One of the sickest examples of vaccine industry corruption – Wyeth internal memo.

Image
*see bottom for all links.
“In 1978-79, eleven babies (all in Tennessee) were found to have died within eight days of a DPT vaccination. Nine of the eleven had been vaccinated with the same lot of pertussis vaccine, Wyeth #64201 and five (four from the same lot) had died within twenty-four hours of vaccination.”
*Now will you please take another look at the memo..
“read closely — a series of SIDS deaths in Tennessee is …prompting Wyeth officials to make sure that vials from a single lot don’t get distributed to a single state, county or health department.”
*SICK. Spread the death out so no one will know.
  “The statistical evidence in favor of a connection between the deaths and the DPT shot was strong. Would the medical authorities bite the bullet and admit the vaccine was related to the deaths? Absolutely not.
 It’s a long and unpleasant tale, but when all was said and done, “the tombstone was placed on what happened in Tennessee three years later, in the September 1982 issue of the Journal of Pediatrics, when Bernier and his colleagues at the CDC wrote their epitaph on the infant deaths. They made this amazing statement: ‘Whether or not this temporal association reflects a causal relationship remains undetermined; we found no evidence to support such a causal association.'”
*this honestly makes me sicker than I can explain. Yes, I will agree that this is old. Who cares about 1979 anyways? I do. Any parent should care if they knew what happened here. No, we no longer use the DPT now DTaP) but that doesn’t matter here. What matters is that this happened and there was never a resolution. There was never justice or an apology. Those precious babies meant nothing. Just like everything else, it was all pushed under the rug. (I cannot explain how angry it makes me that people who question these things are just called “crazy” and that’s it. No journalism. No Truth!)
**What has changed?! How are lots distributed now?
“Do the drug companies, the HMOs, the AAP and the CDC really have a track record of tracking down every report of side effects, encouraging the public to make use of the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) system and vigilantly monitoring the VSD database? Are they the ones we want to trust to tell us whether there is any “causal association” between vaccines and SIDS, or autism, or asthma, or ADD?”
  See this link for the full story:
and for the link to the PDF file of this memo see this:
Advertisements

Draft Review of: The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism

This review was written by Paul G. King, PhD in response to an article that represents the typical lies and misleading tone of everything published by the mainstream media today. I highly suggest that you take the time to read this and that you urge your friends and loved ones to read this also. WE ARE BEING LIED TO. This review is fantastic and has tons of good sources (see the actual pdf for link to all sources).

The full article can be accessed at: http://dr-king.com/docs/130705_DrftRevu%20TheVeryThickLineBetweenRaisingConcernsAndDenialism_b.pdf

Draft Review of:
“The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism
By Christie Wilcox | June 19, 2013 8:00 am”
THE ARTICLE’S TITLE AND LEAD IN
The writer’s title is an interesting choice of words because the thickness of the “Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism” and its placement are obviously based on subjective assessments — not objective evaluations.
“The real question is, which side of the line are studies that lack scientific rigor on?”
To this researcher, the answer depends upon the nature of the question being asked and is limited to those questions that science can answer.
For the subjects that this writer discusses, this reviewer finds that there are studies that lack rigor with regard to several aspects of the dispute between those who seek to maintain and enlarge the status quo in a given controversial issue for their direct and indirect benefit and those who seek to ensure that the safety (not the often-substituted “lack of proof of harm”) of any disputed practice has been rigorously proven.
THE WRITER’S INTRODUCTION TO, AND FEELINGS ABOUT,
GLYPHOSATE AND GM CROPS
“Recently, Kara Moses asked Guardian readers: ‘Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue?’ Her personal answer was no; that special interest groups should perform and publicize their own findings. ‘I believe they should be given a voice,’ she concluded, ‘not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists.’
Quick to support her was Treehugger writer Chris Tackett. ‘The point here is that scientific proof matters in science, but it shouldn’t necessarily be what determines our actions,’ he wrote. ‘We can intuit that some things are unwise or dangerous or against our values without needing reams of scientific data to back up our concerns.’ While Kara’s piece talked only about the use of glyphosate (the pesticide known by its brand name RoundUp), Chris used it to attack both the pesticide’s use and Monsanto GM crops.
I understand where they are coming from, but the hair on the back of my neck bristled reading those words. I think they’re both getting into very dangerous territory (or, in the case of Chris’ comments later, happily dancing around in it).”
While this reviewer would agree that the writer is entitled to “think” what she chooses, it is not clear that she understands “where they are coming from” or, for that matter, who is “reading those words”.
“The trouble is, it’s one thing to notice a potential danger and raise a few alarm bells to get scientists to investigate an issue — it’s a whole other to publicize and propagandize an unsubstantiated fear despite evidence against it.”
Here, the writer begins by confusing the noticing of “a potential danger and …” that is implicitly associated with “the use of glyphosate” or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” with what the people have a right to do, “to publicize and propagandize” what they perceive as a danger even when there is purportedly “evidence against it”.
Moreover, because this writer makes numerous assertions without providing any citations or footnotes to support or substantiate her views, this reviewer is compelled to discount the writer’s statements when, without any documented proof, they attempt to discredit the views expressed by others.
“The former is important, as Kara suggests, and should occur. I have no problem with non-scientists raising honest concerns, if their goal is to have the concerns considered — so long as they’re actually willing to hear what the evidence has to say.”
Here, the writer attempts to restrict the role of “non-scientists” to that of “raising honest concerns”, when the realities are that:
a. These “non-scientists” are perfectly capable of reading and un-derstanding the published literature and
b. Some who are raising these concerns are scientists who have examined the evidence and/or conducted fundamental studies that have shown serious adverse long-term-ex-posure-related outcomes when “glyphosate” and/or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” have been studied.
Since the writer presents no proof to support her assertion that these individuals have not appropriately examined the evidence, this reviewer must counsel the reader to ignore her caveat about hearing “what the evidence has to say”.
“The latter, on the other hand, is denialism. You see, once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them.”
As a scientist, this reviewer is appalled at the writer’s unqualified claim that “once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them”.
First, unless all of the raw data and supporting information, including models and adjustment factors, used to generate the published results are freely available, no one should listen to the claims made in any study.
Second, unless a truly independent review of the data and supporting documentation or a truly independent rigorous duplication of a given study for which the raw data and all supporting information are available has confirmed a given publication’s findings, the results reported in the initial study should be given no scientific weight in the decision-making process.
Third, the quality of evidence rating (QER) standards1 developed for evaluating the scientific quality of evidence clearly support the skepticism that should accompany any assertion when most all of the studies are not independent2.
Thus, it is not the scientists that should be listened to but rather the results of those truly independent studies of “glyphosate” or “pesticide use or Monsanto GM products” that have an appropriately defined QER rating of “1” or, if the studies are toxicological in nature, an equivalent rating.
PIVOTING TO THE “VACCINES AND AUTISM” ISSUE
“When it was first suggested that vaccines might lead to autism, is” [sic; it] “was a legitimate question to ask. Kids seemed to develop autism around the same age they got their vaccines — and can you imagine if the vaccines were to blame? That would have been huge news! We would have had to revolutionize the vaccine industry, to start from scratch and figure out if we can keep these life-saving shots without screwing up our kids’ brains. One of the core foundations of our children’s public health program would have been forever shaken.”
First, this reviewer finds it odd that the writer abruptly veers away from the agricultural/food issues she has been addressing (“the use of glyphosate” and “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops”) to address an apparently unrelated issue, the putative link between “vaccines” and “autism”, a neurological disorder diagnosed not by some scientifically sound tests but rather by an admittedly somewhat subjective evaluation of the symptoms and the behaviors observed in developing children.
Here, for whatever reason, the writer, Christie Wilcox, begins by laying out an “imagine if” scenario about the established link between the current recommended vaccination program in the USA and the chronic childhood disease epidemics that this ever-growing vaccination program has caused and is causing by focusing on one of these epidemics, the purportedly most-difficult-to-prove epidemic, the epi-demic of “autism”.
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Nonetheless, as one of those truly independent scientists, this reviewer has been continually engaged in the study of the issues surrounding vaccine safety and vaccination effectiveness for about 14 years after having worked in a wide range of capacities in firms that produced biocides (pesticides), brand-name pharmaceuticals, generic pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements for more than two decades.
The results of this reviewer’s studies have clearly established that today’s FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines have not been proven to be “safe” to the standards required by the law3 and, as such, are adulterated drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B).
Moreover, an ever-growing number of independent scientists from around the world are publishing papers that clearly show that today’s vaccines are not as safe as they are represented to be and/or today’s vaccination programs are not effective in preventing disease and/or are not cost effective, especially in the developed countries4,5.
Finally, based on multiple independent vaccination-related surveys comparing the health of never-vaccinated children to the health of the fully vaccinated children have, from 19776,7, consistently found or, for the current on-going survey study8, are consistently finding that, depending upon the chronic diseases studied, the never-vaccinated children are, as a group, 2 to 5 times healthier than the comparison group of fully vaccinated children.
Clearly, the results from these independent studies and other sim-ilar studies have proven that “the vaccines were” and are “to blame” for the epidemics of chronic childhood diseases that we are now confronting9
Yet, this writer apparently remains in denial about these proven realities.
Given the preceding actualities, let us return to the writer’s state-ments.
“So, like they should, independent scientists investigated the concerns. They checked and double checked the safety testing. They ran and re-ran results, but they kept getting the same answer: whatever causes autism, it isn’t vaccines. A cumulative sigh of relief was uttered by doctors, nurses, scientists, parents and children around the world.”
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, including “autism”, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Yet, as far as this reviewer has been able to ascertain in his investigations into articles that claim to have found “no evidence of harm” or assert that the “benefits of vaccination outweigh their theo-retical risks”, the authors of these articles are often not “independent scientists” and/or the studies themselves are often not independent studies.
In at least one instance, this reviewer has been able to prove that an epidemiological study in which the CDC not only participated but also, after refusal by two major high-stature journals, strongly recom-mended that this knowingly misleading study be published in the journal Pediatrics. The CDC made this recommendation although the assertion made in the article10 (“The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism”) was diametrically opposed to the truth, as expressed in internal emails (where, some, if not all, of the authors in the key Danish study cited in this discussion and CDC’s liaison person [Schendel] knew) that “the incidence and prevalence” [of autism] “are still decreasing in 2001”)11.
Moreover, the reality of the decrease in the prevalence and inci-dence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses was confirmed by:
a. The Danish health officials’ not electing to re-introduce any Thimerosal-preserved vaccines into their national childhood vaccination program after this article was published and
b. A 2010 article12 from which the prevalence rate for the incidence of individuals diagnosed with a “Pervasive Devel-opmental Disorder” [“PDD”] (known as an ASD in the USA) was found to be 1 in 1272, when the 2013 estimate in the USA for similar children estimated an ASD diagnosis rate of one child in every 50, 6-to-17-year-old children13.
After reading this review response and verifying its validity, the writer of this article hopefully will listen to the realities that:
a. Vaccination with Thimerosal-preserved vaccines is a casual risk factor for an ASD diagnosis and
b. The current vaccination programs collectively are major causal factors for the current childhood epidemics, at levels in excess of 10% of the vaccinated children in several instances, of many other chronic childhood medical condi-tions, including but not limited to, ADHD, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, epileptic disorders, obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, eczema, food allergies, serious gastrointestinal disorders, solid cancers and lymphomas, and other immune-autoimmune-linked childhood diseases, disorders and syndromes, which were non-existent or vir-tually non-existent in the 1930s through the 1970s.
“Except that some people didn’t listen to the data. They called foul, saying every scientist that disagreed with them was under the thumb of Big Pharma and lying to the public. They released the results of unscientific, pet studies showing how they are right and everyone else is wrong. These anti-vaxers still won’t give up their beliefs, even though scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism.”
Based on the facts presented by this reviewer, the writer appears to be one of those people who “didn’t listen to the data”.
Moreover, the writer fails to provide any factual citations to sup-port her attack on those who have and are critically evaluating:
a. The safety and effectiveness of each FDA-approved vaccine,
b. The validity and data transparency, or lack thereof, for each published vaccine-related study, and/or
c. The effectiveness and cost-effective, or lack thereof, for each of the current CDC universal-inoculation-schedule’s recommendations for these vaccines.
Thus, the writer essentially seems to attack all studies that do not support the vaccination status quo by labeling them as “unscientific, pet studies” even when they were published in peer-reviewed journals and their authors are willing, subject to the constraints imposed by the federal government on data sharing and medical privacy, to share the raw data and ancillary information with those who seek to confirm that the data does support the findings reported by those authors.
In contrast, the datasets and ancillary information for the vaccine studies that “support” vaccination have either been reported as lost (e.g., the datasets for the CDC’s 2003 Verstraeten, et al. study14 and Fombonne’s 2006 study of children in certain Montreal schools15) or access to the data and ancillary information has simply been denied to those seeking to verify that the data does support the reported findings, or not.
Moreover, the writer’s asserting, “scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism” does not make that statement true.
Finally, her attempt to cast the evidence-based concerns of those who question the safety and/or effectiveness of vaccines and/or the cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs as “beliefs” does not reduce the scientific validity of the evidence-based concerns raised.
A JUMBLED MESSAGE: MIXING “CLIMATE CHANGE” AND GMO ISSUES
Again, this time mid-paragraph, the writer changes subjects and begins to speak of “climate change” and of GMO issues.
“We see the same refusal to listen when it comes to climate change. It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists. They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed. They stick their fingers in their ears like children, shouting ‘I can’t hear you!’ — and sadly, the same attitude is found throughout the anti-GMO platform.”
Whenever this reviewer observes a writer attempting to speak for those who are opposed to the position that the writer is trying to sell to the reader, the narrative almost invariably degenerates into an attempt to portray that opposition in a demeaning manner as in the writer’s closing statements here.
Ironically, this reviewer does agree with the writer when she states, “It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists”.
In fact, it is not the number of studies, or the number of consensuses, or even the number of scientists that matter.
What matters are the confirmed, scientific soundness of each study and the scientific validity of the consensus.
After all, at one time, the scientific consensus was that the Sun was the center of the universe; the world was flat; when burned, wood lost a substance called “phlogiston”16; and the universe was governed by Newtonian physics.
Moreover, as the reviewer’s introductory remarks clearly state,
“Finally, should anyone find any significant factual error in this review for which they have independent[a], scientifically sound, peer-reviewed-published-substantiating documents, please submit that information to this reviewer so that he can improve his understanding of factual reality and, where appropriate, revise his views and this review
[a] To qualify as an independent document, the study should be published by researchers who have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest from their ties to either those commercial entities who profit from the sale of any product or practice addressed in this review or those entities, academic, commercial or governmental, who directly or indirectly, actively promote any product or practice, the development of any product or practice, and/or programs using any product or practice covered in this review.”
he is open to any independent, scientifically sound, peer-reviewed published documents that refute his understanding of the facts.
Thus, to the extent that this reviewer and his colleagues around the world are scientists, the writer’s allegations, “They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed”, are pure nonsense.
ASSAILING RECENT STUDIES REPORTING HARM FROM GMO FOODS
“Instead of listening to the evidence, campaign groups conduct unrigorous, unscientific and completely biased studies, dig in their heels, and stand their ground. Just look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies which have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry. The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest. I can’t agree with Kara that such studies deserve equal voice. They don’t.”
Here, the writer begins by stating prejudicial claims concerning the basis and intent of studies conducted by groups or individuals who implicitly have problems with the GMOs in food that not only rats and pigs but also humans consume.
Then, she asks us to “look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies”, which she claims “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
However, the links the writer provides are not to peer-reviewed journal publications establishing the validity of the claimed problems, nor to the articles in question so that we may study them, nor to the studies’ authors’ published rebuttals (if there are any) to the published criticisms of the cited studies.
Instead, the links provided are to a posting in an anonymous blog (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-s%C3%A9ralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html?utm_source=feedly), and a personal web site posting (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/), which respectively attacked a long-term rat feeding study and a pig feeding study.
Unfortunately, the first link is an apparently invalid link as at-tempts to access it returned a “HTTP/1.0 404” error.
However, by accessing the web site, http://skeptico.blogs.com/, this re-viewer quickly found the cited entry,
“June 18, 2013
The Seralini Rule
I have a new rule for debating anti-GMO people:
If you favorably cite the 2012 Séralini rats fed on Roundup ready maize study, you just lost the argument.
If you cite this study as demonstrating any dangers in genetically modified food, you are either (a) so clueless as not to have spent 30 seconds checking to see if there are any reported problems in the study, or (b) so dishonest in citing a blatantly fraudulent study, that you are not worthy of any more serious consideration. You just lost the debate and you’re done. (Obviously you don’t lose the if you cite the study to demonstrate its flaws, only if you claim the study’s conclusions are valid.) …”.
Clearly, this intentionally anonymous blogger has an agenda that is highly biased and subjective even though this anonymous blogger claims to be objective.
From the blog entry, one can access the peer-reviewed, pub-lished article (Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov; 50(11): 4221-4231) at,
“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637”.
While this reviewer agrees that a more-robust study design might have been preferable, this reviewer notes that the designs used seem to be a copy of the “accepted” study designs used by Monsanto scientists in similar studies except that, unlike the short-term Monsanto studies, these studies continued feeding the rats for an extended period of time.
Turning to the provided valid “pig study” link, this reviewer was directly connected to http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/, which presents Mark Lynas’ views on this pig study and also provides a direct link to the peer-reviewed, published study at “http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf” (Carman JA, Vliegers HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Cinch-Jones CA, Haynes JI, Edwards JW. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. J Organic Sys. 2013; 8(1), 38-54).
Unfortunately, the information Mark Lynas provides about himself does not list any formal degrees, training or experience in the life or agricultural sciences; indicates that his major interests seem to be climatological and environmental in nature; and states that he is a “Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and the Environment”.
Further, although the writer’s claim that these studies “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”, the articles to which she links and their comments fail to provide any hard evidence that these comment posters “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
In addition, the writer’s claim, “The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest”, lacks the substantive proof needed to justify the allegations that she has made.
Moreover, since the studies seem to be effects studies, designed to identify and evaluate the effects of feeding high-GMO diets as compared to feeding low/no-GMO diets on the overall health of the animals fed an exclusive diet containing one type of feed or another, the studies were not, per se, designed to determine the safety of the different diets.
Thus, the writer’s negative comments about these two (2) studies are, at best, inappropriate and, at worst, defamatory.
GMO FOODS: BIASES AND ABSENT PROOFS OF LONG-TERM SAFETY
“I’m not sure where Kara stands on the GM issue, but Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument shows in the comments. ‘I don’t need scientists to tell me that GMOs are not a good idea,’ he says. There is an astounding level of cognitive dissonance in his statements. Though Chris brings up climate change, he misses his own point. For example, he calls out deniers, saying that ‘once enough peer-review science had been completed, still maintaining disproven beliefs would not be respectable, like in the case of global warming deniers’, then doesn’t even blink when he says ‘I would dislike GMOs whether the scientific community agreed they were bad or not. Likewise, I think we should not use Roundup, whether the scientific community agrees that it is dangerous or not.’ [emphasis mine]. This is exactly the problem.”
Here, the writer is quick to notice “Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument”, while ignoring her own obvious bias.
However, it is inappropriate to use one person’s biases as if they are representative of all persons who oppose GMO crops because: a) the GMO crops have not been proven to be either safe in the long term or nutritionally equivalent to the non-GMO crops previously grown; b) the use of the GMO seed raises the levels of the pesticides used to treat the crops as the weeds and insect pests develop resistance to the pesticides; c) as, contrary to the claim of rapid breakdown in the environment, the levels of glyphosate and other pesticides continue to increase in our drinking water supply and food; and/or d) of some other GMO-related (e.g., bt-corn) or pesticide-related (e.g., intentional promotion of an off-label use) problem.
“GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing — and passed.”
Here, the writer makes an unsubstantiated claim, “GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing”, which is, at best, deliberately vague, and, at worst, patently false.
Factually, GM crops have mostly only undergone short-term toxi-city, metabolism, and residue studies conducted by, or on behalf of, those firms who are marketing these GM crops.
Moreover, in some instances, the GM-crop candidate has been abandoned when it caused serious adverse effects even in the short-term studies typically conducted.
However, when it comes to long-term toxicity, metabolism, resi-due and environmental-impact studies, few, if any independent studies have been conducted.
Furthermore, the few independent, longer-term, feeding and environmental-impact studies that have been conducted have found evidence of serious adverse effects in rats and “unintended” transfer of pesticide resistance and other genetically inserted traits to other plants, principally “weeds” – making these weeds much harder to kill.
Given the preceding realities, this writer’s views are based on other than sound science and are apparently grounded in the pro-GMO propaganda that permeates the mainstream media and academia today.
“The simple fact is our fear of GM technology is based entirely on emotion. There is no science to support it.When it comes to GMOs, the anti crowd are not ‘raising concerns’—they’re denying scientific consensus.”
Continuing her biased attack on those individuals, groups and peer-reviewed studies that raise concerns about the safety of the entire GMO/pesticide paradigm, the writer again makes absolutist claims that, besides being at odds with some of the scientifically sound independent studies, are obviously biased to the extreme.
Further, those who question the Establishment’s GMO and/or pesticide paradigm are not denying any scientific consensus other than that “consensus” bought and paid for by the biotech and pesticide in-dustries and their direct and indirect supporters.
Until there are appropriate, independent, scientifically sound, long-term (greater than half of the life span of the animals studied) studies on the direct and indirect effects on the consumers of the products and their residues at every level – from the microbes, to the plants and the animals, including man – which clearly prove that the GMO/pesticide -containing and -derived products are sufficiently non-toxic17to those non-targeted individuals who are most susceptible to the adverse effects of such products, no one can logically or scientifi-cally assert that such are “safe”.
“There is a plethora of science that supports the safety record of GM foods. As the Skeptico blog pointed out, there are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded) that stand behind the safety record of GM crops.”
Accepting that there “are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded)”, this reviewer notes that the cited blog is admitting that about 80% of these studies are industry-overseen and/or industry-conducted studies – not even “independently funded studies”.
Further, independent funding does not ensure that the study is an independent study.
Given the careful choice of words by the anonymous writer of the cited blog, it would appear that very few of the studies are truly independent studies.
Finally, this reviewer has observed that any study that indicates there may be a problem with the Establishment’s GMO/pesticide paradigm and its authors are attacked by those who are a part of, or favor, the biotech and/or pesticide industries.
Thus, by not stating the number of truly independent studies that address “the safety record of GM crops” and providing a supporting peer- reviewed citation that supports that number, the writer seems to be hiding the scarcity or absence of truly independent safety studies.
“Scientists have been studying GMOs and their potential effects for decades. With every major scientific body saying the exact same thing, I simply don’t know how else to spell it out: there is a scientific consensus that GM foods are safe.”
Here, this reviewer simply reminds the reader that the tobacco industry used similar talking points in its decades-long knowing cover up and suppression of the risks associated with the smoking and/or chewing of its tobacco products, including the use of medical doctors in cigarette advertisements.
Further, making a statement, which is linked to an article that reports “the most important opposition currently facing the worldwide adoption of this technology: public opinion” clearly detracts from the assertion that “scientific consensus”, not propaganda, is being used to prove “GM foods are safe”.
In fact, the writer’s assertion is an implicit admission that the truly independent scientifically sound safety studies on GM foods have not established that they are safe.
Finally, this reviewer notes that one of the prime tactics that propagandists use is the repetition of less-than-truthful statements because such rhetoric eventually leads to increased public acceptance of such statements by those who, for whatever reasons, do not truly study the issues.
“Continuing to act as if the science is mixed or unclear about the safety of genetic modification is not raising a legitimate concern. It’s not even uninformed; it’s denialist. It’s right up there with the claims of anti-vaxers and climate deniers: that is, simply, flat-out, 100%, dead wrong.”
Contrary to the writer’s views, the independent science is clear that the long-term “safety of genetic modification” has not been established just as the “safety” of vaccines has not even been proven to the legal standards for such proofs as required of the manufacturers thereof by the applicable statutes and regulations18.
Moreover, this reviewer does not know of any “climate deniers” – all seem to admit that climate exists.
However, based on the current understanding of the independent sound science, those who have resisted the alarmist claims of “global warming” may have been right.
For a variety of reasons, the local climate is both changing and being actively modified but there is no independent, scientifically sound body of evidence that supports “global warming”.
Further, because most of the energy that warms the Earth comes from the Sun and the Sun’s energy output is currently declining, it would appear that, if anything, we might be entering a global cooling period19
Thus, based on the independent sound science, as he understands it, this reviewer finds that this writer’s assertions here may be, as she put it, “dead wrong”.

