Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

[onawah]

BOMBSHELL: ALL TESTED VACCINES REVEAL TOXIC SUBSTANCES LINKED TO AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
Posted by: Lori Alton, staff writer in Vaccine Dangers April 6, 2018 4
(Bold, underlined and red letters my emphasis)
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/vac...tals-2517.html

(Naturalhealth365) According to the National Institutes of Health, up to 23.5 million Americans suffer from autoimmune disease – and the number is increasing steadily. Unfortunately, Western medicine continues to ignore the impact of vaccines on this growing health crisis.

In addition, rates of cancer, diabetes, autism and other neurodevelopmental diseases continue to soar – a disease (and disability) epidemic that has researchers baffled. Yet, many integrative healthcare providers have warned the general public that vaccines – already known to contain neurotoxic metals like, lead and chromium – are a fundamental trigger for these so-called ‘mysterious’ health issues.

Now, a pair of Italian scientists are reporting unsafe levels of contaminants in human vaccines, further raising the concern over these negative (and avoidable) health outcomes.

WARNING about vaccines: Sophisticated new method of analysis reveal extensive contamination
The study was conducted by a husband and wife research team, Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari. Antonietta Gatti, a selected expert of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the safety of nanotechnological food, is a member of the National Council of Research of Italy and the scientific director of Nanodiagnostics.

Using electron-microscopy, the researchers examined 44 samples of 30 different human and veterinary vaccines, including those for influenza, meningitis, allergies, cervical cancer and hepatitis.

And what they found was disturbing. The pair identified contaminants in all tested vaccines – but for one. (The lone vaccine to test free of inorganic contaminants was Feligen, produced for use on cats).
When it comes to vaccine safety, humans didn’t fare as well.

In the study, published in 2017 in International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccinations, the researchers reported that they found both single particles and aggregates – or assemblages – of a variety of bizarre and toxic substances in the vaccines.

Researchers “baffled” by the composition of the contaminants
The researchers described the contaminants as “micro- and nano-sized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements not declared in the products’ ingredients lists.”

The vaccines were found to contain “red cells” – of human or possibly animal origin – along with metals such as lead, tungsten and chromium. (Chromium, found in 25 of the tested human vaccines, has been linked to autoimmune disease and leukemia).

In fact, when it came to heavy metals, vaccines feature a veritable “Russian roulette.” Other metals identified included silver, gold and platinum – precious metals when found in the form of jewelry, but not so precious (in fact, toxic) when injected into the human body.

Specifically, lead particles were found in the cervical cancer vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix, as well as in the seasonal flu vaccine Aggripal and in the meningitis vaccine Meningetec.

An infant vaccine called Infarix Hexa – intended to protect against DPT and other diseases – contained stainless steel, tungsten and a gold-zinc aggregate. Another flu vaccine, marketed for children three years and older, contained 11 different metals and aggregates of metals.

The scientists reported that they were “baffled” by the unusual chemical composition of the foreign bodies and pollutants, which they called “non-biodegradable” and “non-biocompatible.” Likening the substances to “products generated by burning waste,” the team said the substances had no technical use and could not be found in any material handbook.

The team concluded that the contaminants’ presence was accidental, and possibly a result of inadequate filtration. They called for purification of vaccines to improve their quality and decrease the number and seriousness of adverse effects.

The scientists emphasized that these substances should not be present in any vaccine – in particular, those meant for infants.

Researchers: Adverse effects are “possible and credible”
The researchers identified some possible immune responses to the contaminants.

The immune system, they wrote, could react by dispensing microphages to engulf the foreign bodies. This action could contain the contaminants, as swellings or granulomas at the injection site. Alternately, they could be ferried in the bloodstream to other sites in the body, with unknown consequences.

The foreign bodies could also precipitate the release of a flood of cytokines – inflammatory substances – that could then trigger autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and diabetes. (The researchers noted that the pro-inflammatory chemical Interleukin-6 has already been incriminated in autism).

Finally, the foreign nano-particles are so small that they are capable of interacting with cell DNA – with unforeseen consequences.

Due to their smaller size, children are particularly vulnerable to damage from vaccine contaminants.
Reported side effects from vaccines include headaches, fatigue, seizures, muscle pain, paralysis and even sudden infant death syndrome.

Of course, this latest study highlighting contaminants doesn’t represent the only evidence of lapses in vaccine safety. In the 1960s, polio vaccine was contaminated with a simian virus from monkey kidney cells – which is now linked to the growing epidemic of cancer.

In 2007, 1.2 million doses of Hib vaccine were recalled due to contamination with cereus, a bacterium that causes food poisoning. And, in 2009, a meningitis vaccine for babies was contaminated with S. aureus bacteria.

From the U.S. CDC and WHO: Nothing but “crickets” in response to this alarming news
A reasonable response to the findings of Drs. Gatti and Montanari would have been for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to begin an investigation – using independent scientists to either confirm or refute the findings.

But medical and governmental authorities in the United States appear to have taken no notice of the pair’s findings. A year after the publication of the study, no such investigation has been launched.

And the explosive research has not been widely covered in the media. (Natural health advocates maintain that the mainstream media’s ties to big pharma cause them to be reluctant to investigate, or even publicize, negative vaccine stories – a disgraceful state of affairs).

Note: a type of digital ledger known as blockchain is gaining traction as a way to collect, track and share data on vaccines and adverse reactions.

To learn more about blockchain, visit: the World Mercury Project web site. https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...ti-censorship/

Update: According to news reports, Italian police raided the home and laboratory of Drs. Gatti and Montanari last month, seizing laptops, computers, documentation, data and flash-drives. Vaccine safety advocates say this is a blatant attempt to silence the scientists – while other sources say the raid is due to a dispute surrounding the ownership and use of an electron microscope.

In any case, the timing certainly seems highly suspicious.

Sources for this article include:

CMSRI.org http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-res...f-contaminants
Medcraveonline.com http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf

[onawah]

FDA Acknowledged That Vaccine Technology Outpacing Ability to Predict Adverse Eventshttps://worldmercuryproject.org/news/fda-acknowledged-that-vaccine-technology-outpacing-ability-to-predict-adverse-events/?utm_source=mailchimp
APRIL 09, 2018
By Lyn Redwood, R.N., M.S.N., Executive Director, World Mercury Project

Recently, top-tier autoimmunity researchers described vaccine safety science as a “hazardous occupation.” In their view, this is because uncompromising vaccine proponents are instantly ready to mount vociferous personal attacks on anyone who raises questions about any aspect of vaccine safety, even if the questions are buttressed by impeccable, high-quality science. Vaccine safety was not always such a taboo topic. In 1961, a leading polio researcher put forth the view in Science that “even after licensing, a new vaccine product must be considered to be on trial” because of the many “new variables” that accompany large-scale vaccine production and rollout.

uncertainties about new vaccine technologies could easily result in a “black box” situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.
A leading Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official contended in 1999 that modern advances in vaccine technology were rapidly “outpacing researchers” ability to predict potential vaccine-related adverse events” and argued for closer attention to safety issues from the earliest stages of vaccine development. “One of the important things is that the technology used to make these vaccines actually exceeds the science and technology to understand how these vaccines work and to predict how they will work,” stated Dr. Peter Patriarca, MD, Director of the Viral Products Division of the FDA Center for Biological Evaluation and Research (CBER). “So this has the potential for ending up in a situation which I call a “black box” vaccine” referring to a situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.”

Dr. Patriarca also voiced concerns that with live attenuated vaccines “there is the potential for these vaccines, many of which have been poorly characterized to recombine with viruses that may be present in the vaccine. Some of these viruses are latent and persist for a while, so it is very important to assure that these things are safe before they are given to people.”

In the two decades since the FDA official’s prescient words of warning, numerous published studies have highlighted vaccine safety concerns that were either unexplored or neglected prior to the introduction of the vaccines in question. Troubling issues have included the presence of adventitious agents and contaminants in vaccines and the rise of new allergies associated with synthetic vaccines. Studies also highlight major gaps in the methods, protocols and timelines used to assess vaccine safety.

First rotavirus vaccine debacle
The checkered history of rotavirus vaccines in the U.S. confirms the vital need for new vaccines to remain “on trial” after their launch in the general population. In 1998, the U.S. government licensed the first rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, a tetravalent live-attenuated vaccine that used a genetically engineered rhesus monkey rotavirus along with three rhesus-human reassortant viruses. Other rhesus-based rotavirus vaccines previously had “failed to prove safe for administration in infants.” According to a detailed account of RotaShield in the Milbank Quarterly, the vaccine’s manufacturer, Wyeth, bragged about the vaccine as one of its “new, breakthrough therapies” and expressed the hope of establishing a large, profitable market in the U.S. as a prelude to marketing RotaShield in developing countries.

…reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) pointed to a substantially increased risk of bowel intussusception, a potentially fatal (though usually rare) condition involving intestinal enfolding and obstruction.
Despite the initial optimism, Wyeth had to commercially withdraw RotaShield one year later, when reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) pointed to a substantially increased risk of bowel intussusception, a potentially fatal (though usually rare) condition involving intestinal enfolding and obstruction. For infants in their first year of life, intussusception risks increased 20 to 30 times within two weeks of receiving the first dose of RotaShield.

According to the Milbank Quarterly description, a 1997 pre-licensing regulatory review meeting led by the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee had given Wyeth’s hired hand (a university professor) “a minute or two maximum” to discuss intussusception risks. There were “no follow-up questions…and no further discussion…during the remainder of the meeting,” despite the scientist’s expressed concern that “with larger numbers perhaps a causal relationship might emerge.” Nor did attendees consider intussusception at subsequent meetings of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), where, despite the professor sharing her intussusception data, vaccine cost-effectiveness was the focus of discussion. It was not until an estimated 500,000 children received at least one million doses of RotaShield that the FDA suspended the vaccine, at first temporarily and then permanently, without ever explaining the “precise mechanism” by which RotaShield caused intussusception. Ironically, the government subsequently trumpeted the RotaShield story as proof that “the systems established to detect and respond to vaccine safety concerns are effective.”

The second rotavirus vaccine debacle
Two new genetically engineered oral rotavirus vaccines entered the vaccine marketplace in 2006 and 2008, respectively: RotaTeq, a pentavalent (five-strain) bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine made by Merck, and Rotarix, a live-attenuated single-human-strain rotavirus vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Although pre-licensure trials found no evidence of an association between the two vaccines and intussusception, post-licensure monitoring later indicated a statistically significant increased risk of intussusception events for all rotavirus vaccines. Unlike with RotaShield, FDA merely instructed Merck, in 2013, and GSK, in 2014, to update their labeling and prescribing information to include brief statements about increased intussusception risks but otherwise allowed the two vaccines to remain on the market.

…the researchers discovered that RotaTeq and Rotarix were contaminated with DNA from two porcine circoviruses—PCV1 (in Rotarix) and both PCV1 and PCV2 (in RotaTeq). Both GSK and Merck later confirmed these findings. The PCV2 pathogen is associated with severe wasting and immunodeficiency in pigs.
Meanwhile, the much-vaunted industry and governmental safety systems that ushered the two rotavirus vaccines to market failed to detect an additional and highly concerning problem, which an academic research team “unexpectedly” identified in 2010. While conducting “a novel, highly sensitive analysis not routinely used for adventitious agent screening,” the researchers discovered that RotaTeq and Rotarix were contaminated with DNA from two porcine circoviruses—PCV1 (in Rotarix) and both PCV1 and PCV2 (in RotaTeq). Both GSK and Merck later confirmed these findings. The PCV2 pathogen is associated with severe wasting and immunodeficiency in pigs.

Although the short- and long-term dangers from PCV1 and PCV2 are as yet unknown, the pioneers of genetic engineering foresaw horizontal gene transfer—the direct uptake and incorporation of genetic material from unrelated species—as a clear risk of genetically engineered vaccines. Unlike chemical pollutants, nucleic acids are infectious and can invade cells and genomes, multiplying, mutating and recombining indefinitely. Potential hazards of horizontal gene transfer include generation of new disease-causing viruses and bacteria (or reactivation of dormant viruses); spread of drug and antibiotic resistance genes among viral and bacterial pathogens; and random insertion into genomes of cells resulting in cancer.

If this contamination had been discovered prior to licensure of the rotavirus vaccines, FDA would not have licensed the vaccines—why should it be any different now?
At issue, in the example of RotaTeq and Rotarix, are the dangers of incorporation of adventitious PCV contaminants from live rotavirus vaccines into the human host or host-related bacteria (such as the gut flora)—dangers unrecognized and, therefore, unexplored before the two vaccines went to market. There is also additional cause for concern based on research demonstrating that the pathogenic potential of PCV2 to cause an AIDS-like disease in pigs is unleashed when there is simultaneous vaccine-induced immune system activation. In light of this research, the current recommendation to administer PCV2-contaminated rotavirus vaccine along with five other vaccines—hepatitis B (HepB), diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pneumococcal conjugate (PCV) and inactivated poliovirus (IPV)—represents a high-risk scenario for disease in humans. If the contamination had been discovered prior to licensure of the rotavirus vaccines, FDA would not have licensed the vaccines—why should it be any different now?

At a 2010 meeting convened by FDA to discuss the PCV contamination, a GSK executive went so far as to concede that “evolving technologies can lead to new findings that were not known at the time of licensure.” Nonetheless, the GSK researchers expressed little worry, having framed the presence of the PCV DNA in their vaccine as a simple “manufacturing quality issue” rather than a safety risk. GSK even put a positive spin on the matter, suggesting that the PCV investigation “could serve as a model for risk assessment in the event of new technologies identifying adventitious agents in the manufacturing of other vaccines.”

Are unforeseen outcomes inevitable?
Shortly after the GSK discovery, FDA recommended that physicians temporarily suspend use of Rotarix and switch to RotaTeq, but when Merck’s vaccine was found to contain similar contaminants, FDA reversed course and allowed continued use of both. Instead of calling for new safety studies and completing a new risk-benefit analysis (taking into consideration that mortality from rotavirus disease in the U.S. is very low), the FDA once again reassured the public that the benefits of rotavirus vaccination outweighed any “hypothetical” health risks of PCV contamination. The agency’s sole follow-up action was to rubber-stamp updates to the Merck and GSK package inserts to “reflect the presence of Porcine Circovirus Type-1 and -2 DNA in the vaccine[s].”

Can the assertion that the benefits outweigh the risks be taken at face value? Consider the history of the oral polio vaccine, which has used seed stocks contaminated with multiple strains of simian virus 40 (SV40) for over four decades. SV40 has been detected in the brains of deceased cancer patients who received the oral polio vaccine, and a 2002 Institute of Medicine report cited strong biological evidence that SV40 can transform normal cells into malignant cells. Whether the porcine circovirus contamination that afflicts the two current—and highly engineered—rotavirus vaccines will turn out to have insidious long-term health effects remains an unanswered question. Nonetheless, history indicates that we should not be surprised when novel and difficult-to-control vaccine technologies generate unforeseen outcomes.

https://worldmercuryproject.org/

[Michelle Marie]

It is my sincere hope and wish, and inner conviction, that people of integrity and ethical values that care about people's well-being, people of "goodwill", replace those that have abused their power to attain personal gain while motivated by greed.

The FDA has long since been compromised. And until these fundamental values are instilled and people held accountable, the damage to human health and human lives will continue. The light that is shining, are these people who are professional, ethical, and moral that continue to stick their necks out to stake a claim for truth and for doing the right thing.

Even sharing this information, right here, right now, is shining this light of awareness. This awareness will spread and grow. The strength of the light of conscious humans with big hearts and wise minds will prevail.

The times of veiling the dark profit-driven deeds in the darkness of secrets, lies, and deception is coming to a close. The evidence is people stepping down after conflicts of interest coming to light, like that woman from the CDC who was shown to have Merck stocks. Those pharmaceutical billions of dollars need to start flowing to the families who have suffered at their hands.

I can hardly watch the videos of all of the health damages and deaths children and adults have suffered. The prevalence of this is overwhelming. Our feelings of compassion make a difference; and I do sense that this rise in the tide of awareness and compassion is creating the tsunami of energy that will force a reversal--the change that is so necessary at this time.

So, thank you, Onawah, for sharing this information. It does my heart good to know the truth is expanding the light of awareness for so many of us.

Really...thank you!

Michelle Marie

[onawah]

Most welcome, Michelle.
The Truth and the Light must go hand in hand.
And there are ways that children and adults both can heal from the ravages of vaccine injuries.
Homeopathy in conjunction with diet, herbs, etc. can make a lot of difference.
A subject for another thread!

[avid]

Mercury poisoning was not just to do with vaccines, I am a Pinks Disease http://www.pinkdisease.org/PDpamphlet041108.doc survivor, poisoned by mercury in teething powders in the early 1950’s. Many nasty side-effects to this day, lung problems and many other upsetting health issues. I almost died. Lots of issues throughout my life now being explained by research and support groups.

