Cynthia Janak
Renew America
06/12/2010

As I promised I am going to address the global concerns that were presented to the FDA and the question “My daughter is now sick after the HPV vaccination and has warts on her hands and feet. Is HPV really only an STD?”

As we all know Gardasil is administered in the United States. It is now licensed for use under the name Silgard in 120 more countries. In Spain, the Netherlands and in over 100 countries Cervarix is administered.

When reading the many reports of girls adversely affected it becomes quickly evident that the symptoms they are experiencing are part of a pattern of events that are similar wherever the HPV vaccines are administered around the world.

The occurrences are happening months to years’ post vaccination. Freda Birrell was instrumental in putting all this data together for the FDA presentation.

Read the rest of the article.

Lisa Schnirring
CIDRAP
06/02/2010

The risk for the paralytic condition called Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) in people who received pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine was about the same as the risk among those who receive seasonal flu shots, according to preliminary findings released today by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

GBS is a rare side effect of illness or vaccination and was linked to the 1976 swine flu vaccine. Today’s preliminary analysis from the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) suggests there were 0.8 excess cases of GBS per 1 million vaccinations, whereas surveillance for the 1976 pandemic vaccine showed about 10 excess cases per 1 million vaccinations. The CDC published the findings in an early-release edition of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC’s EIP, a collaboration between state health departments and academic centers, conducts disease surveillance in 10 states. Today’s analysis covers patients who were hospitalized with GBS after September 30, 2009, just as the vaccine launched. Researchers interviewed patients who met the GBS classification definition by phone to gather more information about their medical and vaccination history.

The group calculated GBS incidence for vaccinated and unvaccinated populations by using data from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and its national 2009 H1N1 flu telephone survey.

The EIP identified 326 GBS cases that met the case criteria, of which 27 patients had received the pandemic vaccine within 42 days before illness onset and 274 had not received the vaccine. Status was unknown or pending for 25 of the cases. Sixteen (59%) of the 27 who had received the pandemic vaccine also reported other illness symptoms in the 42 days before GBS onset. Meanwhile, 78% of unvaccinated patients reported other illness symptoms before GBS onset.

Read the rest of the article.

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.

Cathy O’Leary
The West Australian
05/28/2010

Australian health authorities are still offering no explanation for a spike in bad reactions in young children having the flu vaccine, more than a month after they were forced to suspend the program.

But GPs said it has led to a drop in the number of adults and older children having flu vaccine. Some doctors said they were not going out of their way to recommend it to otherwise healthy people.

_The West Australian _understands health authorities around the country were in meetings this week about the suspended vaccination program in children under of five. Following a spate of children treated for convulsions, the WA Health Department halted its free program for under-fives on April 22 and a day later the Commonwealth Health Department suspended the program nationally.

Read the rest of the article.

JOHN GARNAUT
TheAge.com.au
05/14/2010

ON MARCH 19, Shandong farmer Li Baoxiang consented to his only son being vaccinated for swine flu. That night, eight-year-old Li Zhikang said he felt sick. By the morning his body was trembling all over. Yesterday the father stood with tears streaming down his face at Beijing Children’s Hospital as his boy struggled for life inside a crib in the intensive care unit. ”He’s my only child,” Li said. ”My own mother is sick and I cannot bring myself to tell her why we have come to Beijing. I’m such a trivial and ordinary person. I know I can’t fight against the government.”

Li’s family tragedy has become a conflict with the Chinese government because no official would investigate his claim that a dodgy vaccination had made his child sick. He tried the town, city, provincial and central governments, and various departments within each of them, only to be told each time that his problem should be taken some place else.

The person who did listen was Wang Keqin, chief reporter at the China Economic Times. Wang had earned a reputation as one of China’s leading investigative journalists after exposing how mafia groups controlled Beijing’s taxi industry, how mafia henchman had gunned down farmers at the village of Dingzhou after being called in by its Communist Party chief to resolve a land dispute, and also how collusion and cover-ups with blood transfusions in Henan province had caused a horrendous AIDS epidemic among the poorest peasants who lived there.

Read the rest of the story.