“The Truth About Vaccines”

[Firestarter]

The African American boys were enrolled in a school for autistic children. To be allowed into that school, they were required to be vaccinated. They were diagnosed in many cases before their vaccines meaning that the vaccine could not have caused it if it occurred before the child was vaccinated. Once that cohort was removed, there was no link.

The lies by Zippyjuan just keep coming; on 25 Oct. Zippy posted the lie:

That study which found a potential link between black males and autism and the MMR vaccine was flawed which is why the data was removed. The survey asked if the boys had autism and if they had received the MMR vaccine.
A notable amount said yes. The problem was that they had autism BEFORE they were vaccinated. The boys were enrolled in a special school for autistic children and were vaccinated as a condition of enrollment- after they had been diagnosed as being autistic. That means it is impossible that the vaccine caused their autism since they already had it. Once that group was removed from the study data base, they found no link between the vaccine and autism.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...lio-vaccines&p=6543491&viewfull=1#post6543491


After I asked for evidence, there was no reply at all:

Do you have a source for these claims?!?

I have read that the study was retracted over concerns of “competing interests”: https://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-9158-3-22

That the study was retracted over “competing interests” shows that Zippyjuan is lying.
I haven't found additional information on the “competing interests”...

 

[donnay]

HERE WE GO AGAIN: MORE VACCINE-AUTISM DENIALISM
WORLD MERCURY PROJECTAPRIL 2, 2018

BY DR. BRIAN S. HOOKER, PHD, PE AND THE WORLD MERCURY PROJECT TEAM

Scientists like to pretend that they are above grubby conflicts of interest, and mainstream journalists often pay lip service to their “fourth estate” watchdog role. However, some scientists and journalists are all too willing to play more of a corporate lapdog role. A particularly large amount of ink has been spilled to discredit—nay, stomp out—the inconvenient notion that vaccines might have something to do with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which now affects 1 in 36 children in the U.S. Despite extensive high-level scientific fraud at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to suppress evidence of a vaccine-autism link, the CDC has not been able to hide over 80 independent studies that connect the dots between the vaccine preservative thimerosal and autism. Other studies have pointed to additional vaccine-related culprits that may be contributing to ASD, including aluminum—used in a very high proportion of infant vaccines and recently reported in pathologically significant levels in the brains of individuals diagnosed with autism.

…the JAMA Pediatrics researchers appear content to scold beleaguered ASD families for poor compliance with the vaccine schedule.
Nonetheless, the disingenuous denials continue to circulate. The latest example is on display in a 2018 study published in JAMA Pediatrics titled “Vaccination patterns in children after autism spectrum disorder diagnosis and in their younger siblings.” The study reports that ASD children were significantly less likely to be vaccinated after receiving their ASD diagnosis (compared to children without ASD), and “parents of children with ASD were more likely to refuse vaccinating the children’s younger siblings compared with parents of children without ASD.” The strange study design, by the lead author’s own admission, “did not look at vaccination rates before the children were diagnosed with autism” [emphasis added]. Instead, the researchers “only assessed vaccines recommended after the child’s ASD diagnosis,” enabling them to informally “infer” that the diagnosis influenced parents’ decisions to delay or refuse further vaccines. Rather than try to understand the rational basis for these decisions, or support parents’ efforts to protect their children from further vaccine injuries, the JAMA Pediatricsresearchers appear content to scold beleaguered ASD families for poor compliance with the vaccine schedule.

Meanwhile, CNN heralded the JAMA Pediatrics study with an extremely deceptive piece—“Children with autism less likely to be fully vaccinated”—with a title that tricks the reader into thinking that the study shows “vaccines don’t cause autism.” Although CNN’s reporter digs up another study that found that almost a third of parents of ASD children became “vaccine-hesitant” after their child’s autism diagnosis and that, for most of the parents, “hesitancy” was due to the belief that “toxins in vaccines caused their child’s developmental problems,” the researchers and CNN hastily dismiss this belief as “scientifically untrue.”

…the five authors purportedly conspired to withhold measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and autism data that implicated the MMR vaccine for specific subpopulations of children with ASD.

The nine studies that the JAMA Pediatrics authors cite to “show” that autism is unrelated to vaccines are wholly inadequate to make any such assertion. Two of the studies are merely review articles published in 2001 and 2002, both written by the same corrupt CDC author who provides no original data on the subject. An additional paper headed up by the same author in 2004 has been shown to be fraudulent, as the five authors purportedly conspired to withhold measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and autism data that implicated the MMR vaccine for specific subpopulations of children with ASD. Yet another of the papers cited by the JAMA Pediatrics authors, a 2003 paper involving thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark, was thoroughly debunked by a later CDC study that showed a reduction in ASD prevalence in Denmark after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 1992.

