21

This Test Standard Proves Vaccine Research Is Completely Deceptive

Monkeys are used in cruel vaccine experiments.

When I discovered vaccine makers were putting spermicidal chemicals and neurotoxic mercury in the H1N1 vaccine several years ago back during the 2009 ‘pandemic’, I had one nagging question: “Are children tested to see if vaccines cause neurological injury and how is that done?” If you want the answer, read on.

It turned out there weren’t any tests on children.

I know that for certain because I had a face-to-face interview with the doctor performing the vaccine trial. He was quite evasive when answering questions specific to vaccine safety. Why? Because…

 

Vaccines DO Cause Neurological Injury

Please remember this point: vaccines cause neurological injury. For example, in one case report, a child experienced cranial nerve palsy after the MMR vaccine. The investigators stated, “MMR viruses are neurotropic [a virus that infects nerve cells]. Therefore, although the vaccine is obtained by live attenuated viruses, vaccination may produce neurological disorders.” http://www.ijponline.net/content/36/1/59

What about the 4,000 injuries caused by the swine flu vaccines in 1976? The cost of those injuries, according to some reports, amounted to over 3.5 BILLION U.S. dollars. http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x9mh9f

Can you understand now why many vaccine injuries are swept under the carpet? It’s expensive to admit a mistake! Shortly in this article I will reveal the “Gold Standard” for testing neurological diseases caused by live virus vaccines.

 

Ignoring Death and Harm Caused By Vaccines

What you will discover below is that tests are performed by injecting live viral vaccines into monkeys to determine if they those vaccines cause neurological disease. If a monkey dies within 48 hours of injection, the death is attributed to a “non-specific cause” and can be replaced (see below). What? Hold the phone.

It seems rather incredulous to believe that research scientists ignore death—even in a research study animal—after an animal is injected with a biological agent. But that is exactly the gold standard for testing live virus vaccines.

What is the source for that information? None other than a standard for pharmaceutical drugs, the European Pharmacopeia, 5th Edition.

Under the title of Methods of Analysis, 2.6.18 – Test for neurovirulence of live virus vaccines, you will find the following information:

  • “For each monkey, inject not more than 0.5 ml of the material to be examined into the thalamic region of each [brain] hemisphere, unless otherwise prescribed”
  •  “The total amount of virus inoculated in each monkey must be not less than the amount contained in the recommended single human dose of the vaccine.”
  •  “Observe the inoculated monkeys for 17 to 21 days for symptoms of paralysis and other evidence of neurological involvement; observe the control monkeys for the same period plus 10 days.”
  •  “Animals that die within 48 h[ours] of injection are considered to have died from non-specific causes and may be replaced. The test is not valid if: more than 20 per cent of the inoculated monkeys die from nonspecific causes;”
  •  “Serum samples taken from the control monkeys at the time of inoculation of the test animals and 10 days after the latter are killed show evidence of infection by wild virus of the type to be tested or by measles virus.”
  •  “At the end of the observation period, carry out autopsy and histopathological examinations of appropriate areas of the brain for evidence of central nervous system involvement.”
  •  “The material complies with the test if there is no unexpected clinical or histopathological evidence of involvement of the central nervous system attributable to the inoculated virus.” [Emphasis added]

Source: Methods of Analysis
2.6.18 – Test for neurovirulence of live virus vaccines
EUROPEAN PHARMACOPOEIA 5th Edition

2.6.18. TEST FOR NEUROVIRULENCE OF LIVE VIRUS VACCINES
01/2005:20619

How does this sit with you? Here’s the shocking reality…

 

Your Children In Essence Are Being Experimented On

As a parent, you could simply walk away at this point and ignore this information. But shouldn’t parents, MDs, nurses, health agencies, school districts, and the media be asking some questions?

For example, the second bullet states, “the total amount of virus inoculated in each monkey must be not less than the amount contained in the recommended single human dose of the vaccine.

Let’s pause right here for just a moment.

Usually vaccines are not administered as a single valent vaccine, but in multiple combination doses, e.g., 3 infectious diseases in one vaccine, i.e., the MMR or DTaP.

When vaccines are tested, they are tested individually, never in combination, as is the common vaccinating practice recommended by pharmaceutical companies. In reality, infants are given much more than single doses of live viral vaccines. They are known as trivalent vaccines. Then trivalent vaccines can be combined with others.