[Flash]

Posted by avid (here)
Mercury poisoning was not just to do with vaccines, I am a Pinks Disease http://www.pinkdisease.org/PDpamphlet041108.doc survivor, poisoned by mercury in teething powders in the early 1950’s. Many nasty side-effects to this day, lung problems and many other upsetting health issues. I almost died. Lots of issues throughout my life now being explained by research and support groups.

very interesting to read the description of the pind disease symptoms and consequences. thank you Avid.

I did recognised about half the symptoms in my daughter when she was a baby and a toddler. This means that she would have been affected by mercury probably. Which was in vaccines. I do not see any other place where she could have gotten poisoned with mercury, I was quite attentive to those chemicals in the house (mercury, lead, etc).

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Hey onawah. It's been a while since we last talked!

What do you think about the FDA coming out with this stuff recently?:

FDA Announced That Vaccines Are Causing Autism

The FDA has published conclusive proof on their website that the DTap vaccine can cause autism.

According to the FDA’s online Biologics Blood Vaccines document, a vaccine manufacturer admits on its package insert that their vaccination can cause autism as one of many adverse reactions.

These adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.

http://inshapetoday.com/now-official...ausing-autism/


Maybe a sign of some positive changes to come for once?

They have a cancer vaccine with over 90% success rate in lab rats that's moving to human trials now too. Good timing huh?

[Flash]

This was in 1999 and the vaccine has been discontinued.

Please check your facts A Voice, it took me 5 minutes to find out.

I give that to my step son (if he ever has babies with my daughter) and with his scientific background I would be immediately discredited, forever, which I do not want at any cost.

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
Hey onawah. It's been a while since we last talked!

What do you think about the FDA coming out with this stuff recently?:

FDA Announced That Vaccines Are Causing Autism

The FDA has published conclusive proof on their website that the DTap vaccine can cause autism.

According to the FDA’s online Biologics Blood Vaccines document, a vaccine manufacturer admits on its package insert that their vaccination can cause autism as one of many adverse reactions.

These adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.

http://inshapetoday.com/now-official...ausing-autism/


Maybe a sign of some positive changes to come for once?

They have a cancer vaccine with over 90% success rate in lab rats that's moving to human trials now too. Good timing huh?

[avid]

Posted by Flash (here)

Posted by avid (here)
Mercury poisoning was not just to do with vaccines, I am a Pinks Disease http://www.pinkdisease.org/PDpamphlet041108.doc survivor, poisoned by mercury in teething powders in the early 1950’s. Many nasty side-effects to this day, lung problems and many other upsetting health issues. I almost died. Lots of issues throughout my life now being explained by research and support groups.

very interesting to read the description of the pind disease symptoms and consequences. thank you Avid.

I did recognised about half the symptoms in my daughter when she was a baby and a toddler. This means that she would have been affected by mercury probably. Which was in vaccines. I do not see any other place where she could have gotten poisoned with mercury, I was quite attentive to those chemicals in the house (mercury, lead, etc).

More info on Pink Disease, (mercury poisoning) https://www.pinkdisease.org/PDhandout240309.doc

[Flash]

the symptoms my daughter had as a baby and a child

Muscle weakness and flaccidity (atonia)

Clumsiness (ataxia)

Digestive problems including loss of weight,
loss of appetite, vomiting and constipation

Convulsive seizures and petit mal attacks
General excess sensitivity of the skin to touch, temperature, water and UV light
Excess nasal discharge
Cold, clammy, swollen pink or bluish hands and feet
Abnormal skin and muscle sensations

at 2 years old above:

Abnormal skin and muscle sensations
• Coldness and moistness of the extremities is evident.
• Lack of muscle tone and high blood pressure are detectable.
• The child becomes listless, doesn’t smile, and doesn’t want to play anymore and may simply sit around and rest all day.
plus definitive pronounced language disabilities

You would not imagine how many bio-chemical treatments she had to enhance her body biology and how many physiotherapies sessions she had to recuperate muscle tone and muscle coordination.
Plus speech therapies and more..

The mothers and other care-givers of babies with Pink Disease suffered severe exhaustion from lack of sleep, severe stress and loss of weight. Family life was generally disrupted by the baby's constant crying.

exactly except that I gain weight instead of losing when under stress, plus I had been poisoned in another situation myself with something else.

My daughter is pretty healthy nowadays, good teeth and gum, just the normal cold, but running nose in winter pretty constant. Her hands and feet are still cold but not as much as they used to be.

Gosh, I should have read that 15 years ago - how come the pediatrician did not ask or suspect this??

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Flash (here)
This was in 1999 and the vaccine has been discontinued.

Please check your facts A Voice, it took me 5 minutes to find out.

So the info is older than I thought it was. I see it was discontinued in 2011. Only one lot of it was recalled in 1999.

It's still the first time I've ever seen the FDA actually put on a warning label that there were reported cases of autism linked to the use of a vaccine.


One lot recalled in 1999 for reasons unrelated to its potential side effects:

On January 27, 1999, the Food and Drug Administration initiated a voluntary recall of Tripedia(TM) diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP), lot number 0916490, manufactured by Pasteur Merieux Connaught USA. * Routine post-release stability testing completed in January 1999 indicated that the potency of the diphtheria toxoid component of this lot was below specification.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056589.htm


The important part is that they actually put this on a warning label for the stuff:

These adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.

This is like those commercials on TV (illegal in many other countries) where they try to sell you a drug, not because it works the best, but because it's their newest product, and then after some happy music and vacation scenes they start reading off a list of terrible side-effects as if there is nothing odd about selling insomnia medicine that causes bleeding from the anus etc.

Except in this case the FDA put a warning for autism on a vaccine.

[onawah]

This article from the blog of J.B. Handley is too long to be posted in its' entirety here, but it's certainly worth reading:
https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/...ernational2018

International scientists have found autism's cause. What will Americans do?
BY J.B. HANDLEY April 2, 2018

Five clear, replicable, and related discoveries explaining how autism is triggered have formed an undeniably clear picture of autism’s causation, and possibly ways to alleviate the symptoms, too. Most of the research that has created this understanding has been published in the last 36 months, and largely from international scientists in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Israel, and China. The American media, public health authorities, and Autism Speaks? Silent.

STAFFORDSHIRE, England —In early December 2017, Dr. Chris Exley of Keele University in England and his colleagues published a paper that for the first time looked at the brain tissue of subjects with autism to determine the level of aluminum (note: they spell “aluminum” as “aluminium” in the United Kingdom) found within their brain tissue. For anyone trying to convince the world that “the science is settled and vaccines don’t cause autism,” the study’s findings are deeply contradictory to that statement. In a blog post written by Professor Exley on the day his study was published, he explained the groundbreaking results:

“…while the aluminium content of each of the 5 brains [of people with autism] was shockingly high it was the location of the aluminium in the brain tissue which served as the standout observation…The new evidence strongly suggests that aluminium is entering the brain in ASD [autism spectrum disorders] via pro-inflammatory cells which have become loaded up with aluminium in the blood and/or lymph, much as has been demonstrated for monocytes at injection sites for vaccines including aluminium adjuvants.”
Dr. Chris Exley of Keele University
Dr. Chris Exley of Keele University

Dr. Exley’s quote includes a reference to “monocytes at injection sites” and the fact that the interaction between these monocytes and aluminum has been demonstrated in previous published science. I know, that sounds pretty technical, but bear with me. A “monocyte” is a type of white blood cell, of which one form of monocyte is a “macrophage.” A macrophage can be thought of as the garbage man of the immune system, eating up foreign substances, cell debris, etc. As you will see in a moment, macrophages appear to be playing a critical and devastating role in triggering autism, serving to escort aluminum injected from a vaccine directly into the brain, where it can disrupt brain development and trigger autism.

Dr. Exley’s study — “Aluminium in brain tissue and autism” — is the final piece of a puzzle that first started to come together in 2004, and picked up steam since 2010, that has dramatically furthered the scientific understanding of exactly how a vaccine can trigger autism. This timeline is critical to recognize, because the Vaccine Court in the United States dismissed the vaccine-autism hypothesis in 2009, long before most of what I’m about to explain even existed. Science is a continuum, an emergence of truth through many different studies that often have to be pieced together before the picture becomes clear. And, scientific progress can sometimes move slowly until that moment when an emerging truth presents itself in such a way that it can no longer be denied. In my opinion, Dr. Exley’s study provided the only data missing from an airtight explanation of what happened to my son and so many other children.