The nine flimsy, flawed and out-and-out fraudulent studies that the JAMA Pediatricsauthors cite as a basis for their contention that vaccines don’t cause autism focus only on thimerosal in vaccines and the MMR vaccine. Setting aside the issue of these studies’ poor quality, one has to ask, “What about the rest of the vaccine schedule?” It is essentially unstudied! In fact, in 2011, the Institute of Medicine stated that there were insufficient data to judge whether the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine—one of those included in the 2018 JAMA Pediatrics study—caused autism. The Institute acknowledged that there simply hadn’t been proper studies done by the CDC or other entities charged with vaccine safety in the U.S.

In this way, the JAMA Pediatrics study indirectly furnishes a perfect demonstration of why families with ASD-diagnosed children become “vaccine-hesitant.” After sustaining such a diagnosis, who can blame them for hesitating to sacrifice another child to the “herd”? The federal agencies that are pushing countless vaccines on American infants and children have done less than nothing to gain the public’s confidence in the current vaccine schedule. Strangely, the lead author of the 2018 JAMA Pediatrics study published another paper in the same journal in 2017 that showed a statistically significant relationship between ASD in children and the prenatal flu shot given in the first trimester of pregnancy. This relationship would have been explained away as a “chance finding” if it had not been pointed out in a subsequent letter to the editor(Hooker, June 2017) in JAMA Pediatrics. For the same lead author to now state directly that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism is beyond disingenuous. And for CNN then to drone on incessantly about the supposed “lack of relationship” between vaccines and autism is equally shameful and constitutes, at a minimum, shoddy reporting in light of the large body of evidence showing a connection.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...enialism/?utm_referrer=https://zen.yandex.com

 

[Firestarter]

… The strange study design, by the lead author’s own admission, “did not look at vaccination rates before the children were diagnosed with autism” [emphasis added]. Instead, the researchers “only assessed vaccines recommended after the child’s ASD diagnosis,” enabling them to informally “infer” that the diagnosis influenced parents’ decisions to delay or refuse further vaccines. Rather than try to understand the rational basis for these decisions, or support parents’ efforts to protect their children from further vaccine injuries, the JAMA Pediatrics researchers appear content to scold beleaguered ASD families for poor compliance with the vaccine schedule.

Meanwhile, CNN heralded the JAMA Pediatrics study with an extremely deceptive piece—“Children with autism less likely to be fully vaccinated”—with a title that tricks the reader into thinking that the study shows “vaccines don’t cause autism.” Although CNN’s reporter digs up another study that found that almost a third of parents of ASD children became “vaccine-hesitant” after their child’s autism diagnosis and that, for most of the parents, “hesitancy” was due to the belief that “toxins in vaccines caused their child’s developmental problems,” the researchers and CNN hastily dismiss this belief as “scientifically untrue.”

http://www.collective-evolution.com...enialism/?utm_referrer=https://zen.yandex.com

What kind of big pharma supporter would use such a ridiculous study to support vaccines?
None other than one of our most “respected” members:

If there is a link between vaccines and autism, one would expect a higher autism rate among those with more vaccines- not the ones with fewer of them.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...gs-%97-are-less-likely-to-be-fully-vaccinated

 

[Firestarter]

I once read about the following steps to get a vaccine approved by the CDC...
1 - They inject lab animals with either vaccine or a placebo.
2 – They inject the supposed virus into the lab animals.
3 – If the vaccinated animals have better survival rates with the injected virus than the placebo (control) group, they say the vaccine is effective.
4 – Then they test the vaccine on humans: not to see if it prevents any disease, but merely if the adverse effects aren’t too drastic.
5 – Vaccine accepted.
This doesn’t prove that the vaccines actually prevent any disease that humans (or even animals) contract naturally. But medical “science” is obviously not objective in our Brave new world...


Vaccine induced immune deficiency
There is also evidence that being poisoned yearly with the advised flu vaccines results in lower antibody responses - immune deficiency.
The more influenza vaccinations you get poisoned with in your lifetime, the less you immune system can fight the flu virus in subsequent seasons.

After the 2009 “flu epidemic”, the Canadian flu surveillance network reported that Canadians who had received a flu shot in late 2008 were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to suffer from an adverse reaction from an H1N1 infection that required medical attention, compared with those who didn't get a shot.

In 2016, Skowronski published a report that people, who were consecutively vaccinated in 2012, 2013 and 2014, have a higher risk of being infected with the flu.

Big pharma supporting “doctors” maintain that people should take their flu shot - especially seniors, children younger than two and people suffering from chronic medical conditions (like immune deficiency?): https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/seria...o-fight-virus-in-future-researchers-1.3147903
(archived here: http://archive.is/1afvT)

A study was done to track how prior vaccination affects immune responses in 141 expectant mothers - , 91 were poisoned with a flu shot the previous year, 50 were not.
They found that women, who hadn't received a flu shot in the previous year, had better immune responses to the vaccine.

