VacTruth.com http://vactruth.com Your Child. Your Choice. Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:00:37 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0 The CDC: A Truly Corrupt and Dangerous Organization http://vactruth.com/2014/09/10/cdc-corrupt-and-dangerous/ http://vactruth.com/2014/09/10/cdc-corrupt-and-dangerous/#comments Thu, 11 Sep 2014 03:20:02 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16332 Over the years, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has repeatedly deceived and lied to the public, yet they continue to state that their mission is to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.

They boldly announce on their website that the “CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise,” and yet there is more and more evidence to suggest that their so called ‘scientific evidence’ has been skewed and deliberately tampered with to gain the desired results. [1]

During the course of this article, I am going to give five recent examples of CDC fraud or deception. Each one of my examples will demonstrate when the CDC has deliberately altered or withheld scientific evidence in a bid to misinform the public.

Example #1: CDC Whistleblower Announces That the MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

Last month, Dr. Andrew Wakefield revealed that, during telephone conversations between biochemist Brian Hooker and a CDC whistleblower, later named as William Thompson, Thompson admitted that the CDC had deliberately withheld crucial evidence proving that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine caused autism.

Dr. Thompson told Dr. Hooker that, in 2003, research carried out by the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, revealed that when African-American boys under the age of 36 months were given the MMR vaccine, the rate of autism in this group rose by 340 percent.

In a desperate bid to cover up this tragedy, the CDC decided to fix the data and eliminated all African-American boys without a Georgia birth certificate. In doing so, the number of children suffering from autism caused by the vaccine reduced significantly, giving the CDC the results they desired.

In an article sourced from Focus Autism Foundation, referenced by Roger Landry, founder of The Liberty Beacon, the authors stated:

“According to Dr. Hooker, the CDC whistleblower informant— who wishes to remain anonymous (since named as William Thompson)— guided him to evidence that a statistically significant relationship between the age the MMR vaccine was first given and autism incidence in African-American boys was hidden by CDC researchers. After data were gathered on 2,583 children living in Atlanta, Georgia who were born between 1986 and 1993, CDC researchers excluded children that did not have a valid State of Georgia birth certificate — reducing the sample size being studied by 41%. Hooker explains that by introducing this arbitrary criteria into the analysis, the cohort size was sharply reduced, eliminating the statistical power of the findings and negating the strong MMR-autism link in African American boys.” [2]

On August 27, 2014, William Thompson, PhD, issued this statement. He wrote:

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27, 2014
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson.  I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.

Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives.  I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.”

He continued:

“I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.” [3]

In other words, if Dr. Hooker had not had the tenacity and foresight to record those telephone calls, lifting the lid on the CDC’s deception, it is unlikely that this information would have ever been made public.

Example #2: Fact – Thimerosal in Vaccinations Can Cause Children to Develop Tics

It appears that Dr. Thompson’s guilty conscience has caught up with him, because during his many telephone conversations with Dr. Hooker, he dropped yet another bombshell. The whistleblower revealed that not only had the MMR been responsible for an increase in the cases of autism seen in African-American boys, but that vaccinating pregnant women with vaccinations containing the preservative thimerosal is known to cause children to suffer from tics (sudden, repetitive movements or sounds that can be difficult to control) after they are born.

In an extremely revealing recording of the conversation between whistleblower Dr. William Thompson and Dr. Brian Hooker, we can clearly hear Thompson state:

“Thimerosal from vaccines causes tics. You start a campaign and make it your mantra. Do you think a pregnant mother would want to take a vaccine that they knew caused tics? Absolutely not, I would never give my wife a vaccine that I thought caused tics. I can say tics are four times more prevalent in kids with autism. There is a biological plausibility right now to say that Thimerosal causes autism like features!” [4]

These are strong words from the whistleblower, because during that conversation, he actually verified that giving a pregnant women a vaccination containing thimerosal could heighten the risk of their unborn child developing autism as a result.

Note: although thimerosal, a form of mercury, has been removed from many of the vaccinations in use today, the preservative still remains in flu vaccines given to pregnant women.

Example # 3: CDC Found to be Responsible for the Death of Thousands of Unborn Children

Carrying on with the theme of vaccinations being given to pregnant women, in 2012, Eileen Danneman from the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) accused the CDC of “willful misconduct,” stating that she believed the CDC was responsible for causing the deaths of thousands of unborn babies.

She stated that the CDC had deliberately misled the nation’s obstetricians and gynecologists and colluded with the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) to mislead the public by advertising the flu vaccine as a safe vaccine for pregnant women when members of the CDC knew fully well that the vaccine was causing a massive spike in fetal deaths.

Documentation received from Ms. Dannemann revealed that that between 2009 and 2010, mercury-laden combined flu vaccinations increased Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems (VAERS) fetal death reports by 4,250 percent in pregnant women. Dannemann, NCOW’s director, made abundantly clear that despite these figures being known to the CDC, the multiple-strain, inactivated flu vaccine containing mercury (thimerosal) had been recommended to pregnant women as a safe vaccination.

In a letter to Dr. Mercola, Dannemann wrote:

“The Advisory Committee on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) and CDC were confronted with the VAERS data from NCOW on September 3, 2010, in Washington, D.C., and then again by conference call on September 10, and then again in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2010. On both September 3 and September 10, Dr. Marie McCormick clearly denied that there were any adverse events for pregnant women from the 2009 flu vaccine.”

However, despite being presented with the facts and figures regarding the dangers of the vaccination by the NCOW, evidence revealed that the CDC deliberately concealed this fact.

At a conference a few weeks after the CDC had received the information from the NCOW, the CDC’s Dr. Shimabakuru gave a presentation on significant adverse reactions to the H1N1 vaccine, such as cases of Guillan-Barre syndrome, which appeared to have risen three percent, claiming it as an insignificant signal.

He made no mention of the adverse events related to pregnant women.

As luck would have it, however, his attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of the audience were foiled when he was challenged by a member of the audience asking if the vaccine caused adverse events in pregnancy. Feeling cornered, he reluctantly looked in his bag and rather sheepishly presented a slide that corroborated the NCOW data, confirming that the CDC knew of the spike in fetal deaths in the fall of 2010. [5]

So, why did Dr. Shimabkauru have a slide containing compromising evidence in his bag? Why did he decide to hide the slide? Surely, if he had prepared a slide outlining this crucial data, it would have made sense to include the slide in his presentation. After all, a 4,250 percent increase in fetal deaths is far more significant that a three percent increase in Guillan-Barre syndrome, don’t you agree?

See reference [6] for full story and documents to support this.

Example #4: The CDC Admitted That Polio Vaccinations Cause Polio but Promote Them Anyway

In 2012, the CDC wrote a press release titled Update on Vaccine-Derived Polioviruses — Worldwide. They wrote:

“In 1988, the World Health Assembly resolved to eradicate poliomyelitis worldwide. One of the main tools used in polio eradication efforts has been the live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). This inexpensive vaccine is administered easily by mouth, makes recent recipients resistant to infection by wild polioviruses (WPVs), and provides long-term protection against paralytic disease through durable humoral immunity. Nonetheless, rare cases of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis can occur both among immunologically normal OPV recipients and their contacts and among persons who are immunodeficient. In addition, vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) can emerge to cause polio outbreaks in areas with low OPV coverage and can replicate for years in persons who are immunodeficient.” (emphasis added)

They continued:

VDPVs can cause paralytic polio in humans and have the potential for sustained circulation. VDPVs resemble WPVs biologically and differ from most vaccine-related poliovirus (VRPV) isolates by having genetic properties consistent with prolonged replication or transmission. VDPVs were first identified by sequence analyses of poliovirus isolates.” (emphasis added)

The CDC recommended that the best way to deal with this problem was “mass vaccination” and stated:

“To prevent VDPV emergence and spread, all countries should maintain high vaccination coverage against all three poliovirus serotypes.” [7]

This proves that yet again the CDC actively promote vaccinations despite knowing their dangers.

Finally – Example # 5: CDC Caught Changing the Risk Criteria for Ebola Transmission

It appears that the CDC has been secretly changing their data on the risks of ebola entering the US on their website. Could this be in preparation for an onslaught of new vaccinations that are heading our way?

On August 29, 2014, the CDC announced:

“On August 28, 2014, NIH announced that initial human testing of an investigational vaccine to prevent Ebola virus disease will begin next week by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health.

The early-stage trial will begin initial human testing of a vaccine co-developed by NIAID and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and will evaluate the experimental vaccine’s safety and ability to generate an immune system response in healthy adults. Testing will take place at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

The study is the first of several Phase 1 clinical trials that will examine the investigational NIAID/GSK Ebola vaccine and an experimental Ebola vaccine developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada and licensed to NewLink Genetics Corp. The others are to launch in the fall. These trials are conducted in healthy adults who are not infected with Ebola virus to determine if the vaccine is safe and induces an adequate immune response.” [8]

Given this fact, it is hardly surprising that the CDC has been quietly changing certain ebola facts on their website, is it?

John Galt from the website Shenandoah has clearly demonstrated that the CDC has been quietly revising the information regarding transmission risks on their website, while steadfastly maintaining that there is little chance of airborne transmission. He stated:

“On Thursday, August 7, the CDC quietly revised the transmission risks while maintaining there was little chance of airborne transmission of Ebola via their minions and bureaucrats speaking out in the mainstream media. The shocking part of the revision is within the footnotes which few civilians bother to read and put their trust in government officials to protect their families and their livelihoods.”

Mr. Galt continued:

“From the CDC website, I took these screen shots just in case they decided to “delete” or revise the changes made above so I can keep a permanent record of what is happening with this latest contagious disease outbreak.”

It is a good job he did, because, if he is correct, then the screenshots that he has given on his website clearly show that on August 7, 2014, the CDC stated:

“Low risk exposures

A low risk exposure includes any of the following:

  • Household member or other casual contact with an EVD patient
  • Providing patient care or casual contact1 without high-risk exposure with EVD patients in health care facilities in EVD outbreak affected countries” (emphasis added)

The CDC carried on to state:

“Casual contact is defined as a) being within approximately 3 feet (1 meter) or within the room or care area for a prolonged period of time (e.g., healthcare personnel, household members) while not wearing recommended personal protective equipment (i.e., droplet and contact precautions–see Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations); or b) having direct brief contact (e.g., shaking hands) with an EVD case while not wearing recommended personal protective equipment (i.e., droplet and contact precautions–see Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations). At this time, brief interactions, such as walking by a person or moving through a hospital, do not constitute casual contact.”

John Galt continued his article by adding the following witty comment:

“Excuse me? Low risk exposure? Before this update on August 7th the running mainstream media theme that there was little if any risk of airborne exposure and suddenly they quietly revise the page among numerous internet stories about aerial transmission of the disease in West Africa. Perhaps if one is standing in one of these famous TSA check in lines, they might start to think about the “low risk” propaganda the government is having everyone believe at this time with the sudden revision.” [10]

He could be right, but could this sudden change have been made with a new vaccine program in mind?

Conclusion

It is clear that the CDC cannot be trusted when it comes to giving advice about vaccinations. Over the years, evidence has shown that the CDC continually lies, withholds evidence and fixes data to obtain the results that they want to achieve.