For Americans, the race to discover what’s causing all this autism will likely be won on foreign shores. As you’ll soon see, ALL of the science explaining how autism can be caused has come from other countries, even though a Caltech scientist pushed the first domino back in 2006.

etc.
See the rest at: https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/...ernational2018

[onawah]

Regulators Remain Indifferent to Unsafe Levels of Aluminum in Vaccines
APRIL 11, 2018
https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...urce=mailchimp

By the World Mercury Project Team


Vaccines are complex laboratory creations designed for one seemingly simple purpose: to stimulate a theoretically protective immune response. However, some vaccines are not as likely to have their intended effect without an “adjuvant” to amplify the vaccinated individual’s response. Aluminum salts are the most common type of vaccine adjuvant in use, despite abundant science establishing aluminum as a neurotoxin.

In 2002, only two childhood vaccines contained aluminum adjuvants, but the aluminum picture had changed dramatically by 2016, when children received five aluminum-containing vaccines from birth to age three and at least two more in the teenage years. Two independent researchers are raising important questions about the wisdom of this ramped-up use of injected aluminum in young children. In a study published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology (JTEMB) and a related online article, the researchers methodically show that current levels of aluminum in vaccines—wrongly termed “safe” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—derive from “outdated information, unwarranted assumptions and errors.”

…the levels of aluminum currently present in individual vaccines and in the modern vaccine schedule as a whole are “problematically high.”
Missing science: counting the ways
According to the two researchers, current aluminum amounts in vaccines lack the rigorous scientific underpinning ordinarily required to make a proper determination of toxicity and dosing. One of the largest gaffes is that “the entire paradigm to aluminum dosing in vaccines [was not] determined considering body weight.” The researchers note that whereas dosage should be expressed in terms of micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day (and should consider all injected and ingested sources of aluminum on that day), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) simply references aluminum amounts in terms of micrograms per dose. As a result, aluminum amounts do not appropriately adjust for toxicological differences between adults and children, males and females or normal-birthweight versus low-birthweight infants.

Unfortunately, the sobering bottom line of this ‘mathematical gerrymandering’ is that ‘we are almost certainly looking at a global neurotoxicity disaster.’
The JTEMB article describes a number of other startling research omissions that have done a major disservice to infants and young children who receive aluminum-containing vaccines. For example:

Regulators based their inadequate aluminum safety thresholds on studies of adult mice.
The mice in question received “poorly absorbed, ingested aluminum” rather than “highly absorbed injected aluminum,” but the toxicity of ingested doses of other forms of aluminum has little to do with the toxicity of injected doses of aluminum salts.
Regulators and scientists relied for decades on a mistaken calculation of the “provisional tolerable weekly intake,” resulting in “overestimation of safe exposure levels.”
Dose-related toxicity has been ignored despite routine administration of multiple aluminum-containing vaccines at a single health care visit.
Although clearance rates of injected doses of aluminum are “not well characterized,” other researchers have suggested that vaccine forms of aluminum are not rapidly eliminated. At least “15% of injected aluminum goes to the brain and stays there.”
Regulators do not factor this issue of body burden into their equations, even though “the accumulated aluminum body burden at each vaccination interval will be higher than an individual aluminum level in a single vaccine.”
Using a more rigorous and extensively justified methodology, the two researchers offer their own calculations of provisional “safe” levels of aluminum in childhood vaccines. These calculations unequivocally show that the levels of aluminum currently present in individual vaccines and in the modern vaccine schedule as a whole are “problematically high.”

Aluminum in the brain can trigger chronic brain inflammation and a cascading series of other events that have all the hallmarks of autism and other neurodegenerative conditions.
Why baseline assumptions matter
In a related online commentary by one of the two researchers, the latter makes no bones about the low credibility of current regulatory thresholds for aluminum—shaped as they have been by “serious historical missteps,” “unfounded assumptions,” “rationalization,” “muddy calculations” and “misrepresentations of past science.” Unfortunately, the sobering bottom line of this “mathematical gerrymandering” is that “we are almost certainly looking at a global neurotoxicity disaster.” Aluminum in the brain can trigger chronic brain inflammation and a cascading series of other events that have all the hallmarks of autism and other neurodegenerative conditions. Is it any surprise, then, that researchers have confirmed massive aluminum accumulation in the brains of children with autism?

Unfortunately, the types of safety calculation errors and unjustified assumptions described by the two researchers will sound only too familiar to those who have followed the lengthy and disturbing saga of neurotoxic ethylmercury in the vaccine preservative thimerosal. In fact, both thimerosal and aluminum adjuvants have a longstanding role as “dominating interventional exposures encountered by fetuses, newborns and infants.” Despite the urgent need to minimize (if not eliminate) the neurotoxic effects of both substances, regulators appear satisfied to continue propagating errors and misplaced reassurances.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. https://worldmercuryproject.org/

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7S5lJ_DKrXw

[Pam]

Posted by Michelle Marie (here)
It is my sincere hope and wish, and inner conviction, that people of integrity and ethical values that care about people's well-being, people of "goodwill", replace those that have abused their power to attain personal gain while motivated by greed.

The FDA has long since been compromised. And until these fundamental values are instilled and people held accountable, the damage to human health and human lives will continue. The light that is shining, are these people who are professional, ethical, and moral that continue to stick their necks out to stake a claim for truth and for doing the right thing.

Even sharing this information, right here, right now, is shining this light of awareness. This awareness will spread and grow. The strength of the light of conscious humans with big hearts and wise minds will prevail.

The times of veiling the dark profit-driven deeds in the darkness of secrets, lies, and deception is coming to a close. The evidence is people stepping down after conflicts of interest coming to light, like that woman from the CDC who was shown to have Merck stocks. Those pharmaceutical billions of dollars need to start flowing to the families who have suffered at their hands.

I can hardly watch the videos of all of the health damages and deaths children and adults have suffered. The prevalence of this is overwhelming. Our feelings of compassion make a difference; and I do sense that this rise in the tide of awareness and compassion is creating the tsunami of energy that will force a reversal--the change that is so necessary at this time.

So, thank you, Onawah, for sharing this information. It does my heart good to know the truth is expanding the light of awareness for so many of us.

Really...thank you!

Michelle Marie

Thank you Michelle, for a beautiful heartfelt, post. I might go one step further and suggest that there are those that see still more profit from those that have been damaged by vaccines. Most of their ailments are chronic and those are the one that bring the most profit to the medical cartel. The ultimate goal is to keep them coming back.

We are being inundated with more and more vaccines. My local grocery store offers "free" groceries to those that get their vaccines there. What a bizarre world we live in.

[onawah]

Enough Already: Autism Needs to Be Declared a National Health Crisis
APRIL 19, 2018
https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...urce=mailchimp

The CDC is due to release its latest ADDM surveillance numbers. Will our federal health agencies continue to downplay the numbers’ significance, as they have done each time the data show a rise in ASD prevalence? Or will they finally sound an alarm and make it a top priority to find out what is causing this epidemic in our children?


By the World Mercury Project Team


It is both astonishing and insulting that, nearly three decades in, federal agencies and public health experts persist in denying and refusing to tackle our nation’s staggering autism epidemic. With typical dismissiveness (and a straight face), one group of pediatric researchers recently had the temerity to put the word “epidemic” in quotes while endorsing the charade that the rising prevalence of autism is attributable to broader diagnostic criteria, increased awareness and “the inclusion of milder neurodevelopmental differences bordering on normality.”

Over the first decade of surveillance, the CDC reported that Autism Spectrum Disorder prevalence rose by 123%.
The government’s own surveys—as well as parents, school systems and municipal budgets—tell an entirely different story, however. Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) began skyrocketing in the late 1980s, concurrent with a massive expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule and a corresponding increase in children’s exposure to neurotoxic vaccine ingredients such as mercury and aluminum. Using data from the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, a 2005 study published in Pediatrics reported that autism prevalence went from roughly 1 in 2,850 ten-year-olds born in 1982 (0.035%) to about 1 in 550 ten-year-olds born in 1990 (0.183%).

In the early 2000s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began monitoring ASD prevalence (and changes in prevalence over time) through its Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network, an active surveillance system that gathers data from roughly a dozen sites around the U.S. to ascertain ASD prevalence in 8-year-olds. Over the first decade of surveillance, the CDC reported that ASD prevalence rose by 123%.
s the above table illustrates, the ADDM program has one major shortcoming, which is the lag time between data collection, analysis and publication of prevalence data. For example, the data published in 2014 took four years to analyze and captured ASD prevalence for the cohort born 12 years earlier (i.e., children born in 2002 who were eight years old in 2010). CDC did not report the prevalence estimates for children born in 1992 until 2007.

