The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

[onawah]

Moral Implications of Aborted Fetuses in Vaccine Production
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola 10/8/19
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=724787689

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
One commonly cited reason for claiming a religious vaccine exemption has to do with the fact that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cell lines. Fetal cell lines used in vaccines were obtained from voluntary abortions performed in the 1960s and are still used today
Many other types of cells are used as growth mediums for vaccines, and some of those raise moral issues as well. Growth mediums include animal cell strains from chickens, dogs, monkeys, hamsters and insects. Some religious sects oppose vaccines made from animal cells, citing Levitical guidelines on exposure to certain animals and blood products
There are scientific objections to fetal cell vaccines as well. A study published in 2014 found rates of autism strongly correlate with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines
In 2002, Lancet published evidence showing polio vaccine contaminated with SV40, a monkey virus, was responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases that were occurring each year
Censored research also provided evidence that retroviruses in vaccines may be linked to chronic fatigue syndrome, autism and other diseases
One commonly cited reason for claiming a religious vaccine exemption has to do with the fact that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cell lines. As reported in an April 26, 2019, article in Christianity Today:1

“For certain Christians, the decision of whether to vaccinate comes down to the origins of the vaccines themselves. Some pro-life parents cite a moral disgust and a deep lament over the use of 58-year-old aborted fetal cell lines in development for several recommended immunizations, including MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) and chickenpox …

The fetal cells that disturb parents … originate from material procured from two abortions that took place in the 1960s … For immunizations to work, they require the virus to be hosted in a living cell.

Cell biologist Leonard Hayflick, working at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, reasoned that fetal cells would be protected from outside pathogens and the ‘cleanest’ type to use in vaccines.

He partnered with a Swedish scientist to procure the fetal tissue from an elective abortion in a country where it was legal … Vaccine-makers still use the cell lines called WI-38 today.

These fetal cells from the “Mrs. X” abortion were used to grow weakened or inactive viruses in the development of two vaccines: the rubella vaccine (the R in the MMR vaccine) and one version of rabies vaccine …

Around the same time, the British Medical Council in the UK also produced vaccines from fetal lung cells. Using cells procured through an abortion in 1966, a culture called MRC-5, they created vaccines for hepatitis A, chickenpox, and shingles. A polio vaccine was also made and used in other countries but not the U.S.”

An Ethical Dilemma for Many of Faith
Vaccine manufacturing is not dependent on the ongoing procurement of aborted fetal tissue, and the Catholic Church issued a statement2 in 2005 assuring Catholics that by getting vaccinated they are not “cooperating in evil.”

Yet the idea of injecting themselves or their children with a substance manufactured using aborted fetal cells still makes some Christians, Jews, Muslims and those of other faiths or personal beliefs feel morally uneasy.3 Pro-vaccine advocates and most agnostics have a hard time comprehending why though. As reported by Christianity Today:4

“National Institute of Health director Francis Collins suggests comparing it to organ donation after a child was shot. ‘There was a terrible, evil loss of life of that child and yet I think we would all say that if the parents decided and they wanted something good to come of this and gave their consent, that’s a noble and honorable action,’ he said.

‘Does that translate into a parent, after going through a pregnancy termination, deciding that they would like the fetal tissue to actually help somebody?’”

However, the article points out that the consent issue actually presents a second ethical dilemma rather than solving the first.

Since the fetal tissues were obtained in an era before medical informed consent really became the norm, there’s no guarantee either that the two women gave such consent, or understood that their fetuses’ cell lines would be used to create injectable vaccines for decades to come. An article on Patheos.com also discusses this issue, displaying the typical intolerance:5

“Here’s what confuses me. People are allowed to donate organs. Parents can even donate their children’s organs. We typically see this as a good thing …

Those two abortions were not performed to obtain fetal tissues for vaccines. They were elective abortions that would have been performed regardless of scientists’ interest in using fetal cells … for developing vaccines.

I understand that abortion opponents see those two abortions as murder. But you know what? When a child or an adult is murdered, their organs can still be donated … If the child is dead either way, why not donate their organs? …

I’ve heard some suggest that vaccines contain residual fetal DNA. Even if that is the case, why would that be so different from cases where someone receives a heart transplant, or a kidney transplant? … Or what about a blood transfusion?”

Is Using Animal Cells a Morally Superior Choice?
Clearly, this issue is far from cut and dry, but I think it’s important to at least try to empathize with another person’s point of view. The author of the Patheos article concludes that, most likely, the religious objection to vaccines made with fetal cells has more to do with the “ick factor,” opposed to the sentiment that it’s tissue obtained from murder and therefore immoral to partake in.

However, that is conjecture as many individuals have deeply held religious beliefs opposing abortion and use of aborted fetal tissue for scientific research or other purposes.

Today, many other types of cells are used as growth mediums during vaccine production, and many of those raise moral issues as well. Vaccine growth mediums include6 animal cell strains from chickens, dogs, monkeys, hamsters7 and insects,8 as well as cells from bacteria or yeast.

As just one example, the flu vaccine Flucelvax, introduced in 2014, is grown in kidney cells from dogs.9 Bovine serum (from cow’s blood) is also used for some vaccine components, and trace amounts may remain in the vaccine.10 The use of animal cells doesn’t entirely solve the moral dilemma for all religious faiths though. As noted by Christianity Today:11

“There is a subset of the Christian opposition to vaccines that also takes issue with certain animal cells used in medical research, citing concerns over Levitical guidelines on animals and blood products …”

Other Reasons to Question Human Fetal Cell Line Vaccines
Regardless of whether you believe the use of fetal cells from abortions in vaccine production is morally reprehensible or completely justified, there may be other reasons to object to being coerced or compelled to use vaccines — or give your children vaccines — that were made using human fetal tissue cells.

According to a study published in the September 2014 issue of the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology,12 rates of autism strongly correlate with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines.

Three vaccines in particular were found to be significantly correlated with autism: MMR, varicella (chickenpox) and hepatitis A vaccines. According to the study authors, autism rates rose sharply each time one of these vaccines was released. As reported in this paper:13

“The children vaccinated with MMRII, Varicella and Hepatitis A vaccines varied from 19 to 35 months of age at the time of vaccination. Autistic disorder birth year change points were identified as 1980.9, 1988.4 and 1996 for the US, 1987 for UK, 1990.4 for Western Australia, and 1987.5 for Denmark.

Change points in these countries corresponded to introduction of or increased doses of human fetal cell line-manufactured vaccines … Further, linear regression revealed that Varicella and Hepatitis A immunization coverage was significantly correlated to autistic disorder cases. R software was used to calculate change points.

Autistic disorder change points years are coincident with introduction of vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines, containing fetal and retroviral contaminants, into childhood vaccine regimens.

This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells.”

Part of the problem has to do with what’s called “insertional mutagenesis,” where DNA mutations are created via a viral vector, either naturally or intentionally.14 Indeed, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Powerpoint presentation15 from 2005 discusses the history of cell-substrate DNA in biological products and some of the “perceived safety issues associated with DNA.” As reported by Global Research in September 2014:16

“… Dr. Theresa Deisher, lead scientist and SCPI founder noted that, ‘Not only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with autistic disorder throughout the world, but also with epidemic childhood leukemia and lymphomas’ …

Instead of conducting safety studies [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] regulated the amount of human DNA that could be present in a vaccine to no greater than 10ng17 … Deisher’s team discovered that the fetal DNA levels ranged anywhere from 142ng – 2000ng per dose, way beyond the so-called ‘safe’ level.

‘There are a large number of publications about the presence of HERV (human endogenous retrovirus — the only re-activatable endogenous retrovirus) and its association with childhood lymphoma,’ noted Dr. Deisher.

‘The MMR II and chickenpox vaccines and indeed all vaccines that were propagated or manufactured using the fetal cell line WI-38 are contaminated with this retrovirus. And both parents and physicians have a right to know this!’”

Infected Monkey Cells Linked to Human Cancer Cases

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1-XZs53vZzw

In 2002, the journal Lancet18 published evidence showing polio vaccine contaminated with SV40, a monkey virus, was responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases that were occurring each year.

I wrote about this in “The ‘Vaccine Shock’ of the Year.” The puzzle began in 1994, when Dr. Michele Carbone, a Loyola University researcher, found the virus SV40, which had never before been detected in humans, in half of the human lung tumors he was studying.

Within a couple of years, SV40 had also been implicated in other cancers. As noted in a 2004 review19 of the then-available evidence:

“Persuasive evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today and represents an emerging pathogen. A meta-analysis of molecular, pathological, and clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates that there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human primary brain cancers, primary bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.”

At first no one could fathom how the virus had been transmitted into the human population. But in a videotaped interview (above), the late Dr. Maurice Hilleman — a world-renowned vaccine pioneer who developed more than three dozen vaccines and developed Merck’s vaccine program — admitted Merck’s responsibility in unleashing this virus via their polio vaccine, which was made by growing the poliovirus in kidney cells from rhesus monkeys.20

How Skeptics Skew the Truth and Misrepresent Science
On a side note, were you to do an online search for the SV40-cancer link, you’ll find plenty of “fact-checkers” who claim that none of this is true — that SV40 is not connected with cancer at all, and that the idea has been “totally debunked.”

As “proof,” they’ll often furnish a quote from the Institute of Medicine’s October 2002 summary report,21 which says, “Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it might have caused cancer in humans.”

However, there’s more in that report. The “debunkers” are counting on you not wanting to pay the $30.99 fee to read the whole report, which sheds more light on the cancer connection. The good news is you don’t have to buy the report see what’s in it, as the information is included in a publicly available, free document, “Research on SV40 Exposure and the Development of Cancer.”22

This document is a transcript of testimony by Dr. James Goedert, then chief of the National Cancer Institute’s viral epidemiology branch, given before the Congressional House Committee on Government Reform on September 10, 2003.

In it, Goedert quotes the IOM’s study verbatim, which actually says the “evidence is inadequate to reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer.” Goedert further adds:

“The committee stated that the ‘biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions’ and that ‘biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans.’”

In other words, the IOM could not find enough evidence to say SV40 in polio vaccines doesn’t cause cancer. In fact, they found moderately strong evidence that it might, which is the exact opposite of what the so-called fact-checkers would like you to believe.

More Science Needed to Find Risks of Viral DNA Sequences
It has remained a contentious issue, for sure. As noted in the 2006 paper, “SV40 and Human Cancer: A Review of Recent Data”:23

“The debate on the possible adverse effects of SV40 for humans has been contentious. High rates of recovery of SV40 DNA sequences from cancer tissues have led some investigators to propose that SV40 infection may have a role in the development of mesothelioma, brain tumors, osteosarcoma and NHL [non‐Hodgkin lymphoma].

