Christina England
vactruth.com
07/29/2010

In March 2010 it was reported From the New York Times that China had been selling ‘tainted vaccines’. These vaccines had not had adequate storage and yet were sold to the public of China, subsequently allowing the vaccines to be administered to children. As a result, as many as eighty children suffered severe reactions, with four of these children, reported to have died.

According to the report in the New York Times the vaccines had been stored in a warm room without any air conditioning. Mr Chen, who worked for the medical center where these vaccines were sold, was reported to have said that he had complained at least 30 times, He said:-

“I saw boxes and boxes of vaccines piled up high like a hill in a hot room without air-conditioning,” he said. “Over the course of two years, I complained more than 30 times to the center’s leaders that these vaccines were no longer effective.”

Xinhua a Chinese newspaper reported

“BEIJING, March 17 (Xinhua) — China’s Ministry of Health (MOH) has launched an investigation into a report that defective vaccines had killed or sickened almost 80 children in north China’s Shanxi Province, said a statement on the ministry website Wednesday.

The ministry had asked the provincial health authorities to report abnormalities caused by the vaccines as soon as possible, the statement said.

Field investigations by reporters found that encephalitis, hepatitis B,rabies and other vaccines had killed four children and sickened at least 74, the China Economic Times newspaper reported Wednesday.”

On the 20^th July 2010 a report from China in ChinaGeeks translates reported that when the parents went to Beijing to try to get compensation for their children’s injuries, they found that the Ministry of Health had as much caring and compassion as a hungry ‘Stem Tiger’ after they were brutely beaten and slung into prison, where they were then denied medical care.One man was beaten so badly he sustained six broken ribs and a broken finger. Journalist C Cluster reported on the story-

“Tainted Vaccine “Protesters” Beaten, Bones Fractured

By C. Custer

Yet another depressing moment in the saga of the families who came to Beijing looking for compensation from the Ministry of Health after their children where harmed by tainted vaccines. Shortly after their first protest, Wang reported via his blog, they were arrested, but were subsequently released and apparently went to protest again yesterday. The results were more dire this time:

“When the nine parents of tainted vaccine victims were outside the Ministry of Health appealing for an audience with higher-ups on the morning of the 19th, they were beaten quite severely by a group of people wearing the uniforms of the Public Security Bureau. Of the nine, four suffered serious injury, and Yang Yukui of Liaoning province suffered six fractured ribs on his right side and a fractured little finger on his right hand.

The parents were chained together to prevent being dragged off separately, which made it impossible for them to flee their attackers. After being beaten, the group was locked away and at present has not been allowed to seek medical treatment:”

This is totally barbaric, haven’t these parents suffered enough?

However, unfortunately this is not the first time that parents of vaccine injured children have been treated in this way. In 2006 the story of Gao Zhanghong hit the headlines, he too had been treated in this way. In May this year ChinaGeeks Translates told his story arrest of Gao Zhanghong . Gao was a father of a boy who also fell victim to tainted vaccines back in 2006. This resulted in his son having learning difficulties which seriously impaired his ability to learn. Gao had hoped that his younger son may be able to care for his brother when he was older, sadly this was not going to be a possibility because his younger son then became a victim of the Sanlu milk powder scandal . Gao was also arrested, however, ChinaGeeks report that it was not clear from the circumstances to exactly how Gao’s arrest related to the vaccine and melamine issues.

It seems that the Chinese government care very little about their people. They carry on selling contaminated vaccines and other products in the full knowledge that if a parent complains, they can use violence or prison as a deterrent.

This of course is what is known as a civilized society! In my opinion it could be seen to be Totalitarianism.

Christina England
vactruth.com
07/26/2010

In Perth this week, parents have been asked to volunteer their children between the ages of six months and two years, for participation in a vaccine trial.

In their report Vaccine trial targets kids ABC News explains that parents are being asked to register their children for a worldwide vaccine trial aimed at preventing a common cause of chest infections. These children will receive three doses of a vaccine for bronchiolitis, through nasal drops and will require a follow up blood test.

Dr Peter Richmond who heads up the ‘Vaccine Trials Group’ and is the main media spokesperson for VTG studies that are testing the vaccine in Perth, says that they are looking for healthy children for the trial.

“It’s really important that we’re able to develop vaccines that can prevent these serious infections in young children and keep them as healthy as possible and out of hospital.“

However, should parents ever be asked to use their ‘healthy children’ as drug company lab rats? Using children in experiments is highly dangerous, especially as the group of children required for this experiment are in a crucial stage of their development. If this vaccine has not been tested, how can VTG be sure that their vaccine will not interact with other vaccines that these children will have already had? According to vaccine schedule, children have already had around 18 vaccines by the age of two, some of these vaccines such as the DTaP and the MMR are triple vaccines.

Immunization Schedule In The USA

If we add another three doses of an untested vaccine, to the cocktail of adjuvants and chemicals that these children have already been subjected to, we could be adding the flame needed to ignite an already ticking time bomb.

We need to consider the fact that vaccines are drugs and to indicate just how dangerous drug trials can be, I would like to reference one drugs trial that went horribly wrong in the UK.

Fiona Macrea of the Daily Mail took up the story at the time in her article Elephant Man drug trial victims ‘injected too quickly’ | Mail Online

“The six young men – all fit and healthy before signing up for the March trial at Northwick Park Hospital in North-West London – suffered a host of side-effects, including pain, vomiting and organ failure.

Bar manager Mohamed ‘Nino’ Abdelhady, 28, was described as ‘the Elephant Man’ by his partner Myfanwy Marshall after his head swelled up.

Trainee plumber Ryan Wilson, 20, suffered heart, kidney and liver failure, pneumonia and blood poisoning and was in a coma for three weeks.
While in the coma, he suffered a frostbite-like reaction and has since lost parts of his fingers and had his toes amputated.”