  • Three doses of live viruses in the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine
  • One dose of Hepatitis B vaccine
  • One dose of Rotavirus vaccine
  • One dose of Chickenpox vaccine
  • One dose of Influenza vaccine

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) often recommends that children receive several live virus vaccines at the same time. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

How many pediatricians or health professionals are willing to give blood tests or do a full neurological examination before and after vaccination? The simple truth is they don’t. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ1Tqx1YpYY

Just imagine the implications of simply testing children prior to vaccinating. That would be a screening process that would look for mitochondrial proclivities that could be impacted by vaccines, something the Hannah Poling vaccine-damage case that was settled by the vaccine court points to. Hannah’s unfortunate vaccine damage could be a learning curve for the medical profession about injecting children with multiple vaccines at one time/visit. Perhaps, like with the monkeys, they want to disregard that information.

 

Summary

Consistently MDs and the media tell parents that vaccines are harmless. Furthermore, the spin is that the chance for an adverse reaction is slim to none. How do doctors really know when ‘dead monkeys aren’t allowed to talk’? It’s pretty clear from research that vaccines cause neurological injury.

Some mistakes of believing the medical profession in my experience have taught me to start asking hard questions. I’m the parent of a vaccine-damaged child. Parents need to know this hidden and suppressed information BEFORE they permit anyone to vaccinate their child. Let me ask you, “From what you read, is this ‘safe’ science”?

Please pass this along to a friend and start waking people up!

 

Sources:

Methods of Analysis  2.6.18 – Test for neurovirulence of live virus vaccines. EUROPEAN PHARMACOPOEIA, 5th Edition.

http://vactruth.com/2009/09/11/ingredients-found-in-spermicides-cleaners-and-cosmetics-along-with-thimerosal-and-squalene-present-in-experimental-h1n1-vaccine/

http://www.ijponline.net/content/36/1/59

http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x9mh9f

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM093833

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ1Tqx1YpYY

 

Photo Credit: Night Owl

Jeffry John Aufderheide
 

Jeffry John Aufderheide is the father of a child injured as a result of vaccination. As editor of VacTruth.com, he promotes well-educated health professionals, informed consent, and full disclosure and accountability of adverse reactions to vaccines.

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    Jeff, Thanks for shedding the light of truth on pseudo science.  However, may I heartily suggest that your readers check out two unbelievable links that tell how arrogant CDC is about releasing
    information that it has that documents just how unsafe vaccines are. 

     http://www.bolenreport.com/Geier/CDC%20Arrogance.htm  The CDC Tells Federal Court  ‘ “FOIA Means Nothing to Us.  We Withhold Whatever We Want…”

    Also check out the Bolen Report at this link http://www.bolenreport.com/Geier/foiasuit1.htm 
    The CDC Has Known All Along How Dangerous Vaccines Are – And Has Covered It Up…(Part 1)

  • Deborahmerlin

    A screening test prior to vaccinations:

    The Great Plains
    Laboratory, Inc.

    http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com

    11813 W. 77th Street

    Lenexa, KS 66214

    913-341-8949

    Tests and services:
    organic acid test for yeast and bacteria overgrowth; vitamin and mineral
    deficiencies; opiate peptides for gluten and casein sensitivity; toxic
    exposures to heavy metals; deficiencies in the immune system; abnormal amino
    acid; comprehensive stool testing

  • Anonymous

    Informative article.

    But contains two minor, but correctable, items:

    1. 2nd paragraph under the 2nd subheading states: “It seems rather incredulous to believe…”. 
    Grammatically speaking, a PERSON can be “incredulous”, i.e., a PERSON can “find it hard to believe” something, whereas the OBJECT of a disbelief is the THING (whatever that may be) that is “incredible”, i.e., “not believable”.

    2. In your quoted “Methods of Analysis” list, for Item # 5 you wrote:

    “Serum samples taken from the control monkeys at the time of inoculation of the test animals and 10 days after the latter are killed show evidence of infection by wild virus of the type to be tested or by measles virus.”

    Sorry, but that quotation puzzles me: it doesn’t seem to be setting any sort of rule or procedure or requirement; rather, it simply states what appears to be a finding. So what’s the point? Or was something accidentally omitted, in the editing, from what may have been a fuller quote?

