+ Reply to Thread
Page 41 of 42 FirstFirst 1 31 41 42 LastLast
Results 801 to 820 of 827

Thread: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

  1. Link to Post #801
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    "VAXXED II: THE PEOPLE'S TRUTH STREAMING STARTS AT MIDNIGHT TONIGHT

    Starting at 12:00 AM Tuesday February 25th, you can stream VAXXED II directly to your TV or Device
    There are TWO OPTIONS for Streaming:

    1. ROKU - on Peeps TV

    if you own a Roku device, make sure you subscribe to Peeps TV channel. As a Peeps TV subscriber, you will be able to RENT or BUY Vaxxed II

    2. Vaxxed2.com

    if you are not a Roku subscriber, you can still stream Vaxxed II directly from our website."

    https://www.vaxxed2.com/so/adN1vp5GJ...0b910ba8#/main
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    holistic1 (7th March 2020), Houman (25th February 2020), Pam (28th February 2020), Stephanie (29th February 2020)

  3. Link to Post #802
    France Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th February 2019
    Location
    South of France
    Language
    French
    Age
    66
    Posts
    133
    Thanks
    1,249
    Thanked 850 times in 128 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    That sure does sound like the truth.
    Quote Posted by James Newell (here)
    I see with little question that the release of this Coronavirus is a power grab on a world wide scale for enforced vaccinations.

    https://banned.video/watch?id=5e4c4841af22a6002b86daff
    Agreed that this is what the evil controllers want.
    But can anyone explain me then why the vaccine against the corona virus is not released yet and for sale ? Or do they first wait till the pandemic is everywhere before doing that next autumn? Usually they are very greedy and in a hurry to have their dirty return on investment.
    Something does not add up, maybe it is an accidental escape. Sorry to add more speculation here.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Philippe For This Post:

    onawah (25th February 2020), Pam (28th February 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  5. Link to Post #803
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Cochrane Founder Warns Flu Vaccine Research Is Corrupted
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    February 25, 2020
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=817639049

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    Professor Peter Gøtzsche is a Danish physician-researcher who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre. He has been an outspoken critic of conflicts of interest and bias in research
    After Gøtzsche co-wrote a scathing review of Cochrane’s 2018 review of HPV vaccine safety, Cochrane’s governing board expelled him and, in a February 9, 2020, tweet, Gøtzsche took aim at Cochrane’s review of influenza vaccine by alleging that a “financially conflicted” individual “rearranged” vaccine trial data to make it appear as though the influenza vaccine reduces mortality, when it doesn’t
    In the 15 years prior to Gøtzsche’s expulsion, Cochrane had published several meta-reviews, showing flu vaccinations are ineffective for preventing influenza and influenza-like illness, and have no appreciable effect on hospitalizations and mortality
    March 3, 2020, Maine residents will have the opportunity to go to the polls and repeal LD 798 to reinstate religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions by voting YES on ballot referendum Question 1
    The “No on 1” ad campaign primarily financed by Big Pharma has already spent $476,000 on misleading television ads to defeat the ballot referendum that would restore vaccine exemptions in Maine. All but $56,000 for the ad campaign has been paid by vaccine manufacturers, which will profit from keeping the state’s “no exceptions” vaccine mandates (LD 798) in place
    While the drug industry is quick to claim that anyone questioning its integrity is part of a “war against science,” the evidence of industry malfeasance is simply too great and too disturbing to ignore.

    From my perspective, the drug industry itself is to blame for the public’s dwindling confidence in scientific findings. Loss of confidence is a natural result when lie after lie is unearthed, and there’s been no shortage of scientific scandals to shake public confidence in recent years.

    One researcher who has helped expose industry bias in research is professor Peter Gøtzsche, a Danish physician-researcher who in 1993 co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

    Cochrane publishes hundreds of scientific reviews each year, looking at what works and what doesn’t, and was for decades considered the gold standard for independent scientific meta-reviews.

    The organization’s reputation remained remarkably unblemished all the way up until 2018, when Gøtzsche and Cochrane-affiliated researchers Lars Jørgensen and Tom Jefferson published a scathing critique of Cochrane’s review of the HPV vaccine,1 pointing out methodological flaws and conflicts of interest.

    Gøtzsche was subsequently expelled by the Cochrane governing board (although the board insists his removal from the board was due to “repeated misuse of official letterhead to espouse personal views” and had nothing to do with his criticism of Cochrane’s HPV review2). Four board members (Gerald Gartlehner, David Hammerstein Mintz, Joerg Meerpohl and Nancy Santesso) resigned in protest of Gotzsche’s removal from the Cochrane governing board.3

    In a three-page letter4 to the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Gøtzsche addressed his expulsion and questioned the path Cochrane’s leadership has chosen in recent years, noting “the central executive team of Cochrane has failed to activate adequate safeguards … to assure sufficient policies in the fields of epistemology, ethics and morality.”

    Cochrane Founder Highlights Corrupted Flu Vaccine Research
    In a February 9, 2020, tweet, Gøtzsche wrote:5 “Cochrane corruption. A Cochrane review did not find that flu shots reduce deaths … ‘After invitation from Cochrane,’ a financially conflicted person ‘re-arranged’ the data and vaccines reduced deaths. They don’t …”

    This information, he says, is included in his new book, “Vaccines: Truth, Lies and Controversy.” Indeed, in years’ past, Cochrane has repeatedly found flu vaccinations are ineffective and have no appreciable effect on influenza-related hospitalizations and mortality. For example:

    Its 2006 systematic review6 of 51 studies involving 263,987 children, which sought to “appraise all comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in healthy children; assess vaccine efficacy (prevention of confirmed influenza) and effectiveness (prevention of influenza-like illness)” found:

    “Live vaccines showed an efficacy of 79% and an effectiveness of 33% in children older than two years compared with placebo or no intervention. Inactivated vaccines had a lower efficacy of 59% than live vaccines but similar effectiveness: 36%. In children under two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo.”

    Cochrane’s 2010 review7 of 50 influenza vaccine studies found that:

    “In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms …

    Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions … Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations … There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”

    This review also included the following notice:

    “WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size.

    Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

    Cochrane’s 2010 review8 of 75 studies of vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly concluded that:

    “Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.”

    Cochrane’s 2018 review9 of 52 clinical studies on vaccines for preventing influenza in adults, including pregnant women, found only 15% of the studies were well-designed and conducted. Based on 25 studies that looked at inactivated influenza vaccines, Cochrane concluded they have only a minor protective effect against influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI), noting:

    “Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% … 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI …

    We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% in mothers (NNV [number needed to vaccinate] 55), and 49% in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56).

    No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41%.”

    In its 2018 review10 of 41 clinical trials on live and inactivated vaccines for preventing influenza in children, they found:

    “Compared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4%, and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% …

    Seven children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 20 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one child experiencing an ILI …

    Compared with placebo or no vaccination, inactivated vaccines reduce the risk of influenza in children aged 2 to 16 years from 30% to 11%, and they probably reduce ILI from 28% to 20%.

    Five children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 12 children would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI …

    Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardized approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed.”

    Two States Rejecting Big Pharma's Vaccine Mandates
    In recent years, medical freedom has come under intense attack. In state after state, vaccine makers and their lobbyists have rammed through legislation that implements forced vaccination by eliminating vaccine exemptions. People in California, New York, Washington and Maine all lost vaccine exemptions last year, as detailed in the National Vaccine Information Center’s annual state legislation report “Vaccine Exemptions Under Attack in 2019.”

    Although 4 states lost vaccine exemptions last year, exemptions were protected from removal in 22 other states by the active participation of vaccine choice advocates who educated legislators about why it is important to have flexible medical, religious and conscience exemptions in vaccine laws.

    In New Jersey, bill S2173 was halted in the Senate, both in December 2019 and again in January 2020, due to persistent public protests against the bill proposing to eliminate the religious belief vaccine exemption.11,12,13

    The fact that New Jersey managed to thwart this broad attack on freedom is an encouraging sign. Never underestimate the power of the people! The key is numbers — you have to actually take action by contacting your legislators ahead of time to communicate your concerns about a bill you oppose (or support) and showing up at public hearings and on days when votes are taken in your state Capitol.

    Thousands of individuals gathered in hallways and outside the Capitol building in Trenton in protest of S2173 on multiple occasions, and it was undoubtedly the sheer size of the opposition that greatly helped to defeat the bill that many considered to be an attack on religious freedom.

    Another ray of light shines brightly in Maine. While the state legislature repealed the religious and philosophical belief vaccine exemptions in May 2019 by passing LD 798, residents rapidly succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures of registered voters to get an opportunity to repeal the new vaccine law, and it is now referendum Question 1 on the March 3 ballot.14

    So, March 3, 2020, residents will have the opportunity to go to the polls to repeal LD 798 and reinstate religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions by voting YES on referendum Question 1.15 As noted by RejectBigPharma.com:16

    “A YES vote is a vote to:

    Reject Big Pharma and government overreach
    Restore equal access to education for all Mainers
    Defend parental rights
    Protect religious freedom
    Preserve informed consent and medical freedom”

    Why Everyone Needs to Support Maine’s ‘Yes on 1’
    It’s important to realize that a victory in Maine would be a victory for all states, as it would set a crucial precedent. The good news is that it’s far easier to win in a state with a small population like Maine because there are fewer people to educate, which means less money is required for advertising.

    Maine has an advertising saturation point of about $3 million, meaning if you spend $3 million, you will reach a majority of residents and further advertising will not make a significant difference.

    Since Maine will be the first state to put government vaccine mandates and repeal of exemptions to a popular vote, it’s important to support Maine’s Yes On 1 campaign regardless of where in the United States you live. By helping them succeed, they will set a precedent for other states to follow.

    As of February 6, 2020, the “Yes on 1 Reject Big Pharma” campaign had raised just over $300,000.17 The campaign needs to raise at least $1 million to stand a chance against the vaccine industry’s deep pockets. Of course, if you’re a registered voter in Maine, you can cast a YES vote on March 3, 2020, to restore vaccine exemptions in your state.

    Also remember to register to become a user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal, operated by the National Vaccine Information Center, to stay up to date on vaccine-related bills that are moving in your state this year, including bills proposing to take away (or expand) your right to obtain a vaccine exemption for yourself or your child.

    The NVIC Advocacy Portal also provides access to bill analyses and talking points that you can use to educate your legislators about what the bills will mean to you and your family.

    Pharma-Led Opposition Cranks Out Misleading AdsTo win, it’s crucial we make sure Maine’s Yes on 1 campaign gets the funding it needs. Make no mistake, the opposition has no financial constraints, as it is led and supported by the drug industry itself.

    Ironically, the opposition is accusing the “Yes on 1: Reject Big Pharma” campaign of misleading voters, saying the drug industry has nothing to do with the removal of vaccine exemptions, and doesn’t make any money on vaccines.

    In reality, vaccines are a primary profit driver for the drug industry.18 Merck, which is just one of several vaccine makers, reported over $6.1 billion in sales of their childhood vaccines during the first three quarters of 2019 alone.19

    A January 2020 vaccine market report20 states the global vaccine market was worth $41.7 billion as of 2019, and is estimated to hit $58.4 billion by 2024. One of the factors attributed to this rapid growth is “the rising focus on immunization.” Anyone thinking this focus isn’t manufactured by the drug industry itself is fooling themselves.