They also claim that their results “suggest it does not meaningfully affect protection in their babies”.
This really is an amazing conclusion. They found that the vaccines cause immune deficiency, but concluded that the babies were still protected just as well by the antibodies that they received from their mother...

According to the big pharma supporting “scientists” that published these results, there can’t be any reason to not take flu shots: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170801101718.htm


Flu vaccine induced abortions and other adverse effects
In 2009 and 2010, foetal deaths caused by vaccines reported in VAERS increased by 4,250%. Probably caused by the additional H1N1 vaccine that was advised.
Despite that the CDC knew of the 4,250% rise, it published a report authored by Dr. Pedro Moro in the fall of 2010 that there were only 23 miscarriages caused by the single flu vaccine in 19 years between 1990 – 2009, an average of 1.2 miscarriages per year.

Eileen Dannemann accused the CDC of “wilful misconduct” in causing the deaths of thousands of unborn babies and deliberately misleading obstetricians and gynaecologists by advertising the flu vaccine as safe for pregnant women:

The CDC, aware of their own incoming stream of early vaccine adverse events reports, clearly decided to allow the obstetricians to continue, unwittingly, murdering and damaging the unborn so that the CDC’s blunder of recommending the double-dose vaccination of pregnant women could be kept under the radar.

http://vactruth.com/2012/11/23/flu-shot-spikes-fetal-death/

In 2017, the CDC published a report by Donaheu et al on data for the flu seasons from 2010 to 2012.
Women vaccinated with the influenza vaccine (IIV) in the 2010-2011 season had 3.7-fold greater odds of experiencing an abortion within 28 days than women not receiving the vaccine.
From 2010 to 2012, the odds for a spontaneous abortion for vaccinated women were 2.0 times greater than for women that weren’t poisoned with the flu vaccine.
In women who also were poisoned with the H1N1 vaccine the previous year, the odds of spontaneous abortion in the 28 days after receiving a flu vaccine were even 7.7 times greater.

The 2017 study confirms the findings of a previous report by Goldman.
Using CDC’s VAERS database, Goldman showed a similar rise in the rate of miscarriages; this increased 11-fold in 2009 when the H1N1 vaccine was added to the recommended vaccine schedule (on top of the seasonal flu shot).

In a 2014 report, Giuseppe Traversa et al found that in over 86,000 pregnancies H1N1-vaccinated women had significantly higher rates of gestational diabetes and eclampsia.
Eclampsia is the development of seizures in women with severe toxaemia (high blood pressure and protein loss in the urine). Eclampsia is fatal in 2% of women and can result in long-term health problems. Foetal complications, including neurological damage and death, are also common.

In another paper published in 2017, Zerbo et al showed that the maternal flu shot in the first trimester of pregnancy, causes autism (ASD).
Between 2000 and 2010, vaccinated pregnant women were 25% more likely to give birth to a child that would later be diagnosed with ASD.

A 2014 report by Alan Brown et al of over 1.2 million pregnant women found that elevations in CRP, which is caused by flu vaccination, are associated with a 43% greater risk of having a child with autism.

In 2016, Chambers et al found an elevated risk for birth defects for children born to mothers who received one flu vaccine during the 2010-2014 flu seasons. “Scientists” working for the CDC were involved in this study.
Shortly before this report was published, the CDC issued a gag order forbidding any CDC employee from talking to the press without first getting clearance from the communications office. This could not have been coincidental, could it?

Vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that flu vaccines have not been shown to be safe for pregnant women.
Most vaccines contain 25 micrograms of mercury via thimerosal. Health officials have warned women to avoid eating mercury-containing tuna.
Overwhelming science shows that thimerosal is neurotoxic and deadly and that it may be particularly dangerous to the foetus.

It has repeatedly been found that thimerosal exposure is associated with:
- Birth defects - Heinonen et al 1977;
- Tics – Thompson et al;
- Speech delays – Andrews et al, Verstraeten et al: https://worldmercuryproject.org/new...d-greater-odds-miscarriage-influenza-vaccine/
(archived here: http://archive.is/LXxdt)

 

[donnay]

Dr. Suzanne Humphries reveals the stunning fraud of the CDC and vaccine propagandists

May 21, 2018
by: Vicki Batts

In a new interview with Mike Adams on CounterThink, Dr. Suzanne Humphries tells-all, revealing the corrupt vaccine industry’s dirtiest secrets and more. Humphries, a medical doctor and author of Dissolving Illusions: Diseases, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, was a highly regarded nephrologist — before she switched gears and set out to expose vaccines (and the CDC) for the sham they are.