In another report Drug-test victim’s ‘hell’ | The Sun |Newsone victim described his ordeal:-

“Then somehow the pain got even worse with the pressure in my head so intense it was like a truck had been parked on it.

“It felt like a terrible nightmare. I was aware of nothing around me just the pressure growing stronger and stronger in my skull.

“The nurses tried to calm me but suddenly the pain shot from my head to my spine as though the truck had been moved to my back.

“This felt even worse than before and I was conscious of bucking and writhing in the bed as they tried to get an oxygen mask on me.

“I started to think that these people were killing me and that I was going to die in this terrible place.

“As the mask was put on my face I felt that I couldn’t breathe and begged the doctors, Please, please let me out of here. I don’t want the money any more I just want to be free.’

“The agony didn’t end until I felt a needle go into my left arm with what must have been a sedative.

“Moments later I fell unconscious but it was only the start of the most terrifying hours of my life.”

The volunteers used in this trial, were consenting adults who made an informed decision to take part in this trial. They signed consent forms and knew of the risks. The babies to be used in the forthcoming vaccine trials will not be allowed this luxury but it is the babies themselves that may have to live with lifelong disabilities if this trial goes horribly wrong.

I would urge any parent to think very carefully before considering putting their baby forward for any drug or vaccine trial however tempting it may be, things can and do go wrong.

Christina England
vactruth.com
07/23/2010

For years now the myth that vaccines can eradicate illnesses has existed. This myth was perpetrated by the pharmaceutical industries and backed up by our governments and has existed purely to trick the general public into having countless vaccines in the ruse that they will live long and healthy lives. I want to examine the facts and attempt to dispel the myth and prove that vaccines cannot and will not eradicate illnesses because many are caused by viruses which can mutate as we have seen with the flu virus, thus rendering the vaccines against it, useless.

I will begin by asking the question  – If vaccines eradicate illnesses, then why do they still exist today? The word eradicate according to many dictionaries, means to eliminate, to wipe out,  obliterate. So taking these definitions into account have any of the illnesses we vaccinate against today been truly eradicated from our world? The plain and simple answer to this question is no they have not.

To examine this properly, we have to see if anything has ever been truly eradicated with vaccines,  if so, then no child would ever get these illnesses because they would no longer exist.

On Vaccinate Your Baby : History of Disease Eradication the first paragraph states-

“Immunization is one of the most successful public health achievements of the 20th century. Due to systematic vaccination programs, smallpox has been eliminated worldwide, and cases of polio, measles, diphtheria and Hib are at all-time lows. The burden of other diseases has been significantly reduced .”

Is what they are saying true? The WHO say it is, on their website WHO | Immunization against diseases of public health importance they say :-

“Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and even eradicating disease. An immunization campaign carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 1967 to 1977 eradicated the natural occurrence of smallpox. When the programme began, the disease still threatened 60% of the world’s population and killed every fourth victim. Eradication of poliomyelitis is within reach. Since the launch by WHO and its partners of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988, infections have fallen by 99%, and some five million people have escaped paralysis. Between 1999 and 2003, measles deaths dropped worldwide by almost 40%, and some regions have set a target of eliminating the disease. Maternal and neonatal tetanus will soon be eliminated in 14 of 57 high-risk countries.”

Significantly reduced perhaps but has any disease or illness been eradicated? Let us take a look.

According to some doctors Smallpox has been seen to still exist even though the world has been told that vaccines have eradicated it. According to Dr Kris Gaublomme, it has simply been renamed and is now called Monkeypox. In his article Has smallpox really disappeared from the earth?——Dr. Kris Gaublomme he explains:-

“A new and embarrassing development was the resurgence of pox-family viruses in Africa, known as the ‘monkeypox’. This fact has been known for many years but the public was reassured that this had nothing to do with smallpox and that the human species was safe.

Not as safe as we were told,though, since in the Congo in 1970, pox viruses were isolated from humans² corresponding to the pox viruses found in captive monkeys in 1958 and identified the next year (3). It was baptised ‘monkeypox~. The same virus was isolated from 6 humans in 1959 by Foster. In 1976, Gipsen reported on more cases in Nigeria (4).

The terminology of the disease became ever more confusing, since what were at first simply ‘monkeypox’ are now introduced into literature as‘human monkeypox’. What, now, is the difference between smallpox and ‘human monkeypox’? It is interesting to read in a recent article in the Lancet that “Human monkeypox is a systemic exanthem, resembling smallpox, that occurs as a sporadic zoonosis in rural rainforest villages of western and central Africa. The disease is caused by an orthopoxvirus, which is transmitted to human beings by handling infected animals; serosurveys have implicated squirrels … as the probable reservoir. Secondary human-to-human spread by aerosol or direct contact accounts for about 28% of cases…” (my emphasis)

So, let us make a simple addition. This virus is an ‘orthopox’  virus, which means, literally translated, a ‘real pox’ virus. This virus spreads among humans causing an exanthem ‘resembling’ smallpox, and causing disease and death among the infected (between February and August 1996, 71 cases were notified in the Katako-Kombe area in Zaire, 6 of which 4 died from the disease (5)”.

From his report in Atlanta Reuters (WS) via Individual Inc December 15, 1997 Monkeypox outbreak in Africa biggest ever – U.S. we see that humans can catch monkeypox and die from it.
“The largest outbreak of human monkeypox ever reported has caused more than 500 people to become ill in the Democratic Republic of Congo, health officials said Thursday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said children 16 and under accounted for 85 percent of the 511 human monkeypox cases that have occurred in the former Zaire since February 1996.

The CDC said it was the largest human monkeypox outbreak ever recorded. Five deaths were recorded, all of them of children aged between 4 and 8.

