Lying Australian press and the ‘Vaxxed’ scandal

Original here: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/lying-australian-press-and-the-vaxxed-scandal/

What they’re not telling you about film producer’s visa cancellation

by Jon Rappoport

August 11, 2017

(Part 1 of this story here.)

FACT: Recently, the film Vaxxed (trailer) was shown in locations across Australia.

FACT: The film exposes horrendous and criminal scientific fraud at the US Centers for Disease Control.

FACT: Vaxxed features the 2014 public confession of William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher.

FACT: Thompson states that he and his colleagues falsified data to make it appear that the MMR vaccine has no connection to autism, when in fact the vaccine does raise the risk of autism.

FACT: The film’s producer, Polly Tommey, came to Australia with the film and spoke with audiences at showings.

FACT: The Australian government, upon her exit from the country, canceled her visa.

Why?

Here is one version of the story, from the Australian press, about Polly Tommey and a colleague, Suzanne Humphries. Herald Sun, August 7-8: “…[they] entered the country on false visas…it is believed they did not declare their intentions to work…”

It is believed? By whom? Three drunks in a bar? A ghost in an attic? A paid public-relations hustler for a vaccine manufacturer?

Well, here is the actual statement of the Australian government canceling Vaxxedproducer Polly Tommey’s visa. Here’s the actual statement, signed by an anonymous government official who scribbled his unreadable name at the bottom of a document issued on August 8th at 10:45 hours:

“Ms. Tommey stated in her subclass 651 visa application that the purpose of travel to Australia was ‘business’ however there is no further details [sic] as to the business she intended to undertake. Given this visa does permit the holder to undertake business visitor activities, I give a little weight in Ms Tommey’s favor.”

I see. So Polly Tommey DID state her intention to work. The press story was entirely misleading.

The document continues, with its real bombshell, under the section titled, “Evidence for grounds of [visa] cancellation”:

“Open source information indicates that Ms Tommey is a prominent anti-vaccination activist in the United States of America…”

“I am satisfied that if the wider Australian community became aware of Ms Tommy’s intended activities…her presence in Australia would be a risk to the good order of the Australian community.”

“’Good order’, in the context of 116(1)(e) is concerned with actions by a visa holder which have an impact on public activities…including the risk of an adverse reaction by certain members of Australian society…Therefore, it appears Ms Tommey’s presence in Australia would be a risk to the good order of the Australian community and I am satisfied that there is a ground to cancel your [Tommey’s] visa under section 116(1)(e).”

My, my.

“Certain members of Australian society” might react adversely?

Who are they? Vaccine-company CEOs? Three drunks in bar? A few snowflakes who are “triggered” by the presentation of ideas they haven’t been trained to believe?

CONTINUES HERE:  https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/lying-australian-press-and-the-vaxxed-scandal/

Advertisements

Intelligent People Who are Stupid About Vaccines?

Original here: http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/07/intelligent-people-who-are-stupid-about-vaccines/

by Marco Cáceres

“The more highly skilled and educated populations are clearly questioning vaccinations.” That statement was recently made by Lorraine Baker, MD, president of AMA Victoria—a medical trade association representing doctors in Australia’s southeastern state of Victoria.1  It is not an unusual statement to make when referring to people who veer from mainstream vaccine science orthodoxy—either a little bit or a lot.

Oddly, it is many of those within the mainstream medical and public health communities who adamantly believe they are right on the issue of vaccine science who tend to shy away from looking beyond mandatory vaccination policy and openly debating the continually evolving science.

In a study published last year in the journal EBioMedicine seeking to gauge the level of confidence in the necessity, safety and effectiveness of vaccines in 67 countries, investigators found that people holding Masters or PhD degrees were “not associated with more positive views on vaccine importance and effectiveness.” People with “no education” had more positive views about vaccination.2  

The fact that people, who are educated, trained in critical thinking, and financially solvent, are choosing to do their own research and make independent decisions about vaccination is commonly recognized in the evolving debate on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and the ethics of mandatory vaccination policies. You can see this theme in numerous media articles with headlines that read:

  • “Anti-Vaccination Parents Richer, Better Educated”3  
  • “Immunizations: More Education May Not Mean More Vaccination”4  
  • “More Educated Parents Less Likely To Vaccinate and Feed Children Sugar and GMO Foods”5  
  • “New Study Says Vaccine Deniers Are Richer, Whiter, and More Educated”6  
  • “Rich, educated and stupid parents are driving the vaccination crisis”7  
  • “Why Do Affluent, Well-Educated People Refuse Vaccines?”8  
  • “Why Some Rich, Educated Parents Avoid Vaccines”9  

Of course, this recognition by mandatory vaccination apologists of the high education level and earning power of vaccine dissenters is, curiously, often delivered  as an insult. Beneath the insult lies a subliminal question: “If you are so smart, then how can you be so stupid and disagree with us about vaccination?” It’s a great question.

However, it assumes that the science supporting  the belief that vaccines are safe and effective is rock solid—that those who disagree with the majority view about vaccination are wrong. It assumes that vaccine science “is settled” and cannot or should not be revisited or revised. Both assumptions are entirely up for debate.

Oddly, it is many of those within the mainstream medical and public health communities who adamantly believe they are right on the issue of vaccine science who tend to shy away from looking beyond mandatory vaccination policy and openly debating the continually evolving science. Their preference is to simply shut the door on any contrarian talk by anyone who challenges any piece of the mainstream vaccine paradigm. One must either accept the paradigm in its entirety or risk being labeled a heretic and a danger to the public health, deserving of being punished and banished from civilized society.

CONTINUES HERE: http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/07/intelligent-people-who-are-stupid-about-vaccines/

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/

 

Drug Deception [This also applies to vaccine Package Inserts!] – TAKE ACTION

Original here: http://www.anh-usa.org/drug-deception/

Bill Sardi has an excellent piece in lewrockwell.com that needs to be read by every consumer and lawmaker. The article explains how drug inserts deceive and thereby deny every American the right to know the truth about what they are putting in their body. Action Alert!

While drug companies are required to warn of certain side effects, there’s a whole slew of information that is withheld from consumers. Other information appears to be intentionally distorted. 

For example, if a drug helps three people out of one hundred while a placebo helps two, that might be presented as 50% better, which is very misleading. When side effects are discussed, it reverts to being one person in a hundred rather than 50% more. There is no conceivable justification for presenting benefits one way and side effects another way.

This is not the only deception in drug marketing. We reported recently that, of the top ten blockbuster drugs, the most effective ones work for only one in four patients. The performance of others is far worse. Crestor (a statin) is effective for only one in eighteen patients, and Nexium (an acid blocker) helps only one in twenty-five (actually we think it injures far more than it helps). As Sardi points out, when effectiveness is reported honestly, the chance of adverse side effects is often greater than the chance of getting any benefit from the drug.

Drug inserts also hide the fact that drugs deplete key nutrients. Acid blockers, for instance, interfere with the body’s absorption of key minerals as well as vitamin D. Cox-2 inhibitors reduce levels of vitamin B6. Antibiotics deplete magnesium, calcium, potassium, vitamin K, and more. Do federal regulators think this information is not relevant to consumers?

In addition, package inserts do not disclose that the FDA relies on industry studies to evaluate safety and effectiveness. These are often short-term studies, meaning drugs are approved without knowing the potential long-term consequences. This is why the FDA is often forced to backtrack after approval and issue black box warning or post-market safety communications.

The FDA is responsible for inserts which legally are considered part of the label. It has issued loose rules about package inserts and medication guides, but they are pretty flimsy and largely voluntary. Some medications are required to be issued with medication guides only when the agency determines that such information is necessary to avoid “serious adverse events” or that specific instructions for taking the medicine are required for safety. But as noted above, the information is often both incomplete and distorted.

The FTC is also complicit in this deception, since that agency is responsible for protecting consumers from deceptive advertising. Big drug companies seem to get a pass on their deceptive advertising. Meanwhile both agencies are relentlessly hostile toward any natural product that tries to share valid scientific information with consumers. For example, look at the crusade against POM Wonderful or cherry or walnut growers.

Action Alert! Send a message to the FDA , FTC, and Congress asking them to take action to stop deceptive drug package inserts. Please send your message immediately.

TAKE ACTION HERE: http://www.anh-usa.org/action-alert-deceptive-drug-inserts/