Other investigators have not been able to confirm the presence of SV40 sequences in the tumors and have been skeptical about the role of SV40 in human cancers.”

A 2010 Virology Blog post24 also summarizes some of the history of SV40 and the evidence for and against it being capable of causing human cancers. That said, the SV40 issue aptly illustrates the potential hazards of using animal or human cells as growth medium for vaccine viruses.

Another example of the same concept was the rotavirus vaccine Rotarix, which in 2010 was temporarily suspended25,26 after being found to be contaminated with “a substantial amount” of DNA from the porcine circovirus.27 RotaTeq was also found to contain the DNA fragments. In the end, the FDA declared both vaccines were safe to use.28

Similarly, Judy Mikovitz, Ph.D., has warned about the presence of retroviruses in vaccines and their link to chronic fatigue syndrome, autism and other diseases. To learn more, see my 2018 interview with her.

Contentious Embryonic Research Continues
The fact that some have religiously based objections to the use of human and/or animal cells in vaccine manufacturing is perhaps more understandable when you consider that embryonic research has always been, and continues to be a contentious issue with many moral and ethical implications.

For example, a July 2018 article29 in Nature addressed novel research in which scientists are pushing the boundary on how long they can grow a human embryo in the lab. In this case, the embryos used were collected for in vitro fertilization but were no longer needed and had been offered up for scientific research.

The team, led by developmental biologist Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, let the embryos grow for 13 days — far longer than had ever been done before, and just shy of the 14-day cutoff for embryonic experimentation. As reported by Nature:30

“[N]ew high-resolution, digital images are revealing in fine detail how muscles and nerves grow a few weeks later in development. Such discoveries could lead to a better understanding of how birth defects and developmental disorders arise, as well as why some pregnancies fail.

But alongside their promise, these new techniques are pushing researchers into uncharted ethical territory. Beginning in the late 1970s, ethicists and scientists converged on the ‘14-day rule’, which limits work on human embryos to a fortnight after fertilization — a time when the first hints of the nervous system appear, and the last point at which an embryo can divide …

The researchers showed that with the right cocktail of growth factors and nourishment, human embryos in culture can ‘implant’ onto the bottom of the dish. Remarkably, the embryos didn’t require any maternal tissue to trigger the early remodelling steps that occur after implantation …

As the results of this research accumulate, the technical advances are inspiring a mixture of fascination and unease among scientists. Both are valuable reactions, says [bioethicist Josephine] Johnston.

‘That feeling of wonder and awe reminds us that this is the earliest version of human beings and that’s why so many people have moral misgivings,’ she says. ‘It reminds us that this is not just a couple of cells in a dish.’”

Synthetic Embryos Created From Human Stem Cells
Other scientists, in an effort to push past the 14-day threshold, are creating synthetic embryos from human stem cells.31 These synthetic structures are not covered by the two-week rule, allowing them to examine embryonic development far longer.

They may eventually also be used in drug trials,32 to evaluate a drug’s effect on fetal development, which could help determine whether a drug is safe for use during pregnancy.

According to Nature,33 “These constructs lack certain components essential for full development, and couldn’t give rise to a human if implanted.” Still, that hasn’t prevented ethical concerns from arising. Martin Pera, a stem-cell biologist at The Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine told Nature,34 “I think it really is a gray area. How do we regard these structures that are developing?”

While the general view is that synthetic “embryoids” — developed solely for study and not for implantation — are “too simplistic” to raise ethical concerns, others disagree.

Among them, bioethicist Insoo Hyun at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, who pointed out that correctly defining the exact features that would make a synthetic embryo too close to the real McCoy is a tremendous challenge.

He told Nature,35 “The potential is there for something to be constructed that’s much further along than 14 days, and that could develop if you were to implant it into the uterus.”

A September 11, 2019, article in Nature continues this conversation, pointing out that the latest scientific advances allow synthetic embryos to develop to the point they develop what’s called “the primitive streak” — a band of thick epiblast that stretches from the cranial to the caudal end of the embryo.

With the emergence of the primitive streak,36 it’s possible to distinguish the top and bottom (the future head and anus) of the embryo, and according to Nature, “some people consider this to be when an embryo becomes an individual human being.”

Zernicka-Goetz told Nature37 “We will have to confront ourselves with the question of what is a human embryo, and whether these models really have the potential to develop into one.”

The technology does raise a number of debatable questions. Is the creation of synthetic embryos a justifiable means for every end? Should they be allowed to be grown like fake meat? Will synthetic embryos eventually be used in vaccine production? If so, would moral questions still remain?

As for the use of natural embryos and fetal cells, should people just “get over” the “yuck” factor — or their deeply held moral and religious beliefs — regardless of how the cells used in scientific experiments and vaccine production were obtained? And does the end (more consistent vaccine production) justify the means (the use of “the earliest version of human beings”) to advance scientific knowledge and develop commercial products?
- Sources and References
1, 4, 11 Christianity Today April 26, 2019
2 Pontifica Academia Pro Vita, Moral Reflections on Vaccines (PDF)
3 Huffington Post March 31, 2017
5 Patheos.com September 26, 2019
6, 10 Vaccine Ingredients
7 FDA.com Shingrix (PDF)
8 Medpage Today December 22, 2017
9 Time October 30, 2014
12, 13 Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology September 2014: 6(9); 271-284 (PDF)
14 Science Direct, Insertional Mutagenesis
15, 17 FDA Powerpoint: Issues Associated With Residual Cell-Substrate DNA
16 Globalresearch.org September 8, 2014
18 Lancet 2002 Mar 9;359(9309):817-23
19 Clinical Microbiology Reviews 2004 Jul; 17(3): 495–508
20 History of Vaccines, Early Tissue and Cell Culture in Vaccine Development
21 National Academies IOM October 22, 2002
22 Research on SV40 … Statement of James Goedert
23 International Journal of Cancer November 27, 20016; 120(2)
24 Virology Blog April 13, 2010
25, 28 WHO, May 22, 2010
26 Reuters May 6, 2010
27 CDFA Porcine Circovirus May 2016 (PDF)
29, 30, 33, 34, 35 Nature July 4, 2018
31, 32, 37 Nature September 11, 2019
36 University of Michigan Anatomy, Embryonic Period Weeks 3-8

[Delight]

Paul Turner‎Restore Liability For The Vaccine Makers

"So I asked the pediatrician if it was wise to be injecting our babies with so many different ingredients all at the same time because we are told to slowly introduce new foods in case of them having an allergic reaction. I was told not to worry because the amounts were so small. When I asked how much was in a bee sting that can cause anaphylactic shock all I got was silence..."
Paul Turner
Today's children have more allergies than ever before. We have to watch out for more and more children having anaphylactic reactions to peanuts, eggs, soy, shellfish, wheat and penicillin...
We just can't be sure who may have negative and/or even deadly reactions, so we would never consider mandating that all children consume these items.
We know that vaccines contain a number of known toxins which have caused negative and/or even deadly reactions in some children. How can it make sense to mandate vaccines?
------------------------------------------------------------
Ask a pediatrician to name three or four ingredients in vaccines. If their response is, "The amounts are so small", ask them>>>
"How much bee venom does it take to cause anaphylactic shock?"

------------------------------------------------------

"FORMALDEHYDE IS OXIDIZED IN THE HUMAN BODY TO BECOME FORMIC ACID. FORMIC ACID IS THE MAIN INGREDIENT OF BEE AND ANT VENOM. CONCENTRATED, IT IS CORROSIVE AND AN IRRITANT. WHILE ABSORBING THE OXYGEN OF THE BODY, IT MAY LEAD TO ACIDOSIS, NERVE, LIVER, AND KIDNEY DAMAGE."

[Delight]

Posted by onawah (here)
Moral Implications of Aborted Fetuses in Vaccine Production
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola 10/8/19
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=724787689

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
One commonly cited reason for claiming a religious vaccine exemption has to do with the fact that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cell lines. Fetal cell lines used in vaccines were obtained from voluntary abortions performed in the 1960s and are still used today
Many other types of cells are used as growth mediums for vaccines, and some of those raise moral issues as well. Growth mediums include animal cell strains from chickens, dogs, monkeys, hamsters and insects. Some religious sects oppose vaccines made from animal cells, citing Levitical guidelines on exposure to certain animals and blood products
There are scientific objections to fetal cell vaccines as well. A study published in 2014 found rates of autism strongly correlate with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines
In 2002, Lancet published evidence showing polio vaccine contaminated with SV40, a monkey virus, was responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases that were occurring each year
Censored research also provided evidence that retroviruses in vaccines may be linked to chronic fatigue syndrome, autism and other diseases
One commonly cited reason for claiming a religious vaccine exemption has to do with the fact that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cell lines.

So glad to see you back Onawah!!!!
I was shocked by the following though I guess I shouldn't be at this point.....

Measles Vaccine: CDC erases evidence of abortion-tainted ingredients
Health Freedom Idaho October 8, 2019The CDC is removing listed excipients of vaccines from their official list that is made available to the public. Parents who have concerns about abortion tainted vaccines will find it harder to make an informed decision. The CDC recently removed and reworded the vaccine excipients list on their website.

Has Merck suddenly re-formulated their vaccine this past year after decades of using WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts (aka aborted fetal cells) for the development and manufacture of the MMR (measles vaccine)?
MMR Vaccine inserts straight from Merck’s website:
https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi.../mmr_ii_pi.pdf


No.
The CDC is trying to silently erase the evidence. It appears to be done as a marketing ploy removing controversial contents, removing words and changing around ingredients to make them seem less of a moral violation.
This should be criminal.

Erasing evidence…



<<< What is WI-38? https://www.atcc.org/products/all/CC...haracteristics >>>

Why don’t they want the public to know that this ingredient is used in the manufacturing process of the MMR vaccine? This appears to be an intentional ploy to confuse consumers.

Confusing consumers…
The CDC renamed the controversial ingredients from their printed list in January 2019. Human diploid is just a description of what the MRC-5 cell is. They are still harvested from healthy aborted human beings.



previous excipient list
Could it be, because they want to mandate vaccines and take away religious exemptions?

Are We Really Injecting Our Children with DNA of Aborted Human Beings?
The ‘grandfather’ of vaccines recently stated under oath that almost a hundred (or more) aborted human beings were used in the research and development of vaccines.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=N16LWcGGm7I

These preborn humans were healthy and their bodies used as spare parts. Portions of their DNA still remain in the vaccines injected into our children numerous times in their childhood.



Fetal DNA & TOXIC CONTAMINANTS are found in the final product of vaccines tested by independent labs
CORVELVA: ‘MRC-5 contained in Priorix Tetra – Complete genome sequencing’

Corvelva.it
The human fetal DNA presented in this vaccine is a single entire genome, which means the vaccine contains genomic DNA with all the chromosomes of a male individual (in fact MRC-5 originates from a male fetus).

