“The Truth About Vaccines”

[donnay]

 

[Zippyjuan]

Still posting that online survey conducted at one website? Online surveys are not valid and are not reliable.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Still pushing vaccines are children? How much do they pay you?

Vaccines are children?

 

[donnay]

Vaccines are on children?

 

[Firestarter]

A 2010 study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) indicated that Philippine women were “unwittingly vaccinated against their own children”.
By linking hCG with tetanus antigens in a vaccine, researchers fool a woman’s immune system into producing antibodies against hCG, which makes her allergic to her own embryo.
Once her immune system is sufficiently stimulated against hCG, the pregnant woman will spontaneously abort the embryo:

Is that why the Philippine population has been declining?

You mean that we most believe the statistrics of the US national census?
A 5 time increase of the population from 1950 to 2012 (from 20 to 100 million) - yeah right!

I must admit that a World population of 7 billion people makes me terrified…
I’m just a simple guy and all of this state propaganda is just too difficult for me to understand, while you’re so incredibly smart…
Maybe you can explain how communist China introduced a strict one-child policy at the end of the 1970s, but the population of China increased with some 40%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

According to the CBS (the Dutch bureau of statistrics) in the 1980s the Netherlands was the most densily populated country in the whole wide world (14 million at the time).
Since then a huge amount of buildings have been demolished, in the name of health care, and according to the CBS our population has grown to 17 million.

According to the state propganda the Dutch reach about the highest age in the world at over 80 years.
When I walk the streets most of these elderly have apparently gone missing.

Since September 2001, the percentage of Dutch natives has drasically dropped (especially in the "big" cities).
In parts of my home town Amsterdam I’m actually the minority (with my “white” skin).
Breaking up roads causes traffic jams, while using ultra short trains is a guarantee for everybody to believe that we are terribly overpopulated.

Maybe you’re a supporter of the “philanthropic” organisation Negative Population Growth, that is “helping” us to solve the “devastating effects of overpopulation”: http://www.npg.org/

Negative Population Growth, Inc. (NPG) is a national nonprofit membership organization. It was founded in 1972 to educate the American public and political leaders about the devastating effects of overpopulation on our environment, resources and standard of living. We believe that our nation is already vastly overpopulated in terms of the long-range carrying capacity of its resources and environment.

 

[AZJoe]

The Boston Herald editorial board thinks that any dissent, skepticism, or questioning of vaccines, such as the dangers of hyper levels of vaccination, or the injection of mercury compounds into newborns, or the efficacy of the use of rushed vaccines for non-lethal mild ailments, is a “hanging offense.”

 

[donnay]

Unvaccinated Children Have Much Lower Rates of Chronic Illness, Jackson State Study Finds

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The first peer-reviewed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated children versus unvaccinated was recently published in the Journal of Translational Science by epidemiologists from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University. The study’s conclusions are likely to inflame the fierce debate over whether vaccines and a mercury-containing vaccine preservative may be culprits in the dramatic rise in certain neurodevelopmental disorders in our children, including autism.

The “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children” implicates vaccines in a host of chronic illnesses now epidemic in our nation’s children. The team of scientists, led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Mawson, the author of more than fifty published studies, concluded that “In a final adjusted model designed to test for this possibility, controlling for the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination, the following factors remained significantly associated with NDD: vaccination (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.6), nonwhite race (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.4), and male gender (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.4). Preterm birth itself, however, was not significantly associated with NDD, whereas the combination (interaction) of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5) (Table 8).” Jackson State is a leading university research center.

The study suggests that fully vaccinated children may be trading the prevention of certain acute illnesses (chicken pox, pertussis) for more chronic illnesses and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) like ADHD and Autism.



In order to find a large population of children who hadn’t received any vaccines, the Jackson State scientists utilized Homeschool organizations in four states and compared the incidence of a broad range of health outcomes in 666 children, 39% of whom were unvaccinated. Among the more concerning findings, vaccinated children had increased risks of autism (4.2 times), ADHD (4.2 times), learning disabilities (5.2 times) eczema (2.9 times), and an astounding 30 times the risk of allergic rhinitis compared to unvaccinated children.

As would be expected, vaccinated children did have lower likelihood of two vaccine-preventable illnesses compared to unvaccinated children: chicken pox (7.9% vs. 25.3%), and pertussis (2.5% vs. 8.4%), but the scientists found no significant differences in rates of other vaccine-preventable illnesses like hepatitis A or B, measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, meningitis or rotavirus. The study suggests that fully vaccinated children may be trading the prevention of certain acute illnesses (chicken pox, pertussis) for more chronic illnesses and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) like ADHD and Autism.

