4,250% Increase in Fetal Deaths Reported to VAERS After Flu Shot Given to Pregnant Women

Dear VacTruth.com Readers,


Protect your baby.

• 1255inShare

An increase of fetal deaths were reported to VAERS after pregnant women were given flu vaccines.

You are moments away from finding out what happened
when pregnant women were given this vaccine would 
"protect" their child. Instead, it likely did the 
exact opposite...

Just a warning - this information is disturbing and
I do NOT recommend you read this if you anger easily.

Read the article now. Scroll down.
Click Here


Sincerely,

Jeffry John Aufderheide
Editor of VacTruth.com 

Documentation received from the National Coalition of 
Organized Women (NCOW) states that between 2009 and 
2010 the mercury-laden combined flu vaccinations have 
increased Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems 
(VAERS) fetal death reports by 4,250 percent in 
pregnant women. Eileen Dannemann, NCOW’s director, 
made abundantly clear that despite these figures 
being known to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 
the multiple-strain, inactivated flu vaccine contain-
ing mercury (Thimerosal) has once again been recomme-
nded to pregnant women as a safe vaccination this 
season.

Outraged by the CDC’s total disregard for human life,
Ms. Dannemann accused the CDC of ‘willful misconduct,
’ saying that they are responsible for causing the 
deaths of thousands of unborn babies. She stated that 
the CDC deliberately misled the nation’s obstetrician
s and gynecologists and colluded with the American 
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) to mis-
lead the public by advertising the flu vaccine as a 
safe vaccine for pregnant women when they knew fully 
well that it was causing a massive spike in fetal 
deaths.

In a letter to Dr. Joseph Mercola, Ms. Dannemann 
wrote:

“Not only did the CDC fail to disclose the 
spiraling spike in fetal death reports in real 
time during the 2009 pandemic season as to cut 
the fetal losses, but also we have documented by 
transcript Dr. Marie McCormick, chairperson of 
the Vaccine Safety Risk Assessment Working Group 
(VSRAWG) on September 3, 2010, denying any 
adverse events in the pregnant population during 
the 2009 Pandemic season.” [1]

HIDING LIFE-OR-DEATH EVIDENCE

Because the H1N1 pandemic vaccine had never been test
-ed on the pregnant population, and to lessen the 
intensity of fears of the unknown risks, Dr. Marie

McCormick of the CDC was employed to keep track of 
all adverse events during the 2009 pandemic season, 
including those adverse events in the pregnant 
population. Dr. McCormick was responsible for sending 
monthly reports to the Secretary of the Health and 
Human Services (HHS), citing any suspicious adverse 
events.

According to Ms. Dannemann, NCOW has been unable to 
obtain access to these monthly reports. After sending
a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC, she 
was told that she may have to wait 36 months to 
access what should be published public reports.

The Mercola letter continues:

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

THE DOCTOR’S VERSION OF CONCEAL 

AND CARRY

To emphasize their point, on October 28, 2010, NCOW 
requested that Dr. Rene Tocco present their data at 
the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. The CDC’s 
Dr. Shimabakuru gave a presentation on significant 
adverse reactions to the H1N1 vaccine, such as cases 
of Guillane-Barre Syndrome, which appeared to have 
risen three percent, claiming it as an insignificant 
signal.

No mention at all was made of adverse events related
to pregnant women.

Unfortunately for Dr. Shimabakuru, his attempts to 
pull the wool over the eyes of the audience were 
foiled when he was challenged by a member of the 
audience asking if the vaccine caused adverse events 
in pregnancy. Feeling cornered, he reluctantly looked 
in his bag and sheepishly presented a slide that 
corroborated the NCOW data, confirming that the CDC 
knew of the spike in fetal deaths in the fall of 2010
.[2]

So, why did Dr. Shimabkauru have a slide containing 
compromising evidence in his bag? Why did he decide 
to hide the slide? Surely, if he had prepared a slide 
outlining this crucial data, it would have made sense 
to include the slide in his presentation. After all, 
a 4,250 percent increase in fetal deaths is far more 
significant that a three percent increase in Guillane
-Barre Syndrome.

Ms. Dannemann believes that the existence of this 
slide, along with the omission of it in his present-
ation, confirms that the CDC knew of the spike in 
fetal deaths by the fall of 2010 and was attempting 
by any means possible not to make it public.

Outlining a catalog of events, Ms. Dannemann believes 
the CDC’s continual cover ups puts the lives of 
pregnant women and their unborn children in serious 
jeopardy. She maintained:

“Continuing the vaccine program without notifying 
the public or the healthcare practitioners of the 
VAERS miscarriage/stillbirth incoming data was 
clearly a purposeful decision. The CDC, aware of 
their own incoming stream of early vaccine 
adverse events reports, clearly decided to allow 

the obstetricians to continue, unwittingly, 
murdering and damaging the unborn so that the CDC
’s blunder of recommending the double-dose vacci-
nation of pregnant women could be kept under the 
radar.”

COLLABORATION AND CORRUPTION

Despite evidence that the CDC knew of the 4,250 
percent increase in fetal death reports in 2009/2010,
in order to ensure the continuance of the vaccine 
program for pregnant women, the CDC published a study 
in AJOG authored by Dr. Pedro Moro of the CDC in the 
fall of 2010. The study articulated that there were 
only 23 miscarriages caused by the single flu vaccine
 in 19 years between 1990 – 2009, an average of 1.2 
miscarriages per year. This study formed the basis 
of a CDC worldwide publicity campaign that the flu 
shot was safe for pregnant women by willfully and 
strategically excluding the 2009 pandemic data, which 
was available to them. 

Ms. Dannemann said:

“Both the CDC and AJOG were well aware of the fact
that physicians and the public were awaiting the 
results of the 2009 H1N1 untested vaccine on 
pregnant women, amid solid assurances to the 
public at the beginning of the pandemic season 
 that the CDC was on top of collecting any adverse
 reactions to the vaccine by establishing the 
Vaccine Safety Risk Assessment Working Group 
 chaired by Dr. Marie Mc Cormick (VSRAWG).”

Ms. Dannemann stated that by including the 2008/2009 
flu season’s data but excluding the available 2009 
data from the 2009/2010 flu season in the study 
published in AJOG, Dr. Moro was able to give the 
impression that the 2009/2010 pandemic season was 
covered in the data, which of course it was not. 
Ms. Dannemann believes that this was a deliberate 
act on his part because he was aware of the fetal 
death spike in the 2009/2010 data at the time of 
preparing the study and purposely excluded the 2009 
pandemic data from the study to hide this fact.

In the fall of 2010, just in time for the new flu 
season, media outlets all over the world publicized 
the AJOG, peer-reviewed CDC/Dr. Moro study as adamant
 proof that the flu shot is safe for pregnant women.
 The NCOW documents prove at the same time as widely 
publicizing advice that all pregnant women required 
the combined flu vaccination, the CDC was busy organ-
izing ten non-profit organizations, to sign a joint 
letter to urge obstetricians and gynecologists to 
continue to vaccinate their pregnant patients.

