Hiding Vaccine-Related Deaths With Semantic Sleight-of-Hand

Original here: https://worldmercuryproject.org/what-we-do/hiding-vaccine-related-deaths-semantic-sleight-hand/

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Vaccine scientists and the public health community cautiously and occasionally will admit that vaccines can cause adverse reactions just like “any other medication or biological product.” Although experts are less willing to openly disclose the fact that adverse reactions can and do include death, one has only to look at reports to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to see that mortality is a possible outcome. From 1990 through 2010, for example, VAERS received 1,881 reports of infant deaths following vaccination, representing  4.8% of the adverse events reported for infants over the 20-year period. Moreover, analysts acknowledge that VAERS, as a passive surveillance system, is subject to substantial underreporting. A federal government report from 2010 affirms that VAERS captures only about 1% of vaccine adverse reports. 

On the international frontier, the public health community—with the World Health Organization (WHO) in the vanguard—previously used a six-category framework to investigate and categorize serious adverse events following immunization (AEFI), including death. Guided by this tool, public health teams examined temporal criteria and possible alternative explanations to determine whether the relationship of an AEFI to vaccine administration was “very likely/certain,” “probable,” “possible,” “unlikely,” “unrelated,” or “unclassifiable.”

In 2013, the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety discarded the prior tool, ostensibly because users “sometimes [found it] difficult to differentiate between ‘probable,’ ‘possible,’ and ‘unlikely’ categories.” The WHO enlisted vaccine experts to develop a “simpler” algorithm that would be more readily “applicable” to vaccines. The resulting four-category system now invites public health teams to classify an AEFI as either “consistent,” “inconsistent,” or “indeterminate” with a vaccine-related causal association or as “unclassifiable.” Despite the patina of logic suggested by the use of an algorithm, “the final outcome of the case investigation depends on the personal judgment of the assessor” [emphasis added], especially (according to the tool’s proponents) when the process “yields answers that are both consistent and inconsistent with a causal association to immunization.”

In a 2017 letter in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Drs. Jacob Puliyel (an India-based pediatrician and member of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization) and Anant Phadke (an executive member of the All India Drug Action Network) raise important questions about the revised tool. They describe an Orwellian Catch-22 situation wherein it is nearly impossible to categorize post-vaccine deaths as vaccine-related. This is because the revised algorithm does not allow users to classify an AEFI as “consistent with causal association with vaccine” unless there is evidence showing that the vaccine caused a statistically significant increase in deaths during Phase III clinical trials. By definition, however, any vaccine not found to “retain safety” in Phase III trials cannot proceed to Phase IV (licensure and post-marketing surveillance). The result of the algorithm’s convoluted requirements is that any deaths that occur post-licensure become “coincidental” or “unclassifiable.”

Continues here: https://worldmercuryproject.org/what-we-do/hiding-vaccine-related-deaths-semantic-sleight-hand/


What Did The CDC Know And When Did They Know It? [Vaccines & Autism]

See also, related to the infamous “Simpsonwood” meeting, held by CDC on June, 2000:

A private emergency meeting was held in Simpsonwood, Georgia in 2000 with the CDC, health authorities, and vaccine manufacturers, where secret transcripts record participants saying “the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant” and that this information would need to be kept out of “less responsible hands”

The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover-up by Russell Blaylock, M.D. (2004)

Chapter II: 1999-2000: Simpsonwood

Transcript of Simpsonwood meeting:
Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information June 7-8, 2000 Simpsonwood Retreat Center Norcross, Georgia


What Did The CDC Know And When Did They Know It?

By Dr. William H. Gaunt and Spencer M. Gaunt, RN

“O let me ne’er forget that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.” (From the hymn “This Is My Father’s World”)

Scientists and doctors at the CDC vaccine division knew in 2000 that mercury in vaccines was causing neurodevelopmental disorders including autism.  That year CDC scientist Thomas Verstraeten did a study of over 400,000 infants comparing children who got the most mercury from vaccines with children who got no mercury from vaccines.  The children who got the most mercury were more than 7 times as likely to become autistic compared to those who got no mercury.

The data from this study was shared at a conference but the study was never published.  A meeting(called the Simpsonwood Meeting) was called to address this “mercury in vaccines causes autism” problem.  CDC doctors and scientists were joined by vaccine experts from all over the country.  There was agreement to remove mercury from vaccines as soon as possible.  One of the doctors in attendance was notified that his first grandson had just been born.  He called his son and told him not to allow his grandson to get a vaccine containing mercury.