my response to a friend who fears vaccination and is unsure what to do.

A friend of mine posted this on my facebook wall tonight.  There is only one reason why I am sharing our conversation. I want to share our conversation because there are many other parents out there who feel the same as my friend. If this is you, and you have stumbled upon this blog for one reason or another.. this is my humble response to you. (forgive any spelling errors..i am copy and pasting this from facebook and its 2 am..this girl is tired 🙂

my friend’s concerns:

Oh help. I am so conflicted. I just got a letter from my Dr listing all the vaccines we have missed. There are 8 vaccines with multiple doses. My head might explode. I don’t want to take her in :/

The best response that I could offer her via a facebook comment box at 2 am :):

so don’t take her in. Is she sick? if she is sick and nutrition, rest and other natural healing methods aren’t making her better then, yes..definitely take her to the doctor. but why take a healthy child to a place where sick people go, if you are not going to the doctor with the intention of getting your childs shots..and since you are still so unsure..ill say what ive been saying to you for a while now 🙂 what ever your decision is..just be confident in your choice don’t do anything until you are at peace with it. now I understand that this is how I make sense of things..i am not you..you might see things differently, so from this point on just keep in mind that I am not trying to tell you what to do..i am just telling you what I would do. let me get back to the point here..if you are wanting to take Valerie in for checkups for progress reports and such..then either find a pedi who respects the fact that you need more time, or find a GP to take your kids to. Lots of people on my page do not even have pediatricians. they just take their kids to a family doctor..and from what ive heard..family doctors are much more willing to work with parents when it comes to vaccinations.

Vvaccines are not the bread and butter of family doctors..pediatricians, on the other hand, base much of their practice around vaccinations so of course its gonna be a bit tougher to find one that respects your parental rights and your ablilty to raise your children as you see fit. As long as a parent researches and is confident in what they decide to do..i say right on. If you dig in and from your digging decide that vaccinations are the road you want to go down..then right on to you..i wish more parents would do this before blindly following the untested 49 dose before the age of 6 cdc schedule..because once you research this stuff it will benefit your family. even if you decide to vaccinate, there are safer ways to vaccinate..there are things a parent can do to minimize risks, just as there are things that parents who do not vaccinate can do to minimize risks.

I would bet that more parents who do not vaccinate are aware of the things they can do to minimize risks..once you  come to the point of making such an important decision….a decision that goes against the “accepted norm,” you have ran yourself into the ground researching every last piece of information that you can find..you start off questioning your thoughts and wondering why you are even taking the time to research this, but then the more you learn, the more you find yourself displeased with the science that is telling you give your baby 8 vaccines in one day..you start to immedietly look at the conflicts of interest disclosures before even reading the article. The sad thing about this all – is that its nearly impossible to find any study that is enthusiastically in support of vaccination that does not have an author that is financially tied to a pharmaceutical company or is not conducted by or funded by an organization that stands to benefit both financially and politically from vaccinations. Studies like these are the ones telling parents that the benefits of the chickenpox vaccine outweigh the risks of actually contracting  chickenpox..or these are the studies that tell a parent its ok to give their children 8 vaccines in one day..ohh wait, my bad dude..i almost forgot..the cdc nor any other government agency has ever taken the time to study the health outcomes of the vaccination schedule. they have never openly considered the cumulative effect that all these multiple immune system activations and toxic ingredients have on a developing infant or child. They have never studied the vaccination schedule  as it is administered. Instead, they publish articles with little integrety and participate, with the help of the biased media, in making sure that everyone knows that people who question vaccines are crazy and have nothing creditable to back up why they are afraid to have their child vaccinated.  Parents are being kept blind to the truth..the truth is that it IS ok to research a potentially life or death medical procedure before consenting to it for your child. It IS ok to ask questions before consenting to the injection of multiple viruses, foreign dna, neurotoxins, and things that have not been proven as safe to be injected into your own child..your own flesh and blood..if you didn’t ask questions before hand, that is what seems more odd to me than a parent asking about the safety of this ballooning, out of control vaccination schedule.

Just an example..im sure that this past month you have heard in the news how the UK is experiencing a measles epidemic and how it is an urgent matter that parents have their children vaccinated with the very safe and effective MMR vaccine so that they will be protected from a life threatening disease. That is the only side presented by the media. Not a word is mentioned about how maybe the measles isn’t such a deadly threat. This  article was written by a doctor and it explains it far better than I can and it is well referenced.

According to the CDC, prior to the introduction of the vaccine, measles was a nearly universal infection occurring most commonly in 5-9 year olds with 90% of U.S. children immune by age 15.  Most kids recovered fully within a few weeks with life-long immunity. Reported complications from data collected between 1985-1992 included pneumonia (6%), encephalitis (.1%), seizures (.6-.7%), and death (.2%). These occurred most frequently in children under 5 and adults over 20. These complications may, in fact, have been exacerbated by allopathic interventions to treat common symptoms such as fever reduction using antipyretics.[15,16]

CDC data appears to indicate that the live-virus vaccine has been very effective at decreasing classic measles incidence in our population, however, it can take little credit for the decreased mortality in the developed world considering the death rate had decreased over 98% prior to the vaccine.[18] Never the less, vaccine advocates hail this as a victory.  The problem is that few of them question whether it was wise to prevent children from acquiring this infection naturally.  Many well-respected doctors and researchers believe that measles is a right of passage that allows a child’s immune systems to develop and strengthen. It has been documented that kids in 3rd world countries who get a wild measles infection are less susceptible to malaria and parasitic infections.[3]  Medical literature from the 1940’s documents children being cured of a kidney disorder known as nephrotic syndrome following measles.[4]

The number of classic measles cases in the US appears to have declined but any protection afforded by the vaccine is limited and often short-lived.[5]  Natural infection with wild measles creates long-lasting viral-specific and viral-neutralizing antibodies that are not acquired following vaccine-introduced infection. There are numerous documented cases of measles occurring in highly vaccinated communities [6-8, 17] which can be attributed primarily to short-term efficacy (secondary vaccine failure).  This has important implications considering the fact that measles has an increased rate of complications in adults when compared to school age children.  In 1973, persons 20 years of age or older accounted for approximately 3% of cases, however, by 2001 that number had increased to 48%.[1]

Not only are measles complications more frequent and severe in adults, but infection during pregnancy increases the risk of spontaneous abortion, premature labor and low-birth weight infants.[1]  Additionally, vaccination appears to have increased infants susceptibility to measles.

“Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33% compared with 12% for infants of older mothers.”[10]

Women of childbearing age, who in the pre-vaccine era acquired measles naturally in childhood, no longer have the robust, life-long viral-specific and viral-neutralizing immune factors to pass to their infants through the placenta and breast milk.  Injecting a measles virus produces antibodies in the serum but not in the mucosa.  Natural measles infection creates mucosal antibodies that are produced in the mammary gland providing passive immunity to the infant during breast-feeding as well as higher levels of vaccine-specific antibodies in the serum.

Measles in infancy is a risk factor for a fatal degenerative central nervous system condition known as Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE).[5]  Could we be setting the stage for disaster if and when measles reignites here in the U.S. due to either imported cases from abroad or a novel mutated strain caused by the vaccine itself?  I can predict, with absolute certainty, the response from our government health officials…more vaccines!

What about the possibility of vaccine-induced disorders not typically associated with a measles infection?  Wild measles exposure occurs through contact with the human respiratory tract. The measles vaccine introduces a lab altered, live-virus through an unnatural route of exposure.  This weakened, man-made virus can bury deep into the tissues and create a slow infection in practically any area of the body including the gastro-intestinal (GI) tract and central nervous system (CNS). The consequences of these vaccine-induced infections may not show up for months, years or decades later.

A vaccine induced form of SSPE known as Measles Inclusion-Body Encephalitis (MIBE) has been documented in children months to years following measles vaccination.[10]  Could the rapid rise in chronic inflammatory bowel and neurological disorders be caused by these slow infections? How many doctors would ever think to investigate the possibility that these illnesses may be with a distant vaccination?  To further complicate the issue, in a phenomenon known as recombination, the measles virus can combine with other live viruses in the vaccine to create a novel virus with unknown effects.[5]

The fear surrounding measles stems from ignorance.  In a well-nourished child with a properly functioning immune system, viral infections are typically subclinical or exceedingly mild.  Certain infections, such as measles, even appear to provide long-term health and immune system benefits.  Malnourishment, in particular vitamin A deficiency, is a primary cause of poor outcomes.[1] One of the most effective ways to ensure that a viral illness runs a mild or benign course is to provide children with adequate stores of vitamin A prior to exposure.

As well, high doses of vitamin A given during an acute measles infection has been shown to prevent mortality.[12]  Vitamin A works by signaling cell-mediated immune cells known as macrophages to produce an anti-viral messenger known as interferon.[13]  Young infants are unable to produce high levels of interferon [14] and, therefore, rely on passive immunity from mom for protection. It should be noted that measles vaccination has been shown to deplete levels of serum vitamin A.[2]

Many fruits and vegetables provide beta-carotene which is converted by the liver into active vitamin A (retinoids), however, the efficiency of uptake and conversion can vary based on a variety of factors.  Particularly during illness, I prefer pre-formed vitamin A from high quality, whole-food sources like cod liver oil and high-vitamin butter oil.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/measles-rash-misinformation1

The studies that built the above article are never mentioned..unless parents have the desire to search for it, they will never hear the other side. Ohh yeah..i almost forgot about this. All the reporters who covered the UK measles deadly outbreak have remained pretty silent this week..even though reports where released that show a misdiagnosis rate of 3700% in these UK ‘measles’ cases. Something like 5 cases out of 400 something reported cases actually turned out to be clinically diagnosed as the measles. (to see a report about this see here) But we didn’t hear one thing about that. All we heard about is  how measles is deadly, its  spreading, unvaccinated kids pose a threat to society and how we must get the mmr to be safe. That’s all people will remember becase that’s all people are told about. I didn’t hear one person mention the importance of vitamin A… but anyways..ive said all this just to let you know that you are not crazy for being worried about vaccinations. Listen to what your gut is telling you.

The most important thing is to PRAY ABOUT IT. I honestly believe that God opens the eyes of some people out of love and mercy to prevent them from a negative outcome.  Really pray about it..I did, and I can honestly say that I have never heard the voice of God so loudly and distinctively as I did when praying for guidance regarding vaccinations. And if you do get Valerie caught up on her shots..dear Lord..do not allow her to receive 8 vaccines at one visit. Ive obviously written a book already so I wont go into this..but just take my word for it..there is so much evidence out there that shows this is a terribly dangerous and very foolish thing to do to a child.  And why don’t you like my page already!! You don’t have to be all out anti vaccine to be apart of it.. all are welcome. Me and the other two admins post scientifically sound things for parents to educate themselves with..i am going to repost your question on my page so that you can get some other opinions. Ohh and here is a list I just put together..it is over a years worth of digging.

https://therefurbishedrogue.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/my-list-of-peer-reviewed-vaccine-research/

God did not create us with a vaccine deficiency ..he created us with strong immune systems that- if nourished well and if treated in the manor that God intended – have amazing abilities to protect, heal and to strengthen our bodies.  Gods got his hand on my children no matter what..good or bad..im trusting in him.

 

 

my list of peer reviewed vaccine research

This list is just a thrown together list and is pretty helter skelter..but, there are a lot of links to lead you down the research path if you are searching. There are are so many, many, many more out there that haven’t made it to this list. They sit and wait for me to find them..i better get to looking.. May our truth digging be successful!

Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders.

the potential effects of conjugate vaccines on neural development merit close examination. Conjugate vaccines fundamentally change the manner in which the immune systems of infants and young children function by deviating their immune responses to the targeted carbohydrate antigens from a state of hypo-responsiveness to a robust B2 B cell mediated response. This period of hypo-responsiveness to carbohydrate antigens coincides with the intense myelination process in infants and young children, and conjugate vaccines may have disrupted evolutionary forces that favored early brain development over the need to protect infants and young children from capsular bacteria.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250

Serological association of measles virus and human herpesvirus-6 with brain autoantibodies in autism.

Considering an autoimmunity and autism connection, brain autoantibodies to myelin basic protein (anti-MBP) and neuron-axon filament protein (anti-NAFP) have been found in autistic children. In this current study, we examined associations between virus serology and autoantibody by simultaneous analysis of measles virus antibody (measles-IgG), human herpesvirus-6 antibody (HHV-6-IgG), anti-MBP, and anti-NAFP. We found that measles-IgG and HHV-6-IgG titers were moderately higher in autistic children but they did not significantly differ from normal controls. Moreover, we found that a vast majority of virus serology-positive autistic sera was also positive for brain autoantibody: (i) 90% of measles-IgG-positive autistic sera was also positive for anti-MBP; (ii) 73% of measles-IgG-positive autistic sera was also positive for anti-NAFP; (iii) 84% of HHV-6-IgG-positive autistic sera was also positive for anti-MBP; and (iv) 72% of HHV-6-IgG-positive autistic sera was also positive for anti-NAFP. This study is the first to report an association between virus serology and brain autoantibody in autism; it supports the hypothesis that a virus-induced autoimmune response may play a causal role in autism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9756729

Effectiveness of pertussis vaccines for adolescents and adults: case-control study

The adjusted estimate of effectiveness of Tdap vaccination against pertussis was 53.0.

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4249

Neurologic Adverse Events Following Vaccination (Progress in Health Sciences Vol. 2(1) 2012•pp 129-141.)

“Conclusions: Despite the assurances of the necessity and safety of vaccinations, there are more and more questions and doubts, which both physicians and parents are waiting to be clarified… It seems that it would be worthwhile to apply the precautionary principle – the ethical principle (from 1988) according to which if there is a probable, although poorly known, risk of adverse effects of new technology, it is better not to implement it rather than risk uncertain but potentially very harmful consequences.”

http://progress.umb.edu.pl/sites/progress.umb.edu.pl/files/129-141.pdf

Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.

“Thus the MMR antibody in autistic sera detected measles HA protein, which is unique to the measles subunit of the vaccine. Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

 Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease

Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

An unmasking phenomenon in an observational post-licensure safety study of adolescent girls and young women.

Our recent experience in a post-licensure safety study of autoimmune conditions following the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in 189,629 girls and young women ages 9-26 years led us to question the adequacy of the exclusion of Day 0 events to prevent the erroneous association of prevalent conditions with vaccination. Of the 18 confirmed cases of Graves’ disease diagnosed in days 1-60 following vaccination, only 6 cases appeared to be truly new onset. Among the remaining 12 cases, 2 cases had abnormal thyroid stimulating hormone or thyroxine labs drawn prior to or on Day 0 but had no documented pre-existing symptoms. The other 10 cases had mention of symptoms of hyperthyroidism referencing a period prior to first HPV-4 dose. This ‘unmasking’ phenomenon, due to health care visits that include vaccination and new workups of preexisting symptoms, may not be adequately controlled through the exclusion of Day 0 events.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22580356/

 

How aluminum, an intracellular ROS generator promotes hepatic and neurological diseases: the metabolic tale

Metal pollutants are a global health risk due to their ability to contribute to a variety of diseases. Aluminum (Al), a ubiquitous environmental contaminant is implicated in anemia, osteomalacia, hepatic disorder, and neurological disorder. In this review, we outline how this intracellular generator of reactive oxygen species (ROS) triggers a metabolic shift towards lipogenesis in astrocytes and hepatocytes. This Al-evoked phenomenon is coupled to diminished mitochondrial activity, anerobiosis, and the channeling of α-ketoacids towards anti-oxidant defense. The resulting metabolic reconfiguration leads to fat accumulation and a reduction in ATP synthesis, characteristics that are common to numerous medical disorders. Hence, the ability of Al toxicity to create an oxidative environment promotes dysfunctional metabolic processes in astrocytes and hepatocytes. These molecular events triggered by Al-induced ROS production are the potential mediators of brain and liver disorders.”

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10565-013-9239-0

Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage

Conclusions: Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/29/infdis.jit143.full

“vaccine injury is so rare..don’t worry about it!” who has heard this?
“The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.. A pet…ition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table… Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on * March 13, 2013, through April 30, 2013.*”
[take note of #7 and #17..]
1. Tory J. and Sarah E. Moody on behalf of Victorya E. Moody, Bedford, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0190V.
2. Pamela Jean Peguess, Memphis, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0191V.
3. Eileen Goeschel, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0199V.
4. Kearsten Demczuk, Park Ridge, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0205V. 5. Howard Reddy and Hanan Tarabay on behalf of Andrew Howard Reddy, Pensacola, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0208V.
6. Mona Marie Troup, Everett, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0209V.
7. Angel Blackstone on behalf of S.B., Deceased, Trenton, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0213V.
8. Isidra Durwin, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0214V.
9. Nancy and Sandro Giannetta on behalf of A.M.G., Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0215V.
10. Kimberly Pedersen, West Allis, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0216V.
11. Charles and Jeannie Maikish on behalf of S.M., Nyack, New York,Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0217V.
12. Ina Scanlon, Muncie, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0219V.
13. David Stachlewitz on behalf of H.G.S., Glendale, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0220V.
14. Mary E. Thompson, Brookport, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0222V.
15. Matthew Gorski, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0224V.
16. Woodrow Coffey, Jr., Irvine, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0225V. 17. Stephen Warren on behalf of Taylor Warren, Deceased, New York, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0226V.
18. Robert Wiggins, Nashville, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0228V.
19. Peggy Kalmeyer, Depew, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0230V.
20. Rosemary and Wayne Trezza on behalf of P.T., West Orange, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0231V.
21. Jane Tomassetti, Woodbury, Minnesota, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0234V.
22. Everett Johnson, Sr., Ashland, Kentucky, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0235V.
23. Edwin W. Fockler, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0237V. 24. James Cox, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0238V. 25. Chanel and Paul A. Monroe on behalf of Angelina Monroe, Las Vegas, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0239V.
26. Noteel Koss, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0240V.
27. Tamika M. Kratzer on behalf of Ian M. Kratzer, Sacramento, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0243V.
28. Rosalie Peck, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0249V. 29. Shannon Keller, Sacramento, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0250V.
30. Edwina Bradshaw, North Myrtle Beach, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0252V.
31. William and Brenda Lehann Rodriguez on behalf of C.R., Clayton, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0253V.
32. Corrine K. Ibana, Kamuela, Hawaii, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0257V. 33. Lorel Cubano, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0259V. 34. Brittany and Davey Lambert on behalf of Noah Lambert, Memphis, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0265V.
35. Scott and Caroline VanScoy on behalf of Alyssa VanScoy, Simi Valley, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0266V.
36. Jane Sprecher, Reading, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0271V.
37. Georgia Murdock, Silver Spring, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0273V.
38. Willie Andre Simmons, Augusta, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0274V.
39. Jung Park, M.D., New York, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0275V. 40. Allison and Steven Council on behalf of Adam Council, Plainfield, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0276V.
41. Maryann Giordano, Lindenhurst, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0277V.
42. Laura A. Jones, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0279V.
43. David D. Griffin, Afghanistan, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0280V.
44. James Demoski, Endicott, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0286V. 45. Christina N. Steinat, Seattle, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0287V.
46. Jessica L. Stone, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0289V. 47. Holly Rhew, Wichita, Kansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0293V.
48. Janet DeYear, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0299V.
49. Cynthia Adkins, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0295V.
50. Saurabh V. and Archana Amin on behalf of Sheaa Amin, Linwood, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0300V.
51. Juliet and Mohamed Edoo on behalf of Justin Edoo, Miami, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0302V.
52. James Boyer, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 13-0303V.
*these are from March 13, 2013 – April 30, 2013. 48 days. what is the true number that these 52 petitions represent? how many don’t file claims? think about it..its scary. I wish we could see more about these petitions..more about the injury caused.It is impossible for a parent to make a solid risk/benefit analysis when it comes to vaccinations.. I don’t care what anyone may say.. vaccine injury is downplayed and pushed aside, disease rates and risks are over exaggerated and blasted throughout the media via mass scare campaigns (remember those 8 measly cases of the measles in Wales during the month of march 2013?) ..and natural and safe preventative measures and treatments are suppressed. How are we supposed to make an informed medical decision when it comes to our children being injected with almost 50 doses of 16 vaccines before the age of 6?