    What’s more, as reported by Yes on 1 at a February 11, 2020, press conference, “No on 1” has already spent $476,000 on just three weeks’ worth of television ads. Yet the opposition — which claims to be a grassroots organization without any pharma funding or connections — report raising only $56,000 in donations. So, where did the rest of it magically come from? At the press conference, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 1 campaign revealed the obvious truth:

    “As reported in the Bangor Daily, Bobby Reynolds, spokesman for the ‘No’ campaign … answered this question when he announced that the massive ad buys were funded by — wait for it — vaccine manufacturers.21 Let that sink in.

    After months of denying any connection to Big Pharma, the No on 1 campaign yesterday admitted that they were funded by Big Pharma themselves — the very vaccine manufacturers whose products would be mandated under this law.”

    Eliminating Exemptions Is a Big Pharma Business Strategy
    Of course, vaccine makers have enormously deep pockets, which is how many of these laws are getting passed in the first place. One of the reasons they have so much money to spend on lobbying for the removal of vaccine exemptions is because they don’t have to pay for the damage their products cause.

    As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass in a February 11, 2020, post on CentralMaine.com, in support of referendum Question 1:22

    “Pharmaceutical companies face no lawsuits for vaccine injuries, so long as their vaccine has been added to the childhood schedule by CDC. Pharmaceutical companies don’t need to advertise required vaccines, since the government mandates them and 94% of Maine children already receive them.

    But the industry wants 100% guaranteed uptake, because it is about to roll out a number of new vaccines. The 21st Century Cures Act, passed in 2016, abbreviated the process for testing, licensing and adding vaccines to the childhood schedule. Over 200 vaccines are currently in development.

    How many of those vaccines will be required over the next few years is anybody’s guess. There is a huge financial incentive to having your vaccine placed on the childhood schedule by the CDC: no liability for injuries. The right to choose which vaccines your child receives will disappear unless referendum Question 1 passes.”

    No-Liability Industry Has No Right to Influence Policy
    At the press conference (see video above), Yes on 1 also clarified the opposition’s deceptive message that Yes on 1 would “repeal Maine’s vaccine law.” This is a wildly inaccurate statement.

    Yes on 1 simply repeals LD 798, i.e., the law that removes religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions, thus restoring Maine’s vaccine law to what it was before. In other words, certain vaccines will still be required for school attendance, but you will have the right to opt out by claiming a religious or philosophical exemption to one or more of those vaccines — just as you did before LD 798 was written into law.

    “The Yes on 1 campaign is, and always been, about speaking truth to power … The truth is that mandate laws like this one have nothing to do with public health, and everything to do with Big Pharma profit, Big Pharma control, and Big Pharma deception,” Yes on 1 says.23

    “While this law [LD 798] masquerades as a public health issue, there’s no evidence it would do anything to improve outbreaks of vaccine targeted disease in schools. Countless cases across the country have shown that these diseases occur in fully vaccinated populations …

    Why do we care about Big Pharma’s involvement? Because, a hated industry with no liability, no reason to improve the safety of its products, and an ever growing and aggressive schedule, should not be allowed to influence policy to mandate these very products.”

    Donate here: https://www.rejectbigpharma.com/donate
    - Sources and References
    1 BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine July 27, 2018; 11102
    2 STAT News September 28, 2018
    3 Cochrane.org September 15, 2018
    4 Nordic Cochrane Center September 14, 2018
    5 Twitter, Prof. Peter Goetzsche, February 9, 2020
    6 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD004879
    7 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2010 Jul 7;(7):CD001269
    8 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2010 Feb 17;(2):CD004876
    9 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews February 1, 2018, Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Adults
    10 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews February 1, 2018, Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children
    11 NJ S2173
    12 PJ Media December 17, 2019
    13 New York Times January 13, 2020 (Archived)
    14 Ars Technica January 14, 2020
    15 RejectBigPharma.com, What is a people’s veto?
    16 Ballotpedia.com, Maine Question 1
    17 Rejectbigpharma.com
    18 News Center Maine Updated February 6, 2020
    19 Financial Times April 24, 2016
    20, 24 Youtube, Yes on 1 Press Conference February 11, 2020
    21 Markets and Markets Research, Vaccines Market January 2020
    22 WGME.com February 10, 2020
    23 Central Maine Updated February 11, 2020
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (26th February 2020), Pam (28th February 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020), T Smith (5th March 2020), wavydome (3rd March 2020)

  7. Link to Post #804
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Dogs' Rights Now Exceed Human Rights
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    February 25, 2020
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=817639049

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    Delaware is the first state in the U.S. to pass a bill that would allow titers to be given in lieu of rabies vaccines for certain dogs, cats and ferrets
    The Delaware bill — Maggie’s Vaccine Protection Act, formally known as House Bill 214 — was initiated by Al Casapulla, a businessman who lost his shih tzu, Maggie, due to over-vaccination
    In the case of livestock, discussions are underway into whether or not to vaccinate very young calves, as many factors influence the outcome; looking into individual circumstances is encouraged
    Why can state legislators recognize the risks of applying one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates to pets, but overlook the same risks when applying vaccine schedules to humans?
    The same commonsense approaches that are sometimes afforded to animals, in terms of evaluating individual circumstances when choosing whether or not to vaccinate, are not typically given to humans
    Delaware is the first state in the U.S. to pass a bill that would allow titers to be given in lieu of rabies vaccines for certain dogs, cats and ferrets. An antibody titer measures the concentration of antibodies in the blood produced after an inflammatory response to vaccination. Measuring the number of antibodies present is used to certify that a person or animal is immune to a specific antigen or virus.

    If enough antibodies are present after recovering from the natural disease or being previously vaccinated, it can be used as “proof” of immunity to that disease. The Delaware bill — Maggie’s Vaccine Protection Act, formally known as House Bill 214 — was initiated by Al Casapulla, a businessman who lost his shih tzu, Maggie, due to over-vaccination.1

    Rabies vaccine requirements vary by state, but many require mandatory vaccinations, regardless of the health status of the pet. Although a few states, such as Illinois, Maine and New Hampshire, allow animals to be exempted from rabies vaccines if it would compromise their health, many other states have no exemptions to vaccinations.2

    Once the bill is signed into law, Delaware will become the first state to accept a rabies titer in lieu of the shot. It will allow veterinarians to complete a titer on their pet patients and decide whether or not a rabies vaccination is necessary.

    The bill reads, “This Act enables licensed veterinarians to exempt an animal from the mandated rabies vaccination, if the veterinarian determines, based on their professional judgement, that the vaccine would endanger the animal's health and a titer test may be administered to assist in determining the necessity of the vaccine.”3

    Pet Vaccine Bills Aims to Protect Dogs From Over-Vaccination
    Maggie’s Vaccine Protection Act passed the Delaware General Assembly by a unanimous vote.4 Casapulla told Coastal Point that the bill’s passing is the culmination of years of work aimed at protecting animals from the harms of over-vaccination:5

    “I have been working on this bill since she [Maggie] died … My passion to see this through was more than the passion I had when I started my business, because I knew if this gets passed we would be saving the lives of so many innocent animals and allowing vets to use their discretion on making legal, educated exemptions … Maggie will be saving lives long after I am gone.”

    The support for the bill was strong among legislators, including state Rep. Ruth Briggs King, who said pet owners and veterinarians should have the ultimate say on whether pets need vaccines, instead of them being forced into it due to the law.

    “These are responsible pet owners,” she told Coastal Point, “so we are hopeful this time it’s going to move through. This is the second session for it, on the second legislature it’s been through.”6 Similarly, Sen. Gerald Hocker stated:7

    “I feel it’s a good bill. It corrects something I wasn’t aware of. Vaccinations will be based on the health of the dog. Who better than the veterinarian to decide, depending on the health of the dog? Constituent Al Casapulla, who lost his dog, spent several hours working with vets.”


    The Irony of Granting Pets Greater Rights Than People
    The passage of Delaware’s House Bill 214 is excellent news for frequently over-vaccinated pets — something veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker writes about often — but the irony is glaring. Why can state legislators recognize the risks of applying one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates to pets, but overlook the same risks when applying vaccine schedules to people, especially infants and children?

    Today we know, for instance, that some children, like those with mitochondrial disorders, are at increased risk from vaccinations, but efforts aren’t being made to identify these children to prevent unnecessary harm. Further, an individual’s response to a vaccine is influenced by many factors.

    Gut microbes may help determine immune response to vaccines, for starters. In one study, infants who responded to the rotavirus vaccine had a higher diversity of microbes in their gut, as well as more microbes from the Proteobacteria group, than infants who did not mount the expected immune response.8,9

    Likewise, in a study by Nikolaj Orntoft and colleagues, researchers looked into changes in gene expression after diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccination in African girls to see which genes might be upregulated or downregulated (basically “turned on” or “turned off”).10 What they found is that there's really no way to predict which genes will be affected.

    So, not only will each individual have a unique response to any given vaccine based on their age, current health status and microbial makeup, but each is also epigenetically predisposed to respond differently in terms of the side effects they might develop. You can see, then, how vaccine mandates may turn out to be health disasters for some children and adults, just as they are for some pets.

    Combo Vaccines Risk Highest Reactions
    Also at odds with human medicine are discussions by veterinarians suggesting that giving pets multiple vaccines at once may be dangerous, especially for smaller animals. Dr. W. Jean Dodds, founder of Hemopet Blood Bank, told Veterinary Practice News all the way back in 2009 that the frequency of vaccinations is heavily debated, with some suggesting that giving core vaccines every three years or every year is outdated.

    “Few veterinarians are proactive about discussing the options clients have in protecting their pets against disease,” Dodds said. “The industry promotes more vaccines and veterinarians feel comfortable telling clients they’re necessary. Often, technicians have vaccines prepared before the doctor even examines the animal. Many vets don’t know how to handle titers or don’t want to bother with them.” What’s more, she noted:11

    “When vaccines are needed, they shouldn’t be given at the same site or at the same exam. Banfield Animal Health released two papers on this topic saying animals weighing less than 20 pounds and receiving combo vaccines are at the highest risk of vaccine reaction, yet few DVMs arrange separate visits as a precaution.”

    In humans, however, multiple vaccinations are regularly given at the same time to infants and children — including multiple combination vaccines in one visit.

    The fact is, all vaccines need to be carefully evaluated not only individually for long-term safety, but also for synergistic toxicity when the vaccine is given in combination with other vaccines and given repeatedly over a period of time, as well as given to people of varying ages and sizes — premature infants included.

    For instance, among unvaccinated premature infants, no link to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) was found. However, a significant link between vaccinations and NDD was detected, regardless of whether the child was premature or full-term.

    The combination of preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 660% increased odds of NDD,12 suggesting a synergistic effect and a need to fully research whether it’s safe to vaccinate premature infants.

    ‘Individual Situations’ Taken Into Account for Livestock
    Again in the case of livestock, discussions are underway into whether or not to vaccinate very young calves, as many factors influence the outcome.

    An article in Beef magazine, for instance, suggested that age and colostrum intake should be taken into account when deciding when to vaccinate, as calves that get colostrum may have higher levels of maternal antibodies. Chris Chase, Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, South Dakota State University, told the magazine:

    “In the 2-week old calf, there are two things you need to be concerned about. One is age, the other is colostrum intake.

