PDF

Here’s some of what you’ll find in this eye-opening report from the International Medical Council on Vaccination (

A list of the many MDs, PhDs, NDs and other medical professionals who are signing onto this document.
Why vaccines have NEVER been proven safe or effective.
A list of some of the serious health side effects caused by vaccines.
Why autism is associated with vaccines.
The profit motivation behind the pharmaceutical industry’s big vaccine push.
A list of which institutions and organizations profit from your sickness.
The shocking truth about what’s IN vaccines (aborted fetal tissue, 59 different chemicals, DNA from diseased animals and more)
An overview of some of the most dangerous vaccine ingredients
The truth about conflicts of interest in the vaccine community and why doctors profit from vaccination policies
Why vaccinated children have far worse health outcomes than unvaccinated children
How to opt out of “mandatory” vaccines.
Important advice for parents about how to protect the health of your children while saying NO to vaccines
Online resources for learning more about the dangers of vaccines
A list of recommended reading materials for further education


May 24, 2010

Editor In China Sacked For Vaccine Expose.

My Commentary:
We used to have a saying here in the states that when something like this happened in communist / Red China. “What else would you expect from a communist country? This is just business as usual for them.” Naively thinking the same thing could NEVER happen here (USA). Well, guess what? It’s worse here.

You think that’s just me spouting some rhetoric? Go to the main web page (if you’re not already there) and read the article just below this one for a reality check. Oh, and as far as ‘sacking’ individuals goes, those who are much more successful than I am at getting through to the public on issues such as vaccines, big pharma, cancer Inc… get threatened to the point that people like Mike Adams of Natural News and Ty Bollinger ‘Cancer Step Out The Box‘ both had to flee the country for fear of their lives. NO! Big pharma and big governement DON’T PLAY GAMES!

I ran this story here when this editor broke it. So, what did big government in China do? Take one guess. Same ol, same ol.

Special thanks to

Editor in China sacked for expose on authorities negligence in vaccine deaths incident
Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 11:46 [IST]

Sydney, May 12 (ANI): In yet another case of Chinese authorities muzzling the media, an intrepid Chinese editor has been sacked after his paper ran a story exposing the careless handling of health vaccines that may have caused the deaths and serious illnesses of children in Shanxi Province.

Buzz up!
Bao Yuehang, the chief-editor of the China Economic Times that employs four hundred people and is controlled by the State Council’s Development Research Centre, was also the paper’s publisher and Communist Party secretary.

The report caused a furore in China within hours of its release with the authorities trashing it as false, and was downplayed on websites following orders from the state’s Propoganda Department.

However, Yuehang has stood firmly behind the story and its writer.

Wang Keqin a prominent investigative journalist in China who wrote the report exposed how a gross failure to refrigerate vaccines had led to the deaths of four children and the illness of at least seventy-four others in Shanxi Province, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The vaccines were left unrefrigerated to prevent their stickers from peeling off, ironically these stickers depicted the government’s quality assurance.

“My chief editor, Bao Yueyang, and deputy editor, Che Haigang, have said constantly, ‘In order to ensure that the lives of China’s children are kept safe, we will fight until the end!’ ” Wang had previously written on his blog, the paper reports. (ANI)

May 20, 2010

How Mercury Kills The Brain: Vaccines & Autism

My Commentary:
In the wacky world of the vaccine cult, physiological chemistry reinvents itself when toxic metals and other chemicals such as fluoride and formaldehyde are ‘innocently‘ put into a liquid to be shot into the veins of you, your kids, your loved ones as NON HARMFUL. Are you really that stupid? Yes, your doctor just very well may be. Also, keep in mind that these vaccine cult leaders like to pat themselves on the back as ‘experts in SOUND SCIENCE’. Really, the science is on THEIR side? Well, if it is, they all should be facing Nuremberg like trials.

Ask your Doctor if mercury (Hg) is right for YOU?
The video does NOT show any major revelations. The effects of mercury as a neuro-toxin have LONG BEEN KNOWN. Why do you think it WAS CHOSEN as a vaccine ingredient in the first place?