Mercury was subsequently removed from most pediatric vaccines within the next 3 years.  Unfortunately, the flu shot and the dtap shot have since been recommended for pregnant women.  Multi-dose flu shots still contain mercury and the dtap vaccine contains aluminum.  Mercury and aluminum are both powerful neurotoxins and when injected at the same time they work synergistically to multiply the risk of brain damage.

When a pregnant women is given these vaccines, it is equivalent to injecting the developing fetus with mercury and aluminum.  The ability of the body to detoxify heavy metals is nearly nonexistent in a fetus.  Do vaccines given during pregnancy cause an increase in fetal death and miscarriage?  Do the children born to women who got these vaccines during pregnancy have a higher rate of neurodevelopmental disorders including autism?

The answers are likely yes and yes but studies that would provide the answers are discouraged.  Studies funded by the CDC can’t be trusted.  Independent studies by scientists not paid by the CDC are needed to get honest answers to these important questions.  The CDC’s official position is: “several studies prove that vaccines do not cause autism”.  The studies the CDC refers to are heavily manipulated scientific fraud.  They even claim that no more studies should be done on the vaccines-autism connection because “the science is settled”.  The truth is that vaccines can and do cause autism and many other problems.  This denial by the CDC is preventing scientific studies that can identify which ingredients in which vaccines are the causal factors.In 2001, the CDC knew that children who got the MMR vaccine on time between 12 and 18 months of age were far more likely to become autistic compared to children who got the MMR after age 3.  This effect was most striking in black boys but was statistically significant in all races and both sexes.  The study did not include children who did not get the MMR.  The MMR vaccine does not contain mercury so the mechanism of action causing autism is different than in mercury containing vaccines.

Several studies now show that the measles virus portion of the MMR is infecting the gut and the brain.  The documentary film “Vaxxed” clearly shows the manipulation and deliberate disappearance of data in that study. The final publication in the journal Pediatrics in 2004 concluded that there was no increased risk of autism with earlier MMR vaccination.  CDC scientist whistleblower Dr. William Thompson is the central figure in “Vaxxed”.  He has revealed details about how the data was manipulated and disappeared so the final published study could have a conclusion that is the opposite of the truth.  More than 5,000 petitions in Vaccine Court for autism were dismissed based on this fraudulent study.

A vaccinated versus unvaccinated study was published on April 27, 2017 in The Journal of Translational Science.  The lead author was Dr. Anthony Mawson of Jackson State University.  It analyzed health data on 666 homeschooled children.  The unvaccinated children had a higher incidence of chicken pox, measles, and whooping cough as expected.  These diseases are rarely fatal.  They help the immune system mature while providing permanent protection from reinfection.   The vaccinated children had 4.2 times more autism, 4.2 times more ADHD, 5.2 times the incidence of learning disabilities, and 30.1 times the rate of allergic rhinitis compared to the unvaccinated children.  Many other health factors were analyzed and the unvaccinated children were far healthier across the board.

Continues here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2017/07/what-did-the-cdc-know-and-when-did-they-know-it.html

Allergy Shots are Vaccines?

Original here: http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/07/allergy-shots-are-vaccines/

by Marco Cáceres

Allergy shots can contain aluminum as an adjuvant. Same as with vaccines, only perhaps much more aluminum per shot and cumulatively, given that allergy shots are given more frequently (often weekly or monthly) than vaccines.

I ran across a statement the other day which grabbed my attention. So much so that I felt I had to do some research on it. The statement, published on the website of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), reads: “Allergy shots work like a vaccine.”1

The AAAAI explains:

Your body responds to injected amounts of a particular allergen, given in gradually increasing doses, by developing immunity or tolerance to the allergen.1

Allergy shots, also known as allergy immunotherapy or subcutaneous immunotherapy(SCIT), have been described as “vaccines for allergy”2 or “vaccines for allergic diseases.”3 According to a study in the journal Current Opinion in Immunology, “Vaccines aim to establish or strengthen immune responses but are also effective for the treatment of allergy.”2

Allergy shots contain a small amount of an allergen (a substance that triggers an allergic reaction)—just enough to stimulate the immune system without causing a “full-blown allergic reaction.” The goal is to gradually desensitize the immune system and allow it to build up a tolerance to the allergen(s) and eventually minimize or eliminate the allergic symptoms.4 