Due to their continual dishonesty, many children have suffered lifelong disabilities as a result. Although, for many of their parents, the latest revelations have offered a glimmer of hope in a very dark world, it has also caused many parents to just break down and weep, like one mother known to myself.

This is a tragic waste of the future potential of thousands of children worldwide. How much longer are parents going to continue to trust this corrupt and dangerous organization when it comes to the health of their children?

 

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/09/10/cdc-corrupt-and-dangerous/feed/ 324
This Is the Way One Father Told His Pediatrician “No” to Vaccines http://vactruth.com/2014/09/07/informed-parents-vaccine-exemption/ http://vactruth.com/2014/09/07/informed-parents-vaccine-exemption/#comments Sun, 07 Sep 2014 13:32:13 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16326 What does an informed parent look like? We’ll show you.

Below is a letter written by Bob O’Kane, a concerned parent, to his pediatrician about vaccines and the danger they pose to his child. This letter is one great example of how to approach your doctor, especially if you have looked into the matter further and are uncomfortable with their stance on the topic.

The name of the doctor has been intentionally omitted.


Doctor XXX,

My wife and I would like to say it was an absolute pleasure to meet you. We thank you for taking the time with us the other day to discuss our beautiful little daughter XXX.

I was wondering if I could take a moment to discuss something with you real quick regarding the notes I read this evening in her file. Please note, this is a very calm letter and not meant to start a debate in any way. We value your profession and position.

That being said, It’s in my opinion that the some of the comments are a bit misleading and was wondering if you could add this email to your notes. Please note we understand you are extremely busy and probably had to summarize the appointment the best you could.

You mentioned in your report “PARENTS ( my wife and I) REFUSE TO SIGN THE VACCINE WAIVER BECAUSE THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE USED AGAINST THEM AND CAN BE USED TO TAKE THEIR CHILD AWAY. I EXPLAINED THIS IS THE REC OF THE AAP AND MY OFFICE POLICY. THEY REFUSE TO SIGN. EXPLAINED MY OPINION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF VACCINES AND THEY UNDERSTOOD WILL THINK ABOUT VACCINATING………”

A few things to note here. First and most most importantly, we refused to sign the document because there was no legal statute or requirement for us to sign such a document. This was the main basis for the non signature. We simply do not have to. Nor is there any legal basis for AAP to require such signature. I also specifically mentioned that there has been cases surfacing around the country whereas a parents signature on such a document was used against the parents.

For the record I never, ever once said “we fear losing our child.” This statement, with respect, is erroneous and can lead to a misinterpretation. I has also mentioned we are in fact of a religious exemption which was granted to our family on the 20th of May, 2014.

We also specifically stated that our concerns were not only with the ingredients listed on the vaccines and the disclaimers on the vaccine inserts, but the overall fear we had was that our child could break out in the hive/rashes she did shortly after receiving her Hepatitis B shot. If it was only after those hives/rashes appeared that we had blood testing done which determined our lovely daughter had elevated liver functions. This was the majority of our rationale behind not giving her shots as I implied.

The other reasons were the materials we read at the cdc and fda website.

 

First, the disclaimers on vaccine inserts or lack of disclaimers was a concern. The disclaimers clearly state the possible side effects. Yet, not one Doctor in the past had those ready for us. Nor did they provide them when the vaccine was opened. We had to do the research ourselves. And honestly, I’m glad we did. Especially with the amount of information surfacing lately that research was or could have been manipulated.

In addition, the head of the CDC in an April/May radio show admitted the so called measles outbreak in New York consisted of 23 cases of which 20 people who got the measles had previously been vaccinated and thus nobody could be assured the vaccines actually work. (this is public information on the CDC website, and put a dent in the so called “herd immunity” theory.).. The other three cases involved foreigners. Our last Doctor even told us people are dying. Dr. XXXX, do you know how many people have died in the past 10 years? The number is in fact less than all the fingers I have on my hands. Again, this is public record available through the CDC and not some Google search result.

The last concern was the ingredients and the amount of Aluminum and by-products that are in the vaccines which so happened to have been the center of several House Oversight Committee hearings on Capital Hill. I also stated that the cdc and fda have conflicting views when it came to amount of Aluminum which should be injected into an individual based on their body weight.

I quote (and I encourage you to check my sources:) )

According to the FDA:

Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration (this means injected into the body] if kidney function is impaired . . . Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates (babies), who received parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity [for a tiny newborn, this toxic dose would be 10 to 20 micrograms, and for an adult it would be about 350 micrograms). Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.” (Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Document NDA 19-626/S-019, Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for Dextrose Injections.)

And also:

Aluminum content in parenteral drug products could result in a toxic accumulation of aluminum in individuals receiving TPN therapy. Research indicates that neonates [newborns] and patient populations with impaired kidney function may be at high risk of exposure to unsafe amounts of aluminum. Studies show that aluminum may accumulate in the bone, urine, and plasma of infants receiving TPN. Many drug products used in parenteral therapy (injections) may contain levels of aluminum sufficiently high to cause clinical manifestations (symptoms) . . . parenteral aluminum bypasses the protective mechanism of the GI tract and aluminum circulates and is deposited in human tissues. Aluminum toxicity is difficult to identify in infants because few reliable techniques are available to evaluate bone metabolism in . . . infants . . . Although aluminum toxicity is not commonly detected clinically, it can be serious in selected patient populations, such as neonates (newborns), and may be more common than is recognized.” (Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Document 02N-0496, Aluminum in Large and Small Volume Parenterals Used in Total Parenteral Nutrition. Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/oc0367.pdf)”

Doctor XXXX, the FDA maximum requirements for aluminum received in an IV is 25 mcg per day. The suggested aluminum per kg of weight to give to a person is up to 5mcg. (so a 5 pounds baby should get no more than 11mcg of aluminum.) Anything that has more than 25 mcg of aluminum is a very valid concern for us when it comes to (our daughter).

Research indicates that “patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 (micro)g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration. (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=201.323)”

But did you know most Vaccines, for some reason, are not required to have a label containing this information and that practitioners also are not required to follow the maximum dosage of 25 mcg? This is something that actually was very troubling to us.

So doing some math — the following are examples of weight with their corresponding maximum levels of aluminum, per the FDA:

  • 8 pound, healthy baby: 18.16 mcg of aluminum
  • 15 pound, healthy baby: 34.05 mcg of aluminum
  • 30 pound, healthy toddler: 68.1 mcg of aluminum
  • 50 pound, healthy child: 113 mcg of aluminum
  • 150 pound adult: 340.5 mcg of aluminum
  • 350 pound adult: 794.5 mcg of aluminum

So how much aluminum is in the vaccines that are routinely given to children?

  • Hib (PedVaxHib brand only) – 225 mcg per shot
  • Hepatitis B – 250 mcg
  • DTaP – depending on the manufacturer, ranges from 170 to 625 mcg
  • Pneumococcus – 125 mcg
  • Hepatitis A – 250 mcg
  • HPV – 225 mcg
  • Pentacel (DTaP, HIB and Polio combo vaccine) – 330 mcg
  • Pediarix (DTaP, Hep B and Polio combo vaccine) – 850 mcg

The HEP-B shot alone is almost 14 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM THAT IS FDA-APPROVED. The MMR? The dTap? All have similar amounts.

So in summary Doctor XXXX, when we did our due diligence, this info scared the hell out of us. Especially considering what happened to (our daughter) shortly after the Hep B was administered to her.

Continuing, I mentioned what made us leave our last Doctor was that she wanted to give our daughter 8 vaccinations at once. And in doing the math, that would have added up to more than 1,000 mcg of aluminum. Even when one, who is not familiar with toxicity levels and the science behind them, looks at the chart above can notice that amount isn’t even safe for a 350 pound adult let alone a child who weighs less than 25lbs.

According to the FDA and the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics), what happens if a child receives more than the maximum required dose of aluminum?

  • Aluminum builds up in the bones and brain and can be toxic to the body and its organs.
  • Aluminum “can” cause neurological harm.
  • Aluminum overdose can be fatal in patients with weak kidney’s or kidney disorders or in premature babies.
  • (Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children, Committee on Nutrition,American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics Volume 97, Number 3 March, 1996, pp. 413-416)”

In summary, our reasons, even though we have an issued exemption in the State of Florida, were valid enough to hold off on vaccinations and the ingredients that are used in them as adjuvants. Especially when one considers what happened shortly after her first HEP-B shot.

In closing, I thank you for taking the short time to read my email. We firmly admire your practice and the personnel you have and look forward in continuing XXXX’s care with you. She deserves the best, and we think we found it.

Respectfully Yours’,

Robert O’Kane

ps- yes we are considering the shots as she gets older. But in the meantime can you order for us an a screen to determine if XXXX’s immune compromised? This will help us a great deal considering thousands of cases that went through the vaccine court in the past decade showed many injuries and deaths resulted in the failure to pre-detect if children had a compromised immune system prior to any shots.


 

 Photo Credit

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/09/07/informed-parents-vaccine-exemption/feed/ 604
12-year-old Girl Dies Hours After She is Injected with HPV Vaccine http://vactruth.com/2014/08/19/vaccine-time-bomb-12-year-old-girl-dies/ http://vactruth.com/2014/08/19/vaccine-time-bomb-12-year-old-girl-dies/#comments Tue, 19 Aug 2014 12:48:38 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16317 The family of a 12-year-old girl from Wisconsin who died hours after receiving an HPV vaccine is grieving the loss of their daughter. Meredith Prohaska, described as being an extremely active and healthy girl, passed away on July 30th. [1]

According to a news report, Meredith’s mother took her to the doctor for a sore throat. At the doctor appointment, she received the HPV vaccine. Later in the afternoon, the mother found her daughter unresponsive on the floor, and she was later pronounced dead at the hospital. The parents suspect the vaccine as the primary cause of their daughter’s death. However, Meredith’s autopsy report rules her cause of death as inconclusive. [2]

Medical dogma is immune to “new insights,” especially when it comes from a parent on this topic, specifically. Many families also share Meredith’s story; the pain and emotional suffering is all too familiar. [3]

But despite her death, every excuse will be given to point away from the vaccine – this is called medical indoctrination – and there is a very good reason for doing so. The banal message from medical investigators, likely being to the grieving parents: “We don’t know what killed your daughter, but we know it was not the vaccine … vaccines are proven to be safe and effective. We’re terribly sorry for your loss.”

This is almost the exact message Dr. Geoffrey Swain offered, like a good little parrot, in the news interview immediately following the conversation with the grieving parents. He has an important role calming parents’ fears about vaccines, and his motives to manipulate public opinion were not so obvious, but if you knew he received money from the CDC or an organization that promotes vaccines, you may have a different opinion of him. More on that later in the article.

While it is reported the medical tests for the young girl will take months to get back for an answer, you can take this predictable script from the medical investigators to the bank.

Here’s why…

The System is Protected

Did you know, as an example, global sales for Gardasil, just one of the HPV vaccines manufactured by Merck Pharmaceuticals, were $1.8 billion in 2013? [4]

Did you also know since 2006, over 35,270 adverse events caused by HPV vaccines have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)? [5] This certainly isn’t news to government agencies and it shouldn’t be to you, either.