Given below are the analysis results of different types of variants compared to the reference human genome.

Read the full report at CORVELVA. Full Report was useful, especially page 9 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...sequencing.pdf

Why don’t they want the public to know that this ingredient is used in the manufacturing process of the MMR vaccine?
Could it be, because they want to mandate vaccines and take away religious exemptions?
Because if people see that the MMR is manufactured with cells from an aborted fetus, that people might take issue with this?

Because they keep saying, that there is NO RELIGIOUS REASON to not vaccinate your child?

What about the parents who don’t want to inject their child with a vaccine that was manufactured using tissue from an aborted fetus?

What about the parents who don’t want to inject their child with biologically active DNA fragments from those aborted fetuses?

THEY. DON’T. WANT. YOU. TO KNOW.

[onawah]

Thanks Delight. I don't think it's too far a stretch in light of all the evidence to conclude that vaccines are a big, big part of the elite's depopulation agenda, and an extremely sadistic method of causing the most suffering possible in the process....

Posted by Delight (here)
So glad to see you back Onawah!!!!
I was shocked by the following though I guess I shouldn't be at this point.....

[onawah]

Why Are UK Experts Recommending the HPV Vaccine for Seniors Over 60 Years Old?
Vaccine Impact 10/8/19
https://vaccineimpact.com/2019/why-are-uk-experts-recommending-the-hpv-vaccine-for-seniors-over-60-years-old/"by Christina England
Health Impact News

On September 28, 2019, The Daily Mail published an article titled Now give every ADULT the cancer-fighting HPV vaccination and save ‘thousands of lives’, experts demand as evidence shows the jab can slash the cancer risk for grown-ups too.

The article claimed that world renowned medical experts were recommending that EVERY person in Britain, young and old, should be given the cancer-fighting human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to prevent them from developing a range of deadly tumours.

Author David Rose wrote:

Until now, most discussion of the vaccine has focused on youngsters, as giving it at an early age offers life-long protection.

But according to the world’s leading HPV researchers, there is now evidence that giving the jab to adults from their 20s into middle age would also bring dramatic health benefits.

However, it appears that these experts not only believe that it is a good idea to vaccinate young and middle-aged adults with the HPV vaccine, but they also think that it is a good idea to vaccinate the elderly with the HPV vaccine.

Rose continued his report by stating that leading HPV expert and president of the International Papillomavirus Society, Professor Margaret Stanley, OBE, told reporters that there was a spike in the incidence of HPV cancers when people entered their 60s because their immune systems became weaker over time.

She stated:

HPV breaks the usual rules of vaccination. Vaccinating older, infected people will make it less likely that cancers will develop.

However, Health Impact News found no evidence to support her claim.

In fact, according to our information, if a person is already infected with the HPV virus, getting vaccinated could, in fact, increase, not decrease their chances of getting cancer.

To learn more about the risks, read our article titled FDA Decision to Approve Gardasil Vaccine for Adults Will Likely Increase Cervical Cancer Rates.

Furthermore, in 2018, we reported that according to the research of French oncologist Dr. Gérard Delépine, the HPV vaccine Gardasil was actually associated with an increased rate of cervical cancer among patients.

If Delépine’s research is correct, then if everyone in Britain were to be vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, there is an extremely high possibility that the rates for cervical cancer in Britain could increase.

Despite this evidence, however, The Daily Mail stated:

But new research suggests the jab can prevent patients who have been infected with the virus from going on to develop cancer. It produces an immune system response so powerful it stops the virus from spreading inside the body.

Unlike our reports here at Health Impact News, The Daily Mail offered no factual evidence to support their claims. The only information that they supplied came from experts whom we believe would benefit financially from the whole of the country being vaccinated with this vaccine.

Daily Mail Experts Have Conflicts of Interest
According to our research, Professor Stanley has an extremely good reason to want the whole of Britain to be vaccinated with this particular vaccine, because she is a consultant for three of the companies that manufacture and market the HPV vaccine, MSD, SPMSD and GSK.

And if this information is not worrying enough, she is also the HPV expert for the HPV subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation (JCVI) in the UK, a committee who has been put in place to advise the UK government on vaccination policies.

These very interesting facts were reported by the International Papilloma Society.

If every single person in Britain were to receive the HPV vaccine, Stanley could become a very rich person indeed and it appears that she is not the only one of the so-called experts used by The Daily Mail, who has conflicts of interest.

During our research, we discovered that oncologist Xavier Bosch, who was also contacted by The Daily Mail to provide evidence, also has conflicts of interests with the pharmaceutical industry.

According to The Daily Mail, not only was he the scientist who first demonstrated that HPV causes cancer, but according to our research, he has also consulted for the MSD International Steering Committee, provided expert testimony for GlaxoSmithKline at the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency (EMA) hearings, and is a member of the GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur MSD speakers’ bureaus.

Throughout their report, The Daily Mail reported that the HPV vaccine can protect against cervical cancer and that since the vaccine was introduced in 2008, the rates of cervical cancer have decreased.

However, we have discovered that, according to a study that was published in 2017, the data used by the government to determine HPV cancer deaths was inaccurate because of faulty data. The data included women who had hysterectomies, and therefore had ZERO risk of developing cervical cancer.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that this study, conducted by Dr. Anna L. Beavis, et al., also uncovered that the actual death rate for black women dying from cervical cancer, since the vaccine was introduced, was nearly double than those that were reported.

For further information, read Study: Government HPV Cancer Death Rates Found to be False – Higher Death Rate Among Black Women.

According to Daily Mail Experts, There Are No Evidence of Adverse Reactions
Interestingly, the experts quoted by The Daily Mail completely and utterly denied the fact that Gardasil can cause serious adverse reactions. Yet, as of October 6, 2019, the World Health Organization’s (WHO), VigiAccess database had listed a total of 95,010 adverse reactions related to Gardasil, including a total of 495 deaths. The Daily Mail reported:

Anti-vaccine campaigners have claimed that the vaccine can cause serious side effects, such as chronic fatigue syndrome.

… the experts who spoke to this newspaper say there is no scientific evidence that this or other adverse conditions are more common in people who have had the vaccine – a conclusion that’s backed by the World Health Organization.

We believe that these experts should read some of our articles relating to the tragic victims of this vaccine, which we have reported over the years, and speak to some of their parents. These victims include:

Jesse Questel
Christina Tarsell
Katy, who developed terminal cervical cancer after the vaccine
Asha, who developed leukemia
Colton Berrett
However, we have information to suggest that the experts quoted by The Daily Mail are simply not interested in facing the facts about the HPV vaccine.

Amanda Dew, the mother of a girl who was injured by the HPV vaccine in 2015, approached Professor Stanley at a conference titled Human Papilloma Viruses and the Public’s Health: An Unfolding Story, held in London on July 10, 2018.

When Dew asked her about the Gardasil vaccine and adverse reactions, Stanley appeared to be less than knowledgeable on the subject.

We spoke to Ms. Dew about her encounter with Professor Stanley and she told us:

“When I explained to Professor Stanley that over 8000 adverse reactions had been reported to MHRA, she said, ‘Isn’t that the worldwide figures?’ I said no, UK only.”

Dew told us:

“I said, if the vaccine was effective, we would start to see a drop in cervical cancer rates. She said it will take years to see a drop. I said if it worked we would see it now in the earliest group whom were vaccinated. She said she was expecting to hear news of a fall in incidence ‘any day now,’ i.e. there was no drop.

I then asked her whether she thought the neurotoxin aluminium could be a problem and she likened it to using aluminium foil. She didn’t seem to understand the consequences of injecting it and bypassing the first line of the immune system (mouth/gut).”

Dew told us that she questioned Stanley on whether or not she was aware of the flawed trials; however, it appeared that she either had no idea at all about the flawed trials and the fact that the manufacturers used no inert placebos or she was unwilling to comment on the subject.

Dew told us that Stanley just kept repeating that there was “no proof of causation” linking the vaccine to adverse events.

Dew said that as there were no tests to find out, how would Stanley know one way or another?

She told us:

“It’s like seeing a dead person at the bottom of a broken ladder. Then saying it couldn’t be the ladder that caused his death, because there was no proof. Yet no one looked at the ladder to see. Same argument.”

Claims by The Mail That the HPV Vaccine Offers Lifelong Immunity
The Daily Mail also claimed that if you give the HPV vaccination to young children as early as possible, it could offer them lifelong protection against the virus.

However, we found no evidence to support their claim.

In fact, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Medicine, who worked on the original HPV vaccine studies to get the vaccine approved, the vaccine is being way oversold.

In an article published by NPR news, she told reporters:

“… vaccinating an 11-year-old girl might not protect her when she needs it most — in her most sexually active years.”

Furthermore, in another interview, conducted by The Huffington Post, she stated:

“Gardasil only maintains antibody titers for HPV 16 (not 18, not 11, not 6) at five years, making the true long lasting (five years) coverage of Gardasil only for one type of cancer causing HPV.”

She continued:

“Duration of efficacy is key to the entire question. If duration is at least fifteen years, then vaccinating 11-year-old girls will protect them until they are 26 and will prevent some precancers, but postpone most cancers. If duration of efficacy is less than fifteen years, then no cancers are prevented, only postponed.”

These comments, given to The Huffington Post in a statement written by Dr. Diane Harper, the principal investigator for clinical vaccine trials for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix), are in complete contrast to those published by The Daily Mail.

It appears that Harper is correct, because a recent article published by RSVP live stated that, despite the fact that one mother had received her HPV vaccine at school, she had just received the results of a positive smear test. The report stated:

“A young Cork mother has been left shocked and angry after the results of her first smear test showed up positive for the HPV virus and abnormal cells, despite the fact that she received the HPV vaccine in school nearly eight years ago.”

The mother told reporters:

“I had my daughter at Christmas and things weren’t right.”

She stated:

“I wasn’t due my first smear until July but my doctor said she would do it early, so she smeared me in June. I got the results in August and they showed I have the HPV virus and abnormal cells. Tomorrow I go to the hospital for a colposcopy.

I hadn’t been well since Christmas with heavy bleeding, tiredness and pain. I had been to see my gynaecologist in CUMH but they believed it was just my hormones after having a baby but it kept going on and on and eventually I got a smear.”

RSVP live reported:

“*Claire went on to explain that having ‘abnormal’ cells means they are precancerous, so there is an increased risk of her developing cancer. There is no treatment for the HPV virus, so she will have to be closely monitored.”

‘Claire’ told reporters that in the past she had always been an advocate of vaccines and that she’d had both of her children vaccinated, but that due to her experiences, she has decided to not let them get this particular vaccine when it is their time.