“In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life: 3 DPT injections (9 vaccine doses), 3 polio, and 3 Hib vaccines—5 vaccine doses at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. By 2007, the CDC recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines. While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by CDC guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit—even though this combination of 8 vaccine doses was never tested in clinical trials.

An article written by Guess, representing a vaccine manufacturer, claimed that it is “impractical to conduct preapproval studies of all combinations [of vaccines] in clinical practice.”1 However, a recent study by Miller and Goldman found that among the developed nations, infant mortality increased with an increase in the number of vaccine doses.2 Similar associations have also been found with respect to other serious adverse outcomes. Delong reported that the higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher the prevalence of autism or speech and language impairment.3 A CDC report on mixed exposures to chemical substances and other stressors, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, found that they may produce “increased or unexpected deleterious health effects.” In addition, “exposures to mixed stressors can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures.”4 Administering six, seven, or eight vaccine doses to an infant during a single physician visit may certainly be more convenient for parents—rather than making additional trips to the doctor’s office—but evidence of a positive association between infant adverse reactions and the number of vaccine doses administered confirms that vaccine safety must remain the highest priority”

http://het.sagepub.com/content/31/10/1012.full

“Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level?”

“This study focused on standardized embryonic and fetal Hg exposures via primary exposure to the pregnant mother of two common Hg sources (dietary fish and parenteral vaccines). Data demonstrated that Hg exposures, particularly during the first trimester of pregnancy, at well-established dose/weight ratios produced severe damage to humans including death. . In light of research suggestive of a mercuric risk factor for childhood conditions such as tic disorders, cerebral palsy, and autism, it is essential that Hg advisories account for secondary prenatal human exposures.”

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02772248.2012.724574

Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure

“Autism is a condition characterized by impaired cognitive and social skills, associated with compromised immune function. The incidence is alarmingly on the rise, and environmental factors are increasingly suspected to play a role. This paper investigates word frequency patterns in the U.S. CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database. Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.”

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227

full text: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/sls/publications/2012/entropy-14-02227.pdf

Acetaminophen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was SIGNIFICANTLY associated with autistic disorder when considering children 5 years of age or less, after limiting cases to children with regression in development and when considering only children who had post-vaccination sequelae adjusting for age, gender, mother’s ethnicity, and the presence of illness concurrent with measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Ibuprofen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was not associated with autistic disorder. This preliminary study found that acetaminophen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was associated with autistic disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445737

A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535

“Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591873

Detection of fecal shedding of rotavirus vaccine in infants following their first dose of pentavalent rotavirus vaccine. (and how they blame everything on kids that are not vaccinated is beyond me! These vaccines are helping to keep diseases in circulation..)

Studies on rotavirus vaccine shedding and its potential transmission within households including immunocompromised individuals are needed to better define the potential risks and benefits of vaccination. We examined fecal shedding of pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5) for 9 days following the first dose of vaccine in infants between 6 and 12 weeks of age. Rotavirus antigen was detected by enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and vaccine-type rotavirus was identified by nucleotide sequencing based on genetic relatedness to the RV5 VP6 gene. Stool from 22 (21.4%) of 103 children contained rotavirus antigen-positive specimens on ≥ 1 post-vaccination days. Rotavirus antigen was detected as early as post-vaccination day 3 and as late as day 9, with peak numbers of shedding on post-vaccination days 6 through 8. Vaccine-type rotavirus was detected in all 50 antigen-positive specimens and 8 of 8 antigen-negative specimens. Nine (75%) of 12 EIA-positive and 1 EIA-negative samples tested culture-positive for vaccine-type rotavirus. Fecal shedding of rotavirus vaccine virus after the first dose of RV5 occurred over a wide range of post-vaccination days not previously studied. These findings will help better define the potential for horizontal transmission of vaccine virus among immunocompromised household contacts of vaccinated infants for future studies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21477676

“Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: a case-control study.”

“Using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for asthma status stratification, there was a significant association between hospitalization in asthmatic subjects and TIV (p = 0.001). TIV did not provide any protection against hospitalization in pediatric subjects, especially children with asthma. On the contrary, we found a threefold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did get the TIV vaccine. This may be a reflection not only of vaccine effectiveness but also the population of children who are more likely to get the vaccine.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22525386

The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 6.74). The odds of having had any allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.54). The associations between vaccination and subsequent allergies and symptoms were greatest among children aged 5 through 10 years.

DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10714532

Four to 12 days post 12 month vaccination, children had a 1.33 (1.29–1.38) increased relative incidence of the combined endpoint compared to the control period, or at least one event during the risk interval for every 168 children vaccinated. Ten to 12 days post 18 month vaccination, the relative incidence was 1.25 (95%, 1.17–1.33) which represented at least one excess event for every 730 children vaccinated. The primary reason for increased events was statistically significant elevations in emergency room visits following all vaccinations. There were non-significant increases in hospital admissions. There were an additional 20 febrile seizures for every 100,000 vaccinated at 12 months.

Conclusions

There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12 and 18 month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3236196/

“Administration of thimerosal to infant rats increases overflow of glutamate and aspartate in the prefrontal cortex: protective role of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.  “

In summary, the present study documents that exposure of infant rats to THIM perturbs the balance between excitatory and inhibitory amino acids in the brain, shifting it toward excessive neuroexcitation. Despite of intrinsic limitations, present findings have important clinical implications, as they provide a plausible mechanism, whereby THIM exerts neurotoxic effects in the brain. It is likely that this mercurial—still present in pediatric vaccines in many countries—causes a similar disturbance of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters in the brains of human infants, leading to neurotoxicity, encephalopaties, and in consequence to neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism..*On the whole, the current study provides further empirical evidence that exposure to THIM leads to neurotoxic changes in the developing brain, arguing for urgent and permanent removal of this preservative from all vaccines for children (and adults) since effective, less toxic and less costly alternatives are available. The stubborn insistence of some vaccine manufacturers and health agencies on continuation of use of this proven neurotoxin in vaccines is testimony of their disregard for both the health of young generations and for the environment.*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015977

“Thus vaccination DOES NOT account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century”

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/6/1307.abstract

Thimerosal, an organomercurial added as a preservative to some vaccines, is a suspected iatrogenic factor, possibly contributing to paediatric neurodevelopmental disorders including autism. We examined the effects of early postnatal administration of thimerosal (four i.m. injections, 12 or 240 μg THIM-Hg/kg, on postnatal days 7, 9, 11 and 15) on brain pathology in Wistar rats. Numerous neuropathological changes were observed in young adult rats which were treated postnatally with thimerosal. They included: ischaemic degeneration of neurons and “dark” neurons in the prefrontal and temporal cortex, the hippocampus and the cerebellum, pathological changes of the blood vessels in the temporal cortex, diminished synaptophysin reaction in the hippocampus, atrophy of astroglia in the hippocampus and cerebellum, and positive caspase-3 reaction in Bergmann astroglia. These findings document neurotoxic effects of thimerosal, at doses equivalent to those used in infant vaccines or higher, in developing rat brain, suggesting likely involvement of this mercurial in neurodevelopmental disorders.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225508

and it’s the unvaccinated that are spreading pertussis?

“Despite widespread vaccination, whooping cough incidence is on the rise worldwide, making it the only vaccine-preventable disease associated with increasing deaths in the United States. Although this disease is most often attributed to Bordetella pertussis infection, it is also caused by the closely related pathogen, B. parapertussis. However, B. pertussis has remained the center of attention, whereas B. parapertussis has been greatly overlooked in the development of whooping cough vaccines.

vaccination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of mice.. these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection.”

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis

Despite widespread childhood vaccination against Bordetella pertussis, disease remains prevalent. It has been suggested that acellular vaccine may be less effective than previously believed. During a large outbreak, we examined the incidence of pertussis and effectiveness of vaccination in a well-vaccinated, well-defined community.. Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/cid.cis287.short

In the last 3 decades, there has been an unexplained increase in the prevalence of asthma and hay fever.

OBJECTIVE:

We sought to determine whether there is an association between childhood vaccination and atopic diseases, and we assessed the self-reported prevalence of atopic diseases in a population that included a large number of families not vaccinating their children.

RESULTS:

The data included 515 never vaccinated, 423 partially vaccinated, and 239 completely vaccinated children. In multiple regression analyses there were significant ( P < .0005) and dose-dependent negative relationships between vaccination refusal and self-reported asthma or hay fever only in children with no family history of the condition and, for asthma, in children with no exposure to antibiotics during infancy. Vaccination refusal was also significantly ( P < .005) and negatively associated with self-reported eczema and current wheeze. A sensitivity analysis indicated that substantial biases would be required to overturn the observed associations.

CONCLUSION:

Parents who refuse vaccinations reported less asthma and allergies in their unvaccinated children. Although this relationship was independent of measured confounders, it could be due to differences in other unmeasured lifestyle factors or systematic bias. Further research is needed to verify these results and investigate which exposures are driving the associations between vaccination refusal and allergic disease..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15805992

“Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000 dollars, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15231927

Although persons often use vaccination and immunization interchangeably in reference to active immunization, the terms are not synonomous because the administration of an immunobiologic cannot be automatically equated with the development of adequate immunity.

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000348/p0000348.asp#head002000000000000

“Virus-induced autoimmunity may play a causal role in autism. To examine the etiologic link of viruses in this brain disorder, we conducted a serologic study of measles virus, mumps virus, and rubella virus. Viral antibodies were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the serum of autistic children, normal children, and siblings of autistic children. The level of measles antibody, but not mumps or rubella antibodies, was significantly higher in autistic children as compared with normal children (P = 0.003) or siblings of autistic children (P <or= 0.0001). Furthermore, immunoblotting of measles vaccine virus revealed that the antibody was directed against a protein of approximately 74 kd molecular weight. The antibody to this antigen was found in 83% of autistic children but not in normal children or siblings of autistic children. Thus autistic children have a hyperimmune response to measles virus, which in the absence of a wild type of measles infection might be a sign of an abnormal immune reaction to the vaccine strain or virus reactivation.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883

We do not vaccinate against yellow fever in the US but this still is of importance because it shows that things like this can and HAVE happened.

“However, in 2001, the vaccine was found to cause a serious, frequently fatal, multisystemic illness, called yellow fever vaccine–associated viscerotropic disease (YEL-AVD), which resembles the illness it was designed to prevent (1–3). ”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310656/

Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the Community-Dwelling Elderly

“Most high-risk medical conditions that were measured were more prevalent among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons.”

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189023

” The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous 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 VAERS database was searched for reports of fetal demise following administration of the influenza vaccine/vaccines to pregnant women.. reporting bias was too low to explain the magnitude increase in fetal-demise reporting rates in the VAERS database relative to the reported annual trends. Thus, a synergistic fetal toxicity likely resulted from the administration of both the pandemic (A-H1N1) and seasonal influenza vaccines during the 2009/2010 season.”

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.abstract

Hepatitis B vaccine might be followed by various rheumatic conditions and might trigger the onset of underlying inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases.. Further epidemiological studies are needed to establish whether hepatitis B vaccination is associated or not with an incidence of rheumatic disorders higher than normal. A few cases of onset or reactivation of SLE after vaccination against hepatitis B have been described. The onset of symptoms occurred within 5 days–1 month after the immunization. Two patients had a lupus nephritis (associated in one with fever and arthralgia), one patient had pericarditis, one had thrombocytopenic purpura.. We observed four patients with myalgia and polyarthralgia, and, in three of them, fatigue following hepatitis B vaccination. These manifestations can be connected to the chronic fatigue syndrome. A few years ago, an independent working group agreed that there was no evidence of a cause–effect relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and chronic fatigue syndrome [37]. However, the number of patients followed up may have been too small to detect a slight increase in the relative risk.

Various other conditions following hepatitis B vaccination have been described. They include erythema nodosum and polyarthritis [21], erythema nodosum with arthralgia and Takayasu’s arteritis [38], vasculitis [39–41], polyarthritis associated with hypercalcaemia and lytic bone lesions [29].

http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/10/978.long

“Autoimmunity to the central nervous system (CNS), especially to myelin basic protein (MBP), may play a causal role in autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. Because many autistic children harbor elevated levels of measles antibodies, we conducted a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and MBP autoantibodies. Using serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 control children, antibodies were assayed by ELISA or immunoblotting methods. ELISA analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. Immunoblotting analysis revealed the presence of an unusual MMR antibody in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but not in control sera. This antibody specifically detected a protein of 73-75 kD of MMR. This protein band, as analyzed with monoclonal anti bodies, was immunopositive for measles hemagglutinin (HA) protein but not for measles nucleoprotein and rubella or mumps viral proteins. Thus the MMR antibody in autistic sera detected measles HA protein, which is unique to the measles subunit of the vaccine. Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

http://vran.org/wp-content/documents/VRAN-Abnormal%20Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Antibodies-CNS-Autoimmunity-Children-Autism-Singh-Lin-Newell-Nelson.pdf

“Autoimmune hazards of hepatitis B vaccine”

“According to Hippocratic tradition, the safety level of a preventive medicine must be very high, as it is aimed at protecting people against diseases that they may not contract. This paper points out that information on the safety of hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) is biased as compared to classical requirements of evidence-based medicine (EBM), as exemplified by a documented selectivity in the presentation or even publication of available clinical or epidemiological data. Then, a review is made of data suggesting that HBV is remarkable by the frequency, the severity and the variety of its complications, some of them probably related to a mechanism of molecular mimicry leading to demyelinating diseases, and the others reproducing the spectrum of non-hepatic manifestations of natural hepatitis B. To be explained, this unusual spectrum of toxicity requires additional investigations based upon complete release of available data.

-More research is necessary and there is a need that the scientific community exerts pressure on health authorities to obtain that all existing data become available for peer-reviewed debate.

-There is an impressive convergence of data given credibility to a potential of this vaccine to induce severe and irreversible central demyelinating disorders.

-A number of clinical or epidemiological data on the safety hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) have not been published and do not seem to be.

-Modern vaccine research and development does not comply with basic requirements of evidence based medicine (EBM).”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15722255

FULL TEXT http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/autoimmune-hazards-hepB-vaccine1.pdf

“We find that ethylmercury not only inhibits mitochondrial respiration leading to a drop in the steady state membrane potential, but also concurrent with these phenomena increases the formation of superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and Fenton/Haber-Weiss generated hydroxyl radical. These oxidants increase the levels of cellular aldehyde/ketones. Additionally, we find a five-fold increase in the levels of oxidant damaged mitochondrial DNA bases and increases in the levels of mtDNA nicks and blunt-ended breaks.. These mitochondria appear to have undergone a permeability transition, an observation supported by the five-fold increase in Caspase-3 activity observed after Thimerosal treatment.”

*the next time someone says that ethylmercury is ok for children ask them to read this article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395253/

The main route of Al excretion is the urine; therefore, subjects with kidney malfunction or immature kidney, such as nephropathy patients or neonates, might experience toxic accumulation of Al in the body [12]. Infant formula is the primary food source for bottle-fed neonates. The study of Yuan et al reviewed several other studies and reported that most commercial infant formulas contained higher Al (6.5 μM to 87 μM) than human breast milk (0.2 μM to 1.7 μM) [12]. Infants display rapid growth and their brain-blood-barrier, detoxification system (liver), and excretory system (kidney) are not well-developed [13,14]. Aluminum can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in glial and neural cells [15]. Thus, high intake of Al-containing formula might cause accumulation of Al in the neonatal brain, interfering with appropriate development.

In previous studies, exposure to excess dietary Al during gestation and lactation periods had no toxic effects on the mother, but resulted in persistent neurobehavioral deficits in the pups, such as defects in the sensory motor reflexes, locomotor activity, learning capability, and cognitive behavior [16,17]. These behavioral studies, therefore, suggested that Al exposure might cause developmental changes in neonatal brain. Until recently, a marker with which to effectively detect neonatal brain development was lacking. The group’s previous study with Al treatment in neonatal rat hippocampal neurons at concentrations of 37 μM and 74 μM for 14 days significantly reduced NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor) expression which was used as a marker of brain development. This suggested that Al exposure might influence the development of hippocampal neurons in neonatal rats.

http://www.jbiomedsci.com/content/19/1/51

The future of measles in highly immunized population. A modeling approach

However, despite short-term success in eliminating the disease, long-range projections demonstrate that the proportion of susceptibles in the year 2050 may be greater than in the prevaccine era. Present vaccine technology and public health policy must be altered to deal with this eventuality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6741921

Summary

In conclusion, by apparently prioritizing vaccination policy over vaccine safety, the JCVI, the DH

and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) may have shown a disregard for the safety of

children. Through selective data reporting, the JCVI in conjunction with the DH, has promulgated

information relating to vaccine safety that may be inaccurate and potentially misleading, thereby

making it impossible for the parents to make a fully informed consent regarding vaccination.

Furthermore, by 1) apparently misleading patients about the true risks of adverse reactions as to

gain their consent for the administration of the treatment and 2) seemingly siding with vaccine

manufacturers rather than public health interests, the JCVI and the CSM appear to have signally

failed their fiduciary duty to protect individuals from vaccines of questionable safety. If these

provisional conclusions are indeed correct, then the information presented here may help us in

understanding the UK government’s and the JCVI’s official position on vaccine damage, that is, one

of persistent denial.

http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

“One way forward that appears to be favoured by most in the medical establishment is to continue to add more and more vaccines indiscriminately to the immunisation schedule in ever larger combinations. Just to question this policy is to be accused of putting children’s lives at risk and of being “anti-vaccine”. I have been called “anti-vaccine” even though I actually run a children’s immunisation clinic!

The government can;t bear any suggestion of lack of safety of vaccines. They will not even discuss it. I think they have a policy of suppression of any discussion on safety. This was said by a leading vaccine expert with the Cochrane Collaboration, a widely respected international not-for-profit and independent organisation, dedicated to making up-to-date and accurate information about the effects of health care readily available worldwide.

I would advocate another way forward: a more cautious approach incorporating honesty about the true benefits and risks of vaccination to enable parents to make a genuinely informed choice. I would like to see an environment in which parents are able to have a rational discussion without bullying, patronising, condescension and being accused of putting their child at risk.”

“Vaccine, Atopy and Allergy: Problems and Solutions”

http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2-halvorsen.pdf

Prior to the introduction of vaccines, children who were absent at a village examination had the same mortality as children who were present. During 1984-1987, children receiving DTP at 2-8 months of age had higher mortality over the next 6 months, the mortality rate ratio (MR) being 1.92 (95% CI: 1.04, 3.52) compared with DTP-unvaccinated children, adjusting for age, sex, season, period, BCG, and region. The MR was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.95, 3.45) for the first dose of DTP and 4.36 (95% CI: 1.28, 14.9) for the second and third dose. BCG was associated with slightly lower mortality (MR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.30, 1.33), the MR for DTP and BCG being significantly inversed. Following subsequent visits and further vaccinations with DTP and measles vaccine, there was no difference in vaccination coverage and subsequent mortality between the DTP-vaccinated group and the initially DTP-unvaccinated group (MR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.44).