Dr. Humphries says that Dr. Sherry Tenpenny “cracked the visage in front of me,” after Tenpenny showed her that vaccines were the “backbone of the whole pharmaceutical industry.”

“They keep people sick and that’s what’s so profitable,” Tenpenny reportedly told her. Humphries says that when the administration of a hospital she worked at told her that the adverse events she was witnessing with her own eyes weren’t real, she was driven to look deeper into the matters of vaccines on her own.

Vaccines are just “witch’s brew”
Those adverse events, Humphries says, included patients who suddenly developed kidney failure within 24 hours of being vaccinated. Hospital administrators told her that kind of thing simply didn’t happen, prompting her to look into what was actually in a vaccine.

The doctor says that she believes inflammation caused by immunizations is the source of these kinds of kidney problems, noting that the kidneys are quite sensitive organs.

Adams posits that vaccine-related inflammation is by design, pointing to adjuvants — ingredients added to vaccines to ‘stoke’ the immune system — as a key contributor to inflammation’s onset. Aluminum adjuvants are behind a number of ill effects.

Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.

Humphries notes that even vaccines with no aluminum, like the flu shot, can pose a serious risk. The flu shot, she notes, contains mercury — a toxic heavy metal which can also cause inflammation. She says that really any organ can be a target of inflammation.

Adams notes that heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and other problems have all been linked to inflammation.

“What we have to understand here,” said Humphries, “is that the inflammation happens throughout the body but some organs are more sensitive than others.”

The brain and kidneys are notably sensitive when compared to an organ like the heart. Humphries says that vaccines are “clumsy substances” that are more of a “witch’s brew” than a science-based medicine.

“Immune system psychosis” is Humphries’ term for what happens after this “witch’s brew” is injected into the human body. The body’s inflammatory response isn’t the only thing going haywire during the post-vaccination aftermath, she says — there are other reactions going on that “can’t even be measured.”

“The end result is that there’s something happening there that shouldn’t be happening,” Humphries contended.

Science fraud and the CDC
Dr. Humphries says you can either be “progressive” or “regressive,” and that the CDC is regressive. She says that while CDC is coming along with all this “help,” that just so happens to correlate with a major regression across the population, especially regarding health.

As Humphries and Adams note, the CDC is great at trying to sell people on vaccines — while obscuring the actual data on their safety and efficacy. Not long ago, the agency came under fire for literally destroying evidence linking vaccines to autism.

Of course, the CDC also reportedly owns 56 vaccines, which Adams notes is a “grave conflict of interest.” But beyond the CDC’s refusal to acknowledge good science and stop hiding the truth, there are still darker forces at play.

“Ridiculous aggression” in the marketplace, Humphries adds, is another major issue. Mandates to force vaccines on the public are highly concerning — especially when the regressive nature of governing bodies is taken into account. Big Pharma is on the road to “complete domination,” with zero opposition from the government.

Watch the full video to learn more about Dr. Suzanne Humphries and her research, and don’t forget to stay up-to-date with all things vaccine at Vaccines.news.

Sources for this article include:

Vimeo.com

Collective-Evolution.com

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/...g-fraud-of-the-cdc-and-vaccine-propagandists/

 

[Firestarter]

In this post are: 1) a 34 page paper about vaccines and 2) one of the referenced studies, showing that non-influenza disease rates more than quadrupled by a flu vaccine.

Since passage of the 1986 Act, the number of required pediatric vaccines has grown rapidly. In 1983, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule included 11 injections of 4 vaccines.10 As of 2017, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule includes 56 injections of 30 different vaccines.11
(…)

Unfortunately, unlike all non-vaccine drugs licensed by the FDA, vaccines are not required to undergo long-term double-blind inert-placebo controlled trials to assess safety. In fact, not a single one of the clinical trials for vaccines given to babies and toddlers had a control group receiving an inert placebo. Further, most pediatric vaccines currently on the market have been approved based on studies with inadequate follow-up periods of only a few days or weeks.
For example, there are two Hepatitis B vaccines licensed for one day old babies in the United States – one manufactured by Merck and the other by GlaxoSmithKline. Merck’s Hepatitis B vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for only five days after vaccination.17 Similarly, GlaxoSmithKline’s Hepatitis B vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for only four days after vaccination.18
(…)

Similarly, the HiB vaccines man-ufactured by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline were licensed by the FDA based on trials in which adverse reactions were monitored for only three days and four days, respectively, after vaccination.19 The only stand-alone polio vaccine in the United States was licensed after a mere 48-hour follow-up period.20
Even more amazing is that unlike every drug licensed by the FDA, the control groups in these vaccine trials did not receive an inert placebo.21 Rather, the control group was given one or more previously licensed vaccines as the “placebo.”22
(…)

