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/


Class and Race Profiling in the Vaccine Culture War

Original here:  http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/July-2017/class-and-race-profiling-in-vaccine-culture-war.aspx

By Barbara Loe Fisher

To activate and view hyperlinked references, please click here once and then click any superscripted number below to access a hyperlinked reference, or scroll down to the bottom of the article to view all hyperlinked references.

The Vaccine Culture War is heating up. 1 Ground zero is America, Europe and other economically developed countries, where the pharmaceutical industrial complex is raising an iron fist to protect multi-billion dollar profits by disempowering the people. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


In America, professors and doctors in academia and government are profiling parents by class and race to shame and discredit those challenging vaccine orthodoxy. Elite members of the highest paid professions in our society are using academic journals and mainstream media to openly preach fear, hate, prejudice and discrimination against people who disagree with them about vaccination.

Law Professor: Mothers of Unvaccinated Children Are Criminals

“When it comes to vaccines, rich parents get away with child neglect,” the headline in the Washington Post proclaimed on May 10, 2017. The OpEd was written by a Pace University law professor promoting criminal prosecution of mothers whose children are not vaccinated. 9 She alleged that state legislatures are accommodating “wealthy” mothers by allowing exemptions in vaccine laws, while poor pregnant women have “faced charges of criminal child abuse” and imprisonment for “failing to deliver adequate nutrition or delivering drugs via their breast milk.” She suggested that all mothers who don’t vaccinate their children are criminals and should be punished – “regardless of socioeconomic status” – because vaccination is a “collective obligation” and “the science on the efficacy and safety of vaccines is clear.”

Boston Herald: Hang People Talking Bad About Vaccines

That “punish the mothers” Op Ed was preceded by a May 8 Boston Herald editorial revealing just how far the persecution of people advocating for vaccine safety and informed consent has gone. The Boston Heraldeditorial staff called for the execution of individuals who exercise free speech about vaccine risks and failures. As in, it should be “a hanging offense” to inform parents (especially to inform parents in “immigrant communities”) that vaccines carry an unpredictable risk of injury or death and often fail to work as advertised. 10

hanging src=

Nobody should be surprised. Prejudice and discrimination against groups of people, whether because of the color of their skin, their gender, how they dress, what they eat, where they live, their religious beliefs, their cultural values and political opinions – or simply because they choose to stay healthy in a different way – is always a slippery slope once it is allowed to gain a foothold in society.

M.D. Professor Vaccine Developer Calls for “Funeral” of Vaccine Safety and Choice Advocacy

In 2011, Greg Poland, a University of Minnesota professor of medicine and vaccine developer at Mayo Clinic, 11 12 profiled parents concerned about vaccine risks in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said, “Antivaccinationists tend toward complete distrust of government and manufacturers, conspiratorial thinking, denialism, low cognitive complexity in thinking patterns, reasoning flaws, and a habit of substituting anecdotes for data.” Then he used a death image to invoke a thinly veiled threat. He asked, “What can we do to hasten the funeral of antivaccination campaigns?” 13

CDC on Mothers: Who Are They and Where Do They Live?

Trash talk has become the weapon of choice for a select group of professors and doctors using academic journals and mainstream media to humiliate and bully people who disagree with them about the science, policy, law and ethics of vaccination. In the 21st century, it has been going on in earnest since about 2004 when Centers for Disease Control (CDC) officials kicked off the Vaccine Culture War by asking this question in the Journal of Pediatrics: “Children Who Have Received No Vaccines: Who Are They and Where Do They Live?” 14

mother and child

The CDC study authors played with the words “undervaccinated” and “unvaccinated” so mothers could be profiled by class and race. They said:

“Undervaccinated children tend to be black, to have a younger mother who was not married and did not have a college degree, to live in a household near the poverty level, and to live in a central city. Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000 and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children.”

There it was, the uncomfortable truth that it is college educated, financially stable middle class mothers independently evaluating the benefits and risks of vaccination rather than blindly trusting and relying on someone else to do their thinking for them. Although the CDC’s 2004 profiling study drew lines between mothers based on race and socio-economic class, there was no discussion of the distinct possibility that those lines would disappear if all mothers were financially stable, able to access full information about vaccination, and were truly free to make voluntary vaccine decisions without being punished for the decision they make.

Your skin doesn’t have to be a certain color and you don’t have to belong to a certain socio-economic class – or have a college degree – to figure out that you are not being told the whole truth about risks that doctors insist your child must take. All you have to do is vaccinate your healthy child and witness that child have symptoms of severe vaccine reactions and either die or become a totally different child physically, mentally and emotionally.

Continues here: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/July-2017/class-and-race-profiling-in-vaccine-culture-war.aspx

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

Illogical Fear Drives the Vaccine Blame Game

Original here: http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/06/illogical-fear-drives-the-vaccine-blame-game/

by Marco Cáceres

The idea that unvaccinated people are to blame for certain infectious disease outbreaks has become a common refrain in the media—mainly due to ignorance and fears fueled by that ignorance. The idea that people who get vaccinated with ineffective or live virus vaccines are playing a role in such outbreaks is much less popular—or well known.

Why should the vaccinated fear the unvaccinated? Otherwise, what’s the point of vaccination?

Many of those, who like to point fingers at anyone concerned about the safety of vaccines seem to have this vague notion that, unlike vaccinated people, unvaccinated people carry dangerous hidden microbes that can magically appear at anytime and infect vaccinated people, thus spreading disease. In other words, that unvaccinated people are contaminated, while vaccinated people are not.

Then, there is the obvious fuzzy logic of (supposedly) protected people being infected by unprotected people. That makes no sense. Why should the vaccinated fear the unvaccinated? Otherwise, what’s the point of vaccination?

It appears that vaccines fail to prevent infection and transmission much more often than health officials are willing to admit. As Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), wrote in her 2016 referenced report on the evolution of pertussis bacteria to evade DPT and DTaP vaccines:

Both the reactive whole cell DPT vaccine licensed 1949 and the less toxic acellular DTaP vaccine licensed in 1996 do not prevent infection or transmission, and only provide two to five years of temporary immunity at best. Millions of vaccinated children and adults are silently infected with pertussis in the U.S. every year and show few or no symptoms but spread whooping cough to vaccinated and unvaccinated children—without doctors identifying or reporting cases to the government.1

In addition to inactivated and live virus vaccines sometimes failing to prevent infection and transmission of infections, live virus vaccines are additionally capable of causing both symptomatic and asymptomatic vaccine strain viral infections in vaccinated persons, who then can transmit those vaccine strain viral infections to other vaccinated and  unvaccinated persons.

Continues here:  http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/06/illogical-fear-drives-the-vaccine-blame-game/