    Typically, even in a calf that got no colostrum [and no maternal antibodies to interfere with building its own immunity], the response for making antibodies [when vaccinated early] is not great under 3 weeks of age. If they have higher levels of maternal antibodies than the older calves, they also may not respond [to vaccination].”13

    Chase went on to explain that when calves were vaccinated at two or three days old, then challenged with disease seven months later, 20% still got sick. But waiting to vaccinate until the calves were three to four weeks of age led to a better outcome, with less than 5% getting sick. Even then, however, age is only one factor, and he stressed the need to look into individual situations:14

    “Age at vaccination is a big factor, but it all goes back to individual situations. If someone is having trouble with summer pneumonia, we’d have to say the vaccine at a young age [several weeks old] probably doesn’t hurt them, but how much good it actually does those calves may be minimal.

    Then it goes back to colostral intake and whether it was low, and we still have the issue that they are young when you are giving the vaccine. A person can work with their own herd health veterinarian and take a look at what is going on in their particular situation, and figure out what to be most concerned about.”

    Why Are Livestock and Pets Treated Better Than People?
    Animals deserve to have their health put first when it comes to medical procedures like vaccinations, but people deserve to be able to exercise a more precautionary approach to vaccination as well. Unfortunately, these same commonsense approaches that are sometimes afforded to animals, in terms of evaluating individual risk factors when choosing whether or not to vaccinate, are not typically given to people.

    Today, many doctors are not just strongly promoting vaccination, they are threatening to deny medical care to children and adults if all vaccinations recommended by health officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not given on the federally recommended schedule.

    Children may be vaccinated when sick, for instance, or kidney patients on dialysis given vaccinations upon arrival at a hospital, even before a diagnosis had been given or a doctor had approved of the shots.

    Dr. Suzanne Humphries, author of “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” is a nephrologist who has raised similar concerns, suggesting that vaccines may not be safe for people with chronic conditions like kidney failure, or for babies, who have reduced kidney function compared to adults.

    As Humphries said in a video, "We're very careful as nephrologists when treating babies because the kidney functions of babies isn't the same as adults — it's vastly reduced. But when it comes to vaccines, this reduced kidney function in infants is always left out of the discussion."

    It’s no wonder why, in an online survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults, conducted on behalf of the American Osteopathic Association, 45% said they had doubts about vaccine safety.15 Unfortunately, vaccine exemptions are increasingly under attack.

    The ability to make informed, voluntary vaccine choices for yourself and your children must be protected, because vaccines are not a one-size-fits-all-solution, nor is the U.S. public as a whole a one-size-fits-all population. It’s time that this became widely accepted for humans, just as it’s starting to be acknowledged for pets and livestock."

    - Sources and References
    1, 4, 5, 6, 7 Coastal Point
    2 AVMA, State Rabies Laws (PDF)
    3 Delaware General Assembly, House Bill 214
    8 Scientific American May 19, 2015
    9 The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 215, Issue 1, 1 January 2017, Pages 34–41
    10 Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation 2013, Volume 73, Issue 4
    11 Veterinary Practice News April 17, 2009
    12 Journal of Translational Science April 24, 2017, DOI: 10.15761/JTS.1000187 Summary of Findings 6.6-fold
    13, 14 Beef Magazine January 26, 2017
    15 American Osteopathic Association June 24, 2019
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    East Sun (27th February 2020), mountain_jim (26th February 2020), Pam (28th February 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020), T Smith (5th March 2020)

  9. Link to Post #805
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    How can most pediatricians be wrong about vaccines?
    Jeremy R. Hammond's Newsletter
    www.jeremyrhammond.com
    2/26/20

    "One popular talking point we see a lot in the mainstream media is that "anti-vaxxers" believe in "conspiracy theories" about vaccines, as though some grand conspiracy was required to explain how basically the entire medical establishment could get it wrong about vaccines.

    How could so many pediatricians, for example, be wrong when they tell parents that vaccines are "safe and effective" and necessary for their children? It's not as though all these doctors are in on some conspiracy to deceive their patients!

    This fallacious ad hominem argument against critics of public vaccine policy is a lazy and intellectually dishonest means of addressing parents' legitimate concerns.

    It's actually not hard at all to answer the question of how most doctors could be wrong. After all, it's not as though the medical establishment hasn't been proven wrong before! On the contrary, the idea that the medical establishment is somehow infallible is downright ludicrous, given its history of being wrong constantly on matters of life-or-death importance.

    Furthermore, doctors can hardly practice medicine at all these days as they see fit. They are strictly confined due to government intervention in the market in the "care" they provide to patients.

    Anecdotally, I've had my share of less-than-useless doctors who were totally ignorant about advances in medical science and just went on practicing the way they'd been taught in medical school and following "standard of care" regardless of what science actually has to say about it. Even the good doctors who are open-minded and make an effort to keep up with the science are strictly limited.

    For example, the one decent primacy care physician I've had retired because, as he told me, he could no longer practice medicine according to his own judgement. He told me about another elderly female patient of his who was on a certain medication that had been on the market a long time and had a good safety record and was effective for her. But he was being dictated to under regulatory red tape so that he could no longer prescribe that drug for her, but must instead prescribe another, newer drug that had no long-term track record of safety and which might not be as effective for her.

    There is practically no doctor-patient relationship anymore. Instead, doctors -- certainly including pediatricians -- are dictated to about how to conduct their trade. The dictats come from government as well as trade organizations like the industry-funded American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

    In early 2017, the AAP issued a press release claiming that vaccines prevent cancer, that the hypothesis that vaccines can cause autism has been scientifically disproven, and that the claim that vaccines administered according to the CDC's routine childhood schedule is contributing to the ill-health of the childhood population has been scientifically disproven.

    So I contacted the organization to request the studies upon which those claims were based.https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2017/...ut+vaccines%3F

    The AAP first tried and failed to produce any such studies, and then, when pressed further to support their bold claims with science, they refused.

    I documented my correspondence with the AAP in a 2017 article titled "American Academy of Pediatrics Refuses to Back Vaccine Claims with Science". It's among the most popular articles I've ever published on my website. If you've never read it, you'll want to be sure to do so, and if you have, it might be worth revisiting:
    Click here to learn how the AAP refuses to back its vaccine claims with science.
    https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2017/...ut+vaccines%3F

    Regards,
    Jeremy
    P.S. -- Just to update you on where I'm at, I'm currently working on a very important collaborative project with Children's Health Defense (RFK, Jr.'s organization), which I'll certainly be sharing with you upon publication! Then, assuming nothing else comes up requiring a timely response (like my rebuttal to Dr. Peter Hotez's New York Times propaganda or my rebuttal to faux "fact-checkers" misinforming readers by claiming that the WHO's chief scientist didn't lie about vaccine safety), I'll be shifting my focus back to completing a thorough rebuttal to the most recent MMR-autism study out of Denmark, falsely hailed by the media as proving conclusively that there is no association. "

    Jeremy R. Hammond
    Independent Journalist, Author, and Writing Coach
    www.jeremyrhammond.com
    Publisher & Editor
    www.foreignpolicyjournal.com
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (27th February 2020), Pam (2nd March 2020), Philippe (27th February 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  11. Link to Post #806
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Proposed legislation in 21 states affecting vaccine choice
    From Alliance for Natural Health USA
    www.anh-usa.org
    2/27/20

    "Arizona: HB 2050 would in effect eliminate the requirement that parents provide proof of vaccination unless there is an outbreak of a disease that a vaccine is recommended for. The bill states that “a school may not require a pupil to receive the recommended immunizations or refuse to admit or otherwise penalize a pupil because that pupil has not received the recommended immunizations.”

    Colorado: SB 163 would restrict the religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccination.

    Connecticut: HB 5044 would eliminate the religious belief exemption to vaccination for schools in the state.

    Florida: SB 64 would eliminate the religious belief exemption to vaccination and restrict the medical exemption.

    Hawaii: HB 1182 would add a conscientious belief exemption to vaccines required for school.

    Iowa: HF 206 would eliminate the religious belief exemption to vaccines required for school.

    Illinois: HB 4870 would mandate the HPV vaccine for some school students; SB 3668 removes the religious belief exemption, restricts the medical exemption, and allows minors to consent to vaccination.

    Maine: there is a vote coming up on March 3; voters will be asked whether they want to reject a law that removes philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccines.

    Massachusetts: The Massachusetts legislature is considering a set of bills that would eliminate important exemptions to vaccinations (H3999/HD4284), mandate the HPV vaccine (S1264), and put the government in charge of medical exemptions (H4096/S2359).

    Minnesota: The Minnesota legislature is considering a bill, SF 1520, that would eliminate the conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

    Missouri: HB 2380 would enact a conscientious belief exemption to vaccine requirements for public schools in Missouri and would remove private, parochial and parish schools from the current state laws governing vaccine requirements in Missouri.

    Mississippi: HB 1060 would add a religious belief exemption to schools and daycare facilities in the state.

    New Jersey: The New Jersey legislature is considering a set of bills, A1603, S903, and A969/S902 that mandate the HPV vaccine for certain school children and restrict or eliminate the religious belief exemption, respectively.

    New York: The legislature is still considering additional bills that further restrict freedom of choice: S298B/A2912A (mandates HPV vaccine); A099 (allows forced vaccination under some circumstances); A2316 (mandates flu vaccine for daycare); A973 (allows HPV and Hep B vaccine without parental consent); S2276 (mandates flu vaccine for school and daycare); and A7838 (requires medical exemptions to be approved by the state health department).

    The legislature is also considering S477 and A8676/S7202, which strengthen and expand the medical exemption to vaccination and add a religious belief exemption for school children, respectively.

    Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a set of bills (SB 626, SB 653, and HB 1771) that would restrict or eliminate the religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination.

    South Dakota: HB 1235 would eliminate all vaccine mandates for the State of South Dakota for public and non public schools, early childhood programs and post-secondary educational institutions.

    Virginia: The Virginia legislature is considering a bill, HB 1090, that mandates the full ACIP recommended vaccine schedule for school in Virginia. That means the full recommended CDC schedule will be required for school children. Additionally, HB 1489 amends current state vaccine requirements to add HPV vaccines for boys.

    Vermont: The legislature is considering a bill, H 238, that would eliminate the religious belief exemption to vaccination.

    Washington: The Washington legislature is considering a bill, SB 5841, that would eliminate the personal belief and philosophical exemptions for all mandated vaccines.

    West Virginia: SB 549, HB 4115, HB 4114, SB 220, and HB 2847 would protect patients and parents from being discriminated against or harassed by health care providers or health care facilities for delaying or declining a vaccine, remove private and parochial schools from state compulsory vaccine law, and add a religious and conscientious belief exemption to vaccination in the state.

    Wisconsin: The legislature is considering a bill, A248/SB 262, that would eliminate the personal belief exemption to vaccination."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Marsha Piper (28th February 2020), Pam (28th February 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  13. Link to Post #807
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    I saw this on Facebook today; I hope the image shows up.
    (If not, I've asked the Mods to fix it.)
    If I do vote, I will probably vote for Sanders, though I understand that he is a career politician, and has compromised himself many times, as they all do.
    But if any of them have the chance of a snowball in hell of actually doing anything worthwhile, I think he is the most likely one.