The ADDM program has other acknowledged limitations as well, including:

Constant changes in the number and location of surveillance sites
A reliance on educational records that are not consistently available at all surveillance sites (which would tend to underestimate true prevalence)
Failure to differentiate between ASD subgroups as an indicator of severity (but with differentiation by IQ, with 70 as the cutoff)
For these reasons, some observers believe that data routinely published by the National Center for Health Statistics more accurately represent the true autism picture. The Center’s prevalence data are based on parental reports from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). As of 2014, NHIS data indicated that 1 in 45 children aged 3-17 years had been diagnosed with ASD (2.24%), and by 2016 this number was 1 in 36 (2.76%)—a 23% increase over the two-year period—and a far cry from the 1 in 550 reported from other data sources in 1990.

A study that compared individuals with autism to the general population found elevated death rates in the ASD group…
A health care and education burden
At a societal level, ASD imposes a substantial economic burden, especially on the health care and education sectors. A study by Harvard researchers found that ASD was associated with over $17,000 more in health care and non-health-care costs annually per child. School systems (and thus taxpayers) carry a large portion of this additional financial burden to cover the special education services used by 76% of ASD children versus 7% of children without ASD. Over the decade from 2005-2015, the number of students with ASD (ages 6-21) rose by 165% nationally. At the family level, the average lifetime cost of caring for a child with autism (including the cost of lost wages) ranges from an estimated $1.4 to $2.4 million (depending on the level of intellectual disability), representing “a huge hit on families.”

Individuals with ASD also face vastly increased risks of medical comorbidities, including atopic disorders such as allergies and asthma, seizures, gastrointestinal problems, cancer and decreased life expectancy. A study that compared individuals with autism to the general population found elevated death rates in the ASD group for causes of death such as seizures and accidental drowning or suffocation and noted overall reduced life expectancy “even for persons who are fully ambulatory” and have only “mild” intellectual disability.



An urgent situation
Over the years, many of the CDC’s bulletins about ASD prevalence have placidly reported that “ASDs are more common than was believed previously.” However, the continued dramatic rise in ASD prevalence and autism’s heavy burden on individuals, families, schools and wider society call for a far greater sense of urgency. Autism must be recognized as a national crisis.

As of this writing (April 2018), the CDC is due to release its latest ADDM surveillance numbers. Will our federal health agencies continue to downplay the numbers’ significance, as they have done each time the data show a rise in ASD prevalence? Or will they finally sound an alarm and make it a top priority to find out what is causing this epidemic in our children? No one—and not least the agencies that are supposed to be looking out for children’s best interests—can afford to be complacent any longer about this unjustifiably neglected public health emergency.

[onawah]

Meta-Analysis Madness in Vaccine-Autism Science
APRIL 25, 2018
https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...urce=mailchimp

By World Mercury Project Board Member JB Handley, Co-Founder, Generation Rescue


Inexplicably, a 2014 “meta-analysis” of published science exploring the relationship between vaccines and autism has become the evidence du jour to prove “vaccines don’t cause autism.” The inadequacies of the 2014 paper are simple to understand, and reveal much about the current environment.

SYDNEY, Australia —Luke E. Taylor, a “Pediatric Registrar” at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, Australia, may not realize that his surname has been co-opted by many in the vitriolic vaccine-autism science debate. A college graduate in 2009, Mr. Taylor (he’s not a doctor) was only one year removed from getting his Master’s Degree in Medicine in 2014 when he authored the only research paper he’s ever published, Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Today, his paper is commonly referred to as the “Taylor study” and it has become, surprisingly, the evidence du jour that “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

Roughly one month ago, Mr. Taylor’s 2014 paper was being widely circulated on Facebook, and I heard from many asking me to comment on the study. Worse, the link many were sharing actually came from a summary of the study provided by Autism Speaks, who treated the Taylor study (back in May 2014) as a nail in the coffin on the vaccine-autism debate.

I’m perpetually disappointed in Autism Speaks, and the way they framed this study was no exception. Here’s a quote from their summary of the Taylor paper:

“Meta-analysis can be a powerful research approach,” comments epidemiologist Michael Rosanoff, Autism Speaks associate director for public health research. “It assesses the quality of data across multiple studies and combines the highest-quality data to give us a ‘higher definition picture’ of the relationship between potential risk factors and autism.”

Two more reasons to write
In just a moment, I will explain to you how absurd it is to treat this meta-analysis as anything more than a “garbage in-garbage out” study, but before I do, I want you to understand why I’m actually taking the time to write this article. Like you, I’m a busy parent, I’m not paid to write these articles, and I can’t waste my time on every topic in this debate, but two things recently happened that pushed me over the edge:

1. Quick story: some leading activists in the autism community met with one of the most senior members of the National Institutes of Health. They pressed this newly-appointed person that the science on whether or not vaccines cause autism remained wide open. He disagreed. They asked him for his evidence. He said he would follow up with the studies he relied upon to convince him this debate is settled. Later, an email arrived. He sent a single link. To the Taylor study!

2. Four days ago, and this was really the final straw for me, my own State Senator here in Portland, Oregon, Elizabeth Steiner-Hayward, posted the Taylor study on her Facebook page, and referred to it as an “Important new study” despite the fact that it’s four years old…and added the deeply galling hashtag “#sciencematters.” Many of you might recognize Senator Steiner-Hayward’s name, as she was the cranky sponsor of a 2015 bill that would have made vaccines mandatory here in Oregon. Her mean-spirited campaign cratered, but not before she proved to many that her mastery of the vaccine-autism debate involved copying and pasting anything that exonerated vaccines, sort of like her recent Facebook post. While it’s not entirely germane to the topic at hand, there’s never a bad time to share this short video of Senator Steiner-Hayward, who happens to also be a “family doctor” who vaccinates children for a living:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gMHk5aryn30

The Taylor Study: Fundamental Flaw
I’m going to start with the punchline. It’s maddening, really, how often I have to explain this simple concept to people. I guess it speaks to what a great job P.R. firms have done convincing the public that the “science is settled” about whether or not vaccines cause autism. Here’s an image, and by itself, it pretty much renders the Taylor study useless:


So what are you looking at? This is a simple table that shows three things:
1. Column A shows 38 separate ingredients that are included in AT LEAST two vaccines given to children in the United States.

2. Column B shows the first 25 vaccines given to American children in the first 15 months of their life, if they follow the CDC’s recommended schedule.

3. Column C shows my son’s progression into autism over time. Note that he was very sick long before he received the MMR vaccine, which American children typically get at their 12 month vaccine appointment.

Finally, the red circles show something very important. And, this is really the point.

The red circles show the two things that the Taylor Study actually considered in relation to autism: the MMR vaccine, and the mercury-based ingredient Thimerosal. That’s it.
But what about all the other things injected into children when they get vaccinated? What about the 37 other ingredients and what about every other vaccine except MMR? The Taylor “meta-analysis”–which only analyzed studies looking at the MMR vaccine or Thimerosal–would provide no answers. Don’t believe me? As you probably know, a “meta-analysis” is an analysis of other studies. The conclusions and data of each study are aggregated, and the hope is that by comparing all these studies, the conclusions reached will be even more robust. It makes sense, and is often helpful. But, it can’t be helpful if the group of studies in your “meta-analysis” only looked at one ingredient and one vaccine. If you actually read the details of the Taylor Study itself, the authors are quite clear about how narrow the scope of the studies they included in their meta-analysis really were:

“Studies were included that looked at either MMR vaccination, cumulative mercury (Hg) or cumulative thimerosal dosage from vaccinations…”

The Meta-Analysis Studies
Since the authors just affirmed that they only compared autism rates to either Thimerosal (mercury) or MMR, I won’t belabor this point, but here are the actual studies that were included in their meta-analysis, all 10 of them, the titles reveal what was actually looked at:
MMR Studies: 6
1. “A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism.”
2. “MMR-vaccine and regression in autism spectrum disorders: negative results presented from Japan.”
3. “Age at first measles–mumps–rubella vaccination in children with autism and school- matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta.”
4. “Lack of association between measles–mumps–rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.”
5. “MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study.”
6. “The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia.”

Thimerosal Studies: 4

1. “Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association.”
2. “Safety of thimerosal containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases.”
3. “Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism.”
4. “Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism.”

Importantly, every single child in every single study included in this meta-analysis HAD BEEN VACCINATED. Really.