She stated:

“I don’t think I would let my children get this particular vaccine when it is their time, because I would be putting a vaccine into their body and it may not cover them.

Also, a lot of girls who got the vaccination in my year were very sick after it I don’t think there is enough research about it.” [sic]

However, it appears that experts like Professor Stanley and the UK government continue to dismiss evidence of harm, even when it is presented to them over and over again.

In this podcast, the evidence of harm and the corruption that is going on behind closed doors to protect the HPV vaccination could not be spelled out more graphically.

In a shocking statement about the HPV vaccine, news presenter George Hook made his feelings perfectly clear. In an angry outburst, he stated that:

“Well, I’ve been on this radio station now for just over fifteen years. Never in that time have I been more angry, more emotional or, indeed, more sad.

Imagine a mother watching her child’s life disappear, or her education destroyed, her possibility of future employment lessened. At night she hears her child cry in pain and there’s no help. The children are dismissed as hysterical girls, invariably.

And then the vaccine. The suggestion is, and I don’t know, but I have to ask the question. There is the suggestion from these mothers damaged as they watch their children that there may be something to do with the HPV vaccine. Consequently, the take up has dropped to 50%.

Now, the HSE, this huge organization of thousands of employees with budgets running into millions and billions, are being apparently defeated by a bunch of Irish mothers, so the vaccine take up has dropped.

Am I happy that the vaccine take up has dropped? No, I am not, but then I hear that the failed executive of the failed HSE, Tony O’Brien, on the radio described these mothers as emotional terrorists.

How dare he! How absolutely dare he call mothers who care for their children, who watched them in agony and pain, how dare he call them terrorists!

If we had a minister of health in Simon Harris who wasn’t in political nappies and in a job way above his talents, if he had a shred of courage, which the great party Fine Gael seem singularly lacking in, O’Brien wouldn’t have a job today. O’Brien would be sacked. He would be taking his belongings home in a cardboard box, for calling mothers of Ireland emotional terrorists.

So if the HSE wants to get vaccination rates up, they give the people the right information, not smart alec scientists on radio programmes. They answer people’s queries and they put together something to help people, for whatever reason, who are ill. I am done.”

As harsh and as angry as Hook’s comments may be, he could be justified in what he had to say, because this is not the first time that mothers of children injured by this vaccine have been attacked by organizations such as the HSE.

Daily Mail States that HPV is Known to Cause Cervical Cancer
Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, The Daily Mail has stated that there are more than 4,000 new UK cases of these types of cancer each year and, according to them, this figure is rising rapidly. However, they made absolutely no attempt to offer any kind of evidence to support this claim, or any of their other claims.

In fact, the only evidence offered throughout their somewhat flawed report appeared to be obtained from experts who work for the manufacturers of the vaccine.

More information about Gardasil
(GO TO THE ARTICLE FOR LIVE LINKS TO THE ARTICLES LISTED FOLLOWING)
Images of a few of the women we have done articles about who had their lives destroyed by the HPV vaccine.

Illinois Teen Dies Three Weeks After Being Injected with HPV Gardasil Vaccine
California Nurse Gives Gardasil Vaccine to Own Daughter who Develops Leukemia and Dies
Infant Accidentally Vaccinated with Gardasil – Mother Blamed for Vaccine Injuries and Baby Medically Kidnapped
The Happy-go-Lucky Girl I had Pre-HPV Vaccine is Gone Forever
Iowa Girl Faces Death: Life Destroyed by Gardasil Vaccine
Gardasil Vaccine Given without Consent and Ruins Life of 14 Year Old Girl
After 3 Years of Suffering 19 Year Old Girl Dies from Gardasil Vaccine Injuries
Gardasil: The Decision We Will Always Regret
15 Year Old French Girl’s “Descent into Hell” After Gardasil Vaccine – Wheelchair Bound and Paralyzed
The Gardasil Vaccine After-Life: My Daughter is a Shadow of Her Former Self
Gardasil: An Experience no Child Should Have to Go Through
I Want my Daughter’s Life Back the Way it was Before Gardasil
Gardasil Vaccine: Destroyed and Abandoned
15-Year-Old Vaccinated by Force with Gardasil now Suffers from Paralysis and Pain
Recovering from my Gardasil Vaccine Nightmare
Gardasil: We Thought It Was The Right Choice
“HPV Vaccine Has Done This to My Child”
13 Year Old World Championship Karate Student Forced to Quit After Gardasil Vaccine
If I Could Turn Back Time, Korey Would not Have Received any Gardasil Shots
What Doctors Don’t Tell You: Our Gardasil Horror Story
Family Fights U.S. Government over Compensation for Gardasil Vaccine Injuries
Gardasil: When Will our Nightmare End?
HPV Vaccine Injuries: “I Cannot Begin to Describe What it is Like to Watch your Daughter Live in Such Agony”
Gardasil: Don’t Let Your Child Become “One Less”
The Gardasil Vaccine Changed Our Definition of “Normal”
Gardasil: I Should Have Researched First
“They’ve Been Robbed of Their Womanhood” – Local Milwaukee Media Covers Gardasil Vaccine Injuries
Gardasil: The Day Our Daughter’s Life Changed
Gardasil: The Decision I will Always Regret
Gardasil Vaccine: One More Girl Dead
Gardasil: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare
After Gardasil: I Simply Want my Healthy Daughter Back
Gardasil: My Family Suffers with Me
Gardasil Changed my Health, my Life, and Family’s Lives Forever
Gardasil: Ashlie’s Near-Death Experience
Gardasil: My Daughter’s Worst Nightmare
My Personal Battle After the Gardasil Vaccine
Gardasil: The Worst Thing That Ever Happened to Me
A Ruined Life from Gardasil
HPV Vaccines: My Journey Through Gardasil Injuries
The Dark Side of Gardasil – A Nightmare that Became Real
Toddler Wrongly Injected with Gardasil Vaccine Develops Rare Form of Leukaemia

[Delight]

Today i could post many more articles because much is happening.

Posted by onawah (here)
Thanks Delight. I don't think it's too far a stretch in light of all the evidence to conclude that vaccines are a big, big part of the elite's depopulation agenda, and an extremely sadistic method of causing the most suffering possible in the process....

Posted by Delight (here)
So glad to see you back Onawah!!!!
I was shocked by the following though I guess I shouldn't be at this point.....

[onawah]

Can you provide a link for that in post 466 Delight? I would like to post it elsewhere. Thanks!

Posted by Delight (here)
Today i could post many more articles because much is happening.

[onawah]

Has Gardasil Really Eliminated Cervical Cancer in Australia?
OCTOBER 08, 2019
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...-in-australia/
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

"[CHD NOTE: Several weeks ago our Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., participated in a debate about vaccines with Dr. Robert Riewerts from Kaiser Permanente. Last week we published “Chickenpox: The Dirty Dozen Facts You Should Know Before Vaccinating” to correct some of Dr. Riewerts erroneous statements about the varicella vaccine for chickenpox. This week, Mr. Kennedy is clearing up some of the confusion with the facts about the Gardasil vaccine for HPV. The show will air in mid-October.]

In our September 18th debate for Spectrum TV, Kaiser’s Chief of Pediatrics, Dr. Robert Riewerts, parroted Pharma’s popular canard that the Gardasil vaccine has eliminated cervical cancer in Australia—the first country to mandate the jab. This is false.

… Gardasil actually increases the risk of cervical cancer by a terrifying 44.6% among women who were exposed to HPV infection prior to vaccination.
Slide 1: Table 17 from Merck’s own clinical studies.

The table shows that Gardasil actually increases the risk of cervical cancer by a terrifying 44.6% among women who were exposed to HPV infection prior to vaccination. If anyone ever bullies you to take Gardasil, look up “Gardasil Vaccine Insert” on your cell phone to see all of the adverse events and show them this table. [From original BLA. Study 013 CSR. Table 11-88, p. 636]




Slide 2: 34% of children ages 2-10 have HPV infection due to non-sexual transmission.

This data shows that nearly HALF OF ALL WOMEN HAVE HAD PRIOR EXPOSURE TO HPV—with 38% being exposed before age 10. (which puts them at an increase of developing cancer if they have the HPV vaccine.) [Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 29(3):228-233, June 2016.]


Slide 3: The results of pap-smears before the pre-vaccination period.

Pap smears drove the dramatic decline of cervical cancer prior to the introduction of Gardasil in four countries. During the 1989-2007 period, the incidence of invasive cervical cancer declined continuously in all countries with pap screening.



… a dramatic reversal in that downward trend following the introduction of HPV vaccine (Gardasil)
Slides 4-8 show a dramatic reversal in that downward trend following the introduction of HPV vaccine (Gardasil). Oncologist Dr. Gerard Delepine, his wife Dr. Nicole Delepine, also a physician, and a team of researchers plotted these graphs from publicly available health data.



Slide 4: Cervical cancer increase in Australia following vaccine introduction.

Research tracks the INCREASE in cervical cancer in Australia following Gardasil’s introduction.



Slide 5: Cervical cancer increase in Sweden following the start of HPV vaccination campaign.

The same trend as Australia is seen in Sweden. The incidence of invasive cancer climbed from 2011, two years after vaccination campaign. [Graph published by Nordcan 2019 05 29.]



Slide 6: Cervical cancer increase in Norway following the beginning of HPV vaccine campaign.

Norway research shows a similar pattern as Sweden and United Kingdom. [Graph published by Nordcan 2019 05 29.]



Slide 7: Cervical cancer increase in the United Kingdom following the start of the HPV vaccination program.

The United Kingdom also shows a similar pattern. In the vaccinated age group, the incidence of cancer jumped in 2011, three years after the start of the campaign. [Graphic from Cancer Research UK]




The correlation between Gardasil uptake and increase in cervical cancer is correlation, not proof of causation.
Slide 8: Trends of incidence of invasive cervical cancer in France during first years of vaccination.

France has low Gardasil uptake and is the only of these nations where cervical cancer continues to decline. [Graph from International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization.]



The correlation between Gardasil uptake and increase in cervical cancer is just that—a correlation—not proof of causation. Only robust science—not name-calling or censorship—can answer whether, and why, Gardasil may be causing an increase in cervical cancer. Let’s ask social media titans to stop broadcasting Pharma’s propaganda and censoring open debate. Let’s demand that Pharma’s spokespeople support their claims with science.

View/Download PDF https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...st-9.26-V2.pdf

[Delight]

Posted by onawah (here)
Can you provide a link for that in post 466 Delight? I would like to post it elsewhere. Thanks!

Posted by Delight (here)
Today i could post many more articles because much is happening.

It was from facebook.....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

[onawah]

Thanks Delight!

[Delight]

California Resolution SR58 introduced by Richard Pan read it here

They’re Coming! Adult Vaccines! Michele Ford Brings You the Latest Info.
Oct 9, 2019

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qFQEmx8LUAc

[Delight]

I always feel better after listening to the Highwire.....