One of the organizations to sign the letter was The 
 March of Dimes [3] who urged health care providers 
to recommend the flu vaccine to pregnant women and 
those who expect to become pregnant. 

They wrote the following recommendation to all medical 
professionals:

“Advice from a healthcare provider plays an impor-
tant role in a pregnant and postpartum woman’s de-
cision to get vaccinated against seasonal 
influenza. The American Academy of Family Physici-
ans (AAFP), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 
American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM), 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologis-
ts (The College), 
 American Medical Association (AMA), 
American Nurses Association (ANA), 
American Pharmacists Association (APhA), 
Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and 
Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN), March of Dimes, and 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
are asking for your help in urging your pregnant 
and postpartum patients to get vaccinated against 
seasonal influenza.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices 
(ACIP) recommends that pregnant and postpartum 
women receive the seasonal influenza vaccine this 
year, even if they received 2009 H1N1 or seasonal 
influenza vaccine last year. Lack of awareness of 
the benefits of vaccination and concerns about 
vaccine safety are common barriers to influenza 
 vaccination of pregnant and postpartum women.”

Representatives from all ten organizations signed the 
letter.

March of Dimes Document

WHAT THE CDC FAILED 

TO TELL PREGNANT MOMS

This year, on September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal (HET) published Dr. Gary Goldman’s study that 
confirms NCOWs data, a 4,250 percent increase in the 
number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to 
VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season. [4] 

The study points out an astounding fact that no one 
saw until the publishing of the Goldman study in HET: 
the CDC had recommended the double-dosing of the 
 pregnant population with the seasonal flu vaccine 
with mercury and the untested H1N1 vaccine with 
mercury.

In his abstract, Goldman said:

“The aim of this study was to compare the number 
of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontan-
eous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the 
 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) 
database during three consecutive flu seasons 
beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal
death reports associated with the two-vaccine 
2009/2010 season.”

The facts that Goldman exposed are extremely disturb-
ing. He highlights the fact that the safety and 
effectiveness of the A-H1N1 had never been establish-
ed in pregnant women and that the combination of two
different influenza vaccines had never been tested on
pregnant women at all.

Even more worrisome is the fact that the A-H1N1 
vaccine inserts from the various manufacturers 
contained this warning:

“It is also not known whether these vaccines can 
cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant 
women or can affect reproduction capacity.’’  
(emphasis added)

Dr. Goldman also pointed out that the developing 
fetus is indirectly exposed to mercury when thimerosal
-containing vaccines are administered to a pregnant 
woman. He outlined a study written by A.R. Gasset, 
M. Itoi, Y. Ischii and R.M. Ramer who examined what 
happened after rabbits were vaccinated with thimerosal
–containing radioactive mercury. Goldman stated that 
from one hour post-injection to six hours post-inject-
ion, the level of radioactive mercury in the blood 
dropped over 75 percent. Yet from two hours post-inje-
ction to six hours post-injection, there were signifi-
cantly increased radioactivity levels in the fetal 
brain, liver, and kidney.

Dr. Goldman concluded that because the rates of mis-
carriage reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events 
Reporting System (VAERS) for the single flu vaccine 
were relatively low, health care providers developed
a false sense of security that flu vaccines administ-
ered during pregnancy were safe.  Goldman explained 
that just because a single vaccine has been tested 
and considered to be relatively safe, this does not 
mean that vaccinating pregnant women with two or more 
Thimerosal containing vaccines will be safe for them 
or their unborn babies. Overall, Goldman firmly 
believes that the VAERS grossly underestimates the 
true rates of miscarriage and other adverse events 
encountered in the US population. Remember, it is 
estimated that  less than a tenth of true adverse re-
actions are reported to the VAERS with a one percent 
reporting rate for serious adverse events, including 
death, according to a study led by former FDA 
Commissioner Dr. David A. Kessler. [5]

As seen in the Goldman study, with the return to a 
single flu shot, the flu vaccine-related reports of 
fetal loss have returned to a significantly lower 
level compared to the high level of fetal loss reports
 in the two-dose 2009/2010 flu season. However, higher 
than background flu shot vaccine-related fetal losses 
continue to be reported to the VAERS.

Furthermore, the Goldman study recommends that the 
babies who survived the deadly double dose in utero 
be monitored:

“In addition, because of the order of magnitude 
increase in fetal-loss report rates, from 6.8 
fetal loss reports per million pregnant women 
vaccinated in the single-dose 2008/2009 season to
77.8 in the two-dose 2009/2010 season, further 
long term studies are needed to assess adverse 
outcomes in the surviving children. Additional 
research concerning potential synergistic risk 
factors associated with the administration of 
Thimerosal-containing vaccines is warranted, 
and the exposure-effect association should be 
verified in further toxicological and case-
control studies.” (emphasis added)

Aside from fetal deaths, the CDC initiative to 
increase uptake of vaccines in pregnant women 
continues to fuel the increases in the levels of 
neurodevelopmental, developmental, behavioral 
abnormalities, and chronic illness in the surviving 
children. Due to omitting reports of fetal deaths, the
 CDC enjoys success in increasing the uptake and 
number of vaccines in the pregnant population. The 
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) 
is now recommending not only the flu shot (with 
mercury) but also the Tdap vaccine.

CONCLUSION

The work of NCOW and Dr. Goldman has proven that 
potential lives are being destroyed before they are 
even old enough to draw their first breath. Developing 
fetuses who are fortunate enough to survive the 
onslaught of vaccinations now being recommended to 
pregnant women then need to play a form of Russian 
Roulette from the day they are born, because their 
caring parents followed the advice they were given by
professionals who have been deliberately misguided.

Eileen Dannemann and her team have proven with their 
remarkable work that both public and professionals 
alike are being lied to and deceived by organizations 

put in place by the government to sanction our 
vaccination programs. In my opinion, this is genocide 
and the sooner people realize that all vaccines come 
with an element of risk and begin to research the 
dangers for themselves, the sooner these insane 
experiments will end.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Eileen Dannemann and Dr. Paul 
King for asking VacTruth.com to report on their very 
important work.

Eileen Dannemann is the director of the National 
 Coalition of Organized Women and the founder of the 
student vaccine liberation Army 
www.VaccineLiberationArmy.com. 
Dr. Gary Goldman and Dr. Paul G. King, vaccine 
consultant to NCOW, have provided to the public a 
most important study.

Referencesfficial transcript

1. OCDC’s Dr. Marie McCormick 
   denies miscarriages, Sept. 3, 2010 ACCV. 
   See page 37.
2. Influenza Vaccine Safety Monitoring (slide 20).
   CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabukuro confirms NCOW data ,
    Oct. 28, 2010 ACIP
3. Letter from March of Dimes, inlcuded in this 
   article.
4. Dr Gary Goldman Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss
   reports during three consecutive influenza 
   seasons: Was there a synergistic fetal 
   toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 
   2009/2010 season?
   http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.abstract?rss=1 (abstract
    only)
5. Kessler, D.A. The Working Group. Natanblut, 
   S. Kennedy, D. Lazar, E. Rheinstein, P. et al.
   Introducing MedWatch: A New Approach to 
   Reporting Medication and Device Adverse 
   Effects and Product Problems. JAMA 1993 June 
   2. 269 (21): 2765-2768.