Before I move on, I want to mention one other study that often gets thrown in my face as “proof” vaccines don’t cause autism. It’s often called the “Sibling MMR” study, and it was created by a consulting firm to pharmaceutical companies, The Lewin Group. In the study, the authors misappropriate the word “unvaccinated” which confused many. I do my best to explain in this article:



An excellent website, Vaccine Papers: https://vaccinepapers.org/ also debunked : https://vaccinepapers.org/review-of-...mmr-autism/The Lewin Group’s study. Here’s a quote:

“The Jain [Lewin Group] study only looked at MMR. Media reports about this study have falsely and deceptively asserted that the Jain study shows that “vaccines” in general do not cause autism. In reality, the Jain study says nothing about other vaccines. The MMR vaccine is the only vaccine that has been much studied in relation to autism, and all of the MMR-autism studies suffer from HUB. The other likely more dangerous aluminum-containing vaccines, given at younger ages, have hardly been studied at all. It is a blatant lie to claim that the science shows “vaccines” in general do not cause autism.

The science actually shows the opposite. Controlled animal experiments overwhelmingly prove that immune activation (i.e., interleukin-6) in the developing brain causes autism. Animal experiments also prove that aluminum adjuvant causes brain damage, at dosages human infants routinely receive from vaccines.”

VAERS Madness
There are two excerpts from the study itself that simply need to be seen to be believed. One of the study authors actually witnessed his two children experience seizures after their vaccines, including one that was a “serious event.” His solution? Give vaccines in the morning so you can watch for seizures.

He recommends reporting adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”). At the same time, any studies that included VAERS data were excluded from consideration for the meta-analysis…you can’t make this stuff up! (Some unsolicited parenting advice: If your child has a seizure after you give them something, maybe don’t give them that thing again?)




“Saddest paper I’ve ever seen”
Dr. William Thompson, a CDC scientist and head epidemiologist of the National Immunization Program, has become well-known in the autism community for his decision to blow the whistle about the MMR #3 study above, stating that, “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics.” Dr. Thompson had multiple phone conversations recorded while speaking with an autism dad, Dr. Brian Hooker. In one of those conversations, Dr. Thompson, the leading autism-vaccine epidemiologist in the world at the time, had this to say about the Taylor study:


Epidemiology vs. Biology
All the science included in the Taylor study, as narrow as the scope of the studies are, was epidemiology. Scientists are looking at data, in this case medical records and vaccination records of children, and they’re analyzing them to look for patterns and relationships. But, there’s a different kind of science that’s more revealing. It’s biological science, the kind Vaccine Papers referred to in the above quote. It’s science looking at living things and how they actually respond to other things. In the vaccine-autism debate, we have a growing body of biological science. It’s compelling, and it’s all very recent. We have mice studies where the mice are injected with vaccine ingredients, producing devastating results. And, we have clear biological plausibility for how, exactly, a vaccine can cause autism in a child. That’s not the point of this post, but it is the point of an article I wrote a few weeks ago, and you can read about it right here:


Needless to say, the Taylor study didn’t contemplate ANY of the compelling biological science linking vaccines to autism.

Asking the Right Question
If science doesn’t ask the right question, the answer a study produces is useless. Perhaps the biggest issue with the science done to date to assess the relationship between vaccines and autism is that it doesn’t reflect the real world of how vaccines are administered and the feedback from parents on how this impacts their children.

In 1983, the maximum number of separate vaccines a child would receive by the age of five was 10. Today, that number is 38. By the time a child is five years old, if their parents follow the CDC’s recommended schedule, they will have received the following vaccines, many in multiple doses (the doses are what get you from 11 to 38: you get DTaP 4 times, for example):

Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
DTaP
Hib
Pneumococcal
Polio
Flu
MMR
Varicella
Hepatitis A
Meningococcal
Of the 11 separate diseases covered above, there are actually 34 separate vaccines licensed with the FDA. For example, your child might receive either Rotateq or Rotarix, each of which has been developed in a separate and unique way to address the disease Rotavirus. The possible combinations of total vaccines your child might receive are almost infinite: my child got the Merck Hep B, but the Sanofi Flu, etc, etc. So, in a single two-month-old visit, the average American child will receive six separate vaccines in about five minutes (or less, if you can stomach watching this video–PTSD warning for autism parents):

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kERvQ6muKW8

Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
DTaP
Hib
Pneumococcal
Polio
Two months later, at four months of age, most children in America will again receive the same six vaccines, all administered at the same time:

Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
DTaP
Hib
Pneumococcal
Polio
Two months later, at six months of age, most children in America then receive seven vaccines, all administered at the same time:

Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
DTaP
Hib
Pneumococcal
Polio
Flu
So, by six months of age most American children receive 19 vaccines through three visits to the doctor. (It’s worth noting that many kids also receive a birth dose of Hepatitis B, boosting this number to 20 vaccines.)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6oEtF8FdqpA

So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism? As you know from the Taylor study, the answer is ZERO, because only one vaccine, the MMR, has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. The MMR is first administered to American children at 12 months of age. I explained this to Dr. Stork on a memorable appearance I made on The Doctors, I think his reaction shows you what happens when you show up a doctor on his TV show.

They keep trying to tell us “vaccines don’t cause autism” without doing the actual science with the proper control groups …
But what about the two, four, and six month well-baby visits where children receive so many vaccines? They have never been studied or considered, so no one has any idea. This would be like trying to identify the source of a plane crash, suspecting mechanical failure, solely analyzing one of the wings, and then declaring the entire airplane free of culpability. But, that’s exactly what has happened. They keep trying to tell us “vaccines don’t cause autism” without doing the actual science with the proper control groups (fully unvaccinated children) and asking the right question, that goes something like this:

Our children receive 38 vaccines by the time they are five, including 20 by their first birthday. Is the administration of so many vaccines causing autism in certain children?
That question, so important to the health of our children and our nation, has never been asked, so it can’t be answered. which begs the question:

Have scientists ever compared vaccinated children to unvaccinated children for ANY vaccine or ANY negative outcome?
In fact, they have. You just haven’t heard about these studies because the answers challenge the current narrative that vaccines are “safe and effective” and don’t cause autism. Read on.

Unvaccinated Studies
The first study that compared children who had received a vaccine to children that hadn’t was actually published in 2000. Although autism wasn’t something the study considered, it was still revealing. Titled “Effects of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis or Tetanus Vaccination on Allergies and Allergy-Related Respiratory Symptoms Among Children and Adolescents in the United States,” this study from the UCLA school of public health did look specifically at the DTP vaccine to see if it might be responsible for allergies and allergy-related symptoms, like asthma. Looking at more than 13,000 children, the study found that:

“DTP or tetanus vaccination in US children is associated with lifetime history of asthma or other allergies and allergy- related symptoms… assuming that the estimated vaccination effect is unbiased, 50% of diagnosed asthma cases (2.93 million) in US children and adolescents would be prevented if the DTP or tetanus vaccination was not administered.”

So, the first study to ever compare a group that received a vaccine to a group that didn’t found a dramatic difference in rates of asthma and allergies amongst the vaccinated group, so much so that they thought not getting the DTP vaccine might reduce cases of asthma by 50%! Note that many children with autism suffer from what are known as “co-morbid” conditions like asthma, allergies, and other auto-immune conditions.

In 2008, in the second study ever looking at a group of children who didn’t receive a vaccine, public health researchers Carolyn Gallagher and Melody Goodman from SUNY-Stony Brook looked at the possible relationship between the Hepatitis B vaccine and special education. Were children who received the full series of Hepatitis B vaccines (three separate vaccines, the first one often given on Day 1 of life) more likely to end up in special education classes than children who didn’t receive any Hepatitis B vaccines? The study, “Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years,” was published in the journal Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, and the results were clear, the full series of Hepatitis B led to a nine-fold greater likelihood of receiving special education:

“This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine…were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys…The odds of receiving EIS [special education] were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys (n = 46) as for unvaccinated boys (n = 7), after adjustment for confounders.”

The same researchers from SUNY-Stony Brook published another study in 2010, this time looking at the relationship between receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine and autism. Published in the prestigious Journal of Toxicological and Environmental Health, “Hepatitis B Vaccination in Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis” once again reached very clear conclusions: “Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life.” Journalist David Kirby appreciated the significance of the new findings, writing in the Huffington Post:

“[the study] will be among the first university-based population studies to suggest an association between a vaccine and an increased risk for autism. And that would be in direct contradiction to all those MMR and thimerosal studies that purportedly found no such link.”