Despite numerous requests over the years from parents and vaccine safety advocates for just this type of research, the CDC has failed to act. The Jackson State scientists called for more scientific studies to help explain and clarify these findings.

View/Download Unvaccinated-Vaccinated Study

View Download Unvaccinated-Vaccinated Preterm Birth Study

https://worldmercuryproject.org/new...es-chronic-illness-jackson-state-study-finds/

 

[Zippyjuan]

That is the retracted online survey- not a valid, scientific study. Re-posting it again and again doesn't make it any more legit.

 

[euphemia]

I don't care what the surveys say. According to liberty thought, parents have the right and responsibility to determine the health care needs of their children. I had rubella and measles when I was a baby. Fortunately, I suffered no complications. I had chicken pox and mumps. Again, no complications, and none in our community.

We did the traditional MMR and polio when our daughter was a baby, and she was updated on the tetanus. We did the HepC vaccine when it came out. This was well over 30 years ago. The protocol has changed and kids are being given very high doses of vaccine all at once. I know several kids who have had complications from what I call "etreme vaccinations." It seems like the protocol demands too much at once.

We did not do HPV. By the time it came out, our daughter was old enough to understand the risks and complications. She was at <1% risk for contracting the disease, so we decided together not to vaccinate.

I think we would still vaccinate, but we would do them later and space them out. We have always lived in urban areas with a travel and tourism economy, and a lot of immigrants. The risk of exposure is higher than if we lived out in a rural are that stayed mostly contained.

It is a parent's choice until the child is old enough to decide for him/herself. Adults always have the choice to be vaccinated.

 

[merkelstan]

It includes the following notorious quote: “The world today has 6.8 billion people … that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

I think his argument is that reducing child mortality and raising standards of living will lead to less children per couple and lowered population growth.

Evil people in power deciding to kill millions based on desired genetic and cultural characteristics wouldn't be a new thing though. Hmm Soviets....

There's no need to be on either extreme side of the Vaccination debate. Vaccines have been successful, and the logic and science behind them in principle holds-up. However there's no good reason to trust everything the industry or government wants to pump into your children.

 

[Created4]

As I mentioned previously, the Journal of Translational Science never came out and said they retracted it.

It is back up online:

http://www.oatext.com/Pilot-compara...ted-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php#Article

 

[merkelstan]

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/69in5g/study_showing_vaccinated_kids_are_much_more/

Above link contains some more debate about the quoted study... The points raised about self-reporting bias and cofactors are pretty significant. Also nobody seemed to mention that homeschool kids have orders of magnitude less exposure to pathogens from other children....

I'd definitely like to see more studies, but there is real power and influence from the vaccine industry that makes less than likely.

 

[donnay]

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/69in5g/study_showing_vaccinated_kids_are_much_more/

Above link contains some more debate about the quoted study... The points raised about self-reporting bias and cofactors are pretty significant. Also nobody seemed to mention that homeschool kids have orders of magnitude less exposure to pathogens from other children....

I'd definitely like to see more studies, but there is real power and influence from the vaccine industry that makes less than likely.

So would I. However, the industry would lose if they did they would conduct a study totally independent without collusion. They have government agencies that cover for them like CDC and FDA.

If more people read the inserts they would also think twice about jabbing their children with these toxic concoctions.

 

[Firestarter]

A couple of months ago I saw a scientific study that shows that vaccination causes Anorexia Nervosa, Compulsive Disorder, Tic Disorder and Anxiety Disorder in the following thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...and-brain-related-autoimmune-and-inflammation


D.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

This is not just a “survey” (like the report that I’ve posted in #7), but this is hard evidence that these disorders are caused by vaccines.
Probably some highly intelligent pro-vax-astroturfers can show me I’m wrong again…

The study shows that vaccines have a higher Hazard Ratio, in 3 6, and 9 months, (see Table 2):
Anorexia Nervosa (AN) - 1.80, 163, 1.47 [especially high for Flu vaccines];
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) - 1.23, 1.27, 1.23 [especially high for Flu and Hep. A vaccines];
Tic Disorder - 1.11, 1.25, 1.19 [especially high for Flu an Meningitis vaccines];
Anxiety Disorder - 1.12, 1.13, 1.14 [especially high for Flu vaccines];

Varicella is smallpox by the way…
These results are very troubling and significant (it does show a “causal role”).
To make it even more damaging, the conclusion shows that this report was written by a pro-vaxxer, who came with the ridiculous conclusion:

Conclusion: This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuropsychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals. However, our findings do not demonstrate a causal role of vaccination in the pathoetiology of any of these conditions. This is especially important given the clear public health benefits of the timely administration of vaccines in preventing mortality and morbidity (38). Vaccines are among the most successful and cost-effective preventive public health interventions (39).