CONCLUSIONS:

In low-income countries with high mortality, DTP as the last vaccine received may be associated with slightly increased mortality. Since the pattern was inversed for BCG, the effect is unlikely to be due to higher-risk children having received vaccination. The role of DTP in high mortality areas needs to be clarified.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082643

Aluminium is the most widely distributed metal in the environment and is extensively used in daily life that provides easy exposure to human beings. The exposure to this toxic metal occurs through air, food and water. However, there is no known physiological role for aluminium within the body and hence this metal may produce adverse physiological effects. Chronic exposure of animals to aluminium is associated with behavioural, neuropathological and neurochemical changes. Among them, deficits of learning and behavioural functions are most evident. Some epidemiological studies have shown poor performance in cognitive tests and a higher abundance of neurological symptoms for workers occupationally exposed to aluminium.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19568732

High blood mercury level was associated with ADHD. Whether the relationship is causal requires further studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=17177150

conflicts of interest? Wow..this is from a study that concluded that boys need the HPV vaccine..a vaccine for cervical cancer. You can find this info at the bottom of the article.

“Supported by Merck and by grants (M01-RR-00079 and UL1 RR024131, to Dr. Palefsky) from the National Center for Research Resources and by a grant (RO1 CA098803, to Dr. Giuliano) from the National Institutes of Health.

Drs. Giuliano, Ferris, Moreira, Penny, and Palefsky report receiving grant support from Merck, either personally or through their institution; Dr. Penny reports receiving grant support from GlaxoSmithKline; Dr. Goldstone reports receiving grant support from Qiagen; Drs. Giuliano, Ferris, Moreira, Hillman, and Chang report receiving speaking fees or fees for board membership from Merck; Dr. Moi reports that his institution has received funding from Merck; Dr. Penny reports having stock or stock options in AstraZeneca; Dr. Palefsky reports receiving consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline; Drs. Giuliano, Palefsky, Goldstone, Moreira, Moi, and Chang report receiving travel reimbursement from Merck; Dr. Bryan reports having an approved, filed, or pending patent related to subject matter discussed in this article; and Dr. Bryan, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Vuocolo, Dr. Barr, Dr. Haupt, Mr. Radley, and Dr. Guris are employees of Merck and own Merck stock or stock options.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495065/

Abstract: Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90

years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably

poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that

aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants

have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for

autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread

adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential

adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present

paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.

http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

High reprint orders in medical journals and pharmaceutical industry funding: case-control study

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4212

about the author: ”  RS was an editor for the BMJ for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.”

“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way” [2]. Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry” [4]. Something is clearly up.

The Problem: Less to Do with Advertising, More to Do with Sponsored Trials

The most conspicuous example of medical journals’ dependence on the pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The advertisements may often be misleading [5,6] and the profits worth millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to discounting the claims of advertisers.

The much bigger problem lies with the original studies, particularly the clinical trials, published by journals. Far from discounting these, readers see randomised controlled trials as one of the highest forms of evidence. A large trial published in a major journal has the journal’s stamp of approval (unlike the advertising), will be distributed around the world, and may well receive global media coverage, particularly if promoted simultaneously by press releases from both the journal and the expensive public-relations firm hired by the pharmaceutical company that sponsored the trial. For a drug company, a favourable trial is worth thousands of pages of advertising, which is why a company will sometimes spend upwards of a million dollars on reprints of the trial for worldwide distribution. The doctors receiving the reprints may not read them, but they will be impressed by the name of the journal from which they come. The quality of the journal will bless the quality of the drug.

Fortunately from the point of view of the companies funding these trials—but unfortunately for the credibility of the journals who publish them—these trials rarely produce results that are unfavourable to the companies’ products [7,8]. Paula Rochon and others examined in 1994 all the trials funded by manufacturers of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for arthritis that they could find [7]. They found 56 trials, and not one of the published trials presented results that were unfavourable to the company that sponsored the trial. Every trial showed the company’s drug to be as good as or better than the comparison treatment.

By 2003 it was possible to do a systematic review of 30 studies comparing the outcomes of studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry with those of studies funded from other sources [8]. Some 16 of the studies looked at clinical trials or meta-analyses, and 13 had outcomes favourable to the sponsoring companies. Overall, studies funded by a company were four times more likely to have results favourable to the company than studies funded from other sources. In the case of the five studies that looked at economic evaluations, the results were favourable to the sponsoring company in every case.

The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry [9]. For the BMJ, it’s only one-third—partly, perhaps, because the journal has less influence than the others in North America, which is responsible for half of all the revenue of drug companies, and partly because the journal publishes more cluster-randomised trials (which are usually not drug trials) [9].

Why Do Pharmaceutical Companies Get the Results They Want?

Why are pharmaceutical companies getting the results they want? Why are the peer-review systems of journals not noticing what seem to be biased results? The systematic review of 2003 looked at the technical quality of the studies funded by the industry and found that it was as good—and often better—than that of studies funded by others [8]. This is not surprising as the companies have huge resources and are very familiar with conducting trials to the highest standards.

The companies seem to get the results they want not by fiddling the results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer review, but rather by asking the “right” questions—and there are many ways to do this [10]. Some of the methods for achieving favourable results are listed in the Sidebar, but there are many ways to hugely increase the chance of producing favourable results, and there are many hired guns who will think up new ways and stay one jump ahead of peer reviewers.

Then, various publishing strategies are available to ensure maximum exposure of positive results. Companies have resorted to trying to suppress negative studies [11,12], but this is a crude strategy—and one that should rarely be necessary if the company is asking the “right” questions. A much better strategy is to publish positive results more than once, often in supplements to journals, which are highly profitable to the publishers and shown to be of dubious quality [13,14]. Companies will usually conduct multicentre trials, and there is huge scope for publishing different results from different centres at different times in different journals. It’s also possible to combine the results from different centres in multiple combinations.

These strategies have been exposed in the cases of risperidone [15] and odansetron [16], but it’s a huge amount of work to discover how many trials are truly independent and how many are simply the same results being published more than once. And usually it’s impossible to tell from the published studies: it’s necessary to go back to the authors and get data on individual patients.

Peer Review Doesn’t Solve the Problem

Journal editors are becoming increasingly aware of how they are being manipulated and are fighting back [17,18], but I must confess that it took me almost a quarter of a century editing for the BMJ to wake up to what was happening. Editors work by considering the studies submitted to them. They ask the authors to send them any related studies, but editors have no other mechanism to know what other unpublished studies exist. It’s hard even to know about related studies that are published, and it may be impossible to tell that studies are describing results from some of the same patients. Editors may thus be peer reviewing one piece of a gigantic and clever marketing jigsaw—and the piece they have is likely to be of high technical quality. It will probably pass peer review, a process that research has anyway shown to be an ineffective lottery prone to bias and abuse [19].

Furthermore, the editors are likely to favour randomised trials. Many journals publish few such trials and would like to publish more: they are, as I’ve said, a superior form of evidence. The trials are also likely to be clinically interesting. Other reasons for publishing are less worthy. Publishers know that pharmaceutical companies will often purchase thousands of dollars’ worth of reprints, and the profit margin on reprints is likely to be 70%. Editors, too, know that publishing such studies is highly profitable, and editors are increasingly responsible for the budgets of their journals and for producing a profit for the owners. Many owners—including academic societies—depend on profits from their journals. An editor may thus face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest: publish a trial that will bring US$100 000 of profit or meet the end-of-year budget by firing an editor.

Journals Should Critique Trials, Not Publish Them

How might we prevent journals from being an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies in publishing trials that favour their products? Editors can review protocols, insist on trials being registered, demand that the role of sponsors be made transparent, and decline to publish trials unless researchers control the decision to publish [17,18]. I doubt, however, that these steps will make much difference. Something more fundamental is needed.

Firstly, we need more public funding of trials, particularly of large head-to-head trials of all the treatments available for treating a condition. Secondly, journals should perhaps stop publishing trials. Instead, the protocols and results should be made available on regulated Web sites. Only such a radical step, I think, will stop journals from being beholden to companies. Instead of publishing trials, journals could concentrate on critically describing them.

Examples of Methods for Pharmaceutical Companies to Get the Results They Want from Clinical Trials

Conduct a trial of your drug against a treatment known to be inferior.

Trial your drugs against too low a dose of a competitor drug.

Conduct a trial of your drug against too high a dose of a competitor drug (making your drug seem less toxic).

Conduct trials that are too small to show differences from competitor drugs.

Use multiple endpoints in the trial and select for publication those that give favourable results.

Do multicentre trials and select for publication results from centres that are favourable.

Conduct subgroup analyses and select for publication those that are favourable.

Present results that are most likely to impress—for example, reduction in relative rather than absolute risk”

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

Failure of the excretory system influences elimination of heavy metals and facilitates their accumulation and subsequent manifestation as neurotoxins: the long-term consequences of which would lead to neurodegeneration, cognitive and developmental problems. It may also influence regulation of neural hyperthermia. This article explores the issues and concludes that sensory dysfunction and systemic failure, manifested as autism, is the inevitable consequence arising from subtle DNA alteration and consequently from the overuse of vaccines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/

The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled “Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review.” The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.

Ratajczak’s article states, in part, that “Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination [emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain.”

The article goes on to discuss many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time. “What I have published is highly concentrated on hypersensitivity, Ratajczak told us in an interview, “the body’s immune system being thrown out of balance.”

Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn’t been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That’s right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.

Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: “Because it’s human DNA and recipients are humans, there’s homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it’s changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it’s an ongoing inflammation. It doesn’t stop, it continues through the life of that individual.”

Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, “It does not matter…Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism.” Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.

A number of independent scientists have said they’ve been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what she was allowed to publish. “I’m retired now,” she told CBS News. “I can write what I want.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

great summary: http://danmurphydc.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/AR-10-12-rata-AUTISM-VACCINE.pdf

abstract: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086

“Vaccines are not subject to double blind clinical trials despite the evidence of vaccine-drug interactions and perhaps also of vaccine-vaccine interactions.”

“Whooping cough is becoming increasingly prevalent[168–170]. Although claimed to be 88 per cent effective among children of 7-18 months, during a nationwide epidemic of whooping cough in 1993, a group of researchers discovered that 82 per cent had completed their full complement of DPT vaccines[171]. Others have commented that the whooping cough vaccine is only to be 36% effective[109].

Many studies show that the measles vaccine isn’t completely effective[172–175] and that a significant proportion of those infected in measles outbreaks (>60%) had been vaccinated. There is also a lack of consensus concerning the effectiveness of whole or acellular vaccines, each having their own side-effects and effectiveness[176] e.g. vaccine efficacy was estimated at 75.4% for an acellular 5 component vaccine, 42.4% for an acellular two component vaccine and 28% for a whole cell DTP vaccine[177]. The whole-cell vaccine was associated with different levels of side-effects including significantly higher rates of crying, cyanosis, fever, and local reactions than the other three vaccines.”

“Aluminum also shares common mechanisms with mercury e.g. it interferes with cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system. Children given the recommended vaccinations are injected with nearly 5 mg of aluminum by the time they are just 1.5 years old, almost 6 times the safe level. Furthermore the nature of the Aluminium affects the prevailing blood levels and is also increasingly implicated, through their use as vaccine adjuvants, in autism[252].”

“Where is the proof that vaccines are safe? The argument has never been that they are completely safe but that the consequences are less than having the disease. Now it is illustrated that the consequences of intensive vaccination schedules pose a greater risk than could ever have been imagined. This leads to the evolution of new viral strains, an unsurprising development when the environment to which it is exposed is being altered by new proteins, structural variants and ALTERED DNA.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/

over 600 peer reviewed citations that show a link between vaccines and autism. How is it possible that the majority of society thinks that we are crazy ..? The studies that they based this belief on were funded by companies and affliated with groups that all profit because of vaccines. The saddest part of this all is that these studies were all apart of a strategy to make people feel this way..and it worked. Slowly though, because of the voices that will not stop, people are starting to hear the truth.

warning: do not click on this link if you are on your phone and dont want to upload a 3 mb pdf :

http://www.tacanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/autism-studies-april-2008.pdf

 

the potential conflicts from this article that, or course, shows no connection:

“Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses”

“Potential conflicts of interest.P.A.O.[ PAO is one of the authors of this paper- Paul Offit.]  is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific advisory board to Merck.”

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full

“Repeated immunization with antigen causes systemic autoimmunity in mice otherwise not prone to spontaneous autoimmune diseases. Overstimulation of CD4+ T cells led to the development of autoantibody-inducing CD4+ T (aiCD4+ T) cell which had undergone T cell receptor (TCR) revision and was capable of inducing autoantibodies. The aiCD4+ T cell was induced by de novo TCR revision but not by cross-reaction, and subsequently overstimulated CD8+ T cells, driving them to become antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL). These CTLs could be further matured by antigen cross-presentation, after which they caused autoimmune tissue injury akin to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Conclusions/Significance

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

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008382

this talks about aluminum exposure from infant formula..im not sure why they never mention aluminum exposure from vaccines. newborn rats were injected with aluminum chloride..not sure why all the harm done because of this and the “cause for concern” is not ever connected to vaccines. Given the fact that a vaccine with 250mcg of aluminum is recommended for every 1 day old baby born in this country.. and then multiple loads of aluminum at 2,4,6 and 12-18 months and so on..its a surprise to me that they failed to mention vaccines.

“Aluminum overload increases oxidative stress in four functional brain areas of neonatal rats”

Aluminum overload increases oxidative stress (H2O2) in the hippocampus, diencephalon, cerebellum, and brain stem in neonatal rats. (In humans, oxidative stress is thought to be involved in the development of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, atherosclerosis, heart failure, myocardial infarction, fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease,lichen planus, vitiligo, autism, and chronic fatigue syndrome) .

“The main route of Al excretion is the urine; therefore, subjects with kidney malfunction or immature kidney, such as nephropathy patients or neonates, might experience toxic accumulation of Al in the body [12]. Infant formula is the primary food source for bottle-fed neonates. The study of Yuan et al reviewed several other studies and reported that most commercial infant formulas contained higher Al (6.5 μM to 87 μM) than human breast milk (0.2 μM to 1.7 μM) [12]. Infants display rapid growth and their brain-blood-barrier, detoxification system (liver), and excretory system (kidney) are not well-developed [13,14]. Aluminum can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in glial and neural cells [15]. Thus, high intake of Al-containing formula might cause accumulation of Al in the neonatal brain, interfering with appropriate development.

In previous studies, exposure to excess dietary Al during gestation and lactation periods had no toxic effects on the mother, but resulted in persistent neurobehavioral deficits in the pups, such as defects in the sensory motor reflexes, locomotor activity, learning capability, and cognitive behavior [16,17]. These behavioral studies, therefore, suggested that Al exposure might cause developmental changes in neonatal brain. Until recently, a marker with which to effectively detect neonatal brain development was lacking. The group’s previous study with Al treatment in neonatal rat hippocampal neurons at concentrations of 37 μM and 74 μM for 14 days significantly reduced NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor) expression which was used as a marker of brain development. This suggested that Al exposure might influence the development of hippocampal neurons in neonatal rats [12].”

http://www.jbiomedsci.com/content/19/1/51

Lasting neuropathological changes in rat brain after intermittent neonatal administration of thimerosal. “These findings document neurotoxic effects of thimerosal, at doses equivalent to those used in infant vaccines or higher, in developing rat brain, suggesting likely involvement of this mercurial in neurodevelopmental disorders”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225508

The ACIP policy recommendation of routinely administering influenza vaccine during pregnancy is ill-advised and unsupported by current scientific literature, and it should be withdrawn. Use of thimerosal during pregnancy should be contraindicated.

adult influenza vaccines contain an equivalent of 25 µg of mercury per dose (Table 1). An average-sized pregnant woman receiving an influenza vaccine will be exposed to organic mercury that exceeds the EPA limit by a factor of 3.5 (Table 4). The fetus could potentially receive a dose of mercury that exceeds EPAlimits by a much larger factor. Furthermore, fetal blood mercury concentrations have been shown to be as much as 4.3 times the maternal level. Alarger proportion of ethyl mercury accumulates in fetal tissues relative to maternal tissues, especially in the central nervous system. The observation of a 7.8-15.7% prevalence of elevated umbilical cord mercury in the United States, at levels associated with loss of IQ, adds to the significance of additional mercury exposure from prenatal vaccination.

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf

ive heard a lot of people try to discredit this study, and maybe some of the things they are saying are justified…but there is no getting around the solid conclusion of this article. less vaccines = less death

“The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. [infant mortality rate] Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined.. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges, 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.”

[a part of the study also looks at SIDS]

“Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.14 Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/#bibr25-0960327111407644

[this article was recently published in the journal, Lupus. The article is heavily-cited, and all factual claims are backed up by citations of studies. this study can also be found on pubmed and sage but you have to pay to see the full text.]

“Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity. In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic.

Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs…infants and children should not be viewed as ‘‘small adults’’ with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., ‘‘ASIA’’), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in ‘‘ASIA’’ and are thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and (iv) the same components of the neuroimmune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants.”

http://vaccinesafetycouncilminnesota.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Mechanisms-of-aluminum-adjuvant-toxicity-and-autoimmunity-in-pediatric-populations.pdf

Just one example of the great safety measure taken by vaccine researchers (4 day follow up period!! thats it?):

“Pain at the injection site (dTpa-IPV: 63.6%; DTPa-IPV: 63.2%) and fatigue (dTpa-IPV: 26.5%; DTPa-IPV: 23.7%) were the most commonly reported solicited local and general symptoms,* during the 4-d follow-up period.* No SAEs or fatalities were reported.”

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/vaccines/article/18650/?show_full_text=true&

“One of the challenges of evidence-based evaluation of vaccines is that some effects, e.g. rare adverse effects following immunization (AEFI) or population effects, are usually difficult or impossible to assess in pre-marketing clinical trials due to their limited size and are unknown at the time of recommendation [6] and [7]. The respective evidence arises usually through post-marketing surveillance. Another challenge is the use of immunogenicity markers in vaccine studies. While these accepted correlates of protection are adequate for regulatory purposes, they are considered indirect evidence and are therefore of lesser quality with regard to the primary question of how effectively a vaccine can prevent the disease. Generating the evidence through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the post-marketing phase might be difficult for ethical reasons or logistically challenging and very expensive. Therefore, one often has to rely on epidemiological observational studies to adjust programs. According to the principles of epidemiology and the criteria of evidence-based medicine (EBM), however, observational studies have greater potential for bias and confounding compared to RCTs, and may be attributed a lower score of quality of evidence even though they could have been designed and implemented very well and lead to results that are relevant and more valid (e.g. post-licensure studies on measles vaccine safety [8]). Lower grading from observational studies could potentially lead to a lower public confidence in recommendations and immunization programs ”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1101927X

“Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research studies of workers exposed to formaldehyde have suggested an association between formaldehyde exposure and several cancers, including nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia.”

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehyde

“ However, since vaccine preparation involves the use of materials of biological origin, vaccines are subject to contamination by micro-organisms. In fact, vaccine contamination has occurred; a historical example of vaccine contamination, for example, can be found in the early days of development of the smallpox vaccine. The introduction of new techniques of vaccine virus production on cell cultures has lead to safer vaccines, but has not completely removed the risk of virus contamination. There are several examples of vaccine contamination, for example, contamination of human vaccines against poliomyelitis by SV40 virus from the use of monkey primary renal cells. Several veterinary vaccines have been contaminated by pestiviruses from foetal calf serum.

These incidents have lead industry to change certain practices and regulatory authorities to develop more stringent and detailed requirements. But the increasing number of target species for vaccines, the diversity of the origin of biological materials and the extremely high number of known and unknown viruses and their constant evolution represent a challenge to vaccine producers and regulatory authorities.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045105610000734

for a  more indepth look see: http://vaccineresearchlibrary.com/weekly-scream-8/

and this may be the scariest of them all..DNA contamination..

Virus-based vaccines are made in living cells (cell substrates). Some manufacturers are investigating the use of new cell lines to make vaccines. The continual growth of cell lines ensures that there is a consistent supply of the same cells that can yield high quantities of the vaccine.

In some cases the cell lines that are used might be tumorigenic, that is, they form tumors when injected into rodents. Some of these tumor-forming cell lines may contain cancer-causing viruses that are not actively reproducing. Such viruses are hard to detect using standard methods. These latent, or “quiet,” viruses pose a potential threat, since they might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions. Therefore, to ensure the safety of vaccines, our laboratory is investigating ways to activate latent viruses in cell lines and to detect the activated viruses, as well as other unknown viruses, using new technologies. [they are investigating it..so that means everyone getting vaccines now is in danger of the silent viruses..fun..umm..no.]

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/scienceresearch/biologicsresearchareas/ucm127327.htm

some more about contamination..

Porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV1) is highly prevalent in swine and was recently reported in some rotavirus vaccines. Since animal-derived raw materials, such as cells, trypsin, and serum, can be a major source of introducing virus contamination in biological products, we have investigated PCV1 in several cell lines obtained from ATCC that have broad use in research, diagnostics, or vaccine development. It is expected that these cell lines have been exposed to bovine and porcine viruses during their establishment and passage history due to the use of serum and trypsin that was not qualified according to current testing guidances or processed using new virus-inactivation methods. This study showed that Vero, MRC-5, and CEFs, which represent cell substrates used in some U.S. licensed vaccines, and other cell lines used in investigational vaccines, such as MDCK, HEK-293, HeLa, and A549, were negative for PCV1 using a nested PCR assay; some were also confirmed negative by infectivity analysis. However, MDBK cells, which are used for some animal vaccines, contained PCV1 sequences, although no virus was isolated. Although the results showed that PCV infection may not have occurred under previous culture conditions, the recent cases of vaccine contamination emphasizes the need for continued efforts to reduce the likelihood of introducing viruses from animal-derived materials used in product manufacture.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835219?dopt=Abstract

The National Cancer Institute owned patents for the HPV vaccine. Mmm…

http://vaccineresearchlibrary.com/scream-13-nci-owned-hpv-vaccine-patents/

Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning

“Thimerosal, a preservative added to many vaccines, has become a major source of mercury in children who, within their first two years, may have received a quantity of mercury that exceeds safety guidelines. A review of medical literature and US government data suggests that: (i) many cases of idiopathic autism are induced by early mercury exposure from thimerosal; (ii) this type of autism represents an unrecognized mercurial syndrome; and (iii) genetic and non-genetic factors establish a predisposition whereby thimerosal’s adverse effects occur only in some children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848

“Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration.”