U.S. Government & Whistleblowers Sue Merck About Falsely Certified Mumps Vaccine

This story has a long timeline.  It starts with the mumps vaccine that Merck’s eminent vaccinologist Maurice Hilleman, MD, came up with using a strain he developed from his five year old daughter—commonly referred to as the “Jeryl Lynn” strain—that has been manufactured by Merck since 1967.

In essence what transpired is the vaccine virus was “passaged” over the years through various growth medium or animal cells that caused the vaccine to lose its potency—let’s say ‘watered down’—and it became non-effective against the “wild” mumps virus. However, Merck had contended ... Why didn’t the media and press report the 2010 complaint filed against Merck’s fraudulent mumps vaccine? Isn’t it about time the U.S. healthcare consumer found out that it apparently cannot trust the CDC or FDA or Big Pharma when it comes to vaccines and vaccinations, the ‘Sacred Cow’ of modern medicine?
[ Continue reading... ] http://vactruth.com/2012/07/17/whistleblowers-sue-merck/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0629569637-07_17_2012_whistleblowers&utm_medium=email

In essence what transpired is the vaccine virus was “passaged” over the years through various growth medium or animal cells that caused the vaccine to lose its potency—let’s say ‘watered down’—and it became non-effective against the “wild” mumps virus. However, Merck had contended its MMRII vaccine was 95 percent effective (efficiency or efficacy rate) since at least the year 2000. The compliant charges Merck listed that false information on the vaccine package inserts which the U.S. CDC, FDA, and the National Vaccine Program relied upon as accurate information to promote to health agencies. That was not scientifically accurate nor was Merck able to produce that 95 percent effectiveness rate according to the accepted practices the CDC and FDA relied upon for vaccines to be certified.  However, Merck never ‘fessed up that it was selling bum dope information and defective MMRII vaccines.
What happened next is what in accounting parlance is called “cooking the books.”  Let’s say Merck apparently ‘cooked the science’.  Still, two MDs who worked on the project were conscience struck about all the shenanigans that Merck scientists came up with in trying to reach the 95 percent efficacy rate that allowed Merck to maintain its MMRII vaccine monopoly in the United States.
However, other Merck vaccines contained the ‘watered down’ mumps vaccine.  They included the quadravalent vaccine ProQuad, and the trivalent MMRVaxpro Merck sold to European markets.  In 2005 the FDA recalled Merck’s ProQuad.
The ‘science’ that Merck managers came up with was to use animal (rabbit) antibodies that increased the efficacy rate to 100 percent.  That sent up red flags since pre-vaccine and post-vaccine blood tests had to be taken.  That’s when the normal 10 percent positive in pre-vaccine blood test results shot to 80 percent positive, a ‘perfect storm’ event indicating mischievous manipulation of scientific protocols, plus something that would not occur naturally.  That led to more falsification that two whistleblowers presented to Merck officials who, in turn, told them they would be jailed if they reported to the FDA what was going on.  Also, the whistleblowers were reminded of the huge bonuses that would be paid to them when the FDA approved Merck’s paperwork for certification.
Long story short, FDA finally was able to sort out the mess with the help of the whistleblowers who became plaintiffs along with the United States of America ex rel., in the original complaint [Civil Action No.10-4374, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania] filed August 27, 2010.
What I would like to concentrate on are the annotations I made while reading the amended complaint because I think they will hit a few home runs for vaccine safety advocates.
According to both the original and amended [filed April 27, 2012] complaints, a jury trial is requested. Treble damages are requested since the U.S. government estimates it paid Merck more than $700 Million for the MMRII vaccine administered to children in the USA.  Based upon those figures, damages alone would amount to about $2.25 Billion.  Then penalties for each violation have to be added on, plus the court awarding all legal costs the two former Merck employee whistleblowers incurred filling the lawsuit, in addition to certain interest amounts the court will allow.
All that does absolutely nothing to help the millions of infants and children who also had a fraud perpetrated upon them and from which they have suffered losses either as adverse events and/or contraction of mumps—all while believing they were protected—the intent for such vaccinations.  Since Merck apparently produced pseudo science with resulting vaccine package inserts to match, the CDC, FDA, federal, state and local health agencies, MDs, pediatricians, nurses and the media believed such poppycock or pseudo science.
This whistleblower court case exonerates vaccine safety advocates of any conspiracy theories regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, I do believe.  Furthermore, who is to say the Merck mumps vaccine ‘sleight of science’ is an anomaly.  More whistleblowers need to come forth because this writer feels the Merck mumps vaccine fraud just may be the tip of the every-growing-science-manipulated, fraud iceberg.  There probably is more to that than meets the scientific eye, and FDA needs to get on the stick about not relying upon vaccine makers to do the science.
One question that pops up regarding mumps outbreaks that could not be figured out seemingly parallels what’s happening with pertussis (whooping cough) and measles outbreaks that are being blamed on non-vaccinated children.  I respectfully suggest that CDC and FDA do some housecleaning on vaccine-manufacturers’ science by having independent laboratories confirm efficacy rates.
Something that I think needs pointing out is the CDC and FDA must ask each vaccine maker pointed questions about all vaccine efficacy rates since Merck may not be the only manufacturer to use the rabbit antibodies trick, a genuine scientific fraud.
Part of the 55-page amended complaint deals with Merck’s false representation through package inserts which, after reading the shenanigans that went on—and probably go on to prove a product—no vaccine package insert should be regarded as factual, in my opinion.
Scientists apparently are not beyond painting white mice black or black mice white to prove what’s needed to be proven to get a pharmaceutical to market.
The original 95 percent efficacy rate for Merck’s mumps vaccine was based upon the 1967 filing for governmental approval.  Can you imagine that?  And they call vaccine safety advocates liars!
All the above leads one to ask if there is anything else Merck falsifies about vaccines.
Do other pharmaceutical makers also falsify or fudge the ‘science’ they supply to CDC,
FDA, and print on package inserts?
One thing I think that needs to be pointed out is the revolving door policy that apparently exists between federal government health agencies and Big Pharma.  Julie Gerberding, MD, MPH, was the Director of the CDC during the 2006 mumps outbreak.  Wasn’t she attributed with saying, “We have absolutely no information to suggest that there is any problem with the vaccine”?  Again, this remark apparently reflects the CDC’s implicit reliance upon Big Pharma to produce the ‘science’, which definitely is a conflict of interest that FDA and Congress must fix.  Oh by the way, Dr Gerberding is now President of Merck’s vaccine division.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs pointed out that Emory University is conducting a clinical trial attempting to find the cause or explain the 2006 mumps outbreak in college-age students who received both doses of the vaccine.  Please get this part: Merck is a collaborator on that study!  In view of the whistleblowers’ lawsuit about the mumps vaccine, wouldn’t one think that Merck would not be wanted in the investigation?
Here is a statistic for vaccine safety advocates taken from the complaint:
Nearly 5,000 cases of mumps were confirmed during the 2009 outbreak.
So one can readily see that these outbreaks should not be blamed upon non-vaccinated children, since the very vaccinated children may be those contracting the diseases for which they were vaccinated.  If anything, this lawsuit against Merck proves more in the vaccine safety advocates’ corner and puts vaccine makers’ pseudo science on the ropes, I’d say.
One interesting factoid I found in the complaint is how the 1986 vaccine law probably came about.  Merck and the CDC were haggling about certain aspects of disclosing diminished efficacy and Merck made some suggestions in 1970 that CDC agreed to.  It basically was this:
“It provided a way to assure that the CDC could purchase Merck’s vaccines without Merck being subjected to personal injury claims for failing to warn individual vaccinees or their parents about the safety and efficacy of vaccines administered through government vaccination programs.” [Complaint pg.32, clause 106]
As this writer interprets the above, the 1986 vaccine law Congress passed should be repealed as it represents the utmost of conflict of interest, special privilege, and a denial of tort rights to damaged individuals.
Perhaps members of Congress ought to read the current complaint filed against Merck, do an about face and retract/rescind The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300)—the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  Such Congressional action would provide relief for infants and children damaged not only by Merck’s mumps-containing MMRII vaccine, but also for other vaccines that probably are fudged scientifically and by which Big Pharma makes jillions without being held responsible for damaging innocent children.  Who will file a lawsuit for them?
Why didn’t the media and press report the 2010 complaint filed against Merck’s fraudulent mumps vaccine?  Doesn’t a defective vaccine apparently impact public health according to the CDC and FDA belief system?  Why wasn’t the public told of such vaccine fraud?  Could such non-reporting of an apparent public health problem generated by an apparent fraudulent and defective vaccine be considered a conspiracy of silence on the part of the media, the press, and whoever is their muse?  Isn’t it about time the U.S. healthcare consumer found out that it apparently cannot trust the CDC or FDA or Big Pharma when it comes to vaccines and vaccinations, the ‘Sacred Cow’ of modern medicine?