(The two Goodman and Gallagher articles about Hepatitis B raise many concerns. I’ve met pediatricians who feel that the Hepatitis B vaccine specifically has triggered the epidemic of neurological disorders and autoimmunity we now see in our children. Hepatitis B was the first vaccine introduced after Congress indemnified vaccine makers from liability in 1986. The vaccine has a high dose of aluminum, which the new biological science is proving is likely a primary culprit of autism, and it’s often given to babies on Day 1 of life, which many doctors feel is a huge mistake.)

In 2017, another study revealed that the DTP vaccine in Africa killed more children than it helped. Published in the peer-reviewed journal EBioMedicine, the study is titled, “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment.”

Researchers from the Center for Vitamins and Vaccines, Statens Serum Institut (Denmark), and Bandim health project looked closely at data from the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau and found that the data for children who had been vaccinated with the DTP vaccine

“was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP…DTP is the most widely used vaccine…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 infections.”

The scientists in this study closely explored the concept of “NSEs” which are “non-specific effects” of vaccines, which is a fancy way of saying vaccines may make a child more susceptible to other infections, explaining that although “protective against the target diseases, DTP may increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.” What we learn from the African study is that children going through the artificial disease process triggered by a vaccine are actually more susceptible to suffer from (and sometimes die) from other diseases, because their immune system is weakened and compromised in ways we really don’t yet understand. This was a “natural” experiment looking at vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children, and Dr. Aaby doubled-down on this study by recently publishing a follow up paper this month titled, “Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?” Dr. Aaby, a highly respected international vaccine researcher, asks questions in this brand new paper few are willing to ask:

“Given the threat from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis and the less-effective acellular pertussis vaccine used in many countries, it is understandable that there has been reluctance in accepting that DTP could have negative effects for overall health in low-income countries. However, the studies from low-income countries have been consistent in showing deleterious effect of DTP…Hence, it would seem to be high time to settle whether DTP has negative effects on overall child health and if it has negative effects to explore whether alternative vaccination schedules could remove the problem.”

Also in 2017, something amazing happened. Two separate studies comparing vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children actually got published. Unlike the Goodman and Gallagher studies above, which only explored a single vaccine, Hepatitis B (the rest of a child’s vaccine status was simply not considered), these two new studies met the “gold standard”—they found children who had never received any vaccines, and looked at their health outcomes in a variety of ways versus their vaccinated peers. The public health researchers from Jackson State University originally planned to publish a single study, until they looked at the data on children born prematurely, noting the data on the difference in health outcomes for vaccinated versus unvaccinated premature infants was so dramatic it deserved its own separate study.

…its results were so devastating to the U.S. vaccine program, there wasn’t a single media outlet in the country that covered its release.
Published in the Journal of Translational Science, the first groundbreaking study was called “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children,” and its results were so devastating to the U.S. vaccine program, there wasn’t a single media outlet in the country that covered its release. Comparing vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children, the results were no surprise to me, my wife, or any of the autism parents I know, but perhaps would surprise others:

“The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD [neurodevelopmental disorders].” Specifically, vaccinated children were found to have a 4-fold higher likelihood of having autism. I’m reminded of a quote by Dr. Daniel Niedes of the Cleveland Clinic who said, “Some of the vaccines have helped reduce the incidence of childhood communicable diseases [like chickenpox and pertussis from the study above]…but not at the expense of neurologic diseases like autism and ADHD increasing at alarming rates.”

Simultaneously, the Jackson State authors published a study just looking at children born prematurely in the same journal titled “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a cross-sectional study of 6- to 12-year-old vaccinated and unvaccinated children.” The results were disturbing, as the researchers found children born prematurely and vaccinated were 14-times more likely to develop a neurodevelopmental disorder! The authors were appropriately concerned:

“Preterm birth coupled with vaccination, however, was associated with a synergistic increase in the odds of NDD, suggesting the possibility that vaccination could precipitate adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. These results provide clues to the epidemiology and causation of NDD but question the safety of current vaccination programs for preterm infants.”

Conclusion
The ongoing use of the Taylor study meta-analysis to “prove” that vaccines and autism are unrelated is scientifically dishonest and a distraction. The ten studies in the meta-analysis only consider a single vaccine ingredient (thimerosal) and a single vaccine (MMR). Every child in every study they analyzed had been vaccinated. They don’t consider the obvious question: do vaccinated children have higher rates of autism than unvaccinated children? People who post this study as proof that vaccines don’t cause autism are either uninformed on this topic or looking to mislead.

Meanwhile, the biological evidence, through peer-reviewed, published studies is mounting that vaccines trigger immune activation events in the brains of babies that lead to autism. (Here’s an excellent 20 page paper with 97 references explaining exactly how this happens.) The fact that Autism Speaks and one of the most senior leaders of the National Institutes of Health (and a doctor-turned-senator from Oregon) consider the Taylor study proof of anything tells me that many people just want this topic to go away, because facing the emerging science, and the endless stories of devastated families who watched their children regress into autism after vaccine appointments, is too overwhelming for many who have stood by and allowed the autism epidemic to happen. Worse, a manipulative and dishonest study like the Taylor study falsely reassures parents, leading to the ongoing and unnecessary path to autism so many of our children are placed on by a vaccine schedule that’s so harmful to so many.

When will the madness end?
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project: https://worldmercuryproject.org/

[onawah]

U.S. AUTISM PREVALENCE RATE SOARS TO 1 IN 59 CHILDREN
National Autism Organization Demands Emergency Meeting with Secretary of Health and Human Services and Federal Autism Coordinator in May to Address Crisis
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/au...te-soars-1-59/
April 26, 2018 by Thinking Moms' Revolution

The Thinking Moms’ Revolution joins SafeMinds and TACA in demanding action NOW from the Department of Health and Human Services to address the rapidly rising autism rate. We also want to express our fury at the bogus “autism rates are stabilizing” rhetoric that the CDC has been promoting since January, while knowing full well that they are doing nothing of the sort. A prevalence of 1 in 59 represents a 15% increase in just the last two years, up from 1 in 68. And a close analysis of data from a CDC survey released in December reveals that in 2016 the autism rate was already closer to 1 in 36 American children. If this were any other disorder, there would be widespread alarm in the medical community. The following is a press release issued today by SafeMinds.

Baltimore, MD, April 26, 2018 – SafeMinds, a national autism advocacy organization, today sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials, demanding a meeting in May to discuss the creation of a Federal Autism Strategic Plan to address the Nation’s autism crisis, following the release of a report this afternoon by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC report found that autism is now diagnosed in 1 in every 59 American children, representing a 150 percent increase in 18 years.

Lisa Wiederlight, executive director of SafeMinds, stated, “The alarming increase in autism prevalence over the past 10 years signals the need for a significant change in the federal response to addressing autism in the United States. A more accountable, effective, and strategic plan is necessary to meet the needs of those with autism and their caregivers today. We’re hoping for a major overhaul of the current response as the Autism CARES Act is reauthorized.”The CDC report, “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders Among Children Aged 8 Years—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2014,” states that in some of the communities represented in the network, nearly three percent of eight year-olds had an autism diagnosis in 2014. It uses the same methodology that produced the CDC’s 2010 prevalence findings of 1 in 68 children with autism.

The extraordinary cost of autism care is expected to escalate dramatically as prevalence continues to increase. University of California Davis health economists estimate the national cost of caring for all people with autism in the billions, heading towards $1 trillion. Their forecasts for autism-related medical, nonmedical, and productivity losses were $268 billion for 2015, and $461 billion for 2025. The researchers noted that if ASD prevalence continues to increase as it has in recent years while effective interventions and preventive treatments are not identified and made widely available, the costs could reach $1 trillion by 2025.

Notably, the economic and social costs related to the autism crisis will continue to impact every American taxpayer as funding and priorities are redirected into areas, including, but not limited to:

Medical and other health insurance expenditures for co-occurring conditions. Research shows that 47 percent of children with autism had at least one co-occurring condition
Increased funding of social security disability and SSI benefits
Training of public safety resources to manage the explosive increase in wandering and elopement cases, as 49 percent of children with autism wander/elope
Programs addressing the needs of adults with autism including employment, housing, and community integration

[Hervé]

Alfie Evans is dead

Last night, before he died, I posted something similar to the following and then got trolled out of it. Well, as it turns out this is true so I re-typed it. If you see anything to the contrary, it is British government trollage.

Alfie Evans was born perfectly normal, and got his condition at a year old, after receiving six vaccines in one doctor's visit. The vaccines triggered an auto immune disorder that caused his immune system to destroy his brain. They are saying he had defective genes which caused him to waste away but that is the unilateral universal excuse fronted for vaccine damage every single time. They always blame it on "defective genes".