The same companies that manufacture vaccines also create drugs that are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States – they have a bad track record of leaving a path of death and destruction. [6,7]

I say all of this because the hard-to-swallow-truth is this: profits from selling vaccines are protected by law. Profits from selling vaccines must be protected at all costs. And yes – vaccine manufacturers profit in the hundreds of millions every year, peddling their vaccines to doctors and government agencies.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Under this program, vaccine manufacturers (and doctors) are given complete immunity from any legal liability if your child is harmed by their product. [8]

This law gives parents, like Meredith’s, few options to seek compensation legally. However, this law does not prohibit you from asking your doctor questions about vaccines or to exempt your child from being injected.

Coincidentally, questioning vaccines is the biggest enemy to pharmaceutical profits and the system. And here’s the kicker: For this system to work; you must be convinced to get your child vaccinated.

Adverse Reactions to Vaccines are Usually Downplayed

In society, it is taboo to question your doctor about vaccines, who, more often than not, act like a “Shot Salesman” or a puppet for the pharmaceutical industry, like Dr. Geoffrey Swain, instead of a medical professional.

During the news report of Meredith Prohaska’s death, Dr. Geoffrey Swain, a professor and medical doctor at the Milwaukee Health Department, states, “Vaccines in general and the HPV vaccine in particular, very, very safe. It’s a very safe vaccine and very effective,” and that, “serious side effects are nearly one in a million …” [2]

Why would Geoffrey downplay the role of vaccines in Meredith Prohaska’s death in a news interview?

Could it be because he received an award from the Centers for Disease Control for over $900,000 to investigate immunization rates? Or possibly because he received over $159,999 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a vaccine promoting non profit organization, investigating how school-based clinics could increase immunization rates? [9]

Maybe his roles for the Immunization Task Force for Milwaukee Public Schools, Wisconsin Council on Immunization Practices, and National Immunization Advisory Workgroup, National Association of County & City Health Officials (NACCHO) have some influence on why he promotes vaccines? [9]

Are you sure there isn’t a hidden agenda?

Whatever his motivations are, Meredith Prohaska’s death is a public relations disaster waiting to happen and her autopsy report must remain inconclusive. Admitting a vaccine is at fault for her death would “scare” other parents into not getting their child vaccinated, and that’s certainly not good for business.

One of the most powerful and effective actions you can take on becoming an informed parent, is to start investigating vaccines right now.

Summary

The sudden loss of Meredith Prohaska’s young life ending shortly after being vaccinated is a most tragic story.

Sadly, I predict her parents will not get many answers as to the root cause of her death. I understand many of you reading this story can empathize with her parents because you have also met this medically imposed “wall of silence.”

Nothing could damage the reputation of a company brand more than their vaccine maiming or killing children – this subject is strictly forbidden from being discussed.

 

Help Meredith's FamilyClick to Donate

 

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/08/19/vaccine-time-bomb-12-year-old-girl-dies/feed/ 99
Are Vaccines Right for Your Child? Debunking the Myths of the DTaP Vaccine http://vactruth.com/2014/08/17/dtap-vaccine-myths/ http://vactruth.com/2014/08/17/dtap-vaccine-myths/#comments Sun, 17 Aug 2014 13:27:12 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16310 Families with new babies who query vaccinations in Arizona are being given a wad of paperwork assuring them that vaccinations are safe and effective. Reading through this information, I was shocked to see exactly what these vulnerable parents are being told, because, as usual, they are only being told half the story.

Part one of the paperwork, titled Infections Are the Enemy, Not Vaccines, was written by Karen Lewis, MD, the Medical Director of the Arizona Immunization Program Office for the Arizona Department of Health Services and published by the magazine Immunications. She wrote:

“My first exposure to antivaccine fervor was during my pediatric infectious disease fellowship at UCLA. At that time, whooping cough vaccine was being blamed for encephalopathy, mental retardation, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). In Japan there was a period where parents lost confidence in the pertussis vaccines (Whooping Cough), and stopped immunizing their children. The result of not vaccinating was that scores of infants died yearly from pertussis in Japan before new acellular pertussis vaccines won acceptance.”

While this statement is true, it only tells parents part of the truth. It appears that Dr. Lewis seemingly forgot to mention the following important facts.

Inaccuracies Ironed Out

Let us first examine the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine. The DTP was first introduced to the vaccine schedules during the 1930s and was problematic from the onset, as adverse reactions quickly began to emerge.

The DTP vaccine is a whole cell vaccine. A whole cell vaccine is a vaccine containing a killed virus or bacteria. The DTP vaccine contains the killed Bordetella bacterium, the bacteria causing the whooping cough infection.

The bacterium is killed using either a physical or chemical process.

The DTP Vaccination’s Tainted History

In 1948, Randolph Byers and Frederick Moll, from Harvard Medical School, had become so concerned about the numbers of adverse reactions being reported following vaccinations that they carried out a study. They concluded that the DTP vaccination caused a number of children to suffer from severe neurological problems, including seizures.

Their study was published in the medical journal Pediatrics. [1] They wrote:

“Inspection of the records of the Children’s Hospital for the past ten years has disclosed 15 instances in which children developed acute cerebral symptoms within a period of hours after the administration of pertussis vaccine. The children varied between 5 and 18 months in age and, in so far as it is possible to judge children of this age range, were developing normally according to histories supplied by their parents. None had had convulsions previously. Many different lots of vaccine, made by eight different manufacturers over a period of eight years, were implicated. The inoculations were given throughout the usual geographic range of children coming to this hospital. All but one, at the time of follow-up or death, showed evidence of impairment of the nervous system, which might still have been in the healing stage in three or four.

During the same period about half as many children were seen in the hospital suffering from the encephalopathy secondary to smallpox vaccination, and about twice as many from the encephalopathy complicating pertussis itself.”

Despite writing an informative paper which was full of facts and figures, their paper was ignored by the medical and pharmaceutical communities. As a result, more and more children began to develop worrisome adverse reactions.

In the early 1970s, Professor Gordon Stewart wrote a series of papers raising his concerns about the vaccine. In the paper, titled Toxicity of pertussis vaccine: frequency and probability of reactions, he wrote:

“To date, File A contains identifying data on 1127 children notified or detected from these various sources. All of these children are reported as having had reactions to triple vaccine (DPT) or, rarely, to pertussis vaccine given alone, followed by severe brain damage. During the same period 17 children have been notified as having had reactions followed by brain damage after receiving other vaccines (seven smallpox, four measles, three rubella, three diphtheria-tetanus).

File B, with 110 variables each with up to nine sub-variables, is built up as independent medical and other evidence is obtained. The present report deals with 197 cases in which the evidence is reasonably complete.” [2]

Once again, despite the vast amount of information contained in his paper, his paper and his concerns were ignored.

The DTP and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

The problems being reported continued to escalate, finally coming to a head in 1975 when Japan took the unprecedented decision to stop vaccinating children under the age of two with the DPT vaccine. Their decision had a dramatic effect as Dr. Viera Scheibner explained:

“JAPAN: In 1975, about 37 Crib Sudden Deaths were linked to vaccination in Japan. Doctors in one prefecture boycotted vaccinations, and refused to vaccinate. The Japanese government paid attention and stopped vaccinating children below the age of two years. When immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age, Sudden Infant Death cases and claims for vaccine related deaths disappeared. Japan zoomed from a high 17th place in infant mortality rate to the lowest infant mortality rate in the world when they stopped vaccinating. Japan didn’t vaccinate any children below the age of two years between 1975 and 1988, for thirteen years. But then in 1988, Japanese parents were given the choice to start vaccinating anywhere between three months and 48 months. The Ministry study group studied 2,720 SIDS cases occurring between 1980 and 1992 and they established that their very low SIDS rate quadrupled.” [3]

Despite Japan’s stance and the dramatic results that followed, little action was taken and children continued to be vaccinated with this dangerous vaccine.

Hundreds of Children Died Following the DTP Vaccine Before Action Was Taken

A flurry of reports followed, each and every one of them reporting cases of children dying suddenly from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) after receiving the DTP vaccine.

In 1983, Baraff LJ et al. wrote a paper titled Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome, which was later published in Pediatric Infectious Diseases.

They wrote:

“Because diphtheria and tetanus toxoids pertussis (DTP) vaccine is routinely given during the period of highest incidence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), this study was undertaken to determine if there is a temporal association between DTP immunization and SIDS. Parents of 145 SIDS victims who died in Los Angeles County between January 1, 1979, and August 23, 1980, were contacted and interviewed regarding their child’s recent immunization history. Fifty-three had received a DTP immunization. Of these 53, 27 had received a DTP immunization within 28 days of death. Six SIDS deaths occurred within 24 hours and 17 occurred within 1 week of DTP immunization.” [4]

Still no action was taken.

In 1980, Professor Gordon T. Stewart wrote a further paper titled The Whooping Cough Vaccination which was published by the magazine Here’s Health. He wrote:

“There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK alone some hundreds, if not thousands, of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly and that their lives and those of their parents have been wrecked in consequence.

There are also, to my certain knowledge, a number of deaths after vaccination in the UK and the USA which await explanation. I see no use or justification for this kind of medical policy, and I think that the use of pertussis vaccine should be discontinued until, by better research or a better vaccine, these doubts are resolved.” [5]

In 1996, Harris L. Coutler wrote the paper titled SIDS and Seizures, in which he stated:

“”Crib death” was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s with the spread of mass vaccination against diseases of childhood. It became a matter of public and professional concern and even acquired a new name, “sudden infant death of unknown origin.” or, for short, SIDS.” (sic) [6]

All of these papers were in line with Dr. Viera Scheibner’s ground-breaking paper titled Dynamics of critical days as part of the dynamics of non-specific stress syndrome discovered during monitoring with Cotwatch breathing monitor, which was full of scientific evidence proving that babies can have severe adverse reactions to vaccinations at critical intervals following their vaccinations. [7]

Replacing One Dangerous Vaccine With Another

Beginning to worry slightly, instead of suspending the whooping cough vaccine until further notice, as one would expect, world governments decided that it would be a great idea to replace one dangerous vaccination with another, and in 1991, many replaced the DTP with the DTaP on their vaccine schedules.

The DTaP is an acellular vaccine, meaning that the vaccine contains two or more antigens but no whole cells. (An antigen is a harmful substance that causes the body to produce antibodies.)

Within a few years of this vaccine being introduced, papers began to emerge stating that this vaccine was another vaccine not to be trusted.

In 1998, Kris Gaublomme, MD, wrote a paper published in The International Vaccine titled Acellular Pertussis. Dr. Gaublomme highlighted the fact that data being produced on the safety issues of the acellular vaccine was contradictory. He wrote:

“The data on the safety of the new acellular vaccine are contradictory. The Japanese study (I) e.g. mentions that “the vaccine does not have detectable side-effects”, whereas the introduction of the same article says that “it is less than one-tenth as toxic as whole-cell vaccine …”. How can a quantitative comparison be made if there is “no detectable side-effect” at all? Poland argues that in a recent Swedish vaccine trial, there was no benefit of the acellular vaccine over the whole-cell vaccine as to efficacy nor as to “the frequency of serious adverse events, including hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes.” (sic)

Local side-effects are generally admitted. They consist of redness and swelling.