Monkeypox is a sister virus of smallpox and is generally spread by squirrels and monkeys in the rain forests of western and central Africa. Before the outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, cases of monkeypox in humans were rare.”

So is smallpox really history or is Monkeypox really Smallpox?

Well the article in the Lancet mentioned above, by Dr Gaubloome, according to the Vaccination Information site http://www.whale.to/vaccine/smallpox1.html says:-

“A pilgrim returned home to Yugoslavia from Mecca in February, 1972, with a fever…  In the 4 weeks since the pilgrim first had his fever, 150 people were infected across the country. It took 4 weeks before doctors, nurses, and health authorities knew they were dealing with smallpox… 175 people contracted smallpox [thereafter] and 35 died… these events occurred in a well-vaccinated population.”

Dr. Vivian Virginia Vetrano says in her article Smallpox :-

“The authorities claim that we will be safe from terrorists attacks using the pox virus because there are adequate stockpiles of cultivated smallpox viruses in Russia and in the USA to make most all the vaccines “needed.”

It is claimed by medical historians that the vaccination process wiped out smallpox throughout the world. However, the truth is that compulsory vaccination was abandoned because more deaths were caused by the vaccinations than there were cases of smallpox. A slight of the hand trick was used to foster the claim that smallpox was eradicated by the vaccination practice. Everyone who had been vaccinated and who developed smallpox was diagnosed as having chicken pox!

The doctors who were interviewed on recent television shows admit that the vaccine may cause many serious side-effects and that a certain number of persons will develop painful and sometimes lethal sequelae. Yet, they advise that it is better to take the chance and be vaccinated in spite of these dangers.”

So have we all been party to an elaborate hoax, has Smallpox existed all along and we have had the wool pulled over our eyes by our governments and the drug companies to push vaccines? Well it is certainly a possibility.

Bearing this in mind, let us now examine other illnesses, how well are vaccines doing in eradicating these? Not too well it seems.

The whooping cough or the pertussis infection which is a an infection involving the  respiratory tract and is caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis . This is a highly contagious illness known to last for a duration of approximately 6 weeks before subsiding. The disease derives its name from the “whoop” sound made from the inspiration of air after a cough. Although many medical sources describe the whoop as “high-pitched”, this is generally the case with infected babies and children only, not adults. On occasions a child may vomit after a bout of severe coughing.

The first vaccine to combat this infection was brought out in 1930′s and was given as part of the triple vaccine the DTP.

In 1991, DTaP vaccine was licensed in the United States. The pertussis component of this vaccine is a more purified “acellular” version, which produces fewer side effects as the original vaccine was identified as having a high rate of side effects which included brain injury and even death.

Harold Stearley said this about the DTP vaccine in an article – (4/18/97) The Tainted History of the DPT Vaccine

“There’s no question that DPT vaccinations save lives; they have lowered the annual pertussis deaths from about 1000 annually to less than ten. Unfortunately, as reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the form of the vaccine used and sanctioned by the Centers for Disease Control also kills as many as 900 children per year, and leaves one of every 62,000 children immunized with permanent brain damage.”

This makes me wonder if we are swapping one problem for another and if vaccination has been proven not to completely eradicate Smallpox, then do the risks of the vaccines outweigh it’s benefits?

Professor Gordon Stewart an M.D and a Emeritus professor of Public Health wrote much on this in his extensive range of papers on the subject. He certainly felt that there were extremely worrying side effects linked to this vaccine and this included death.

In the article The lies the Government tell when it comes to vaccines written by myself, I have detailed his work along with an expose of a few of his extremely worrying letters written to the UK Government, proving concern about this vaccine, existed, as early as the 70′s and 80′s.

What Professor Stewart was saying and the vast majority of media reports that appeared at the time on the side effects of this vaccine, was worrying many parents and so in 2005, two new tetanus toxoid-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines were licensed. These vaccines are the first acellular pertussis-containing vaccines and made it possible to vaccinate adolescents and adults against pertussis.

So if these vaccines have been so effective, then why are so many children still being infected today, whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated?

Dr Mercola says in his article on the 15^th July 2010 Whooping Cough Kills 5 in California the following:-

“After the deaths of five infants, California health authorities have declared an epidemic of whooping cough, also known as pertussis.

The announcement came after authorities noticed a sharp spike in reports of pertussis, which often is mistaken for a cold or the flu and is highly contagious.

A CDC study suggests that the resurgence of whooping cough is due to the vaccine causing an increased and more virulent toxin”

Of course many scientists and the pharmaceutical industry would argue that this was because not every person has been vaccinated and that if they had, then this disease would no longer exist. However, this simply is untrue because VACCINATED people are still getting the infection?

In July 2006 a whole year after the latest vaccine promising to keep children safe from this infection and three decades after the original whooping cough vaccine was introduced, the Sunday Times journalist Nigel Hawkes the Health Editor wrote an extremely alarming article called  Whooping cough still infecting millions of vaccinated children … which began-

“MILLIONS of British children have probably been infected with whooping cough even though they have been immunised against it.

A study has found that nearly two in five children who went to their GP with a persistent cough had suffered from whooping cough, though very few doctors diagnose it. The results suggest that the whooping cough vaccine is ineffective at preventing infection, but makes symptoms less severe — thereby concealing just how common it remains”.

Nigel quoted a BMJ study saying:-

“In BMJ online, a team from the University of Oxford, the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the Health Protection Agency report that in 85.9per cent of the cases they saw, the children had been vaccinated. But blood samples tested positive for antibodies to Bordetella pertussis, the cause of whooping cough, indicating recent infection.