VAX-SHAMING

Flu Shot-In-The-Dark; Del Agrees with Richard Pan?!; From Homeschool to Harvard; Tamron Hall’s Vaccine Show Fiasco

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8qWPoZG1ZJQ

[onawah]

California’s Vaccination Mandate
Thursday, 10 October 2019
by Susan C. McGrath
https://www.thenewamerican.com/print...nation-mandate
This article originally appeared in the October 7, 2019 print edition of The New American.

“I sincerely hope Bonnie and Finn have received their measles vaccinations,” said a dear friend to me recently. We had been laughing over the exploits of my two grandchildren, ages four and two, when she abruptly expressed her concern.

“Why do you ask?” I queried.

“Because of the dangerous outbreak of measles I have heard about on the news. It’s frightening.”

I quickly allayed my friend’s fears of a measles epidemic. During the first seven months of this year, 1,164 cases of measles have been reported in the United States. With a total population approaching 330 million, the outbreak is neither dangerous nor frightening. In California to date, with a population of 40 million, 62 cases of measles have been reported, according to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Of these cases, 14 were pediatric (under 18 years of age) and 48 were adult. Although the vaccination status is not given for all 62 cases, at least 14 of the adults had been vaccinated for measles. The CDPH does not identify whether or not any of the individuals were foreign visitors to the United States. None of these cases have resulted in death. In fact, there have been only two reported deaths in the United States attributed to measles since 2003, the last being in 2015.

When I was growing up in the 1950s and early ’60s, measles was just another childhood illness we all got. I remember being in bed for several days with a fever and rash. My mother kept the curtains drawn to protect me from the possibility of photophobia (sensitivity to light). As I recall, my older brother and sisters contracted measles before I did and were already feeling better by the time I showed the first symptoms. We all recovered with rest, fluids, and calamine lotion to relieve the itching. The same was true for all the other kids in my neighborhood. There was none of the hysteria that seems to accompany measles outbreaks today.
Measles is a contagious viral disease that can be contracted by breathing in infected droplets or touching an infected object and then rubbing your mouth, nose, or eyes. It is believed that both the airborne and surface droplets remain active and contagious for about two hours. Prior to the introduction of the vaccine in 1963, approximately 90 percent of children had contracted measles by the age of 15, thus affording them lifelong immunity. By the time my siblings and I contracted measles in the late 1950s, the mortality rate for the disease had dropped from 10 per 100,000 population at the turn of the century to 0.3 per 100,000 population. Clean water systems, proper sanitation (sewage and solid waste disposal), and improved hygiene and nutrition were credited for the dramatic 98-percent decline in mortality rates, not vaccinations. Other infectious diseases such as TB, typhoid fever, influenza, scarlet fever, yellow fever, and malaria saw similar declines in mortality during the first half of the 20th century.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) credited public drinking water disinfection and treatment for the dramatic decline of typhoid fever in American cities over the past 100 years, calling clean water “one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.” Of concern, then, is the CDC’s assertion that the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963 is responsible for the dramatic decrease in measles deaths. Since the measles mortality rate had already declined by 98 percent by 1963, it seems only logical to give primary credit to clean water, proper sanitation, and improved nutrition and hygiene, yet the CDC makes no reference to these factors.

Of far greater concern is the CDC’s inscrutable misrepresentation of the measles mortality rate. On the CDC website page entitled “Top 4 Things Parents Need to Know About Measles,” parents are told that “1 to 3 out of 1,000 people with measles will die, even with the best care.” The CDC is telling parents that the mortality rate from measles is 100 to 300 per 100,000 people. In 1900, it was 10 per 100,000 people who contracted measles. By the time the vaccine was available, the mortality rate was 0.3 per 100,000. How then, in 2019, can the mortality rate in the United States have increased so dramatically? Furthermore, how can the CDC derive such a mortality rate when there have been only two reported measles deaths in the past 16 years? One must ask why the CDC would knowingly mislead parents. It is unfathomable.

From January 4 through April 2, 2015, 159 cases of measles were reported in the United States. Of these cases, 111 were linked to Disneyland visits in California from December 17, 2015 to the 20th. It is believed an infected foreign traveler visiting the theme park was the source of this outbreak. Of the nationwide cases, approximately 82 percent of the individuals had not been vaccinated for a variety of reasons, including religious and philosophical beliefs, medical contraindications, and age restrictions. That leaves vaccinated individuals making up 18 percent of the measles cases. The CNN article stating these vaccinated to unvaccinated percentage statistics went on to say that the measles vaccine is 99 percent effective. Apparently not in this outbreak. There were no deaths among the vaccinated or unvaccinated cases. The total number of measles cases for 2015 was 188.

The print and visual media’s response to the Disneyland outbreak was hyperbolic, warning of a health crisis that did not exist. Using such language as “scary,” “alarming,” and “devastating,” the media warned of the “skyrocketing” number of measles cases in recent years. The blame for the increase was laid exclusively at the feet of the growing number of parents who have adopted a modified vaccination schedule or have chosen to forgo vaccinations altogether. Citing a 2014 AP-GfK survey finding that only 53 percent of Americans were confident vaccines were safe and effective, a Washington Post article stated that those 47 percent who were not confident are similar to the “proportion who believe that houses can be haunted by ghosts.” Almost without exception, the media parroted the CDC mantra that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the measles vaccine is solely responsible for the dramatic decline in measles mortality. None of the risks associated with vaccinations was mentioned, and those parents choosing not to vaccinate their children were characterized as uneducated, hysterical, and a threat to the health of all. Yet, according to a survey in Pediatrics, most unvaccinated children in the United States have a college-educated mother who is at least 30 years old and a household annual income of at least $75,000.

In the midst of the media fervor over the Disneyland measles outbreak, California State Senator Richard Pan introduced and Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 277, which eliminated personal and religious belief exemptions to the CDC vaccination requirements upon entry to public and private elementary and secondary schools. In effect, California law usurped parents’ rights regarding the health and well-being of their children. Parents who believe abortion is a mortal sin are faced with the prospect of their children being injected with vaccines using aborted fetal cells if they are to attend school. Other parents, having researched the risk of vaccines versus their benefits, are denied the right to choose a more reasoned approach, either delaying vaccines or modifying the schedule to lessen the harmful effect of toxins injected into their children under the CDC schedule.

Only medical exemptions remained after SB 277, and parents with personal, philosophical, and religious opposition to vaccines were left with the option of homeschooling or leaving California. Meanwhile, Senator Pan, whose Twitter and social-media pages read like those of a big-pharma lobbyist, sanctimoniously stated, “It is our duty and responsibility to protect all children who attend schools in California.”

Now, four years later, Senator Pan is back, this time pushing Senate Bill 276 that would prohibit physician-issued medical exemptions, despite earlier promises he would never go after them. Instead, the authority to issue these exemptions will rest with the California Department of Public Health. Physicians will be required to complete a standardized exemption form and certify that it is “true, accurate, and complete,” and then submit it to the CDPH. SB 276 would also limit valid medical exemptions to only a handful of contraindications as specified by the CDC.

The list of “appropriate” versus “incorrectly perceived” contraindications reads like something from an alternate-reality horror film. For example, your child will be exempt from a subsequent dose of vaccine if he or she suffers a “severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis)” or if “encephalopathy (e.g., coma, decreased level of consciousness, prolonged seizures)” results “within 7 days of administration.” However, if from that same vaccine, your child suffers “collapse or shock-like state (i.e., hypotonic hyporesponsive episode) within 48 hours of a previous dose” or suffers a “seizure ≤ 3 days after receiving a previous dose,” he or she is not exempt from subsequent vaccinations. Neither would your child be exempt from vaccination if an older sibling suffered a severe adverse event after the vaccine. One has to ask: What type of society demands that a child first suffer a severe injury before his or her parents may decline a medical procedure? And what parents, having witnessed their child suffer a severe vaccine injury, would ever subject their younger children to what amounts to vaccine roulette? SB 276 has now been signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, and that is what parents will face. The health and well-being of our children will be in the hands of the all-powerful state of California and its appointed officials.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Section 1 of SB 276 gratuitously provides the CDC measles case totals for 2019, both nationwide and in California, apparently as sound justification for what can only be described as a draconian law. In introducing the bill, Senator Pan also assailed the rise in medical exemptions since the passage of SB 277, and stressed the need to close that “loophole.” Pan said, “It is clear that a small number of physicians are monetizing their exemption-granting authority and profiting from the sale of medical exemptions.” This is coming from a man whose political career has been and continues to be heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This funding looks suspiciously like a reward for introducing Senate Bills 277 and 276.

Section 1 of SB 276 states that “the legislature finds and declares” that “but for a small number of individuals, immunizations are safe and effective.” It is unclear why the drafters of this bill included such a declaration. It may have been included to reassure legislators who were voting away parental rights that they were doing so for the good of all, insuring “community immunity.” More likely, however, the declaration was included to repudiate a growing number of parents who, after years in the trenches, believe vaccines are not safe and that — not a few, but many — children in this country are paying a dear price for putative “community immunity.”

Nearly every vaccine injected into our children today contains either aluminum, aborted fetal cells, or both. Aluminum is an environmentally abundant metal, found in the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. It is also a neurotoxin — inhibiting many vital biological functions — and has been linked to neurodegenerative and autoimmune diseases. In September 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, issued a public health statement on the toxicology profile for aluminum. The preamble states, “This information is important because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depends on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.”

Under the current CDC vaccination schedule, on day one of life an infant receives 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight. Minimum Risk Level (MRL) safety guidelines continue to be exceeded for at least the first two years of life. Furthermore, safety inferences were made based on oral consumption and not injection. When we eat foods with aluminum, we absorb 0.2 to 1.5 percent. With normal functioning kidneys, it will be excreted. When aluminum is injected as a vaccine component into our children, 100 percent is absorbed. No safety testing for aluminum is required for vaccines. Nor is the MRL of aluminum adjusted appropriately to account for the immature renal function of infants and young children. It takes two to three years for full renal maturity, and an infant’s limited kidney function is outpaced by the CDC schedule, potentially resulting in aluminum loading. Instead of the neurotoxin being excreted, it stays and builds up in bones and organs, including the brain, since aluminum can permeate the blood-brain barrier.

Early on, aluminum loading afflicted dialysis patients, who have little or no renal function. Exposure to aluminum from contaminated water used for dialysis caused severe and sometimes fatal encephalopathy, bone disease, and anemia. Although these diseases once occurred in epidemic proportions in some dialysis populations, aluminum toxicity is now uncommon because the neurotoxin was removed from the water used for dialysis. Why have we not afforded our children the same protection from aluminum?