UNDENIABLE FACT: The British government really does not pay out if the kid dies before age 2, and for Alfie, age 2 was coming up in 14 days. HERE IS THE CAPTURE:

FACT: Vaccines screwed up alfie, caused a brain wasting disorder, (all kids get knocked down by vaccines now, which are eugenics weapons) and the ones who take it worst die like Alfie. Only Alfie did not die from the vaccine itself, he died because they cut off food. They cut off food, because once he hit age 2, he had rights! They could not have that happening.

I don't think the British government was worried about the payout for damage, and they probably will pay out because this is such a high profile story. I believe the british government was in fact worried because this was such obvious vaccine damage, and they don't want anyone investigating a weapon they want to keep on using. If Alfie hit 2, he'd have crossed that threshold.

Jim Stone 28th April, 2018

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Hervé (here)
They always blame it on "defective genes".

From the perspective of the elite bastards and their overlords, perhaps Alfie's genes were defective. He was a genetic human, like you and me.

We are the defectives, or as the inestimable Hillary Clinton would say, the deplorables.

[onawah]

Vaccine Mandate Efforts in Europe Get Pushback
MAY 03, 2018
https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...urce=mailchimp

By the World Mercury Project Team


In Part One, World Mercury Project reported on the European Parliament’s March 2018 resolution to promote tight Europe-wide coordination of vaccination policies and go after the so-called phenomenon of “vaccine hesitancy.”

In March and April, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published short news summaries about the European Parliament’s resolve to shore up the European Union’s (EU’s) “fragile” vaccination programs. According to the BMJ reporter (Brussels-based journalist Rory Watson), the Parliament’s March 2018 resolution represented a blanket denunciation of “unreliable, misleading and unscientific information on vaccination.” Seven individuals—scientists, retired health professionals and journalists from England, Scotland, Wales, South Africa and the U.S.—immediately wrote to The BMJ to set the record straight.

Is the European Parliament itself guilty of spreading misinformation? The 15 referenced letters suggest that this may be the case, focusing, in particular, on flawed scrutiny of vaccine risks and rampant conflicts of interest.
In 15 published letters to the editor now indexed in PubMed, the letter-writers argue that “it is…well beyond the brief of the European Union Parliament, or even good sense, to assert that an entire class of products is safe as an absolute truth, and without any qualification.” Is the European Parliament itself guilty of spreading misinformation? The 15 referenced letters suggest that this may be the case, focusing, in particular, on flawed scrutiny of vaccine risks and rampant conflicts of interest.

Letters on hidden vaccine risks
Many of the BMJ-published letters refer to the failure of pre-licensure clinical trials and short-term post-marketing surveillance to detect serious problems with vaccines. To show that the “rigorous testing” cited by the European Parliament as evidence of vaccine safety is not “infallible,” a letter-writer cites two examples. First, “post-marketing surveillance failed to detect the scale of the problem” (an excess risk of aseptic meningitis) associated with the Urabe-strain measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine introduced in the United Kingdom (and other countries) in the 1980s and 1990s—and the delay in removing the vaccine from the market caused harm to many. Second, thousands of children and adolescents developed narcolepsy after receiving the Pandemrix “swine flu” vaccine in 2009-2010; neither the clinical trials nor post-marketing studies in children had identified the safety signal. Another letter-writer comments, “If vaccine regulators were serious about safety, the entire vaccine fleet would have been grounded following the Pandemrix narcolepsy disaster, to check for the same mechanism of failure in other vaccines. But nothing of that sort happened.”

…subjects vaccinated with the newly approved SHINGRIX vaccine (versus placebo) disproportionately experienced cardiac serious adverse events (SAEs), but the package insert for the vaccine (dated Oct. 2017) makes no mention of any cardiac risks.
The letters’ authors mince no words when calling out the duplicity of much vaccine safety science. One common tactic involves manipulation of study designs and statistics. For example, small safety studies can be designed such that they are prone to false negatives (meaning that they fail to observe a difference between groups when in truth there is one)—this allows vaccine manufacturers “to say that any increases in adverse events are ‘not significant.’” Another way to avoid looking head-on at critical safety issues is to ignore mechanistic evidence in favor of dubious epidemiology, or sideline important research topics—such as the immunotoxicity of aluminum adjuvants, the prospect of immune overload with increasing numbers of vaccines and antigens or the role of molecular mimicry in vaccine-induced autoimmunity.

Yet another letter describes recent shenanigans that had the effect of suppressing relevant safety information. In September 2017, an FDA document indicated that subjects vaccinated with the newly approved SHINGRIX vaccine (versus placebo) disproportionately experienced cardiac serious adverse events (SAEs), but the package insert for the vaccine (dated October 2017) makes no mention of any cardiac risks. The letter’s author concludes that “doctors who administer this vaccine are being kept in the dark about these SAEs,” limiting their ability to recognize or report adverse events when they occur.

Letters on conflicts of interest
Several letter-writers to BMJ call attention to the conflicts of interest that prevail among leading vaccine policy-makers in Europe. For example, one writer understatedly asks whether Oxford University professor Andrew Pollard may be in an “ambivalent position” when it comes to discussing vaccine side effects and risks. Pollard directs the Oxford Vaccine Group and chairs the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises UK health departments on vaccination. As the letter-writer points out, “minutes of recent JCVI meetings show that [Pollard] is involved with, amongst others, the Gates Foundation, GAVI [global vaccine alliance], and the European Medicines Agency [EMA].” (For example, see page 17 of the JCVI’s February 7, 2018 minutes.)

…the BMJ letters raise questions about “the very objectivity of European institutions,” highlighting the European Medicines Agency’s disproportionate funding (90%) from pharmaceutical companies…
The EMA is responsible for “ensuring that all medicines available on the EU market are safe, effective and of high quality.” However, the BMJ letters raise questions about “the very objectivity of European institutions,” highlighting the EMA’s disproportionate funding (90%) from pharmaceutical companies and noting the Nordic Cochrane Centre’s scathing condemnation of the EMA’s lack of independence from industry. (The Nordic Cochrane Centre is part of the independent Cochrane Collaboration that produces “gold standard” systematic reviews.) One of the Nordic Cochrane Centre’s many critiques is that the EMA allowed Andrew Pollard to chair a committee on HPV vaccine safety despite conflicts of interest with HPV vaccine manufacturers—and his a priori public declaration that there was “no evidence of safety problems.” In short, says one of the letter-writers, “it is not really clear…that the EMA has a culture of ensuring things are safe, rather than just a culture of saying things are safe, and standing on their dignity” (emphasis added).

Letters explaining what’s needed
Instead of skullduggery and “window dressing research,” entities such as the European Parliament could be of actual service to the public if they adopted “a more realistic, open and transparent approach” and facilitated a “disinterested, comprehensive exchange of information between all parties, ensuring fully informed consent, or dissent, to vaccination.” As one of the BMJ-published letters states:

“They would do well to legislate for safer vaccines, more extensive clinical trials and studies prior to licensing with a robust and very sensitive heightened post marketing surveillance system to instantly detect any adverse reactions (which might not have been detected in the trials due to the size of the cohort) and respond immediately with the removal of the product from the market for further investigation. All too often reports of adverse events are dismissed as being in line with what was statistically expected and not indicative of a serious problem or denied altogether on the argument that there is no evidence of causation. Acknowledgements of adverse events in hindsight (sometimes many years later) are of no consolation to the victims.”

Another letter suggests that if members of the European Parliament “research[ed] the subject thoroughly and from a neutral position,” they would understand “why there is this ‘vaccine hesitancy.’” Otherwise (and only slightly tongue in cheek), this author concludes that “parents and the informed public will have to unite and devise a strategy to tackle [the] ‘Vaccine Study Reluctance,’ ‘Vaccine Ineffectiveness Denial,’ ‘Vaccine Injuries & Deaths Disassociation Complex’ and ‘Obsessive Coincidence Disorder’ that are now rife within the medical and science profession!”

World Mercury Project applauds the fact that BMJ published letters that air an open and honest debate on a topic more often denied the opportunity for open debate. The letters go beyond soundbites to provide information that the public needs to make truly informed vaccine decisions. It is highly unlikely that these same letters would have been published in the American media or in virtually any other academic journal. Not only do journals (and the media) financially rely on the pharmaceutical industry as leading advertisers, but journals also depend on the industry to purchase thousands of reprints and sponsor pricey subscriptions. Describing the “hijacking” of policy by a complicit industry and captured agencies, a letter-writer cautions that “if as result of these institutional movements to suppress debate we end up not being able to discuss vaccine risks at all, we will be in a pretty poor place.” America might already be in that place.