The team studied 172 children aged 5-16 who visited their family doctor with a cough lasting 14 days or more. Immunisation records were checked, notes made on the symptoms and duration of cough, and blood samples taken for testing. They found that 37.2 per cent of the children had evidence of a recent pertussis infection. The results suggest that the condition is “endemic among younger school-age children”, they say, and that doctors should consider a diagnosis of whooping cough even if the child has been immunised.”

So if this study is correct and one presumes that it is, especially as it was allowed to be reported in the BMJ, a massive proportion of the children who had been vaccinated still went on to contract the illness, thus proving that whooping cough has not been eradicated even for those children who have had the vaccine. This renders this vaccine as somewhat useless in my eyes.

In an article by Barbara Loe Fisher National -Vaccine Information Center she gives a possible explanation:-

NVIC Vaccine News – Whooping Cough Outbreaks & Vaccine Failures

“Pertussis vaccination rates are very high in the U.S. According to the CDC, 84 percent of children under age three have received four DTaP shots.17 By the time American children enter kindergarten nearly every child has gotten all the CDC recommended pertussis shots.18 In 2009, the CDC said that the proportion of totally unvaccinated children in America is only six hundredths of one percent (0.06).19

Even with super high pertussis vaccine coverage in America and other countries like the Netherlands, Australia, Finland and Canada, whooping cough disease cannot be prevented.20 There are two main reasons for this fact.

First, pertussis vaccines widely used since the 1950’s have not prevented whooping cough disease from circulating in vaccinated populations. Unknown numbers of children and adults, who have gotten all government recommended pertussis shots, can and do develop whooping cough or are carriers without symptoms.21,22

Because pertussis vaccine immunity is only temporary and does not last, health officials are now telling teenagers and adults to get more booster shots.23 But that is not going to matter if scientific evidence that B. pertussis organisms have mutated and become vaccine-resistant turns out to be correct.24

A second important reason is that another Bordetella organism – parapertussis – also can cause whooping cough.25 B. parapertussis symptoms, while often milder, can look exactly like B. pertussis. But doctors rarely recognize or test for parapertussis.26 And there is NO vaccine for parapertussis.”

I am now going to look at how effective the Measles vaccine has been in eradicating the Measles virus.

The Measles vaccine first became available in 1963. An improved measles vaccine became available in 1968 and then later in 1971 a combination measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine became available.

Unlike the Whooping Cough the Measles is a virus and is caused by paramyxovirus and is the most unpleasant and the most dangerous of the children’s diseases.

Measles has some very serious side effects and it is these side effects that worry doctors the most and include these taken from NHS website-

• meningitis,
• pneumonia (lung infection), signs of which are fast, difficult breathing, chest pain and deteriorating condition,
• hepatitis (liver infection),
• encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), which can be fatal, so watch for drowsiness, headache and vomiting,
• low platelet (white blood cell) count, known medically as thrombocytopenia, which affects the blood’s ability to clot,
• bronchitis and croup (infection of the airways), characterised by a hacking or barking cough, and
• squint, if the virus affects the nerves and muscles of the eye.
• serious eye disorders, such as an infection of the optic nerve (the nerve that transmits information from the eye to the brain), known as optic neuritis, which can lead to blindness,
• heart and nervous system problems,
• serious brain complication known as subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), which can sometimes occur several years after measles. Although the condition is fatal, it is very rare, occurring in only 1 in every 100,000 cases of measles.

So how is the measles vaccination doing in eradicating the measles virus? Again let us examine the vaccinated children. Well, according to recent reports this vaccine also can not guarantee that if a child is vaccinated they will not get the measles infection.

In a report MEASLES : The Real Facts – by Hilary Bulter the spokesperson for Immunisation Awareness Society she wrote:-

“FACT. Vaccinated children still get measles. Deaths and hospitalisations have been recorded for 120 years. The measles death decline graph provided shows that the measles vaccine had nothing to do with the decline in deaths, and has not affected the number of children hospitalised during epidemic years since its introduction. (Appendices to Parliamentary Journals, Official Year Book, Health Department publications such has “Health Trends” and Immunisation Handbook. Also, graphs provided to Herald and Metro in the past)

PARENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THAT,”

She goes on to then state some very worrying and proven facts

“*** A similar campaign vaccinating 7.1 million schoolchildren in England has resulted in a legal firm called Dawbarns (dawbarns @paston.co.uk) (0044 1553 764373) taking legal action against the British Health Department on behalf of the following cases:

Autism (202), Crohn’s disease and other serious chronic stomach problems (110) Epilepsy (97) Hearing and vision problems (40) Arthritis (42) chronic fatigue syndrome (24) Diabetes (9) Guillain-Barre syndrome (9) chronic Thrombocytopenia (5) subacute sclerosing panencephalitis SSPE {3) Wegener’s Granulomatosis (2) Multiple Sclerosis (1) Death (14) (Dawbarns fact sheet)

*** The childrens’ doctors and specialists have come out in the media in support of the children

*** The New Zealand, and British Health Departments deny the existence of these cases. (NZ H Dept media release, and BMJ article) and maintain that OPERATION SAFEGUARD eliminated measles from UK. In October 1996, UK started another MMR booster campaign.

**** Deaths from Measles were virtually wiped out in every <developed country before the vaccine was even used.(See disease decline graph

*** Using the Health Department statistics on vaccinating 540,000 children, would result in:

Up to 81,000 cases of rash and fever.

Up to 5,400 cases of parotid (mumps) swelling

Up to 216 cases of febrile seizures

Up to 18 cases of thrombocytopenia (red-blood cell destruction)

Up to cases of chronic thrombocytopenia.

Up to 5 cases of Aseptic Meningitis.

Up to 1 case of Central Nervous system damage.