A pilot study comparing 650 vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschooled children in the United States provides a glimpse of the potential scope of vaccine harm.119 The study found that, compared to completely-unvaccinated children, fully-vaccinated children had an increased risk of 390% for allergies, 420% for ADHD, 420% for autism, 290% for eczema, 520% for learning disabilities, and 370% for any neuro-developmental delay.120 Fully-vaccinated pre-term infants had an increased risk of 1,450% for a neurodevelopmental disorder, which includes a learning disability, ADHD or autism, compared to completely unvaccinated preterm infants.121
Another recent study compared children receiving the flu shot with those receiving a saline injection in a prospective randomized double-blind study.122 Both groups had the same rate of influenza but the group receiving the flu shot had a 340% increased rate of non-influenza infection.123
(…)

Children vaccinated with Hepatitis B vaccine in the first month of life, compared to children receiving no vaccines in the first month of life, had an increased risk of 829% for ADHD, 762% for autism, 638% for ADD, 565% for tics, 498% for sleep disorders, and 206% for speech delays.126

ICAN – Introduction to Vaccine Safety Science & Policy in the United States (2017): http://icandecide.org/white-papers/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017.pdf


The best reference from this white paper is the following “scientific” report.

In this study, 115 children (6–15 years) were injected with the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo on average they were followed for some 272 days (unlike the couple of days in “normal” vaccine trials…).

There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of respiratory illness (ARI or FARI) or confirmed seasonal influenza between subjects injected with TIV and those who received placebo, but TIV recipients did have a significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on serologic evidence…

TIV recipients had an enormous increased rate of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (390) compared to the subjects that got placebo (88) - a 340% increase in the rate of non-influenza infections.

Benjamin J. Cowling et al – Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (2012): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/
(archived here: http://archive.is/xz5sb)

 

[Firestarter]

Not reporting negative results

This year, a group led by psychiatrist Goldacre reported that medical trials often violate EU legal requirements for reporting within a year after completion. In the US and the EU, certain categories of trials have to be reported within 1 year of completion by law.

Of 7274 trials where results were due, only 49.5% reported results in time. While only 68% of company-sponsored trials reporting their results, universities reported only 11%.

Of the 31,818 trials investigated, the study excluded 20,287 and 3392 trials because their status was never reported as completed. It is likely that many of these trials with “missing dates” (inconsistent data) also failed to report results within time.

Ben Goldacre et al. – Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource (2018): https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3218

The following site managed by Goldacre gives more details on which companies and universities don’t report in time. Note the huge amount of universities that never report in time (0%).
Also note the huge amount of studies with inconsistent data: http://eu.trialstracker.net/


After Goldacre’s report, the Telegraph reported about 3 vaccine trials conducted by/for Public Health England (PHE) for which the results have never been published (according to the EU Clinical Trials Register). This is in violation with EU law that requires publication within one year.
The EUCRT was set up after people found out that big pharma simply didn’t publish negative results on their drugs.

The largest trial involved a new meningococcal and whooping cough booster vaccine with 640 children under the age of 16; concluded in 2016.
The second PHE trial was concluded in 2010, investigated effectiveness of a meningitis C vaccine in a group of 130 one-year-olds.
The third, concluded in 2011, involved 75 adults getting a meningitis B vaccine.

Experts accused PHE of an “incomprehensible” violation of the trust of parents who gave their consent for their children participating in the tests.
Ben Goldacre said:

It is incomprehensible to me that Public Health England of all the trials it could leave unreported to have failed to comply with the legal requirements to report trials of vaccines.
When patients participate and they take a risk with their own health. We have to respect their contribution by publishing the results properly. If we don’t, that is a betrayal of trust.
Withholding the results of a clinical trial makes a mockery of all our efforts to promote trust in medicine, and i’m particularly sad to see vaccine trials going unreported.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...thholding-vaccines-results-making-impossible/


The following report suggests that only studies that show that the drugs of big pharma have no efficacy aren’t published.
Erick H. Turner et al. – Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy (2008): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tion-control&p=6684864&viewfull=1#post6684864

 

[Firestarter]

The following excellent post was made on the relation between Aluminium (Al, that’s added to vaccines) and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) in another thread.

2008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18392545
34 studies were selected, among which 68% established a relation between Al and AD, 23.5% were inconclusive and 8.5% did not establish a relation between Al and AD.

2011 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21157018
The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD.

2011 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/
There is growing evidence for a link between Al and AD, and between other metals and AD.

2013 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380995
Many humans routinely ingest aluminum salts as additives contained in processed foods and alum-treated drinking water. The physical properties of aluminum and ferric iron ions are similar, allowing aluminum to use mechanisms evolved for iron to enter vulnerable neurons involved in AD progression, accumulate in those neurons, and cause neurofibrillary damage.