“Possible causes of GWS include several of the adjuvants in the anthrax vaccine and others. The most likely culprit appears to be aluminum hydroxide. In an initial series of experiments, we examined the potential toxicity of aluminum hydroxide in male, outbred CD-1 mice injected subcutaneously in two equivalent-to-human doses. After sacrifice, spinal cord and motor cortex samples were examined by immunohistochemistry. Aluminum-treated mice showed significantly increased apoptosis of motor neurons and increases in reactive astrocytes and microglial proliferation within the spinal cord and cortex. Morin stain detected the presence of aluminum in the cytoplasm of motor neurons with some neurons also testing positive for the presence of hyper-phosphorylated tau protein, a pathological hallmark of various neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. A second series of experiments was conducted on mice injected with six doses of aluminum hydroxide. Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19740540

“These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS, and challenge the idea that the relation between hepatitis B vaccination and risk of MS is well understood. ”

http://www.neurology.org/content/63/5/838.abstract

“Hepatitis B vaccination does not generally increase the risk of CNS inflammatory demyelination in childhood. However, the Engerix B vaccine appears to increase this risk, particularly for confirmed multiple sclerosis, in the longer term.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843097

Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study

“In this pilot study, infant macaques receiving the recommended pediatric vaccine regimen from the 1990’s displayed a different pattern of maturational changes in amygdala volume and differences in amygdala-binding of [11C]DPN following the MMR/DTaP/Hib vaccinations between T1 and T2 compared with non-exposed animals. There was also evidence of greater total brain volume in the exposed group prior to these vaccinations suggesting a possible effect of previous vaccinations to which these animals had been exposed. Because primate testing is an important aspect of pre-clinical vaccine safety assessment prior to approval for human use (Kennedy et al. 1997), the results of this pilot study warrant additional research into the potential impact of an interaction between the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines on brain structure and function.”

http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf

“A majority of the ophthalmological complications seen following hepatitis B vaccination consist of vision loss, optic neuritis, papillary edema, uveitis, acute placoid pigment epitheliopathy and central vein occlusion. We present a 9-year-old girl who was referred to our hospital with decrease in vision and pain in the left eye a week after hepatitis B vaccination. A diagnosis of vaccine induced optic neuritis was made.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948437

full text here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F40041573_Optic_neuritis_following_hepatitis_B_vaccination_in_a_9-year-old_girl%2Ffile%2F79e4150bf76c1906e2.pdf&ei=7cpyUd-GN8XE0QHXwIC4Ag&usg=AFQjCNF3MZiGq3-dLgVVZUo27Urs2BYxIA&sig2=FxRKYvDGPdzJ3EUQqwdv7A (click open to view)

Acute Fulminant Myocarditis after Diphtheria, Polio, and Tetanus Vaccination

A previously healthy 8-month-old female baby, body height 67cm and body weight 8.0kg, suffered from fever (38.3°C) 12 hours after she received triple vaccination against diphtheria, polio, and tetanus. Dyspnea occurred 3 days later. She presented with poor activity, persistent dyspnea with subcostal retraction and skin mottling 5 days later. There was no prior history of adverse reactions to previous diphtheria, polio, and tetanus vaccinations, or other vaccinations.

poor ventricular contractility recurred 2 months Cardiac catheterization showed patent coronary arteries and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 14%. Endomyocardial biopsy was still not attempted due to poor general condition. The patient died while waiting for heart transplantation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17130313

full text: http://asianannals.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/6/e111.pdf

Myocarditis after triple immunisation.

“We describe a 3 month old infant who developed myocarditis several hours after diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccination. The time of occurrence of symptoms, the clinical course, and the negative virological studies suggest a possible cardiogenic adverse reaction to the vaccine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1777748/

A case series of children with apparent mercury toxic encephalopathies manifesting with clinical symptoms of regressive autistic disorders.

Impairments in social relatedness and communication, repetitive behaviors, and stereotypic abnormal movement patterns characterize autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). It is clear that while genetic factors are important to the pathogenesis of ASDs, mercury exposure can induce immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with ASDs. The Institutional Review Board of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses (Office for Human Research Protections, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, IRB number IRB00005375) approved the present study. A case series of nine patients who presented to the Genetic Centers of America for a genetic/developmental evaluation are discussed. Eight of nine patients (one patient was found to have an ASD due to Rett’s syndrome) (a) had regressive ASDs; (b) had elevated levels of androgens; (c) excreted significant amounts of mercury post chelation challenge; (d) had biochemical evidence of decreased function in their glutathione pathways; (e) had no known significant mercury exposure except from Thimerosal-containing vaccines/Rho(D)-immune globulin preparations; and (f) had alternate causes for their regressive ASDs ruled out. There was a significant dose-response relationship between the severity of the regressive ASDs observed and the total mercury dose children received from Thimerosal-containing vaccines/Rho (D)-immune globulin preparations. Based upon differential diagnoses, 8 of 9 patients examined were exposed to significant mercury from Thimerosal-containing biologic/vaccine preparations during their fetal/infant developmental periods, and subsequently, between 12 and 24 mo of age, these previously normally developing children suffered mercury toxic encephalopathies that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with regressive ASDs. Evidence for mercury intoxication should be considered in the differential diagnosis as contributing to some regressive ASDs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454560

” Inflammation, platelet reactivity and cardiac autonomic dysfunction increase the risk of cardiovascular events, but the relationships between these prognostic markers are poorly defined. In this study, we investigated the effect of an inflammatory stimulus (influenza A vaccine) on platelet activation and cardiac autonomic function.. Together with an inflammatory reaction, influenza A vaccine induced platelet activation and sympathovagal imbalance towards adrenergic predominance. Significant correlations were found between CRP levels and HRV parameters, suggesting a pathophysiological link between inflammation and cardiac autonomic regulation. The vaccine-related platelet activation and cardiac autonomic dysfunction may transiently increase the risk of cardiovascular events.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20964738

“Narcolepsy is a chronic disorder presenting with excessive daytime sleepiness, often accompanied by a transient loss of muscle tone triggered by strong emotion (cataplexy). Diagnosis is based on clinical criteria and can be confirmed by polysomnography followed by a multiple sleep latency test.1 Estimates of prevalence generally range between 25 and 50 per 100 000, though might be less in some populations, possibly because of differences in genetic susceptibility or exposure to aetiological risk factors.2 Information on incidence is more limited. Onset can occur at any age2 but is commonest in those aged 10-19, in whom an incidence of 3.84 per 100 000 person years has been reported.3 The interval between onset and diagnosis can be long, with a median of 10.5 years in one study.4 Diagnostic delay is less in those with cataplexy and in younger patients.5 There is a strong association with human leucocyte antigen (HLA) DQB1*0602 and reported associations with environmental factors such as streptococcal infection,6 seasonal influenza,7 and more recently pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza.8

In August 2010 concerns were raised in Finland and Sweden about a possible association between narcolepsy and Pandemrix.13 A subsequent cohort study in Finland reported a 13-fold increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination in children and young people aged 4-19, most of whom had onset within three months after vaccination and almost all within six months.14 To evaluate the risk of narcolepsy after vaccination in England we identified cases in those aged under 19 with onset since 1 January 2008 and compared the proportion vaccinated with that in the age matched English population after adjusting for clinical conditions that were indications for pandemic vaccination.

The increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination with ASO3 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 vaccine indicates a causal association, consistent with findings from Finland.”

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f794

Detection of Measles Virus Genomic RNA in Cerebrospinal Fluid of Children with Regressive Autism: a Report of Three Cases.

In light of encephalopathy presenting as autistic regression (autistic encephalopathy, AE) closely following measles-mumps- rubella (MMR) vaccination, three children underwent cerebrospinal fluid(CSF) assessments including studies for measles virus(MV). All three children had concomitant onset of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and had already had MV genomic RNA detected in biopsies ofileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia(LNH). Presence of MV Fusion(F) gene was examined by TaqMan real- time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in cases and control CSF samples. The latter were obtained from three non- autistic MMR-vaccinated children with indwelling shunts for hydrocephalus. None of the cases or controls had a history of measles exposure other than MMR vaccination. Serum and CSF samples were also evaluated for antibodies to MV and myelin basic protein(MBP). MV F gene was present in CSF from all three cases, but not in controls. Genome copy number ranged from 3.7×10 to 2.42×10 per ng of RNA total. Serum anti-MBP autoantibodies were detected in all children with AE. Anti-MBP and MV antibodies were detected in the CSF of two cases, while the third child had neither anti-MBP nor MV antibodies detected in his CSF. Findings are consistent with both an MV (measles virus) etiology for the AE (autistic encephalopathy) and active viral replication in these children. They further indicate the possibility of a virally driven cerebral immunopathology in some cases of regressive autism.

www.jpands.org/vol9no2/bradstreet.pdf

Among  11, 531 children who received at least 4 doses of DPT, the risk of asthma was reduced to (1/2) in children whose first dose of DPT was delayed by more than 2 months. The likelihood of asthma in children with delays in all 3 doses was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.18-0.86).

CONCLUSION:   We found a negative association between delay in administration of the first dose of whole-cell DPT immunization in childhood and the development of asthma; the association was greater with delays in all of the first 3 doses. The mechanism for this phenomenon requires further research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18207561

“Macrophagic myofasciitis and chronic fatigue syndrome are severely disabling conditions which may be caused by adverse reactions to aluminium-containing adjuvants in vaccines. While a little is known of disease aetiology both conditions are characterised by an aberrant immune response, have a number of prominent symptoms in common and are coincident in many individuals. Herein, we have described a case of vaccine-associated chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis in an individual demonstrating aluminium overload. This is the first report linking the latter with either of these two conditions and the possibility is considered that the coincident aluminium overload contributed significantly to the severity of these conditions in this individual. This case has highlighted potential dangers associated with aluminium-containing adjuvants and we have elucidated a possible mechanism whereby vaccination involving aluminium-containing adjuvants could trigger the cascade of immunological events which are associated with autoimmune conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19004564

full text here: http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Vaccine%20Aluminium%20In%20CFS.pdf

“Our case highlights the fact that pediatricians should be aware of the often-dramatic presentation of postvaccination myopericarditis and its usually benign clinical course. The diagnosis of myocarditis should be entertained when acute-onset chest pain is accompanied by ECG changes and elevated cardiac enzyme levels. In cases in which the above-described presentation is temporally related to routine immunizations, the immunizations should be considered as a possible underlying etiology. ”

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/6/e1400.full

Conclusion:  Susceptibility to ASD has moderate genetic heritability and a substantial shared twin environmental component.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21727249

full text here: http://cirge.stanford.edu/Hallmayer%202011.pdf

. ASDs disproportionately affect male children. Mercury (Hg) a heavy metal, is widespread and persistent in the environment. Mercury is a ubiquitous source of danger in fish, drugs, fungicides/herbicides, dental fillings, thermometers, and many other products. Elevated Hg concentrations may remain in the brain from several years to decades following exposure. This is important because investigators have long recognized that Hg is a neurodevelopmental poison; it can cause problems in neuronal cell migration and division, and can ultimately cause cell degeneration and death. Case-reports of patients have described developmental regressions with ASD symptoms following fetal and/or early childhood Hg exposure (flu shots for pregnant women are good says the CDC?), and epidemiological studies have linked exposure to Hg with an elevated risk of a patient being diagnosed with an ASD. Immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with ASDs were reported following Hg (mercury) intoxication with similarities extending to neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters, and biochemistry. The sexual dimorphism of ASDs may result from synergistic neurotoxicity caused by the interaction of testosterone and Hg; in contrast, estrogen is protective, mitigating the toxicity of Hg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16264412

“Starting in 2000, HZ (herpes zoster – or shingles) surveillance was added to the project. By 2002, notable increases in HZ incidence rates were reported among both children and adults with a prior history of natural varicella. However, CDC authorities still claimed that no increase in HZ had occurred in any US surveillance site. The basic assumptions inherent to the varicella cost-benefit analysis ignored the significance of exogenous boosting caused by those shedding wild-type VZV. Also ignored was the morbidity associated with even rare serious events following varicella vaccination as well as the morbidity from increasing cases of HZ among adults. Vaccine efficacy declined below 80% in 2001. By 2006, because 20% of vaccinees were experiencing breakthrough varicella and vaccine-induced protection was waning, the CDC recommended a booster dose for children and, in 2007, a shingles vaccination was approved for adults aged 60 years and older. In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)-these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity.  Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased HZ morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.”

**personal note : many say that the rise in shingles that we are experiencing is because children are not catching chickenpox anymore. For adults who had the chickenpox as children, coming into contact with a child that has the chickenpox acts as an immunity boost against shingles (kinda like the immune system saying, “hey I remember that..let me send out some reinforcements..”) but since adults aren’t getting that boost anymore..shingles is on the rise. Shingles is more dangerous than chickenpox. We have traded a mild childhood disease, that was described as a mild disease that runs its course and is completed between 5 to 10 days and, “never, of itself, proves fatal.” (see here for reference: http://archive.org/stream/variolavacciniah00newe#page/20/mode/2up ) for a disease that is much more serious and claims more lives. But hey..now you can just buy a shingles vaccine! The reason above is why in the UK, there is no recommendation for the chickenpox vaccine.

Or as Dr Phillip Welsby, an infectious diseases expert, explains it,

“Every time adults come into contact with children who’ve just caught chicken pox, they get the natural equivalent of a booster shot of the virus which strengthens their resistance. In the past, when a child got chicken pox their mother would invite neighbours’ children to a ‘chicken pox party’ so they, too, could become infected and get it over with. ‘What the parents usually didn’t realize was they were benefiting as well. GPs, for instance, are less likely to develop shingles, because they are regularly exposed to children with chicken pox.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1158655/Why-giving-children-chicken-pox-jab-YOU-shingles.html )

Another great article to read is, “chickenpox: why do children die?”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/03/17/chicken-pox.aspx

source for main article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22659447

“Clustering of cases of insulin dependent diabetes (IDDM) occurring three years after hemophilus influenza B (HiB) immunization support causal relationship between immunization and IDDM (insulin depedent diabetes).”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12911277

“We initiated and funded a collaborative study with Tuomilehto on the effect of the Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine on type 1 diabetes and found that the data support a causal relation (paper submitted for publication). Furthermore, the potential risk of the vaccine exceeds the potential benefit. We compared a group that received four doses of the vaccine, a group that received one dose, and a group that was not vaccinated. The cumulative incidence of diabetes per 100000 in the three groups receiving four, one, and no doses of the vaccine was 261, 237, and 207 at age 7 and 398, 376, and 340 at age 10 respectively.

Karvonen et al’s analysis is not rational, and their conclusion is not supported by our data.1 Their calculations of relative risk are also misleadingly low, and we urge readers to check them. Most researchers would compare the group who received four doses with the group that was not vaccinated or the two vaccinated groups with the group that was not vaccinated. The results of both comparisons reach significance. The cumulative difference in cases of type 1 diabetes per 100000 between those receiving four doses and those who were not vaccinated is 54 cases (P=0.013) at 7 years and 58 cases at 10 years (P=0.029; single tail Fisher test). The relative risk is 1.26 at 7 years. The cumulative difference between those receiving four doses or one dose of the vaccine and those who were not vaccinated is 42 cases (P=0.016) at 7 years and 47 cases at 10 years (P=0.028).

The rise in diabetes, just one potential adverse effect, exceeds the benefit of the vaccine, which has been estimated to prevent seven deaths and 7-26 cases of severe disability per 100000 children immunised.2 Even the difference in cases of diabetes between the groups receiving four doses and one dose exceeds the mean expected benefit. Temporal changes in the incidence of diabetes do not explain the differences since there were an extra 31 cases of type 1 diabetes per 100000 children aged 5-10, and the incidence of diabetes in this group had been stable for about 10 years before this.3 Furthermore, sharp rises in diabetes have been recorded in the United States4 and the United Kingdom5 after the introduction of the haemophilus vaccine.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/

Published research shows that personal benefit from vaccinating healthy nonelderly adults is small and there is no evidence that it is any different for HCWs. The studies aiming to prove the widespread belief that healthcare worker vaccination decreases patient morbidity and mortality are heavily flawed and the recommendations for vaccination biased. No reliable published evidence shows that healthcare workers’ vaccination has substantial benefit for their patients—not in reducing patient morbidity or mortality and not even in increasing patient vaccination rates. Conclusion. The arguments for uniform healthcare worker influenza vaccination are not supported by existing literature. The decision whether to get vaccinated should, except possibly in extreme situations, be that of the individual healthcare worker, without legal, institutional, or peer coercion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502850/

The association between sudden infant death syndrome and immunization is frequently discussed. Serious adverse events following vaccination have generally been defined as those adverse events that result in permanent disability, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, life threatening illness, congenital anomaly or death. They are generally referred to the inherent properties of the vaccine (vaccine reaction) or some error in the immunization process (programme error). The event could also be totally unrelated but only temporally linked to immunization (coincidental event). A fatal case of a 3-month-old female infant, who died within 24 h of vaccination with hexavalent vaccine is presented. Clinical data, post-mortem findings (acute pulmonary oedema, acute pulmonary emphysema), quali-quantitative data collected from immunohistochemical staining (degranulating mast cells) and laboratory analysis with a high level of beta-tryptase in serum, 43.3 microg/l, allows us to conclude that acute respiratory failure likely due to post hexavalent immunization-related shock was the cause of death.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18538957

Despite wide use of the influenza vaccine, relatively little is known about its effect on the measurement of inflammatory markers. Because inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) are increasingly being used in conjunction with lipids for the clinical assessment of cardiovascular disease and in epidemiologic studies, we evaluated the effect of influenza vaccination on markers of inflammation and plasma lipid concentrations. We drew blood from 22 healthy individuals 1 to 6 hours before they were given an influenza vaccination and 1, 3, and 7 days after the vaccination. Plasma CRP, interleukin (IL)-6, monocyte chemotactic protein 1, tumor necrosis factor alpha, IL-2 soluble receptor alpha, and serum amyloid A were measured, and differences in mean concentrations of absolute and normalized values on days 1, 3, and 7 were compared with mean baseline values. There was a significant increase in mean IL-6 (P < .01 absolute values, P < .001 normalized values) on day 1 after receiving the influenza vaccine. The mean increases in normalized high sensitivity CRP values were significant on day 1 (P < .01) and day 3 (P = .05), whereas the mean increase in normalized serum amyloid A was significant only on day 1 (P < .05). No significant changes were seen in mean concentrations of IL-2 soluble receptor alpha, monocyte chemotactic protein-1, or tumor necrosis factor-alpha. Of the lipids, significant decreases in mean concentrations of normalized triglyceride values were seen on days 1 (P < .05), 3 (P < .001), and 7 (P < .05) after vaccination. Our findings show that the influenza vaccination causes transient changes in select markers of inflammation and lipids. Consequently, clinical and epidemiologic interpretation of the biomarkers affected should take into account the possible effects of influenza vaccination.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15976761

“A continuous breeding reproduction study design was utilized to examine the reproductive toxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (EGPE)(EGPE = vaccine ingredient). continuous breeding reproduction study design was utilized to examine the reproductive toxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (EGPE).. Both male and female mice were dosed for 7 days prior to and during a 98-day cohabitation period. EGBE was toxic at the high (2%) and mid dose (1%) to adult F0 female mice: 13 out of 22 females at the high dose and 6 out of 20 at the mid dose died during the cohabitation period. Both the high- and mid-dose animals produced fewer litters/pair, fewer pups/litter, with decreased pup weight. These effects occurred in the presence of decreased body weight, decreased water consumption, and increased kidney weight. A crossover mating trial indicated that the reproductive effects could be attributed primarily to an effect on the female. This was substantiated at necropsy where testes and epididymis weights were normal as were sperm number and motility. Fertility of the offspring of the 0.5% group was normal in the presence of increased liver weights. With respect to EGPE, there was no change in the ability to produce five litters during the continuous breeding period. There was, however, a significant but small (10-15%) decrease in the number of pups/litter and in pup weight in the high-dose group. A crossover mating trial suggested a female component of the reproductive toxicity of EGPE. While fertility was only minimally compromised, severe neonatal toxicity was observed. By Day 21 there were only 8 out of 40 litters in the mid- and high-dose groups which had at least one male and female/litter. Second generation reproductive performance of the mid-dose group (1.25%) was unaffected except for a small decrease in live pup weight. In summary the reproductive toxicity of EGBE and EGPE was only evident in the female and occurred at doses which elicited general toxicity. EGBE was particularly toxic to adult female mice while EGPE was particularly toxic to immature mice of both sexes.” (10)

** I had to read this about ten times just to make sure that I was reading it right. Did that really just say what I thought it did? Does anyone else notice how the authors try their hardest to play down the results in the group that received EGPE? But if you read it a few times..you will quickly realize that the results for the group that received 2-phenoxyethanol are not good.