Up to 15,420 cases of transient joint arthralgia some of these becoming chronic. (pg 95, H. Dept Handbook)

*** Germany does not routinely use the measles vaccine because their reporting system found 1 per 2,500 vaccinees had a neurological complication, and 1 per 17,500 vaccinees had abortive encephalopathy. (FDA Technical Report, 1980)

The Germans considered the risks too high in light of the fact that deaths and disease severity had decreased without any reference to a vaccine. * THE SAME IS TRUE OF NEW ZEALAND, but parents are not told that.

*** That in the pre vaccine era, mothers’ antibodies protected babies for around 15 months, measles was mainly an infection of 5 – 9 year olds, and by 15 yrs, 99% had antibodies. By 1985, 14 % of 15 year olds lacked antibody.( NZ Med J. 27 May, 1987) No-one knows what the level is now, but evidence from America shows that adult measles, which can be very serious, is now quite common.

*** that vaccinated mothers cannot give protective antibodies to their babies, so that young babies, for whom measles is serious are no longer protected. (Washington Post, Sun Nov 22, 1992, and others)

“** that in the 1991 USA measles outbreak, over half the deaths were vaccinated, and most deaths were in immunocompromised people. (Washington Post June 14, 1991, BMJ, 11 May, 1991)

*** that New Zealand doctors and hospitals do not prescribe or use Vitamin A for measles, and as a result, many cases are far more serious than they should be.

“** that in Africa, children who have a natural measles infection have half the asthma, allergies and eczema compared with their vaccinated peers. (Lancet, June 29, 1996)

*** that if children with mild to moderate psoriasis get a natural dose of measles, the psoriasis is often cured. (3 med studies)

*** that babies vaccinated who have maternal antibodies, or people who have measles suppressed with gammaglobulin go on to have a higher rate of immunoreactive diseases, sebaceous skin diseases, degenerative cartilage and bone disease and certain tumours. (Lancet, 5 Jan 1985) If you revaccinate children who already have antibodies what will happen to them in later life?

*** that you have the right to take home the PRODUCT INSERT, and read it carefully before you make any decision”.

Scary isn’t it? However she is not alone in her findings.

In the Indian Journal of Science a study was carried out and reported by Munesh K Sharma, Vikas Bhatia, HM Swami. Outbreak of measles amongst vaccinated children in a slum of …

The abstract of this study says;-

“BACKGROUND: An outbreak of measles was reported from a slum, UT, Chandigarh in April 2003. Similar outbreak was also reported in less than three years from the same and adjoining areas. The present study was conducted to investigate and assess various epidemiological features associated with measles outbreak. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three cases of measles were admitted in Deptt. of Paediatrics, Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh and were reported to the Deptt. of Community Medicine for an outbreak investigation. A trained team investigated the slum having a population of 25,000 and studied various features associated with epidemic between the period of April 22 to May 10, 2003. RESULTS: The study covered 484 houses having 1130 children. Among the children who developed measles 32.76% were vaccinated ones. In them attack rate was 3%. Attack rate in vaccinated children went on increasing as age increased. An overall attack rate of 5.13% (Peak incidence 6% in 1-4 years age group) was recorded. Among measles cases, one-fifth had post measles complications. As much as 32.76% children with measles had received measles vaccination in the past. Therefore something more than immunization by single dose of vaccine is required. Measles was reported to be higher amongst the children without Vitamin A supplementation (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: There is need to store vaccine properly and to strengthen routine immunization coverage, Vitamin A supplementation and health infrastructure in underprivileged population. Serological studies among vaccinated children against measles should be undertaken to explore the possibility of second dose of measles in older children.”

In another study by Russell W. Currier II, DVM; George E. Hardy, Jr., MD; J. Lyle Conrad, MD Measles in Previously Vaccinated Children they came to the conclusion that the measles vaccine was failing to protect children against measles, as in this study they also found cases of vaccinated children who contracted measles.

“Investigation of 37 cases of measles in an Alabama elementary school revealed that 25 patients (68%) had been vaccinated, suggesting measles vaccine failure. Attack rates based on a measles history and immunization survey indicated that 16.2% (six of 37) of measles susceptibles who responded acquired disease compared with only 4.0% (20 of 505) of vaccinated respondents. Analysis showed that 17.6% (12 of 68) of children vaccinated at less than 12 months of age contracted measles compared with only 1.9% (eight of 419) of those vaccinated at 12 or more months of age. It is inferred that vaccination at less than 1 year of age may not be effective, because maternal antibody may persist and interfere with immune response to vaccine virus. This would explain the higher incidence in this epidemic of measles among children vaccinated as infants.”

If the conclusion that they came to was correct and that vaccination at less than 1 year of age may not be effective, because maternal antibody may persist and interfere with immune response to vaccine virus then surely this would indicate that the maternal antibody may have been enough to protect these infants and that the vaccine was counteracting a normal antibody passed from mother to infant.

One thing that is for certain it seems that at what ever age a child is given a vaccine it does not protect them from this illness and certainly vaccines have done very little to eradicate illnesses as we can clearly see.

I believe it is time that the world woke up to the fact that vaccinate or not, these illnesses are here to stay and the only thing that is being eradicated is the public’s confidence in vaccinations.

Christina England
vactruth.com
06/16/2010

Recently the world has been told about the six ‘little women‘ with big voices, these ladies were dubbed the ‘little women’ by the FDA because they dared to take their concerns regarding the Gardasil vaccine and confront the FDA with them, in the form of a powerpoint presentation. For more about these outstanding women please read their amazing story which I highlighted in March on the American Chronicle. HPV wonder vaccines now under intense scrutiny by the FDA … Sadly for the FDA this rather derogatory term has now made their story a known worldwide.

I am now going to add another totally amazing and outstanding women to those six and make it seven, her name is Rosemary Fox MBE. Little is known outside the UK about Rosemary Fox and her fight with the UK Government to get compensation for vaccine damaged children but times are changing and the truth about what really goes on behind closed doors is being exposed.