Systemic reactions, however, also occur. Examples are fever, drowsiness, irritability, prolonged, high-pitched crying and seizures.

In one study there was no difference with the old vaccine with respect to fussiness, antipyretic use, drowsiness, or anorexia.

Uberall noticed convulsions within three days of vaccination occurred in 1/15,912 doses in DTaP recipients.

Persistent inconsolable crying, a sure sign of brain inflammation, was present in 1/497 doses.

High fever (<40.5°C) was observed in 1/16,239 doses. One hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode was observed in 4,273 DTaP recipients.

Fever, injection site redness, swelling, and pain increased in prevalence with increasing numbers of injections. For children receiving DTaP as a fourth dose, injection site redness and swelling occurred more frequently in DtaP primed than in DTwP-primed children.”  [8] (emphasis added)

Despite this paper and many others indicating that adverse reactions to the whooping cough vaccine were still occurring, the CDC continued to bury its head in the sand, and instead of being honest, decided to conceal the facts from the public.

In March 2014, Paul G. King, PhD, wrote a paper titled A fact-based Assessment of blind eye to scientific fraud is dangerous. He wrote:

“According to the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, vaccination, introduced in the 1940s, brought the number of cases per year down from 107,473 in 1922 to just 1,248 in 1981. Since 1982, however, the number of cases has steadily increased.

As Bass JW, et al. predicted in 1987 and confirmed in 1994, the increase in the reported clinical cases of ‘whooping cough’ since 1982 has been caused by a failed vaccine program.

Moreover, the failure is increasingly evident despite the CDC’s attempt to conceal that failure by adding first more and more doses of the DTaP vaccine and, after the children are 7 years of age, now recommending that children be given a Tdap vaccine since giving a DTaP vaccine to anyone over 7 years of age can be fatal to the inoculated individual.” (sic) [9]

In other words, the DTaP is not only dangerous, but it DOESN’T WORK!!

Dr. Lewis Defends Thimerosal

Throughout her paper, Dr. Lewis wrote about what she calls the ‘anti-vaccine fervor,’ continually mixing up the truth with fiction. She wrote:

“ … Accusations focused on thimerosal, an ethyl-mercury-containing vaccine preservative. There had never been any scientific evidence of adverse effects from thimerosal. Still, to be on the safe side, in 1999 the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that thimerosal-containing vaccines be removed from vaccines. Thimerosal became the new object of blame.” (emphasis added)

The Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics may well have recommended that thimerosal should be removed from vaccines; however, many vaccines still contain the preservative today.

What Dr. Lewis Did Not Tell Parents About Thimerosal

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound used as a preservative in many vaccines since the 1930s. Despite being 49.6 percent ethyl mercury, a highly toxic poison that is geno-toxic and neurotoxic, thimerosal is said to help prevent potentially life-threatening contamination from harmful microbes.

Although the preservative was not used in all vaccinations (for example, it has never been used in measles-mumps-rubella or chickenpox vaccines), it was originally used in the manufacture of many early vaccines and, for many years, has been frequently linked to neurological problems in children, such as autism and ADHD. [10] [11]

As stated by Dr. Lewis in 1999, the Public Health Service and the AAP recommended that thimerosal be taken out of vaccines as a precautionary measure. However, despite their recommendations, it still remains in many vaccinations today, including:

  • DT (diptheira/tetanus, manufactured by Sanofi)
  • Influenza (Fluirin); Influenza (Flulaval)
  • Influenza (Fluzone: standard, high-dose, and intradermal)
  • Meningococcal (MPSV4 – Menomune)
  • TD (tetanus/diptheria – Decavac)
  • TD (Mass Biologics) [12]

Conclusion

As a journalist and a mother myself, I found Dr. Lewis’s paper to be poorly written, lacking in substance and containing very few credible references. If parents are given poor information and very few facts, how can they ever make an informed decision about vaccinations?

Parents are continually being lied to by the medical profession, the mainstream media, the pharmaceutical industry and world governments, and it needs to stop. How can we trust a person paid to vaccinate our children? Let’s face it – Dr. Karen Lewis is, after all, the Medical Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services. She is hardly likely to tell parents the truth, is she?

 

 

Photo Credit

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/08/17/dtap-vaccine-myths/feed/ 47
Should Premature Babies Be Included In The One-Size-Fits-All Vaccination Policy? http://vactruth.com/2014/06/17/one-size-fits-all-vaccination/ http://vactruth.com/2014/06/17/one-size-fits-all-vaccination/#comments Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:57:15 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16281 According to a fact sheet published by the University of Auckland, premature babies weighing as little as seventeen ounces are supposed to be vaccinated with same dose of vaccines given to an adult. The vaccination schedule is not being adjusted in any way and does not take into consideration a premature baby’s fragility or their weight.

Their decision has left many professionals questioning whether or not the “one-size-fits-all” vaccination policy is really suitable for premature babies, given the fact that many of them are not yet medically stable.

The University of Auckland believes that no changes are needed and recommends that the vaccination schedule should not be adjusted. They insist that these fragile babies should be vaccinated according to their chronological age, rather than their due date, and that they should be vaccinated in line with the vaccination schedule set by the government.

Is The One-Size-Fits-All Policy Right For Premature Babies?

In the USA, approximately 500,000 babies are born prematurely each year. These are babies born before 37 weeks of completed pregnancy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the earlier a baby is born, the more likely they are to suffer from severe health problems. Many of these babies die, while others may be severely disabled with learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, respiratory disorders, visual complications, hearing loss and feeding and digestive problems.

The CDC states:

“Although most babies born just a few weeks early do well and have no health issues, some do have more health problems than full term babies. For example, a baby born at 35 weeks is more likely to have—

  • jaundice
  • breathing problems
  • longer hospital stay” [1]

Many of these babies spend weeks, if not months, in incubators, while their lives hang in the balance. Is it really appropriate to vaccinate such fragile babies, regardless of their state of health?

No Changes Are Recommended for Preterm Babies!

Governments around the world are demanding a one-size-fits-all vaccination policy. The University of Auckland’s Fact Sheet for Health Professionals, titled Immunization for the Low Birth Weight and/or Preterm Infant, makes this policy very clear, stating that:

“Premature and low birth weight infants are at greater risk of increased mortality and morbidity from vaccine preventable disease.”

The university recommends that:

 “Immunizations should be given according to the National Immunization Schedule at the appropriate chronological age. Do not adjust age for preterm birth, i.e. National Immunization Schedule vaccines start at six weeks of age from the date of birth. The usual vaccine dosage should be used.” (emphasis added)

The university is so keen that these tiny babies are vaccinated on time that they state very clearly in their fact sheet that “vaccinations should not be withheld or delayed.” This policy applies even if the infant has suffered from episodes of apnea, a condition causing the baby to forget to breathe for short periods of time.

For infants born to hepatitis B carrier mothers, the university states:

“Give hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and a hepatitis B immunization (HBvaxPRO®) within 12 hours of birth regardless of birth weight.” (emphasis added)

Once again, this clearly indicates that the one-size-fits-all policy is being used regardless of the baby’s health.

The fact sheet continues:

“Infants of non-hepatitis B carrier mothers:

Three doses of hepatitis B containing vaccine beginning at six weeks of age, regardless of birth weight, are expected to provide protection.

• Administer DTaP-IPV-HepB/Hib (Infanrix®-hexa) vaccine.” (emphasis added) [2]

The fact sheet is sickening, especially when you consider that many of these babies are so small they can measure little more than 12.5 inches in length and suffer from life-threatening conditions requiring feeding tubes, heart monitors, oxygen therapy, infrared lamps and photo therapy to keep them alive.

Many Professionals Disagree With The One-Size-Fits-All Policy

Many professionals disagree with the one-size-fits-all policy.

One such professional is scientist Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD. In her letter to the editor of the journal Vaccine, titled One Size Fits All, written in 2012, she stated that:

“There is a general medical consensus that vaccines have revolutionized human health by significantly reducing morbidity and mortality due to infectious diseases, particularly those affecting children.”

She continued:

“Indeed, as Poland et al. note, ‘Vaccines are the only medical intervention that we attempt to deliver to every living human on earth.’ As with any medication, vaccines also carry risks of adverse reactions (ADRs). Although the temporal association between vaccinations and serious ADRs is clear, causality is rarely established.”

She followed this by adding:

“Nonetheless, Poland et al. rightly ask whether ‘with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,’ it is time to consider ‘how might new genetic and molecular biology information inform vaccinology practices of the future?’ In light of this question Poland et al. conclude that ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for all vaccines and all persons should be abandoned. This legitimate conclusion should equally apply to vaccine efficacy, as well as safety. Regarding the latter, the widely held view that serious vaccine-related ADRs are rare may need revision, as current worldwide vaccination policies indeed operate on ‘one-size fits all’ assumption. This assumption persists despite the fact that historically, vaccine trials have routinely excluded vulnerable individuals with a variety of pre-existing conditions (e.g. premature birth, personal or family history of developmental delay or neurologic disorders including epilepsy/seizures, hypersensitivity to vaccine constituents, etc.” (emphasis added) [3]

If Dr. Tomljenovic is correct that premature babies have been excluded from vaccination trials due to their vulnerability, this would suggest that there is no data supporting that vaccinations can be safely administered to these infants.

Why do our governments not see this as an issue?

Vaccine Inserts Tell A Different Story

Reading through the various vaccination inserts, you will see that many state that the decision to vaccinate a preterm infant should be based upon the child’s medical status.

For example, the insert for the Merck’s hepatitis B vaccine states:

“Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. Decisions about when to administer an intramuscular vaccine, including RECOMBIVAX HB, to infants born prematurely should be based on consideration of the individual infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks of vaccination.” (emphasis added) [4]

The insert for Sanofi Pasteur’s DTaP vaccine, Daptacel, states:

“Apnea following intramuscular vaccination has been observed in some infants born prematurely. The decision about when to administer an intramuscular vaccine, including DAPTACEL, to an infant born prematurely should be based on consideration of the individual infant’s medical status and the potential benefits and possible risks of vaccination.” (emphasis added) [5]

And the insert for GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) Infanrix (DtaP-IPV-HepB/Hib) hexa-vaccine states:

“Limited data in 169 premature infants indicate that INFANRIX hexa® can be given to premature children. However, a lower immune response may be observed and the level of clinical protection remains unknown. The potential risk of apnea and the need for respiratory monitoring for 48 -72h should be considered when administering the primary immunization series to very premature infants (born ≤ 28 weeks of gestation) and particularly for those with a previous history of respiratory immaturity.” (emphasis added)

Despite their warnings and the fact that they have limited data, GSK continues by stating:

“As the benefit of vaccination is high in this group of infants, vaccination should not be withheld or delayed.” (emphasis added) [6]

Vaccinations Have Been Proven to Cause Stress-Induced Breathing Patterns In Children

Vaccinations have been proven beyond all doubt to lead to stress-induced breathing patterns in babies.