I have really tried to find evidence for “the clear public health benefits” of vaccines.
I think I have found it...

Edward Jenner is the legendary “scientist”, who made “evidence” for the wonderful benefits of vaccination:

In 1796, Jenner enlisted a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes and an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to test his theory. Jenner transferred pus from Nelmes’s cowpox blisters onto incisions he’d made in Phipps’s hands. The boy came down with a slight fever, but nothing more. Later, Jenner gave Phipps a standard smallpox inoculation – which should have resulted in a full-blown, albeit mild, case of the disease. Nothing happened. Jenner tried inoculating Phipps with smallpox once more; again, nothing.

In 1798 Jenner published his results, claiming lifelong protection against smallpox using “vaccines”. Some doctors of the time challenged this myth, because they had seen smallpox follow cowpox.
In 1799, Mr. Drake vaccinated some children with cowpox matter obtained from Edward Jenner. The children were then tested by being inoculated with smallpox; all of them developed smallpox. Jenner received the report but ignored the results.

Vaccination was quickly embraced by the medical quacks. By 1801, an estimated 100,000 people had already been vaccinated in England with the belief that it would produce lifelong protection.
Early reports indicated that there were cases of people who were vaccinated, and then developed cowpox, and some still died of smallpox.

In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that after vaccinating 1,200 people, he became disappointed. He saw that, after vaccination, people could still contract and even die from smallpox.

Because arm-to-arm vaccination was used, other diseases could spread causing epidemics, including tuberculosis and syphilis.

Then in one of those great examples of science, the medical profession no longer claimed lifelong protection against smallpox from a single vaccination. Instead, revaccination had to be performed anywhere from yearly to every 10 years.

In Leicester they didn’t vaccinate, which resulted in considerably less deaths from smallpox (see the 1912 book that I’ve posted a link to in post #27).

I found this on the following (anti-vaxxer) site, it also includes some nice graphics that show that vaccines were quickly administered after the “infectious disease” was already steadily in decline: http://web.archive.org/web/20170225...by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

 

[Zippyjuan]

Varicella is smallpox by the way…

Actually it is chickenpox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox

In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that after vaccinating 1,200 people, he became disappointed. He saw that, after vaccination, people could still contract and even die from smallpox.

Because arm-to-arm vaccination was used, other diseases could spread causing epidemics, including tuberculosis and syphilis.

A lot has been learned since then.

Your study does note:

However, our findings do not demonstrate a causal role of vaccination in the pathoetiology of any of these conditions.

 

[Danke]

[h=1]Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over ‘Serious Health Concerns'[/h]
http://www.healthnutnews.com/sweden-bans-mandatory-vaccinations-serious-heath-concerns/

 

[Danke]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to donnay again

 

[donnay]

Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?

By: Celeste McGovern

Originally published on CMSRI.org.

The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?

The first-ever study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children (and a subset study) published two weeks ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Translational Science have reappeared online after briefly disappearing while under fire from a small band of Skeptics and the staff at Retraction Watch, an organization that reports Science retraction news. Snopes, the fact-checking website, is still misreporting that the study has been retracted, even while it sits, published, in the science journal’s pages.

It is a troubling saga unfolding in the scientific publishing world, and it is worth paying attention to because it’s revealing of powerful forces in that realm that are trying to censor scientific research and to shield important data from public viewing. Not at all the methodical and logical sort of thing you would expect from modern scientific types. It looks more like a secret 17th century Salem witch trial…interrupted.

Most readers here will be aware of Anthony Mawson et al.'s pivotal pilot study on the health of homeschooled American children. It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers). And it is the only study (yes, the ONLY study to contain totally unvaccinated American subjects.) There are no other studies of American children who have never had a vaccine compared to kids with the motherload of CDC protection.