2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986683/
We think it important to emphasize that the most effective clinical treatment yet devised for moderate- to late-stage AD patients was the implementation of the first generation anti-oxidant and trivalent iron/aluminum chelator desferrioxamine to attempt to remove aluminum from the brains of AD patients

2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986683/
Aluminum's contribution to AD is based upon at least seven independently derived observations:

2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24577474
AD is a human form of chronic aluminum neurotoxicity. The causality analysis demonstrates that chronic aluminum intake causes AD.

2016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26592479
(with a total of 10567 individuals) Results showed that individuals chronically exposed to Al were 71% more likely to develop AD (95% confidence interval)

2017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28159219
The unique quantitative data and the stunning images of aluminium in familial Alzheimer's disease brain tissue raise the spectre of aluminium's role in this devastating disease.

 

[Firestarter]

Censored data on MMR trials

Del Bigtree has gotten hold on some information through a FOIA request on the 8 “studies” that were done to approve the MMR vaccine by the FDA in 1978...
The vaccine trials only ran for only 42 days, most of them had no placebo group for controls. For none of the studies, placebo results have been released. The value of these studies is that they did report on a variety of illnesses. Because information has been blatantly deleted, it’s obvious that there was/is a cover-up!
I’ll only look at the first 3 studies, if I understand correctly the other 5 only compared the new MMR vaccine to the old MMR vaccine, so these results don´t have much value anyway.

First study #442, 199 children on the new MMR, 73 children reported complaints (“only” 36,7%), including – 22 Gastrointestinal illness; 23 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 13.
Data has been released on the Rubella “control” of 197 children.
On the other MR “control” group, 150-200 children, information has blatantly been deleted.

Second study #443, 102 children on the new MMR, 78 children reported complaints (76.4%), including - 43 Gastrointestinal illness; 64 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 28.

Third study #459 only 41 children on the new MMR, 34 children reported complaints (82.9%), including - 24 Gastrointestinal illness; 28 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 20.
More than 90% of the data has been blatantly deleted from the report, there were supposed to be 550 children included in this study - MMR (1) 150; MMR (2) 150; Measles 50; Mumps 50; Rubella (1) 50; Rubella (2) 50; Placebo 50.
All of the other data on adverse effects (on more than 500 children) has intentionally been left out.

Here is a link to the full set of received information (28 MB): https://icandecide.org/government/FDA-Production-FOIA.pdf

In the following relatively short video (9 minutes), Del Bigtree of High Wire that filed the FOIA request, tries to explain what he received.
He makes some strong arguments, but doesn’t even realise that they fooled him by giving him a censored set, probably to hide the ugly truth!

 

[Stratovarious]

Vaccine Science is just as trustworthy as Global Warming Séance.

 

[donnay]

Vaccine Science is just as trustworthy as Global Warming Séance.

Yep and Big pHARMa owns the media / politicians, and most of the schools so they can get away with their distortions and lies.

 

[Stratovarious]

Yep and Big pHARMa owns the media / politicians, and most of the schools so they can get away with their distortions and lies.

Yes, and I was alerted to the fact , a few years ago, that the bulk of advertising dollars are
coming out of that very Big Pharma 'loop' , so the MSM is never going to come out and bight
that big fat hand (out).

 

[donnay]

Yes, and I was alerted to the fact , a few years ago, that the bulk of advertising dollars are
coming out of that very Big Pharma 'loop' , so the MSM is never going to come out and bight
that big fat hand (out).

That is correct--they all have blood on their hands. Every once in a while we have some journalists like, Sharyl Attkisson, that does the research that exposes their lies.

 

[donnay]

 

[Firestarter]

I regularly read that big pharma claims that a vaccine is “effective” based on the antibodies in the blood of the test subjects that were poisoned with vaccines.
Of course this isn´t “evidence” at all that somebody is immune...

In 2010, former employees of Merck, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, filed a False Claims Act specifically calling out Merck’s vaccine deception since the late 1990's.
They argue that test results were screwed by adding animal antibodies to mumps vaccines during the trial and then finding those antibodies in the blood to claim that the human guinea pigs are immune.

Another trick used by Merck, under Protocol 007, was to test the vaccine against a less virulent strain virus than the "real-world" mumps viruses in the wild.

Merck did this to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate" for the mumps vaccine.

A virologist in Merck's vaccine division was threatend with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA.

After the court document of Krahling and Wlochowski vs. Merck was unsealed, Alabama-based Chatom Primary Care filed a lawsuit against Merck for substantial monetary damages:

Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck's desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study's findings.