In 1985-1986, Cotwatch, a pioneering true breathing monitor was developed by Dr. Viera Scheibner and her late husband, Leif Karlsson, a Swedish electronics engineer specializing in patient monitoring systems. In a more detailed rewrite of her original paper published in 2004 by the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, she wrote:

Cotwatch was a true breathing monitor, meaning its electronics separated heartbeat and breathing and only breathing delayed the alarm. The feedback on breathing from the standard home monitor were alarms, while the microprocessor-based unit provided computer printouts of the record of breathing in the form of histograms stacked-up at an angle or vertical bars) the length of which directly reflected the stress level as integrals of the weighted apnoea-hypopnoea density (WAHD).” [7]

 

Dr. Scheibner says that this important feature means the difference between life and death and that, in a stress response in a baby, breathing stops first, while the heart is still beating. She explains that you must be alerted by an alarm before the heart stops in order to resuscitate the baby.

When Scheibner and Karlsson studied the histograms (printed data) of infants, they noticed that whenever the babies had received a vaccination, the charts showed clusters of stress-induced breathing patterns, proving conclusively that the vaccines that were causing the breathing problems.

In 1991, Dr. Viera Scheibner was invited to present the results of the data collection on babies’ breathing with the Cotwatch breathing monitor to the Second National Immunization Conference.

This information has been freely available ever since.

However, despite this information being freely available and many manufacturers stating that caution is needed when vaccinating premature babies, governments continue to insist that no changes to vaccination schedules are needed!

Dr. Viera Scheibner Has Strong Views on the Safety and Efficacy of Vaccinations

Dr. Scheibner believes that vaccinations are not only unsafe but also totally ineffective at preventing disease, not only for premature babies, but for everyone, and she has made her feelings abundantly clear in a five-page letter to Miss Pinkerton, a contact whose name appeared on an informational flyer received in regards to a Hearing on Safety of Hepatitis B Vaccine, held on May 18, 1999, titled Hearings on Hepatitis B Vaccine.

She wrote:

“When they were testing the acellular whooping cough vaccine in Sweden, as soon as the test babies were given 3 doses of the trial vaccine (meaning they were fully vaccinated) they had a huge epidemic of whooping cough in the fully vaccinated. They discontinued the trial before the targeted time of 2 years. I also need to add that practically all Swedish children below the age of 1 year participated in the trial. They expected 20 deaths and observed 45 (plus one accidental death) and yet this very significant increase was glossed over by saying that all deaths were judged unrelated to vaccination, even though there were deaths there within 24 hours or a few days.”

She finished her strong letter, which was full of research, facts and figures, by stating:

“I think that I outlined to you some of the essential facts about vaccination. Mandatory vaccination in the USA is indeed an arrogant insult to the American Constitution, freedom of choice and to just plain human decency and represents medical tyranny. It must be discontinued if the U.S. wants to continue claiming to be the guarantor of freedom for all and from all forms of tyranny. Charity starts at home.” [8]

After reading through her letter, I asked her in an email what her views were on vaccinating premature babies. She replied:

“Vaccinating premature babies under this false notion of ‘care’ and believing that they must be protected against infectious diseases because they are premature is totally misplaced, or at least the lack of common sense. I am at a loss to understand why they do it.”

Conclusion

Clearly, the one-size-fits-all vaccination policy does not fit premature babies. How can it be considered lawful or indeed moral to vaccinate premature babies with the same vaccinations that are administered to adults?

We can see from the studies undertaken by Dr. Viera Scheibner and her late husband Leif Karlsson that many of the routine vaccinations used on premature babies today can cause them to suffer stress-induced breathing patterns. These studies are irrefutable and have been used worldwide to demonstrate the link between vaccinations and breathing difficulties in young babies.

Despite this information, vulnerable, fragile babies are being vaccinated with multiple vaccinations on a daily basis, regardless of the danger.

Why does the medical profession dictate that animals receive vaccinations calculated according to their weight, but the one-size-fits-all policy is recommended for our children?

Surely, it is time to change this policy, once and for all.

This article is dedicated to a very special little girl, Aurora~Phi, whose name means “to show beauty in truth.” Aurora~Phi was born prematurely seven weeks ago. She was born to parents who do not believe in vaccination. Aurora~Phi is vaccine-free and said to be doing exceptionally well. She no longer needs her incubator and has been moved to the nursery.


 

Photo:  baby Aurora Phi soon after birth

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/06/17/one-size-fits-all-vaccination/feed/ 156
This ‘Misdirection Tactic’ is Used by Mainstream Media When Reporting Outbreaks http://vactruth.com/2014/05/18/doctors-misdirect-vaccine-concerns/ http://vactruth.com/2014/05/18/doctors-misdirect-vaccine-concerns/#comments Sun, 18 May 2014 15:03:42 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16264 Many of the published mainstream media news reports outlining the recent outbreaks of measles and mumps in the US have blamed unvaccinated children for the problem.

All of the reports have strong, accusatory titles, with reporters repeatedly emphasizing the need for vaccination. They stress how parents who do not vaccinate their children are putting thousands of children at risk from potentially deadly diseases.

However, if you examine what is being written more closely, what they are actually saying is something entirely different. Hidden somewhere in the report will be a sentence with crucial information that many parents may miss. This information is hidden so well by the reporter that by the time most readers get to it, they will have been completely brainwashed by the rest of the information and are therefore unlikely to notice its significance.

This tactic is known as misdirection. [1]

Misdirection At Its Best

One particular news report that caught my eye refers to the recent outbreak of mumps in the state of Illinois. The website 5KSDK.com released a news bulletin titled Mumps Outbreak Caused by Vaccination Backlash. During the bulletin, a mother with fully vaccinated children is seen on film stating:

“All of my children have been vaccinated as scheduled their whole lives. I am a little disturbed that – eh – you know, if there is mumps here then that means that somebody’s children aren’t vaccinated.”

The news clip stated that:

“Health officials say a recent backlash against vaccines is helping aid the resurgence of the disease.”

The reporter continued by stating that nine of the reported mumps cases were students from the University of Illinois, Champaign.

Interestingly, the reporter then ended the report by stating that:

“All of those students have been vaccinated, but the vaccine is only 80 to 85 percent effective.” [2] (emphasis added)

This one sentence makes the whole report nonsensical, especially when you consider that both the mother used in the film and the report clearly blamed the unvaccinated population for the problem.

Yet More Misdirection

It appears that mainstream media are not only blaming the unvaccinated community for the current mumps “epidemic,” but also for the cases of measles that are being reported.

Or are they?

One article covering the measles outbreak in New York City reported that it is “the loons who refuse to vaccinate their children who put everyone at risk.” To make matters even worse, the article, which was published by The Daily Beast, titled Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers. You Just Brought Measles Back in NYC, was written by a doctor.

Let’s examine his article in more detail.

About halfway through his poorly written article, he stated:

“But now, shoppers in Boston-area supermarkets get to worry that they may have been exposed when they stopped by for groceries. Commuters in the Bay Area now have to contend with the possibility that they or their children may contract the illness because they happened to get on the wrong train. Over a dozen people around Los Angeles have been diagnosed with measles already this year, nearly half of them intentionally unvaccinated. (emphasis added)

Now, if nearly half of the cases of measles were intentionally unvaccinated, then this would mean that over half of them were intentionally vaccinated!

He continued his report by stating:

“The explanation is simple, and is as accessible as the nightly news. Vaccine-deniers are responsible to the resurgence of once-eliminated illnesses. Their movement is responsible for sickening people. They are to blame for the word ‘outbreak’ appearing in headlines from coast to coast.”

He followed his accusation by adding:

“The anti-vaccine crowd may think they’re only making a decision for their own family. In fact, they’re threatening to make the rest of us sick. Refusing to vaccinate your children means you are contributing to a worsening public health crisis. There is no denying it, and there is no point in sugar-coating it.” [3]

I wonder, however, if by the time readers had read the remainder of his waffle, just how many of them actually noticed that one sentence hidden at the end of a paragraph which changed the whole meaning of his article.

Let’s face it: if his article had been correct, this would mean that all parents choosing not to vaccinate their children would be putting the whole population at risk, including vaccinated children!

How could that be true if vaccinations protect children against disease?

Are Parents Being Fooled Into Believing Vaccinations Protect Children?

Parents have been fooled for many years into believing that by having their children vaccinated, it will protect them against deadly disease.

In fact, the CDC recommends vaccination, by stating the following information on their website:

“There’s no greater joy than helping your baby grow up healthy and happy. That’s why most parents choose immunization. Giving your baby the recommended immunizations by age two is the best way to protect him from 14 serious diseases, like measles and whooping cough.” [4]

However, this appears not to be the case, because yet another news report which I have chosen for us to examine says the complete and utter opposite. A report published by Wyoming News Source titled Anti-Vaccine Movement Puts Children at Risk stated that parents who refuse to vaccinate are irresponsible and are putting other children’s lives at risk. They stated:

“It’s important to note that the vast majority of children in Wyoming are properly vaccinated before they start school, and we commend their families for that. But just one unvaccinated child puts others at risk, whether that’s in the classroom or the emergency room. Some doctors won’t even treat unvaccinated children. The waiting room situation is just too fraught with risk. Parents who wisely vaccinate might think twice about taking their children to a place where they’d be at increased risk.” [5] (emphasis added)

Do they know something that we do not?

The Mayo Clinic Admits That Vaccines Do Not Work

It is entirely possible that they do. I say this because just a few days ago, a report was published by the Financial Post titled Vaccines Cannot Prevent Measles Outbreaks. Its author, Lawrence Solomon, reported on a paper written by Professor of Medicine and founder and leader of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group, Professor Gregory A. Poland, titled The Re-emergence of Measles in Developed Countries, which was published two years ago.

Describing the paper in huge detail, Solomon explained how Professor Poland had stressed that the reason the measles vaccine was not working was hidden in our genes. Solomon stated:

“ … Because different people have different genetic makeups, the vaccine is simply a dud in many, failing to provide the protection they think they’ve acquired.” [6]

According to Solomon, Professor Poland had reported that the re-emergence of measles was due to a failure to vaccinate as well as the failure of the measles vaccine.

Curious to know exactly what Professor Poland had written, I decided to research the report for myself. In the pre-edited version of the report, sure enough, Professor Poland had indicated that he believed that the re-emergence of measles was due to a failure to vaccinate, as well as the failure of the measles vaccine itself. However, he had also written the following very interesting couple of sentences:

“ … As illustrated in the Table, since 2005 these outbreaks have also occurred in the U.S. – with surprising numbers of cases occurring in persons who previously received one or even two documented doses of measles-containing vaccine. In fact, as of September 2011, the U.S. has had 15 measles outbreaks with 211 confirmed cases – the highest number of cases since 1996.”

Professor Poland acknowledged the fact that:

“Thus, while an excellent vaccine, a dilemma remains. As previously mentioned, measles is extraordinarily transmissible. At the same time, measles vaccine has a failure rate measured in a variety of studies at 2 –10%, and modeling studies suggest that herd immunity to measles requires approximately 95% or better of the population to be immune.” [7]

He indicated, however, that this may not be possible, because the vaccination cannot be administered to the immuno-compromised, pregnant woman and anyone who may be allergic to certain components of the vaccine.