I will begin by giving a brief synopsis of the Rosemary Fox story from her own book.

Taken from the first page of Rosemary Fox’s amazing book Helen’s Story: Amazon.co.uk: Rosemary Fox: Books

“In September 1962, Rosemary Fox took her eight-,month-old daughter Helen to the doctor’s to be vaccinated against polio, blissfully unaware that she was condemning her happy, healthy baby to a life of sickness and convulsions. In 1973, when Helen was assessed as having the mental age of just three, Rosemary began a campaign for compensation for vaccine damaged children. It would take 27 years.

Back in 1973, the British Governments view was that the severe damage caused to some children by smallpox, polio, or measles vaccinations was a small price from freedom of disease, and those cases received little publicity. Rosemary and 600 families with whom she formed The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children were condemned for causing the public to question the safety of vaccination.”

To read any more I suggest that interested parties buy her book.

Thirty seven years on and not a lot has changed in regards to the distorted thinking of Governments worldwide but Rosemary did change the laws around compensation for vaccine injured children, her fight although far from easy was certainly not fruitless.

Letters bounced to and fro from Rosemary’s organisation for years and the content was at times heated but what went on internally was little more than criminal. Sadly I cannot publish these documents because copyright would be impossible to get but I can publish small sections and refer the public to the address and website of where these can be obtained.

I was introduced to Mrs Fox by Prof Gordon Stewart and pointed in the direction of where information had been recently released to the public, by an interested party. I have since had conversations with Mrs Fox and she was kind enough to tell me about her story.

I will begin my interpretation of what went on, with a few quotes from a letter written by Mr R P Pole to a Mr Foster on 26^th July 1976.

The letter can be obtained in full from the National Archives in Kew Gardens, Richmond, Surrey, England UK website The National Archives

Mr Pole was a member of the JCVI and represented the Department of Health

The letter was headed – Mrs Fox’s claim to the European Commission on Human Rights

In his letter Mr Pole was discussing a meeting he was about to attend between Department of Health lawyers, the Foreign Office lawyer, and Parliamentary Council.

In Point 3 he says

“Can we produce an example of a consent form actually in use, Do different authorities have different ways of getting consent?”

Interesting phrasing don’t you agree, especially as he worked for the Department of Health and represented them in meetings of the JCVI, please refer to Gi/TO NOT POR PUBLICATION CHSC(VI)(1977) THIRD MEETING CENTRAL … for an example of his activity already on the internet? It appears from his comment that Mr Pole had no clue as to whether consent forms even existed, let alone how they may be implemented.

However, for me, the real gem in his letter was contained within point 5.

Point 5

“To what extent do we dispute what Mrs Fox claims? We should consider her case sentence by sentence.”

Well, that would certainly be a good place to start, don’t you agree? The icing on the cake however, was what he wrote next.

“Do we admit any part of her claim?”

This for me highlights the real truth of the behaviour, lies and sheer arrogance of what goes on behind closed doors. This is what parents of vaccine injured children are really fighting.

So what did. Rosemary Fox claim? In effect Mrs Fox’s report to the government was a fair and well executed document. It was balanced and well written and showed she understood what she believed to be the benefits of vaccination.

In a report 13^th August 1974 entitled

The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children

An outline of the case for compensation for vaccine damaged children.

She wrote:-

“Every year a few children are destroyed by immunisation and vaccination. These are vaccine damaged children – a minority group who suffer brain damage and sometimes death from a procedure which confers a very great benefit on the majority.

The last public statement (DHSS) regarding compensation for these children is that would be neither appropriate or feasible. This report sets out why we, the parents of these children, feel that not only is compensation appropriate but that it is long overdue and that, if the immunisation scheme is to continue on the moral basis , a compensation scheme is now a matter of urgency.

This Association has compiled details of approximately 220 children who were seriously ill following vaccination and who are now brain damaged, physically handicapped, blind, dumb, epileptic, – which disabilities occur in the children either singly or in a combination.

When cases of damage from all vaccines were being compiled, it became obvious that two out of every three cases the ‘triple antigen’ vaccination was involved.”

Later in the report she writes:-

“The DHSS states that brain damage following vaccination can arise in some cases due to an incompatibility between the child and the vaccine, and this risk is now freely admitted.”

She speaks of a booklet that was circulated to all doctors called ‘Immunisation against Infectious Diseases’ and says -

“In the introduction of this booklet, however, it is stated “It should be emphasised that it is always for the individual doctor to decide finally on the type, dosage and timing of the vaccines he uses.”

The investigations of this Association have revealed that there are many instances where this advice booklet is not known or followed and, so far as we can ascertain, little attention is paid to the medical history of each child to ensure that vaccination for each child will be safe. We are aware that until recently many doctors did not know, or could not accept, that whooping cough vaccination could cause brain damage.”

She states very clearly and underlines “Risks have been concealed from parents” she carries on-

“It has been said that until recently there has been a ‘conspiracy of silence’ about the risks in whooping cough vaccination (Hansard 31 ^st January 1974) and out investigations support this statement.

When whooping cough vaccination was first introduced on a trial basis, it was offered to parents as “effective for the prevention of whooping cough” and the vaccines were said to be “the best which are available” (City of Liverpool in conjunction with the Medical Council -leaflet issued 1953) There was no mention of the risk and no clear indication that this was a trial.”

Does this all remind us of anything? It does me, this reminds me very much of the current Gardasil campaign. Please read HPV wonder vaccines now under intense scrutiny by the FDA … and our six little women.

So basically Rosemary Fox was saying that once again the UK government were advertising a vaccine that was on TRIAL and portraying it as safe and effective. It seems to me that history repeats itself over and over decade after decade.

I personally like the way that Rosemary phrases things in a way that was and still are today. She was strong and decisive.