Whistleblowers shine light on shady Big Pharma behavior.

Facts About Polio

7 Trivia Facts About Polio

By Jeffry John Aufderheide | June 3rd, 2012 | Category: Jeffry John Aufderheide, Top Stories | No Comments »

• 0
  EmailShare
• 
  

It’s called the “Gold Standard of Medicine.”
I’m referring to the current vaccine schedule. But is there an apparent hidden catch? Can justification for the aggressive vaccine schedule arguably be traced back to the polio vaccine that is trotted out as proof vaccines work?
If you don’t believe me, question any parent on vaccines. The knee-jerk question in almost every case is, “What about polio?”
Well, what about it? Here I discuss 7 trivia facts for VacTruth.com readers to investigate further about polio and question the motives of those who would profit from vaccines and disease.

Trivia Fact #1 – Chemicals Used in Pesticides Increased Your Chance for Viral Infections

During World War II and into the 1950s, massive amounts of pesticides, such as DDT, heptachlor, dieldrin, TEPP, malathion, were sprayed on crops eaten by humans and livestock.
Any connection to the chemicals used in spraying the pesticide formulations and polio epidemic are regularly denied. However, the chemicals used in spraying pesticides were found to increase viral infections in hosts.[1,2]
Researcher Janis Gabliks noted in the study titled, Studies of Biologically Active Agents in Cells and Tissue Cultures, that,

“As it is recognized that residues of some agricultural insecticides persist in the body and that cells are continuously exposed to their metabolites, we investigated the possibility that these chemicals may alter certain physiological activities of cells and subsequently influence the susceptibility of hosts to virus infections.”  [1]

Parents should also know some of the same chemicals used to spray pesticides (Tween 20, Tween 80, Triton X-100, Nonoxyenol-9) are still present in childhood vaccines. [3,4]

*Note the close correlation to the spraying of pesticides and the worst polio epidemic in US History. “…Before 1940, relatively small amounts of such chemicals as nicotine, rotenone, pyrethrum, and the aresenicals (sic) were used for insect control. During and following World War II a rapid changeover to DDT, heptachlor, dieldrin, TEPP, malathion, and related compounds occurred.” [5]

Source: http://harpub.co.cc/

Trivia Fact #2 – Milk Was Heavily Contaminated with Pesticides; Quietly Taken Off Shelves While Farmers Paid

By 1959, the total wholesale value in pesticide products had reached $290 million. The massive pesticide campaign was not without cost. [5]
According to congressional reports, many dairy farmers were devastated from pesticides contaminating milk.
Senate Report 1363 shockingly states,

“The problem which our dairy farmers are facing has been brought about by the use of chemicals approved by the Federal Government to dust crops. Some of these chemicals have been found to contaminate feeds. The contamination passes on into the milk and when the residues of pesticides is found to be of too high a level, the farmers are forced to dump their milk, taking it out of commercial channels. The result has been disastrous to the dairy farmers involved, some of which have had to go into bankruptcy.”

“There had been at that time, reasonable prospect that the problem would have diminished to a point that further extension of the authority would not have been necessary. However, as the Department testified then, several large producers had their milk removed from the market because of DDT residue. The problem had in fact not been solved. The local dairymen, the State governments involved, dairy and cotton associations, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have been cooperating in an effort to rid us of this problem. The problem, however, still continues and it it appears that it will continue for the forseeable (sic) years to come.” [6]

When it was obvious pesticide residue levels weren’t dropping as hoped, the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program, or DIPP, officially was created through public law in 1968 to reimburse farmers whose milk was contaminated with pesticides. [6, 7]

Trivia Fact #3 – Polio Is/Was Transmitted Through Contaminated Milk

One of the major ways polio is transmitted is through contaminated milk. [8-14] Even one of the inventors of the polio vaccine, Albert Sabin, investigated the connection, [15] he was not naïve to this information.
Expert on microbiological safety of food and water, Dean O. Cliver, commented on the polio/milk connection in the book Foodborne Diseases,

“Poliomyelitis was the first reported foodborne viral disease, having been transmitted via raw milk as early as 1914. Raw milk predominated as the vehicle among the 10 outbreaks recorded through 1949, the last year in which foodborne poliomyelitis is known to occurred in the United States or other reporting, developed countries. Poliovirus transmission by this route ceased before the advent of the poliomyelitis vaccines, perhaps partly because of improved sanitation and the increased use of pasteurization of milk.” [8]

Sagar M. Goyal noted on page 1 of the book, Viruses in Foods,

“Food was first recognized as a vehicle for the transmission of viruses in 1914 when a raw milk-associated outbreak of poliomyelitis was reported (Jubb, 1915). Additional milk-borne outbreaks were recognized after this time, but with the development of a vaccine for poliovirus, no outbreaks were reported in the developed world after the early 1950s.” [9] (Emphasis is this author’s)

Other common diseases known to be spread through improper handling of contaminated milk at the time were Tuberculosis, Typhoid Fever, Scarlet Fever, Septic Sore Throat, Diphtheria, and Infantile Diarrhea. [16]
Can this be the genesis for all the raw milk controversy that is going on to this very day? Instead of promoting the proper safe handling of certified raw milk containing many healthful microorganisms, the U.S. FDA demands pasteurization that promotes other health problems.