  • Misramadhu

    Like Catherine J Frompovich,  I verymuch recommend the Bolen Report.  It is reporting an ongoing situation,  which ultimately, if enough evidence comes to light may end the world wide autism epidemic, by making people outside of the US realize that they must reject vaccines with Thimerosal. And I am happy to report that I live in New Delhi and during the last two years I have noticed a stunning increase in both parents and doctors rejecting mercury vaccines.  This was a topic of no interest to anyone ten years ago.  Im not quite sure how this happened-  It is possible that doctors themselves noticed the autistic kids coming out  of their practises.
        I am confident that once people realize that vaccines have gone awry in one way, they will be willing  to  listen to more information about other aspects
        Articles such as this one here are so depressing  that it is difficult even to discuss them with parents of young children or pregnant mothers.  It seems s.o inappropriate to tell parents about such terrible practises.  I imagine that most doctors, if told, would simply not believe that it is true ..    It is very helpful to young parents to tell them about parents who have not vaccinated their child and have a normal healthy child.    We have all been so brainwashed about vaccines, that we ,as parents, imagine that any disease that we dont vaccinate for, is sure to come and claim the life of our child.
      

  • Erwin Alber

    Thanks for the informative article Jeffry!

    The following points may also be of interest:  

    1) DPT vaccine toxicity was tested on mice:

    Mouse
    toxicity (or weight gain) test 
    http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mouse_toxicity_test.html

    2) When the safety of a vaccine is tested on children in the course of a trial, another vaccine (or the vaccine to be tested minus the antigen) is used as a “placebo” instead of a real placebo   (inert substance). This is a blatant attempt to make the vaccine to be tested safer than it actually is and therefore amounts to outright scientific fraud.

    3) A vaccine is said to be effective if supposedly adequate levels of antibodies to the vaccine being tested can be found in recipients’ blood. Even the medical literature however admits that this “vaccine effectiveness” does not necessarily correlate to protective efficacy, namely the vaccines ability to protect someone against the disease when exposed to it.

    Exposing a group vaccinated children and a control group of vaccine-free children to say chickenpox to determine the vaccine’s protective effect is said to be unethical because it would endanger the lives of the supposedly “unprotected children, despite the fact that there would be plenty of non-vaccinating parents who would willingly allow their child t take part in such a trial.

    We therefore have te bizarre situation of exposing vaccine-free children to say chickenpox being deemed unethical, but the injection of highly toxic substances into defenseless babies and children being deemed ethical.

     
     

  • RichyLong

    It feels so nice being a guinea pig slave to society donut ?

  • Belle7dcrn

    Hi, my twin girls are just a month old and proud to say,vaccine free!!   Their MD is still pushing it though!

  • Patrons99

    Great post, Jeffry!

    The nub of the problem is the FDA. FDA is nothing more than a proxy for Pharma. Politicians and regulators don’t seem to mind this un-Holy symbiotic relationship. For many years now, fraudulent research has been used to obtain new drug and biological approvals under the expedited timelines afforded by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). Placebo fraud in vaccine approvals is rampant. This problem will continue unabated until we organize ourselves politically and start using medical freedom as a new litmus test for elected office. The Canary Party advocates medical choice. The Canary Party members are “sick and tired of being sick and tired”. The Canary Party members are fed up with allowing our kids to serve as “canaries in Pharma’s coal mine”.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Big-Pharma-and-the-PDU-by-Robert-Davidson-091126-534.html
    http://www.canaryparty.org/

  • Debora,

    Thank you for the information. Would the be tests performed on an infant both before and after vaccination?

  • Thank you for the grammar correction.

    For question number two I’m unclear what you are asking, specifically. I included, verbatim, almost the entire section for the neurovirulance testing of live virus vaccines. Nothing was omitted immediately prior or after that sentence from a fuller quote.

    Does that answer your question?

  • Erwin,

    Thank you for adding this important information to the article. I hope parents read your comments with the seriousness it deserves.

  • Patrons99,

    You are very correct that the FDA does enable this to happen. I’d like to take it a step further and say it’s the policy that is enacted … that the government employees are forced, in many cases, to adhere to.