The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune –mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents? (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation -- that wasn’t so sick -- got?

The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example. And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children. We better have another study, the researchers concluded. A bigger and better study.

Round One: Suppressing the Study Results

Enter the Skeptics. When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

“I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published. It was never published. NEVER RETRACTED. Just tweeted away by Leonid and his Skeptic friends.

Most scientists are skeptical -- they don’t like claims without evidence – but not all scientists are Skeptics. Skeptics are champions of objective scientific inquiry who fight against anything they see as irrational and unscientific, which is everything outside of pharmaceutical manufacturing interests. Functional Medicine is equal to Bigfoot to them. They know the difference between Good Thinking and Bad Thinking and some theories (like evolution) they think are very good and some ideas, like God, are particularly bad. They don’t like religion, but Skeptics can be quite dogmatic themselves about some things. Like vaccines. According to them, all vaccines are safe and effective. No one is ever injured by vaccines. Every child is healthier because of vaccines. The epidemic of childhood disorders is caused by something that is not vaccines. Questioning vaccines is heresy.

Retraction Watch, which bills itself as "a window into the scientific process," got a little more involved than window-watching and inaccurately reported that the study was retracted, based on a Tweet. It ignored that accepting science on its merits, and then rejecting it on Tweets from those who disagree, is in violation of the publishing code of conduct. Not to mention that there is a big difference in the world of science between having a paper retracted – which implies scientific misconduct or gross scientific error – and having a paper declined because of disgruntled Tweets.

Frontiers publicly posts their retraction policy and affirms that they abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction. Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:

Retractions are not about punishing authors.

Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.
There was no retraction statement ever made or posted by Frontiers; therefore Retraction Watch's statement about Dr. Mawson’s paper being retracted is inarguably false. This proven lie was used to interfere with and misconstrue Dr. Mawson’s research, resulting in a temporary removal of his article from The Journal of Translational Science pending an inquiry. Inquiry resolved, the articles have been reinstated on the journal’s website, demonstrating sufficient proof that the articles were never retracted as claimed by Retraction Watch.

Round Two: Discrediting the Study Results

Retraction Watch was again the first to misreport the retraction of the Mawson paper from the Journal of Translational Science last week. Rather than reporting on the facts, Retraction Watch took an activist role in the attempted takedown of Dr. Mawson’s research. Misconstruing and misrepresenting another scientist’s research is considered scientific misconduct. Retraction Watch still has (at the time of writing) an article posted that claims the paper has been doubly retracted. Their actions have a ripple effect, furthering the harm to Dr. Mawson and his younger colleagues, actions which are harmful to reputations, careers, and their future livelihoods. Snopes, the “fact-checking” entity, was still reporting that the papers were retracted because of methodological flaws, with only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom showing the papers restored to the Journal’s webpages. I pointed out the error to the editors and they updated the story today, without apology for inaccuracies.

Continuing to retain articles that are demonstrably and provably false on their website shows a lack of regard for the integrity and truth they espouse to protect. The public should be aware that their representations are not well researched and supported by the facts, and that the due diligence they claim to conduct in the interest of scientific integrity is not as it appears once you scratch the surface.

No answers have been forthcoming from Retraction Watch's editor Alison Cook. She has not replied to my inquiries. Snopes founder David Mikkelson and managing editor Brooke Binkowski did not reply to messages. I did not receive explanations from the journal editors either.

The Digital Media Law Project publishes guidelines for publishing information that “harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization.” Injury to one’s reputation that stems from a falsehood is defamation, and claiming an article was retracted when it wasn’t is false, defamatory and should be corrected when notice and evidence has been provided to the author of the defamatory article. In the case of the Snopes article, the DMLP states “the republication of someone else's words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to its source.”

The DMLP also advises publications to "be prompt and give your correction the same prominent position that you gave the inaccurate information you previously posted.”

Can Snopes and Retraction Watch be Trusted?

The whole ordeal puts scientific publishing into a bad light. Can it be so easy to push editors out of publishing? Is the code of conduct meaningless? Don't the researchers have recourse to defend their work if there are allegations against it, in a scholarly manner? Has science stooped so low, so beneath accepted standards of professionalism, that it is time to call in lawyers?

This disturbing event leaves the public bewildered. Is there something to worry about for our children's health or not? Why did these researchers find such a high risk of autism and other disorders in vaccinated children? What are the possible mechanisms of immune system injury from vaccination in children?