Trivia Fact #4–Removing Your Tonsils Exposed You to the Worst Kind of Paralysis

Tonsillectomy surgery was cautioned in the presence of a polio epidemic. [17]
It was discovered if a child had his/her tonsils removed (or even a tooth extracted), they had a greater chance of getting the worst kind of polio called Bulbar Poliomyelitis. [18-20]
Given the information in Trivia Fact #3, this seems to make sense since it was common to give ice cream after a tonsillectomy.

Trivia Fact #5 – Pharmaceutical Companies Funded the writing of the “History of Poliomyelitis”

John R. Paul, M.D., an often-celebrated virologist in the fight against polio, wrote a book entitled, A History of Poliomyelitis. [21]
John Paul wielded significant influence and was, at the time, considered an authority on the subject of polio.
The pharmaceutical companies Lederle Laboratories, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Parke, Davis & Co., Pfizer Inc.,and Smith Kline & French gave grants to help write a pharmaceutical-friendly-version of the history of polio.

Source: Personal Photo of Book

*Note: VacTruth readers should also investigate the history of the pharmaceutical companies. Geigy, now known as Novartis Pharmaceuticals, held the patent on the pesticide DDT. Novartis now manufacture vaccines.
The following quote was taken from the military handbook “DDT and Other Insecticides and Repellents” regarding spraying DDT, “The Geigy company holds the patents on the use of the compound [DDT] as an insecticide. The United States patent is No. 2,329,074, issued September 7, 1943, to Paul Müller.” [22]

Trivia Fact #6 – A Dangerous Vaccine: Americans Not Told Vaccine Caused Paralysis

During the polio epidemic, the Poliomyelitis Surveillance Unit (PSU) investigated a possible association between the paralysis and the vaccine manufactured by Wyeth Laboratories. This incident became known as the “Wyeth Problem.”  [23,24]
The investigation was led by Neal Nathanson and was summarized in two reports. Marked across the top of the reports are the words, “For Official Use Only – Not for Publication.”
Why?
One plausible explanation is if Americans knew the vaccine was causing paralysis, they would demand the vaccines be taken off the shelf – just like any other tainted drug. Such a public outcry would have spoiled the popularity of the polio vaccine.
The following passage from one of the reports is revealing,

“The problem was discussed fully with officials of the Pennsylvania Health Department. It was learned that a number of additional cases of suspected poliomyelitis were then under investigation. These had been reported principally from Harrisburg and surrounding counties in central Pennsylvania, an area where lot 236 had been principally used in NFIP (National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis) supported clinics. Some of these cases were known to be “vaccine associated.”” [23] (Emphasis is this author’s)

*Source: Snapshot taken of the “Wyeth Problem” report

Trivia Fact #7 – Researchers Discover How to Paralyze Monkeys with Vaccines

During the International Poliomyelitis Conference held in 1954, Dr. David Bodian from the Poliomyelitis Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University discussed how his research was able to produce paralysis in cynomolgus monkeys by vaccination. [25]
Here is how they did it:

1. First they gave an injection with, “gelatin, corticosteroids, penicillin, DTP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis vaccine), saline or merely hypodermic needle punctures…” [25]
2. Second, they deliberately infected the monkeys with the poliovirus (this concept is called viremia).
3. Lastly, their observations showed, “…the paralytic rate is considerably increased as compared with the control animals…” [25]

Bodian’s stunning admission shortly followed,

“It must be emphasized that the 2 experimental conditions of viremia and of intramuscular injections, as well as the critical time period of an interval of less than 1 month, also characterize the human situation in epidemic areas when intramuscular injections of penicillin or other substances [like DTP vaccine] are given.” [25] (Emphasis and inserted words are this author’s)

In other words, Bodian is telling the attendees at the conference injections and other vaccines, such as the DTP vaccine, “may be causing polio.” *
Consider how many injections and live virus vaccines a child now receives in his/her first two years of life. The above information deserves serious consideration by researchers, immunologists, and vaccinologists.
Note: The meeting minutes list Albert Sabin and Jonas Salk as speakers during this session. Thomas Francis and Hilary Koprowski were also present as discussants. Why is this information important? They were all inventors of a (polio) vaccine.

References:

1. Gabliks J., Studies of Biologically Active Agents in Cells and Tissue Cultures: Part 1. Annual Progress Report, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. 1966, p.  10.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0804387&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

2. Rozee, K., Spencer, H.S., Crocker, J., Safe, S. Enhanced Virus Replication in Mammalian Cells Exposed to Commercial Emulsifiers. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1978 February; 35(2): 297–300.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC242829/

3. Aufderheide, J., WWII Military Handbook Reveals Pesticide Chemicals Used In Infant Vaccines. VacTruth.com. Sept. 10, 2011.

http://vactruth.com/2011/09/10/wwii-military-handbook-reveals-pesticide-chemicals-used-in-infant-vaccines/

4. Aufderheide, J., Vaccine Ingredients: Non-ionic Surfactants (Tween 80, Triton X-100, Nonoxynol -9). VacTruth.com. Aug. 23, 2011.

http://vactruth.com/2011/08/23/vaccine-ingredients-non-ionic-surfactants-tween-80-triton-x-100-nonoxynol-9/

5. Authorizing Research on Insecticides, Herbicides, Fungicides, and Other Pesticides by the Secretary of the Interior. 85th Congress, 2nd Session. House of Representatives Report No. 2181. July 16, 1958.

6. Dairy Indemnity Payments. 90th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Report 476. August 3, 1967.

7. Dairy Indemnity Payments. 90th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Report 1363. July 8, 1968.

8. Cliver, Dean O., Foodborne Diseases, 1990. Academic Press, p. 283.

9. Goyal, Sagar M., Viruses in Foods, 2006. Springer, p. 1.

10. Knapp, A.C,  E. S. Godfrey Jr., M.D.,  W. L. Aycock, M.D. An Outbreak of Poliomyelitis, Apparently Milk-borne.  JAMA. 1926;87(9):635-639.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/87/9/635.short

11. Mathews, F., Poliomyelitis Epidemic, Possibly Milk-Borne, In a Naval Station, Portland, Oregon. Am. J. Epidemiol. (1949) 49(1): 1-7

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/1/1.full.pdf+html

12. Lieutenant Colonel David M. Goldstein, W. McD. Hammon, M.D., Dr. P.H., Henry R. Viets, M.D.  An Outbreak of Polioencephalitis Among Navy Cadets, Possibly Food Borne. JAMA. 1946;131(7):569-573.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/1/1.full.pdf+html

13. Rosenow, E.C.,  An Institutional Outbreak of Poliomyelitis Apparently Due to a Streptococcus in Milk. The Journal of Infectious Diseases Vol. 50, No. 5/6 (May – Jun., 1932), pp. 377-425.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30083744

14. Aycock, W.L., Milk-borne epidemic of poliomyelitis. Amer. J. Hyg., 7: 791-803, 1927.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/6/791.full.pdf+html

15. Sabin, A.B., Poliomytlitis. Preventitive Medicine in World War II. Vol. 5 Communicable Diseases, Medical Dept. U.S. Army Government Printing Office. 1960, pp. 367-400.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/communicablediseasesV5/chapter15.htm

16. Peterson, W.E. Dairy Science, Second Edition. 1950. J.B. Lippincott Co., Chicago. pp. 553-554.

17. Poliomyelitis. Papers and Discussions Presented at the First International Poliomyelitis Conference. Third Session – Tuesday July 13, 1948. J.B. Lippincott Co., Chicago. p. 119.