•there was a slow decline in fertility that caused a drop in the weight and health of the next generation.

• severe neonatal (infants) toxicity was observed.

•the abstract never gave the information needed to know how many in the EGPE group died..but it seems more died in the EGPE group than in the EGBE group. Since it never gave the orginal number of pups/liter there is no way to know.

• the other ether in the study caused deaths and toxic events to happen to the adult female mice. The glysol ether that is in several pediatric vaccines, 2-phenoxyethanol, was particularly toxic and caused death in the baby and children mice of both sexes.

•and these results were what happened after the mice ate 2-phenoxyethanol..infants and children are injected with this substance. (17 times before the age of 18, as i mentioned above)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2086313

“In summary, ethylene glycol monophenyl ether produced significant reproductive and developmental toxicity..Ethylene glycol monophenyl  ether caused significant toxicity in growing animals, as evidenced by the reduced body weight in neonates in Tasks 2, 3, and 4, and the large increase in postnatal lethality as the animals grew to the age of mating.” (11)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470243/pdf/envhper00326-0221.pdf

“Neonatal female rats were injected ip (0.1 ml/rat) with Tween 80 in 1, 5 or 10% aqueous solution on days 4-7 after birth. Treatment with Tween 80 accelerated maturation, prolonged the oestrus cycle, and induced persistent vaginal oestrus. The relative weight of the uterus and ovaries was decreased relative to the untreated controls. Squamous cell metaplasia of the epithelial lining of the uterus and cytological changes in the uterus were indicative of chronic oestrogenic stimulation. Ovaries were without corpora lutea, and had degenerative follicles”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8473002?dopt=Abstract

“Acquired autoimmunity syndromes occur after viral vaccinations. Molecular mimicry is involved in these phenomena as is the necessity for the presence of two chemically complimentary antigens and an immunologic adjuvant. The HLA pattern of the host is also an important factor. The example used to explain these phenomena is demyelinating disease that follows hepatitis B vaccination. The somatic antigen of the hepatitis B virus in the vaccine has chemical complimentarity with the Epstein-Barr virus antigen in the vaccine recipient. The Epstein-Barr virus shows molecular mimicry with human myelin. The immunologic adjuvant is either present in the vaccine or muramyl peptides in the individual who is vaccinated. Why more than one type of autoimmune disease occurs is explained by the fact that specific autoimmune T-cells have been shown to develop clones that attack multiple human tissues.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17630224

“Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined.  Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170

“Vaccine-type rotavirus was detected in all 50 antigen-positive specimens and 8 of 8 antigen-negative specimens. Nine (75%) of 12 EIA-positive and 1 EIA-negative samples tested culture-positive for vaccine-type rotavirus. Fecal shedding of rotavirus vaccine virus after the first dose of RV5 occurred over a wide range of post-vaccination days not previously studied.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21477676

“The FluMist influenza vaccine strains replicate in the nasopharynx and can be recovered and cultured from respiratory secretions of vaccinated individuals (shed).  The pattern and duration of shedding is important to understand because with prolonged shedding at high titer there is a theoretical risk of loss of attenuated phenotype, reassortment with wild-type influenza virus during influenza season, and transmission of vaccine virus to unvaccinated people, some of whom may be immuno-compromised and/or at risk for complications of live viral infections. “  “additional shedding samples collected every 7 days … though some individuals shed vaccine strain virus as late as day 28”

www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM259175.pdf

“The RotaTeq vaccine contains five live, attenuated strains derived through laboratory reassortment of human rotavirus strains with a bovine rotavirus strain. Three RotaTeq strains each contain a single human rotavirus gene segment and ten bovine rotavirus segments, and two strains contain two human strain segments and nine bovine strain segments. In the study, RotaTeq was detected in 16 stool samples. Ten of these contained between one and four individual vaccine component strains. Six samples were found to contain a vaccine-derived G1P[8] (vdG1P[8]) strain. vdG1P[8] is believed to be the product of a genetic reassortment event in which the G1 gene segment of strain WI79-9 is inserted into strain WI79-4, as evidenced by the association of G1-VP7 and P[8]-VP4 human rotavirus genes with the M2-VP3 and I2-VP6 of the bovine rotavirus. Donato et al. observed that approximately a fifth of the infants having diarrhea within 2 weeks of rotavirus vaccination were shedding vaccine strain components exclusive of any detectable enteric pathogen.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23249230

FULL TEXT http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/full/10.1586/erv.12.114

“Analysis of 36 individuals over age 60 years who were immunized with Zostavax revealed varicella zoster virus DNA in swabs of skin inoculation sites obtained immediately after immunization in 18 (50%) of 36 subjects  and in saliva collected over 28 days in 21 (58%) of 36 subjects. Genotypic analysis of DNA extracted from 9 random saliva samples identified vaccine virus in ALL instances. In some immunized individuals over age 60, vaccine virus DNA is shed in saliva up to 4 weeks.”

Zostavax contains live attenuated VZV, and the package insert warns newly vaccinated individuals to avoid contact for an unspecified time with newborn infants, immunosuppressed individuals, and pregnant women who have not had chicken pox or have not been immunized for chicken pox. Because VZV DNA is present in saliva of zoster patients for at least 2 weeks [5] and VZV in saliva can also be infectious [6], we examined the inoculation site and saliva of Zostavax-vaccinated subjects for the presence of VZV DNA for 4 weeks after immunization”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096786/

“The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, THE MOST IN THE WORLD, yet 33 nations have better Infant Mortality Rates (IMR). Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model.

These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship:

nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.

Efforts to reduce the relatively high UNITED STATES INFANT MORTALITY RATE have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”

http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644.full.pdf+

“Repeated immunization with antigen causes systemic autoimmunity in mice otherwise not prone to spontaneous autoimmune diseases. Overstimulation of CD4+ T cells led to the development of autoantibody-inducing CD4+ T (aiCD4+ T) cell which had undergone T cell receptor (TCR) revision and was capable of inducing autoantibodies.” “Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system’s self-organized criticality.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795160/

“Vaccine-type rotavirus was detected in all 50 antigen-positive specimens and 8 of 8 antigen-negative specimens. Nine (75%) of 12 EIA-positive and 1 EIA-negative samples tested culture-positive for vaccine-type rotavirus. Fecal shedding of rotavirus vaccine virus after the first dose of RV5 occurred over a wide range of post-vaccination days not previously studied.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21477676

“ Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: a case-control study.”

“Using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for asthma status stratification, there was a significant association between hospitalization in asthmatic subjects and TIV (p = 0.001). TIV did not provide any protection against hospitalization in pediatric subjects, especially children with asthma. On the contrary, we found a threefold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did get the TIV vaccine. This may be a reflection not only of vaccine effectiveness but also the population of children who are more likely to get the vaccine.” Allergy Asthma Proc. 2012 Mar-Apr;33(2):e23-7.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22525386

“There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12 and 18 month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3236196/

Administration of thimerosal to infant rats increases overflow of glutamate and aspartate in the prefrontal cortex: protective role of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015977

“Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis.”

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/cid.cis287.short

“Our unvaccinated and under-vaccinated population did not appear to contribute significantly to the increased rate of clinical pertussis. Surprisingly, the highest incidence of disease was among previously vaccinated children in the eight to twelve year age group.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127

“In some cases the cell lines (aborted babycells) that are used might be tumorigenic, that is, they form tumors when injected into rodents. Some of these tumor-forming cell lines may contain cancer-causing viruses that are not actively reproducing. Such viruses are hard to detect using standard methods. These latent, or “quiet,” viruses pose a potential threat, since they might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions.”

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is a recently discovered human retrovirus that has been found in both chronic fatigue syndrome & prostate cancer patients. There is a potential safety concern regarding XMRV in cell substrates used in vaccines

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/scienceresearch/biologicsresearchareas/ucm127327.htm

“Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000 dollars, and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15231927

“Although persons often use vaccination and immunization interchangeably in reference to active immunization (VACCINES), the terms are not synonomous because the administration of an immunobiologic cannot be automatically equated with the development of adequate immunity.”

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr4301.pdf

“Hib immunization contributed to an increased risk for H. influenzae type a meningitis through selection of  circulating H. influenzae type a clones. the incidence for H. influenzae type a meningitis increased 8-fold”

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/187/1/109.full.pdf+html

“Virus-induced autoimmunity may play a causal role in autism. To examine the etiologic link of viruses in this brain disorder, we conducted a serologic study of measles virus, mumps virus, and rubella virus. Viral antibodies were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the serum of autistic children, normal children, and siblings of autistic children. The level of measles antibody, but not mumps or rubella antibodies, was significantly higher in autistic children as compared with normal children (P = 0.003) or siblings of autistic children (P <or= 0.0001). Furthermore, immunoblotting of measles vaccine virus revealed that the antibody was directed against a protein of approximately 74 kd molecular weight. The antibody to this antigen was found in 83% of autistic children but not in normal children or siblings of autistic children. Thus autistic children have a hyperimmune response to measles virus, which in the absence of a wild type of measles infection might be a sign of an abnormal immune reaction to the vaccine strain or virus reactivation.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883

“Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths. Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. ”

http://het.sagepub.com/content/31/10/1012.abstract?maxtoshow&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT&fulltext=vaccine+&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT

Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level?

“This study focused on standardized embryonic and fetal Hg exposures via primary exposure to the pregnant mother of two common Hg sources (dietary fish and parenteral vaccines). Data demonstrated that Hg exposures, particularly during the first trimester of pregnancy, at well-established dose/weight ratios produced severe damage to humans including death. ”  Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry Vol 94 2012

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02772248.2012.724574

“reporting bias was too low to explain the magnitude increase in fetal-demise reporting rates in the VAERS database relative to the reported annual trends. Thus, a synergistic fetal toxicity likely resulted from the administration of both the pandemic (A-H1N1) and seasonal influenza vaccines during the 2009/2010 season.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23023030

“Hepatitis B vaccine might be followed by various rheumatic conditions and might trigger the onset of underlying inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases. ”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10534549

“Autoimmunity to the central nervous system (CNS), especially to myelin basic protein (MBP), may play a causal role in autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. Because many autistic children harbor elevated levels of measles antibodies, we conducted a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and MBP autoantibodies. Using serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 control children, antibodies were assayed by ELISA or immunoblotting methods. ELISA analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. Immunoblotting analysis revealed the presence of an unusual MMR antibody in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but not in control sera. This antibody specifically detected a protein of 73-75 kD of MMR. This protein band, as analyzed with monoclonal anti bodies, was immunopositive for measles hemagglutinin (HA) protein but not for measles nucleoprotein and rubella or mumps viral proteins. Thus the MMR antibody in autistic sera detected measles HA protein, which is unique to the measles subunit of the vaccine. Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

Conclusions: Children vaccinated in infancy are at increased risk of hepatitis B virus infection in the late teens. The risk of chronic carriage after sexual exposure needs further assessment to determine if booster vaccines are necessary.

http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7364/569

Abstract

A traditional infectious disease vaccine is a preparation of live attenuated, inactivated or killed pathogen that stimulates immunity. Vaccine immunologic adjuvants are compounds incorporated into vaccines to enhance immunogenicity. Adjuvants have recently been implicated in the new syndrome named ASIA autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants. The objective describes the frequencies of post-vaccination clinical syndrome induced by adjuvants. We performed a cross-sectional study; adverse event following immunization was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that follows immunization 54 days prior to the event. Data on vaccinations and other risk factors were obtained from daily epidemiologic surveillance. Descriptive statistics were done using means and standard deviation, and odds ratio adjusted for potential confounding variables was calculated with SPSS 17 software. Forty-three out of 120 patients with moderate or severe manifestations following immunization were hospitalized from 2008 to 2011. All patients fulfilled at least 2 major and 1 minor criteria suggested by Shoenfeld and Agmon-Levin for ASIA diagnosis. The most frequent clinical findings were pyrexia 68 %, arthralgias 47 %, cutaneous disorders 33 %, muscle weakness 16 % and myalgias 14 %. Three patients had diagnosis of Guillain-Barre syndrome, one patient had Adult-Still’s disease 3 days after vaccination. A total of 76 % of the events occurred in the first 3 days post-vaccination. Two patients with previous autoimmune disease showed severe adverse reactions with the reactivation of their illness. Minor local reactions were present in 49 % of patients. Vaccines containing adjuvants may be associated with an increased risk of autoimmune/inflammatory adverse events following immunization

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23576057

Autoimmunity following hepatitis B vaccine as part of the spectrum of ‘Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome induced by Adjuvants’ (ASIA): analysis of 93 cases.

OBJECTIVES:

In this study we analyzed the clinical and demographic manifestations among patients diagnosed with immune/autoimmune-mediated diseases post-hepatitis B vaccination. We aimed to find common denominators for all patients, regardless of different diagnosed diseases, as well as the correlation to the criteria of Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome induced by Adjuvants (ASIA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

We have retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 114 patients, from different centers in the USA, diagnosed with immune-mediated diseases following immunization with hepatitis-B vaccine (HBVv). All patients in this cohort sought legal consultation. Of these, 93/114 patients diagnosed with disease before applying for legal consultation were included in the study. All medical records were evaluated for demographics, medical history, number of vaccine doses, peri-immunization adverse events and clinical manifestations of diseases. In addition, available blood tests, imaging results, treatments and outcomes were recorded. Signs and symptoms of the different immune-mediated diseases were grouped according to the organ or system involved. ASIA criteria were applied to all patients.

RESULTS:

The mean age of 93 patients was 26.5 ± 15 years; 69.2% were female and 21% were considered autoimmune susceptible. The mean latency period from the last dose of HBVv and onset of symptoms was 43.2 days. Of note, 47% of patients continued with the immunization program despite experiencing adverse events. Manifestations that were commonly reported included neuro-psychiatric (70%), fatigue (42%) mucocutaneous (30%), musculoskeletal (59%) and gastrointestinal (50%) complaints. Elevated titers of autoantibodies were documented in 80% of sera tested. In this cohort 80/93 patients (86%), comprising 57/59 (96%) adults and 23/34 (68%) children, fulfilled the required criteria for ASIA.

CONCLUSIONS:

Common clinical characteristics were observed among 93 patients diagnosed with immune-mediated conditions post-HBVv, suggesting a common denominator in these diseases. In addition, risk factors such as history of autoimmune diseases and the appearance of adverse event(s) during immunization may serve to predict the risk of post-immunization diseases. The ASIA criteria were found to be very useful among adults with post-vaccination events. The application of the ASIA criteria to pediatric populations requires further study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235045

vaccination may be associated with autoimmune disease (title of article press link to read)

http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Tishler2004-open.pdf

Antigen-presenting Cell Activation: a Link Between Infection and Autoimmunity?

The onset of autoimmune diseases such as type I diabetes and multiple sclerosis is often thought to be associated with infection. This has led to studies of molecular mimicry between infectious agents and the self-antigens associated with autoimmunity. Despite many claims, however, a single causative infectious agent for autoimmunity has not been found. An alternative possibility is that many infectious agents are capable of non-specifically enhancing the likelihood of an autoimmune attack. Here we show how infectious agents may activate antigen-presenting cells leading to the activation of autoreactive T cells by otherwise innocuous antigens. The mechanism of activation involves upregulation of co-stimulatory molecules on the antigen-presenting cell resulting in a lowering of the threshold required for activation. These results help explain how diverse infectious agents could cause autoimmune disease in susceptible individuals.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841100904980

Pemphigus is an autoimmune blistering disease caused by autoantibodies against epithelial intercellular components. Its etiology is unknown, and neoplasms, antecedent infections or medications are considered possible triggering factors for the disease in some cases. We describe the first case of pemphigus following a hepatitis B virus vaccination. We suggest that in some cases vaccination may be the triggering factor for pemphigus in genetically predisposed individuals and physicians should be aware of this possible association.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08916930400027078

Discussion

There is increasing evidence that GBS

is an autoimmune disease. Various autoantibodies

to gangliosides were described

in GBS patients (4,5), and T

cells with cross-reactivity to nervesheath

components (4). The disease is

related in most cases to respiratory or

gastrointestinal infections and vaccines,

resulting in demyelination or axonal

degeneration (2). The target of the

immune attack differs with the clinical

subtypes of GBS (3). Rarely is GBS

related to Hodgkin’s lymphoma (6) or

autoimmune disease such as systemic

lupus erythematosus (7).

Infection with the following microorganisms

can cause GBS: Campylobac –

ter jejuni, in 25-41% of GBS patients,

Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus

(2), HIV infection, Mycoplasma pneu –

moniae, shigella, clostridium (8), and

Haemophilus influenzae (9).

Vaccines reportedly related to the appearance

of GBS include influenza,

tetanus toxoid, BCG, rabies, smallpox,

mumps, rubella, oral poliovirus vaccine,

hepatitis B vaccines, either plasma-

derived or recombinant vaccine and

diphtheria vaccine (10). The influenza

vaccine in 1976 (“swine flue” or New

Jersey 76) caused a 4- to 8-fold increase

in the rate of GBS occurring 6-8

weeks after vaccination (11,12). Subsequent

studies of influenza-vaccinated

patients showed no increase in the GBS

rate (13).

In a review of the English literature another

19 cases of hepatitis B vaccination

were reported to precede the symptoms

of GBS (14-22) (Table I). T h e

plasma-derived hepatitis B vaccine

became commercially available in June

1982. Shaw et al. (15) documented the

first 3 years of postmarketing surveillance

for neurologic adverse events after

vaccination among 850,000 persons,

mostly health workers, who received

the HBV vaccine. Nine cases of

GBS were reported up to 7 weeks after vaccination. One case was reported as

atypical and 5 cases were compatible

with a viral infection before the appearance

of the neurological symptoms.

GBS was reported as occurring significantly

more often then expected when

compared with the Center of Disease

Control GBS background rate (11), but

not when compared with the Olmsted

County rate (23). The authors calculated

that, taking into account age, sex

and under-reporting, the rate of GBS

was slightly higher in the vaccinated

group, but concluded that no definite

epidemiologic association could be

made.

Mcmahon et al. (17) determined the incidence

of adverse reactions from the

plasma-derived hepatitis B vaccine in

Alaska. Out of 43,618 subjects who

received 101,360 injections, 2 patients

developed GBS 3 and 9 months after

the last injection. Their conclusion was

that the vaccine was safe and that the

incidence of GBS was not increased.

The authors claimed that the adverse

events caused by the plasma-derived

HBV vaccine are due to the preservative

material thimerosal, a mercurial

compound that was found to be neurotoxic

and is not included in the HBV

vaccines since 1999 and to aluminium

hydroxide, used as an adjuvant. Both

compounds were also used in the recombinant

vaccine.

In addition to our patient, 8 case reports

of GBS after hepatitis B vaccine have

been reported (14,16,18-22), 3 of them

after receiving the yeast derived recombinant

DNA hepatitis B vaccine.

One of the patients died after a multiorgan

failure, septic shock and adult respiratory

distress syndrome. A n e u r opathologic

examination revealed an inflammatory

cell infiltrate in the gray

matter especially in the anterior horn of

the spinal cord, and small foci of macrophages

in the long tracts. Most of

the cells appeared around blood vessels,

but were also found in the parenchyma,

close to nerve cells (21).

The pathogenesis of hepatitis B vaccine

associated with GBS is not clear.

The following mechanisms are suggested:

1 ) Molecular mimicry: As in other autoimmune

disorders appearing after

vaccination, molecular mimicry is

suspected. Hepatitis B surface protein

may provoke an autoimmune

attack on a similar protein present in

the nerve cells. In molecular mimicry

involving T lymphocytes these

cells recognize their antigen as peptide-

bound to MHC molecule. The

microbial antigen has the same

shape as a self antigenic epitope

bound to the same MHC molecule.

The DNA sequence of HBV w a s

found to be homologous to myelin

basic protein (23).

2) Another coincidental infection:

Most of the vaccine recipients are at

high risk for infection with EBV,

C M V and HTLV 3, that also can

cause demyelinating disease (18).

3) Immune complex disease: Five cases

of GBS have been reported in patients

suffering from infection with

HBV. In the acute phase of GBS, immune

complexes containing hepatitis

B surface antigen were found in

the serum and cerebrospinal fluid,

but not in the sural nerve. Those immune

complexes were not present

when the hepatitis was first detected,

but only after the appearance of

neurological symptoms, and disappeared

when the inflammatory phase

of the disease had ended (24, 25).

Immune complexes without a known

antigen were found in other cases of

GBS in various organs. The immune

complexes can transfer through the

blood-nerve barrier and may be deposited

in the endonerium and injure nerve

fibers (25). Treatment with plasmapheresis

or IVIG may eliminate those

immune complexes.

R e c e n t l y, the presence of glycolipid

(ganglioside) specific antibodies has

been found to be associated with neurological

disease, in particular with

GBS. The pathogenic potential of these

antibodies has remained unclear. Several

mechanisms by which anti-ganglioside

antibodies may exert their

potential pathogenic effect have been

proposed. Direct binding of anti-ganglioside

antibodies to axon or Schwann

cells might disturb ion fluxes and cause

partial nerve conduction block (26).

Naturally occurring antibodies crossre –

acting with gangliosides may become

pathogenic after affinity maturation

and class switching initiated by preceding

infection.

The hepatitis B vaccine has been used

routinely for almost 20 years. Most of

the side effects are local or transient

minor reactions. The rate of the adverse

events is 1 in 15,500 doses. Major reactions

are rare and include variable autoimmune

phenomena: erythema nodosum,

lichen planus, acute urticaria, polyarthritis,

including rheumatoid arthritis

and reactive arthritis, vasculitis, glomerulonephritis,

Evan’s syndrome and

thrombocytopenic purpura.