But no amount of extra time or dosages will be enough to eliminate the disease when the vaccine does not work as represented in the labeling. It will merely allow Merck to continue to misrepresent the vaccine’s efficacy and thereby maintain its exclusive hold on the relevant market with an inadequate vaccine.

https://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mumps_vaccine_False_Claims_Act.html


This is the court document from the first lawsuit (by the former employees): https://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Merck-False-Claims-Act.pdf

This is the court document from the second lawsuit (by Chatom):
https://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Chatom-Lawsuit-Merck-Mumps.pdf


Measles wasn’t very “dangerous” in the good old 1960s (before MMR vaccines); see some clips...
The Donna Reed show.
The Flintstones.
The Brady Bunch.

 

[Firestarter]

Vaccines and mental disorders

The following study investigated if vaccinations cause obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), anorexia nervosa (AN), anxiety disorder, chronic tic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder in children aged 6–15 years, between January 2002 and December 2007.

Receipt of any vaccine in the previous 6 months was highest for children with AN (21.4%), followed by OCD (15.9%) and tic disorder (15.8%), and was lowest for children with open wounds (10.3%).

Influenza vaccinations during the prior 3, 6, and 12 months were also associated with diagnoses of AN, OCD, and anxiety disorder.
A vaccination in the previous 3 months was associated with more new diagnoses of autism (hazard ratio (HR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.21–2.68).

Several other vaccines were also asociated with HRs greater than 1.40:
Hepatitis A vaccine with OCD and AN;
Hepatitis B vaccine with AN;
Meningitis vaccine with AN and chronic tic disorder.

They used for control conditions: Broken bones and Open wounds. I don´t think that these are proper controls. If for example vaccines would cause only a temporarily confusion, vaccines could be asociated with more broken bones and open wounds...

Children also had more broken bones after a vaccination in the preceding period, although the HRs were smaller.
There was no increase in open wounds following vaccinations.
Children with major depression and bipolar disorder were less likely to have had a vaccination in the preceding period.

In Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, England, and France increased incidence of narcolepsy after vaccination with AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine was observed.
Studies also found a threefold increase in the incidence of narcolepsy following the vaccination after the 2009 H1N1 “pandemic” in China.

Douglas L. Leslie et al. – Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case–Control Study (2017)
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00003/full
(archived here: http://archive.is/n603x)


A study on mice found a correlation between rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and aluminum.

Baby mice were injected with either 550 μg of aluminum hydroxide gel or saline (for placebo) in the first 2 weeks after birth. The injection schedule was intended to mimic the 2010 US pediatric vaccination schedule.

The mice were subjected to behavioral tests at 8, 17 and 29 weeks after birth.
The aluminum injected mice showed:
Diminished social interest at week 8 (p=0.016) and 17 (p =0.012).
Abnormal social novelty at week 8 (p=0.002) and week 29 (p =0.042) compared to controls: https://worldmercuryproject.org/new...luminum-adjuvants-can-impair-social-behavior/

 

[Firestarter]

The following scientific looking paper is interesting, but I don’t agree with the conclusion that “The results showed a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and IVR (influenza vaccination rate) of people ≥65 years-old”.

In reality it shows that countries with a higher “influenza vaccination rate (IVR) (%) of people aged 65 and older” on average had more “COVID-19 deaths per million inhabitants (DPMI)”.
This is more of an association between the regimes and docility of its (elder) population than about the effects of the flu vaccines…

Christian Wehenkel – “Positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide” (1​ October 2020): https://peerj.com/articles/10112/
(https://archive.is/3EmE8)


The following scientific looking report on vaccinating US soldiers in 2017-2018 DOES show that the flu shot increases chances of a coronavirus infection:

Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31607599

 

[Firestarter]

The following study concludes that “unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated”.

There are other hypothetical (but unlikely) explanations, because maybe parents of unhealthy children would have them vaccinated more often or possibly parents that vaccinate their children go to the doctor for every little thing, while “normal” parents wouldn’t.
.

The visual impact of the cumulative office visit plots is striking; more so than other plots, the time element (day of life) provides an index by which to compare the accumulation of human pain and suffering from potential vaccine side effects (Figure 5). These results are worth studying closely and noticing the variation among the cumulative office visits per condition and the stark differences between the rates of billed office visits in the most and unvaccinated patients born into the practice.

Figure 5. Analysis 5. Cumulative office visits in the vaccinated (orange) vs. unvaccinated (blue) patients born into the practice: the clarity of the age-specific differences in the health fates of individuals who are vaccinated (2763) compared to the 561 unvaccinated in patients born into the practice over ten years is most strikingly clear in this comparison of the cumulative numbers of diagnoses in the two patient groups. The number of office visits for the unvaccinated is adjusted by a sample size multiplier factor (4.9) to the expected value as if the number of unvaccinated in the study was the same as the number of vaccinated.
(...)