18. Aycock, W.L. and Luther, E.H., The occurrence of poliomyelitis following tonsillectomy. New Engl. J. Med., 200: 164, 1929.

19. Aycock, W.L. Tonsillectomy in Poliomyelitis. JAMA. 1944;125(14):990. doi: 10.1001/jama.1944.02850320048022

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/125/14/990.3.full.pdf+html

20. Francis T., Krill, C.E., Toomey, J.A. and Mack, W.N., Poliomyelitis following Tonsillectomy in five members of a family. JAMA. 1942;119(17):1392-1396. doi: 10.1001/jama.1942.02830340004002

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/119/17/1392.full.pdf+html

21. A History of Poliomyelitis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. ISBN: 0-300-01324-8.

22. “DDT and Other Insecticides and Repellents.”Miscellaneous Publication No. 606, United States Department of Agriculture. p. 3, Issued August 1946.

23. Nathanson, N. The Wyeth Report: An Epidemiological Investigation of the Occurrence of Poliomyelitis in Association with Certain Lots of Wyeth Vaccine. August 31, 1955.

24. Nathanson, N. The Wyeth Report: An Epidemiological Investigation of the Occurrence of Poliomyelitis in Association with Certain Lots of Wyeth Vaccine. March 1957.

25. Bodian, D., Infection and Immunity in Poliomyelitis. Poliomyelitis. Papers and Discussions Presented at the Third International Poliomyelitis Conference. Wednesday Morning – September 8, 1954. J.B. Lippincott Co., Chicago. pp. 199-202.

Jeffry John Aufderheide

Jeffry John Aufderheide is the father of a child injured as a result of vaccination. As editor of the website www.vactruth.com he promotes well-educated pediatricians, informed consent, and full disclosure and accountability of adverse reactions to vaccines.

ADVICE AND DISSENT

Yet few have questioned medical authorities or complained to our political leaders about why there has been so much urgency to get this vaccine pushed through the legislative process. Could it be that they do not want us to sit up and take  notice and that there are significant financial and political perks coming to the various parties involved?  No doubt, providing full and truthful disclosure to the general public with adequate time for review would have generated significant resistance to mandatory administration of HPV vaccine. I suppose that a  reasonable compromise would have been to make the vaccine available to those who choose to play Russian roulette with their health, but it is a travesty to require it across the board.

At present , the medical profession itself has a monopoly on the assessment of its standards and techniques. It is the judge of its own productions -- a situation which is fraught with the greatest risk both for the physician himself (or herself) and society.

PROPAGANDA AND POLITICS
It is perplexing to realize that in our country criticism of most topics is tolerated and even encouraged , and yet it is a rare to hear  a genuine discussion that questions the basic assumptions of orthodox medical practice. We relentlessly questions our political leaders, and there is a healthy degree of religious debate that takes place, but for some strange reason it is virtually unheard of to question scientific medical authorities. it is an indication, perhaps, of the degree to which we revere these authority figures. There is no real tradition of medical dissent other than what is depicted in the popular media's distorted overemphasis upon certain isolated examples, such as the Christian Scientist who refuses conventional treatment in the face  of serious illness. 

I am not discoursing about the debate over medical "reform" that restricts the conversation to the  allocation of monetary resources and access to medical services. We continually move funding from here to there and back again, believing that this superficial shell game will somehow bring about progress. In the end, we reamin stuck with the same old woefully inadequate medical body shop, which neglects our psychic and spiritual needs and increasingly serves and feeds off of only those  who can afford this grand illusion of health care. sick-care'[sic]


In early 2007, a controversy regarding a vaccine crated to treat human-papilloma-virus (HPV) and promoted as a preventative against female cervical cancer raged in the media. As it typical of our collective cultural programming, the debate covered only certain aspects of this issue. We heard moral objections from the religious right regarding the promiscuity that would be encouraged among young women who would believe themselves prophylactically protected from this sexually transmitted disease (STD). We also heard from the voices of economic fairness, which decried the  costs to those who can barely make ends meet. Those concerned with patient rights preferred the vaccine to be optional and understandably took issue with the prospect of yet another state-mandated medical intervention. And the defenders of the feminist perspective made the salient point that, once again, the medical patriarchy is trying to saddle women with the burden of dealing with  an illness that is contracted  primarily through sexual contact between a woman and a man.                             


Rarely did we hear anyone question the wisdom of such wholesale vaccination in terms of the health implications for an entire generation of modern women. Not to say that there were not people out there voicing their concern -- they just did not register on the mainstream  media's radar screen. It is not hard to imagine, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now, the standard "oops" emanating from the medical community after it has analyzed the latest data acknowledging  the unanticipated consequences : " The Surgeon General has determined that women receiving the HPV vaccine are at significant greater risk for developing kidney infections." I suppose that risk is not a bad trade-off compared to some of the  more likely hypothetical long-term consequences of the vaccine, such as an increased incidence of infertility, or even an unexpected rise in uterine or ovarian cancer.

10,000 Crazy Vaccines! We are being hoodwinked, WAKE UP !

 Want to know the definition of crazy?

How about injecting your child with
10,000 vaccines?

This is what parents are being told...
Read this article to see how health
professionals respond when questioned.

Make up your own mind as to who is crazy.

 By Sandy Lunoe | April 16th, 2012
There was a storm of amazement  and disbelief when Dr. Paul Offit, vaccine industry insider and perhaps the most widely stated defender of vaccine safety, made the outrageous statement that each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time.

Many denounced the statement as being downright crazy, but it was soon apparent that there was method in the madness.

The words originated from Dr. Offit’s and co-authors’ article in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics  “Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?”  (1)
The statement is not supported by facts. It is based on a purely theoretical calculation with no relation to reality and it should have been dismissed as having no practical application.
But it was not dismissed. On the contrary it is widely quoted completely out of context to promote concomitant administration of many vaccines.
The strategy is surely to lull parents into accepting introduction of even more vaccines in the childhood vaccination schedule, the more the merrier.
Whilst there are practically no unbiased safety studies concerning concomitantly administered vaccines, coupled with the fact that risk of adverse events increases with increasing numbers of vaccines, advocating even more is irresponsible and unethical.
 By chance in February 2012 I found this in the National Health Information (England) Leaflet “MMR THE FACTS”: “A baby could respond safely and effectively to around 10,000 vaccines at any one time. So the baby’s immune system can and does easily cope with the MMR vaccine.”