“ We recognise that the decision to carry on any vaccination is a matter for medical experts to decide, but we do question whether national immunity can be purchased at the expense of those few children who have been, or will be, destroyed in the process.”

Exactly, heard immunity cannot be purchased at the expense of children who will die as a result, after all it is not exactly as if they could give their consent now is it?

This report can be found again in full at the The National Archives Ref MH 154 / 1057

Of course by this time the UK Government and the Department of Health were getting slightly hot under the collar to put it very politely. Letters and memos were flying around Parliament like plates at a Greek wedding.

Undeterred however, Mrs Fox’s campaign grew to new levels, as did her determination for justice for vaccine damaged children.

On 9^th August 1975 Mrs Fox on finding that she was getting little satisfaction from the UK government, submitted a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights New Scientist – 27 May 1976 – Google Books Result

Her complaint began -

“ On behalf of the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, I have collected details of 287 (to date) cases of healthy children who, as a result of vaccination, suffered death almost immediately – 6 cases death later followed prolonged illness – 4 cases last year, or brain damage to such an extent that their lives have been completely destroyed and in many cases are at risk.

In no case was the possibility of such a risk discussed beforehand with parents, or was there any public knowledge of risk. In all cases, parents accepted vaccination in the belief that this was for the protection of their healthy child.”

Once again this complaint can be accessed in full from the The National Archives File MH 154/1057

The complaint by Mrs Fox was a strong and powerful indication that the UK government were letting parents and disabled children down. It proves that if the government admitted a problem, that it could cost millions and jeopardise the future of the vaccine programme which at the time they deemed to be more important than the lives of these children.

This complaint activated a huge hive of activity in Parliament.

On the 9^th March 1975 the Under Secretary of State DHSS wrote to a David Knox MP saying:-

“ Mrs Fox has sent copies of the report to Mrs Castle, Dr Owen and myself and I wrote to her on 5 ^th February to say how concerned we were about the line it takes especially the implied intention to attack immunisation programmes in general. I asked Mrs Fox to avoid this because a very large number of children might be affected if their parents were misled into depriving them of the protection which immunisation against various illnesses undoubtedly give to children and counter charges in a public debate.

In his letter he makes it clear that he was of the belief that Mrs Fox’s report made a number of allegations surrounding the of lack of activity/interest regarding a number of public bodies, including his department and he felt that the department was not at fault.

Again this can be found at the The National Archives

Mrs Fox says in the Sunday Mercury – My battle for justice over vaccine June 19^th 2006

“Just to get the Government to acknowledge they had a responsibility for them would have been a start. We really wanted them to say there was a danger in some vaccines, take responsibility and do something for these children.

If the Government took this issue of vaccination seriously we wouldn’t have been here, we wouldn’t have been in this situation.

Bottom line was they didn’t know if this was safe. They didn’t know if the three childhood vaccinations – measles, rubella and polio – were safe to use at that time.”

The Sunday Mercury says:-

“MP Jack Ashley brought the debate to Parliament in January 1974, and for the next three years it continued to rage before finally, in 1978, the Government agreed to pay all affected children £10,000.”

This was all thanks to a determined mother who was prepared to to do something when she saw injustice and a Government at fault and this is why I feel she should be classed as another ‘Little Woman with a Big Voice’.

Christina England
vactruth.com
06/01/2010

In 2006, I was lucky enough to to be given permission to interview Professor Gordon T Stewart at his home in Edinburgh and he really opened my eyes to just how devious the Government really is and how information is withheld from the public for many years on the adverse reactions to vaccines. Prof Stewart who was 91 at the time of the interview, wanted the truth to be told, about what really goes on when it comes to the Department of Health agreeing to a vaccine being given to the general public. To back up his evidence he gave me the unique experience of examining with him an array of letters, documents and papers that he had kept over many years, some of which have still never been seen by the public today. He explained exactly what evidence he had, the in depth studies that he had carried out and about his research. He explained about how shocked he had been about the attitudes of the Department of Health, the Joint Committee of Vaccine and Immunization and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, when he presented them with his evidence and how they chose the ignore the facts in favour of mass vaccination. After studying much of his research and many of his letters, I agree after much thought that the public do indeed have a right to know the truth, especially about what really goes on behind closed doors.

Professor Stewart had been speaking out on the adverse reactions to vaccines since 1950′s.

His main work was surrounding the Whooping Cough and DPT vaccine. Over the years he has written letter after letter raising concerns with the Department of Health and the Government. Most of his concerns were ignored but they were discussed at meetings involving the Joint Sub Committee on Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation and evidence can be found to support this.

Professor Gordon Stewart’s views make him unconventional among medical men.

Here is a little of Professor Stewart’s background:

GORDON T. STEWART, M.D Emeritus professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow Consultant physician, NHS (Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine), Emeritus Fellow, Inf Dis Soc of America. Former consultant, New York City, US NIH, WHO, UNICEF etc.

MAIN PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO VACCINATIONS are

1951 Infectivity and virulence of tubercle bacilli. Lancet 2; 562

1952 do J Hygiene, Cambridge 50; 37.

1962 Organisation of Clinical Trials Lancet 1, 1394

1968 Limitations of the germ theory Lancet 1; 1077

1969 Determinants of sickness in US Marine recruits Amer J Epid 89;254

1969 Resistance factors in the control of tuberculosis J Inf Dis 120; 389

1976 Immunisation against whooping cough Brit med J 1; 93.

1976 Immunisation against whooping cough ibid 1; 583

1976 (with WR Bassili) Whooping cough: epidemiological evaluation of immunisation and other factors in the control of infection. Lancet 1; 474.