For these reasons, he recommended that a new vaccination should be developed, stating that the following measures should take place:

“The practical answer to the dilemma of measles re-emergence is the development of better, next-generation vaccines. Given recent public opinion and large numbers of parents rejecting the current vaccine, combined with practical and immunologic limitations, new vaccines appear to be necessary. The ideal vaccine would require only one dose to be given at or soon after birth; it would lack contraindications and permit administration without highly trained health care personnel; it would be inexpensive, and heat stable. (emphasis added)

(To read this report in full, refer to reference six at the end of this article, or, to purchase the final edited version of the paper, follow the link provided in this version.)

So, who is telling the truth and whom do we believe?

Conclusion

It is difficult for parents to know who is right and who is wrong when it comes to vaccination. It is even more difficult to know whom to trust.

As parents, it appears that we are ‘damned if we do and damned if we don’t.’

When Professor Poland stated that the new vaccination “would lack contraindications and permit administration without highly trained health care personnel; it would be inexpensive, and heat stable,” could he inadvertently have been saying that the current MMR vaccination does have contraindications, is not always being administered by highly trained health care personnel and is not heat stable?

The answer would depend on how you interpret what he has written.

However, if that is indeed what he meant to say, this would have huge implications for hundreds of thousands of parents who believe that the MMR vaccination was responsible for their children’s disabilities. It also has implications for the many parents whose children have died after receiving this vaccination.

Whatever the real truth is, these articles, reports and papers have certainly given us something to think about, haven’t they?

Photo Credit

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/05/18/doctors-misdirect-vaccine-concerns/feed/ 117
The Scary Truth About the New York City Flu Vaccine Mandate http://vactruth.com/2014/04/21/nyc-flu-vaccine-mandate/ http://vactruth.com/2014/04/21/nyc-flu-vaccine-mandate/#comments Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:26:12 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16187 This year, 150,000 children will be added to the list of victims of forced vaccination. The leaders of New York City have mandated that all children under the age of six years old who attend day care or preschool must be vaccinated with the flu vaccine.

The official requirement mandates that all children between the ages of six months and five years who will be attending day care or preschool in New York City must be vaccinated between July 1 and December 31 of any given year. One health official claims that the rule won’t officially be enforced until the end of 2014, and a press release from the New York City Board of Health states that they will begin issuing violations on January 1, 2016. [1] [2]

New York City already mandates that children must be vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, chicken pox, and tetanus. The new mandate is expected to affect 150,000 children under the age of six. Daycare and preschool facilities will be required to enforce the mandates or face they will face fines. [3]

Reason #1: It Interferes with Parental Choice

Regardless of people’s views about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, many people would agree that it should be an individual’s right to choose – or, in the case of a minor, a parent’s right to choose – which substances are injected into their body.

Well-known groups comprising large numbers of employees in New York are already opposed to vaccine mandates, including the New York State Public Employees Federation and the New York State Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). [4]

In its own statement regarding vaccination, even the American Medical Association (AMA) grants approval for medical personnel to receive exemptions for vaccines  due to a “recognized medical, religious, or philosophic reason,” exemptions which are more lenient than those granted to babies and preschool children affected by the NYC mandate.

Also in question is whether or not the city government has the authority to mandate vaccines. City officials claim that their Health Department has “authority over all matters concerning health in New York City” through the City Charter.

Recently, many Americans were outraged by the decision of officials from United Arab Emirates to mandate forced breastfeeding for the first two years of a child’s life. We knew that forcing someone to breastfeed, regardless of the benefits of breastfeeding, infringed on their personal right to make choices about their own bodies. Yet, some people fail to recognize that vaccination, the injection of foreign substances into one’s body, should also be a choice. [5]

Reason #2: The Flu Vaccine is Ineffective

The most recent statistics, based on scientific studies published by well-known media channels such as USA Today and The Huffington Post, demonstrate the flu vaccine’s inability to prevent the flu. Contrary to what vaccine manufacturers want us to believe, the flu vaccine will not make us healthier.

An article published on the website for USA Today stated, “This season’s flu vaccine was almost completely ineffective in people 65 and older.” One source from Vanderbilt University’s School of Medicine stated, “Everyone at CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting was scratching their heads over this.” [6] A similar article published by The Huffington Post reported an overall effectiveness rate of only 59 percent. [7]

Older adults are not the only group of people who experience few benefits from the flu vaccine. The CDC itself, when answering the question “How effective is the flu vaccine in children?” on its website, admits that “reduced benefits of flu vaccine are often found in studies of young children,” especially those under two years of age, the very age group targeted by this vaccine mandate. [8]

Influenza and similar illnesses can be caused by over 200 to 300 viruses, and some research indicates that vaccines may be most effective against combating influenza A and B, which comprise a mere ten percent of circulating viruses. Often, people mistake flu-like symptoms for influenza, and they don’t actually have the flu.

Furthermore, if you win the “flu lottery,” by actually contracting one of the three strains of flu that happens to be in this season’s flu vaccine, the vaccine will be worthless if your body hasn’t fully responded to the vaccine (which takes two weeks) or if too much time (more than three months) has passed between vaccination and viral exposure. [9] [10]

Reason #3: The Flu Vaccine is Dangerous

According to the CDC, the flu vaccine contains thimerosal, aluminum, antibiotics, egg protein, aborted human fetal cells, and monosodium glutamate (MSG). Our immune systems may be unable to combat these foreign, toxic substances, especially while under the influence of very common conditions such as high sugar intake, low vitamin D3 levels, and damaged gut lining.

According to a search of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) website, in the past five years,  (during the period from January 2009 until February 2014) there were 55, 578 adverse events reported to VAERS related to the flu vaccine. Of these adverse events, 7,904 affected children under the age of six. [11]

Most disturbing among these numbers are the reported 47 children age five and under who died after receiving the flu vaccine during the past five years alone.

Keep in mind, vaccine injuries and deaths are grossly under-reported. Less than ten percent of vaccine injuries are actually reported, which brings the likely death toll from the flu vaccine to over one hundred children per year. [12]

Are There Exemptions for This Mandate?

Yes, although options for parents who don’t wish to vaccinate their children are limited. New York State allows medical and religious exemptions, although philosophical exemptions against vaccines are not granted. Fortunately, children who attend family day cares in people’s homes are currently exempt from the flu vaccine mandate. [13]

Conclusion

Families should not be forced to inject their child with toxic substances. They should not be forced to receive a vaccine that is ineffective and dangerous. They should not be forced to give up their preferred choice for quality, early childhood education and care programs in order to avoid forced vaccination. Families should be allowed to make the choices for their health and well-being that are best for their family.

If your child attends day care or preschool in New York City, we urge you to contact your elected officials and tell them you are against forced vaccination for your child. In addition, you may exercise your right to choose a religious exemption from the flu vaccine mandate, or enroll your child in a family day care, where they will be exempt from mandatory vaccination against the flu.

Finally, whether or not your child is affected by the latest NYC vaccine mandate, we urge you to learn about vaccine legislation where you live and research vaccine ingredients. You can download a free vaccine research guide right now to protect your child from unwanted, toxic substances contained in vaccines.

 

 

Photo Credit

 

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/04/21/nyc-flu-vaccine-mandate/feed/ 240
Eight Month-Old Baby Dies Just Weeks After Hepatitis B Vaccination; His Innocent Father Is Still In Jail 20 Years Later http://vactruth.com/2014/04/07/baby-dies-hep-b-vaccination/ http://vactruth.com/2014/04/07/baby-dies-hep-b-vaccination/#comments Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:00:57 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16064 In 1995, Bryant Arroyo was incarcerated for the murder of his stepson Jordan and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Since that fateful day, Bryant has continued to proclaim his innocence and has spent the past twenty years trying to find out the truth behind his stepson’s death.

In a letter to me, Bryant wrote:

“I am aware that you are not only a former wrongfully accused parent, but an advocate who has utilized her experience to become a journalist to expose this broken system to assist those parents who are sitting dejectedly, in a cell, in some remote part of the entrails of this beast — without a face, or voice, stripped to their naked existence, unrecognizable to the world …”

I am using this opportunity to give back Bryant Arroyo his voice after he was silenced by the US justice system at the time of his trial.

The Day Jordan Died

Bryant Arroyo In Prison

Bryant Arroyo In Prison

The story begins on Saturday, September 25, 1994. Bryant’s partner, Pamela, picked Bryant up from work around 10 pm. When they arrived home, Bryant went into the house to relieve the babysitter, while his girlfriend went out with her mother and some friends. After working a long shift, Bryant felt very tired and fell asleep on the sofa with his stepson, Kyle.

Around 1 pm, his girlfriend arrived home and asked Bryant to check on Baby Jordan. At this point, it dawned on Bryant that he had not checked on the baby and he went to check. Bryant explained to VacTruth what happened next:

“I went upstairs to check on him and was stunned to find him ‘blue’ and unconscious. I rushed downstairs and yelled to Pamela to call 911 while I attempted to revive him using CPR. I didn’t have any formal training, but I gave it my best effort, as any parent would, given the unforeseen circumstances …

The police officers arrived a short time later. Officer Wettlaufer took over for me and removed baby Jordan from a chair where I had him and placed him onto the floor. He continued to administer CPR until paramedics arrived. Baby Jordan was then transported to Lancaster General Hospital. All efforts to revive him were unsuccessful and he was pronounced dead at around 3:40 pm.”

As is usual in such cases, both parents were immediately arrested and interrogated for many hours regarding the care of their stepson prior to his death. Within days, Bryant was charged with first-degree murder and accused of allegedly beating and shaking his eight month-old stepson to death.

The theory of the case presented to the court was that Bryant had anger management issues and that one day, out of the blue, for no apparent reason, he had taken out his anger and frustration on his infant stepson and beat him to death.

Not one of his sixteen character witnesses, including his girlfriend, backed up this theory, and the following points should be noted:

  • Bryant was not allowed to give evidence at his own trial.
  • Bryant was not offered the opportunity to have any experts speak in his defense.
  • According to Bryant, the only evidence given at his trial was a typed confession, which he signed, believing it to be his statement.
  • According to Bryant, the last person to see Jordan alive was his babysitter. [1]

Some Facts About The Case That Were Never Investigated

Like most children, Jordan had received all of his childhood vaccinations on time. In the eight months before he died, he received:

  • 1/09/1994: Hepatitis B
  • 2/07/1994: Hepatitis B
  • 3/07/1994: Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTP); Polio; Haemophilus B conjugate
  • 5/23/1994: Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTP); Polio; Haemophilus B conjugate
  • 6/20/1994: Hepatitis B

In 2005, toxicologist and pathologist Dr. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati PhD, DABT, DABVT, who was brought in to investigate the case, reported that Jordan was in fact a very sick baby who had LOST weight during the 43 days before he died.

According to Dr. Al-Bayati, both Jordan’s mother and babysitter reported that Jordan had become increasingly fussy and was suffering from a cold during the week prior to his death. They also reported that he was sore underneath his nose, on his lips and had a discharge from his eyes due to an infection.