I sent an email message to the UK Department of Health requesting that the statement be deleted as it is not documented, it is incorrect and misleading. (2)
A polite answer was received referring to Dr. Offit’s  article and repeating his theory. (Worded simply it implies that toddlers are able to cope with an 10 000 vaccines because their immune systems are designed to build up resistance when they crawl around in dirt and pick up thousands of germs!) (3)
On asking epidemiologist  Tetyana  Obukhanych Ph.D, about the capacity of the immune system I gathered  the following information, in a nutshell: The immune system has a theoretical capacity to respond to an unlimited number of antigens, but not all at the same time.

A new message from the UK Department of Health was received explaining that the leaflet was revised in 2006  (- why didn’t they inform about this before?) and the statement now reads:

“In theory, a baby could respond effectively to around 10,000 vaccines at any one time. The baby’s immune system can and does easily cope with the MMR, pneumococcal and Hib/MenC vaccines at the same time.” (4)

Up to now the epidemiological issue had mainly been discussed, but what about the toxicological aspects?  We are often confronted with the argument that toxic substances are no safety risk because they are present in minute quantities in vaccines, but the argument certainly falls flat in the case of many concomitantly administered  vaccines.
My next message to the Department of Health included:

“It is hereby requested that a medically qualified person/toxicologist confirms the following statement (based on basic toxicology): In addition to antigens, vaccines normally contain several other substances, many of which are toxic in large doses. When many vaccines are administered concomitantly the amounts of these substances may be of such large quantities that a human being would in fact die within a very short time.” (5)

Some departmental feathers were obviously ruffled because their reply had undertones of sarcasm:

Dear Ms Lunoe,
Thank you for your email regarding the ‘MMR – The facts’ leaflet. Please find as requested, a reply to your correspondence from a medically qualified person.

The statement as provided deals specifically with the capacity of the infant immune system to respond to multiple antigens. It was not a calculation of the responses to other ingredients in vaccines such as water which is well known to be toxic to humans in large quantities. The statement should not be misinterpreted to imply inferences for which it was not intended.

Yours sincerely

Professor David Salisbury
MB BS, FRCP, FRCPCH, FFPH.

I hope this has been helpful.

Regards – Clarissa Hudson
Immunisation Policy Branch
Department of Health

The  “medically qualified person” with the long list of letters after his name was no other than Professor David Salisbury, director of immunisation at the Department of Health, also known as the ‘Basil Fawlty’ of the UK vaccines industry!  (Basil Fawlty is a comedian in a TV series, manager of a small hotel where everything goes hilariously wrong).

David Salisbury is like Basil Fawlty, well known for his antics. The difference is that Basil’s antics are funny whereas David’s antics are notoriously unethical. (6)
True to style Dr. Salisbury did not directly respond to my question concerning toxic substances, but he stated that water is toxic in large quantities. This was inappropriate as he surely knows that the reason why pure water cannot be injected is not toxicological, but physical – it causes irreversible damage to blood cells due to hemolysis.
As expected, he was not willing to confirm: “When many vaccines are administered concomitantly the amounts of these substances may be of such large quantities that a human being would in fact die within a very short time.”
(If “many tablets” had been substituted for “many vaccines”  he would surely have responded that they may be dangerous.  Is it the word vaccine which is holy and untouchable? )

Dissatisfied with the answer I sent a new message, again pointing out immunological and toxicological aspects and requesting that the statement regarding the 10 000 vaccines be removed from the leaflet. (7)
A reply was promptly received, this time suggesting that I take up matter with Dr. Offit!

Dear Ms Lunoe,
Thank you for your email of 22 March 2012. I have forwarded your comments onto Professor Salisbury as requested.
Professor Salisbury has replied to your comments and I have attached these below:

“The Department of Health stands by the statement which is a direct reflection of the published calculation on the capacity of an infant’s immune system to respond to multiple antigens made by Dr.Paul Offit. His calculation makes no reference to the consequences of other vaccine ingredients such as water and it should not be misrepresented as if it does so. If Ms. Lunoe objects to Dr.Offit’s analysis, I suggest she takes it up with him.”

Regards – Clarissa
Immunisation Policy Branch
Department of Health

So here is my polite message sent to Dr. Offit. It concludes with,

“With this in mind, trusting that you have the wellbeing of the general public at heart, I am asking that you consider making a public statement to clarify and to emphasize that the statement in the study “each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time”  is based on a purely theoretical immunological calculation in a study, that it does not imply the toxicological aspect of a large number of vaccines administered concomitantly and that it should not be quoted out of context.” (8)

We are still waiting and hoping for a positive response from Dr. Offit – because he surely has peoples’ wellbeing at heart?

References
(1)    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full.html
(2)    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88452286/10-000-Vaccines-Message-No-1#fullscreen
(3)    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88454548/10-000-Vaccines-Answer-From-Dept-of-Health-1#fullscreen
(4)    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88458516/10-000-Vaccines-Answer-From-Dept-of-Health-2#fullscreen
(5)    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88460986/10-000-Vaccines-Message-No-2#fullscreen
(6)    http://www.whale.to/v/salisbury1.html
(7)    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88469920/10-000-Vaccines-Message-No-3#fullscreen
(8)    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88471340/10-000-Vaccines-Message-to-Dr-Offit#fullscreen

 http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-04-16/10000-vaccines-safety-claim-simple-hype-or-sinister-intent/

Antibiotics Declared a Disaster; Should Vaccines Be Next?

It's coming home to roost...

The effects of arrogant medical policies made
over prescribing antibiotics is now apparent to
many.

Considering we can consume 'too many' vitamins,
too many antibiotics, too many peanut butter and
jelly sandwiches ...

Just maybe a child getting over 36+ vaccine doses
by the time they are five could be too much. This
article describes the impending disaster.

Click Here to Read Now!  <--

It would seem that back in 1986 someone may have been trying to warn of the impending problems in medicine when the paper “The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science,” was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. [3] Coincidentally that’s the year Congress gave Big Pharma its ‘get out of jail free’ card with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660). [4] Perhaps it’s about time that the U.S. Congress recapitulates on that travesty against U.S. tort law, justice, and most likely medical ethics.  But that’s my opinion; what’s yours?

http://vactruth.com/2012/03/23/antibiotics-vaccines-declared-disaster/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1ceba29c92-03_23_2011_antibiotics&utm_medium=email


 http://vactruth.com

Vaccinations Cause Cancer

Vaccinations is another of conventional medicine's colossal blunders. The purpose (supposed) of vaccinations is to prevent infectious disease. The problem is there is no scientific evidence that immunizations prevent disease and plenty of evidence they are dangerous. Vaccines are not tested to see if they are carcinogenic, yet we inject these dangerous, toxic concoctions into our children, without knowing whether or not they cause cancer. Recalling that cancer has become the leading cause of death by disease for our young people, perhaps we should be paying MORE attention.
A growing number of researchers are now attributing the epidemics of leukemia, asthma, auto-immune disease, cerebral palsy, infantile convulsions, sudden infant death /crib death syndrome, and childhood cancer to vaccinations. Vaccinations causes cancer in adults as well. Two 2002 studies in the Lancet estimated that up to half of the 55,000 annual cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma can be attributed to polio vaccinations received decades ago.
The dramatic decline of infectious diseases, such as smallpox, diphtheria, and polio, is often cited as proof of vaccinations' effectiveness. The truth is the incidence of infectious disease decreased dramatically before the introduction of vaccines - in other words, vaccines get credit for something they did not do. For example, in 1950, the polio epidemic was at its height in Great Britain. By the time the polio vaccine, supposed to be, was introduced in 1956, polio had already declined by 82 percent.