    Though I'm not sure that not voting isn't a better choice.
    If enough people didn't, that actually might send the stronger message.
    As in:
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Pam (28th February 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  15. Link to Post #808
    United States Avalon Member Sammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th December 2011
    Location
    a lovely park bench
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,523
    Thanks
    31,349
    Thanked 28,466 times in 5,154 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    I wonder what folks will do if a COVID-19 vaccine was created?
    All the above is all and only my opinion - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sammy For This Post:

    Pam (28th February 2020), Philippe (2nd March 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  17. Link to Post #809
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    The Science is NOT Settled!
    By Dr. Alan Palmer, CHD Contributing Writer
    From Children's Health Defense's email update today
    2/27/20

    "We have heard vaccine proponents say that the science is settled on vaccines. What an arrogant and ridiculous statement! First of all, science is never settled on anything because new discoveries are always being made. That is the nature of science. Secondly, when it comes to vaccines, the science that refutes what the public is being told about vaccines is far more plentiful, credible and convincing. That is a bold statement, but one that can easily be defended.

    In fact, I spent 2 ½ years and over 2,500 hours to research and compile my 718-page eBook called 1200 Studies – Truth Will Prevail, that not only defends that statement, it goes on the offensive and attacks the pharma talking points about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. This eBook contains excerpts and summaries of now over 1,400 studies, published in reputable journals representing 45 different medical and scientific disciplines and contradicting the industry talking points about vaccines. These are unbiased and objective studies, produced by thousands of researchers and scientists who are not funded by vaccine manufacturers.

    Please download a copy for yourself and share the link with your friends, family and community."

    DOWNLOAD FOR FREE https://www.wellnessdoc.com/1200studies/
    "1200 Studies – Truth Will Prevail

    Thousands of Scientists and Researchers Weigh In…
    to Shed Light and Truth On One of The Most Hotly Debated Topics of Our Time

    This is the most extensive and well documented exposé ever, about one of the most controversial yet important topics of our time. The amount of studies and research on this subject is overwhelming, but I have done all the work for you and found a way to present it, so it will be easy for you to quickly and easily navigate to exactly what you want to read. It’s like getting the cliff notes for a textbook and being given the “hotlinks” that will take you directly to the sections that interest you, and to the studies that are being quoted from. That way it will be easy for you to verify if what you are being told is true!

    You are about to have FREE direct access to hundreds of studies and indirect access to thousands of studies through the references in those studies. As you will see these studies differ, and in many cases widely differ from what we are currently being told about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

    We Face a Crisis of Unprecedented Proportions
    We are facing an unprecedented crisis in our nation and the Western world. There has been a meteoric rise in the rates of autism, developmental delays, learning disabilities, allergy, asthma, autoimmune diseases and more in the way of chronic and debilitating diseases. And tragically, we are losing a large portion of the next generation of children to neurological, neurodevelopmental, behavioral and learning disabilities. According to statistics released by the CDC in 2008, 1 in 6 children suffered from either autism or some form of developmental problem! Now 10 years later, given the increasing prevalence and current estimates, that number may be as high as 1 child in 4! And, those statistics show that these developmental delays including behavioral and learning disabilities are continuing to increase at alarming rates. And, all of the learning and behavioral conditions have a prevalence much higher in boys. In addition, all across the spectrum, the rates of allergy, asthma and autoimmunity are nearing epidemic proportions. Autoimmunity is where the body’s immune system attacks certain tissues or organs. There have been over 100 autoimmune diseases identified now, affecting more than 50 million Americans (that is approximately 1 in 6). The prevalence continues to grow at alarming rates. And, autoimmune diseases have a much higher prevalence in females. (All references are provided in the eBook)

    Autism Spectrum Disorder (Autism), is just one of those many conditions that are affecting our children. But it is the condition that get most of the press. The incidence of autism is rising sharply and unabated. The 2014 CDC estimates were that 1 in 45 children were autistic (NHIS data), up from 1 in 150 in 2002 (ADDM Network data), just 12 years prior. Compare that to rates of autism estimated at 1 in 10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s, 1 in 5,000 in the 1970s and increasing to 1 in 300 in the 1990s. (references provided in the eBook)

    When the 2018 statistics come out in less than 2 years, it is expected that the rate of autism may be as high as 1 in 25 children, with approximately 4 times as many boys than girls being affected. That means that approximately 1 in 5 boys will be on the autism spectrum!! Many experts believe at the current trajectory, somewhere between the years 2025 and 2032, 1 in 2 children will be autistic!! In addition, consider the crippling rates of other intellectual disabilities just mentioned. This is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE! And collectively, we have to do something to change that.

    What would this mean for our society? For one thing, this will be an economic disaster. Even at the conservative projected costs of caring just for autistic individuals, these costs will cripple our economy. (outlined on page 2 of the eBook) – In addition to the crippling cost economically, can you imagine the impact on us socially, on militarily readiness and on the affected children and families themselves? What about our intellectual capacity to churn out scientists, inventors and business innovators for the years to come? The clock is ticking. Left unchecked, it is truly a doom and gloom scenario. We must get to the bottom of it and we must do it now! And by sharing this document, you can be a part of the driving force to make this happen.

    I Have Made Navigating and Finding Information SO EASY for You
    (Even if you’re not a doctor or scientist)
    The vaccine debate is fraught with emotion, misinformation, bias and conjecture. But now for the first time, you have access to an enormous amount of credible scientific information (which you won’t have to be a scientist or doctor to understand). It is all organized in such a way to allow you several ways to view the contents, depending on your level of interest and the amount of time you have to read. Even just reading the Table of Contents, will summarize the main take-aways of each section and topic. This alone, will give you insights into the contents and I believe will tantalize your curiosity to know more. From the most hard-core scientific mind to the lay person, this expose will shine light on THE TRUTH about this very controversial topic in a way that persons from all levels of understanding will be able to grasp.

    This is an interactive document. The format this document is being presented in, maximizes your ability to search by key word or phrase and jump from Table of Contents directly to items that you want to see with a mouse click. And, it will allow you to access the actual research, the studies and the articles instantly. That way you can immediately check to see if what my document says is true. Books can be tedious to wade through and checking references difficult and time consuming. This e-book changes all of that! It makes it all HYPER-FAST AND EASY in just a click of your mouse.

    Why I Did This AND made it FREE
    This has been an arduous task to compile all of this information and organize it for ease of use. Even though it has been all consuming for me over two and a half years, it has been a labor of love. After reading this, I believe that you will have a true appreciation for the massive effort involved in assembling this amount of information AND making it so user friendly.

    I truly have a passion and a love for helping people. That passion is magnified when it comes to the health and well-being of children. When I see families affected by these developmental conditions including autism, and the devastating personal, relational, occupational, marital and economic challenges they face, it saddens and frustrates me. Many had a healthy, happy, fully developing and functioning child one day, and then lost that child into a shell of their previous selves the next. The rest of their lives have been forever changed, often in an instant. While both sides in this issue fight it out, the affected children and the families are innocent bystanders and are being either ignored or used as pawns to advance an agenda. This is wrong! And, no matter where on the spectrum of opinion you stand with this issue, the health and lives of millions of current and future children and families are hanging in the balance. And this is not just an issue in the USA. It is a world-wide issue. I challenge those with all viewpoints on this topic to read this eBook with an open mind, then decide how you feel afterwards.

    I wanted to remove any objections to getting this, so I made it free and am not requiring you to give me your email address or contact information. You can choose to opt in for future updates if you would like, but that is completely up to your discretion. If you want to donate to this effort, your contribution would be greatly appreciated. Both links are near the bottom of this page.



    Share This Far and Wide!
    If you are so inspired to share this information (and I believe that you will), please take some time to do it. There is a dire need for this conversation to be advanced and the time it must start is NOW. The only way to move the ball on this topic, is to share this information and knowledge as widely as possible. Therefore, it is critical to share this with everyone that you know.

    There are several ways to do that.

    You can click on your different social media links on this page and immediately share this link to all of your friends and contacts.
    You can share it with all of your contacts, by using email share link (next to the social media links) or copy the link in the navigation window at the top and paste it into an email.
    Please share this with your elected state and federal representatives (easy instructions and links to find their contact information are found near the end of the book).
    Share this with all of the medical doctors and other physicians you know. They need to know the truth and that this science and evidence based information exists.
    Tell everyone you know with children or grandchildren to download this FREE eBook. Tell them they can download it from either 1200studies.com or wellnessdoc.com/1200studies
    You have my permission to host a download link of this eBook on your website and share it with your visitors if you have the capability to do so. There are only two things I ask. Do not change or alter anything and do not charge anything for it.


    Download FREE E-Book HERE:
    Trouble Downloading? Click Here!

    Once the PDF opens, you can read it from there on your computer or download and save it to your computer. To do that, in the upper right corner of the open PDF document, you will see a downward facing arrow. This is the download button. Click on that symbol and a download window will open. You can choose to open it on your computer or save it to your downloads folder. Make your selection and click OK.

    BONUS Download:
    Demolishing the 5 Most Common FALSE Measles Narratives
    Thank you in advance for helping to get this vital information out.
    This project has been a monumental task. But it needed to be done! I am currently involved legislatively and by writing articles, speaking, educating and working behind the scenes with some of the most prominent individuals and groups to turn the tide in this urgent effort. By sharing truth and facts, the science and the stories of vaccine injured children and adults, we will push back against mandates and the stripping of our rights and freedoms over the sovereignty of our bodies and those of our children. If you appreciate the time and effort that it has taken to produce this eBook, or wish to support the continuing fight to expose the lies and offer better ideas and alternatives to the current vaccine paradigm, please consider donating to this cause. Even the amount you would normally pay for a book would be greatly appreciated. Thank you."
    Last edited by onawah; 28th February 2020 at 07:08.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Pam (28th February 2020), Reinhard (2nd March 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  19. Link to Post #810
    Avalon Member mountain_jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th December 2010
    Posts
    2,014
    Thanks
    17,832
    Thanked 12,323 times in 1,861 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Quote Posted by Sammy (here)
    I wonder what folks will do if a COVID-19 vaccine was created?
    I had this same wonder (about my own possible future decision) when I read about Israel's possibly-ready-in-weeks vaccine yesterday.
    I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson

    The present as you think of it, and in practical working terms, is that point at which you select your physical experience from all those events that could be materialized. - Seth (The Nature of Personal Reality - Session 656, Page 293)

    (avatar image: Brocken spectre, a wonderful phenomenon of nature I have experienced and a symbol for my aspirations.) :)

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to mountain_jim For This Post:

    Pam (28th February 2020), Reinhard (2nd March 2020), Sammy (28th February 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  21. Link to Post #811
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    3,159
    Thanks
    5,606
    Thanked 15,635 times in 2,825 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Quote Posted by mountain_jim (here)
    Quote Posted by Sammy (here)
    I wonder what folks will do if a COVID-19 vaccine was created?
    I had this same wonder (about my own possible future decision) when I read about Israel's possibly-ready-in-weeks vaccine yesterday.
    I certainly feel less hesitant about the oral route but I don't think vaccination is at all what it has always been touted to be and think the immune enhancement is what i want to emphasize. What is really the problem for me is that with everything we have experienced about the LIES and coercion despite the risk/ benefit ratio of the previous vaccines, I have NO TRUST.

    I don't know if this is posted already?

    At a forum on vaccines in Connecticut, Dr. Palevsky (20 years as neonatologist) discusses the repeal of the religious exemption in NY, and the recent measles outbreaks.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    mountain_jim (2nd March 2020), onawah (29th February 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  23. Link to Post #812
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    WHO Experimenting on African Children without Informed Consent
    by Jeremy R. Hammond
    Mar 1, 2020

    From Hammond's email update today: "Well, I hadn't planned on spending my Saturday doing this...