1977 Vaccination against whooping cough: efficacy versus risks. Lancet 1; 234.

1977 Whooping cough vaccination. Lancet 1; 804

1978 Whooping cough vaccination Brit med J 2; 768

1978 Pertussis vaccine: the United Kingdom’s experience: Invited position paper at the NIH Symposium on Pertussis at Bethesda, Md.,1978. US Government Printing Office: 1979.

1979 Toxicity of pertussis vaccine. frequency and probability of adverse reactions. J Epid Comm Health 33; 150

1979 Infection and immunisation Scot med J 24; 47

1979 Deaths of infants after triple vaccine Lancet 2; 353

1979 Whooping cough in Hertfordshire, UK Lancet 2; 473

1979 Whooping cough in Shetland, UK Brit med J;

1980 Vaccination and notification rates for whooping cough Lancet 1; 1299

1980 Pertussis vaccine: benefits and risks. New Eng J Med 302; 634

1981 Whooping cough in relation to other childhood infections. J Epid Comm Hlth 35; 139 1981 Pertussis vaccine and acute neurological illness in children Brit med J 282, 1968 (with John Wilson)

1981 Medicine and the Community. Chapter 3 in “Legal Issues in Medicine” ed MacLean, SMM, Gower Pub Co., Aldershot, UK.

1982 ABC of whooping cough Brit med J. 284; 1263

1983 Whooping cough in the United States and Britain New Eng J Med 308; 464

1983 Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine Brit med J 287; 287

1983 Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine: Report commissioned by the Chief Scientist, Dept of Health and Social Security (UK) on Risk-benefit of pertussis vaccines in UK, 1964-82 (pp 135).

——————————————————————————————————————

Pretty impressive I am sure that you will agree.

So here is a top M.D and a Emeritus professor of Public Health, who knew exactly what he was talking about and who tried desperately to get the authorities to sit up and take notice of his advice. Sadly however, his advice fell on deaf ears, as all the evidence I am about to expose shows very clearly and the UK Government took no notice of him what so ever, seemingly viewing him as more of an annoyance than a help.

In one of his papers Whooping cough vaccination—Prof Gordon Stewart he said the following about the whooping cough vaccine.

“The contrary view, with which I am identified; is that vaccination has been at best only partially effective in controlling whooping cough and has never been proved to be adequate in protecting infants below one year of age who are in the United Kingdom at least, the only group of children whose health is seriously menaced by whooping cough.

As I view the problem, the marginal advantages of the vaccine in children over one year of age have to be offset against adverse effects of the vaccine itself, which are very common indeed and may be followed occasionally by irreversible brain damage, paralysis and mental deficiency. Because of this danger, or for fear of it, many parents and doctors are reluctant to vaccinate their children.”

Prof Stewart again and again showed his research to the authorities, and it is important to remember that he did not pluck his figures out of thin air nor did he make up evidence, this was something he had studied and researched for many years and he naturally expected that the Government would sit up and take notice, but true to form they did not. Vactruth.com has decided it is high time to expose a couple of Professors Stewart’s letters and show our readers just what does goes on behind the scenes and the type of evidence that our Governments choose to ignore when it comes to using our children as pincushions.

Letter number 1 was written to Mr P Allen the Secretary of the Committee on Safety of Vaccines on the 13^th February 1980.

The letter begins by pointing out that it is very important that all information should be made available to the public about a vaccine. Prof Stewart writes about information regarding the whooping cough vaccine.

“In reply to yours of 11^th February, I am sorry to say that I do not agree with you that there is nothing more that can or should be done; Let me say again that the important matter confronting us is the safety of the vaccine. It is not in the public interest to withhold additional information relating to the safety of a vaccine, which has come to our attention as a result of a collaborative programme and which is highly germane to our report.”

The letter continued a little later to say-

“The situation changed when Dr Pollock, saw fit to assure the public on more than one occasion that the vaccine was ‘perfectly safe’, that fears which had been expressed were groundless and that parents and doctors could therefore use it without fear. The reassuring statements issued by Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and Professors Dudgeon and Miller were in the same vein, although the NCES to which they refer is nowhere near completion”

Then the letter says (and this is worst part)-

“This was so much at variance with what, by that time, our Committee knew to be the case that a caution if not a corrective statement was certainly called for. The lack of a corrective statement amounts to a repetition of the same dismal history which caused the problem in the first place and led to the Ombudsman to blame your department in no uncertain terms.”

I might mention that Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and Professors Dudgeon and Miller were on the the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunization at the time.

Another letter written by Professor Stewart that I came across on my travels, is one written by him to a Dr John Badenoch, who was none other than the Chairman of the JCVI at the time. This letter was written on 15^th May 1981 which was more than a year after the first one. He appears very angry and says:-

Report on Whooping Cough 12.5.81

“The editorial in the BMJ reassures Doctors that pertussis vaccine can safely be given to 600,000 infants and that only two will have serious reactions with permanent disability. This is a dangerous conclusion to draw from your report”

He later says:-

“ The assertion made on pages 179 and 182 that attack rate is significantly affected by rates of vaccine acceptance is statistically untenable and the Department has admitted this in correspondence with me.”

The problem I see with all this, is that many thousands of children suffered permanent disability and death through having the whooping cough vaccine and the Government sat back with their fat cigars and allowed this to happen.

The (4/18/97) The Tainted History of the DPT Vaccine says this about Professor Stewart research

At the moment there is a large push for children to be vaccinated against whooping cough, I would urge parents to read the evidence and weigh up the risks against the benefits and realise that even a vaccinated child can still get whooping cough Whooping cough still infecting millions of vaccinated children …

It is a fact that the Governments do lie and hide facts in a bid to push parents into vaccinating their children as my evidence has shown. Next time you open your newspaper and read about a vaccine and how ‘perfectly safe’ it is, please think twice, it might not be as safe as the Government lead us to believe.

Click here to see both letters.