1.Here is what Australian researcher Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., had to say in her book Vaccination  http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/esp_salud33d.htm , after investigating some 60,000 pages of medical literature on vaccination:
Immunizations, including those practiced on babies, not only did not prevent any infectious diseases; they caused more suffering and more deaths than has any other human activity in the entire history of medical intervention .


2.From Canada, Canadian physician, Dr. Guylaine Lanctot, author of of the bestseller The Medical Mafia puts it this way:
The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been an assault on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses . we are actually changing our genetic code through vaccination . . . 100 years from now we will know that the biggest crime against humanity was vaccines.
(( http://bridgelove.www.50megs.com/medicalmafia-uk.html ))



3.Renowned pediatrician and author Dr. Robert Mendelsohn was equally direct in his book Confessions of a Medical Heretic :
Much of what you have been led to believe about immunization simply isn't true. If I were to follow my deeper convictions, I would urge you to reject all inoculations for your child . . . There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.

4. Medical researcher Juan Manuel Martinez Mendez, M.D., writing in the August/September 2004 Townsend Letter (a respected examiner of medical alternatives), said :
These chronic disease, including hay fever, asthma, cancer, and AIDS, are the result of wrong interventions upon the organism by conventional medicine . . . the immune systems of the Western population, through strong chemical drugs and repeated vaccinations, have broken down . . . medicine, instead of curing diseases, is actually the cause of the degeneration of the human race.


Vaccines contain mercury compounds, formaldehyde, and aluminum that are known to cause cancer. Aluminum causes cancer by displacing iron from its protective proteins, raising the level of free iron in the body, and triggering intense inflammation, free radical generation, and lipid peroxidation. vaccines also contain viruses, and certain viruses have been associated with cancer. For example, we know that a monkey virus SV 40, found in polio vaccine, has been proven to cause cancer and to be responsible for an outbreak of lung, brain, bone, and lymphatic cancers in those people who received polio vaccines decades ago. In addition, vaccines drive cancer by depressing body immunity ; strong immunity is critical to defending ourselves against cancer.

In addition to being dangerous, no vaccines has ever been proven in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to be effective, the existing evidence indicates they are not effective. Given they are dangerous and of unproven effectiveness, it is unconscionable that by the time a child starts kindergarten s(he) will have received more doses of vaccines. Of many doses, will be given during the first 18 months of life when a baby's body and brain are undergoing massive development. This helps to explain the EXPLOSION! of neurological and immune system disorders in our children, and almost certainly contributes to the EXPLOSION! of childhood cancer.

How Safe is Your Child from Mercury in Vaccines?

Recently while doing research in another area, I came across information that struck me as something one would never have imagined someone keeping statistics about: Mercury amounts released into the atmosphere during cremation of dead bodies—cadavers.
Statistics have been generated for several years now and the findings are remarkable, to say the least and should be important enough to stop the use of ‘medical’ mercury in dental fillings (amalgam fillings) and vaccines, which contain mercury in the form of Thimerosal. Another mercury source probably is from pacemaker batteries. There’s even been talk, as I understand, of having filled teeth removed from dead bodies before cremation, as the amount of mercury going out the crematorium stack is mounting.
Since mercury is now becoming a serious environmental hazard—so why the CFL light bulbs that contain mercury—especially in food grown in California due to mercury used in the 1840s gold rush mining days leaching into water supplies now used in agriculture, environmentalists are taking serious note of mercury pollution sources.
Interestingly, a draft fact sheet produced by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency stated that an average emission of 5 grams of mercury is assumed. Furthermore, that same draft indicated that cremations account for “just under 32% of mercury emissions to the atmosphere.”
In February 2001, a British newspaper article reported that an average of 2.95 grams of mercury per cremation was emitted into the atmosphere. In Norway a researcher reported that an estimated 2 to 4 grams of mercury per cremation were emitted into the atmosphere. Those figures are based upon adult body cremations.
A statistic was generated that one would not have thought meaningful, i.e., Mercury in Crematoria Workers as per The Lancet, 1998. The measurement was taken from mercury found in hair in parts per million. That type of tissue testing/sampling has been around for years—the U.S. Army used it—and it’s known as a spectrographic hair analysis. See this link for more information about that http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac60281a040.
Now, if the mercury hair test results information was accepted and published in The Lancet, why not start taking hair sample studies of infants, toddlers, and teens who have neurological health anomalies such as autism spectrum disorder, ADD, ADHD, narcolepsy, epilepsy, and learning disabilities to find the heavy metals that are hanging up on enzyme systems and pathways that are causing damage, which a detox program could relieve? Doesn’t that make sense, since no one seems to be getting to the bottom of why our kids are getting neurologically impaired by the droves—how about pandemic, and which seems to coincide with the more vaccines they get, the more neurological problems occur.
Heavy metals and neurotoxins like aluminum and mercury store in soft body tissue in kiddies similar to the way lead stores in bones in adults. However, both aluminum and mercury store in soft body tissue and bones in growing children. Hair would be the most logical body tissue to sample since it grows about one-quarter to half an inch a month; is not traumatic to obtain; and is a reliable tissue sample comparable to blood, urine, fecal matter, etc., since the body naturally grows it.
That would be a most logical starting point to finding out what’s most likely storing in kids’ brains and bodies that is making them neurologically disabled. It’s not rocket science but it is ‘damning’ because it does tell what heavy metals are stored in the hair.
From where I come in my studies and research—by the way I wrote the book Understanding Body Chemistry and Hair Mineral Analysis in the early 1980s, so I think I know something about what I speak, assaying neurologically-compromised children’s hair for heavy metals could be the defining factor of what’s making them sick. It could be that simple, if the feds get out of the way and let researchers and medical doctors who know what to do, do the work.
Now here’s what I’m thinking from an analytical and scientific standpoint: What would be the amount of mercury and/or aluminum in an infant, toddler, and teenager—especially those who had no silver fillings in their teeth. My contention is that not only should mercury be measured but aluminum since both neurotoxic metals are injected into children in vaccines/vaccinations at very vulnerable ages, i.e., 2, 4, 6 months and onward for a total of 68 up to college age.
Personally and from a scientific mindset, I would like to see this kind of assay work done as part of the investigation into why so many young children in the USA and globally now are seriously impaired neurologically. I think it’s time to bite the bullet on the real science of why kids are so sick, and it’s as easy as this to start the process when accurate assays, record keeping, and statistical data reporting are not impeded by those who have special axes to grind or financial interests to preserve.
In my opinion, instead of mandating more vaccines/vaccinations, health agencies should be mandating and implementing hair testing of every child should begin as soon as enough hair can be taken for a viable spectrographic analysis. Hair tells what the body has stored in tissue, and can be the clue science is looking for.