    But when I read two articles in The BMJ on Friday explaining how the World Health Organization (WHO) was conducting a malaria vaccine trial in Africa without obtaining informed consent from the parents, I felt compelled.

    So I scrapped my original agenda of trying to get caught up on family business and spent over 12 hours writing up a detailed explanation of what's going on, including details about how the vaccine has been associated with serious harms.

    Among these harms is an increased risk of death that is particularly pronounced for girls.

    The WHO is proceeding full steam ahead with a trial including hundreds of thousands of children despite the data showing that the vaccine might do far more harm than good.

    Worse, it's doing so without informing parents about the risks or even that their children are being subjected to experimentation.

    I show how the WHO is not serving the public's interests but the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry -- specifically, in this case, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturer of the malaria vaccine."

    Following is the article at: https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2020/...formed+Consent

    WHO Experimenting on African Children without Informed Consent

    "The World Health Organization (WHO), a pair of articles recently published in The BMJ have revealed, is sponsoring an experimental study of a controversial malaria vaccine among African children without obtaining informed consent from parents.

    Data from prior clinical trials of the vaccine, manufactured by the British multinational pharmaceutical corporation GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), have shown it to be associated with an increased risk of clinical malaria after four years, a tenfold increased risk of meningitis, an increased risk of cerebral malaria (in which the parasitic organisms block the flow of blood to the brain, causing swelling and potential brain damage), and an increased risk of death that was disproportionately higher for female children.

    Concerningly, apart from failing to properly inform parents about the risks or even letting parents know that their children are being experimented upon, the WHO intends to make a decision based on this trial about whether to recommend the vaccine for routine use throughout sub-Saharan Africa after just twenty-four months of study, which is not enough time to determine the vaccine’s effect on mortality.

    This is especially concerning in light of scientific research showing that other non-live vaccines—such as the diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine—are associated with an increased rate of childhood mortality. The WHO, however, has dismissed this evidence and continues to recommend the DTP vaccine for routine use in children in developing countries.

    The behavior of policymakers at the WHO, while highly alarming, is not at all surprising given the organization’s conflicts of interest, including industry funding and members of its vaccine advisory group having financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

    Contents
    Waning of Vaccine-Conferred Immunity After Four Years
    The Importance of Natural Immunity and Scientific Uncertainty about How It’s Achieved
    Increased Risk of Clinical Malaria Among Vaccinated Children After Four Years
    Increased Risk of Death Among Children Receiving the Malaria Vaccine
    How the WHO Is Threatening Both Children’s Health and the Right to Informed Consent
    The WHO’s Conflicts of Interest
    The UN, Too, Is Threatening the Right to Informed Consent
    Conclusion
    References

    Waning of Vaccine-Conferred Immunity After Four Years
    GSK’s malaria vaccine has long been under development, but while the company and the WHO appear intent on rolling it out across Africa, concerning data from clinical trials has been publicly known for years. In 2013, the results of four years of trial follow-up in Kilifi, Kenya, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1207564
    The data showed that, while apparently effective at preventing clinical malaria initially, after four years, the vaccine had negative effectiveness, meaning that children who received the vaccine had an increased risk of symptomatic parasitic infection.

    That study involved randomly vaccinating Kenyan children aged five to seventeen months with either the experimental malaria vaccine or a rabies vaccine. Importantly, the clinical endpoint of the trial was malaria incidence, not mortality. Even so, the data showed a vaccine efficacy of only 43.6 percent in the first year, which fell to –0.4 percent in the fourth year. While the negative efficacy was not statistically significant, the study authors acknowledged that the results show that the immunity conferred by the vaccine wanes after just a few years.

    While the vaccine was judged to be initially effective in stimulating the production of antibodies against the sporozoite stage of the parasite, which is the form typically introduced into the blood of human hosts by mosquitos, the researchers acknowledged that a high level of anti-sporozoite antibodies doesn’t necessarily equate to immunity and that the immunity conferred by the vaccine differs from that acquired naturally through infection.

    While anti-sporozoite antibodies “may mediate protection and were associated with a reduced risk of clinical malaria”, a waning of antibody titers was observed over time in children who received the malaria vaccine.

    Additionally, they suggested that because children receiving the malaria vaccine had reduced exposure to later blood-stage parasites, they would have had “delayed acquisition of natural immunity”, which could also help explain the negative efficacy by the fourth year. In other words, the rapidly waning vaccine-conferred immunity was achieved at an opportunity cost of a delayed and superior natural immunity.[1]

    The Importance of Natural Immunity and Scientific Uncertainty about How It’s Achieved
    The uncertainties about how immunity to malarial parasites is achieved were elucidated in an editorial in the journal Parasitology in 2016. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...70420020F6C41E
    Noting that “individuals living in endemic areas naturally acquire immunity to symptomatic malaria”, its authors pointed out that “immune correlates of protection” were not yet understood by scientists. While certain “antigen-specific immune responses associated with protection against malaria infection and disease” have been identified, scientific reviews “highlight the complexity of immunity to malaria and that even after 100 years we still have much to learn.”

    “A lack of understanding of the mechanisms by which natural immunity to malaria is achieved and how it is maintained”, they noted, “has long been proclaimed as a major hurdle to the development of a malaria vaccine.”

    Highly important to this question is the “variable nature of malaria epidemiology in different endemic areas”, which “underlines the importance of natural exposure in development of immunity”. In areas with lower transmission, population immunity is not achieved, and clinical infections occur frequently “in all age groups”. By contrast, “immunity is acquired through constant exposure to the parasite”, which is especially important for infants, who are at highest risk of dying from malaria.

    This is because, in endemic areas, infants are protected from birth to around six months of age through the transfer of antibodies from naturally immune mothers to their babies. (This is known as passive maternal immunity and can occur both prenatally through the placenta and postnatally through breastmilk, though the authors don’t specify the relative importance of each of these mechanisms in the specific case of malaria.)

    The authors pointed out that in the absence of mass vaccination campaigns, the number of malaria cases worldwide had halved over the past decade. Somewhat paradoxically, “because immunity is acquired through constant exposure to the parasite, with the decrease in transmission, there are increasing concerns about declining immunity in communities and a shift towards greater susceptibility to symptomatic disease.”

    Whereas in endemic areas, natural immunity is generally acquired in childhood, in areas where transmission has been successfully reduced, “rebounds of malaria infections and shifts in cases to older individuals are occurring”.

    As this shift continues, the risk could increase to infants born to mothers who have not yet had enough exposure to acquire natural immunity and therefore aren’t able to confer passive immunity to their babies.

    While the vaccine is designed to stimulate the production of anti-malaria antibodies, as the authors of the Parasitology paper point out, another branch of the immune system known as cell-mediated immunity also plays an important role.They observed a dearth of science in this area, with most studies having focused on antibody responses and “relatively few” that have “investigated cellular responses to malaria infection.” While they did not comment upon the reasons for this, it is undoubtedly a reflection of the myopic focus within the scientific community on developing vaccines as a one-size-fits all solution for disease prevention, as opposed to first dedicating the resources necessary to understand the risk factors for severe disease and differing individual immune responses and then developing targeted interventions.

    Although “there remains much to be learnt about naturally acquired immunity to malaria”, the authors noted that the science is clear that cell-mediated immunity “plays a critical role in determining the outcome of disease and development and maintenance of immunity.”A broad array of cellular responses not involving the production of antibodies are important for the development of immunity, and how these responses might affect the immune responses to a malaria vaccine—or vice versa—remains “unknown.”[2]

    This is concerning because non-live vaccines such as GSK’s malaria vaccine generally tend to skew the immune response toward humoral, or antibody, immunity and away from cell-mediated immunity, which is another means by which mass vaccination could potentially cause long-term detriment to population immunity in African communities.

    Nevertheless, the journal editors incongruously pointed to the ability of humans to acquire natural immunity as “a strong rationale for the development of a malaria vaccine”—and despite the remaining uncertainties about how the vaccine will affect the immune system and data showing serious potential harms, GSK and the WHO are pushing for implementation of the vaccine in the routine childhood schedules of African countries.

    Increased Risk of Clinical Malaria Among Vaccinated Children After Four Years

    The four-year follow-up study https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1207564 itself provided evidence that the malaria vaccine achieves humoral immunity at the opportunity cost of lost cell-mediated immunity. Despite the waning of antibody levels over time among children who received the malaria vaccine, even in the fourth year, during which negative efficacy was observed, these children still had significantly higher anti-sporozoite antibody titers than children in the control group. This indicates that mechanisms other than the production of anti-sporozoite antibodies are important for immunity and in the long-term protected children in the control group from malaria.

    As the authors reiterated, the observed waning immunity of the vaccine might have been due to a delayed “acquisition of natural immunity to blood-stage parasites” in children who received the malaria vaccine in comparison with those who didn’t.[3]

    In 2016, another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1515257
    examining seven years of follow-up data from the clinical trial in Kenya. This time, the results were even more concerning. While the vaccine initially appeared protective against clinical malaria, this ostensible benefit was “more than offset” as the risk to vaccinated children in areas with high exposure increased over time.

    Among this subgroup of children in areas of higher transmission, the vaccine had a statistically significant –43.5 percent efficacy. That is, the data showed a negative efficacy, meaning that children who received the malaria vaccine were at a higher risk of clinical malaria than those who didn’t.

    The authors acknowledged that one explanation for this result is that, while the vaccine is effective at stimulating the production of anti-sporozoite antibodies, it “does not induce clinical immunity against blood-stage parasites.” Prior research had shown “lower levels of antibodies against blood-stage parasites” in children who received the malaria vaccine compared with children who didn’t.[4]

    This refers to a later stage in the cycle of malaria infection. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/index.html
    Upon exposure through mosquito bites, the sporozoite-stage parasites migrate into the liver, where they grow and multiply before moving on and infecting the red cells of the blood. This latter stage is what’s known as the “blood stage” of infection, which is what causes the symptoms of malaria.[5]

    As the study authors again reiterated, the increased antibody response to sporozoite-stage malaria may come at an opportunity cost of delayed acquisition of immunity to blood-stage parasites, “leading to an increased in episodes of clinical malaria in later life.”

    They also stated that there was no significant difference in adverse events between children receiving the malaria vaccine and controls, but their data did not illuminate the true rate of adverse events following malaria vaccination since the children in the control group had received another vaccine rather than an inert saline placebo.[6]

    Increased Risk of Death Among Children Receiving the Malaria Vaccine
    Despite that trial’s finding of negative vaccine efficacy after the fourth year of follow up, the WHO has pressed forward with its apparent agenda to roll out GSK’s vaccine in the routine childhood schedules of African countries, and its eagerness to do so is such that it’s evidently unconcerned about violating individuals’ right to informed consent in order to accomplish the goal.

    In a 2014 policy document, https://www.who.int/immunization/pro...nt_note_en.pdf
    the WHO described an “implied consent process” for vaccination wherein parents would need to explicitly opt their children out of vaccination rather than explicitly opting them in. Under this practice, the mere attendance of a child at school on a day when vaccinations are being administered is considered implicit consent by the parents for the child to be vaccinated.

    “However,” the document incongruously albeit appropriately added, “when children present for vaccination unaccompanied by their parents, it is challenging to determine whether parents indeed provided consent. Therefore, countries are encouraged to adopt procedures that ensure that parents have been informed and agreed to the vaccination.”[7]

    Yet, in the case of GSK’s malaria vaccine, the WHO has disregarded its own advice that explicit consent be obtained from parents for their children to be vaccinated.