We have found higher rates of office visits and diagnoses of common chronic ailments in the most vaccinated children in the practice compared to children who are completely unvaccinated. The data clearly show different odds of developing many of these adverse health conditions. We have demonstrated in many ways that most of the statistical associations found tend to be robust to age in cohort (days of care), vaccination range, and family history. The first of these is the contrast in the increase in fever cf. “Well Child” visit (Figure 3). The second is robustness of the results to adjustment to days of care provided and of course robustness to the age-matched design as well.

Vaccination appears to have had the largest impact on anemia and respiratory virus infection on the number of office visits in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated groups. Due to a small number of cases and corresponding low power, neurodevelopmental conditions and seizures are not well studied using the data available. Autism, at a study-wide rate of 8 per 1000, is far lower than the national rate (18.5–21 per 1000). Speech, learning, and social delays were found to have different full-cohort practice-wide incidences of 0.023, 0.003. and 0.009, respectively. Future studies with less restrictive inclusion criteria that also avoid temporal confounding by matched DOC may help us better characterize these populations in the practice.
(...)

Concerned over healthy user bias (HUB), i.e., healthier individuals accepting more vaccines leading to differences in study outcome are alleviated in this practice, the physicians and patients overtly came to a joint decision on whether to vaccinate on a patient-by-patient and vaccine-by-vaccine basis. As originally described, if “healthy user bias” was the explanation problem, we would see more illness in the unvaccinated; we found the opposite. We do see the potential signal of informed avoidance of vaccine injury with informed consent and without coercion potentially weakening associations of vaccine injury. This type of effect has historically been interpreted as a form of healthy user bias, but it can be equally interpreted as the signal of avoidance of vaccine injury due to informed consent. Our design of analysis allows the detection of some potential instances (e.g., autism, in which some individuals at risk of adverse outcome who otherwise would have been in quartiles 3 and 4 stopped vaccinating).

.
James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas – Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination (2020): https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674/htm
(https://archive.is/xJ6Kz)

 

[Firestarter]

The following is from one of those notorious anti-vaxxers… Peter Doshi.
This article (in the “scientific” BMJ) is more about the marketing of flu vaccines than about science…
.

In the US, the first recommendations for annual influenza vaccination were made in 1960 (table1).⇓ Through the 1990s, the key objective of this policy was to reduce excess mortality. Because most of influenza deaths occurred in the older population, vaccines were directed at this age group. But since 2000, the concept of who is “at risk” has rapidly expanded, incrementally encompassing greater swathes of the general population (box 1).
(...)

And in its more technical guidance document, CDC musters the evidence to support its case. The agency points to two retrospective, observational studies. One, a 1995 peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded: “many studies confirm that influenza vaccine reduces the risks for pneumonia, hospitalization, and death in elderly persons during an influenza epidemic if the vaccine strain is identical or similar to the epidemic strain.”12 They calculated a reduction of “27% to 30% for preventing deaths from all causes”—that is, a 30% lower risk of dying from any cause, not just from influenza. CDC also cites a more recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, funded by the National Vaccine Program Office and the CDC, which found an even larger relative reduction in risk of death: 48%.13

If true, these statistics indicate that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.
(…)

If the observational studies cannot be trusted, what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none. Theoretically, a randomized trial might shine some light—or even settle the matter. But there has only been one randomized trial of influenza vaccines in older people—conducted two decades ago—and it showed no mortality benefit (the trial was not powered to detect decreases in mortality or any complications of influenza). This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes. Approval is instead tied to a demonstrated ability of the vaccine to induce antibody production, without any evidence that those antibodies translate into reductions in illness.
(...)

At a press briefing this winter, CDC director Thomas Frieden said a preliminary CDC study had found “the overall vaccine effectiveness to be 62%,” He explained that this estimate of relative risk reduction: “means that if you got vaccinated you’re about 60% less likely to get the flu that requires you to go to your doctor.” On the evening news, the CDC’s message was translated into a claim that influenza vaccines will cut the risk of death by 62%, despite the fact that the CDC study did not even measure mortality (box 2). Reflecting on the same CDC study, two authors editorialized in the Journal of the American Medical Association that there exists an irrational pessimism about influenza vaccine: “A prevention measure that reduced the risk of a serious outcome by 60% in most instances would be a noted achievement; yet for influenza vaccine, it is seen as a ‘failure.’” Here, too, the authors appear unaware that the CDC study they cite did not measure any “serious outcome” like pneumonia, only medically attended acute respiratory illness with influenza confirmed by the laboratory.
(...)

All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.

.
Peter Doshi – Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease (2013): https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037.full?ijkey=VG6zCuSnIXsFDaT&keytype=ref
(https://archive.is/Tl1u5)

 

[DamianTV]

Ive rather liked Ben Swann since he gave fair and unbiased coverage to Ron Paul, and has even posted here...