The MMR II vaccine, among others, is manufactured using aborted human fetal cell lines that are contaminated with human fetal DNA. Because this fetal DNA cannot be eliminated during manufacturing purification process, it can reach high enough levels after vaccination to trigger autoimmune attacks in children. Even small amounts of fetal DNA can trigger powerful autoimmune responses. Take labor, for instance. Labor is triggered by fetal DNA from the baby building up in the mother’s bloodstream, resulting in a massive immune rejection of the baby. Injecting a child with human fetal DNA contaminants carries the risk of triggering the child’s immune system to attack his/her own body. In January 1979, the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) approved the manufacturing switch for the rubella virus from an animal-based cell line to a human fetal cell line. Since 1980, there have been sustained increases in the rates of autism and other autoimmune diseases such as allergies, asthma, multiple sclerosis, and pediatric inflammatory bowel disease.

Despite the demonstrated risks associated with aluminum and aborted fetal DNA, thorough toxicity profiling was never performed on these vaccine components prior to FDA approval. Standard protocol clinical trials were not conducted by pharmaceutical companies on any of the vaccines prior to FDA approval. Why? Nor were clinical trials conducted testing the safety of injecting our children with multiple vaccines as more and more were added to the CDC vaccination schedule. Typically, before a drug receives approval for use in the United States, a rigorous and thorough three-phase clinical trial process is conducted. All clinical trials include a control group (participants who receive a neutral placebo, e.g., saline solution) or other ways to eliminate research bias. Less than 10 percent of all drug candidates will successfully make it through all three phases so that the drug developer is allowed to submit a New Drug Application to the FDA. Even after FDA approval, deadly risks associated with a drug may still appear, invariably resulting in a recall.

It is impossible, then, to reliably evaluate the risks associated with vaccines when no vaccine clinical trial — nor any subsequent study after approval — has studied a large group of participants over time with a control group receiving only a placebo (i.e., no vaccine component whatsoever). Post-approval studies invariably compare sick vaccinated children to healthy vaccinated children or some other variation of vaccinated to vaccinated children. The CDC offers these types of post-approval studies on its website, thus obfuscating — whether intentionally or unintentionally — the desperate need for open dialog regarding the health risks of vaccines.

Notwithstanding the lack of thorough and reliable safety studies, healthcare professionals and state and federal health agencies continue to assert that vaccines are “safe and effective.” On the CDC’s website under “Vaccine Safety,” it highlights a tome, Adverse Effects of Vaccines, Evidence and Causality. The first sentence of the preface reads, “Vaccines are widely recognized as one of the greatest public health successes of the last century, significantly reducing morbidity and mortality from a variety of bacteria and viruses.” Perhaps not surprisingly, in the “Concluding Comments” the committee tasked with compiling and assessing this evidence said, “This report is not intended to answer the question ‘Are vaccines safe.’” After 800-plus pages, the reader is no closer to the truth.

Over the last 50 years, the number of vaccines administered to a child by the time he/she is two years old has more than tripled. The types of vaccines and their concurrent delivery and frequency have all increased. In a 1967 “well baby” pediatrician visit, a two-month-old infant received two vaccinations: DTP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) and OPV (oral polio vaccine). Today, a two-month-old infant receives six vaccinations: HepB (hepatitis B), RV1 (rotavirus), DTaP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis), Hib (influenzae type b), PCV13 (pneumococcal conjugate), and IPV (inactivated poliovirus). This is in addition to the three vaccinations the infant has already received: HepB at birth, and influenza and TDaP in utero.

While there was a steady increase in the number of vaccinations during the 1970s and ’80s, the most dramatic rise has occurred over the past 30 years. Between 1989 and 2019, seven new vaccines and their concomitant injections were added to the vaccination schedule (Hib, HepB, Varicella, HepA, pneumococcal, influenza, and rotavirus). Today, if a child is vaccinated according to the CDC schedule, he will have received a total of 37 vaccinations by the time he enters kindergarten. Parents in California must now adhere to this schedule if they want to send their children to public or private schools.

If vaccines are safe and allegedly a panacea for childhood diseases, then why have our children become increasingly ill over the past 50 years? The dramatic rise in vaccinations should have resulted in healthier children. This is not the case. Between 1975 and 2019, the autism rate in the United States soared from one in 5,000 to one in 59, and in boys to one in 37. Food allergies increased 50 percent from 1997 to 2011. An estimated eight percent of children — one in 13 — have food allergies. Food allergies are a leading cause of anaphylaxis, resulting in approximately 200,000 emergency room visits per year. Most school lunches included peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches when I was growing up. Even in the late ’80s and early ’90s, when our daughter was in school, they were common. Now many schools provide peanut/nut-free lunch tables or prohibit nuts from being brought to school altogether.

Asthma is another serious illness on the rise. Asthma prevalence increased from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 9.3 percent in 2010. It is the leading chronic disease in U.S. children today. It also ranks third in the cause of hospitalization for children under the age of 15 and is the principal reason for missed school days. The medical community can describe the symptoms associated with autism, allergies, and asthma, but can only speculate as to the causes and have no explanations for their increase over the years. Other serious and sometimes deadly illnesses have also risen dramatically over the past 30 years, including childhood cancers, febrile seizures, atopic dermatitis, pediatric inflammatory bowel disease, type 1 diabetes, and multiple sclerosis.

Vaccination proponents are quick to assert that correlation is not causation. And they are correct. Without unbiased, long-term studies using a placebo containing no vaccine component whatsoever, it is impossible to establish a causal relationship between the precipitous rise in these diseases and the correlating increase in vaccinations. Evidence of vaccine injury nonetheless abounds. The Mayo Clinic website states that “autism spectrum disorder has no single known cause. Given the complexity of the disorder, and the fact that symptoms and severity vary, there are probably many causes. Both genetics and environment may play a role.” In bold, the website then states there is “No link between vaccines and autism spectrum disorder.”

If genetics plays a role in autism, it seems an unlikely culprit for the dramatic rise in autism. Why would there be exponentially more children genetically predisposed to autism today than 30 to 40 years ago? Blaming the environment for the rise in autism seems similarly without basis. Under the Clean Air Act administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), aggregate emissions of six common pollutants dropped 73 percent between 1970 and 2017. Also administered by the EPA are the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and 1972 Clean Water Act, regulating the handling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes. The use of toxic pesticides — also regulated by the EPA — has plummeted between 1970 and today. How can a cleaner environment account for the rise in autism? One has to ask the question, what other variable is left? Vaccines.

The onset of these chronic, debilitating, and sometimes deadly diseases afflicting our children today can often be directly connected with recent vaccinations. Yet parents have no recourse against the pharmaceutical companies who manufactured the vaccines that injure or kill their children. The National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986 exempted vaccine manufacturers from vaccine injury liability. Undoubtedly, government politicians were pressured, threatened, and lobbied by pharmaceutical companies to pass this act. The stated reason for the act was fear that the increasing injury lawsuits filed by parents would drive vaccine manufacturers out of the market, thereby endangering the much-touted benefits of nationwide vaccination goals.

In almost Orwellian fashion, an “alternative remedy to judicial action” was enacted to address vaccine-related injuries. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was established, with a “vaccine court” deciding what injuries would be eligible for compensation. One has only to visit the NVICP’s website to appreciate what a daunting task it is to file an injury claim. It would be impossible to navigate the claim process without a lawyer specifically familiar with the program. More disturbing are the limited number of vaccine injuries that qualify for compensation, and the monetary caps for those injuries. For example, if a child dies as a result of a vaccine injury and it fits the criteria (including narrow time-period specifications for first symptoms or manifestations) listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, his/her “estate” will receive $250,000. Additionally, claim petitions must be filed within 36 months of a vaccine injury. Even with these nearly insurmountable obstacles, over NVICP’s 30-year history, 20,000 claims have been filed and $4.1 billion has been paid out for vaccine injuries and deaths.

Vaccine injury is a reality. There is an undeniable correlation between the dramatic rise in diseases such as autism, asthma, and food allergies, and the rise in the number and concurrent injections of vaccines administered. Our children are sick, and more are getting sicker each year, and yet healthcare professionals and agencies continue to say that vaccines are safe and effective, and adverse events are rare. Also repeated ad nauseam is the chant, “Vaccines don’t cause autism.” Medical professionals admit they don’t know what causes autism, why some children are more susceptible to it, or why there has been a dramatic increase in the disease over the past 30 years. Yet they nevertheless state unequivocally that vaccines don’t cause autism. Physicians, healthcare agencies, and politicians are unwilling to acknowledge, and even actively suppress, any notion that vaccines may have created a healthcare crisis far more devastating than the measles. Why? One has only to ask one question, “Cui bono?” Pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the vaccines, to be sure. Between 1982 and 2018, the market for vaccines has grown from $169 million to nearly $50 billion. Merck & Co., Inc., a big pharma company that manufactures Gardasil, Gardasil 9, ProQuad, M-M-R II, Varivax, Pneumovax 23, RotaTq, and Zostavax, reported revenue of $6.8 billion for these vaccines in 2018 alone. Many of the studies concluding that vaccines are safe were sponsored and funded by and had study participants linked to the very pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the vaccines.

Politicians also benefit. In 2013-2014, pharmaceutical companies gave more than $2 million to members of the California State Legislature. Nine of the top 20 recipients were either legislative leaders or served on either the Assembly or Senate health committees. Not surprisingly, Senator Richard Pan was the top recipient, adding more than $95,000 to his campaign coffers. California SB 277 eliminating personal and religious exemptions to CDC vaccination requirements was introduced in January 2015. For 2018, Senator Pan received more than $150,000 in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies. If one takes into account the contributions he received from health service organizations and doctors associations heavily lobbied by big pharma, the total for Pan in 2018 alone is closer to $500,000.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, pediatricians benefit. Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn (July 13, 1926 - April 5, 1988), a pediatrician and vocal critic of many modern medications and surgical procedures he considered not only unnecessary but dangerous, was an anti-vaccination activist. In How to Raise a Healthy Child… In Spite of Your Doctor, Mendelsohn characterized well-baby office visits during which vaccines are administered as the “bread and butter” of the specialty, claiming that pediatricians will defend these routine immunizations “to the death.” Dr. Paul Offit is a pediatrician and a vocal proponent of vaccines. In 2008, Paul “for profit” Offit, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, made an estimated $46 million as part of a $182 million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck RotaTeq vaccine. Offit, whose pro-vaccine comments are often quoted in the media, said “an infant can safely receive up to 10,000 vaccines at once.”Parents with real concerns about vaccines cannot compete with big pharma and its mountains of gold, and therefore their pleas to all but a few politicians fall on deaf ears. Even most pediatricians, whom parents should be able to trust, have abandoned them, strictly adhering to the pro-vaccine mantra. Yet many parents continue to fight. Most have either experienced first-hand or know family members or friends who have suffered the tragedy of a vaccine-injured child. One need only look around. Among family, friends, and my immediate neighborhood, there are too many ill children. There is the two-year-old boy with such severe food allergies that his mother cannot take him to the park for fear he might be exposed to another child’s food. There is the boy down the street with mild autism and the little girl with eczema. There are the two brothers with asthma, severe enough to result in multiple hospitalizations. Another young boy has shrieking outbursts with little or no provocation. A four-year-old healthy little girl went in for her well-child visit and, within 10 seconds of receiving her vaccinations, lost consciousness. Within an hour she was temporarily paralyzed. This is what I see. Are these vaccine injuries? It is impossible to know without open dialogue and unbiased vaccine studies.