    This situation was elucidated in an analysis published in the BMJ on January 24, 2020, written by Professor Peter Aaby of the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark and coauthors. https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.l6920
    They reported that clinical trials of GSK’s malaria vaccine had shown it to be associated with a higher risk of meningitis, cerebral malaria, and death—particularly among females.

    The position espoused by the WHO has been that these findings may have been due to chance, but, as Aaby and his coauthors noted, “we should be particularly careful about introducing new vaccines amid unresolved safety concerns”. As an example, they cited the “recent use of a dengue vaccine in the Philippines that led to increased morbidity and mortality from dengue”.[8]

    In that case, the Philippines government implemented a dengue vaccine manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur into its routine childhood schedule upon the recommendation of the WHO. Hundreds of thousands of doses were administered under the pretense of a proven “safe” vaccine before its use was halted because it was shown to increase the risk of serious dengue infection among children who had not already experienced a prior infection. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-in-disaster/
    The public outrage was all the more pronounced because it was also learned that Sanofi, a French multinational corporation, as well as the WHO had ignored early warnings from clinical trials that the vaccine might cause precisely that outcome.[9]

    As Aaby and his coauthors explained, the safety concerns are now being investigated in a pilot implementation study that will include 720,000 children in the African countries of Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi. In April 2019, the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) approved a framework for policy and a study protocol. Under the protocol, the children are to be randomly allocated to receive the malaria vaccine or no malaria vaccine (with no placebo), and the study is to last four to five years.

    Nevertheless, the WHO intends to make a decision on whether to recommend the vaccine for routine use in other African countries after just twenty-four months of follow up based on the prevention of “severe malaria” as a surrogate measure of the vaccine’s effect on overall mortality.

    This decision, Aaby and his coauthors remarked, “seems strange” given existing data from clinical trials showing that the case fatality among children hospitalized for severe malaria was doubled for children who received the malaria vaccine compared to those who didn’t. Female children who received the malaria vaccine also had twice the risk of dying from any cause. The observed excess mortality also increased after administration of a booster dose of the vaccine, and this trend “was particularly marked for female children”, for whom the risk of death was more than tripled.

    Hence, they reasoned, even though the vaccine “might slightly reduce the risk of severe malaria, recipients might be at higher risk of dying (from malaria and overall).”

    The decision by the WHO to make a policy determination after just twenty-four months would bias its determination in favor of the vaccine since it ignores the waning efficacy of the vaccine over time and since “excess mortality might become apparent only after longer follow-up”.

    The first reason for the WHO’s decision in this regard is that an increasing resistance of parasites to anti-malarial drugs has heightened the sense of urgency for finding additional control measures. The second reason is that “GlaxoSmithKline might have problems maintaining the production line if the decision is delayed.”

    The WHO’s decision is even more puzzling in light of other non-live vaccines that have been associated with increased female mortality, such as the DTP vaccine, which studies had “consistently” shown to be “associated with higher female mortality”.[10]

    Indeed, Peter Aaby has pioneered research into what’s been termed in the scientific literature as “non-specific effects” of vaccines. One of his coauthors on the BMJ analysis is Professor Christine Stabell Benn, also of the Statens Serum Insitut, which operates under the auspices of the Danish Ministry of Health and is responsible for the purchase and supply of vaccines to Denmark’s national vaccination programs.

    For decades, Aaby and his colleagues have been studying the effects of vaccines on overall mortality, and their findings with respect to the DTP vaccine are highly alarming. As Aaby, Benn, and coauthors bluntly stated in a 2017 research paper published in EBioMedicine, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retr...52396417300464
    “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infection.”

    A key finding of their research was that “DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated.”

    “Unfortunately,” they added, “DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs.”

    Although due to concerns about an unacceptably high rate of adverse events, developed countries like the United States have long since phased out the use of the DTP vaccine in favor of a vaccine with an acellular pertussis component (DTaP), the WHO continues to recommend the use of DTP vaccine in developing countries.

    “It should be of concern,” they relevantly remarked in the 2017 study, “that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials.”[11]

    In their recent BMJ article, Aaby and his colleagues noted that, in addition to finding the DTP vaccine to be associated with increased childhood mortality, their research had also “shown that other non-live vaccines—including the hepatitis B vaccine, inactivated polio vaccine, pentavalent vaccine [containing antigens for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type b], and H1N1 influenza vaccine—are also associated with higher female mortality.”

    As they emphasized in their concluding remarks, “There is no room for wishful thinking. Decision making must be grounded in robust evidence.”[12]

    That’s sage advice that scientists and policymakers working for the World Health Organization seem intent on ignoring.

    How the WHO Is Threatening Both Children’s Health and the Right to Informed Consent
    As if all that wasn’t concerning enough, Aaby and his colleagues in their BMJ article also pointed out that, in the WHO’s pilot study now underway, “Written informed consent is not obtained.” Furthermore, “What participants are told about the outstanding safety concerns is unclear.”[13]

    This violation of the right to informed consent was elucidated in a BMJ article written by associate editor Peter Doshi published on February 26, 2020. https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m734
    The study already underway in Malawi, Ghana, and Kenya, is intended in part, he reiterated, to evaluate safety concerns about GSK’s malaria vaccine, which is known by the brand name Mosquirix. These include “a rate of meningitis in those receiving Mosquirix 10 times that of those who did not, increased cerebral malaria cases, and a doubling in the risk of death (from any cause) in girls.”

    Yet the WHO is not obtaining informed consent from parents to experiment upon their children. Instead, it has judged that “implied consent” is sufficient for entering 720,000 children into the study, as a WHO spokesperson confirmed to the BMJ.

    “Recipients of the malaria vaccine”, wrote Doshi, “are not being informed that they are in a study. And the extent to which parents are being given information about the known safety concerns before vaccination is unclear.”

    The WHO insisted that information was being “provided to the community and to parents through health talks and community outreach”, among other unspecified methods. But in the information that the WHO sent to the BMJ that it said was being shared with partner countries about the vaccine’s potential risks, while the increased rates of meningitis and cerebral malaria are listed, “the potential for increased risk of death among girls is not mentioned.”

    When asked why not, the WHO responded that there is “insufficient evidence to classify gender specific mortality as a known or potential risk.” Of course, this dismissive assertion that there is no potential risk is belied by the scientific data showing otherwise.

    When asked whether the WHO’s Research Ethics Review Committee had “waived the requirement for individual informed consent”, the WHO perplexingly answered that the vaccination was being done “in the context of routine vaccinations, where there is no requirement for written individual consent.”[14]

    This contrasts starkly with the codification under international law of informed consent as a fundamental and inviolable human right, including the 1947 Nuremberg Code, the 1966 United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 2005 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ormed-consent/
    Additionally, the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, which presents guidelines promulgated by the WHO, states that “the voluntary informed consent of the prospective subject” must be obtained. In the case of children too young to meaningfully exercise the right on their own, the consent must be obtained from their parents.[15]

    The WHO’s position that informed consent is not required is also directly contradicted in the case of Malawi by the country’s constitution, which, as Doshi observes, explicitly states, “No person shall be subject to medical or scientific experimentation without his or her consent.”

    As Charles Weijer, a bioethicist at Western University in Canada, told the BMJ, “implied consent is no consent at all.” He described the failure to acquire informed consent as “a serious breach of international ethical standards”.[16]

    The WHO’s Conflicts of Interest
    This latest revelation about the WHO’s inexcusable behavior comes on the heels of the revelation that the organization’s chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, was caught blatantly lying about vaccine safety in a WHO video published on YouTube.
    https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...accine-safety/
    In the video, published on November 28, 2019, Dr. Swaminathan states that the public’s trust in vaccines “relies on the existence of effective vaccine safety systems.” “Robust vaccine safety systems” exist in countries around the world, she says, that ensure that vaccines are administered to children “without risks”.

    Just five days later, on December 3, 2019, at a WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, Dr. Swaminathan told her assembled colleagues that they “cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries” and that the risk of serious adverse events being discovered only after a vaccine is already on the market “is always there”.[17]

    One possible explanation for the WHO’s behavior are its conflicting interests. http://open.who.int/2018-19/budget-and-financing/flow
    It receives funding for its work from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Merck.[18] Other contributors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the CDC Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by the US Congress “to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work”. The CDC Foundation in turn receives industry funding, including from GSK and the Merck Foundation.[19]https://www.cdcfoundation.org/FY2019/organizations

    The WHO’s conflicts of interest were recently criticized in an expert review of the studies on the DTP vaccine’s effect on childhood mortality by Peter C. Gøtzsche, a widely respected scientist who has led the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark and helped found the Cochrane Collaboration, a prestigious international organization specializing in a type of study known as a meta-analysis, or a systematic review of the scientific literature.https://vaccinescience.org/expert-re...ome-countries/

    As Gøtzsche noted, the discovery of “non-specific effects” of vaccines on immunity show that “it is impossible to predict what happens in terms of susceptibility to infections in general, of all types, when the immune system is being stimulated through vaccination”.

    The WHO, he observed, had been dismissive of studies finding detrimental non-specific effects for the DTP vaccine while accepting studies finding beneficial non-specific effects for the measles vaccine. The WHO is “inconsistent and biased toward positive effects of vaccines. When a result pleases the WHO, it can be accepted, but not when a result does not please the WHO.”

    Conflicts of interest within the WHO is another area of concern that potentially helps to explain this obvious bias. Of the fourteen experts tasked by the WHO to examine the evidence with respect to the DTP vaccine’s effect on mortality, eight “had relevant conflicts of interest in relation to companies producing vaccines”. Three “even had ties to GlaxoSmithKline”, one of the manufacturers of DTP vaccines.

    While the WHO chose not to see these ties as conflicts of interest, “research has overwhelmingly demonstrated that people become influenced when they have financial ties to drug companies, even when these ties are not directly related to the drugs or vaccines in question.”

    Gøtzsche observed the commonsense principle that “expert committees that give advice on immunization programs should not be involved with their re-assessment when research has demonstrated that a vaccine might increase total mortality.”

    Additionally, “no one should be allowed to have financial conflicts of interest in relation to the pharmaceutical industry.” However, “This is not the case for WHO committees.”[20]

    The UN, Too, Is Threatening the Right to Informed Consent
    The WHO is not alone among international governmental organizations in threatening to undermine protections under international law against state violations of the right to informed consent. The UN, too, has acted contrary to its stated purpose in this regard.

    On November 14, 2019, the parliament of the Republic of Maldives passed a bill effectively outlawing the exercise of the right to informed consent, making it illegal for parents to decline vaccinates recommended for routine use in children by government policymakers—which include the DTP and hepatitis B vaccines, both shown to be associated with an increased rate of childhood mortality.

    Concerningly, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) praised the Maldives legislature for passing the bill on the grounds that, once ratified, it would bring the country into closer compliance with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...armaceuticals/

    On the contrary, however, while the bill did contain provisions that would bring the country into closer compliance with the Convention, outlawing the exercise of informed consent to vaccination certainly violates it.

    The Convention recognizes that “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Its aim is to “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”.

    The Convention acknowledges the child’s right to “be cared for by his or her parents.” States are obligated to “respect the rights and duties of the parents”, which certainly includes making decisions affecting the child’s health.