Neurological complications include

acute cerebellar ataxia and autoimmune

demyelinating disorders including

multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis

and GBS (27). These reactions are

sporadic and there is no clear evidence

that the rate of GBS or multiple sclerosis

is more common among the vaccinated

population.

Hepatitis B vaccine is important and,

according to the available data, the prevention

of hepatitis B outweighs the

rare incidence of diseases reported after

vaccination. Further animal studies

and evaluation of the risk factors for these adverse effects are indicated.

http://www.clinexprheumatol.org/article.asp?a=2492

Guillain-Barre Syndrome after Vaccination in United States: Data From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Food and Drug Administration Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (1990-2005)

Methods: We used data for 1990 to 2005 from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is a cooperative program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Results: There were 1000 cases (mean age, 47 years) of GBS reported after vaccination in the United States between 1990 and 2005. The onset of GBS was within 6 weeks in 774 cases, >6 weeks in 101, and unknown in 125. Death and disability after the event occurred in 32 (3.2%) and 167 (16.7%) subjects, respectively. The highest number (n = 632) of GBS cases was observed in subjects receiving influenza vaccine followed by hepatitis B vaccine (n = 94). Other vaccines or combinations of vaccines were associated with 274 cases of GBS. The incidence of GBS after influenza vaccination was marginally higher in subjects <65 years compared with those ≥65 years (P = 0.09); for hepatitis vaccine, the incidence was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in the <65 group. Death was more frequent in subjects ≥65 years compared with those <65 years (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Our results suggest that vaccines other than influenza vaccine can be associated with GBS. Vaccination-related GBS results in death or disability in one fifth of affected individuals, which is comparable to the reported rates in the general GBS population

http://journals.lww.com/jcnmd/Abstract/2009/09000/Guillain_Barre_Syndrome_after_Vaccination_in.1.aspx

Autoimmune reactions to vaccinations may rarely be induced in predisposed individuals by molecular mimicry or bystander activation mechanisms. Autoimmune reactions reliably considered vaccine-associated, include Guillain-Barré syndrome after 1976 swine influenza vaccine, immune thrombocytopenic purpura after measles/mumps/rubella vaccine, and myopericarditis after smallpox vaccination, whereas the suspected association between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis has not been further confirmed, even though it has been recently reconsidered, and the one between childhood immunization and type 1 diabetes seems by now to be definitively gone down. Larger epidemiological studies are needed to obtain more reliable data in most suggested associations.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08830181003746304

Vaccines, in several reports were found to be temporally followed by a new onset of autoimmune diseases. The same mechanisms that act in infectious invasion of the host, apply equally to the host response to vaccination. It has been accepted for diphtheria and tetanus toxoid, polio and measles vaccines and GBS. Also this theory has been accepted for MMR vaccination and development of autoimmune thrombocytopenia, MS has been associated with HBV vaccination.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08916930500050277

Hepatitis B infection is one of the most important causes of acute and chronic liver disease. During the 1980s, genetically engineered hepatitis B vaccines (HBVs) were introduced in the United States. A large-series of serious autoimmune conditions have been reported following HBVs, despite the fact that HBVs have been reported to be “generally well-tolerated.” A case-control epidemiological study was conducted to evaluate serious autoimmune adverse events prospectively reported to the vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) database following HBVs, in comparison to an age, sex, and vaccine year matched unexposed tetanus-containing vaccine (TCV) group for conditions that have been previously identified on an a priori basis from case-reports. Adults receiving HBV had significantly increased odds ratios (OR) for multiple sclerosis (OR = 5.2, p < 0.0003, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.9 – 20), optic neuritis (OR = 14, p < 0.0002, 95% CI = 2.3 – 560), vasculitis (OR = 2.6, p < 0.04, 95% CI = 1.03 – 8.7), arthritis (OR = 2.01, p < 0.0003, 95% CI = 1.3 – 3.1), alopecia (OR = 7.2, p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 3.2 – 20), lupus erythematosus (OR = 9.1, p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 2.3 – 76), rheumatoid arthritis (OR = 18, p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 3.1 – 740), and thrombocytopenia (OR = 2.3, p < 0.04, 95% CI = 1.02 – 6.2) in comparison to the TCV group. Minimal confounding or systematic error was observed. Despite the negative findings of the present study regarding the rare serious adverse effects of HBVs, it is clear that HBV does, indeed, offer significant benefits, but it is also clear that chances of exposure to hepatitis B virus in adults is largely life-style dependent. Adults should make an informed consent decision, weighing the risks and benefits of HBV, as to whether or not to be immunized

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16206512

HBV was associated with a number of serious conditions and positive re-challenge or significant exacerbation of symptoms following immunization. There were 415 arthritis, 166 rheumatoid arthritis, 130 myelitis, 4 SLE, 100 optic neuritis, 101 GBS, 29 glomerulonephritis, 283 pancytopenia/thrombocytopenia, and 183 MS events reportedfollowing HBV A total of 465 positive re-challenge adverse events were observed following adult HBV that occurred sooner and with more severity than initial adverse event reports. A case-report of arthritis occurring in identical twins was also identified. [personal note: between 1 and 10 percent of adverse events are actually reported according to the FDAs David Kessler)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638050

Viral proteins having molecular mimicry with self-proteins in the CNS can prime genetically susceptible individuals. Once this priming has occurred, an immunologic challenge could result in disease through bystander activation by cytokines.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08916930500484799

Nevertheless, allergy and, to a lesser extent, autoimmunity have repeatedly been described or suspected as rare adverse consequences of human vaccines. The mechanisms of these adverse reactions are ill-elucidated, if at all. No animal models have been adequately standardized and validated to predict the risk of allergy and autoimmunity associated with vaccines. However, a number of existing models can be considered for use, but need refinement to be applied to vaccine evaluation. Finally, because the preclinical safety evaluation has not received much attention in the past, efforts should be paid to design specific and cost-effective procedures to meet the current expectations.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X02000562

After reviewing the 27 cases of vasculitis after hepatitis B vaccination reported in the current literature, the authors suggest that, in some cases, vaccination may be the triggering factor for vasculitis in individuals with a genetic predisposition. Physicians should be aware of this possible association.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620508000770

Mumps resurgences in the United States: A historical perspective on unexpected elements.

. The 2006 epidemic followed this pattern, with two unique variations: it was preceded by a period of very high vaccination rates and very low disease incidence and was characterized by two-dose failure rates among adults vaccinated in childhood. Data from the past 80 years suggest that preventing future mumps epidemics will depend on innovative measures to detect and eliminate build-up of susceptibles among highly vaccinated populations

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815120

Subacute thyroiditis and dyserythropoesis after influenza vaccination suggesting immune dysregulation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22111471

However, a 2006 epidemic involved >5700 cases nationwide, with many reported among fully vaccinated college students.. A large mumps outbreak occurred despite high two-dose vaccination coverage in a population most of whom had received the second dose >10 years before. Two-dose vaccine effectiveness was similar to previous one-dose estimates. Further studies are needed to examine the persistence of two-dose mumps vaccine-induced immunity and to determine whether US mumps elimination can be achieved with the current vaccination strategy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18539365

The first outbreak involved 13 high-school students (median age 14 yr): 9 who had previously received 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) and 4 who received a single dose. The second outbreak comprised 19 cases of mumps among students and some staff at a local university (median age 23 yr), of whom 18 had received only 1 dose of MMR (the other received a second dose). The viruses identified in the outbreaks were phylogenetically similar and belonged to a genotype commonly reported in the UK. The virus from the second outbreak is identical to the strain currently circulating in the UK and United States.

INTERPRETATION:

The predominance in these outbreaks of infected people of university age not only highlights an environment with potential for increased transmission but also raises questions about the efficacy of the MMR vaccine. The people affected may represent a “lost cohort” who do not have immunity from natural mumps infection and were not offered a 2-dose schedule. Given the current level of mumps activity around the world, clinicians should remain vigilant for symptoms of mumps.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16940266

 

Persistence of maternal antibody in infants beyond 12 months: Mechanism of measles vaccine failure

A serologic study was made in 34 children immunized against measles at the age of 12 months. Using a sensitive virus neutralization test, it was found that many of the children had pre-existing maternal antibody to measles virus. (this was written in 1977 back when mothers were actually passing immunity to their children..this is just an example of natural immunity being passed from mother to child..something that vaccination cannot and will not ever do.)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347677810214

The study, which analyzed data from 2009-2011, found that white, college-educated mothers over the age of 35 were most likely to report that they had delayed or skipped immunizations for their children. There’s no consensus as to why that is the case, Young said. [hmmm..lets try to help them come to a clear consensus.. could intellence level be a factor? could age play a role because mothers over 35 have had more time to witness what vaccination can do?]

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/04/22/2875131/more-alaskans-hesitant-about-vaccines.html#storylink=cpy

“A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. Population”

The reason for the rapid rise of autism in the United States that began in the 1990s is

a mystery. Although individuals probably have a genetic predisposition to develop autism,

researchers suspect that one or more environmental triggers are also needed. One of those

triggers might be the battery of vaccinations that young children receive. Using regression

analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion

of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of

autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007

was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the

proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence

of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children

having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since

vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or

to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has

been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted

 

full text: http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Vaccine%20and%20Autism%20correlation%20US%202011%20J%20Tox%20Env%20Health.pdf

 

 

“CDC officials discuss neurological damage from vaccines in secret meeting – Simpsonwood”

You can read this clearly for yourself if you access the pdf transcript that was obtained via FOIA

http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/cdc-officials-discuss-neurological-damage-from-vaccines-in-secret-meeting-simpsonwood/#.UYM4l07D_IV

“The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects  The odds of having had any allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10714532

Nanomaterials can be transported by monocyte-lineage cells to DLNs, blood and spleen, and, similarly to HIV, may use CCL2-dependent mechanisms to penetrate the brain. This occurs at a very low rate in normal conditions explaining good overall tolerance of alum despite its strong neurotoxic potential. However, continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe, especially in the case of overimmunization or immature/altered blood brain barrier or high constitutive CCL-2 production.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/99

pregnant woman researching

regarding tdap and pregnancy..is an autism coverup to blame?

this post is in regards to my previous post on tdap vaccination during pregnancy..

I see no other reason why they are pushing all of these vaccines on pregnant women other than the reason that they are frantically trying to prove to us that autism is a genetic condition that children have had from birth..its criminal!!

seriously though..they “remove” thimerosal from most vaccines but then at the same time as they’re phasing the mercury out, they start to recommend annual flu shots… (most flu shots contain thimerosal..) starting at 6 months of age..and then they say that pregnant women need flu shots (mercury and aluminum do penetrate the placenta..nothing is better for a developing baby than mercury..don’t you know?) and on top of all this they increase the aluminum in vaccines!! now tdap during pregnancy!!? there is just no other explanation (given the history of all this) that would explain why this pregnancy vaccine push along with yearly flu shots for infants and huge increases in aluminum is happening.. lets stroll over to cdc.gov and see what the they have to say about this:

Does thimerosal cause autism? “Research does not show ANY link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. (OHH my lord!! PLEASE see the TACA compilation of over 600 citations that show a thimerosal/autism connection!!!!)

ALTHOUGH thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in 2001, autism rates have gone up, which is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism.”

ARENT THOSE PEOPLE OVER AT THE CDC CLEVER!!??

please dont allow yourself to be fooled. Please hear the other side of this story and think for yourself.

the CDC boldly proclaims that autism rates didn’t drop after thimerosal was phased out in 2001..
– even though they added 4 doses of the aluminum containing PCV and the aluminum containing Hep A vaccine to the schedule in 2001..

– ohh yeah, 2001 was also the year that the CDC started recommending that flu shots be given either during the 2nd or 3rd trimester to pregnant women and their unborn children.

– and THEN if all that wasn’t enough.. we added the thimerosal containing YEARLY flu shot for children – starting at 6 months – to the schedule in 2002.

– and now they want pregnant women to be injected with even more toxic substances like aluminum and formaldehyde via the tdap vaccine given during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy?!!!

“nope vaccines do not cause autism,” says the CDC.

How stupid do they think we are?

I know this may be a jagged pill for some to swallow..but seriously think about it as you would think about anything else when trying to come to a conclusion. Think about this.. What would the ramifications have been if – all the sudden – autism rates would have started to plummet after the thimerosal was removed from most vaccines? This would have caused fingers to point directly at the CDC and their precious vaccine program..can you image the uproar that would have taken place? The publics confidence in the vaccine schedule and the publics willingness to adhere to it would be badly damaged if a scenario such as this ever played out. Soooo much money would be lost!!

I know that some people may be thinking, “this girl is some conspiracy loving crazy..!” but I am not trying to provoke some panic laden thoughts from you right now..i am simply just stating what I see. Look at almost every scandal or cover up that has taken place in this world..what is at the root of them? what is the common theme that connects almost all atrocities together?

the answer is money. throughout history it has been proven time and time again that money has a higher value than people.

link to cdc on thimerosal: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

see this link to see the changing appearance of the vaccine schedule : https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.351985038232728.76132.326568134107752&type=3

also to see peer reviewed studies on aluminum and how it damages the brain..click this link and scroll down to the section on aluminum: https://therefurbishedrogue.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/tdap-and-pregnancy-finding-your-voice-to-say-no/

tdap and pregnancy – finding your voice to say no

One of my best friends sent me a text message today from her doctors office..she was waiting for the doctor to come in and was freaking out because the nurse told her she would be getting a Tdap vaccine. She asked me if she should get the Tdap vaccine or not (she is pregnant with twins).  I told her, “NO!” She told her doctor no for now and that she would research it and come back in if she wanted it. Her doctor flipped out..she even brought the vaccine, ready to go, into the room as a last attempt to push my friend into getting the shot. I told my friend that I would email her some things that I had on the Tdap and pregnancy.

I like to share these kinds of things because we all probably know someone that we could share this stuff with.. so many frightened mothers are searching for the reasons that will back up the answer that their instincts are telling them to give – no.

Knowledge is power.

Knowledge is the power that will give you confidence in your decisions. Why would a mother not want to be confident in one of the most important decisions that she will ever make?

this is what I emailed my friend:

on page 14 of the Adacel Tdap vaccine package insert:

“Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Adacel vaccine. It is also not known whether Adacel vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Adacel vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed”

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM142764.pdf

adacel tdap vaccine package insert

on page 13 of the Boostrix Tdap vaccine package insert:

 “There are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, BOOSTRIX should be given  to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/UCM152842.pdf

boostrix tdap vaccine package insert

From a clinical trial that is currently in the recruitment stage and is NOT SET TO BE COMPLETED  until DECEMBER 2013: (and how long have they been recommending Tdap during pregnancy?)

Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccination in Pregnancy
This study is currently recruiting participants.
The main aim of the present study is to measure the influence of an adult pertussis booster in pregnant women, on the titer and duration of maternal antibodies in their infants.

Primary Outcome Measures:

Does vaccination of pregnant women with a combined vaccine Tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap), induce sufficiently high maternal antibody concentration in the newborns infants to possibly protect them until their own vaccination starts [ Time Frame: 16 months ]

Secondary Outcome Measures:

Vaccine associated (Severe) Adverse Events in pregnant women and children during the study time [ Time Frame: 16 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]

Estimated Enrollment: 50 [ personal note: 50 HEALTHY WOMEN! THAT’S IT! If you read this whole trial scroll down and read all the criteria that women must meet to be able to participate..yet the vaccine is given to all]

Study Start Date:February 2012
Estimated Study Completion Date:December 2014
Estimated Primary Completion Date:December 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Link to clinical trial information: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01698346?term=DAPTACEL+pregnancy&rank=1

Right from the CDC’s own “MMRV” report on Tdap vaccination during pregnancy they say:

Safety of Tdap in Pregnant Women

In prelicensure evaluations, the safety of administering a booster dose of Tdap to pregnant women was NOT studied. Because information on use of Tdap in pregnant women was lacking, both manufacturers of Tdap established pregnancy registries to collect information and pregnancy outcomes from pregnant women vaccinated with Tdap..

Transplacental Maternal Antibodies

For infants, transplacentally transferred maternal antibodies MIGHT provide protection against pertussis in early life and before beginning the primary DTaP series.

 Link to this on the cdc website: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6041a4.htm?s_cid=mm6041a4_e%0d%0a

The Tdap contains:

Boostrix Tdap: formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), Latham medium derived from bovine casein, Fenton medium containing a bovine extract, Stainer-Scholte liquid medium

Adacel Tpad: aluminum phosphate, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, 2-phenoxyethanol, ammonium sulfate, Mueller’s growth medium, Mueller-Miller casamino acid medium (without beef heart infusion)

Cdc table of vaccine ingredients: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

A few things I’ve found all with peer reviewed scientific references:

This is from a blog that I wrote on here a while back that was about 2 phenoxyethanol.  In the studies below, they call it  , ethylene glycol monophenyl ether, but if you look that chemical up..you will find that its another name for 2 phenoxyethanol..which is in the tdap (adacel). My past blog post goes into more detail about this..you can read that here.

“A continuous breeding reproduction study design was utilized to examine the reproductive toxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (EGPE)(EGPE = vaccine ingredient). continuous breeding reproduction study design was utilized to examine the reproductive toxicity of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and ethylene glycol monophenyl ether (EGPE).. With respect to EGPE, there was no change in the ability to produce five litters during the continuous breeding period. There was, however, a significant but small (10-15%) decrease in the number of pups/litter and in pup weight in the high-dose group. A crossover mating trial suggested a female component of the reproductive toxicity of EGPE. While fertility was only minimally compromised, severe neonatal toxicity was observed. By Day 21 there were only 8 out of 40 litters in the mid- and high-dose groups which had at least one male and female/litter. Second generation reproductive performance of the mid-dose group (1.25%) was unaffected except for a small decrease in live pup weight. In summary the reproductive toxicity of EGBE and EGPE was only evident in the female and occurred at doses which elicited general toxicity. EGBE was particularly toxic to adult female mice while EGPE was particularly toxic to immature mice of both sexes.” (10)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2086313

** I had to read this about ten times just to make sure that I was reading it right. Did that really just say what I thought it did? Does anyone else notice how the authors try their hardest to play down the results in the group that received EGPE? But if you read it a few times..you will quickly realize that the results for the group that received 2-phenoxyethanol are not good.

•there was a slow decline in fertility that caused a drop in the weight and health of the next generation.

• severe neonatal (infants) toxicity was observed.

•the abstract never gave the information needed to know how many in the EGPE group died.. Since it never gave the orginal number of pups/liter there is no way to know how many died.

• the other ether in the study caused deaths and toxic events to happen to the adult female mice. The glysol ether that is in several pediatric vaccines, 2-phenoxyethanol, was particularly toxic and caused death in the baby and children mice of both sexes.

•and these results were what happened after the mice ate 2-phenoxyethanol..infants and children are injected with this substance.

another peer reviewed article that discusses ethylene glycol monophenyl ether, or 2 phenoxyethanol, an ingredient in the Tdap:

In summary, ethylene glycol monophenyl ether produced significant reproductive and developmental toxicity..Ethylene glycol monophenyl  ether caused significant toxicity in growing animals, as evidenced by the reduced body weight in neonates in Tasks 2, 3, and 4, and the large increase in postnatal lethality as the animals grew to the age of mating.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470243/pdf/envhper00326-0221.pdf

another ingredient in almost every vaccine and the Tdap(there is a lot more out there about formaldehyde as well..) :

Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research studies of workers exposed to formaldehyde have suggested an association between formaldehyde exposure and several cancers, including nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehyde

some peer reviewed literature about aluminum (both Tdap and most other vaccines contain aluminum)

Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure   

“Autism is a condition characterized by impaired cognitive and social skills, associated with compromised immune function. The incidence is alarmingly on the rise, and environmental factors are increasingly suspected to play a role. This paper investigates word frequency patterns in the U.S. CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database. Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.”

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227

full text: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/sls/publications/2012/entropy-14-02227.pdf

“Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration.”

“Possible causes of GWS include several of the adjuvants in the anthrax vaccine and others. The most likely culprit appears to be aluminum hydroxide. In an initial series of experiments, we examined the potential toxicity of aluminum hydroxide in male, outbred CD-1 mice injected subcutaneously in two equivalent-to-human doses. After sacrifice, spinal cord and motor cortex samples were examined by immunohistochemistry. Aluminum-treated mice showed significantly increased apoptosis of motor neurons and increases in reactive astrocytes and microglial proliferation within the spinal cord and cortex. Morin stain detected the presence of aluminum in the cytoplasm of motor neurons with some neurons also testing positive for the presence of hyper-phosphorylated tau protein, a pathological hallmark of various neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. A second series of experiments was conducted on mice injected with six doses of aluminum hydroxide. Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19740540

Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are serious multisystem developmental disorders and an urgent global public health concern. Dysfunctional immunity and impaired brain function are core deficits in ASD. Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered: (i) children should not be viewed as “small adults” as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; and (ii) if exposure to Al from only few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? By applying Hill’s criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p<0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3-4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89-0.94, p=0.0018-0.0248). The application of the Hill’s criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?

 Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly  contentious medical issue.

http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

What is regressive autism and why does it occur? Is it the consequence of multi-systemic dysfunction affecting the elimination of heavy metals and the ability to regulate neural temperature?