It materialized that Jordan died around nine weeks after receiving the hepatitis B vaccine, dying of inflammation of the liver and gallbladder, sepsis, metabolic disease, immune suppression, weight loss and internal bleeding.

If this were not bad enough, Dr. Al-Bayati discovered that when Jordan had died, he had been suffering from the inherited metabolic disease ‘propionic acidemia,’ which would have seriously inhibited his ability to process certain parts of proteins and lipids (fats) properly.

Dr. Al-Bayati wrote:

Jordan was born on 6 January 1994 by caesarian section at 41 weeks of gestation. His birth weight was 5 pounds, 15 ounces. He was taken to his pediatrician several times for regular checkup between 24 January and 12 August 1994. His last visit to his pediatrician was 43-days prior to his cardiac arrest on 25 September.

Jordan’s weight on 12 August was 15 pounds, 10 ounces, which is identical to his weight on 25 September (15 lb and 10 ounces) after he received 410 ml of fluid IV (weighing about one pound) following his cardiac arrest. These data indicate that Jordan lost about one pound during the forty-three days prior to his cardiac arrest. In addition, Jordan’s thymus weight at autopsy was 13 g, which is about 52% of normal, indicating thymus atrophy and immune depression. Jordan’s mother and his babysitter reported that he had a cold during the week prior to his cardiac arrest.

As noted, Dr. Ross performed an autopsy on Jordan’s body on 25 September 1994 and concluded that Jordan was killed by blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen and that the manner of the death was homicide. However, the medical evidence described in Section III of this report clearly shows that Jordan died as a result of serious acute and chronic illnesses. He suffered from spongiosis of the brain (cerebral cortex and white matter); focal Purkinje cell dropout in the cerebellum; aspiration pneumonitis; weight loss; thymus atrophy; inflammation of the liver, gallbladder, and mesentery; sepsis; metabolic disease; and internal bleedings.

The presence of these significant pathological abnormalities in the brain, lungs, and other organs explain the sequence of events that led to Jordan’s cardiac arrest on 25 September. The brain lesions caused neurological, gastric, and esophageal reflex problems that led to aspiration pneumonitis. This situation caused sepsis, thrombocytopenia, inflammation in liver and other organs, deficiency of blood clotting factors and internal bleedings, lung bleedings and edema, asphyxia, and cardiac arrest.” [2]

Dr. Al-Bayati reported that when paramedics treated Jordan, they found eleven circular marks on his lower chest and upper abdomen, which Jordan’s mother stated had resulted from the CPR.

However, instead of taking into consideration that both Bryant and the police officer had attempted to revive the dying child using CPR, the circular bruises found on Jordan’s chest were put down to Bryant carrying out what was later described as a frenzied attack on his stepson.

It is clear that Dr. Al-Bayati disagreed with the hospital’s findings and, in particular, those presented by the coroner, Dr. Ross. All the way through his 40-page report, he stated that the medical evidence supports the fact that Jordan was an extremely sick little boy.

Did Multiple Vaccinations Cause Jordan’s Immune System To Shut Down?

Many of the vaccinations that Jordan received in the eight months that he was alive have since been found to cause autoimmune disease in susceptible children. We know that Jordan suffered from the inherited metabolic condition propionic academia, causing him to suffer from immune suppression. With this in mind, we need to ask ourselves whether or not it was wise to give multiple vaccinations to such a weak and vulnerable child.

In recent years, scientists from around the world have proven that vulnerable children can develop autoimmune disease after receiving multiple vaccinations.

In 2009, Ken Tsumiyama, along with other researchers, discovered that when mice were repeatedly vaccinated with vaccines containing antigens, they systematically developed autoimmune disease. They concluded that:

“Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system’s self-organized criticality.” [3]

If this evidence is to be believed, then surely vaccinating a small baby suffering with an already suppressed immune system would further compound his problems.

Another report stated that, according to scientists, the antigens in the vaccinations are not the only ingredients to be linked to autoimmune disease. In 2013, a paper published in the Journal of Autoimmunity highlighted the discovery of a new syndrome, which was attributed to the chronic exposure to adjuvants.

The paper, titled Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) 2013: Unveiling the pathogenic, clinical and diagnostic aspects by Carlo Perricone et al, revealed that, in 2012, scientists Shoenfeld and Agmon-Levin began to use the term ASIA or ‘autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants,’ to describe a group of clinical conditions including Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), Macrophage Myofasciitis Syndrome (MMF), Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) and other post-vaccination phenomena. According to Perricone and his team, ASIA is an umbrella term describing illnesses that share similar signs or symptoms. They stated:

“The most frequently reported symptoms include myalgia, myositis, arthralgia, neurological manifestations, fever, dry mouth and cognitive alterations. Moreover, really common is the presence of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), often associated with sleep disturbances or non-restful sleep. These shared symptoms suggested the presence of a common denominator which has been subsequently identified in the adjuvant.” [4]

In section 8 of the paper titled ASIA and Vaccines: The Gift with a Bug, Perricone explained that vaccination reactions differ substantially due to the genetic background of the recipient and wrote:

“It is imperative that science aims to implement tools such as genomics and proteomics, to allow the prediction of population sets more likely to be non-responsive or develop adverse reactions to vaccines.”

He continued by adding:

“A number of autoimmune disorders have been reported following vaccinations. These include limited and organspecific conditions that can occur after routine vaccination as well as more severe and life-threatening diseases. It is evident that a live attenuated vaccine is more prone than a killed vaccine to activate the immunity response. Perhaps, this is the main reason why live attenuated vaccination is more likely to stimulate the development of an autoimmune disease or autoimmune symptom. Notwithstanding that molecular mimicry and bystander activation in a genetically predisposed individual have been called to be responsible, the finger should be pointed at the adjuvants. One in particular has raised several distresses: aluminum. Indeed, this has been used as an adjuvant for the past 90 years but it is also an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin. Experimental research has showed that alum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.”

Conclusion

After reading Dr. Al-Batati’s report in full and hearing Bryant’s own account of what happened on the night that Jordan died, I believe that Bryant Arroyo is an innocent man and that this case is in fact an elaborate cover-up by the medical profession, the police and US judicial system to hide the facts of what really happened to baby Jordan on the night that he died.

I say this because the facts speak for themselves.

Jordan was an extremely sick little boy, particularly in the months prior to his death. On many occasions, doctors neglected to diagnose that he was suffering from a life-threatening genetic illness. Instead of giving this baby the special care he so obviously needed, doctors proceeded to vaccinate this chronically sick eight month-old baby with multiple vaccinations containing mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde.

When his little body finally gave up and he couldn’t take any more, crucial witnesses were prevented from giving evidence. Instead of being given the true facts of the case, the court was presented with not only a false confession (mentioned by both Bryant and Dr. Al-Batati), but also a misleading and incorrect coroner’s report.

To hear Bryant’s own account of what happened the night Jordan died and the subsequent events that followed, listen to his story, told by him from his prison cell, on prison radio. [1]

 

Photo Source

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/04/07/baby-dies-hep-b-vaccination/feed/ 494
Vaccine-Induced Tissue Scurvy Globally Misdiagnosed as Child Abuse http://vactruth.com/2014/03/19/tissue-scurvy-not-child-abuse/ http://vactruth.com/2014/03/19/tissue-scurvy-not-child-abuse/#comments Wed, 19 Mar 2014 05:44:21 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16045 The father of the child in our published photo was jailed for life for child abuse. Many of you looking at the terrible injuries on this small child will immediately assume, as did the doctors who examined him, that he was viciously attacked and it was right to jail his father.

However, what if I told you that it was later proven that this child had in fact been suffering from Kawasaki disease, otherwise known as tissue scurvy, and that his father was innocent?

Well, that is exactly what happened. Due to the wonderful work of Dr. Michael Innis and a team of experts brought in by the family to help, he is well and happy and back home with his family after his father was released from jail as an innocent man.

What Research Tells Us About Tissue Scurvy

Studies have revealed that parents and caregivers worldwide are being falsely accused of child abuse when children develop the autoimmune disease, tissue scurvy, after vaccination.

In a recent paper by Dr. Michael Innis, he stated that:

“Some doctors are unaware of the pathophysiological processes of autoimmunity, haemostasis and osteogenesis and are misdiagnosing vaccine induced tissue scurvy, absence of vitamin C within the cell, as non-accidental injury.”

His paper, Autoimmune Tissue Scurvy Misdiagnosed as Child Abuse, outlined three cases of children suffering from symptoms mimicking those of shaken baby syndrome (SBS) whose parents were subsequently accused of child abuse.

However, it was later discovered that all three parents were innocent and far from being abused, their children had been suffering from the autoimmune disease known as tissue scurvy.

Dr. Innis wrote:

“Tissue scurvy, unlike the “seafarer scurvy” of yesteryear, is a condition in which vitamin C is abundant in the blood but is unable to enter the cell because of a lack of insulin which is required to transfer the vitamin C into the cell.”

He stated that:

“The many faces of tissue scurvy in childhood include sudden infant death syndrome, alleged non-accidental injury, shaken baby syndrome, abusive head trauma, inflicted brain injury, Reye’s syndrome, Kawasaki disease, anaphylaxis and diabetes type I.

All have one feature in common – hyperglycemia, the signature of insulin deficiency resulting from vaccines, and other forms of antigenic stress which damage the beta cells of the islets of Langerhans resulting in hypoinsulinemia and tissue scurvy.” [1]

Dr. Innis firmly believes that doctors are misdiagnosing vaccine-induced tissue scurvy (an absence of vitamin C within the cell) as a non-accidental injury.

In his impressive paper, published last year by the Science Publishing Group, he wrote:

“In all the cases in which appropriate histories and tests were done there was evidence that the doctors either misinterpreted the laboratory evidence or they were unaware of the significance of abnormal tests suggesting tissue scurvy as the cause.”

Tissue Scurvy 2

The father of this child was accused of abuse and put in jail.

A Second Paper By Dr. Innis Reveals Similar Findings

In a second paper on the subject, Dr. Michael Innis stated that it is postulated that Kawasaki disease is tissue scurvy, a disease often found in children under the age five. Children suffering from the condition usually present with a fever, redness of the eyes, blotchy red skin lesions, changes in the mouth and cracked lips, swelling of the hands and feet and lymph node enlargement in the neck.

Describing the case featured in our lead photo in detail, Dr. Innis stated:

“A child presenting with the signs and symptoms of Kawasaki disease was diagnosed as suffering from non-accidental injuries. Investigations were carried out for evidence of insulin deficiency and liver dysfunction.

It was found that there was evidence of hyperglycemia, implying insulin deficiency and the liver function tests were abnormal.”

He continued by stating that:

“Kawasaki disease is an autoimmune disorder following antigenic stimulation in a genetically susceptible child which causes insulin deficiency and failure of the cellular uptake of vitamin C, tissue scurvy, and can be mistaken for child abuse. Vaccines are a proven cause of hyperglycemia in children and may be a cause of Kawasaki disease.”

Throughout his description of the case, he demonstrated how doctors missed vital signs, preferring to jump to the conclusion that the child had been severely abused by the carer, instead of investigating the truth.