    The Convention explicitly recognizes that “primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child” belongs not to the state but to the parents. The role of the state, instead, is merely to “render appropriate assistance to parents”, not to make decisions affecting the child on their behalf and without respect for their parental rights.[21]

    Timed to coincide with the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the bill outlawing informed consent for vaccinations was signed into law by Maldives President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih on November 20, 2019.[22]https://maldivesindependent.com/society/president-ratifies-landmark-child-protection-laws-149361

    On January 29, 2020, the newly appointed Prosecutor General for the Maldives government publicly threatened on Twitter, “In 22 days, we will be prosecuting parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.”[23]https://twitter.com/HuShameem/status/1222464632989741058

    The law came into force on February 20, 2020, on which occasion UNICEF saw fit to congratulate the Maldives government for enacting it, once again overlooking the state’s violation of the right to informed consent and the law’s incompatibility with the provisions of the CRC recognizing that the duty to exercise that right on behalf of the child belongs not with government bureaucrats but with the child’s parents or legal guardians.[24]https://www.unicef.org/maldives/press-releases/maldives-ratifies-child-rights-protection-act

    Conclusion
    It should be of great concern to every free-thinking inhabitant of this planet that the WHO and UN, along with state governments around the world, are pushing for an ever-increasing number of childhood vaccinations while ignoring scientific evidence that doesn’t suit their political and financial agendas and while prejudicing the individual right to informed consent.

    The WHO’s experimentation on African children without informed consent is but the latest illustration of how our children’s health and our fundamental human rights are being threatened by powerful people acting not of the public’s interests but in service to the pharmaceutical industry.

    This article was originally published at Foreign Policy Journal.https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ormed-consent/

    References
    [1] Ally Olotu et al., “Four-Year Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01E and Its Interaction with Malaria Exposure”, New England Journal of Medicine, March 21, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1207564.

    [2] Alyssa Barry and Diana Hansen, “Naturally acquired immunity to malaria”, Parasitology, January 8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182015001778.

    [3] Olotu et al., “Four-Year Efficacy”.

    [4] Ally Olotu et al., “Seven-Year Efficacy of RTS,S/AS01 Malaria Vaccine among Young African Children”, New England Journal of Medicine, June 30, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1515257.

    [5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “About Malaria: Biology”, CDC.gov, last reviewed November 14, 2018, accessed February 29, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/index.html.

    [6] Olotu et al., “Seven-Year Efficacy”.

    [7] World Health Organization, “Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old”, WHO.int, 2014, https://www.who.int/immunization/pro...nt_note_en.pdf.

    [8] Peter Aaby et al., “WHO’s rollout of malaria vaccine in Africa: can safety questions be answered after only 24 months?” BMJ, January 24, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6920.

    [9] Seema Yasmin and Madhuskree Mukerjee, “How the World’s First Dengue Vaccination Drive Ended in Disaster”, Scientific American, April 2019, https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-in-disaster/.

    [10] Aaby et al.

    [11] Søren Wengel Mogensen, “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment”, EBioMedicine, March 1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.041.

    [12] Aaby et al.

    [13] Aaby et al.

    [14] Peter Doshi, “WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a ‘serious breach of international ethical standards’”, The BMJ, February 26, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m734.

    [15] Jeremy R. Hammond, “How Public Vaccine Policy Violates Our Right to Informed Consent”, Foreign Policy Journal, April 27, 2019, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ormed-consent/.

    [16] Doshi.

    [17] Jeremy R. Hammond, “Fact Check: WHO Scientist Caught Lying to Public about Vaccine Safety”, Foreign Policy Journal, February 11, 2020, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...accine-safety/.

    [18] World Health Organization, “Contributors”, Open.WHO.int, accessed February 29, 2020, http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/overview/vcs. The WHO Programme Budget Portal financial flow under its Budget and Financing section shows how funding from private entities is directed: http://open.who.int/2018-19/budget-and-financing/flow. This page shows that Merck & Co., Inc distributed $3.4 million to WHO program areas including neglected tropical diseases, Sanofi-Aventis distributed $1.4 million mostly for neglected tropical diseases, and GSK distributed $1.1 million entirely for work on neglected tropical diseases. These figures are also viewable under the Contributors section, which specifies that the amounts are of funding by contributor for the biennial period of 2018 through the fourth quarter of 2019: http://open.who.int/2018-19/contributors/contributor.

    [19] CDC Foundation, “Corporations, Foundations & Organizations: Fiscal Year 2019 Report to Contributors”, CDCFoundation.org, accessed February 29, 2020, https://www.cdcfoundation.org/FY2019/organizations.

    [20] Peter C. Gøtzsche, “Expert Report: Effect of DTP Vaccines on Mortality in Children in Low-Income Countries”, Vaccine Science Foundation, August 12, 2019, https://vaccinescience.org/expert-re...ome-countries/.

    [21] Jeremy R. Hammond, “UN Praises Maldives Bill Outlawing Informed Consent for Pharmaceuticals”, Foreign Policy Journal, November 16, 2019, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...armaceuticals/. See the article for further discussion. Sources cited include: UNICEF Maldives, praises passage of Child Rights Protection Bill, Twitter, November 14, 2019, https://twitter.com/UNICEFMaldives/s...26669502590979. Ahmedulla Abdul Hadi, “Child Rights Protection Bill passed: Vaccinations mandatory, child marriages outlawed”, Sun Online, November 14, 2019, https://en.sun.mv/56582. “Parliament passes Child Rights Protection Bill, Vaccinations made mandatory”, One Online, November 14, 2019, https://oneonline.mv/en/18082. “New child protection law passed with mandatory vaccination”, Maldives Independent, November 14, 2019, https://maldivesindependent.com/soci...ination-149239. United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted November 20, 1989, entered into force September 2, 1990, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Prof...terest/crc.pdf. Republic of Maldives, Immunization Handbook for Health Care Professionals, 2015, http://hpa.gov.mv/DOCS/1451449250.pdf.

    [22] Republic of Maldives, “President signs bills on Child Rights Protection and Juvenile Justice into law”, President’s Office, November 20, 2019, https://presidency.gov.mv/Press/Article/22631. “President ratifies landmark child protection laws”, Maldives Independent, November 21, 2019, https://maldivesindependent.com/soci...on-laws-149361.

    [23] Hussain Shameem, threatens to prosecute parents who choose not to comply with Maldives government vaccine policy, Twitter, January 29, 2020, https://twitter.com/HuShameem/status...64632989741058.

    [24] UN Children’s Fund, “Maldives ratifies Child Rights Protection Act”, Press Release, February 20, 2020, https://www.unicef.org/maldives/press-releases/maldives-ratifies-child-rights-protection-act."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (2nd March 2020), Reinhard (2nd March 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  25. Link to Post #813
    France Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th February 2019
    Location
    South of France
    Language
    French
    Age
    66
    Posts
    133
    Thanks
    1,249
    Thanked 850 times in 128 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Mandatory vaccinations are law in China since December 2019 ( I posted the law on the Corona virus thread). Here in France the resistance against vaccinations is strong but the government tries again and again. With this crisis the push for forced vaccinations will undoubtedly increase (as planned). They must be stopped at all price because they can not be trusted anymore with the use of nano elements that can be programmed like a chip. Also the known older lifesaving vaccinations ( harmless even if contested as useless) are no more to be trusted because we have seen that today vaccines for multiple purposes are being offered. The challenge is huge. I think that our combined spiritual resistance can make their plans get into trouble, go wrong and expose the whole dirty industry.



    Quote Posted by Delight (here)
    Quote Posted by mountain_jim (here)
    Quote Posted by Sammy (here)
    I wonder what folks will do if a COVID-19 vaccine was created?
    I had this same wonder (about my own possible future decision) when I read about Israel's possibly-ready-in-weeks vaccine yesterday.
    I certainly feel less hesitant about the oral route but I don't think vaccination is at all what it has always been touted to be and think the immune enhancement is what i want to emphasize. What is really the problem for me is that with everything we have experienced about the LIES and coercion despite the risk/ benefit ratio of the previous vaccines, I have NO TRUST.

    I don't know if this is posted already?

    At a forum on vaccines in Connecticut, Dr. Palevsky (20 years as neonatologist) discusses the repeal of the religious exemption in NY, and the recent measles outbreaks.

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Philippe For This Post:

    Mari (15th March 2020), mountain_jim (2nd March 2020), onawah (2nd March 2020), Reinhard (2nd March 2020), Stephanie (7th March 2020)

  27. Link to Post #814
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    3,159
    Thanks
    5,606
    Thanked 15,635 times in 2,825 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Larry Cook talks about his thoughts on Q. Larry Cook has some ideas on taking back vaccine mandates.


  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    mountain_jim (10th March 2020)

  29. Link to Post #815
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Millennials with early-onset Alzheimer's surging, report finds
    2/28/20
    By Tracy Romero
    https://www.phillyvoice.com/millenni...ia-alzheimers/

    (Considering that vaccines contain toxic amounts of aluminum, which is a cause of Alzheimer's, this is not surprising...)

    "Dementia and Alzheimer's disease traditionally have been considered a concern for older generations. But recent spikes in early onset of these conditions in Americans as young as 30 suggest a different story.

    Between 2013 and 2017, early-onset dementia and Alzheimer's diagnoses increased by 83% among commercially insured Americans aged 30 to 44, according to a report released by the health care insurer. https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-a...merican-adults
    That age group includes the oldest millennials.


    Overall, early-onset diagnoses increased by 200% among commercially insured Americans between ages 30 to 64. That included a 50% jump among those 45 to 54 and by 40% for those aged 55 to 64.

    The average patient was diagnosed at age 49.

    "The results of this report are concerning, especially the increase in early-onset dementia and Alzheimer's disease among younger people," Dr. Richard Snyder, chief medical officer for Independence Blue Cross, said in a statement.

    "While the underlying cause is not clear, advances in technology are certainly allowing for earlier and more definitive diagnosis. Regardless, those who develop dementia or Alzheimer's at an early age will likely require caregiving, either from family members or healthcare providers. The time, cost and impact on families can be significant and can require additional support as these diseases progress."

    Diagnosis rates were higher in the East, South and parts of the Midwest. Women made up 58% of the diagnoses.

    Alzheimer's, the most common type of dementia, begins with mild memory loss, eventually progressing to the point where victims can no longer hold a conversation or respond to their environments. Symptoms generally occur after age 60.

    Earlier this year, researchers said a vaccine that both prevents and treats Alzheimer's could be ready for human trials within 18 months.

    In 2017, more than 37,000 commercially-insured Americans between the ages 30-64 were diagnosed with Alzheimer's, according to the report. This marked a 131% spike since 2013.

    While the consequence of these numbers are wide-ranging, informal caregivers will carry much of the burden. They often struggle with depression, social isolation and financial stress.