The way the Mawson study was received undermines public trust in a system that is meant to be seeking better health for humanity. It will continue to erode so long as it fails to answer these questions that our children need answers to, now.

The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) is a medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic.

Celeste McGovern is an award-winning independent journalist in Scotland. She reports on medical news, drug scandals, alternative health and more at www.ghostshipmedia.com.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/has-snopes-been-snoped-will-retraction-watch-retract

 

[Firestarter]

SV40 and heavy metal

The following article about the cancer causing Simian Virus (SV40) in polio vaccines is excellent.
It shows that as late as the year 2000 SV40 was still found in vaccines: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Rogue-virus-in-the-vaccine-Early-polio-vaccine-2899957.php


An excellent thread could be made about vaccines, by simply collecting the best posts on this topic on Ronpaulforums.com.
See for example the following quote about how Simian Virus (SV40) was added to polio vaccines to cause cancer: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...It-Was-Conta&p=5133787&viewfull=1#post5133787

A screen capture of the CDC’s information sheet shown above claims “The majority of scientific evidence suggests that SV40-contaminated vaccine did not cause cancer; however, some research results are conflicting and more studies are needed.”

So only some research results? Interesting statement considering that back in 2002, a whopping 61 reports from 49 different laboratories from all over the world were detecting SV40 monkey virus strains in many different types of human cancers including mesothelioma, lymphoma, brain and bone tumors.

In fact, only three studies failed to produce similar results then. Two of these were reportedly compromised by two of the main researchers involved: Dr. Howard Strickler and Dr. Keerti Shah.

Shah was under contract by Dr. Strickler to perform SV40 studies, and it was revealed later in a deposition that Strickler gave Shah the positive controls and allowed him to adjust his methods for SV40 detection after the study had begun, thus according to Shah’s testimony, Strickler comprised what should have been a blind study.

An excerpt from the book The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher.

Dr. Shah had also apparently completed consulting work for pharmaceutical giants Merck (a company behind some of the polio vaccines which were tainted with SV40 back in the 1950s) and Pfizer as well, as noted in the book excerpt above.

In addition, a 2003 House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness hearing on “The SV40 Virus: Has Tainted Polio Vaccine Caused an Increase in Cancer” raised some serious questions about Dr. Strickler’s findings which only claimed less than one percent of cancer cases studied had SV40 present — a claim that stood out against a backdrop of researchers from all over the world confirming SV40 in cancer tumors again and again and ultimately finding that SV40 did, in fact, cause cancer.

During the hearing, Burton asked:

Well, Dr. Strickler evidently has done some research on this, and he showed that in 1996 there was no evidence that the SV-40 was in any tumors and was the cause of these cancers. And in 2001 he said the same thing. Now, how do you account for the fact that your scientist, he was working for you I think at the time, couldn’t find any trace of SV-40 tumors when eminent scientists that I just mentioned to you and many others from 60 different laboratories around the world found many cases of its existence? Why is there that inconsistency?
Burton also mentioned that Dr. Strickler had obvious Big Pharma ties, including to Merck and Wyeth which both developed polio vaccines used during the 1960s.

You know, this Dr. Strickler, he — one of the favored labs that he uses for the tests that he does is funded in large part and does a lot of work with Merck, Pfizer, and Wyeth, and while that doesn’t apparently look like a conflict of interest, it certainly does raise some questions.
Indeed. Under “disclosure of potential conflicts of interest” on studies done in subsequent years on human papillomavirus (HPV) for example, Dr. Strickler has listed himself as “consultant/advisory board, Merck and GSK”. (Side note: Gardasil and Cervarix, the two HPV vaccines currently approved for sale on the market, are manufactured by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline respectively.)

Interestingly, during the hearing, Burton also asked about Strickler’s position as a consultant with the FDA. Notably, the FDA was listed on the now-defunct CDC information page as “the federal government lead agency in answering questions relating to SV40 in polio vaccine.” Representatives from neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attended the Congressional hearing on this matter.

Obviously, looking into this document brings up many more questions than answers, and more research needs to be done to connect the myriad dots here.

Even more alarming, a 2001 San Fransisco Chronicle article discusses the fact that a second, slower-growing SV40 virus was found in 1955 polio vaccines recovered from a retired public health official and tested in 1999 — a different strain that would not have been picked up by the tests used to find SV40 in the tainted vaccines back in the 1960s. This shocking discovery led the researcher who found it to warn:

It was possible…that this second strain of SV40 had been evading manufacturers’ screening procedures for years — and infecting vaccine recipients after 1962.

The CDC information sheet even brought up linkages to studies of SV40 potentially being passed from mother to infant during pregnancy, but in the end the organization’s position seemed to remain that ‘further research is needed’ in this area. Of course, that was back when the CDC had those pages up, and they are no longer live.

Regardless, nothing has been done to hold any of the pharmaceutical giants responsible for this monstrosity liable for their actions, and the companies continue to produce vaccines administered to Americans every single day.

Whatever master agenda could be at work here, it is amazing that the American and global public continue to trust their bodies to the same science that ‘accidentally’ contaminated tens of millions of people vaccinated for polio with a monkey virus found time and again in cancerous tumors. The presence of SV40 – which Merck vaccine scientist Maurice Hilleman joked in the video below caused tumors – has not officially been recognized by the government as having caused all these cancers (again, the CDC has continued to affirm ‘further research is needed’).

As this strain of monkey virus has consistently been found present in many types of cancerous cells in people all over the world at this point, the significance of such a correlation cannot be denied.

I also saw an interesting thread started by Donnay about the contamination of vaccines with all kinds of dirty stuff, “including red cells of human or possibly animal origin and metals including lead, tungsten, gold, and chromium” and formaldehyde: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ntaminated-With-Metals-and-Debris-in-New-Stud
I’m not sure about this last one though, Zippyjuan made some strong posts, arguing that the concentration of the contamination was too low: “fewer than ten particles (molecules) of each in the entire vaccine”…

 

[donnay]

RFK JR RECEIVES A STANDING OVATION AT THE AUTISM ONE CONFERENCE. “LET THE SCIENCE SPEAK”

ARJUN WALIAJUNE 2, 2017

Robert F Kennedy Jr was the keynote speaker at the recent AutismOne conference. AutismOne is a nonprofit, parent-driven organization that educates people and supports advocacy efforts for children and families touched by an autism diagnosis.

In his lecture, he explained his efforts in vaccine safety advocacy through being Chairman of the World Mercury Project.

Their goals are to:

Successfully advocate that the government and pharmaceutical companies to remove all thimerosal (even trace amounts) from all vaccines, medicines and personal products in the US and globally.
Successfully require the government and corporations to acknowledge the corruption and damage perpetrated on a generation of children
Successfully advocate to to revamp the broken system currently in place to take care of the needs of the vaccine injured
Successfully remove vaccine safety from CDC control the pass policy to remove all vaccine patents from their control/ownership
Require that all vaccines undergo rigorous testing using placebo controlled trials prior to FDA approval, including the synergistic effects of giving multiple vaccinations at once.
Fund research to prevent and reverse the ill effects of mercury induced
Kennedy pointed out the corruption that exists within and between the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry. He mentions the “captive agency phenomenon,” where government agencies become “sock puppets” for the very industries they’re supposed to be regulating. He explained that we must stand fast in our mission to bring awareness and attention to the fact that there are people out there who are knowingly putting our health at risk, stating that they are constantly working to make the links between vaccines and serious health consequences disappear.

“Vaccines are big business. Pharma is a trillion-dollar industry with vaccines accounting for $25 billion in annual sales. CDC’s decision to add a vaccine to the schedule can guarantee its manufacturer millions of customers and billions in revenue with minimal advertising or marketing costs and complete immunity from lawsuits. High stakes and the seamless marriage between Big Pharma and government agencies have spawned an opaque and crooked regulatory system.” (source)

Perhaps the best example of such fraud taking place is Dr. William Thompson, a senior CDC scientist who has authored multiple CDC studies that are commonly cited and used to debunk any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. He recently came out and blew the whistle on his own published research, saying a portion of it was actually fabricated and that the CDC is well aware of significant evidence linking vaccines and autism.


You can read more about that here, as well as watch Kennedy and Robert De Niro host a press conference offering a $100,000 reward to any journalist, doctor, or scientist who can provide a study showing that it is safe to inject mercury into babies.

He presented approximately 100 studies that show how dangerous it is, but found zero studies saying it’s safe. It’s hard to imagine how any study could assert that injecting one of the most toxic substances on Earth into babies is a good idea.

A fairly recent meta-analysis published in the journal Bio Med Research International determined:

The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies. (source)

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