A young mother I know with an infant boy recently expressed concern about vaccinations and the risk of autism to her pediatrician. The doctor retorted, “better that than dead.” Despite this unbelievably irresponsible and ugly response, it does raise an important question. Have vaccines eradicated typically week-long childhood illnesses, only to cause chronic, life-long diseases? It seems so. Whether or not to vaccinate a child is a very personal decision parents must make based on knowledge, experience, faith, and conscience. With SBs 277 and 276, California has usurped parents’ right to make that decision. Instead, California will decide — the state that cannot even properly maintain and ensure the safety of its roads, bridges, dams, and reservoirs. A truly frightening prospect.

[Delight]

Barbara Loe Fisher in an intimate story of her journey.

'Today we speak with the woman who started the vaccine injury awareness movement. Barbara shares her own personal story about her son's injury and what it took for her to eventually realize that vaccines were responsible. She opens up about what prepared her for this work, her personal motivations that keep her going in this seemingly endless fight, and what direction she would like to see the informed consent movement go in the years to come." tinyurl.com/VaxConv

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K0ukd6We1IY

THIS is from 1982

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qpUsg4bDH5w

[Sue (Ayt)]

Posted by Delight (here)
Barbara Loe Fisher in an intimate story of her journey.


THIS is from 1982

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qpUsg4bDH5w

This brought back memories to me of 1982 or so, when my son's pediatrician decided to no longer give the Pertussis part of the DPT to my son after the first dose. I was naive and trusting, but glad now that he made that decision after asking me about any reactions to the first dose.

I found this article by Dr. Mercola which is also about the "P" part of the DPT:
Beware: The Pertussis Vaccine May Cause Encephalitis
It also claims in this article that

In an eye-opening report, the Watchdog Institute found that DtaP vaccine immunity only lasts about three years.

I wonder if the Pertussis vaccine has been improved in any way at all since then? I would assume from the Mercola article that most adults and children after 3 years are not immune to Pertussis anymore anyway?

[Delight]

I wonder if the Pertussis vaccine has been improved in any way at all since then? I would assume from the Mercola article that most adults and children after 3 years are not immune to Pertussis anymore anyway?

Thanks so much for adding your story here.
In looking at the Children Health Defense website, there are several articles about Pertussis vaccine. I have trust in what their research uncovers. One bit of information lately is that the Pertussis vaccine creates carriers who can infect others even though they have no symptoms.

Pertussis: Vaccine Failure, Not Failure to Vaccinate
MAY 31, 2019
By the Children’s Heath Defense Team


This is the latest peer reviewed science-not “vaccine misinformation.” These studies show that the Pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine has now failed. Studies show that by five years after completion of the DTaP series, children were up to 15 times more likely to acquire pertussis compared to the first year after the series. California schools are now suffering a Pertussis outbreak (3,455 cases in 2018 compared to 14 Measles cases) affecting primarily vaccinated children.

With mandates legislation sweeping across the nation, the stakes are too high for citizens to tolerate laziness, scientific illiteracy and a default to collegiality in our elected leaders. It’s time for lawmakers to fact-check their sources.

[Franny]

The formatting is a little odd but it's readable so I didn't make any changes.

Vaccination causes Autism – say US government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

A New Scientist article 29 June 2010 by Jim Giles states:-

We still do not know what causes autism.“

Desperate measures: The lure of an autism cure

That is not correct. Here we set out four ways autistic conditions are caused and confirmed by statements from the current President of pharmaceutical giant Merck’s Vaccines Division, by US Government agencies, by the US Federal Court and in formally published academic journal papers.

If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News]. In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.” [Text added 10 April 2011]

The first known cause of autism was rubella virus. So not only is New Scientist an unreliable source of information, this cause of autism has been known since the 1960s. And rubella virus is one of the three live viruses in the MMR vaccine.

… rubella (congenital rubella syndrome) is one of the few proven causes of autism.” Walter A. Orenstein, M.D. US as Assistant Surgeon General, Director National Immunization Program in a letter to the UK’s Chief Medical Officer 15 February 2002.

rubella virus is one of the few known causes of autism.” US Center for Disease Control.
“FAQs (frequently asked questions) about MMR Vaccine & Autism” [ED 8/Apr/12: This is the web archive of the CDC page – you will need to search in or scroll down the page to see the text. As papers cited on the original page by the CDC as evidence for no link with the vaccine have been steadily discredited it seems the CDC has decided to remove the page and it seems someone has been deleting the archived versions of the page from the web archive too].

rubella can cause autism“ The Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

Journal references:

Chess, S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1, 33-47 (1971).

Chess S. Follow-up report on autism in congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1977;7:69 –81

Ziring PR. Congenital rubella: the teenage years. Pediatr Ann. 1997;6: 762–770

People who are pre-disposed to have a mitochondrial dysfunction can develop autistic conditions following vaccination. The current President of Merck’s Vaccines Division, Julie Gerberding confirmed to CBS News when she was Director of the US Centres for Disease Control that:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.“

HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30 ET



Mitochondrial dysfunction is claimed to be “rare” but is not. It can apply to a minimum of 20% of cases.

And this was said when Gerberding was then head of the US Centres for Disease Control – budget US$11 billion. It followed from award winning author and journalist David Kirby breaking the story of the Hannah Poling case, secretly settled by the US Government. It was after this story broke that it started to be acknowledged that autism has an “environmental” cause and is not solely an “internal” condition [ie not determined solely by genetics]: AUTISM – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments – It’s Not Just MMR

Gerberding went from the US agency charged with promoting vaccines [CDC] directly to become vaccine maker Merck’s Director of Vaccines Division: Dr. Julie Gerberding Named President of Merck Vaccines – 21 Dec 2009 – Merck & Co., Inc.

Autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination. The US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) confirmed to CBS News that of 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in secret settlements:-

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.” [PDF Download – Text of email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News]

CBS News Exclusive: Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link – WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008

Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? – First Family To Have Autism-Related Case “Conceded” Is Just One Of Thousands – CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008

Measles and mumps are two of the three live viruses in the MMR vaccine. Exposure to live measles or mumps viruses can cause encephalitis:-

measles and mumps can cause significant disability, including encephalitis“

The Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

So there is direct evidence that live measles, mumps or rubella viruses separately can cause encephalitis leading to autism.

More troubling is that this has been known for a long time. So the risks of giving very young children a vaccine containing three live viruses all at once were known. These two World Health Organisation papers published nearly 40 years ago set out the hazards:

Virus-associated immunopathology : animal models and implications for human disease”:

1. Effects of viruses on the immune system, immune-complex diseases, and antibody-mediated immunologic injury Bulletin of The World Health Organisation. 1972; 47(2): 257-264.

2. Cell-mediated immunity, autoimmune diseases, genetics, and implications for clinical research Bulletin of the World Health Organisation. 1972; 47(2): 265-274.

Autistic conditions can result from acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following MMR vaccination as held by the US Federal Court in the case of Bailey Banks. In his conclusion, US Federal Court Special Master Abell ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which, in turn, had caused the autism spectrum disorder PDD-NOS in the child:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

[Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007)].

And what does not cause autism?

Autism is not “caused” by “genes”

Dr Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. the 16th and current Director of the US$30.5 billion budget National Institutes of Health [nominated by President Obama: NIH News Release 17th August 2009 ] stated in evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006 when Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute:

“Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool as those changes take much more time to occur. They must be due to changes in the environment, including diet and physical activity, which may produce disease in genetically predisposed persons.“

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006

Collins controls the US $30.5 billion annual medical research budget and is a leading medical doctor and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project.

Autistic conditions affect 1 in 100 US children (latest estimates in late 2019 are closer to 1 in 42). They affect 1 in 64 British children [1 in 40 are boys] according to a Cambridge University study.

ESTIMATING AUTISM SPECTRUM PREVALENCE IN THE POPULATION: A SCHOOL BASED STUDY FROM THE UK

Conclusions: The prevalence estimate of known cases of ASC, using different methods of ascertainment converges around 1%. The ratio of known to unknown cases means that for every three known cases there are another two unknown cases. This has implications for planning diagnostic, social and health services.”

It is estimated to cost the UK £28 billion per annum [roughly US$42 billion]: [“Economic Consequences of Autism in the UK” – London School of Economics – Study by team led by Professor Martin Knapp [Executive Summary]

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/articl...or-of-vaccines

[onawah]

FEDERAL BILL SEEKS NATIONAL DATA BASE OF ALL VAX RECORDS. NO OPT OUT
10-12-19
From Autism Action Network
"The US House of Representatives is at it again, Representative Kim Schrier, MD, (D-WA-8) authored the Vaccines Act of 2019, H.R. 2862, which is described as a bill, “to provide for a national system for surveillance of vaccine rates, to authorize research on vaccine hesitancy, to increase public understanding of the benefits of immunizations, and for other purposes.” It also includes a propaganda campaign to promote vaccines. An initial $75 million would be allocated from 2020 to 2024.

Please click on the Take Action Link at:http://autismactionnetwork.org/ to send a message to your member of the US House of Representatives opposing H.R. Vaccines Act of 2019.
The bill for the first time would, “develop and deploy a national system for surveillance of vaccination rates” for the purposes of understanding, “vaccination confidence over time; “variations across time and geography;” and ominously, “to measure vaccine refusal.”

It would allow the feds to create a federal database of the vaccine records of the American population by consolidating existing state and private databases to measure if, “(i) vaccines are or will be underutilized; (ii) vaccine confidence is low or decreasing, (iii) misinformation about the safety of vaccines, not supported by scientific or medical evidence, has been directed in a targeted manner.” No language in the bill allows individuals to exclude information about themselves or their children from the database.

In short, this is a huge subsidized marketing plan for the vaccine industry. And it Includes a propaganda campaign for the vaccine industry paid for by the taxpayers. There is no companion bill yet in the US Senate, and only 23 co-sponsors have signed on so far.