In many ways, it is easy to see why this occurred, as the photos accompanying the report are graphic, and to an untrained eye they would immediately raise suspicion. However, the professionals examining the child in question were all ‘highly qualified,’ and should have carried out a full battery of tests before jumping to the conclusion that the child had been abused.

Showing the blood test results in detail, Dr. Innis explained:

“The alacrity with which the admitting doctor declared “trauma level I” colored subsequent clinical and investigative procedures. The possibility of Kawasaki disease was never raised and the ANCA and AECA tests which are sometimes positive in this type of vasculitis were never done. However the presence of hyperglycemia is clear evidence of insulin deficiency provoking the onset of tissue scurvy. The coronary vessels and myocardium should have been thoroughly investigated, as they are a major cause of death in Kawasaki disease.” [2]

Another Specialist’s Perspective on Tissue Scurvy

Dr. Innis is not the only professional who has linked Kawasaki disease to vaccinations. In 2000, psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown wrote Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry, a book on autism and interweaving disorders.

One of the chapters centered on a little girl she had renamed Lorelei. Lorelei had reacted extremely badly to the pertussis vaccination and this adverse reaction had been fully documented by the National Health Service (NHS) in the child’s hospital notes. Lorelei was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and Kawasaki disease.

In 2001, Ms. Blakemore-Brown highlighted the case in a rapid response on the British Medical Journal’s website, in response to an article titled A Finnish Study Confirms Safety of MMR. [3] Amazingly, her response was published with a footnote stating that the editor had checked her facts and that the parents of the child had given their permission for the piece to be published.

Ms. Blakemore-Brown wrote:

“In one of my cases of very obvious and indisputable reaction to pertussis vaccine the child in question has been found to have Kawasaki disease, her own immune system attacking itself. She presents as Asperger. There is no autism in the family but the baby had allergies prior to the vaccine. It is scientific examination of cases like this which will enable us to ultimately put measures in place to reassure the public.” [3]

The First Links Discovered As Far Back As 1962

The late Dr. Archie Kalokerinos was one of the first professionals to link vaccinations to scurvy. He first noticed there was a problem while he was working with Aborigine children in Australia in 1962.

While there, he noticed that there was an extremely high death rate among children recently vaccinated. After rejecting the usual explanations, his research led him to the conclusion that the infants were suffering from a severe lack of vitamin C, or scurvy.

Dr. Kalokerinos went on to speak about his experiences worldwide and included his research in many books and papers on the subject. However, when he mentioned his fears to the government, instead of investigating the problem as he had expected, he was met with extreme hostility.

In an interview documented in the International Vaccine Newsletter – June 1995, he stated:

“At first it was just a simple clinical observation. I observed that many infants, after they received routine vaccines like tetanus, diptheria, polio, whooping cough or whatever, became ill. Some became extremely ill, and in fact some died. It was an observation, it was not a theory. So my first reaction was to look at the reasons why this happened. Of course I found it was more likely to happen in infants who were ill at the time of receiving a vaccine, or infants who had been ill recently, or infants who were incubating an infection. Of course in the early stages of incubation there is no way whatsoever that anyone can detect the disease. They turn up later on. Furthermore, some of the reactions to the vaccines were not those that were listed in the standard literature. They were very strange reactions indeed.

A third observation was that with some of these reactions which normally resulted in death, I found that I could reverse them by giving large amounts of vitamin C intramuscularly or intravenously.”

Extremely concerned by his observations, he tried to alert the government to what was happening. However, what happened next shocked him. He explained:

“One would have expected, of course, that the authorities would take an interest in these observations that resulted in a dramatic drop in the death rate of infants in the area under my control, a very dramatic drop. But instead of taking an interest their reaction was one of extreme hostility. This forced me to look into the question of vaccination further, and the further I looked into it, the more shocked I became. I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instance of these diseases you will realize that this is not so.” [4]

Strong words, I am sure you will agree, especially as he concluded the interview by stating that:

“My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organization and the unofficial policy of Save the Children Fund and almost all those organizations is one of murder and genocide.

They want to make it appear as if they are saving these kids, but in actual fact they don’t. I am talking of those at the very top. Beneath that level is another level of doctors and health workers, like myself, who don’t really understand what they are doing.”

Like Dr. Innis, over the years his conclusions have led him to believe that the trend of parents being falsely accused of shaken baby syndrome is linked to scurvy, and in his final book titled Shaken Baby Syndrome: An Abusive Diagnosis, he wrote:

“After studying more than 50 SBS cases, I have yet to find one where a detailed analysis of the complete individual or family history, or a proper evaluation of all the necessary coagulation/bleeding factors was undertaken. Often, a diagnosis of trauma due to shaking is made at an early stage and any further investigation is considered unnecessary.

It has been known for many years that retinal hemorrhages, subdural hemorrhages and hemorrhages elsewhere can occur in cases of scurvy.” [5]

Throughout his book, he identified vaccination as the main cause of scurvy in young children today.

Conclusion

In trying to help falsely accused parents worldwide, I am currently aware of at least seven falsely accused parents whose children became ill after they received multiple vaccinations. In four of these cases, tests revealed that, far from being abused, the children had been suffering from the autoimmune disease tissue scurvy.

Why are governments around the world burying their heads in the sand and refusing point-blank to investigate this atrocity? INNOCENT parents are being locked up on a daily basis, accused of the most horrendous crimes, and it seems as if no one actually cares.

The evidence speaks for itself: not only are vaccinations harming our children, but that harm is being covered up by blaming innocent parents of abuse.

 

Full permission was gained in advance for the use of the photos.

I would like to extend my gratitude to the wonderful and continuing work of Dr. Michael Innis, without whom many innocent parents would be still be in jail today.

 

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/03/19/tissue-scurvy-not-child-abuse/feed/ 35
GBS is Not Rare After Vaccinations: Here’s How Vaccine Pushers Conceal the Truth http://vactruth.com/2014/03/15/vaccine-pushers-conceal-truth/ http://vactruth.com/2014/03/15/vaccine-pushers-conceal-truth/#comments Sat, 15 Mar 2014 09:10:16 +0000 http://vactruth.com/?p=16041 We know that statistics may be twisted into the realm of absurdity, but most of us seem to accept them when considering the safety of medicines.

Here’s a typical example: We ask a doctor who recommends a vaccine about the risk of contracting Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a serious autoimmune condition which may evolve into paralysis. The doctor may assure us that the risk is “probably only one additional case in each million persons vaccinated.”

Why should we accept this statistic without question?

Where do these safety statistics come from? They come from epidemiologists and statisticians whose interest is in the promotion of vaccines and who manipulate the statistics so that vaccines appear to be safer than they are in reality.

How Statistics are Misused to Make Vaccines “Safe”

Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, a widely respected pediatrician in New York, gives a more detailed explanation:

“It is often stated that there is normally no higher number of GBS after vaccination than is found in the population as a whole: This statement is more than dubious. We are told that vaccine safety studies are designed to evaluate whether or not vaccines contribute to the development of adverse events.

HOW AUTHORITIES COLLECT SAFETY DATA AFTER VACCINATIONS

When authorities accumulate data in a cohort of people who are given a vaccine or a group of vaccines, they closely monitor them for a period of time to observe any symptoms of illness, usually 2-4 weeks. They then compare the incidence of any reported symptoms in the vaccine study group to the incidence of the reporting of these symptoms in the general population. The incidence of symptoms in the general population is normally referred to as the background rate.

HOW WRONG CONCLUSIONS ARE MADE REGARDING VACCINE SAFETY STATISTICS

In every vaccine study performed in this way by the vaccine manufacturers, they have come to conclude, through their statistical analyses, that the symptoms reported in the study group after vaccination are no higher in incidence than the rate at which these symptoms would occur in the general population. Therefore, they conclude, the onset of these symptoms in the vaccinated study group is not necessarily due to an adverse reaction to the vaccination(s) being studied. In other words, the symptoms in the vaccinated group were most likely to have occurred by chance, unrelated to the effects of the vaccines.

The next step in the process is to then conclude that the vaccine(s) being studied is(are) safe.

HERE’S THE PROBLEM: THEY ARE COMPARING APPLES WITH APPLES

The vaccine manufacturers are using background data from the general population – A POPULATION THAT IS ALSO VACCINATED! (emphasis added)

In this type of study design, the investigators are studying a group of vaccinated people and comparing the data to a background population of people just like them, who are also vaccinated.

We can’t conclude anything about the vaccinated population in this type of study design because the data are being compared to themselves, and not to a set of data from a proper unvaccinated control group. Yet, this is the main type of study design that is used to evaluate vaccine safety. (emphasis added)

HOW SHOULD THE STUDIES BE DONE?

In order to do a proper study, investigators would need to accumulate data in a cohort of people who are given a vaccine or a group of vaccines, by monitoring them for a period of time to observe any symptoms of illness, and comparing the incidence of the reported symptoms in the study group to the incidence of these symptoms that are reported in a cohort of people who are demographically similar, and who are unvaccinated. (emphasis added)

This is the type of study that would help us to understand the frequency and severity of adverse reactions that could possibly occur in a vaccinated population.

This type of study, however, has never been done by the vaccine manufacturers. Many attempts to set up this type of scientific study have been thwarted by the courts, the vaccine manufacturers, medical organizations, and the ideology that vaccines are nothing other than safe and effective, and appropriately studied with the highest of scientific standards.”

This method involving misuse of statistics applies not only in the case of GBS but generally regarding other serious, so-called “rare conditions.”

GBS and Other Adverse Reactions to Vaccines are Under-Reported

Another significant factor which contributes towards the false impression that GBS is rare after vaccinations: The number of actual GBS cases after vaccinations is grossly under-reported.

Only a small percentage of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS (US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). It may be as low as one to two percent. Here are some of the reasons why adverse reactions to vaccines are not properly reported:

  • Not all doctors are trained in reporting adverse reactions.
  • It may be difficult to link the reaction with the vaccine. ( Autoimmune conditions may present themselves up to several years after a vaccine.)
  • The adverse reaction, for example, an autoimmune condition, may not even be stated in product information.
    GBS may be incorrectly diagnosed as another condition.
  • There is minimal incentive for doctors to report because it takes time and work.
  • Doctors may fear being contacted by the manufacturer.
  • It may be unpleasant for doctors to admit to patients that a vaccine which was recommended was the cause of the condition.
  • Citizens and doctors are encouraged to report to the manufacturers. This is surely a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Vaccine safety activist Barbara Loe Fisher wants doctors to file reports directly to VAERS, not through the manufacturer. She says manufacturers’ reports are often incomplete, citing a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association which says that while 68 percent of the adverse event reports on Gardasil came from manufacturers, nearly 90 percent of them could not be tracked or investigated because they lacked the most basic contact information.

Conclusion

Due to both misleading statistics and gross under-reporting, we are given the false impression that Guillain-Barré syndrome and many other serious conditions are rare after vaccinations.

“If medical statistics were compiled by statisticians who had no interest in the outcome, the drug industry would topple into the dust.” – Robert Catalano

 

 

Photo Credit

]]>
http://vactruth.com/2014/03/15/vaccine-pushers-conceal-truth/feed/ 71