    What is concerning is there are many great people working at the FDA who genuinely care. It’s the few that are swayed by pharmaceutical greed that sign off of on policy that is concerning.

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    Patrons 99, I could not have said it better. The other problem, as I assess it, is the spineless U.S. Congress that has oversight of the U.S. health agencies, including CDC and FDA.  Here are two recommendations for members of Congress that I’d like to make: 
    1) Refuse Big Pharma’s lucrative handouts either as campaign donations or ‘payoffs’ to get legislation enacted that favors Big Pharma and its industry at the cost, literally, to human health.
    2) Educate yourself on the real issues with vaccines and not the ‘research’ given to you as science.  There are numerous vaccine safety advocates who can provide any member of Congress’s legislative aide a ton of documentation on the screw ups from vaccines/vaccinations.  I would be one who gladly would cooperate. 

    I agree with what you say about the Canary Party. Chirp! Chirp!

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    in·cred·u·lous  (n-krj-ls)adj.1. Skeptical; disbelieving: incredulous of stories about flying saucers.2. Expressive of disbelief: an incredulous stare.From the Free Dictionary by Farlex online

  • Patrons99

    Jeffry –

    In the title of your post, use of the adjective “deceptive” may be a bit too weak.

    Here’s a short vignette as to what I mean, learned from “the school of hard knocks”:

    ““Physicians who follow the company line get rewarded with perks of all kinds, not the least of which include academic sinecure. Physicians who “go rogue”, often get cut off at the knees by pharma through use of lawsuits, fear of lawsuits, and “peer fear”. From first-hand personal experience I can tell you that use of fraud, fear, extortion, and concerted action, are major tools of their enterprise.”

    http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Cleaning-Up-Clinical-Resea-by-Robert-Davidson-091122-636.html

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-Asthma-Clinical-Resear-by-Robert-Davidson-091126-883.html

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Aufderheide,

    Thanks for your response. As to your above answer to my question about the document-excerpt re “Methods of Analysis” Item # 5, doesn’t that item strike you as odd, in that it seems to simply make a statement as to something that, in a given instance, occurred, and — unless I’ve misread it — neither stipulates nr recommends any sort of procedure that should rigorously be followed? It doesn’t say that 10 days is the recommended or required timeline, it doesn’t say that the moneys must or mustn’t be killed according to any specific method or timeline, it doesn’t set a requirement as to how they are or aren’t to be infected or inoculated, etcetera. Instead, it simply seems to recount that a given procedure was followed in a given instance, period. So, I wonder, why is that item even included in the document’s section that is devoted — except, it would seem, for this item — to stating recommending procedures?

  • Anonymous

    Catherine,

    I appreciate your clarification — but I believe that you are misunderstanding even that clarification. Please dig a little deeper into the differentiation between the words “incredible” and “incredulous”, and their correct uses.

    But perhaps I can assist you a bit on this too:

    Using the definition, above, that you yourself found, ask yourself: Is that which is “skeptical” or “disbelieving” of something a PERSON? Hint” The answer is “yes: a PERSON”. So a PERSON can be incredulous (i.e., unbelieving) of something. But can a THING — i.e., something that is not a PERSON (and presumably has no mental capacity) — be “skeptical” or “disbelieving” of something? Hint: The answer is NO.

    Consequently, it is grammatically — and logically — incorrect to say that “IT is incredulous” or that “IT is an incredulous event (or topic, etcetera)”. A PERSON can be incredulous of something — and, that something can be “unbelievable” — i.e., “incredible”, TO THE PERSON who is making that determination about that “something”.

    Just substitute the word “skeptical” or “unbelieving” in your sentences anytime you get the urge to use the word “incredulous”, and you should get the hang of it.

    Also use the word “unbelievable” instead of “incredible”, in your sentences, and I think you’ll quickly understand what I’m trying to explain.

  • 441019

     “Protonius” is right–only a person can be incredulous. (I am an experienced copyeditor.)

  • 441019

     I just want to agree with your comments. One of my younger brothers, born in 1958, came down with whooping cough AFTER his third DTP vaccination. When  my mother had another child, my youngest brother, she would not agree to let him have any vaccinations. He has always been extremely healthy. Now, at 50, he is extremely healthy and looks like 40. I hope that parents and doctors will wake up and reject vaccination.