All states keep track of the vaccination status or school children. Some states track adults as well. The US has extremely high vaccination rates even with our recommended schedule that has far more doses than any other country in the world. The four largest drug companies in the world, Pfizer, Merck, Glaxo and Sanofi control almost 90% of the $59 billion global vaccine market. They do not need $75 million from the American taxpayers to identify markets and promote their liability-free products.

And what gives the federal government the right to gather all the vaccine records of everybody in the US without our permission? Yet again we have the government and private industry working together, with no accountability, to benefit for-profit industries with our money while taking away fundamental medical privacy rights for ourselves and our children."

See the bill here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-.../house-bill/28...

Pays for propaganda campaign and free market research for the Vax industry

[Delight]

"The Greater Good" documentary 2014

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=72We-wG9DjA

[Delight]

PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF ANTI-HPV VACCINE GARDASIL ON CERVICAL CANCER RATE
State of published results in registers, on January 2019
Dr G Delépine, oncologist, surgeon
gerard.delepine@bbox.fr

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress”. Niels Bohr (Nobel prized for his works on the structure of the atom and chemical reactions )



Changing the natural history of cancer that increases in frequency and occurs faster.

It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn’t, took only a few hours … This » Titanic » demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.

Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid, if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it’s the case for HPV vaccines.



Pre-vaccination period : spectacular success of cervical smear screening with a steady decrease in the rate of invasive cervical cancer.

In all countries that performed smear screening, the pre-vaccination period from 1989 to 2007 was marked by a significant decrease in the standardized incidence of cervical cancer.

In less than 20 years, the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased from :

13.5 to 9.4 n Great Britain [1]

13.5 to 7 in Australia[2] ,

11.6 to 10.2 in Sweden [3],

15.1 to 11 in Norway [4],

10.7 to 6.67 in the USA [5],

11 to 7.1 in France.

Globally, in the countries that used smear screening, the average annual rate of decline was 2.5% between 1989 and 2000 and 1% between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a total decrease of nearly 30% across 1989-2007.



Era of vaccination: reversal of the trend. Gardasil’s prevention failure erases the beneficial effects of the smear and accelerates the onset of cervical cancer.



Since vaccination, in all the countries implemented with a large vaccination program, there is a reversal of the trend, with a significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers in the most vaccinated groups. Let’s look at OFFICIAL sources.

AUSTRALIA : contrary to the FAKE NEWS OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICS, REGISTER DOES NOT SHOW CANCERS OF THE CERVIX DISAPPEAR, BUT INCREASE.

Australia was the first country to organize routine immunization for girls (April 2007 school-based program for females aged 12–13 years, July 2007 time-limited catch-up program targeting females aged 14–26 years) and then for boys (2013).. According to the last Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publication (2018 publication describing the detailed rates until 2014 ) [6] , the standardized incidence in the overall population has not decreased since vaccination 7/100000 in 2007 versus 7.4 in 2014.

This global stabilization results from two contradictory trends that only appears by examining trends, according to age groups.

Vaccinated age groups women have seen their risk increase:

100% increase for those aged 15 to 19 (from 0.1 in 2007 to 0.2 in 2014)

113% increase (from 0.7 to 1.5) in groups aged 20 to 24 more than 80% of them were catch up vaccinated when 13 to 17 years old.

But, as the figures are very small, this increase does not reach statistical significance.

About a third increase for 25-29 group (from 5.9 to 8 ,p=0.06) and for 30-34 (from 9.9 to 12.4 c=0.80 p=0.01) less vaccinated. These increases are statistically significant cannot be due to hazard.

A drama known to one top athlete : Sarah Tait

This increased risk of cancer following vaccination was dramatically illustrated by the sad story of Sarah Tait, olympic rowing champion, at the 2012 London Olympics. This champion saw her life shattered in full glory : she suffered invasive cervical cancer a few years later, being vaccinated and died at age 33. Of course, we don’t know if vaccination was the direct cause of her cancer, but she has, statistically, a one in two chances of having suffered from a cancer linked to vaccination (to be part of the 113% increase of cancer observed after vaccination). In addition, we remark that cancer appears very early in this woman.



Non vaccinated women continue to benefit from screening with pap smear

During the same period, older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease significantly:

less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1),

less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9),

less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8)

and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).

GREAT BRITAIN : THE PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL PROMOTING CANCER

In UK, a national program was introduced in 2008 to offer HPV vaccination routinely to 12–13-year-old and offer catch-up vaccination to girls up to 18 years old. The UK national program initially used the bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix), but, changed in 2012 to use the quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil). HPV vaccination coverage in England has been high with over 80% of 12–13 years old receiving the full course coverage. The catch-up cohort has been lower covered (ranging from 39% to 76%).

Since the vaccination, the standardized incidence in the overall population increased from 9.4 per 100000 in 2007 to 9.6 in 2015. We observe contrasting trends between the age groups.

Vaccination promoters expected cervical cancer rates decrease in women aged 20 to 24 from 2014, as vaccinated adolescents enter their second decade. However, in 2016, national statistics showed a sharp and significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer in this age group. This information of 2016 has unfortunately not been publicized. They could have served as an alert.

Women aged between 20 and 25 years, vaccinated for more than 85% of them, when they were between 14 and 18 years old, have seen their cancer risk increase by 70% in 2 years (from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 p = 0.0006) and those aged 25 to 30, ( aged between 18 and 23 at the time of the vaccination campaign) have seen their cancer risk increase by 100% between 2007 and 2015[7] (from 11 / 100,000 to 22 / 100,000 ).

Women 25 to 34 years, (less vaccinated, only exposed to some catch-up vaccinations), have seen their risk increased by 18% (from 17 in 2007 to 20 in 2014).

In Great Britain, as in Australia, older, unvaccinated women have seen their risk decrease:

( -13% for women aged 65 to 79 and -10% for those over 80 ), most likely because continuation of smear screening.



SAME PARADOXICAL PHENOMENON OF GARDASIL IN SWEDEN : THE RATE OF CANCER INCREASES IN THE VACCINATED AGE GROUPS . ALERT!

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006. The vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, with a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated.

In this country, the standardized incidence of cervical cancer in the global population has increased steadily since vaccination from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012 and 11.49 in 2015[8]. This increase is mostly due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers among women aged 20-24 whose incidence doubled ( from 1.86 in 2007 to3.72 in 2015 p<0.001)[9] and in women aged 20 to 29 the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased by 19% (from 6.69 to 8.01)

In contrast, as in Australia and Great Britain, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer has been observed in women over 50, a group that has not been included in the vaccination program. The incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased between 2007 and 2015 by 6% for women aged 50 to 59 (from 14.24 to 13.34), and 4% for those aged 60 to 69 (12.63%). at 12.04,) 17% for those aged 70 to 79 (from 15.28 to 12.66) and 12% for those over 80 (from 15.6 to 13.68).



IN NORWAY

Cancer registry shows an increase in the standardized incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix from 11.7 in 2007 to 12.2 in 2009, 13.2 in 2012 and 14. 9 2015 [10].

This increase is due -almost exclusively- to young women, which include all vaccinated, as evidenced by the sharp decline of the average age of onset of the cervix cancer from 48 years in 2002 -2006 to 45 years in 2012-2016.

Between 2007 and 2015 , the incidence of invasive cervical cancer increased by 8% among women aged 20 to 29 (from 7.78 to 8.47)[11].

During the same period, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer was observed in older women, not involved in the vaccination program: -11% for women aged 55 to 64 (15.47 to 13.7), -16% for those aged 65 to 74 (17.7 to 14.71) and -29% for those aged 75 to 85 (18.39 to 13) .

In USA

In this country, vaccination coverage is lower than in previous countries (close to 60%).
According to the Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2015[12], the standardized incidence of invasive cervical cancer remains stable(+0.1) since vaccination.
In US, the same discrepancy is observed according to age groups, but of lesser amplitude. Women over 50, benefit a 5% decrease in their risk (from 10.37 per 100000 in 2007 to 9.87 in 2015), whereas younger women, which include vaccinated, have given their risk increase of 4% (5.24 in 2007 to 5.47 in 2015).





WITNESS COUNTRY: FRANCE

The evolution of these countries, with high immunization coverage, can be compared to the trend observed in metropolitan France, where HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15%). France can be considered, for this reason, as a control country. In France[13] the incidence of cervical cancer has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017, much lower than those of countries with high vaccine coverage.

This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017.

It is paradoxical and very worrying that these excellent French results, with low cervix cancer rate and low related mortality, could be jeopardized by an obligation considered in the short term by our policies, for some misinformed and other big pharma links[14].



DRAMATIC AND UNEXPECTED PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL: THE ALERT MUST BE GIVEN TO DECISION MAKERS AND THE MEDIA.

In all countries that achieved high HPV vaccination coverage, official cancer registries show an increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer.

For women under 20, the crude number are to small to reach statistical significance, but the similar increases in all the studied countries constitutes a strong alarm signal.

For women 20-30 the incidence increases after catch up vaccination, and is highly significant (p<0.01or 0.001). In these same countries, during the same period, older women, not vaccinated, have seen their risk of cervical cancer continue to decline.

Similarly, in metropolitan France, a country with low vaccination coverage, the incidence of cervical cancer continues to decline at a rate comparable to the pre-vaccination period.

These paradoxical results plea for a rapid revision of recommendations and intensive research to explain this catastrophic issue.





[1] Cancer Research UK, Cervical Cancer (C53): 1993-2015, European Age-Standardized Incidence Rates per 100,000 Population, Females, UK Accessed 08 [ 2018 ].

[2] AIHW [2]. 13. AIHW 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. No. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW.

[3] NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries 3.1.2018

[4] Bo T Hansen, Suzanne Campbell, Mari Nygård Long-term incidence of HPVrelated cancers, and cases preventableby HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019005

[5] Table 5.1 Cancer of the Cervix Uteri (Invasive) Trends in SEER Incidence and US Mortality SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2012

[6] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: cervical cancer Canberra: AIHW. <Http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books>.

[7] A Castanona, P Sasienia Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20-24 years in

England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine 107 (2018) 21-28

[8] Nationellt Kvalitetsregister für Cervix cancer prevention (NKCx), http://nkcx.se/templates/_rsrapport_2017.pdf [in Swedish]

[9] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed it 30 / 09 / 2018 .

[10] Cancer in Norway 2016

[11] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed is 1 / 10 / 2018

[12] SEER 9 National Center for Health Statistics, CDC

[13] Francim, HCL, Public Health France, INCa. Projections of Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Metropolitan France in 2017 – Solid Tumors [Internet]. Saint-Maurice: Public health France [updated 02/01/2018; viewed on the 09/05/2018

[14] https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libr...inent-d-206314 Gardasil, alert, imminent risk of mandatory vaccination against HPV unnecessary, and sometimes dangerous , for girls and boys.