The overall principle for vaccines is similar, only that vaccination generally focuses on stimulating a mild immune response to a certain infection-causing antigen such as a bacteria or virus.5 

As with vaccinations, there are side-effects associated with allergy shots. There are mild side-effects such swelling or redness at the injection site, itching, watery eyes, stuffy nose, and sneezing. And there are more severe ones such as rapid or irregular heartbeat, tightness in the chest or throat, difficulty breathing or wheezing, dizziness or light-headedness, loss of consciousness, and death.6 

So, what could be causing these reactions to allergy shots? As with vaccines, it’s hard to tell. But, as with vaccines, a good place to start would be to look at the ingredients in allergy shots starting with the allergen(s). Some of the more common allergens include “mold and pollen from grasses, ragweed and trees.”7 

Allergy shots contain concentrations of either glycerol or phenol diluents8  (substances used to thin or dilute9), which double as antimicrobial agents or preservatives.10 

Phenol  or carbolic acid is derived from distillation of coal tar and is an extremely poisonous compound that is used in a highly diluted form as an anti-microbial in vaccines and other products.11 It is an ingredient in five vaccines licensed in the United States, including Hib (PedvaxHIB), Hib/Hep B (Comvax), Pneumococcal (PPSV-23—Pneumovax), Smallpox (Vaccinia—ACAM2000), and Typhoid (inactivated—Typhim Vi).

Although the safety record of injected phenol is unclear, phenol has been known to have a “toxic chemical effect on the central nervous system leading to sudden collapse and loss of consciousness.”12

Allergy shots also contain the blood plasma protein known as human serum albumin (HSA),10 13 which is used as a stabilizer. HSA has been known to cause anaphylaxis,14described by the AAAAI as a”serious, life-threatening allergic reaction.”15

Continues here:  http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/07/allergy-shots-are-vaccines/


Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Parents and Pediatricians Need To Be Aware Of

Original here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/07/02/critical-vaccine-studies.aspx

Story at-a-glance

  • Comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations revealed a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants receive. The U.S. requires the most vaccines and has the highest infant mortality
  • Research shows the more vaccines an infant receives simultaneously, the greater their risk of being hospitalized or dying compared to those receiving fewer vaccines
  • The earlier in infancy a child is vaccinated, the greater their risk of being hospitalized or dying compared to children receiving the same vaccines at a later time

By Dr. Mercola

Vaccines: Are they safe? Are they effective? To help answer those questions is Neil Z. Miller,1 a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute.

Miller has investigated vaccines for three decades and written several books on the subject, including “Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?,” “Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners” and, most recently, “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.”

“Miller’s Review,” published in 2016, is a magnificent piece of work. In it, he reviews the concern about vaccine safety and efficacy raised by 400 peer-reviewed published studies. The book doesn’t review studies that support vaccination (almost all of which are funded by the industry and the government, by the way) as those studies are available on the CDC website.

“I got started when my own children were born … over 30 years ago … When my wife was pregnant, I felt I had to do due diligence about vaccines. I have to be honest, though. Before I even started to research vaccines, my wife and I pretty much knew intuitively that we were not going to inject our children with vaccines.

When I give lectures, I often tell people, ‘How can you expect to achieve health by injecting healthy children with toxic substances?’ I intuitively knew that … but still felt an obligation to do my due diligence and to do the research,” Miller says.

“The thing is that when I do things, I do them pretty thoroughly … I was doing my research at medical libraries. I was gathering everything and I started to collate it and coordinate it … People started to find out about the information I had organized. They were asking me about vaccines even way back then. I organized it into a booklet. I started to share that with people. Everything snowballed from that first booklet.”

Don’t Believe the ‘There’s No Evidence’ Argument

“Miller’s Review” was created in response to the common refrain that “there are no studies showing vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.”

“I hear this often,” Miller says. “Parents come to me all the time, saying, ‘My doctor told me that vaccines are safe and there are no studies that prove [otherwise].’ I’ve been doing the research for 30 years. I know of literally thousands of studies that document [concerns]. My books all document [those] studies.”

“Miller’s Review” is unique in that it summarizes 400 studies in bullet points with direct quotes from the study — with one study per page — plus citations so that you can find and read the study in full should you decide to do so. All of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

CONTINUES HERE:  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/07/02/critical-vaccine-studies.aspx