Aluminum also shares common mechanisms with mercury e.g. it interferes with cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system. Children given the recommended vaccinations are injected with nearly 5 mg of aluminum by the time they are just 1.5 years old, almost 6 times the safe level. Furthermore the nature of the Aluminium affects the prevailing blood levels and is also increasingly implicated, through their use as vaccine adjuvants, in autism.

Where is the proof that vaccines are safe? The argument has never been that they are completely safe but that the consequences are less than having the disease. Now it is illustrated that the consequences of intensive vaccination schedules pose a greater risk than could ever have been imagined. This leads to the evolution of new viral strains, an unsurprising development when the environment to which it is exposed is being altered by new proteins, structural variants and ALTERED DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/

“Aluminum overload increases oxidative stress in four functional brain areas of neonatal rats”

Aluminum overload increases oxidative stress (H2O2) in the hippocampus, diencephalon, cerebellum, and brain stem in neonatal rats. (In humans, oxidative stress is thought to be involved in the development of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, atherosclerosis, heart failure, myocardial infarction, fragile X syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease,lichen planus, vitiligo, autism, and chronic fatigue syndrome) .

The main route of Al excretion is the urine; therefore, subjects with kidney malfunction or immature kidney, such as nephropathy patients or neonates, might experience toxic accumulation of Al in the body [12]. Infants display rapid growth and their brain-blood-barrier, detoxification system (liver), and excretory system (kidney) are not well-developed [13,14]. Aluminum can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in glial and neural cells [15]. Thus, high intake of Al-containing formula [ but they don’t mention the vaccines that are injected.. ] might cause accumulation of Al in the neonatal brain, interfering with appropriate development.

In previous studies, exposure to excess dietary Al during gestation and lactation periods had no toxic effects on the mother, but resulted in persistent neurobehavioral deficits in the pups, such as defects in the sensory motor reflexes, locomotor activity, learning capability, and cognitive behavior [16,17]. These behavioral studies, therefore, suggested that Al exposure might cause developmental changes in neonatal brain. Until recently, a marker with which to effectively detect neonatal brain development was lacking. The group’s previous study with Al treatment in neonatal rat hippocampal neurons at concentrations of 37 μM and 74 μM for 14 days significantly reduced NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor) expression which was used as a marker of brain development. This suggested that Al exposure might influence the development of hippocampal neurons in neonatal rats [12].

http://www.jbiomedsci.com/content/19/1/51

Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations

Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity. In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic.

Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs…infants and children should not be viewed as ‘‘small adults’’ with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., ‘‘ASIA’’), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in ‘‘ASIA’’ and are thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and (iv) the same components of the neuroimmune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants.

http://vaccinesafetycouncilminnesota.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Mechanisms-of-aluminum-adjuvant-toxicity-and-autoimmunity-in-pediatric-populations.pdf

**These articles talk about how deep the pharma ties run in the medical and scientific world. you should read both of them in their entirety..once you learn these things – everything that ive typed above will mean a lot more to you.

This first article was written by the former editor and chief executive of the British Medical Journal.. He should know better than anyone the corruption.

Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies

about the author:   RS was an editor for the BMJ [british medical journal] for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.

Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way” [2]. Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry” [4]. Something is clearly up.

The most conspicuous example of medical journals’ dependence on the pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The advertisements may often be misleading [5,6] and the profits worth millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to discounting the claims of advertisers. [personal note: this only scratches the surface..he goes into so much detail in the full publication.]

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

conflicts of interests in vaccine safety research

COls  [conflicts of interests]can influence the objectivity of vaccine safety researchers. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article describes the COls faced by various research sponsors. Vaccine manufacturers have financial motives and public health officials have bureaucratic reasons that might lead them to sponsor research that concludes vaccines are safe. Advocacy groups have members with legal and financial reasons to support studies that find adverse effects in vaccines. These conflicts do not mean the research is incorrect, but the research could be selective and biased. Currently, most vaccine safety researchers face conflicts, which contribute to consumer confusion as well as more studies concerned with vaccine safety. Reported injuries from vaccines are not investigated and both the public as well as some health workers question vaccine safety research. Ameliorating the COIs–through bureaucratic restructuring and enforced transparency-could lead to less bias, more investigation into reported injuries and increased trust in vaccine safety research. [personal note: another must read..]

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Conflicts%20of%20Interest%20in%20Vaccine%20Safety%20Research,%20Gayle%20DeLong.pdf

and lastly — watch this awesome video

Everything this video shows comes straight from the vaccine manufactures who make the vaccines and from the CDC and the NIH..you can easily find these things yourself. Watch it till the very end so that you can see the doctor quote. make sure to click the 1080p button next to the fullscreen button at the bottom so you can see the text better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3EEuMGhCwA

**you may feel stressed out to the core about all this. but you shouldn’t be. If you would have been pregnant a few years ago.. a doctor would’ve never offered you a Tdap vaccine. Why now? Where are the studies? Why does their own literature state that this vaccine should only be given when clearly needed because its use in pregnant women has never been studied? Please tell me how the benefit of this outweighs the risks for my unborn baby! Why wont they offer a single pertussis vaccine? Offering a single vaccine would at least decrease the burden placed upon my baby. Why give an unnecessary triple shot when they could offer something safer? What is really important here?

The answer to all of this is simple – stand firm and just say no. They cannot force you to have this vaccine. You are not powerless. Stand your ground for the sake of your baby. remember that – KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

“hey, don’t you realize that there’s a baby in here, doctor? “

waiting on vaccine

Hard evidence that vaccines have been used to purposely make women sterile. What has changed?

Many of us have seen the accusations that vaccines are used as population control. Some of you may be hearing about this idea for the first time as you read this. What do you think when you read that this is the sinister reality behind vaccinations? I know the first time that I read this claim..im going to be honest here..i thought that whoever it was out there in cyberspace who wrote it.. was probably a crazy person. Of course, it was before I was awakened to the cold truth that I thought this..but still, the fact that I (being a person that has always questioned things) thought this means that most people probably think these accusations to be far more foolish than I did. How has the state of our society come to think the way that it does about notions that go against the grain? How have we become so programed to automatically brush certain things off as just “crazy” before ever giving any thought to what it is that is being said? It makes perfectly good sense that vaccines could be used as a method to reduce the population. Even after watching the clip of bill gates speaking about this, many people im sure, still just place this idea in the “crazy” category and probably never return to think about it. However, what I write about below.. leaves little room for interpretation – it has been well documented that vaccines HAVE been used to, without consent, end pregnancies, impair fertility and as a population control method.

population-control

I remember reading an article back in February that reported the murders of nearly 10 polio vaccinators in Nigeria. The deadly attacks were done by a group that believed that the polio vaccine was a western plot to sterilize Muslim girls. This seems so shocking of an idea to most of us probably. But after learning about this.. it is not such an outlandish thought. (the thought that polio vaccinations could be used as population control is not that outlandish NOT the thought of taking the lives of 9 innocent women who were just doing a job..i am in NO WAY SAYING THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN NIGERIA IS OK.)

I have heard about what happened to many of the poor women and to their unborn children in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines in the 1990s (and is still probably happening even today..how can we say that it is not happening today? What has changed? What explanation or apology has been issued?) getting back on point here..but until today, I had never really looked into it. what this post discusses has ethical ramifications that mirror even some of the most despicable crimes against humanity that have occurred on this planet. It is a travesty!..and guess what? Few people in this world have ever heard even a whisper about it.

During the early 1990s the World Health Organization (WHO) oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus; These campaigns targeted a number of developing countries.  Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines were three of the countries, among others, that were blessed by the WHO and all of their vaccine glory. Apparently, the thugs at the World Health Organization not only thought these people to be expendable..but they also must have thought that these people were incredibly stupid. It didn’t take long for officials to become suspicious of the vaccinations. Only women between the ages of 15 and 49 were allowed to be vaccinated (why not men and children?) and the vaccination schedule had these women receiving 3 tetanus vaccines within the first 3 months and 5 tetanus vaccines altogether, when it is widely accepted that a single tetanus vaccination will supposedly protect against tetanus for ten years. Because of these suspicions, officials had vials of the vaccine tested. To their surprise, the vaccines contained the pregnancy hormone hCG. The paper that ive learned all of this from explains why this is a negative thing by saying:

“In nature the hCG hormone alerts the woman’s body that she is pregnant and causes the release of other hormones to prepare the uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized egg. The rapid rise in hCG levels after conception makes it an excellent marker for confirmation of pregnancy: when a woman takes a pregnancy test she is not tested for the pregnancy itself, but for the elevated presence of hCG.

However, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend and will produce anti-hCG antibodies. The antibodies will attack subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.(1)”

The article goes on to say that after this was discovered,

“HLI reported the sketchy facts regarding the Mexican tetanus vaccines to its World Council members and affiliates in more than 60 countries.(2) Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from Nicaragua, which had conducted its own vaccination campaign in 1993.”

The aforementioned article was originally published in HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8 – see bottom of article for references. also see the additional pubmed article that discusses this in the link I will post below. I will also include one other link for people who would like to read into this further. The article goes on to say:

The Known Facts

Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines: 

* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren’t men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?

* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there

* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)

* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier — the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)

The Anti-Fertility Gang

Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State.(5) The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.(6)

The WHO began its “Special Programme” in human reproduction in 1972, and by 1993 had spent more than $356 million on “reproductive health” research.(7) It is this “Programme” which has pioneered the development of the abortificant vaccine. Over $90 million of this Programme’s funds were contributed by Sweden; Great Britain donated more than $52 million, while Norway, Denmark and Germany kicked in for $41 million , $27 million, and $12 million, respectively. The U.S., thanks to the cut-off of such funding during the Reagan-Bush administrations, has contributed “only” $5.7 million, including a new payment in 1993 by the Clinton administration of $2.5 million. Other major contibutors to the WHO Programme include UNFPA, $61 million; the World Bank, $15.5 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, $2.5 million; the Ford Foundation, over $1 million; and the IDRC (International Research and Development Centre of Canada), $716.5 thousand.

WHO and Philippine Health Department Excuses

When the first reports surfaced in the Philippines of tetanus toxoid vaccine being laced with hCG hormones, the WHO and the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) immediately denied that the vaccine contained hCG. Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid examined, the WHO and DOH scoffed at the evidence coming from “right-to-life and Catholic” sources. Four new vials of the tetanus vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke’s (Lutheran) Medical Center in Manila — and all four vials tested positive for hCG! From outright denial the stories now shifted to the allegedly “insignificant” quantity of the hCG present; the volume of hCG present is insufficient to produce anti-hCG antibodies.

But new tests designed to detect the presence of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of women vaccinated with the tetauns toxoid vaccine were undertaken by Philippine pro-life and Catholic groups. Of thirty women tested subsequent to receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine, twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-hCG! If there were no hCG in the vaccine, or if it were present in only “insignificant” quantities, why were the vaccinated women found to be harboring anti-hCG antibodies? The WHO and the DOH had no answers.

New arguments surfaced: hCG’s apparent presence in the vaccine was due to “false positives” resulting from the particular substances mixed in the vaccine or in the chemicals testing for hCG. And even if hCG was really there, its presence derived from the manufacturing process.
But the finding of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of vaccinated women obviated the need to get bogged down in such debates. It was no longer necessary to argue about what may or may not have been the cause of the hCG presence, when one now had the effect of the hCG. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced into their bodies!
Why A Tetanus Toxoid “Carrier”?

Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring hormone hCG, the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an invading enemy in order to develop a successful anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG antibodies. A paper delivered at the 4th International Congress of Reproductive Immunology (Kiel, West Germany, 26-29 July 1989) spelled it out: “Linkage to a carrier was done to overcome the immunological tolerance to hCG.”(8)

Vaccine Untested by Drug Bureau

After the vaccine controversy had reached a fever pitch, a new bombshell exploded; none of the three different brands of tetanus vaccine being used had ever been licensed for sale and distribution or registered with the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), as required by law. The head of the BFAD lamely explained that the companies distributing these brands “did not apply for registration.”(9) The companies in question are Connaught Laboratories Ltd. and Intervex, both from Canada, and CSL Laboratories from Australia.

It seemed that the BFAD might belatedly require re-testing, but the idea was quickly rejected when the Secretary of Health declared that, since the vaccines had been certified by the WHO — there they are again! — there was assurance enough that the “vaccines come from reputable manufacturers.”(10) Just how “reputable” one of the manufacturers might be is open to some question. In the mid-`80s Connaught Laboratories was found to be knowingly distributing vials of AIDS-contaminated blood products.(11)

Epilogue

At this juncture, evidence is beginning to appear from Africa.(12) HLI has called for a Congressional investigation of the situation, inasmuch as nearly every agency involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine is funded, at least in part, with U.S. monies.”

**This abstract that I found on PubMed from 1995 was published in Vaccine Weekly and can easily be read at the link below..it goes on to further back this up by saying:

“A priest, president of Human Life International (HLI) based in Maryland, has asked Congress to investigate reports of women in some developing countries unknowingly receiving a tetanus vaccine laced with the anti-fertility drug human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). If it is true, he wants Congress to publicly condemn the mass vaccinations and to cut off funding to UN agencies and other involved organizations. The natural hormone hCG is needed to maintain pregnancy. The hormone would produce antibodies against hCG to prevent pregnancy. In the fall of 1994, the Pro Life Committee of Mexico was suspicious of the protocols for the tetanus toxoid campaign because they excluded all males and children and called for multiple injections of the vaccine in only women of reproductive age. Yet, one injection provides protection for at least 10 years. The Committee had vials of the tetanus vaccine analyzed for hCG. It informed HLI about the tetanus toxoid vaccine. HLI then told its World Council members and HLI affiliates in more than 60 countries. Similar tetanus vaccines laced with hCG have been uncovered in the Philippines and in Nicaragua. In addition to the World Health Organization (WHO), other organizations involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine using hCG include the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State universities. The priest objects that, if indeed the purpose of the mass vaccinations is to prevent pregnancies, women are uninformed, unsuspecting, and unconsenting victims.”

Link to pubmed article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346214

Link to the main article mentioned in this post: http://thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm

Additional reading which includes references to other articles that make mention of this:  http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=368716

vaccinationsKill

what excactly is in that?

Below, you will find a link to the cdc table of vaccine ingredients. how many parents have actually looked at this before allowing their kids to be vaccinated? My son Rory received his two month shots, 7 vaccines and 1100 mcg of aluminum at once..i didn’t look before. I am pretty sure that a few things would happen if more parents did:

1. the number of babies receiving 7, 8 or 9 vaccines at one visit would plummet.

2. titer test sells would increase.

3. the number of booster doses administered would fall.

*I could continue with this list for a long, long time.. but i’ll save that for another post. I am just trying to keep this post simple.

**and before anyone tries to add to this list by saying that disease rates would increase, or that infant mortality from disease would increase.. please consider looking into the following things:

– what a titer test is.

– in 1950 (before mass immunization), the US ranked 3rd in the world for having the lowest infant mortality rate.

– in 2012, the US infant mortality rank was 49th.

– today, in a country where pregnant woman are encouraged to receive flu shots that contain mercury and tdap vaccines that contain aluminum and formaldehyde, and starting at birth, children receive 49 vaccines before the age of 6 :

1 in 6 children have learning disabilities
1 in 9 children have asthma
1 in 10 children have ADHD
1 in 12 children have food allergies
3-5 in 100 children are born with Birth Defects
1 in 88 children have Autism
1 in 100 children have Seizures
1 in 450 children have Diabetes
1 in 6,000 children have been diagnosed with Cancer

*** and if anyone would like the sources to the info above.. I can provide them. it will just take me some time to compile them all. but I will do it. just ask for them in the comments

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

imr 1950-2012

the new normal vax schedule

Pediatricians Receive Regular Requests for Alternative Child Immunization Schedules..really!!?

Today I am writing in response to the study published in Pediatrics (the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) called,  “Washington Pediatricians Receive Regular Requests for Alternative Child Immunization Schedules”
This article clearly states that this study is the first of its kind. I cannot believe that the AAP hasn’t looked at this before. Especially given whats going on currently with how parents view vaccination.. this article states,
 “Currently, however, parental acceptance of childhood immunizations is waning. There was a  17- percentage point increase in the proportion of parents who refused or delayed immunizations for their children in 2008, compared with 2003 (39% vs 22%)”
 So at least they know what’s going on. But why did they not look into what the peds think about this a long time ago..a study like this gives a realistic glimpse into such a cloudy “issue.” Still though..after they finally decided to conduct this needed research, only 209 peds ended up participating..so we still don’t have a lot to look at here. But from what we do have to look at..it doesnt look half bad.
“More than three-fourths of Washington State pediatricians reported that parents regularly requested ACISs, [alternative child immunization schedules] and more than one-half of the pediatricians surveyed were comfortable using ACISs if requested by parents.”
What do the charts below (results from study) say for the hep b vaccine and the chickenpox vaccine? It shows exactly what these vaccines are… junk.

on being spat upon and unethical children

From Dr. Bob Sear’s facebook page (see bottom for link):

“Institute of Medicine Concludes Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Research Not Needed: The Vaccine Schedule is Safe As Is.
The IOM released a report today regarding the safety of the American vaccination schedule. Their conclusion? No new methods of safety research need to be undertaken. The current safety surveillance systems that we have in place are adequate, although they could be improved upon. Undertaking a large study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children is neither ethical nor necessary. The vaccine schedule is safe as it is.”

MoneyTalks

**They could end this whole debate so easily. But they won’t do it. The IOM and the CDC says that to leave kids unvaccinated is “unethical”..and this is the crutch that they lean on, even though millions of parents are so unsure about giving their kids vaccines. Im sure that I am not the only parent that has cried on the way to their babies checkup out of nothing but fear. They may say that since my son has not had a shot since he was 8 weeks old that he is unethical..he is actually quite healthy (praise the Lord) how dare these fools (yes, fools) call my child unethical when they inject 4 million children every year with a vaccine schedule that has grown from 10 to nearly 40 shots, contains known neurotoxins, carcinogens, and poisons that decrease fertility..and this “healthy” schedule HAS NEVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO A PLACEBO CONTROLED SAFETY STUDY! and they wanna call us unethical?! Just like in the bible..we are living in a time when right is wrong and wrong is right! What they are doing to the families and to the future of the world IS WRONG.

There has never been a study conducted that shows the effects that the current vaccine schedule has on a developing body and mind, so the risks of vaccinating my children are unknown. the risks of the sicknesses that vaccines claim to prevent are well known..so i am more comfortable taking the risks that i know. no matter how i look at it, i cannot justify my child being used as a guinea pig. Parents should be outraged! The tone in this country over vaccinations has changed..you cant hide from the glaring truth.. people are down right scared of these things.. our children are suffering..and they simply turn a blind eye to our plight and give us no new research..just a simple, “trust me..vaccines are safe.” Are you kidding me! if vaccines were safe and if the information we were given about them was true..I wouldnt be here writing this..you wouldnt be reading this! Give us truth..that’s all we are asking for.

Give us what we need to be confident in the vaccine schedule! Get two groups of children..one group that is fully vaccinated according to the cdc schedule and the other group not vaccinated at all..and compare the two groups. Have the study conducted by people who will not profit in any way regardless of the results..and publish them. We deserve it! Our children deserve it!

Dr. Sears goes on to say:

 ”A few years ago we all got excited when the Centers for Disease Control announced they were looking into doing more extensive vaccine safety research. Essentially, they were going to research whether or not they should and could do such research. The CDC assigned this task to the Institute of Medicine, a panel of medical experts from various medical and research backgrounds, and this report is the product of this investigation.
Here are my thoughts/disappointments/criticisms of the IOM report:
1. The IOM did not do any NEW research in this report. They did nothing new to examine and conclude that the current vaccine schedule is safe, or that it is safer than an alternative one. What they simply did was examine current available research and determine that there is no evidence that the current schedule is unsafe. There is no NEW information or research findings here.

2. The IOM admits on page 3 of their summary press release that a study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children is “the strongest study design type”. Basically, such a study would give us the most useful information.

3. The IOM and the CDC continue to hide behind the claim that to do a comparative study of unvaccinated versus vaccinated children would be unethical. But as long as they neglect to do this research, many parents will continue to decline vaccines over the concern about lack of safety research.

4. The IOM states that one challenge of an unvaccinated study is that there is an inadequate number of study subjects, as less than 1% of children are completely unvaccinated. I don’t agree with this statistic. It’s more like 5%, and could even be 10%. One brand new international study ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22943300) revealed that 10% of households surveyed had children who were completely unvaccinated. 10%!!! And it was the more educated and wealthier families that were more likely to be unvaccinated. The IOM’s claim that there aren’t enough unvaccinated children to study simply isn’t true. With over 4 million babies being born in the U.S. every year, they would have their pick of about 400,000 unvaccinated children to study each year.

The end result of this IOM report is that nothing has changed. Worried parents don’t have any new research or information to consider. The CDC has declared loud and clear that they won’t begin any new research on vaccine safety, especially involving a comparative unvaccinated control group. The debate over vaccine safety will continue on. “

The IOM report can be downloaded from this link: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

link to Dr. Bob Sears Facebook page..he is awesome and gives balanced information that can be trusted: http://www.facebook.com/ProudChristianParentsOfUnvaccinatedChildren?ref=hl#!/pages/Dr-Bob-Sears/116317855073374?fref=ts

and thank you to my friend at Educate4TheInjured.org for leading me to this… click on name for website or to visit the Educate4theInjured facebook page click here

chalkboard