NOTE: The video covers the effects of Hg if ingested, absorbed through the skin, or if it’s inhaled. NO WHERE in the video do they cover the effects of this stuff when it is shot directly into the blood stream as in the case of vaccines.

It also needs to be mentioned that vaccine schedule changes are nothing but a red herring being touted by controlled vaccine opposition groups. Do you really think spacing out your child’s heavy metal and other harmful chemical ‘treatments’ are going to ‘benefit’ your child? Get real!

Oh, and by the way…
Remember ALL those dentists that laughed / scoffed about mercury fillings being harmful?

YouTube has been caught MULTIPLE TIMES engaging in UNLAWFUL censorship and has taken this video off their website before. Any wonder why? IF you have come to this video and YouTube has removed it… PLEASE MAKE A COMMENT TO LET ME KNOW I HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT ONCE AGAIN.
Thank you.
May 20, 2010
This video from the University of Calgary thoroughly shows how brain cells degenerate and die when being exposed to mercury. This is the same neurotoxin that is found in vaccines, which has led the the massive increase with people suffering from autism and other neurological diseases (mainly children). Mercury is one of the most toxic substances you can put in a human body. It is a heavy metal known to contribute to neurological disorders, including autism, dementia, and even Alzheimer’s disease. Mercury also tends to build up in tissues in the human body and is not easily removed, so even small exposures to mercury can accumulate over time and end up compromising the health of the person involved. It’s vital you do the proper research before you plan to get any sort of vaccine injected in you especially if you are planning to have your children vaccinated.


May 13, 2010

Influenza Vaccine Sends Children Into Convulsions

Mike Adams
Natural News
May 12, 2010

(NaturalNews) Influenza vaccines have sent 57 children into life-threatening convulsions, reports The Age out of Australia. These influenza vaccines were being give to children under five to “protect” them from seasonal flu, but after receiving the shots, these children started going into convulsions.

An investigation has revealed that there is no quality control problem with any particular batch of influenza vaccines. They all pass quality control, in other words, so the convulsions are being caused by what is intentionally put into the vaccines, not by some mistaken chemical contaminant.

This, of course, baffles conventional doctors who have all been told that vaccines are perfectly safe and could never harm anyone. So rather than pausing to consider what might be contained in the vaccines that’s causing children to go into convulsions, they charge ahead with the recommendation that even more people should get vaccines.

Alan Hampson, chairman of Australia’s Influenza Specialist Group, “…advised young, healthy people anxious to get the flu vaccine to consider having the swine flu vaccine” reports The Age. There is no amount of real-world evidence, you see, that can break the mythological stranglehold that vaccines have over the minds of mainstream physicians. Even if children start dropping to the floor and convulsing right in front of them, they will continue to push vaccines on even more children.

The illusion of vaccine efficacy

Vaccines are based on a scientific-sounding mythology that is widely believed by gullible physicians and scientists who simply believe what they are told rather than what’s real.

This mythology is based on the belief that injecting foreign matter into the human body will cause the immune system to adapt to the weakened foreign matter by creating antibodies that fight off future infections. This explanation, however, is pure mythology. In reality, an immune system can only invoke an adaptive response when it is properly nourished with vitamin D. And if the patient has enough vitamin D, they need no vaccine because vitamin D protects them from seasonal influenza in the first place.

Thus, vaccines only “work” in those people who don’t need them. People who have the least protection against influenza due to their vitamin D deficiency also have the weakest immune response to vaccines. The vaccines, in other words, just don’t work on them.

Children with particularly weak neurology are highly susceptible to neurological damage from vaccines. This damage may take the form of a coma, convulsions, autism or being partially paralyzed. Some children given vaccines soon find themselves in wheelchairs, unable to walk even though previous to the vaccine they were star athletes.

If you’re a parent, don’t expose your children to vaccine shots! Learn more about the dangers of vaccines with these articles:

Virginia teen athlete in wheel chair after vaccine shot:

Swine flu vaccine linked to paralysis:

Vaccine puts girl in the hospital:

Vaccines linked to neurological disorders:

Ten questions doctors refuse to answer about vaccines:

… and you can research article, after article, after medical report, after medical report concerning vaccine dangers on this blog as well.

Next Page »

Blog at