    Almost 16 million people provide more than 18 billion hours of unpaid care to a family member or friend with Alzheimer's disease in America – an estimated price tag of $221 billion. "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (9th March 2020)

  31. Link to Post #816
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards”
    Published 26 February 2020
    Peter Doshi
    https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m734.full

    The World Health Organization is presently vaccinating 720,000 children with an experimental malaria vaccine, which has shown disturbing side-effects, without securing parental consent.
    WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards
    Experts are troubled by the apparent lack of informed consent in a large, cluster randomised study of the malaria vaccine. Peter Doshi reports on a large scale malaria vaccine study led by the World Health Organization…

    "A large scale malaria vaccine study led by the World Health Organization has been criticised by a leading bioethicist for committing a “serious breach” of international ethical standards. The cluster randomised study in Africa is already under way in Malawi, Ghana, and Kenya, where 720 000 children will receive the RTS,S vaccine, known as Mosquirix, over the next two years.123

    Mosquirix, the world’s first licensed malaria vaccine, was positively reviewed by the European Medicines Agency, but its use is being limited to pilot implementation, in part to evaluate outstanding safety concerns that emerged from previous clinical trials.3 These were a rate of meningitis in those receiving Mosquirix 10 times that of those who did not, increased cerebral malaria cases, and a doubling in the risk of death (from any cause) in girls.2

    Charles Weijer, a bioethicist at Western University in Canada, told The BMJ that the failure to obtain informed consent from parents whose children are taking part in the study violates the Ottawa Statement, a consensus statement on the ethics of cluster randomised trials, of which Weijer is the lead author, and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences’ International Ethical Guidelines. “The failure to require informed consent is a serious breach of international ethical standards."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (9th March 2020)

  33. Link to Post #817
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    CDC Concedes In Federal Court It Does NOT Have Studies to Support Its Claim "Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism"
    https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...does_not_have/
    March 5th 2020
    "In a federal lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Informed Consent Action Network, the Center for Disease Control has conceded it has no scientific studies to back up its long declared assertion that "vaccines given to babies do not cause autism".

    The CDC claims on its website that "vaccines do not cause autism".

    Despite this claim studies have found between 40 and 70% of parents with an autistic child continue to blame vaccines for their child's autism typically pointing to vaccines given during the first six months of life.

    In the summer of 2019 ICAN submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC for all studies relied upon the CDC to claim that the DTaP vaccine does not cause autism. They also submitted the same request for Hep B, Hib, pcv13, and IPV (polio), as well as requesting the CDC provide studies to support that the cumulative exposure to these vaccines do not cause autism.

    Despite months of demands, the CDC FAILED to produce a single study in response to these FOIA requests.

    ICAN was therefore forced to sue the CDC in federal court, where the CDC finally conceded in a stipulation signed by a federal court judge, that it had no studies to support any of these vaccines do not cause autism.

    Why isn't the mainstream media covering this?

    News was broken here:
    More here:
    https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Ne...nd_Prevention/

    https://www.icandecide.org/wp-conten...y-Executed.pdf "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Czarek (8th March 2020), graciousb (9th March 2020), mountain_jim (9th March 2020)

  35. Link to Post #818
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    How the drug industry got its way on the coronavirus
    Companies are fighting off Democrats’ push to include drug-pricing provisions in an emergency spending package.
    By SARAH KARLIN-SMITH
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-prices-122412
    3/05/2020

    The drug industry is showing that even in a crisis, it can use its influence in Washington to fight off efforts to cut into its profits.

    "Democrats and Republicans have tried and failed in recent months to advance bills that would crack down on costs for prescription drugs.
    Industry lobbyists successfully blocked attempts this week to include language in the $8.3 billion emergency coronavirus spending bill that would have threatened intellectual property rights for any vaccines and treatments the government decides are priced unfairly.

    Drug companies’ power to dictate terms as Congress struggles to address the growing U.S. outbreak is another sign of the uphill battle that likely awaits any broader bipartisan drug-pricing legislation. Both Democrats and Republicans have tried and failed in recent months to advance bills that would crack down on costs.

    The pharmaceutical industry not only killed the intellectual property provision in the coronavirus package, but it got language added into the bill that prevents the government from delaying a medicine’s development over concerns about its affordability.

    “The idea that drug companies should have free reign to set prices during an international pandemic is immoral and dangerous,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who led an unsuccessful push to ensure that coronavirus treatments developed with federal emergency funding would be priced fairly and available widely, in a statement to POLITICO.

    The provision to bar the government from intervening when affordability concerns arise “blows up” existing legal measures to ensure fair drug pricing, said Jamie Love, executive director at Knowledge Ecology International, which has been lobbying for new drug development and pricing approaches to lower the costs of medicines.

    The coronavirus package — which passed the House Wednesday and the Senate Thursday — includes about $3.1 billion to develop drugs and vaccines and expand manufacturing capacity. It would also cover purchases of medical supplies for state and local health departments to beef up the Strategic National Stockpile, the largest national repository of emergency treatments. Another $300 million would help the government buy vaccines and treatments once they are approved. Much of this money would directly benefit the drug industry.

    The bill specifies that any products purchased must meet federal acquisition guidance “on fair and reasonable pricing.” It also empowers the HHS secretary to ensure that vaccines, drugs or diagnostic tests developed with the emergency funding “will be affordable in the commercial market,” without specifying how the government would determine a fair price.

    But the legislation also says that HHS can’t delay the development of vaccines and treatments in an effort to maintain affordable prices — a win for the drug industry and Republicans, who argue that government constraints on pricing would limit private investment in coronavirus therapies. Republicans also told POLITICO they pushed back on Democratic attempts to add language that would have allowed HHS to set a drug’s price and limit increases to the rate of inflation."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (10th March 2020)

  37. Link to Post #819
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Vimeo censors my interview, in which Catherine Austin Fitts and I discuss coronavirus and vaccines
    Vimeo also removed another Fitts interview with a distinguished attorney, on the subject of mandated vaccines
    They’re meddling with you, and deciding for you
    by Jon Rappoport
    March 9, 2020
    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020...-and-vaccines/
    Or see:
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1339912
    Last edited by onawah; 9th March 2020 at 22:34.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (10th March 2020)

  39. Link to Post #820
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,062
    Thanks
    28,592
    Thanked 52,669 times in 10,598 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    New Adjuvants in the Pipeline = More Profits, Questionable Safety
    MARCH 10, 2020
    By the Children’s Health Defense Team
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...urce=mailchimp

    "In December 2019, top-tier members of the global vaccine establishment met at the World Health Organization (WHO) for a now-infamous Global Vaccine Safety Summit. The WHO—the same entity that allows testing of experimental vaccines on children without informed consent—is scrambling to come up with messaging that will convince the public and health professionals to set aside their growing concerns about vaccine safety.

    Many people are particularly worried about the safety of vaccine adjuvants—formulations added to vaccines to increase their potency and efficacy. At the December summit, the Coordinator of WHO’s Initiative for Vaccine Research candidly conceded that these concerns are justified, acknowledging adjuvants’ association with systemic adverse events and stating that vaccines without adjuvants are preferable to vaccines with adjuvants. “We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so,” this industry insider commented, but because some vaccines will not “work” without them. His conclusion? “If you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so.”

    Flying in the face of the WHO Coordinator’s words, vaccine manufacturers are headed in the opposite direction, with virologists crowing that adjuvants “have really taken off in the last 10 to 15 years.” The overt rationale for the rush to develop and use more adjuvants is that modern synthetic vaccines lack “intrinsic immunostimulatory activity” and need more of a “helping hand” to prod the immune system into action. However, vaccine makers are also giddy at new proprietary adjuvants’ potential to launch highly profitable next-generation vaccines. At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is a major sponsor of adjuvant research, an official states that even a “mediocre” vaccine can be “significantly improved by adding the right adjuvant.”

    Studies indicate that the large number of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered to infants (as per the CDC schedule) results in a high degree of chronic aluminum toxicity.
    The changing adjuvant landscape
    For 70 years, the sole licensed adjuvants were aluminum-based. About 80% of vaccines (including those with a diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis component, hepatitis A and B, Haemophilus influenzae type b, human papillomavirus, meningococcal and pneumococcal) rely on aluminum compounds with variable physical and chemical properties: aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxide, potassium aluminum sulfate and Merck’s proprietary amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS). Studies indicate that the large number of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered to infants (as per the CDC schedule) results in a high degree of chronic aluminum toxicity.

    The aluminum compounds funneled into adjuvants beginning in the 1930s initially popped up as contaminants, and researchers discovered only “serendipitiously” that the contaminants could boost the vaccine-induced immune response. Thereafter, a single inappropriately designed experiment in rabbits became the reference study for regulatory approval—and when the FDA reiterated its claims of aluminum adjuvant safety in 2011, its pronouncement hinged on a “crucial math error.” Ironically, NIH officials admit that “Alum would be hard to get licensed nowadays.”

    In 2009, the FDA approved the first vaccine (Cervarix) to include a novel adjuvant, AS04, despite published declarations that same year that much remains to be learned about this compound’s mechanism of action.
    In 2007, private sector researchers complained about the “crude” formulation of aluminum adjuvants and their lack of specificity. Those problems, in combination with aluminum adjuvants’ acknowledged side effects (including “granulomas, allergenicity, neurotoxicity and stimulation of IgE production”) encouraged a major push to identify new “immune modulators.” In 2009, the FDA approved the first vaccine (Cervarix) to include a novel adjuvant, AS04, despite published declarations that same year that “much remains to be learned about this compound’s mechanism of action.” AS04, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), combines aluminum with something called monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL), a “detoxified form of the endotoxin lipopolysaccharide.” Ordinarily, injected endotoxins are known for their ability to induce shock, fever and a lowered white blood cell count.

    Cervarix and AS04 are no longer in use in the U.S., but AS04’s approval paved the way for further efforts to introduce “smart adjuvants” and “smart [adjuvant] components,” primarily in the adult vaccine market. Vaccines available in the U.S. now include the following:

    AS01 is another GSK “adjuvant suspension,” containing not one but two “immunostimulants”—MPL and a highly potent saponin/surfactant called QS-21 known for its potential to rupture red blood cells. In the U.S., AS01 is featured in the Shingrix (shingles) vaccine; in Africa, it is part of an experimental GSK malaria vaccine that has elicited “concerns around its safety and durability.”
    MF59 is a Novartis-produced, squalene-oil-based emulsion designed to conquer “age-related immune impairment,” used in the Fluad influenza vaccine targeted at senior citizens. A clinical trial in children found that participants reported adverse events more frequently with an MF59-adjuvanted vaccine versus a comparator vaccine.
    CpG 1018 is a synthetic form of DNA that mimics bacterial and viral genetic material, present in Dynavax Technologies Corporation’s Heplisav-B (hepatitis B) vaccine. This adjuvant is the first to use a DNA sequence as an adjuvant—and vaccine developers are salivating over the possibilities of tailoring DNA sequences “so that they have different effects on different immune cells.”
    “Safety is the major reason for failure of adjuvants.”
    Blockbusters versus safety
    A recent commentary on vaccine adjuvants observed that GSK “recognised the importance of adjuvants early,” in part because it was the first company to make a genetically engineered vaccine (hepatitis B) that could not function without a strong adjuvant. Later, the development of AS01 was a key factor contributing to Shingrix’s “blockbuster” success. Although “it is impossible to overlook the dominance of GSK,” adjuvant development “is now of interest to big pharma, and smaller biotech, which are trying to catch up with GSK.”

    The commentary identified several challenges slowing down the entry of new adjuvants into the market, including the unwillingness of large companies such as GSK and Merck to make their proprietary formulations available to outside researchers. However, another recent commentary points to a more bottom-line reason why relatively few of the adjuvant candidates in the pipeline have thus far proceeded to licensure: “Safety is the major reason for failure of adjuvants.” Perhaps that is why WHO officials are bluntly recommending avoiding adjuvants whenever possible."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Caliban (15th March 2020), DaveToo (15th March 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 41 of 42 FirstFirst 1 31 41 42 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts