http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...alifornias-epidemic-of-vaccine-denial-mapped/California’s epidemic of vaccine denial, mapped
January 27The Disneyland measles outbreak has shined a harsh spotlight on anti-vaccine communities in California and around the country. Dozens of people have fallen ill with the disease, the vast majority of whom are unvaccinated. The year 2014 was already a banner year for measles in the U.S., with preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing the highest number of cases in over two decades.
My colleague Jason Millman reported last week on the results of a study showing that vaccine skeptics tend to cluster together in like-minded, often wealthy communities. Since the study focused on just a handful of northern California counties, I'd like to extend that analysis by looking at vaccine refusal across the entire state of California-- as a result both of vaccine denial and religious objections.
The map below is a first crack at that. Using data from the California Department of Public Health, it divides the state into equal-area grids, and within each area it counts the number of public school kindergartners with what's known as a "personal belief exemption" (PBE) to state vaccine requirements. The hexagon markers are sized by the total number of kindergartners in the area, and colored according to the percent of them with PBEs.
It's important to note a couple things. First, the actual number of kindergartners entering school without their full slate of vaccines is considerably higher than this map suggests. This map only represents kids whose parents have taken a stance against vaccines by applying for a PBE. Statewide about 2.5 percent of kindergartners fall into this category. Overall nearly 10 percent of California kindergartners don't start school fully vaccinated. Most of these kids are "conditional entrants," who, for whatever reasons, are behind in their vaccines but plan to get them.
It's also worth noting that the map only shows public school kids, as geographic data for private schools wasn't available. Kindergartners in private school are more than twice as likely (5.3 percent) to have a PBE than public school kids (2.5 percent). Still, the map provides a useful barometer of the level of principled opposition to vaccines in the state, and that's how I'll be discussing it.
Orange County, home to Disneyland, stands out as a cluster of dark red, as do parts of coastal San Diego county. The wealthy southern California coast from Malibu up to San Luis Obispo also stands out. Farther north, Santa Cruz, Marin and Sonoma counties are dark red. Inland there's a belt of anti-vaccine intensity from about Fresno, up through Sacramento and into Yuba county. Pockets of high PBE rates dot most of the northern California landscape.
On the other hand, the Los Angeles area is generally vaccine-friendly, as are much of the San Francisco and Silicon Valley regions. The relatively low-income areas in the central valley also have low rates of vaccine opposition.
Since California provides district-level vaccination data going back to 2000, it's also possible to map the spread of anti-vaccine sentiment over time. Check out the three maps below.
Back in 2000, only 0.77 percent of California kindergartners had personal belief exemptions from vaccines. By 2013, that percentage had more than quadrupled to 3.15 percent.
The scale on these maps tops off at 5 percent. But in some individual school districts, the actual PBE rate is much, much higher. At River Springs Charter School in Temecula, California, nearly a quarter of the 556 kindergartners had personal belief exemptions this year. A third of the kindergartners at the Visions in Education public school in Carmichael hold PBEs, as do 51 percent of kindergartners at Ocean Grove Charter School in Boulder Creek. At a handful of private schools, the PBE rate is 75 percent or more.
It goes without saying that a measles outbreak in these communities could be devastating. These parents are gambling with the lives not only of their children, but of other kids in their communities as well -- especially of young children and toddlers who aren't old enough to get all their vaccines yet. According to USA Today, six of the Disneyland measles cases were among infants too young to be vaccinated.
We need what's known as "herd immunity" to keep these most vulnerable populations safe from infectious diseases. For measles, that immunity kicks in with vaccination rates somewhere between 83 and 94 percent, according to the CDC. So even letting five percent of the kids in your community skip the vaccine is inviting trouble.
Fortunately, the news out of California isn't all bad. Starting with the current school year, California parents are required to consult a health care professional before being certified for a PBE. That's resulted in a drop in the PBE rate from 3.2 percent last year to 2.5 percent this year -- a welcome trend. The Disneyland outbreak also seems to be giving the issue enough visibility that some Californians previously on the fence are willing to change their minds.
I'm also singling out California simply because it does such a great job of making these numbers publicly available -- as far as the states go, it's far from the bottom of the pack on vaccination rates. According to numbers compiled by the Bloomberg Data team, California is ranked 39th in the nation on overall vaccination rates, with 65.3 percent of its children receiving all seven CDC-recommended shots. By contrast the bottom-ranked state, Alaska, only has a 59.1 percent vaccination rate, while the top, Mississippi, has a rate of 76 percent.
With any luck, in the aftermath of the California measles outbreak we'll see these number climb.
Vaccines Debate
- Thread starter say what
- Start date
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/anti-vaccine-arguments-analyzed-explained_n_6607026.html[h=1]6 Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Arguments Analyzed, Explained, And Shut Down[/h]The Huffington Post | By Jacqueline Howard
Posted: 02/05/2015 8:32 am EST Updated: 02/06/2015 3:59 pm EST
Science has provided ample evidence that childhood vaccines are safe and effective, and public health authorities maintain that vaccines are as important as seat belts in protecting our children. Even President Obama has urged parents to have their kids vaccinated.
So how can it be that many parents opt against having their children vaccinated--even in the face of the measles outbreak that has sickened more than 102 people in 14 states?
It's complicated, of course. Trust in government--or the lack thereof--has been identified as a key factor. But many parents become anti-vaxxers as a result of plain-old misinformation.
Here are six misguided anti-vaccination arguments--and the truth about each.
Bad argument #1: There's no proof that vaccines don't cause autism. It's hard to prove a negative. But the American Academy of Pediatrics has released a list of more than 40 studies showing no link whatsoever between vaccines and autism.
Bad argument #2: One study from England did show a link between vaccines and autism. Yes, a studypublished in The Lancet in 1998 did find such a link. But the study was retracted, and the physician-researcher who led it, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was shown to have falsified the data and was stripped of his medical license.
Bad argument #3: There are lots of anecdotes about children developing autism after being vaccinated. But anecdotes aren't proof, and there's no reason to believe that vaccines caused the children to become autistic. As scientists put it succinctly, correlation simply doesn't imply causation, despite the assumption that many parents make.
To point out how misguided this assumption is, Redditor Jasonp55 posted research showing that organic food sales and autism diagnoses increased at the same rate and time. He pointed out that organic food is no more to blame for rising rates of autism than vaccinations are, despite the correlation.
Bad argument #4: It's nobody's business whether my children get vaccinated. Actually, parents who fail to vaccinate their kids may be jeopardizing the health of other children who are unable to get the vaccine because they are too young or for other reasons. When the number of unvaccinated children rises above a certain threshold, so-called "herd immunity" is compromised--and preventable diseases get a toehold in the community.
Bad argument #5: Vaccines can "overload" a child's immune system.That's simply not true. From the moment babies are born, they're exposed to all sorts of illness-causing viruses. So most doctors -- and even the CDC and the Institute of Medicine -- agree that a child's immune system can handle the immune-stimulating antigens in multiple vaccines. In fact, as San Francisco-based pediatrician Dr. Laurel Schultz wrote in a recent article, children are exposed to more antigens in the environment every day than to those in all of their vaccinations combined.
Bad argument #6: "Natural" immunity is better than the immunity that comes from vaccination. So-called "natural" immunity results from the body contracting and successfully battling an infectious illness--and research shows that the immune response of people who have been vaccinated against various diseases isjust as good as that of people whose immunity comes from an infection. But of course, vaccine-acquired immunity is preferable because The Panic Viruhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/anti-vaccine-arguments-analyzed-explained_n_6607026.htmls," contributed to this [/I]
wow its amazing how some people won;t even look at actual medical studies and prefer instead to post pro-vaccine propaganda from sites funded by big pharma to manipulate people into taking their poisons
This was like how the tobacco industry told everyone for decades that cigarettes weren't bad for them
Anyway...another independent medical study (not one paid for and bribed into being by big pharma)
J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2006
Aug; 69(15): 1481-95
''Rates of autism, speech disorders, mental retardation, infantile spasms, and thinking abnormalities were higher in children exposed to higher thimerosol levels''
This was like how the tobacco industry told everyone for decades that cigarettes weren't bad for them
Anyway...another independent medical study (not one paid for and bribed into being by big pharma)
J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2006
Aug; 69(15): 1481-95
''Rates of autism, speech disorders, mental retardation, infantile spasms, and thinking abnormalities were higher in children exposed to higher thimerosol levels''
http://vactruth.com/2012/09/18/fda-vaccine-autism-sids/
[h=1]FDA Approved Vaccine with Autism and SIDS Listed as Adverse Events, Vaccine Safety Website Removes Information[/h] Jeffry John Aufderheide
September 18 2012
Some very disturbing news recently came across my desk from a fellow activist.
The Tripedia vaccine product insert was removed from the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety website. [1] I also discovered that it is now missing from the Centers for Disease Control Vaccine Price List. The “official” reason is likely Sanofi Pasteur’s discontinuing the production of the vaccine. [2]
However, closer inspection of the Tripedia product insert reveals another smoking-gun relationship between vaccines and autism.
[contentbox headline=”[B]Tip[/B]” type=”attention”]Click on the photo to see the enlarged version of the illustration.[/contentbox]
Snapshots of the Johns Hopkins Vaccine Safety Website both before and after the Tripedia vaccine information was changed.
[h=3]THE SECRET MEETING YOU WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT[/h] Information can disappear for many reasons.
For example, perhaps a webmaster accidentally removes the hyperlink to the Tripedia vaccine product insert. But if it was removed intentionally, we obviously have a situation where “The Authorities” want to limit the exposure of very damaging information. Before you can appreciate what disappeared, you need to know why this information is so important.
Let’s get right to it.
Some vaccines contain a particularly nasty ingredient called thimerosal. The purpose of this organic mercury preservative in vaccines, as stated on the FDA’s website, is to prevent the growth of harmful microorganisms. [3] However, there are major concerns from parents regarding the mercurial compound being neurotoxic to children.
Snapshot of the Verstraeten study dated 02/29/00 showing a statistically significant relationship between mercury exposure and autism. [4]
In June of 2000, members from the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and pharmaceutical companies, met in a secret meeting held in Simpsonwood, GA. The topic of discussion was the relationship between thimerosal and autism.
We know what was said at the meeting because parents obtained the transcripts through the Freedom of Information Act. The conversations are chilling. [5]
Here are three important quotes from the Simpsonwood Document:
“…the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” – Dr. William Weil, American Academy of Pediatrics. Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
“Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.” – Dr. Robert Johnson, Immunologist, University of Colorado, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
“But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say…My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.” – Dr. John Clements, World Health Organization, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
The last quote by Dr. John Clements is important and revealing, because here is what happened next.
[contentbox headline=”[B]Additional Information For You[/B]” type=”attention”]For an excellent commentary on the harmful side effects of thimerosal, read Patrick Jordan’s two part series:
Tripedia is an FDA approved diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine and the Centers for Disease Control recommends that infants be injected at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. [6]
It contains thimerosal.
Nine short months AFTER the Simpsonwood meeting mentioned above, the Food and Drug Administration approved a “thimerosal free” Tripedia vaccine. [7] Do you think the FDA might have been a bit concerned about the findings discussed at the Simpsonwood meeting?
I personally think so.
You can now see the importance of the following passage on the FDA’s website:
“Much progress has been made to date in removing or reducing thimerosal in vaccines…In March 2001 the FDA approved a second DTaP vaccine formulated without thimerosal as a preservative (Aventis Pasteur’s Tripedia, trace thimerosal).” [3] (emphasis mine)
In my opinion, it couldn’t be any clearer. The pharmaceutical companies are being shielded from a landslide of litigation. But here’s the smoking gun I promised to show you.
[h=3]EXTREME ADVERSE EVENTS (AUTISM & SIDS) REPORTED[/h] The smoking gun comes in the form of the Tripedia vaccine product insert dated December 2005. This places the insert four years on the timeline after being approved for a “thimerosal free” alternative.
Keep in mind, no massive recall was made for the vaccines already containing thimerosal. The vaccines stayed on the shelves and were injected into your children. The reason you didn’t hear about any major recalls of the vaccines is because doing so would have jeopardized the public’s confidence in the entire vaccine program.
With that, I’m going to suggest that this information may radically change the way you look at vaccines forever. Page 11 of the Tripedia product insert states:
“Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome], anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea.” [8] (emphasis mine)
SIDS is most likely to occur between 2 and 4 months of age. [9] DTaP is given at 2,4, and 6 months. [6]
Strange coincidence, is it not?
The insert continues to say it is not possible to establish a “causal relationship” between the reactions and the components in the vaccine. In other words, the language is saying you can’t blame the vaccine for these conditions, even though they were reported.
Snapshot of the FDA website and the Tripedia Vaccine Product Insert.
The FDA has a large problem on their hands, and they know it. They approved vaccines with thimerosal and are trying to keep the situation quiet, especially when it comes to parents. As shown in this article, this information is coming up missing. But, the missing information did shine a HUGE spotlight on the information in the vaccine product insert.
With all the controversy surrounding vaccines and autism, why even mention it in a vaccine product insert for an FDA-approved vaccine?!? We may never know the true answer, but consider this question for a moment.
How many times have you heard a doctor or health worker hysterically say there is ZERO chance that vaccines cause autism?
My hope is for health professionals to take the time and independently research vaccines. However, researching vaccines and putting the pieces together can be difficult, especially when information disappears.
[h=3]CONCLUSION[/h] The secret Simpsonwood meeting points to a direct causal relationship between vaccines and autism. This information prompted vaccine manufacturers to rapidly and very quietly manufacture a thimerosal-free vaccine with the FDAs full cooperation. I think parents need to keep that in mind.
Four years after a “thimerosal free” vaccine became available, a cryptic paragraph referencing autism and SIDS appeared in a vaccine product insert. Now that information is being scrubbed from government and vaccine safety websites. Shame on them!
And by the way, Mom and Dad, as of May 2, 2012, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety knows Tripedia has trace amounts of thimerosal. [10]
You need to know that if your child is injured by a vaccine, your doctor is not held responsible. Read the vaccine product inserts. Research the information for yourself. Don’t take for granted that your doctor has done it for you.
[contentbox headline=”[B]References[/B]” type=”normal”]
[contentbox headline=”[B]Thank You to VaxTruth.org![/B]” type=”info”]A warm thank you goes to Marcella Piper-Terry for bringing to my attention information regarding Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety website taking down information regarding the Tripedia vaccine. You can find some of her excellent material at the following URLs:
1. Website: http://www.vaxtruth.org
2. Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/VaxTruth [/contentbox]
[h=1]FDA Approved Vaccine with Autism and SIDS Listed as Adverse Events, Vaccine Safety Website Removes Information[/h] Jeffry John Aufderheide
September 18 2012
Some very disturbing news recently came across my desk from a fellow activist.
The Tripedia vaccine product insert was removed from the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety website. [1] I also discovered that it is now missing from the Centers for Disease Control Vaccine Price List. The “official” reason is likely Sanofi Pasteur’s discontinuing the production of the vaccine. [2]
However, closer inspection of the Tripedia product insert reveals another smoking-gun relationship between vaccines and autism.
[contentbox headline=”[B]Tip[/B]” type=”attention”]Click on the photo to see the enlarged version of the illustration.[/contentbox]
Snapshots of the Johns Hopkins Vaccine Safety Website both before and after the Tripedia vaccine information was changed.[h=3]THE SECRET MEETING YOU WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT[/h] Information can disappear for many reasons.
For example, perhaps a webmaster accidentally removes the hyperlink to the Tripedia vaccine product insert. But if it was removed intentionally, we obviously have a situation where “The Authorities” want to limit the exposure of very damaging information. Before you can appreciate what disappeared, you need to know why this information is so important.
Let’s get right to it.
Some vaccines contain a particularly nasty ingredient called thimerosal. The purpose of this organic mercury preservative in vaccines, as stated on the FDA’s website, is to prevent the growth of harmful microorganisms. [3] However, there are major concerns from parents regarding the mercurial compound being neurotoxic to children.
Snapshot of the Verstraeten study dated 02/29/00 showing a statistically significant relationship between mercury exposure and autism. [4]In June of 2000, members from the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and pharmaceutical companies, met in a secret meeting held in Simpsonwood, GA. The topic of discussion was the relationship between thimerosal and autism.
We know what was said at the meeting because parents obtained the transcripts through the Freedom of Information Act. The conversations are chilling. [5]
Here are three important quotes from the Simpsonwood Document:
“…the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” – Dr. William Weil, American Academy of Pediatrics. Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
“Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.” – Dr. Robert Johnson, Immunologist, University of Colorado, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
“But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say…My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.” – Dr. John Clements, World Health Organization, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000
The last quote by Dr. John Clements is important and revealing, because here is what happened next.
[contentbox headline=”[B]Additional Information For You[/B]” type=”attention”]For an excellent commentary on the harmful side effects of thimerosal, read Patrick Jordan’s two part series:
- http://vactruth.com/2012/09/05/allergy-and-vaccines/
- http://vactruth.com/2012/09/14/eczema-as-a-biomarker/
Tripedia is an FDA approved diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine and the Centers for Disease Control recommends that infants be injected at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. [6]
It contains thimerosal.
Nine short months AFTER the Simpsonwood meeting mentioned above, the Food and Drug Administration approved a “thimerosal free” Tripedia vaccine. [7] Do you think the FDA might have been a bit concerned about the findings discussed at the Simpsonwood meeting?
I personally think so.
You can now see the importance of the following passage on the FDA’s website:
“Much progress has been made to date in removing or reducing thimerosal in vaccines…In March 2001 the FDA approved a second DTaP vaccine formulated without thimerosal as a preservative (Aventis Pasteur’s Tripedia, trace thimerosal).” [3] (emphasis mine)
In my opinion, it couldn’t be any clearer. The pharmaceutical companies are being shielded from a landslide of litigation. But here’s the smoking gun I promised to show you.
[h=3]EXTREME ADVERSE EVENTS (AUTISM & SIDS) REPORTED[/h] The smoking gun comes in the form of the Tripedia vaccine product insert dated December 2005. This places the insert four years on the timeline after being approved for a “thimerosal free” alternative.
Keep in mind, no massive recall was made for the vaccines already containing thimerosal. The vaccines stayed on the shelves and were injected into your children. The reason you didn’t hear about any major recalls of the vaccines is because doing so would have jeopardized the public’s confidence in the entire vaccine program.
With that, I’m going to suggest that this information may radically change the way you look at vaccines forever. Page 11 of the Tripedia product insert states:
“Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome], anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea.” [8] (emphasis mine)
SIDS is most likely to occur between 2 and 4 months of age. [9] DTaP is given at 2,4, and 6 months. [6]
Strange coincidence, is it not?
The insert continues to say it is not possible to establish a “causal relationship” between the reactions and the components in the vaccine. In other words, the language is saying you can’t blame the vaccine for these conditions, even though they were reported.
Snapshot of the FDA website and the Tripedia Vaccine Product Insert.The FDA has a large problem on their hands, and they know it. They approved vaccines with thimerosal and are trying to keep the situation quiet, especially when it comes to parents. As shown in this article, this information is coming up missing. But, the missing information did shine a HUGE spotlight on the information in the vaccine product insert.
With all the controversy surrounding vaccines and autism, why even mention it in a vaccine product insert for an FDA-approved vaccine?!? We may never know the true answer, but consider this question for a moment.
How many times have you heard a doctor or health worker hysterically say there is ZERO chance that vaccines cause autism?
My hope is for health professionals to take the time and independently research vaccines. However, researching vaccines and putting the pieces together can be difficult, especially when information disappears.
[h=3]CONCLUSION[/h] The secret Simpsonwood meeting points to a direct causal relationship between vaccines and autism. This information prompted vaccine manufacturers to rapidly and very quietly manufacture a thimerosal-free vaccine with the FDAs full cooperation. I think parents need to keep that in mind.
Four years after a “thimerosal free” vaccine became available, a cryptic paragraph referencing autism and SIDS appeared in a vaccine product insert. Now that information is being scrubbed from government and vaccine safety websites. Shame on them!
And by the way, Mom and Dad, as of May 2, 2012, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety knows Tripedia has trace amounts of thimerosal. [10]
You need to know that if your child is injured by a vaccine, your doctor is not held responsible. Read the vaccine product inserts. Research the information for yourself. Don’t take for granted that your doctor has done it for you.
[contentbox headline=”[B]References[/B]” type=”normal”]
- Communication with Marcella Piper-Terry regarding Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety website. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts-bymanuf.htm
- http://www.ashp.org/DrugShortages/NotAvailable/Bulletin.aspx?id=764
- http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
- http://vactruth.com/2009/09/16/confidential-thimerosal-vsd-study-phase-i/
- http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html
- http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/child-adolescent.html#printable
- http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm101582.htm
- http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002533/
- http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table-12-0502.pdf
[contentbox headline=”[B]Thank You to VaxTruth.org![/B]” type=”info”]A warm thank you goes to Marcella Piper-Terry for bringing to my attention information regarding Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety website taking down information regarding the Tripedia vaccine. You can find some of her excellent material at the following URLs:
1. Website: http://www.vaxtruth.org
2. Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/VaxTruth [/contentbox]
J Neurol Sci. 2008 Aug 15; 271(1-2): 110-8. Epub 2008 May 15
''Thimerosol exposure in infants significantly increases neurodevelopment disorders in infants, eg autism, autism spectrum disorders, tics, attention deficit disorder, and emotional distrubances.''
''Thimerosol exposure in infants significantly increases neurodevelopment disorders in infants, eg autism, autism spectrum disorders, tics, attention deficit disorder, and emotional distrubances.''
The cracks are beginning to appear with whistleblowers and studies coming out and vaccines will have their edward snowden moment
Just as everything else i've said on this forum has then gone public and be proven to be correct so to will vaccines
I'm amazed at the inability of some people to think logically on this
They would take something that has been shown to brain damage kids because they have been made to fear things like measles as if measles is the bubonic plague or something!
I'll tell you what is a plague though...AUTISM
here look at the rates for it today (and yet the pro-vaccinators are putting their fingers ion their ears and saying ''la la la we are not listening'' whenever it is pointed out to them that autism is sky rocketting
Presumably they think autism is increasing because of.......well who knows what they think. They probably still think that the government tells them the truth about things, so they'll believe anything
Since this lecture was given, the rate has increased from 1/110 to 1/88 to 1 in 68
[video=youtube;9feDusrlb4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9feDusrlb4U[/video]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/autism-rates-rise/6957815/
Autism rates soar, now affects 1 in 68 children
And it's getting worse....these changes shown above are in a matter of years!
So in a few years it will be 1 in 50 kids and in a few more years 1 in 40 kids and it will keep going until it is 1 in 10 kids, 1 in 2 kids and then every kid
maybe then some people will face reality
Just as everything else i've said on this forum has then gone public and be proven to be correct so to will vaccines
I'm amazed at the inability of some people to think logically on this
They would take something that has been shown to brain damage kids because they have been made to fear things like measles as if measles is the bubonic plague or something!
I'll tell you what is a plague though...AUTISM
here look at the rates for it today (and yet the pro-vaccinators are putting their fingers ion their ears and saying ''la la la we are not listening'' whenever it is pointed out to them that autism is sky rocketting
Presumably they think autism is increasing because of.......well who knows what they think. They probably still think that the government tells them the truth about things, so they'll believe anything
Since this lecture was given, the rate has increased from 1/110 to 1/88 to 1 in 68
[video=youtube;9feDusrlb4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9feDusrlb4U[/video]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/autism-rates-rise/6957815/
Autism rates soar, now affects 1 in 68 children
And it's getting worse....these changes shown above are in a matter of years!
So in a few years it will be 1 in 50 kids and in a few more years 1 in 40 kids and it will keep going until it is 1 in 10 kids, 1 in 2 kids and then every kid
maybe then some people will face reality
Part 1
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/history-and-science-show-vaccines-do-not-prevent-disease/
History and Science Show Vaccines Do Not Prevent Disease
April 27, 2015
Health Impact News Editor Comments: In the vaccine debate currently raging in modern society, seldom, if ever, is the basic presupposition that vaccines prevent diseases ever questioned. It is assumed by the government and the medical system that this presupposition is a scientific fact. Without this presupposed “fact”, the justification to force people to receive vaccinations completely falls apart. The acceptance of sacrificing certain children and others due to vaccine harm for “the greater good” also loses its justification, if vaccines actually do not prevent disease. So it is easy to see why those who profit from vaccines, which includes both the manufacturer and the U.S. government, do not want to debate this issue.
What is the actual history and science behind this belief in vaccines? Dr. Viera Scheibner has done everyone a favor in critiquing the current scientific rationale for such a belief, taking a comprehensive look at history and peer-reviewed studies on the subject. We have extracted this from her 50 plus page response to the Australian Academy of Science pro-vaccine report entitled: A critique of the 16-page Australian pro-vaccination booklet entitled “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers” – You can read the entire report here.
We have extracted the relevant information regarding the history and science of vaccines, so that the comprehensive report by Dr. Scheibner can be used by anyone interested in the topic. This is the research you want to print out and give to your doctor if they are uneducated on the facts and science of vaccines. If you are involved in a lawsuit over refusing mandatory vaccines, you will want to give this to your attorney who can enter the information into the court record and start educating judges.
By Dr . Viera Scheibner (PhD)
International Medical Council on Vaccination
Science simply means an organised system of knowledge. It does not mean infallibility, superiority, or eternal validity, and it is subject to changes and revisions. Many a crime has been committed in the name of science, starting with the medieval inquisition, through Nazi Germany’s perversion of just about everything, including medicine, and now, continuing into the present day with harmful excesses of medicine.
In the following [research] I provide documented facts, describing the reality of vaccines/vaccination, as published in reputable peer‐reviewed medical journals.
The documented effects of vaccines as shown by orthodox medical research:
Sensitisation after vaccination.
At the turn of the twentieth century, medical researchers tested vaccines on themselves and other surgeons and medical students and established that vaccine injections result in the so‐called negative phase of lowered bactericidal power of the blood, in other words, a measurable immune‐suppression.(7)
Dr Parfentjev, an employee of Lederle Laboratories (one of many well‐known vaccine manufacturers), reported that vaccination of mice with pertussis vaccine sensitised them, i.e. caused anaphylaxis (as opposed to prophylaxis), and increased their susceptibility to infection with several unrelated species of Gram negative bacteria and viruses.(8)
Sensitisation (anaphylaxis) was achieved with injection of 15 billion cells of commercial pertussis vaccine. Compared with controls (normal, unvaccinated mice) the lethal dose of virus for sensitised mice was much smaller than for normal mice of the same age group. In other words, vaccination with pertussis vaccine increased the susceptibility of mice to lethal shock.
In another benchmark seminal work, Kind demonstrated that pertussis vaccines also sensitised the mice to the lethal effects of subsequent injections of pertussis vaccine as well as a variety of agents and conditions such as anaphylaxis, histamine, serotonin, and endotoxins, and certain proteins of “related” and “unrelated” organisms, such as Escherichia coli and Shigella dysenteriae.(9)
Craighead reported that the same effects as observed in mice were also observed in children given inactivated microbial vaccines. He also wrote that during the past five years, significant advances were made in the understanding of the natural history of a number of common infections, among which he mentioned the apparent states of altered host reactivity consequent to vaccination.
Immunisation with inactivated vaccines could “sensitise” the recipients and result in an accentuated pattern of disease upon natural or experimental exposure.(10)
Meaning, if a child did not react much to the first dose of vaccine, it may react seriously to subsequent doses.
Evidence for delayed hypersensitivity in recipients of “killed” vaccine is demonstrated by local skin reactions after the injection of live or inactivated microorganisms. The dermal response may also be caused by nonmicrobial constituents such as adjuvants and preservatives, which by themselves are highly toxic: aluminium and mercury compounds, formaldehyde, phenol, propylene glycol among others.
Modern immunological research regards vaccines as foreign antigens; indeed, vaccines represent superantigens, which are typified as multiple vaccines administered at the same session.
Earlier researchers have observed the many problems with antigenic stimulation by vaccines, such as the vaccine induced enhancement of viral infections which is known to occur with several vaccines.(11,12) This phenomenon was well described with the failed RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus ) vaccines. However, as of 2009, scientists are still unsure of the exact mechanism.(13) As a result, vaccine development for lentivirus infections in general, and HIV/AIDS in particular, has been little successful.(14) Many trials of HIV vaccines, including the latest ones, confirmed this phenomenon: the trials had to be abandoned because a number of human volunteers contracted AIDS from the tested vaccines.
Equally unsuccessful are vaccines against bacterial infections such as whooping cough, diphtheria and Haemophilus influenzae as shown later in this critique.
Sabath documented antigen‐induced transient hypersusceptibility to infections in mice and infants.(15) In mice they determined onset of infection and death due to influenza virus challenge at different times after antecedent monovalent influenza vaccine administration. In infants hospitalised for purulent meningitis there was a clustering of time intervals between routine vaccination and the onset of symptoms, proving the causal link.
Daum demonstrated a decline in serum antibody to the capsule of Haemophilus influenzae type b in the immediate postvaccination period in children.(16) They wrote that this increases the risk of invasive disease if it occurred during a period of asymptomatic colonization with H. influenzae type b, which, of course is a rule rather than an exception, because the bacterium is a ubiquitous commensal living on tonsils.
Effectiveness of vaccination.
Outbreaks and epidemics of measles, whooping cough and poliomyelitis diseases in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated populations.
The Amish are a religious community living across the USA that claim religious exemption to vaccination. Thus, the vast majority are not vaccinated.
They had not reported a single case of measles between 1970 and 1987.(17) At the same time, non‐Amish highly‐vaccinated communities still reported 2‐3 year epidemics. Despite this obvious vaccination failure, pro‐vaccinators claimed success with the measles vaccine.
In 1982, just when the US Secretary of State Joseph A. Califano Jr. planned to announce eradication of measles, the well‐vaccinated non‐Amish populations started reporting huge outbreaks. The unvaccinated Amish did not have large epidemics of measles until much later, starting in early December 1987.
Outbreaks in the fully vaccinated American children continued with increasing frequency and severity. Without disclosing the vaccination status of children in measles epidemics, claiming victory over measles is just empty jabbering.
Moreover, vaccinated children started developing an especially vicious form of atypical measles. Fulginiti described the occurrence of atypical measles in children given formaldehyde‐treated, aluminium precipitated measles vaccine, also referred to as “killed” measles.(18) He explained the problem as due to the altered immunological host response caused by vaccination.
Later on, when live‐attenuated measles vaccine was introduced, the recipients starting developing atypical measles from it, as well.
Rauh and Schmidt described nine cases, which occurred in 1963 during a measles epidemic in Cincinnati.(19) The authors followed 386 children who had received three doses of killed measles virus vaccine in 1961. Of these 386 children, 125 had been exposed to measles and 54 developed it. The authors concluded that:
it is obvious that three injections of killed vaccine had not protected a large percentage of children against measles when exposed within a period of two-and a half years after immunization.
Even when vaccination rates in the UK dropped in the 1990s and early 2000s, when confidence in the vaccine fell, measles deaths never exceeded 4 per year, and remain today at that level. Increasing laboratory‐confirmed measles continue to occur in England and Wales even since vaccination rates have gone back to former levels. (Figure 1.)(20) This is evidence that measles vaccines at best interrupt transmission, but do not confer reliable immunity no matter how much of the herd is vaccinated.
Figure 1: Laboratory confirmed measles cases, London and the rest of England and Wales, 1995‐2008Outbreaks of whooping cough (pertussis) in the vaccination era.
Right after the intense DPT vaccination that started in the mid 1970s, and right through the first decade of 2000, whooping cough outbreaks hit several US states, accompanied by similar outbreaks in all other countries that adopted intensive vaccination including Australia.
In addition to pertussis (and measles) outbreaks in fully‐vaccinated children, the outbreaks in the last thirty‐odd years have been occurring increasingly in very young babies, born to mothers who were vaccinated when they were babies and as a result they lack transplacentally‐transmitted immunity (TTI). Before the vaccine era, TTI protected babies and young children for up to two years against any infectious diseases of childhood.
Lennon and Black demonstrated that hemagglutinin‐inhibiting and neutralizing antibody titers are lower in younger women who have been vaccinated than they are in older women.(21) The same applies to measles and pertussis.(22)
Breastfed infants of vaccinated mothers in the USA have nearly three times the risk of measles infection compared to those of naturally immune mothers, even in the era of vaccination when there is supposedly less measles virus in the environment.
Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33%, compared to 12% for infants of older mothers. Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 are more susceptible to measles than are infants of older mothers. An increasing proportion of infants born in the United States may be susceptible to measles. . . the adjusted odds ratio for maternal year of birth (born after 1963) was 7.5 (95% confidence interval 1.8, 30.6).(23)
This is most likely the result of lower levels of virus‐specific immunity in the serum and milk in vaccinated mothers compared to naturally immune mothers. While the overall clinical case rate may have declined with measles vaccination, the most sensitive members of the herd are at an increased risk today‐ because of vaccination.
Hutchins et al. described pertussis epidemiology in the US. They wrote:
During the period 1980-1986, a total of 17,396 cases of pertussis were reported to CDC… The annual incidence of reported pertussis rose from 0.5 cases per 100,000 population to 1.7/100,000. Infants less than 12 months old had the highest average annual incidence… Children 1-4 years of age accounted for 25% of all cases but had an average annual incidence only 1/7th that of infants.(24)
Figure 2 (25) reveals a steady downward trend in the incidence and mortality from pertussis between 1922 and until about 1975‐6; thereafter the downward trend in pertussis morbidity stopped and went sharply upwards, while pertussis mortality remained high but stationary. What could have caused such increase in the disease incidence seen in figure 3?
Figure 2: Pertussis, United States, 1922‐1987Hutchins et al. showed the reason for the increase, unwittingly, when they also wrote:
In 1978 a nationwide childhood immunization initiative was begun. Individual States passed legislation requiring proof of immunization for school entry at 5-6 years of age.
The vaccination age started at 6‐8 weeks (and not at 5‐6 years), and large numbers of very young babies were vaccinated within a short period of time; hence the observed major increase of whooping cough in those babies straight after the first dose.
Figure 3: Number of Pertussis Cases Reported to MMWR and Incidence of Disease per 100,000 Population, United States, 1980‐1986.This also coincided with a sudden upsurge in cot deaths, of which the so‐called Tennessee deaths were widely publicised. Bernier(26), Walker(27), and Griffin(28) all described a number of such tragedies. Their data showed a clear clustering of these deaths along the critical days as documented by data collection of babies breathing with Cotwatch breathing monitor.(29)
Figure 4: Record of alarms as recorded by the mother of a baby on the Cotwatch breathing monitor.
Figure 5: A “raw” record of breathing of baby one, as printed from the microprocessor Cotwatch breathing monitor. Every vertical line represents a histogram of events for one hour. Events from 6 to 15 seconds are mostly apneas (pauses in breathing), while the events above 15 seconds are mostly hypopneas (low volume breathing, which is only 5% of the volume of unstressed breathing). Hypopneas occur at critical hours in clusters of several shorter episodes within 10‐15 minutes and are associated with exposure to a great variety of stressors. The entire record represents 21 days of non‐stop monitoring in sleep. The arrow indicates the day when the DPT vaccine was administered. A marked change in the pattern and duration of events in breathing occurred after the injection.
Figure 6: First and second charts: Record of events in breathing in two babies, as printed from the microprocessor Cotwatch breathing monitor. ‐ baby one had been given the third DPTP (diphtheria‐pertussis‐tetanus) and OPV (oral polio) vaccines and ‐ baby two had been give the first DPT and OPV vaccines. Third chart: Actual deaths ‐ 41 randomly listed in deaths in relation to when the last DPT vaccine had been administered.
Figure 7: Record of events in breathing in two babies, as printed from the microprocessor Cotwatch breathing monitor ‐ baby one had been given the third DPT (diphtheria‐pertussis‐tetanus) and OPV (oral polio) vaccines ‐ baby three had been given the first DPT and OPV vaccines.
Part 2
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/history-and-science-show-vaccines-do-not-prevent-disease/
Figure 8: Relative* risk of SIDS in days after vaccination. *Note: The risk is not relative to the risk of SIDS in unvaccinated babies. What is important to note here is the recognisable pattern of critical days.
Figure 9: Links age, number of deaths and the time taken to die after vaccination (Source: Griffin et al. 1988)
Due to the 1975 UK television program reporting on brain damage linked to DPT vaccine, the vaccination compliance fell down to 30%, or even 10% in some areas, in the UK. This was followed by the longest inter‐epidemic period with the lowest incidence of whooping cough on record.
Fine and Clarkson wrote:
Figure 10: Weekly number of pertussis cases notified to Office of Population Censuses and surveys, from week 1 of 1950 to week 3 of 1982.
It is my opinion that the incidence of whooping cough fell worldwide in the mid 1970s due to natural dynamics, similar to those of measles, and not due to increasing levels of vaccination.
When vaccination stops, the incidence of the targeted disease returns back to normal dynamics. This explanation is supported by another observation in the UK and former West Germany. Miller and Farrington wrote:
In the West Germany unlike the UK, there are no national statistics on pertussis incidence, no national vaccination policy and no figures for vaccine uptake. . . vaccination rates are low and pertussis is prevalent, particularly in the 2-4 year age group, which is typical of a country with low vaccination uptake; similarly serotype 2 predominates. . . The age distribution was similar to that of cases reported in the UK during 1978 when vaccine uptake was at it’s lowest with the highest proportion occurring in children aged 2-4 years.(31)
Figure 11 (32) is very instructive. The facts point strongly against the presumed benefits of vaccination.
Figure 11: Age distribution of pertussis cases in West Germany and England & Wales.
The dynamics of vaccine uptake as described above are also reflected in the dynamics of infant deaths after four weeks in England and Wales. According to Macfarlane:
Figure 12: Age‐specific incidence of bacteriologically confirmed pertussis. Massachusetts. 1981‐1991. JID 1994:169 (June)
In contrast, Marchant et al. described inter alia the age incidence of pertussis in Massachusetts in a ten year period 1981‐1991(34) and demonstrated in figure 12 that the highest incidence of bacteriologically‐confirmed pertussis was below the age of one; however, the breakdown in months showed the highest incidence was just after the first and second doses of DPT, with rapid decline afterwards. Equally revealing was the high incidence of pertussis below the vaccination age, in small babies (0 to 6 weeks), this being due to the lack of TTI documentedly caused by the deleterious generational effect of vaccination.(35)
Sutter and Cochi studied pertussis hospitalisations and mortality in the United States between 1985 and 1988 and concluded that there was substantial under‐reporting of pertussis in the US.(36) This of course would have inflated the perceived effectiveness of vaccination. They wrote that based on their indicators, the national health impact of pertussis is considerably higher than previously published reports suggested. Applying the age‐specific hospitalisation rates, 187,867 to 515,930 cases of pertussis may have occurred during the study period, instead of only 14,057 cases reported to the CDC. They concluded that using different methods of estimation, approximately 121,340 cases of pertussis may have occurred during the study period, indicating 11.6% vaccine efficacy. Considering that the pre‐vaccine era pertussis occurrence was in the order of 240,000 cases, vaccination has made no inroads into the pertussis incidence.
Williams et al, made a statement about infants who died:
Moreover, some of the mothers and siblings had whooping cough at the time of the infant’s births, despite being fully vaccinated. One sibling’s vaccination status was uncertain, but he was very likely vaccinated as part of the highly vaccinated generation.
This confirmed two phenomena:
In contrast to this, when Sweden trialled the acellular pertussis vaccines for the second time (1990‐ 1995), as soon as the trial babies were vaccinated, there was a major outbreak of pertussis in those very young babies.(40) Since 82% of the entire live birth cohort participated in this trial, the pertussis epidemic reached noticeable proportions.
The acellular pertussis vaccine failed to make any inroads into pertussis incidence, as witnessed in Sweden: already during the [second] trials of that vaccine, the infant recipients contracted whooping cough which prompted discontinuation of the trial well before the planned date.(41) This is particularly instructive since during the eleven years without usage of pertussis vaccines (1979‐1990) – babies under one year of age did not contract whooping cough and 90% of cases occurred in the ideal age group between 5‐10 years.(42)
Despite high vaccination compliance, there remained a high persistent level of pertussis in regular 3.5 year epidemics. Vaccines made no inroads into incidence of pertussis as demonstrated in figure 13:
Figure 13: Pertussis notifications 1991‐2009 (Australia).
[h=3]The sordid history of Poliomyelitis vaccination[/h] When the Salk injectable “formaldehyde killed” polio vaccine was tested on some 1.8 million American children in 1954‐55, cases of paralysis in the vaccinated and some of their contacts started occurring within days.(43) The Cutter Laboratories were accused of distributing vaccines containing live polioviruses. Disasters with the Salk vaccines causing vaccine associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) seem to have been one of the main motivations behind development of an oral “live attenuated” Sabin vaccine, which was believed to simulate the natural infection. However, VAPP cases continued occurring with the Sabin vaccine.
I spent many hours locating and reading the older and more recent articles addressing the effectiveness, or otherwise, of combining IPV and OPV vaccines. I established that the results are not straightforward. Abraham reported that shedding of virulent poliovirus revertants, during immunization with oral poliovirus vaccines, after prior immunization with inactivated polio vaccines, continued.(44) He also documented that prior immunization with EIPV (enhanced potency IPV) does not prevent faecal shedding of revertant polioviruses after subsequent exposure to OPV. (45)
Mensi and Pregliasco wrote:
Figure 14: Number of places with polio cases, by average vaccination acceptance rate for birth cohorts 1971‐1975 (Shaap/Bijkerk/Coutinho/Kapsenberg/van Wezel).
Sutter et al described an Oman outbreak as:
. . . evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children.(48)
Incidence of paralytic disease was highest in children below 2 years:
. . . despite an immunisation programme that recently had raised coverage with 3 doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) among 12-months-old children from 67% to 87%… with transmission lasting for more than 12 months. Among the most disturbing features of this outbreak was that it occurred in the face of a model immunisation programme and that widespread transmission had occurred in a sparsely populated, predominantly rural setting. (49)
One of the interesting reasons quoted was:
. . . rapid increases in vaccination coverage before the outbreak may have reduced or interrupted endemic circulation of indigenous strains, diminishing the contribution of natural infection to overall immunity levels in the general population. (50)
The same reason was given by Biellik et al. in 1994 when they described the situation in Namibia. They wrote:
Endemic wild poliovirus circulation has continued uninterrupted in Angola and the two northern regions in Namibia across the well-travelled border since 1989, when cases were last reported. Although OPV3 cover age was fairly low in northern compared with southern Namibia, a higher proportion of northern children might have been protected, at least to type 1, by natural immunity, thus suppressing epidemics . . . the apparent interruption of [natural] poliovirus circulation [by vaccination] limited the acquisition of natural immunity. (5)1
Control of polio in the US shows the same phenomenon as the control of pertussis, namely downward trend, which stopped when individual states in the US mandated DPT and polio.
Figure 15: Annual reported paralytic poliomyelitis case rates, United States, 1951‐1982 (Paralytic case rate/100,000 population.) The 1982 data are preliminary.
An interesting example of manipulation of data is polio “eradication” in the Americas. Figure 16(52) shows the effect of reclassification of poliomyelitis which allowed the ever increasing number of “notified” cases to morph into an ever decreasing number of “confirmed” cases.
Figure 16: Polio cases notified and confirmed: The Americas. 1985-1989.
Dr HV Wyatt (53) quoted Hanlon et al. as stating:
Continuing failures of polio eradication by OPV led to the proposals of using a combination of killed followed by oral polio vaccine delivery. However, such proposals are flawed and based on the ignorance of the documented past experience.
Simian Virus 40 contamination of polio vaccines
Perhaps the worst thing about polio vaccines is their continued contamination by monkey viruses of which SV 40 is the best researched one. According to ample medical research evidence, polio vaccines of any kind cause VAPP. However, there are other major problems with the polio vaccine that justify scepticism about its benefits, one of which is the well‐documented and continuous contamination by monkey viruses SV1‐SV40. Soon after the poliovirus mass vaccination programmes started in the US, a number of monkey viruses and amoebas were found in the vaccine seed brews. Hull, Milner et al. (56) and Hull, Johnston et al. (1955) encountered numerous filterable, transferable cytopathogenic agents other than polio virus in “normal” monkey renal cell cultures. Even though these agents completely destroyed culture tissues, and even caused serious diarrhoea in laboratory animals, all of which died, their possible pathogenesis in humans was ignored or glossed over. The central nervous system was particularly susceptible to the pathogenic properties of such viruses; the histopathological lesions observed in the intracerebrally inoculated monkeys revealed necrosis and complete destruction of the choroid plexus. Findings included generalised aseptic type meningitis. The isolated agent was called simian virus or SV and classified into 4 groups based on the cytopathogenic changes induced in monkey kidney cell cultures infected with these agents.
Hilleman and Sweet (57) reported on the “Vacuolating virus S.V. 40”, which became the best researched among dozens of known monkey viruses. Gerber et al. (58) demonstrated that Sweet and Hilleman’s method of inactivation of SV40 by 10 day treatment using 1: 4000 solution of formaldehyde was inadequate, since it took longer than 10 days to establish that the process was a subject to the asymptotic factor and hence incomplete. Fenner’s research (59) has also established that even the inactivated portion of the viruses reverts back to the original virulence. Dr Bernice Eddy documented the carcinogenic properties of these simian viruses: they caused tumours in hamsters injected with Rhesus monkey kidney cell extracts. (60) As established by many subsequent researchers, in humans SV40 causes characteristic brain tumours, bone sarcomas, mesotheliomas and an especially virulent form of melanoma cancer. The stage was ready for a world‐wide [admitted] contamination of hundreds of millions of children with an oncogenic monkey virus via polio vaccines. SV40 has been directly or indirectly implicated in an epidemic of great number of conditions and brain, lung, bone, renal and other tumours in all ages. (61,62,63,64,65)
Dr Stanley Kops is a modern day advocate for SV40 truth, and he wrote:
Contamination of polio vaccines by chimpanzee coryza virus, or RSV.
Another important consideration in attempts to eradicate poliomyelitis by vaccination is the contamination of polio vaccines by chimpanzee coryza virus, renamed respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
In 1956, Morris et al. described monkey cytopathogenic agent that produced acute respiratory illness in chimpanzees at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and named it chimpanzee coryza virus (CCA). (67)
In 1957, Chanock et al. wrote on the association of a new type of cytopathogic myxovirus with infantile croup. (68)
Chanock and Finberg reported on two isolations of similar agents from infants with severe lower respiratory illness (bronchopneumonia, bronchiolitis and laryngotracheobronchitis). The two viruses were indistinguishable from an agent associated with the outbreak of coryza in chimpanzees (CCA virus) studied by Morris in 1956.
A person working with the infected chimpanzees subsequently experienced respiratory infection with a rise in CCA antibodies during convalescence. They proposed a new name for this agent “respiratory syncytial virus” (RSV). RSV has spread via contaminated polio vaccines like wildfire all over the world and continues causing serious lower respiratory tract infections in infants.
Beem et al. isolated the virus from inpatients and outpatients in the Bob Robert Memorial Hospital for Children (University of Chicago) during the winter of 1958‐1959, in association with human acute respiratory illness. (69) The virus (named Randall) had an unusual cytopathic effect characterised by extensive syncytial areas and giant cells. Soon, 48 similar agents were isolated from 41 patients. There were antigenic similarities between RV and Long and Sue strains of CCA; it produced illness in humans (the age range 3 weeks to 35 years): acute respiratory diseases, croup, bronchiolitis, pneumonia and asthma ranging from mild coryza to fatal bronchiolitis. The isolation rate (46%) was particularly high among infants below six months.
In Australia, Lewis et al. isolated further viral specimens identical with CCA. (70)
Prior to July 1960, the influenza and parainfluenza viruses predominated in infant epidemic respiratory infections; in July 1961 the pattern changed abruptly with sudden increases in bronchiolitis and bronchitis, that were previously infrequent. 58% were under 12 months, and patients under 4 years predominated. Infants with bronchiolitis and severe bronchitis yielded RCA, not previously isolated. Deaths have occurred.
Rogers’ 1959 observations on antibiotic ineffectiveness, and new serious additional problems fell on deaf ears. He wrote that life‐threatening microbial infections continued to occur despite antibiotics, and that the previous microbial landscape also shifted by 1957‐1958. There was streptococcal predominance from 1938‐1940, and then an “impressive” increase in the number of life‐threatening enterobacterial infections post antibiotic.
Simoes wrote:
Polio vaccines are not only ineffective in preventing paralysis, they carry the risk of contamination with many harmful adventitious microorganisms, of which only some monkey viruses have been researched in more detail. Many other potentially dangerous microorganisms remain unaddressed.
Polio vaccination and brain-eating amoebas.
Contamination of monkey kidney tissue cultures (used in the production of polio vaccines) by live amoebas.
In 1996, while watching a TV news report on the death of two 5‐year olds in Australia from brain‐eating amoebae, I remembered a note in Hull et al.’s paper
Jahnes et al.(77) isolated two strains of apparently the same amoeba which looked like round bodies, similar in appearance to cells manifesting changes induced by certain simian (monkey) viruses. On closer examination, they proved to be amoebic cysts. They varied in size, from 10 to 21 microns in diameter. In one experiment, the cysts were treated with 10% formalin, washed and inoculated into monkey kidney tissue culture tubes. The monkey kidney cells phagocytised the cysts. The trophozooites turned into cysts under refrigeration down to 4 degrees C. These were resistant even under –50 degrees C for months and survived in the pH range 5.0‐9.0. Their tissue cultures were not affected by streptomycin and penicillin.
Culbertson (78,79) confirmed that amoebas caused brain disease and death within days, in monkeys and mice. The reports showed, that following inoculations, “extensive chorio‐meningitis and destructive encephalomyelitis occurred” and killed monkeys in four to seven days and mice in three to four days. Intravenous injections of the amoebas resulted in perivascular granulomatous lesions. Intranasal inoculation in mice resulted in fatal infections in about four days. These mice exhibited ulceration of the frontal lobes of the brain. There were amoebas in the lungs, and they caused severe pneumonic amoeba reaction. Haemorrhage was a common feature. Sections of the kidney showed amoebas present in the glomerular capillaries.
Amoebas showed the ability to migrate through the tissues. The size of the inoculum did not matter: both small and large inoculums produced amoebic invasions. Intragastric inoculations were unsuccessful most probably because amoebic cysts were dissolved by bile.
Researchers, as a rule failed to address the seriousness of the introduction into children of Acanthamoeba via the polio vaccines, even though they were aware of their origin from monkey kidney tissue cultures used in the production of polio vaccines. However they noted that the most contaminated age group was babies below the age of crawling – between 2 and ten months.
Live amoebas were isolated from the air (80) in the UK, together with respiratory syncytial virus, and from the surfaces in hospital cubicles in which infants with acute bronchiolitis were being nursed. The amoebas were isolated at Booth Hall Children’s Hospital in the cubicle occupied by a ten‐week‐old infant with acute bronchiolitis. First, only RSV was isolated and the child sent home, but later an unidentified cytopathic effect was noticed in the tissue cultures and was provisionally called “Ryan virus1” (81) by Pereira, and later also noted in a post‐mortem bronchial swab of another seven‐months old baby boy with RSV bronchiolitis.
Pereira’s paper describes the course of illness: Six days before admission, the baby developed a sore throat and ulcers in the mouth which later spread over the face; he was unwell, could not suck and developed loose stools. The day before admission, he developed a cough and started vomiting. He was drowsy and dyspnoeic, made jerky movements and died soon after admission. Necropsy showed some emphysema, petechiae, and small areas of congestion and alveolar haemorrhaging in the lungs, a fatty liver, prominent mesenteric nodes, and mucopus in the ears. Escherichia coli bacteria were cultured from his ears. Death was diagnosed as due to a respiratory infection associated with encephalomyelitis and hepatitis. Vaccination status was not disclosed, although considering the age, the baby could have received up to three doses of DPT and OPV vaccines.
Armstrong and Pereira identified the Ryan virus as Hartmanella castellanii. (82) They had no doubt that these amoebas came from the human respiratory tract. In Australia, Fowler and Carter(83) Carter(84), and Carter et al.(85) described a number of cases in children and adults. Many cases all over the world occurred in children and adults, with and without histories of swimming in lakes and public swimming pools. (86)
Even if polio vaccines were effective in preventing polio paralysis, their potentially continued contamination by undesirable microorganisms (monkey viruses and amoebas) should encourage the abandonment of their use.
Well‐meaning Rotarians should study the relevant medical research first, before engaging in global polio vaccination.
A critique of the 16-page Australian pro-vaccination booklet entitled “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers” – You can read the entire report here.
8 PARFENTJEV IA. Bacterial allergy increases susceptibility to influenza virus in mice. Proc Soc ExpBiol Med. 1955 Nov;90(2):373-5.
9 KIND LS. Sensitivity of pertussis inoculated mice to endotoxin.. J Immunol. 1959 Jan;82(1):32-7
10 Craighead JE. Disease accentuation after immunisation with inactivated microbial vaccines. J InfectDis. 1975 Jun;131(6):749-54.
11 Ibid. Craighead.
12 Huisman W, Martina BE, Rimmelzwaan GF, Gruters RA, Osterhaus AD. Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections.
Vaccine. 2009 Jan 22;27(4):505-12. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.10.087. Epub 2008 Nov 18.
13 Varga SM. Fixing a failed vaccine. Nat Med. 2009 Jan;15(1):21-2. doi: 10.1038/nm0109-21.
14 Ibid Huisman
15 Sabath et al. Antigen-induced transient hypersusceptibility: a cause of sporadic fulminant infection innormals. 1989. Clin Research; 35(5): 617a
16 Daum RS, Sood SK, Osterholm MT, Pramberg JC, Granoff PD et al.. Decline in serum antibody tothe capsule of Haemophilus influenzae type b in the immediate postvaccinal period. J Pediatr. 1989May;114(5):742-7.
17 Sutter RW, Markowitz LE, Bennetch JM, Morris W, Zell ER, Preblud SR. Measles among the Amish: a comparative study of measles severity in primary and secondary cases in households. J InfectDis. 1991 Jan;163(1):12-6.
18 Fulginiti VA, Eller JJ, Downie AW, Kempe CH. Altered reactivity to measles virus. Atypicalmeasles in children previously immunized with inactivated measles virus vaccines. JAMA. 1967 Dec18;202(12):1075-80.
19 RAUH LW, SCHMIDT R. Measles immunization with killed virus vaccine. Am J Dis Child. 1965Mar;109:232-7.
20 Mellows-Facer A and Thompson G. Measles and MMR statistics – Commons Library Standard Note17 February 2009 | Standard notes SN02581http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02581 accessed 9 Feb 2013.
21 Lennon JL, Black FL. Maternally derived measles immunity in era of vaccine-protected mothers. JPediatr. 1986 May;108(5 Pt 1):671-6.
22 Mulholland K. Measles and pertussis in developing countries with good vaccine coverage. Lancet.1995 Feb 4;345(8945):305-7.
23 Papania M. et al., Increased susceptibility to measles in infants in the United States, Pediatrics, November 1999, Vol. 1045, No. 5, e59, pp. 1-6.
24 Hutchins SS, Cochi SL, Brink EW, Patriarca PA, Wassilak SG et al. Current epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 1988;13 Suppl:103-9.
25 Ibid.
26 Bernier RH, Frank JA Jr, Dondero TJ Jr, Turner P. Diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-pertussis vaccinationand sudden infant deaths in Tennessee. J Pediatr. 1982 Sep;101(3):419-21.
27 Walker AM, Jick H, Perera DR, Thompson RS, Knauss TA. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussisimmunization and sudden infant death syndrome. Am J Public Health. 1987 Aug;77(8):945-51.
28 Griffin MR, Ray WA, Livengood JR, Schaffner W. Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. N Engl J Med. 1988 Sep 8;319(10):618-23.
29 Scheibner V. Dynamics of critical days as part of the non-specific stress syndrome discovered duringmonitoring with Cotwatch breathing monitor. 2004 J ACNEM; 23(3): 1-5.
30 Fine PE, Clarkson JA. The recurrence of whooping cough: possible implications for assessment of vaccine efficacy. Lancet. 1982 Mar 20;1(8273):666-9.
31. Miller E, Farrington CP. The current epidemiology of pertussis in the developed world: UK and West Germany. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 1988;13
32. Ibid.
33 MacFarlane A. Infant deaths after four weeks. Lancet. 1982 Oct 23;2(8304):929-30.
34 Marchant CD, Loughlin AM, Lett SM, Todd CW, Wetterlow LH et al. Pertussis in Massachusetts,1981-1991: incidence, serologic diagnosis, and vaccine effectiveness. J Infect Dis. 1994Jun;169(6):1297-305.
35 Lavine JS, King AA, Bjørnstad ON. Natural immune boosting in pertussis dynamics and the potential for long-term vaccine failure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Apr 26;108(17):7259-64.
36 Sutter RW, Cochi SL. Pertussis hospitalizations and mortality in the United States, 1985-1988.Evaluation of the completeness of national reporting. JAMA. 1992 Jan 15;267(3):386-91.
37 Williams GD, Matthews NT, Choong RK, Ferson MJ. Infant pertussis deaths in New South Wales1996-1997. Med J Aust. 1998 Mar 16;168(6):281-3.
38 Ibid. Lennon and Black.
39 Romanus V, Jonsell R, Bergquist SO. Pertussis in Sweden after the cessation of generalimmunization in 1979. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1987 Apr;6(4):364-71.
40 Olin P. Acellular pertussis vaccines–a question of efficacy. J Hosp Infect. 1995 Jun;30 Suppl:503-7.
41 Ibid. Olin.
42 Isacson et al. 1993. How common is whooping cough in a non-vaccinating country? Pediatr InfectDis J; 12 (4): 284-288.
43 Peterson et al. VACCINATION-INDUCED POLIOMYELITIS IN IDAHO: PRELIMINARYREPORT OF EXPERIENCE WITH SALK POLIOMYELITIS VACCINE. JAMA. 1955;159(4):241-244
44 Abraham R, Minor P, Dunn G, Modlin JF, Ogra PL. Shedding of virulent poliovirus revertantsduring immunization with oral poliovirus vaccine after prior immunization with inactivated poliovaccine.J Infect Dis. 1993 Nov;168(5):1105-9.
45 Carolina Mensi and Fabrizio Pregliasco. Poliomyelitis: Present Epidemiological Situation andVaccination Problems. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1998 May; 5(3): 278–280.
46 Mensi C, Pregliasco F. Poliomyelitis: present epidemiological situation and vaccination problems.. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1998 May;5(3):278-80.
47 Schaap GJ, Bijkerk H, Coutinho RA, Kapsenberg JG, van Wezel AL. The spread of wild poliovirusin the well-vaccinated Netherlands in connection with the 1978 epidemic. Prog Med Virol.1984;29:124–140
48 Sutter RW, Patriarca PA, Brogan S, Malankar PG, Pallansch MA et al. Evidence for widespreadtransmission among fully vaccinated children Lancet. 1991 Sep 21;338(8769):715-20
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Biellik RJ, Lobanov A, Heath K, Reichler M, Tjapepua V et al. Poliomyelitis in Namibia. Lancet.1994 Dec 24-31;344(8939-8940):1776
52 De Quadros CA, Andrus JK, Olivé JM, Da Silveira CM, Eikhof RM et al. Eradication of poliomyelitis: progress in the Americas. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1991 Mar;10(3):222-9.
53 Wyatt HV. Poliovaccination in the Gambia. Lancet. 1987 Jul 4;2(8549):43.
54 Kim-Farley RJ, Rutherford G, Lichfield P, Hsu ST, Orenstein WA, Schonberger LB, Bart KJ, LuiKJ, Lin CC. Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis, Taiwan. Lancet. 1984 Dec 8;2(8415):1322–1324.
55 Ogra PL. Comparative evaluation of immunization with live attenuated and inactivated poliovirusvaccines.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1995 May 31;754:97-107.
56 HULL RN, MINNER JR, SMITH JW. New viral agents recovered from tissue cultures of monkeykidney cells. 1956. Am J Hyg;63:204-215.
57 Sweet, B. H., and M. R. Hilleman. The vacuolating virus, SV40. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1960 Nov;105:420-7.
58 GERBER P, HOTTLE GA, GRUBBS RE. Inactivation of vacuolating virus (SV40) byformaldehyde. Proc Soc Exp Biol and Med; 108: 205-209.
59 Fenner F. Reactivation of Animal Viruses. Br Med J. 1962 July 21; 2(5298): 135–142.
60 EDDY BE, BORMAN GS, BERKELEY WH, YOUNG RD. Tumors induced in hamsters byinjection of Rhesus monkey kidney cell extracts. 1961. Proc Soc Exp Biol and Med; 107; 191-7.
61 Carbone M, Pass HI, Rizzo P, Marinetti M, Di Muzio M et al. Simian virus 40-like DNA sequencesin human pleural mesothelioma. Oncogene. 1994 Jun;9(6):1781-90.
62 Bergsagel DJ, Finegold MJ, Butel JS, Kupsky WJ, Garcea RL.DNA sequences similar to those of simian virus 40 in ependymomas and choroid plexus tumors of childhood. N Engl J Med. 1992 Apr 9;326(15):988-93.
63 Carbone M, Rizzo P, Grimley PM, Procopio A, Mew DJ Simian virus-40 large-T antigen binds p53in human mesotheliomas. Nat Med. 1997 Aug;3(8):908-12.
64 Butel JS and Lednicky JA. Cell and molecular biology of simian virus 40: implications for humaninfections and disease.J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Jan 20;91(2):119-34.
65 Weiner LP, Herndon RM, Narayan O, Johnson RT, Shah K Isolation of virus related to SV40 from patients with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. 1972. NEJM;286(8):385-390.
66 Kops, SP. Oral polio vaccine and human cancer: a reassessment of SV40 as a contaminant basedupon legal documents. Anticancer Res. 2000 Nov-Dec;20(6C):4745-9.
67 Blount, R. E., Jr., J. A. Morris, and R. E. Savage. 1956. Recovery of cytopathogenic agent fromchimpanzees with coryza. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 92:544-549.
68 CHANOCK R, FINBERG L. Recovery from infants with respiratory illness of a virus related tochimpanzee coryza agent (CCA). II. Epidemiologic aspects of infection in infants and young children.Am J Hyg. 1957 Nov;66(3):291-300
69 BEEM M, WRIGHT FH, HAMRE D, EGERER R, OEHME M. Association of the chimpanzeecoryza agent with acute respiratory disease in children. N Engl J Med. 1960 Sep 15;263:523-30.
70 Lewis et al.. A syncytial virus associated with epidemic disease of the lower respiratory tract ininfants and young children. 1961. Med J Australia: 932-933 and Forbes (1961. Ibid: 323-325).
71 ROGERS DE. The changing pattern of life-threatening microbial disease. N Engl J Med. 1959 Oct1;261:677-83.
72 Levy BT, Graber MA. Respiratory syncytial virus infection in infants and young children.J Fam Pract. 1997 Dec;45(6):473-81.
73 Fulginiti VA, Eller JJ, Sieber OF, Joyner JW, Minamitani M et al. Respiratory virus immunization. I.A field trial of two inactivated respiratory virus vaccines; an aqueous trivalent parainfluenza virusvaccine and an alum-precipitated respiratory syncytial virus vaccine.Am J Epidemiol. 1969Apr;89(4):435-48.
74 Simoes EA. Respiratory syncytial virus infection.Lancet. 1999 Sep 4;354(9181):847-52.
75 Ibid Hull 1958.
76 Ma P, Visvesvara GS, Martinez AJ, Theodore FH, Daggett PM et al. Naegleria and Acanthamoebainfections: review. Rev Infect Dis. 1990 May-Jun;12(3):490-513.
77 JAHNES WG, FULLMER HM. Free living amoebae as contaminants in monkey kidney tissueculture. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1957 Nov;96(2):484-8.
78 CULBERTSON CG, SMITH JW, MINNER JR. Acanthamoeba: observations on animal pathogenicity. Science. 1958 Jun 27;127(3313):1506.
79 CULBERTSON CG, SMITH JW, COHEN HK, MINNER JR. Experimental infection of mice andmonkeys by Acanthamoeba. Am J Pathol. 1959 Jan-Feb;35(1):185-97.
80 D. Kingston and D. C. Warhurst.. Isolation Of Amoebae From The Air J Med Microbiol February 1969 vol. 2 no. 1 27-36.
81 Pereira MS, Marsden HB, Corbitt G, Tobin JO. Ryan virus: a possible new human pathogen.Br Med J. 1966 Jan 15;1(5480):130-2.
82 J. A. Armstrong and M. S. Pereira. Identification of “Ryan Virus” as an amoeba of the genusHartmannella. Br Med J. 1967 January 28; 1(5534): 212–214.
83 M. Fowler and R. F. Carter.Acute Pyogenic Meningitis Probably Due to Acanthamoeba sp.: aPreliminary Report. Br Med J. 1965 September 25; 2(5464): 734-2, 740-742.
84 Carter RF. Primary amoebic meningo-encephalitis: clinical, pathological and epidemiologicalfeatures of six fatal cases. J Pathol Bacteriol. 1968 Jul;96(1):1–25.
85 Carter RF, Cullity GJ, Ojeda VJ, Silberstein P, Willaert E. A fatal case of meningoencephalitis dueto a free-living amoeba of uncertain identity–probably acanthamoeba sp.Pathology. 1981 Jan;13(1):51-68.
86 Scheibner 1999. Brain-eating bugs: the vaccine connection. Nexus Magazine;(whale.to/vaccines/amoebas.html).
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/history-and-science-show-vaccines-do-not-prevent-disease/
Figure 8: Relative* risk of SIDS in days after vaccination. *Note: The risk is not relative to the risk of SIDS in unvaccinated babies. What is important to note here is the recognisable pattern of critical days.
Figure 9: Links age, number of deaths and the time taken to die after vaccination (Source: Griffin et al. 1988)Due to the 1975 UK television program reporting on brain damage linked to DPT vaccine, the vaccination compliance fell down to 30%, or even 10% in some areas, in the UK. This was followed by the longest inter‐epidemic period with the lowest incidence of whooping cough on record.
Fine and Clarkson wrote:
Though overall pertussis incidence fell in England and Wales subsequent to the introduction of vaccination on a national scale in 1950s, pertussis epidemics have continued to occur regularly every 3-4 years. Since epidemic frequency is a function of the rate of influx of susceptibles, it is suprising that the interepidemic period did not decrease after the 1974 fall in vaccine uptake. One explanation for this paradox may be that pertussis vaccines are more effective in protecting against disease than in protecting against infection.(30)
Figure 10: Weekly number of pertussis cases notified to Office of Population Censuses and surveys, from week 1 of 1950 to week 3 of 1982.It is my opinion that the incidence of whooping cough fell worldwide in the mid 1970s due to natural dynamics, similar to those of measles, and not due to increasing levels of vaccination.
When vaccination stops, the incidence of the targeted disease returns back to normal dynamics. This explanation is supported by another observation in the UK and former West Germany. Miller and Farrington wrote:
In the West Germany unlike the UK, there are no national statistics on pertussis incidence, no national vaccination policy and no figures for vaccine uptake. . . vaccination rates are low and pertussis is prevalent, particularly in the 2-4 year age group, which is typical of a country with low vaccination uptake; similarly serotype 2 predominates. . . The age distribution was similar to that of cases reported in the UK during 1978 when vaccine uptake was at it’s lowest with the highest proportion occurring in children aged 2-4 years.(31)
Figure 11 (32) is very instructive. The facts point strongly against the presumed benefits of vaccination.
Figure 11: Age distribution of pertussis cases in West Germany and England & Wales.The dynamics of vaccine uptake as described above are also reflected in the dynamics of infant deaths after four weeks in England and Wales. According to Macfarlane:
The postneonatal mortality rate fell markedly in 1976, the year in which a sharp decline in perinatal deaths began. Between 1976 and 1979, however, neither the later neonatal nor the postneonatal mortality rate fell any further. Indeed, the postneonatal mortality rate increased slightly among babies born in 1977.(33) [when the vaccination compliance started climbing up.]
Figure 12: Age‐specific incidence of bacteriologically confirmed pertussis. Massachusetts. 1981‐1991. JID 1994:169 (June)In contrast, Marchant et al. described inter alia the age incidence of pertussis in Massachusetts in a ten year period 1981‐1991(34) and demonstrated in figure 12 that the highest incidence of bacteriologically‐confirmed pertussis was below the age of one; however, the breakdown in months showed the highest incidence was just after the first and second doses of DPT, with rapid decline afterwards. Equally revealing was the high incidence of pertussis below the vaccination age, in small babies (0 to 6 weeks), this being due to the lack of TTI documentedly caused by the deleterious generational effect of vaccination.(35)
Sutter and Cochi studied pertussis hospitalisations and mortality in the United States between 1985 and 1988 and concluded that there was substantial under‐reporting of pertussis in the US.(36) This of course would have inflated the perceived effectiveness of vaccination. They wrote that based on their indicators, the national health impact of pertussis is considerably higher than previously published reports suggested. Applying the age‐specific hospitalisation rates, 187,867 to 515,930 cases of pertussis may have occurred during the study period, instead of only 14,057 cases reported to the CDC. They concluded that using different methods of estimation, approximately 121,340 cases of pertussis may have occurred during the study period, indicating 11.6% vaccine efficacy. Considering that the pre‐vaccine era pertussis occurrence was in the order of 240,000 cases, vaccination has made no inroads into the pertussis incidence.
Williams et al, made a statement about infants who died:
Infants were less than six weeks of age and died from overwhelming cardiovascular respiratory compromise despite intensive care support. . .The excessive infant mortality from a preventable disease demonstrated the need for better pertussis immunity in the community and for erythromycin treatment of all suspected cases and family contacts.(37)
But, their own data showed something completely different! All four babies were doing OK until they were admitted in hospitals and put on intravenous broad‐spectrum antibiotics. The causal link to the administered antibiotics was clearly shown because the downhill slide followed closely the days when the offending antibiotics were administered.
Moreover, some of the mothers and siblings had whooping cough at the time of the infant’s births, despite being fully vaccinated. One sibling’s vaccination status was uncertain, but he was very likely vaccinated as part of the highly vaccinated generation.
This confirmed two phenomena:
- The increased incidence of whooping cough (and measles) in babies below the vaccination age reflects the lack of transplacentally‐transmitted immunity in the era of vaccinated mothers as predicted by Lennon and Black.(38)
- A well documented phenomenon, that many cases (up to 65%) of infectious diseases develop straight after the first dose of the relevant vaccine in very young children.
In contrast to this, when Sweden trialled the acellular pertussis vaccines for the second time (1990‐ 1995), as soon as the trial babies were vaccinated, there was a major outbreak of pertussis in those very young babies.(40) Since 82% of the entire live birth cohort participated in this trial, the pertussis epidemic reached noticeable proportions.
The acellular pertussis vaccine failed to make any inroads into pertussis incidence, as witnessed in Sweden: already during the [second] trials of that vaccine, the infant recipients contracted whooping cough which prompted discontinuation of the trial well before the planned date.(41) This is particularly instructive since during the eleven years without usage of pertussis vaccines (1979‐1990) – babies under one year of age did not contract whooping cough and 90% of cases occurred in the ideal age group between 5‐10 years.(42)
Despite high vaccination compliance, there remained a high persistent level of pertussis in regular 3.5 year epidemics. Vaccines made no inroads into incidence of pertussis as demonstrated in figure 13:
Figure 13: Pertussis notifications 1991‐2009 (Australia).[h=3]The sordid history of Poliomyelitis vaccination[/h] When the Salk injectable “formaldehyde killed” polio vaccine was tested on some 1.8 million American children in 1954‐55, cases of paralysis in the vaccinated and some of their contacts started occurring within days.(43) The Cutter Laboratories were accused of distributing vaccines containing live polioviruses. Disasters with the Salk vaccines causing vaccine associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) seem to have been one of the main motivations behind development of an oral “live attenuated” Sabin vaccine, which was believed to simulate the natural infection. However, VAPP cases continued occurring with the Sabin vaccine.
I spent many hours locating and reading the older and more recent articles addressing the effectiveness, or otherwise, of combining IPV and OPV vaccines. I established that the results are not straightforward. Abraham reported that shedding of virulent poliovirus revertants, during immunization with oral poliovirus vaccines, after prior immunization with inactivated polio vaccines, continued.(44) He also documented that prior immunization with EIPV (enhanced potency IPV) does not prevent faecal shedding of revertant polioviruses after subsequent exposure to OPV. (45)
Mensi and Pregliasco wrote:
In recent years great alarm has been generated by outbreaks of paralytic poliomyelitis in vaccinated populations…epidemics were observed in Finland in 1984, Senegal and Brazil in 1986, and Israel and Oman in 1988, all countries in which vaccination is widely deployed. Four epidemics were reported between 1991 and 1992. The first, in 1991, was in Bulgaria, which uses oral vaccination. Forty-three subjects developed paralytic type 1 polio; 88% of them belonged to a normal community and had not completed or even started a vaccination schedule. The second epidemic occurred in The Netherlands, where inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) is used, and involved 68 patients with type 3 poliovirus, members of the Amish…(46) [In The Netherlands they are called members of orthodox religion and in fact use the polio vaccination (compliance between 40‐50% and higher)].
Schaap et al. published a graph (figure 14) correlating the number of reported poliomyelitis cases with the vaccination rates in seven areas in The Netherlands.(47) Interestingly, the areas with the lowest compliance had the lowest number of cases and vice versa. The compliance ranged from 40‐49% to 90‐95%. In the 1992 epidemic, the first two cases occurred in a 14‐year old boy and 23‐year old male nurse, both vaccinated members of the orthodox religious group.
Figure 14: Number of places with polio cases, by average vaccination acceptance rate for birth cohorts 1971‐1975 (Shaap/Bijkerk/Coutinho/Kapsenberg/van Wezel).Sutter et al described an Oman outbreak as:
. . . evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children.(48)
Incidence of paralytic disease was highest in children below 2 years:
. . . despite an immunisation programme that recently had raised coverage with 3 doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) among 12-months-old children from 67% to 87%… with transmission lasting for more than 12 months. Among the most disturbing features of this outbreak was that it occurred in the face of a model immunisation programme and that widespread transmission had occurred in a sparsely populated, predominantly rural setting. (49)
One of the interesting reasons quoted was:
. . . rapid increases in vaccination coverage before the outbreak may have reduced or interrupted endemic circulation of indigenous strains, diminishing the contribution of natural infection to overall immunity levels in the general population. (50)
The same reason was given by Biellik et al. in 1994 when they described the situation in Namibia. They wrote:
Endemic wild poliovirus circulation has continued uninterrupted in Angola and the two northern regions in Namibia across the well-travelled border since 1989, when cases were last reported. Although OPV3 cover age was fairly low in northern compared with southern Namibia, a higher proportion of northern children might have been protected, at least to type 1, by natural immunity, thus suppressing epidemics . . . the apparent interruption of [natural] poliovirus circulation [by vaccination] limited the acquisition of natural immunity. (5)1
Control of polio in the US shows the same phenomenon as the control of pertussis, namely downward trend, which stopped when individual states in the US mandated DPT and polio.
Figure 15: Annual reported paralytic poliomyelitis case rates, United States, 1951‐1982 (Paralytic case rate/100,000 population.) The 1982 data are preliminary.An interesting example of manipulation of data is polio “eradication” in the Americas. Figure 16(52) shows the effect of reclassification of poliomyelitis which allowed the ever increasing number of “notified” cases to morph into an ever decreasing number of “confirmed” cases.
Figure 16: Polio cases notified and confirmed: The Americas. 1985-1989.Dr HV Wyatt (53) quoted Hanlon et al. as stating:
…injections during an epidemic may provoke poliomyelitis in children already infected with poliovirus, [and] …provocation poliomyelitis occurs with injections of diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus vaccine, which, I am told, gives rise to unease among vaccinators. The risk of provocation poliomyelitis with the killed poliovaccine…occurred in the Cutter incident.
During a poliomyelitis outbreak in Taiwan, Kim et al. reported that 65% of VAPP developed within 28 days of the first vaccine dose This report confirmed observations of others that two thirds of vaccine‐targeted diseases occur after the first dose of relevant vaccines, including the polio vaccine,(54) and it also unwittingly confirmed the original and true definition of herd immunity that has nothing to do with vaccines: Epidemics occur during the accumulation of two thirds of susceptibles. Once natural immunity is 2/3 of susceptibles get the disease, the epidemic stops. Yet, the authors excluded (as unvaccinated) all paralytic cases (65% of all cases) from calculations of efficacy. Ogra evaluated vaccination with live attenuated and inactivated poliovirus vaccines:
While the combination schedule employing EP-IPV followed by OPV should result in a decline of vaccine-associated (VAP) decease in OPV recipients, such immunization schedule may have little or no impact on the development of VAP in susceptible contacts. Furthermore, the logistics and the cost of combination schedule must be considered before current recommendations based on the use of OPV or EP-IPV alone are revised.(55)
Combined OPV and IPV recommendations
Continuing failures of polio eradication by OPV led to the proposals of using a combination of killed followed by oral polio vaccine delivery. However, such proposals are flawed and based on the ignorance of the documented past experience.
Simian Virus 40 contamination of polio vaccines
Perhaps the worst thing about polio vaccines is their continued contamination by monkey viruses of which SV 40 is the best researched one. According to ample medical research evidence, polio vaccines of any kind cause VAPP. However, there are other major problems with the polio vaccine that justify scepticism about its benefits, one of which is the well‐documented and continuous contamination by monkey viruses SV1‐SV40. Soon after the poliovirus mass vaccination programmes started in the US, a number of monkey viruses and amoebas were found in the vaccine seed brews. Hull, Milner et al. (56) and Hull, Johnston et al. (1955) encountered numerous filterable, transferable cytopathogenic agents other than polio virus in “normal” monkey renal cell cultures. Even though these agents completely destroyed culture tissues, and even caused serious diarrhoea in laboratory animals, all of which died, their possible pathogenesis in humans was ignored or glossed over. The central nervous system was particularly susceptible to the pathogenic properties of such viruses; the histopathological lesions observed in the intracerebrally inoculated monkeys revealed necrosis and complete destruction of the choroid plexus. Findings included generalised aseptic type meningitis. The isolated agent was called simian virus or SV and classified into 4 groups based on the cytopathogenic changes induced in monkey kidney cell cultures infected with these agents.
Hilleman and Sweet (57) reported on the “Vacuolating virus S.V. 40”, which became the best researched among dozens of known monkey viruses. Gerber et al. (58) demonstrated that Sweet and Hilleman’s method of inactivation of SV40 by 10 day treatment using 1: 4000 solution of formaldehyde was inadequate, since it took longer than 10 days to establish that the process was a subject to the asymptotic factor and hence incomplete. Fenner’s research (59) has also established that even the inactivated portion of the viruses reverts back to the original virulence. Dr Bernice Eddy documented the carcinogenic properties of these simian viruses: they caused tumours in hamsters injected with Rhesus monkey kidney cell extracts. (60) As established by many subsequent researchers, in humans SV40 causes characteristic brain tumours, bone sarcomas, mesotheliomas and an especially virulent form of melanoma cancer. The stage was ready for a world‐wide [admitted] contamination of hundreds of millions of children with an oncogenic monkey virus via polio vaccines. SV40 has been directly or indirectly implicated in an epidemic of great number of conditions and brain, lung, bone, renal and other tumours in all ages. (61,62,63,64,65)
Dr Stanley Kops is a modern day advocate for SV40 truth, and he wrote:
To date, the scientific literature and research examining SV40 and cancer-related diseases has been based upon an assumption that SV40 was not present in any poliovirus vaccines administered in the United States and was removed from the killed polio vaccines by 1963. The presumption has been that the regulation for live oral polio vaccine required that SV40 be removed from the seeds and monovalent pools ultimately produced in the manufacturing process…The confirmation of the removal by one manufacturer, Lederle, has been made public at an international symposium in January 1997, where its representatives stated that all Lederle’s seeds had been tested and screened to assure that it was free from SV40 virus. However, in litigation involving the Lederle oral polio vaccine, the manufacturer’s internal documents failed to reveal such removal in all its seeds. The absence of confirmatory testing of the seeds, as well as testimony for SV40 of a Lederle manager indicate that this claim cannot be fully substantiated…(66)
The scientific community should not be content with assurances to the contrary. The continuing occurrence of the above characteristic SV40 tumours in younger and especially quite recent generations of vaccinees should not be ignored or treated with indifference.
Contamination of polio vaccines by chimpanzee coryza virus, or RSV.
Another important consideration in attempts to eradicate poliomyelitis by vaccination is the contamination of polio vaccines by chimpanzee coryza virus, renamed respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
In 1956, Morris et al. described monkey cytopathogenic agent that produced acute respiratory illness in chimpanzees at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and named it chimpanzee coryza virus (CCA). (67)
In 1957, Chanock et al. wrote on the association of a new type of cytopathogic myxovirus with infantile croup. (68)
Chanock and Finberg reported on two isolations of similar agents from infants with severe lower respiratory illness (bronchopneumonia, bronchiolitis and laryngotracheobronchitis). The two viruses were indistinguishable from an agent associated with the outbreak of coryza in chimpanzees (CCA virus) studied by Morris in 1956.
A person working with the infected chimpanzees subsequently experienced respiratory infection with a rise in CCA antibodies during convalescence. They proposed a new name for this agent “respiratory syncytial virus” (RSV). RSV has spread via contaminated polio vaccines like wildfire all over the world and continues causing serious lower respiratory tract infections in infants.
Beem et al. isolated the virus from inpatients and outpatients in the Bob Robert Memorial Hospital for Children (University of Chicago) during the winter of 1958‐1959, in association with human acute respiratory illness. (69) The virus (named Randall) had an unusual cytopathic effect characterised by extensive syncytial areas and giant cells. Soon, 48 similar agents were isolated from 41 patients. There were antigenic similarities between RV and Long and Sue strains of CCA; it produced illness in humans (the age range 3 weeks to 35 years): acute respiratory diseases, croup, bronchiolitis, pneumonia and asthma ranging from mild coryza to fatal bronchiolitis. The isolation rate (46%) was particularly high among infants below six months.
In Australia, Lewis et al. isolated further viral specimens identical with CCA. (70)
Prior to July 1960, the influenza and parainfluenza viruses predominated in infant epidemic respiratory infections; in July 1961 the pattern changed abruptly with sudden increases in bronchiolitis and bronchitis, that were previously infrequent. 58% were under 12 months, and patients under 4 years predominated. Infants with bronchiolitis and severe bronchitis yielded RCA, not previously isolated. Deaths have occurred.
Rogers’ 1959 observations on antibiotic ineffectiveness, and new serious additional problems fell on deaf ears. He wrote that life‐threatening microbial infections continued to occur despite antibiotics, and that the previous microbial landscape also shifted by 1957‐1958. There was streptococcal predominance from 1938‐1940, and then an “impressive” increase in the number of life‐threatening enterobacterial infections post antibiotic.
During the preantimicrobial era most infections were acquired before admission to hospital, while in the postantimicrobial era the vast majority of infections arose in hospital . . . Mycotic infections, especially with Candida albicans, became a major problem. Unusual serious generalised clostridial infections arose and antibiotics have not dramatically altered the risk of, or mortality resulting from, endogenous infections in sick, hospitalised patients. (71)
Levy et al. wrote:
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in infants and young children. Infections with RSV is a major health problem during early childhood and primary RSV infections occurs most often between the ages of 6 weeks and 2 years. Approximately one half of all infants become infected with RSV during the first year of life and nearly all infants by the end of their second year of life…in the US each year, approximately 100,000 children are hospitalised at an estimated cost of $300 million. More than half of those admitted for RSV bronchiolitis are between 1 and 3 months of age. (72) [Clearly implicating vaccination.]
RSV vaccine developed in the late 1960s failed miserably. It is no mystery why there is no RSV vaccine recommended today. Fulginiti and others showed the vaccine was ineffective, and induced an exaggerated, altered clinical response… causing RSV illness requiring hospitalisations among vaccinees, and led to delayed dermal hypersensitivity. (73)
Simoes wrote:
Since it was identified as the agent that causes chimpanzee coryza in 1956, and after its subsequent isolation from children with pulmonary disease in Baltimore, USA, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) had been described as the single most important virus causing acute respiratory-tract infections in children. The WHO estimates that of the 12.2. million annual deaths in children under 5 years, a third are due to acute infections of the lower respiratory tract. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and RSV are the predominant pathogens… vaccinated children were not protected from subsequent RSV infection. Furthermore, RSV-naïve infants who received formalin-inactivated RSV vaccine, and who were naturally infected with RSV later, developed more severe disease in the lower respiratory tract than a control group immunized with a trivalent parainfluenza vaccine. (74)
It should surprise nobody that data from ten developing countries — with intense polio vaccination, revealed that RSV was the most frequent cause of LRT infections (70% of all cases).
Polio vaccines are not only ineffective in preventing paralysis, they carry the risk of contamination with many harmful adventitious microorganisms, of which only some monkey viruses have been researched in more detail. Many other potentially dangerous microorganisms remain unaddressed.
Polio vaccination and brain-eating amoebas.
Contamination of monkey kidney tissue cultures (used in the production of polio vaccines) by live amoebas.
In 1996, while watching a TV news report on the death of two 5‐year olds in Australia from brain‐eating amoebae, I remembered a note in Hull et al.’s paper
Recently, an amoeba was isolated from monkey kidney tissue cultures and was identified as belonging to the genus Acanthamoeba. It grew readily in tissue cultures… It appeared to have the ability to infect and kill monkeys and mice following intracerebral and intraspinal inoculation.(75)
Amoebas are unicellular protozoan microorganisms. According to Ma et al.(76), they are classified in the phyllum Sarcomastigophora and belong to Rhizopoda, equipped by propulsive pseudopodia and/or protoplasmic flow without production of pseudopodia. Acanthopodina, a suborder of Amoebida, form two families, Vahlkampfiidae and Acanthoamoebididae, with two genera Naegleria and Acanthamoeba respectively, with a number of species. Naegleria species form three life‐stages, trophozoites, flagellates and cysts and Acanthamoeba species only two, trophozoites and cysts.
Jahnes et al.(77) isolated two strains of apparently the same amoeba which looked like round bodies, similar in appearance to cells manifesting changes induced by certain simian (monkey) viruses. On closer examination, they proved to be amoebic cysts. They varied in size, from 10 to 21 microns in diameter. In one experiment, the cysts were treated with 10% formalin, washed and inoculated into monkey kidney tissue culture tubes. The monkey kidney cells phagocytised the cysts. The trophozooites turned into cysts under refrigeration down to 4 degrees C. These were resistant even under –50 degrees C for months and survived in the pH range 5.0‐9.0. Their tissue cultures were not affected by streptomycin and penicillin.
Culbertson (78,79) confirmed that amoebas caused brain disease and death within days, in monkeys and mice. The reports showed, that following inoculations, “extensive chorio‐meningitis and destructive encephalomyelitis occurred” and killed monkeys in four to seven days and mice in three to four days. Intravenous injections of the amoebas resulted in perivascular granulomatous lesions. Intranasal inoculation in mice resulted in fatal infections in about four days. These mice exhibited ulceration of the frontal lobes of the brain. There were amoebas in the lungs, and they caused severe pneumonic amoeba reaction. Haemorrhage was a common feature. Sections of the kidney showed amoebas present in the glomerular capillaries.
Amoebas showed the ability to migrate through the tissues. The size of the inoculum did not matter: both small and large inoculums produced amoebic invasions. Intragastric inoculations were unsuccessful most probably because amoebic cysts were dissolved by bile.
Researchers, as a rule failed to address the seriousness of the introduction into children of Acanthamoeba via the polio vaccines, even though they were aware of their origin from monkey kidney tissue cultures used in the production of polio vaccines. However they noted that the most contaminated age group was babies below the age of crawling – between 2 and ten months.
Live amoebas were isolated from the air (80) in the UK, together with respiratory syncytial virus, and from the surfaces in hospital cubicles in which infants with acute bronchiolitis were being nursed. The amoebas were isolated at Booth Hall Children’s Hospital in the cubicle occupied by a ten‐week‐old infant with acute bronchiolitis. First, only RSV was isolated and the child sent home, but later an unidentified cytopathic effect was noticed in the tissue cultures and was provisionally called “Ryan virus1” (81) by Pereira, and later also noted in a post‐mortem bronchial swab of another seven‐months old baby boy with RSV bronchiolitis.
Pereira’s paper describes the course of illness: Six days before admission, the baby developed a sore throat and ulcers in the mouth which later spread over the face; he was unwell, could not suck and developed loose stools. The day before admission, he developed a cough and started vomiting. He was drowsy and dyspnoeic, made jerky movements and died soon after admission. Necropsy showed some emphysema, petechiae, and small areas of congestion and alveolar haemorrhaging in the lungs, a fatty liver, prominent mesenteric nodes, and mucopus in the ears. Escherichia coli bacteria were cultured from his ears. Death was diagnosed as due to a respiratory infection associated with encephalomyelitis and hepatitis. Vaccination status was not disclosed, although considering the age, the baby could have received up to three doses of DPT and OPV vaccines.
Armstrong and Pereira identified the Ryan virus as Hartmanella castellanii. (82) They had no doubt that these amoebas came from the human respiratory tract. In Australia, Fowler and Carter(83) Carter(84), and Carter et al.(85) described a number of cases in children and adults. Many cases all over the world occurred in children and adults, with and without histories of swimming in lakes and public swimming pools. (86)
Even if polio vaccines were effective in preventing polio paralysis, their potentially continued contamination by undesirable microorganisms (monkey viruses and amoebas) should encourage the abandonment of their use.
Well‐meaning Rotarians should study the relevant medical research first, before engaging in global polio vaccination.
A critique of the 16-page Australian pro-vaccination booklet entitled “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers” – You can read the entire report here.
Vaccine Epidemic
by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland J.D.
by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland J.D.
FREE Shipping Available!
[h=2]References[/h] 7 Wright AE. ON THE CHANGES EFFECTED BY ANTI-TYPHOID INOCULATION IN THEBACTERICIDAL POWER OF THE BLOOD; WITH REMARKS ON THE PROBABLESIGNIFICANCE OF THESE CHANGES. Lancet, Volume 158, Issue 4072, Pages 715 – 723, 14September 19018 PARFENTJEV IA. Bacterial allergy increases susceptibility to influenza virus in mice. Proc Soc ExpBiol Med. 1955 Nov;90(2):373-5.
9 KIND LS. Sensitivity of pertussis inoculated mice to endotoxin.. J Immunol. 1959 Jan;82(1):32-7
10 Craighead JE. Disease accentuation after immunisation with inactivated microbial vaccines. J InfectDis. 1975 Jun;131(6):749-54.
11 Ibid. Craighead.
12 Huisman W, Martina BE, Rimmelzwaan GF, Gruters RA, Osterhaus AD. Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections.
Vaccine. 2009 Jan 22;27(4):505-12. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.10.087. Epub 2008 Nov 18.
13 Varga SM. Fixing a failed vaccine. Nat Med. 2009 Jan;15(1):21-2. doi: 10.1038/nm0109-21.
14 Ibid Huisman
15 Sabath et al. Antigen-induced transient hypersusceptibility: a cause of sporadic fulminant infection innormals. 1989. Clin Research; 35(5): 617a
16 Daum RS, Sood SK, Osterholm MT, Pramberg JC, Granoff PD et al.. Decline in serum antibody tothe capsule of Haemophilus influenzae type b in the immediate postvaccinal period. J Pediatr. 1989May;114(5):742-7.
17 Sutter RW, Markowitz LE, Bennetch JM, Morris W, Zell ER, Preblud SR. Measles among the Amish: a comparative study of measles severity in primary and secondary cases in households. J InfectDis. 1991 Jan;163(1):12-6.
18 Fulginiti VA, Eller JJ, Downie AW, Kempe CH. Altered reactivity to measles virus. Atypicalmeasles in children previously immunized with inactivated measles virus vaccines. JAMA. 1967 Dec18;202(12):1075-80.
19 RAUH LW, SCHMIDT R. Measles immunization with killed virus vaccine. Am J Dis Child. 1965Mar;109:232-7.
20 Mellows-Facer A and Thompson G. Measles and MMR statistics – Commons Library Standard Note17 February 2009 | Standard notes SN02581http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02581 accessed 9 Feb 2013.
21 Lennon JL, Black FL. Maternally derived measles immunity in era of vaccine-protected mothers. JPediatr. 1986 May;108(5 Pt 1):671-6.
22 Mulholland K. Measles and pertussis in developing countries with good vaccine coverage. Lancet.1995 Feb 4;345(8945):305-7.
23 Papania M. et al., Increased susceptibility to measles in infants in the United States, Pediatrics, November 1999, Vol. 1045, No. 5, e59, pp. 1-6.
24 Hutchins SS, Cochi SL, Brink EW, Patriarca PA, Wassilak SG et al. Current epidemiology of pertussis in the United States. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 1988;13 Suppl:103-9.
25 Ibid.
26 Bernier RH, Frank JA Jr, Dondero TJ Jr, Turner P. Diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-pertussis vaccinationand sudden infant deaths in Tennessee. J Pediatr. 1982 Sep;101(3):419-21.
27 Walker AM, Jick H, Perera DR, Thompson RS, Knauss TA. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussisimmunization and sudden infant death syndrome. Am J Public Health. 1987 Aug;77(8):945-51.
28 Griffin MR, Ray WA, Livengood JR, Schaffner W. Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. N Engl J Med. 1988 Sep 8;319(10):618-23.
29 Scheibner V. Dynamics of critical days as part of the non-specific stress syndrome discovered duringmonitoring with Cotwatch breathing monitor. 2004 J ACNEM; 23(3): 1-5.
30 Fine PE, Clarkson JA. The recurrence of whooping cough: possible implications for assessment of vaccine efficacy. Lancet. 1982 Mar 20;1(8273):666-9.
31. Miller E, Farrington CP. The current epidemiology of pertussis in the developed world: UK and West Germany. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 1988;13
32. Ibid.
33 MacFarlane A. Infant deaths after four weeks. Lancet. 1982 Oct 23;2(8304):929-30.
34 Marchant CD, Loughlin AM, Lett SM, Todd CW, Wetterlow LH et al. Pertussis in Massachusetts,1981-1991: incidence, serologic diagnosis, and vaccine effectiveness. J Infect Dis. 1994Jun;169(6):1297-305.
35 Lavine JS, King AA, Bjørnstad ON. Natural immune boosting in pertussis dynamics and the potential for long-term vaccine failure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Apr 26;108(17):7259-64.
36 Sutter RW, Cochi SL. Pertussis hospitalizations and mortality in the United States, 1985-1988.Evaluation of the completeness of national reporting. JAMA. 1992 Jan 15;267(3):386-91.
37 Williams GD, Matthews NT, Choong RK, Ferson MJ. Infant pertussis deaths in New South Wales1996-1997. Med J Aust. 1998 Mar 16;168(6):281-3.
38 Ibid. Lennon and Black.
39 Romanus V, Jonsell R, Bergquist SO. Pertussis in Sweden after the cessation of generalimmunization in 1979. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1987 Apr;6(4):364-71.
40 Olin P. Acellular pertussis vaccines–a question of efficacy. J Hosp Infect. 1995 Jun;30 Suppl:503-7.
41 Ibid. Olin.
42 Isacson et al. 1993. How common is whooping cough in a non-vaccinating country? Pediatr InfectDis J; 12 (4): 284-288.
43 Peterson et al. VACCINATION-INDUCED POLIOMYELITIS IN IDAHO: PRELIMINARYREPORT OF EXPERIENCE WITH SALK POLIOMYELITIS VACCINE. JAMA. 1955;159(4):241-244
44 Abraham R, Minor P, Dunn G, Modlin JF, Ogra PL. Shedding of virulent poliovirus revertantsduring immunization with oral poliovirus vaccine after prior immunization with inactivated poliovaccine.J Infect Dis. 1993 Nov;168(5):1105-9.
45 Carolina Mensi and Fabrizio Pregliasco. Poliomyelitis: Present Epidemiological Situation andVaccination Problems. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1998 May; 5(3): 278–280.
46 Mensi C, Pregliasco F. Poliomyelitis: present epidemiological situation and vaccination problems.. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1998 May;5(3):278-80.
47 Schaap GJ, Bijkerk H, Coutinho RA, Kapsenberg JG, van Wezel AL. The spread of wild poliovirusin the well-vaccinated Netherlands in connection with the 1978 epidemic. Prog Med Virol.1984;29:124–140
48 Sutter RW, Patriarca PA, Brogan S, Malankar PG, Pallansch MA et al. Evidence for widespreadtransmission among fully vaccinated children Lancet. 1991 Sep 21;338(8769):715-20
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Biellik RJ, Lobanov A, Heath K, Reichler M, Tjapepua V et al. Poliomyelitis in Namibia. Lancet.1994 Dec 24-31;344(8939-8940):1776
52 De Quadros CA, Andrus JK, Olivé JM, Da Silveira CM, Eikhof RM et al. Eradication of poliomyelitis: progress in the Americas. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1991 Mar;10(3):222-9.
53 Wyatt HV. Poliovaccination in the Gambia. Lancet. 1987 Jul 4;2(8549):43.
54 Kim-Farley RJ, Rutherford G, Lichfield P, Hsu ST, Orenstein WA, Schonberger LB, Bart KJ, LuiKJ, Lin CC. Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis, Taiwan. Lancet. 1984 Dec 8;2(8415):1322–1324.
55 Ogra PL. Comparative evaluation of immunization with live attenuated and inactivated poliovirusvaccines.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1995 May 31;754:97-107.
56 HULL RN, MINNER JR, SMITH JW. New viral agents recovered from tissue cultures of monkeykidney cells. 1956. Am J Hyg;63:204-215.
57 Sweet, B. H., and M. R. Hilleman. The vacuolating virus, SV40. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1960 Nov;105:420-7.
58 GERBER P, HOTTLE GA, GRUBBS RE. Inactivation of vacuolating virus (SV40) byformaldehyde. Proc Soc Exp Biol and Med; 108: 205-209.
59 Fenner F. Reactivation of Animal Viruses. Br Med J. 1962 July 21; 2(5298): 135–142.
60 EDDY BE, BORMAN GS, BERKELEY WH, YOUNG RD. Tumors induced in hamsters byinjection of Rhesus monkey kidney cell extracts. 1961. Proc Soc Exp Biol and Med; 107; 191-7.
61 Carbone M, Pass HI, Rizzo P, Marinetti M, Di Muzio M et al. Simian virus 40-like DNA sequencesin human pleural mesothelioma. Oncogene. 1994 Jun;9(6):1781-90.
62 Bergsagel DJ, Finegold MJ, Butel JS, Kupsky WJ, Garcea RL.DNA sequences similar to those of simian virus 40 in ependymomas and choroid plexus tumors of childhood. N Engl J Med. 1992 Apr 9;326(15):988-93.
63 Carbone M, Rizzo P, Grimley PM, Procopio A, Mew DJ Simian virus-40 large-T antigen binds p53in human mesotheliomas. Nat Med. 1997 Aug;3(8):908-12.
64 Butel JS and Lednicky JA. Cell and molecular biology of simian virus 40: implications for humaninfections and disease.J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Jan 20;91(2):119-34.
65 Weiner LP, Herndon RM, Narayan O, Johnson RT, Shah K Isolation of virus related to SV40 from patients with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. 1972. NEJM;286(8):385-390.
66 Kops, SP. Oral polio vaccine and human cancer: a reassessment of SV40 as a contaminant basedupon legal documents. Anticancer Res. 2000 Nov-Dec;20(6C):4745-9.
67 Blount, R. E., Jr., J. A. Morris, and R. E. Savage. 1956. Recovery of cytopathogenic agent fromchimpanzees with coryza. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 92:544-549.
68 CHANOCK R, FINBERG L. Recovery from infants with respiratory illness of a virus related tochimpanzee coryza agent (CCA). II. Epidemiologic aspects of infection in infants and young children.Am J Hyg. 1957 Nov;66(3):291-300
69 BEEM M, WRIGHT FH, HAMRE D, EGERER R, OEHME M. Association of the chimpanzeecoryza agent with acute respiratory disease in children. N Engl J Med. 1960 Sep 15;263:523-30.
70 Lewis et al.. A syncytial virus associated with epidemic disease of the lower respiratory tract ininfants and young children. 1961. Med J Australia: 932-933 and Forbes (1961. Ibid: 323-325).
71 ROGERS DE. The changing pattern of life-threatening microbial disease. N Engl J Med. 1959 Oct1;261:677-83.
72 Levy BT, Graber MA. Respiratory syncytial virus infection in infants and young children.J Fam Pract. 1997 Dec;45(6):473-81.
73 Fulginiti VA, Eller JJ, Sieber OF, Joyner JW, Minamitani M et al. Respiratory virus immunization. I.A field trial of two inactivated respiratory virus vaccines; an aqueous trivalent parainfluenza virusvaccine and an alum-precipitated respiratory syncytial virus vaccine.Am J Epidemiol. 1969Apr;89(4):435-48.
74 Simoes EA. Respiratory syncytial virus infection.Lancet. 1999 Sep 4;354(9181):847-52.
75 Ibid Hull 1958.
76 Ma P, Visvesvara GS, Martinez AJ, Theodore FH, Daggett PM et al. Naegleria and Acanthamoebainfections: review. Rev Infect Dis. 1990 May-Jun;12(3):490-513.
77 JAHNES WG, FULLMER HM. Free living amoebae as contaminants in monkey kidney tissueculture. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1957 Nov;96(2):484-8.
78 CULBERTSON CG, SMITH JW, MINNER JR. Acanthamoeba: observations on animal pathogenicity. Science. 1958 Jun 27;127(3313):1506.
79 CULBERTSON CG, SMITH JW, COHEN HK, MINNER JR. Experimental infection of mice andmonkeys by Acanthamoeba. Am J Pathol. 1959 Jan-Feb;35(1):185-97.
80 D. Kingston and D. C. Warhurst.. Isolation Of Amoebae From The Air J Med Microbiol February 1969 vol. 2 no. 1 27-36.
81 Pereira MS, Marsden HB, Corbitt G, Tobin JO. Ryan virus: a possible new human pathogen.Br Med J. 1966 Jan 15;1(5480):130-2.
82 J. A. Armstrong and M. S. Pereira. Identification of “Ryan Virus” as an amoeba of the genusHartmannella. Br Med J. 1967 January 28; 1(5534): 212–214.
83 M. Fowler and R. F. Carter.Acute Pyogenic Meningitis Probably Due to Acanthamoeba sp.: aPreliminary Report. Br Med J. 1965 September 25; 2(5464): 734-2, 740-742.
84 Carter RF. Primary amoebic meningo-encephalitis: clinical, pathological and epidemiologicalfeatures of six fatal cases. J Pathol Bacteriol. 1968 Jul;96(1):1–25.
85 Carter RF, Cullity GJ, Ojeda VJ, Silberstein P, Willaert E. A fatal case of meningoencephalitis dueto a free-living amoeba of uncertain identity–probably acanthamoeba sp.Pathology. 1981 Jan;13(1):51-68.
86 Scheibner 1999. Brain-eating bugs: the vaccine connection. Nexus Magazine;(whale.to/vaccines/amoebas.html).
So I’m just wrong. No real reason for how that statement is wrong, even though I cited the webpage actually talking about the courts. Excellent argument muir…
I’m not sure you know what a fallacy is……
And I am not denying that truth is what matters. What I am denying is your ability to establish TRUTH of your BELIEF.
You can assert a belief all you want, but if you want to establish it as truth, it has to be justified. And justifications cannot be blatantly illogical. Unless you want to suppose irrationality entails truth which would be beyond ridiculous.
I did post information and scientific reasoning. I was also pointing out the logical fallacies (and scientific failings) in your argument. Please don’t cherry pick my argument. That is blatantly ridiculous.
That is literally not true. The default position is that the vaccines are not causing harm. You are supposing the existence of facts beyond what is standardly believed, as well as entities beyond what is necessary to be true. Therefore it is on you to establish that vaccines are harmful. This is a very basic principle of debate.
You do know that the pseudoscience of left brain/right brain has long been rejected, right? The brain literally dose not function in the way you suppose. Forget conspiracy theories, this is evident in basic fMRIs.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-theory-cognitive-modes/201401/left-brain-right-brain-wrong
But you must establish that they are harmful. All you do is appeal to authority, and most would say appeal to false authority. Neither of which are convincing arguments. You need a better argument muir. You need a way to actually respond to my argument rather than dismiss it out of hand.
Firstly, there is no evidence that previous trace amounts of thirmerosol actually can cause damage. Secondly, because thimerosol has been taken out of all mandatory childhood vaccines and yet autism rates continue to increase (by your statistic) then it is illogical to conclude that thimerosol was in any way a component. It doesn’t make sense as a causative factor
And this perfectly demonstrates the limit of your understanding of….several things actually. No this is not a game for me. You suppose that vaccines are toxic without the evidence to support it. I suppose that vaccines are not toxic WITH evidence to support it. You need to prove that vaccines are toxic, AND explain why the other evidence is faulty. Now you have a reason why the other evidence is faulty, but you have yet to establish that vaccines are toxic. You just suppose it. That is the relevant difference.
Further, you continue to demonstrate the limit of your understanding of MBTI (and psychology in general) in your claim that you can accurately type me after just having scientific debates. You want expert opinion? I have talked with SEVERAL psychology professors about MBTI. It is generally rejected. It holds some water in certain cases, but your claim is certainly not one of them. MBTI is far too limited for what you are claiming to do. So either you are clueless, or you are grasping at straws to insult myself and Matt. I think we all know which of these is true.
I deny them as a false authority. As to their content, I deny them for the evidence of actual science as well as blatant logical inconsistencies in their arguments. Far more so your arguments, if they can be classified as such. Matt was very much correct, you just regurgitate what you want to hear. You don’t even argue for yourself what you claim to be true. If you are correct, and if you actually do understand the argument (as you so claim) then you should be able to defend the argument for yourself. NOT rely on authority figures. If you don’t understand the points and yet argue by citing an authority, then you leave yourself open to misunderstanding of the argument. Because I’m not familiar with the argument, that leaves it as an open question. Pointless. That is why arguments from authority are generally dismissed, to name but one reason.
You need to defend your argument muir. Otherwise, your claims are baseless. Further, one could claim that your inability to defend your own argument is evidence for the failing of your argument if we suppose that you actually know what you are talking about.
Wow. Yeah that makes a lot of sense (sarcastically)
Your argument completely relies on the toxicity of vaccines. If you can’t establish your own argument beyond saying “THEY ARE [toxic]”, then how do you expect us be convinced. Simple appeals to authority like you have been doing are not sufficient.
While each of these most certainly have an impact, the same is true of vaccines. If a person cannot get sick with a disease, then they cannot further transmit the disease. If they can’t get sick even if directly exposed, then that is a massive benefit than hoping that you just don’t get exposed. Even with a strong immune system, you will still get sick with diseases and still infect others until your body can develop antibodies. Vaccines cause your body to develop antibodies without the risk of dying or becoming infected with the actual pathogen.
And such claims make absolutely no sense. You say he’s an expert, and yet an undergraduate physics major would understand the process of ionization better than him. Nonetheless, this point is not meant for this thread, so you should stop bothering to bring it up. Unless you want to keep on bring up irrelevant information. Remember that you have complained about others bringing up irrelevant information in the past, so this is basically turning you into a hypocrite as well.
The risk is the development of the pathogen by spreading. Mutations can cause a virus to adapt to a vaccine (such as the flu), and the more run time a virus gets the better chance of successful mutations. The risk is not direct, but the risk is still there. And of greater concern for we won’t have a way to stop the disease without a new vaccine.
Muir, you are seriously claiming that you are using “actual medical studies”? You rely on propaganda far more than people who do not think vaccines are toxic. And further, I didn’t find many (or actually any) scientific articles spouting healthy cigarettes. They only had ads in medical journals (which are now banned) as opposed to actual research. Different cases, definitely.
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION], [MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION], this is what happens when you leave the argument to appeals to authority as muir has done. You guys are left to talking past each other and not actually discussing the issue. Muir, you need to be able to justify your claim, not leave other people to argue for you. If you can’t defend your claim, then you need to stop talking like you can.
Last edited:
You have a lot to learn young pup but you suffer from the arrogance of youth and that makes you open your mouth when you should open your ears
That is going to retard your learning
http://www.naturalnews.com/049511_SB_277_vaccine_violence_medical_assault.html#
[h=1]SB 277 will unleash "medical civil war" in California as parents demand doctors be arrested for felony assault[/h]
Monday, April 27, 2015
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
It is a fundamental and non-debatable scientific truth that all vaccines have inherent health risks. The spectrum of harm varies widely, from small skin rashes to full-blown neurological damage and lifelong debilitation. Some children have even been killed by vaccines, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out nearly $3 billion to families of children who were provably injured by vaccines in America.
The UK government, similarly, has just agreed to $90 million in financial compensation to victims who suffered permanent brain damage from another vaccine. (You will not find any truthful reporting on vaccine injuries in quackpot mainstream media publishers like the Washington Post, of course. They are largely funded by Big Pharma and therefore propagate the junk science delusion that vaccines never cause any injuries at all.)
Because vaccines have the potential to cause harm -- and do indeed cause severe harm, injury and even death for some children -- when they are forced upon people against their wishes and consent, they represent a form of medical violence against women and children.
"Vaccine Violence" is very real, in other words, and it is a form of violence against women and children that the state of California wants to commit via government coercion. That's the whole point of SB 277, the so-called "vaccine mandate" law. It seeks to eliminate all religious or philosophical exemptions from vaccines, thereby forcing a potentially harmful medical intervention onto the bodies of children (and soon, adults) who did NOT give consent to the procedure.
As the SB 277 website explains, "If there is a RISK, there must be a CHOICE."
[h=1]Federal sentencing guidelines characterize a vaccine assault as a serious felony crime[/h]As background on this point, it is important to note that individuals carrying the HIV virus have been charged with felony assault crimes for spitting on people or engaging in sexual intercourse with them.
The state of Ohio, for example, considers it a "felonious assault" to be an HIV-positive person and have sex with someone without informing them of your HIV status. (SOURCE) Those found guilty of this assault are sentenced to up to 11 years in prison.
This is because HIV-positive people are generally believed to carry live viruses which can enter another person's body and cause them harm. This is precisely the same situation encountered with many vaccines, where faulty quality control procedures have resulted in "live" viruses being administered to people through polio vaccines (see the history of 98 million Americans exposed to cancer viruses via polio vaccines), MMR vaccines (which shed live viruses, causing the recently vaccinated to readily infect others), flu vaccines and many more.
According to federal law enforcement, a needle is categorized as a "weapon" in the context of a physical assault. For example, if you were to acquire the blood of an HIV-positive person, fill a syringe with it, then assault someone with that needle, you would not only be charged with a felony assault, but an assault with a deadly weapon (the needle).
Under Ohio law, for example, it is explained as: "...causing or attempting to cause serious harm with a deadly weapon or a firearm -- referred to in the Ohio statutes as a 'dangerous ordnance.'"
When administered without consent, a vaccine injection is a physical violation of a human body. The substance contained in the vaccine is provably harmful and, in some cases, even deadly. Under Ohio sentencing guidelines, an individual forcing a vaccination upon someone without their consent would be committing a "felonious assault with dangerous ordnance."
[h=1]Federal sentencing guidelines and vaccine violence[/h]Under federal sentencing guidelines, a vaccine assault upon an individual without their consent would be considered an "aggravated assault," part of the category of sentencing covering "offenses against the persons."
As explained in this sentencing guidelines document, the "base offense level" of a vaccine assault (i.e. aggravated assault) is 14.
This document goes on to explain, "If the assault involved more than minimal planning, increase by 2 levels." Because all vaccine violence against children is premeditated, it qualifies as "more than minimal planning."
This sentencing guideline also explains "[if] a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was otherwise used, increase by 4 levels." Because a needle containing a potentially dangerous substance is considered a "dangerous weapon" by all law enforcement organizations -- including local police, the FBI, etc. -- this elevates the vaccine violence to an even higher level.
If that needle weapon "...was brandished or its use was threatened, increase by 3 levels," says the sentencing guidelines document.
[h=1]Where injury occurs, the aggravated assault becomes even more serious[/h]"If the victim sustained bodily injury, increase the offense level according to the seriousness of the injury," says the federal sentencing guidelines document.
Bodily Injury = + 3 levels
Serious Bodily Injury = +5 levels
Permanent or Life-Threatening Bodily Injury = +7 levels
Permanent bodily injury would include brain damage or autism, by the way, both of which are caused by vaccines. Even the CDC has evidence that vaccines increase the risk of autism, as publicly admitted by CDC scientist and whistleblower William Thompson. We also know as an established fact that vaccines cause permanent brain damage. The UK government, in fact, just agreed to pay out $90 million in financial awards to families whose children were brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine.
Finally, this sentencing guideline document explains, "If the assault was motivated by a payment or offer of money or other thing of value, increase by 2 levels."
Because virtually all doctors are financially influenced by vaccine manufacturers through extensive bribery networks, they are also guilty of being "financially motivated" to participate in the vaccine assault of an innocent child. This would add +2 levels to their sentencing. (Flashback: GlaxoSmithKline admits to running massive illegal bribery network involving 40,000 doctors across the United States. The U.S. Justice Dept. prosecuted this case after a company whistleblower stepped forward.)
In total, an act of vaccine violence against a non-consenting person would qualify, under U.S. federal sentencing guidelines, as a Base Offense Level of 22 even if no injury was sustained by the child. If an injury is sustained, that Base Offense Level could rise to 25, 27 or 29 in the case of permanent brain damage.
[h=1]Why doctors committing vaccine violence against children would earn 41 months (or more) in federal prison[/h]What do these numbers mean in terms of sentencing?
According to this federal sentencing guidelines table located on this federal sentencing website, an offense level of 22 would earn someone with no criminal history a minimum of 41 months in prison.
A base offense level of 29 would result in 87 months in federal prison.
An act of vaccine violence committed against a non-consenting person, if prosecuted by law enforcement authorities, could earn a doctor serious prison time regardless of whether the child was actually injured by the vaccine.
[h=1]Will California parents start calling 911 and pressing assault charges against doctors?[/h]All this brings up a very important question for Californians, SB 277, medical freedom and the rule of law.
If California claims to be a state operating under the rule of law, then laws regarding aggravated assault must apply equally to all people, including doctors. If an adult or child is forcibly violated against their consent with a needle weapon known to pose a real threat to that child's safety, that act clearly qualifies as aggravated assault.
Under both federal and state law, parents who believe their children face the risk of imminent harm from a violent attack upon their bodies have every right to call 911 and request armed police officers come to their defense to stop the assault and arrest those attempting to commit those acts of violence.
I am now publicly predicting that, should SB 277 be signed into law, we will see a wave of California parents calling 911 to report their doctors while demanding the government press felony assault charges against medical personnel engaged in vaccine violence.
It is doubtful, of course, that District Attorneys would carry out any government-sponsored prosecution of those doctors, but parents will retain the right of CIVIL prosecution of those doctors for violating their civil rights.
[h=1]Doctors have no immunity against civil lawsuits stemming from vaccine violence[/h]The civil prosecution of those administering forced vaccines upon children is not in any way protected by the legal immunity from liability which has been granted to pharmaceutical companies by Congress. That protection only exempts the drug companies from lawsuits of injury and harm caused by vaccines. It does not confer any legal immunity to doctors and medical personnel who personally engage in the acts of violence -- i.e. administer the vaccines -- against the consent of the parent(s).
In a court of law, there can be little doubt that a coercive violation of a child's body with a potentially deadly substance is a violation of that child's civil rights (and human rights). An assault with a vaccine needle is no less of a crime than an assault with a surgeon's scalpel. Both are "medical instruments" which may cause permanent damage and even death.
The "intent" of the doctor administering the vaccine in no way immunizes that doctor from the letter of the law. Even if the doctor testifies that he "intends" to protect the child, that does not negate the fact that he willfully carried out a felony assault upon the body of that child with a dangerous weapon. There is exhaustive legal precedent to support my contention here. While intent is a factor in sentencing, it alone does not negate the act of assault with a dangerous weapon.
[h=1]All that is necessary to see this happen is for parents to start calling the police[/h]Fascinatingly, California parents already have the power to unleash this law enforcement campaign against anyone administering vaccines without consent. State and federal laws are written to protect innocent victims against their bodies being physically violated / assaulted, and citizens merely need to invoke those laws which already exist.
Parents who believe their children are being placed in harm's way by vaccine violence might call 911, demand police arrive on the scene, and express their genuine belief that their children are about to be assaulted with a dangerous weapon. Of course, parents engaging in this action might risk a visitation by Child Protective Services, another enforcement arm of an oppressive government that demands obedience to the pharmaceutical industry's profit agendas. So parents must carefully weigh the risks associated with their actions in this context. (Personally, I would never recommend a parent call 911 on a "vaccine violence" doctor unless they first consult with an attorney and have a solid legal strategy in mind.)
If hundreds (or thousands) of parents do this across the state, it would bring the issue of vaccine violence to the surface, demanding a legal review of the practice of physically violating a person's body with a potentially harmful medical intervention in violation of medical ethics and medical consent. It might even result in the successful prosecution of a doctor for aggravated assault, sending an important message across the entire medical profession that you are not immune to the laws of the land. You may not commit acts of medical violence against children without simultaneously subjecting yourself to legal or civil consequences in a court of law.
[h=1]Why SB 277 brings all this to the surface[/h]When vaccines are optional, doctors injecting them are only engaged in a controversial "treatment." But when vaccines are coerced by the state, doctors are now colluding with a state-sponsored system of coercion that combines medical violence with the threat of denying a child their right to an education. Thus, the doctor is now playing a key role in the coercion / collusion which demands a child be physically violated with a harmful substance administered via what law enforcement already recognizes as a "dangerous weapon."
The doctor, in other words, is now a "co-conspirator" in the aggravated assault of the child. Under federal law, in fact, that doctor could technically be charged with conspiracy on top of the aggravated assault charge.
Suddenly, the doctor is in the position of carrying out an act of violence which is resisted by the parent. The context is now different: it's no longer "medical treatment" but rather "medical violence." Acts of violence against children are illegal under California law and federal law, opening up doctors to being charged, prosecuted and sentenced to prison for their role in the scheme.
[h=1]Doctors may soon start requiring consent signatures from parents[/h]For this reason, I now expect that many medical professionals in California who administer vaccines will begin requiring signatures on consent forms. This is their primary protection from being sued -- or potentially arrested -- if caught engaging in vaccine violence committed against a child.
Such "consent forms," interestingly, would have to include detailed descriptions of the potential side effects of vaccines in order to be recognized as valid. If the forms fail to provide the parent with full details of the vaccine side effects, the parent can rightfully claim they were not given "informed consent" and would therefore have a very strong civil liability case against the doctor.
SB 277 is what changes the context of all this. If it is signed into law, it will force parents who are adamantly opposed to vaccines to have their children vaccinated without their consent. These parents are rightly motivated to protect the health and lives of their children, which is why I predict we will see all the following taking place if SB 277 is signed into law:
1) Parents calling 911 on their doctors and demanding they be arrested for felony assault via vaccine violence.
2) Parents hiring lawyers to file civil lawsuits against pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens where vaccines are administered.
3) Parents of vaccine-injured children who were coerced into vaccination by SB 277 mounting new challenges under civil rights law. A case most likely to receive media attention and social media traction would involve an African-American child damaged by vaccines who was forced to be vaccinated due to SB 277. Under a properly-configured legal challenge, this family could sue the state of California, the clinic administering and vaccine and possibly even take a vaccine injury challenge back to the U.S. Supreme Court which might overturn its previous decision on Big Pharma's legal immunity. (The logic demands a review when the vaccines are now coerced rather than voluntary.)
In other words, if Gov. Jerry Brown signs SB 277 into law, he will unleash a "medical civil war" in California, involving protests from outraged parents and possibly even billions of dollars in medical liability on the state of California itself.
Sadly, the vaccine industry is so desperate to force compliance with its for-profit agenda that it will pull out all the stops to see this bill signed into law. Expect a medical civil war to erupt in California if Gov. Brown signs this, pitting doctors against patients... with law enforcement and civil rights attorneys thrown into the mix for good measure.
Source for this story include:
http://www.bolenreport.com/autism/antivaccin...
http://www.naturalnews.com/048819_vaccine_in...
http://www.naturalnews.com/049423_swine_flu_...
http://sb277.org
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resourc...
http://www.naturalnews.com/041345_cdc_polio_...
http://www.naturalnews.com/048863_vaccine_pr...
http://www.naturalnews.com/048519_vaccines_m...
http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2011/2...
http://www.naturalnews.com/046630_CDC_whistl...
http://www.naturalnews.com/036385_GlaxoSmith...
http://www.naturalnews.com/036499_Glaxo_whis...
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/...
[h=1]SB 277 will unleash "medical civil war" in California as parents demand doctors be arrested for felony assault[/h]
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
It is a fundamental and non-debatable scientific truth that all vaccines have inherent health risks. The spectrum of harm varies widely, from small skin rashes to full-blown neurological damage and lifelong debilitation. Some children have even been killed by vaccines, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out nearly $3 billion to families of children who were provably injured by vaccines in America.
The UK government, similarly, has just agreed to $90 million in financial compensation to victims who suffered permanent brain damage from another vaccine. (You will not find any truthful reporting on vaccine injuries in quackpot mainstream media publishers like the Washington Post, of course. They are largely funded by Big Pharma and therefore propagate the junk science delusion that vaccines never cause any injuries at all.)
Because vaccines have the potential to cause harm -- and do indeed cause severe harm, injury and even death for some children -- when they are forced upon people against their wishes and consent, they represent a form of medical violence against women and children.
"Vaccine Violence" is very real, in other words, and it is a form of violence against women and children that the state of California wants to commit via government coercion. That's the whole point of SB 277, the so-called "vaccine mandate" law. It seeks to eliminate all religious or philosophical exemptions from vaccines, thereby forcing a potentially harmful medical intervention onto the bodies of children (and soon, adults) who did NOT give consent to the procedure.
As the SB 277 website explains, "If there is a RISK, there must be a CHOICE."
[h=1]Federal sentencing guidelines characterize a vaccine assault as a serious felony crime[/h]As background on this point, it is important to note that individuals carrying the HIV virus have been charged with felony assault crimes for spitting on people or engaging in sexual intercourse with them.
The state of Ohio, for example, considers it a "felonious assault" to be an HIV-positive person and have sex with someone without informing them of your HIV status. (SOURCE) Those found guilty of this assault are sentenced to up to 11 years in prison.
This is because HIV-positive people are generally believed to carry live viruses which can enter another person's body and cause them harm. This is precisely the same situation encountered with many vaccines, where faulty quality control procedures have resulted in "live" viruses being administered to people through polio vaccines (see the history of 98 million Americans exposed to cancer viruses via polio vaccines), MMR vaccines (which shed live viruses, causing the recently vaccinated to readily infect others), flu vaccines and many more.
According to federal law enforcement, a needle is categorized as a "weapon" in the context of a physical assault. For example, if you were to acquire the blood of an HIV-positive person, fill a syringe with it, then assault someone with that needle, you would not only be charged with a felony assault, but an assault with a deadly weapon (the needle).
Under Ohio law, for example, it is explained as: "...causing or attempting to cause serious harm with a deadly weapon or a firearm -- referred to in the Ohio statutes as a 'dangerous ordnance.'"
When administered without consent, a vaccine injection is a physical violation of a human body. The substance contained in the vaccine is provably harmful and, in some cases, even deadly. Under Ohio sentencing guidelines, an individual forcing a vaccination upon someone without their consent would be committing a "felonious assault with dangerous ordnance."
[h=1]Federal sentencing guidelines and vaccine violence[/h]Under federal sentencing guidelines, a vaccine assault upon an individual without their consent would be considered an "aggravated assault," part of the category of sentencing covering "offenses against the persons."
As explained in this sentencing guidelines document, the "base offense level" of a vaccine assault (i.e. aggravated assault) is 14.
This document goes on to explain, "If the assault involved more than minimal planning, increase by 2 levels." Because all vaccine violence against children is premeditated, it qualifies as "more than minimal planning."
This sentencing guideline also explains "[if] a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was otherwise used, increase by 4 levels." Because a needle containing a potentially dangerous substance is considered a "dangerous weapon" by all law enforcement organizations -- including local police, the FBI, etc. -- this elevates the vaccine violence to an even higher level.
If that needle weapon "...was brandished or its use was threatened, increase by 3 levels," says the sentencing guidelines document.
[h=1]Where injury occurs, the aggravated assault becomes even more serious[/h]"If the victim sustained bodily injury, increase the offense level according to the seriousness of the injury," says the federal sentencing guidelines document.
Bodily Injury = + 3 levels
Serious Bodily Injury = +5 levels
Permanent or Life-Threatening Bodily Injury = +7 levels
Permanent bodily injury would include brain damage or autism, by the way, both of which are caused by vaccines. Even the CDC has evidence that vaccines increase the risk of autism, as publicly admitted by CDC scientist and whistleblower William Thompson. We also know as an established fact that vaccines cause permanent brain damage. The UK government, in fact, just agreed to pay out $90 million in financial awards to families whose children were brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine.
Finally, this sentencing guideline document explains, "If the assault was motivated by a payment or offer of money or other thing of value, increase by 2 levels."
Because virtually all doctors are financially influenced by vaccine manufacturers through extensive bribery networks, they are also guilty of being "financially motivated" to participate in the vaccine assault of an innocent child. This would add +2 levels to their sentencing. (Flashback: GlaxoSmithKline admits to running massive illegal bribery network involving 40,000 doctors across the United States. The U.S. Justice Dept. prosecuted this case after a company whistleblower stepped forward.)
In total, an act of vaccine violence against a non-consenting person would qualify, under U.S. federal sentencing guidelines, as a Base Offense Level of 22 even if no injury was sustained by the child. If an injury is sustained, that Base Offense Level could rise to 25, 27 or 29 in the case of permanent brain damage.
[h=1]Why doctors committing vaccine violence against children would earn 41 months (or more) in federal prison[/h]What do these numbers mean in terms of sentencing?
According to this federal sentencing guidelines table located on this federal sentencing website, an offense level of 22 would earn someone with no criminal history a minimum of 41 months in prison.
A base offense level of 29 would result in 87 months in federal prison.
An act of vaccine violence committed against a non-consenting person, if prosecuted by law enforcement authorities, could earn a doctor serious prison time regardless of whether the child was actually injured by the vaccine.
[h=1]Will California parents start calling 911 and pressing assault charges against doctors?[/h]All this brings up a very important question for Californians, SB 277, medical freedom and the rule of law.
If California claims to be a state operating under the rule of law, then laws regarding aggravated assault must apply equally to all people, including doctors. If an adult or child is forcibly violated against their consent with a needle weapon known to pose a real threat to that child's safety, that act clearly qualifies as aggravated assault.
Under both federal and state law, parents who believe their children face the risk of imminent harm from a violent attack upon their bodies have every right to call 911 and request armed police officers come to their defense to stop the assault and arrest those attempting to commit those acts of violence.
I am now publicly predicting that, should SB 277 be signed into law, we will see a wave of California parents calling 911 to report their doctors while demanding the government press felony assault charges against medical personnel engaged in vaccine violence.
It is doubtful, of course, that District Attorneys would carry out any government-sponsored prosecution of those doctors, but parents will retain the right of CIVIL prosecution of those doctors for violating their civil rights.
[h=1]Doctors have no immunity against civil lawsuits stemming from vaccine violence[/h]The civil prosecution of those administering forced vaccines upon children is not in any way protected by the legal immunity from liability which has been granted to pharmaceutical companies by Congress. That protection only exempts the drug companies from lawsuits of injury and harm caused by vaccines. It does not confer any legal immunity to doctors and medical personnel who personally engage in the acts of violence -- i.e. administer the vaccines -- against the consent of the parent(s).
In a court of law, there can be little doubt that a coercive violation of a child's body with a potentially deadly substance is a violation of that child's civil rights (and human rights). An assault with a vaccine needle is no less of a crime than an assault with a surgeon's scalpel. Both are "medical instruments" which may cause permanent damage and even death.
The "intent" of the doctor administering the vaccine in no way immunizes that doctor from the letter of the law. Even if the doctor testifies that he "intends" to protect the child, that does not negate the fact that he willfully carried out a felony assault upon the body of that child with a dangerous weapon. There is exhaustive legal precedent to support my contention here. While intent is a factor in sentencing, it alone does not negate the act of assault with a dangerous weapon.
[h=1]All that is necessary to see this happen is for parents to start calling the police[/h]Fascinatingly, California parents already have the power to unleash this law enforcement campaign against anyone administering vaccines without consent. State and federal laws are written to protect innocent victims against their bodies being physically violated / assaulted, and citizens merely need to invoke those laws which already exist.
Parents who believe their children are being placed in harm's way by vaccine violence might call 911, demand police arrive on the scene, and express their genuine belief that their children are about to be assaulted with a dangerous weapon. Of course, parents engaging in this action might risk a visitation by Child Protective Services, another enforcement arm of an oppressive government that demands obedience to the pharmaceutical industry's profit agendas. So parents must carefully weigh the risks associated with their actions in this context. (Personally, I would never recommend a parent call 911 on a "vaccine violence" doctor unless they first consult with an attorney and have a solid legal strategy in mind.)
If hundreds (or thousands) of parents do this across the state, it would bring the issue of vaccine violence to the surface, demanding a legal review of the practice of physically violating a person's body with a potentially harmful medical intervention in violation of medical ethics and medical consent. It might even result in the successful prosecution of a doctor for aggravated assault, sending an important message across the entire medical profession that you are not immune to the laws of the land. You may not commit acts of medical violence against children without simultaneously subjecting yourself to legal or civil consequences in a court of law.
[h=1]Why SB 277 brings all this to the surface[/h]When vaccines are optional, doctors injecting them are only engaged in a controversial "treatment." But when vaccines are coerced by the state, doctors are now colluding with a state-sponsored system of coercion that combines medical violence with the threat of denying a child their right to an education. Thus, the doctor is now playing a key role in the coercion / collusion which demands a child be physically violated with a harmful substance administered via what law enforcement already recognizes as a "dangerous weapon."
The doctor, in other words, is now a "co-conspirator" in the aggravated assault of the child. Under federal law, in fact, that doctor could technically be charged with conspiracy on top of the aggravated assault charge.
Suddenly, the doctor is in the position of carrying out an act of violence which is resisted by the parent. The context is now different: it's no longer "medical treatment" but rather "medical violence." Acts of violence against children are illegal under California law and federal law, opening up doctors to being charged, prosecuted and sentenced to prison for their role in the scheme.
[h=1]Doctors may soon start requiring consent signatures from parents[/h]For this reason, I now expect that many medical professionals in California who administer vaccines will begin requiring signatures on consent forms. This is their primary protection from being sued -- or potentially arrested -- if caught engaging in vaccine violence committed against a child.
Such "consent forms," interestingly, would have to include detailed descriptions of the potential side effects of vaccines in order to be recognized as valid. If the forms fail to provide the parent with full details of the vaccine side effects, the parent can rightfully claim they were not given "informed consent" and would therefore have a very strong civil liability case against the doctor.
SB 277 is what changes the context of all this. If it is signed into law, it will force parents who are adamantly opposed to vaccines to have their children vaccinated without their consent. These parents are rightly motivated to protect the health and lives of their children, which is why I predict we will see all the following taking place if SB 277 is signed into law:
1) Parents calling 911 on their doctors and demanding they be arrested for felony assault via vaccine violence.
2) Parents hiring lawyers to file civil lawsuits against pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens where vaccines are administered.
3) Parents of vaccine-injured children who were coerced into vaccination by SB 277 mounting new challenges under civil rights law. A case most likely to receive media attention and social media traction would involve an African-American child damaged by vaccines who was forced to be vaccinated due to SB 277. Under a properly-configured legal challenge, this family could sue the state of California, the clinic administering and vaccine and possibly even take a vaccine injury challenge back to the U.S. Supreme Court which might overturn its previous decision on Big Pharma's legal immunity. (The logic demands a review when the vaccines are now coerced rather than voluntary.)
In other words, if Gov. Jerry Brown signs SB 277 into law, he will unleash a "medical civil war" in California, involving protests from outraged parents and possibly even billions of dollars in medical liability on the state of California itself.
Sadly, the vaccine industry is so desperate to force compliance with its for-profit agenda that it will pull out all the stops to see this bill signed into law. Expect a medical civil war to erupt in California if Gov. Brown signs this, pitting doctors against patients... with law enforcement and civil rights attorneys thrown into the mix for good measure.
Source for this story include:
http://www.bolenreport.com/autism/antivaccin...
http://www.naturalnews.com/048819_vaccine_in...
http://www.naturalnews.com/049423_swine_flu_...
http://sb277.org
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resourc...
http://www.naturalnews.com/041345_cdc_polio_...
http://www.naturalnews.com/048863_vaccine_pr...
http://www.naturalnews.com/048519_vaccines_m...
http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2011/2...
http://www.naturalnews.com/046630_CDC_whistl...
http://www.naturalnews.com/036385_GlaxoSmith...
http://www.naturalnews.com/036499_Glaxo_whis...
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/...
Now that's an interesting claim. Because I'm relatively young, then I obviously know nothing about anything. That clearly makes sense
If I am so wrong, then you should be able to point out where in my arguments I have gone wrong. Unfortunately, you have not even attempted such a thing. Instead you resort to dismissing my points based on claims of false authority (when my arguments certainly do not hinge on such things) and attempts to degrade me rather than my argument.
I may not be an expert in this field, but I'm certainly no slouch when it comes to science based fields, and my ability to do research and understand complicated concepts. To dismiss my arguments because I'm young is a last resort of someone who cannot defend their view. Notice I have admitted (more than once) that it very well might be the case that vaccines are toxic. However it is up to those who share your view to establish such is the case. Given your current points of various toxic substances and immune overload, the arguments simply don't hold. Until you can produce better arguments and evidence to support vaccine toxicity, it is far more reasonable to conclude that vaccines are not toxic.
In fact, your air of superiority is not only disgusting and a serious flaw in character, but it also limits your ability to think clearly. Further, not only is your pompous attitude ridiculous and founded in falsely significant self-views, but it is directly insulting. It goes a long way to demonstrating your pseudo-elitist view of the world.