[The following is an excerpt of an email from the producers of ‘Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe’… See http://vaxxedthemovie.com for more information.]
INTRODUCING THE NEW DOCUMENTARY INJECTING ALUMINUM
FROM THE STUDIO THAT BROUGHT YOU VAXXED
Cinema Libre Studio, the same people who have been behind the launch of Vaxxed into an international phenomena, is excited to announce our next release: Injecting Aluminum, a new documentary by French journalist Marie-Ange Poyet that investigates the history of aluminum in vaccines and its potentially devastating effects on the human body. The film is now available on DVD and streaming in the United States and Canada, as well as available for community screening events. To watch a clip from Injecting Aluminum of Dr. Chris Exley discussing the dangers of aluminum in vaccines, go here. To purchase the DVD or instant digital stream, go here. To set up a screening event for your organization or community group, go here.
Synopsis: In the early 90s, a mysterious muscular disease with symptoms that included severe muscle and joint pain began to surface among multiple patients in France. A team of doctors in Paris discovered that these patients had developed a new disease called Macrophagic Myofascitis, or MMF, which occurs when the aluminum hydroxide adjuvant from a vaccine remains embedded in the muscle tissue.
What the pharmaceutical companies don’t make public is that the aluminum adjuvant was never rigorously tested before going on the market and there are alternative, much less toxic, adjuvants available.
Featuring interviews with patients, doctors, scientists, and influential politicians, Injecting Aluminum examines aluminum’s devastating effects on the human body and calls into question the public health policies around aluminum in vaccines.
Directed by Marie-Ange Poyet, Injecting Aluminum features groundbreaking interviews with leading aluminum specialists such as “Mr. Aluminum”, Dr. Christopher Exley, biologist at the University of Stirling with a PhD in the Ecotoxicology of Aluminum, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, founder of the leading Centre for Autoimmune Diseases at the Sheba Medical Center, Dr. Romain Gherardi, the Director of the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, and Dr. Jérôme Authier, neurologist and head of the Center of Reference of neuromuscular diseases of the Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France.
Watch the trailer below! To purchase the DVD or instant digital stream, go here.
(NaturalHealth365) Republican congresswoman Virginia Foxx has introduced new legislation with an intention of forcing employers to require all workers to submit to a mandatory vaccination program or risk losing their job. House Resolution bill H.R. 1313 is called the “Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act,” and its aim is to require employees to receive genetic screenings and mandatory vaccines – whether they like it or not.
The stated reason of forced or mandatory vaccines is “wellness” and disease prevention in the workplace. If workers refuse the vaccination, they could be subject to being refused employment, losing their jobs (for existing employees), higher health insurance premiums, being ostracized within the workplace and other penalties.
Legislation opens door to mandatory vaccines without alternatives
Instead of clarifying specific vaccines or treatments to be made mandatory, the legislation has open-ended language that paves the way for employers to be able to force workers to accept whatever they deem “important to wellness” in the workplace. Those in opposition to the legislation cite fears about mandatory vaccines imposed by the government or its agencies.
The National Vaccine Information Center is urging concerned citizens to contact their own representatives and senators to express their views about H.R. 1313. When doing so, please remember to express your opinions intelligently and respectfully – you are far more likely to be heard if you are firm but polite when explaining your point of view.
Boston Herald Editor calls for execution of vaccine critics
In what may be a first for a major corporate media outlet in the US, Boston Herald Editorial Page Editor Rachelle G. Cohen in a column published last week called for the mass execution of critics of vaccine policy.
“These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense.”
Yes, you read that right, she wants people who disagree with current vaccine policy to be killed. One can imagine the outcry if a major American newspaper had called for killing of an entire group of people for having opinions that question government policy. But if the target is us, silence.
First the vaccine industry demands, and gets, no accountability for their actions. Then they demand complete control over what is injected into our children’s bodies. Then, as in California, they demand no education for children whose parents refuse to comply. Paul Offit, the vaccine industry’s preferred spokesperson, has been calling for the states to seize the children of parents who do not obey their directives, and now we are at the point where a major corporate media outlet feels comfortable calling for people like us to be killed. This isn’t trivial. This isn’t an accident,. This is just the first of what will be a growing chorus if we ignore this attack.
Please click on the Take Action link to send a message to Cohen and her boss Editor-in-Chief Joe Sciacca. For the first time ever the message area will be blank. You will simply have to fill in your own message for this person who wants to see you dead.
And please call the Boston Herald and ask to speak to Editor-in-Chief Joe Sciacca
[Comment: Those of us who demand sanity, safety, and genuine informed consent with regard to the vaccination schedule, are increasingly being vilified and threatened. The latest example comes from the Boston Herald, which, in a dumbed down, poorly written editorial on May 8th stated that asking questions about the brain-damaging ingredients in vaccines “ought to be a hanging offense.”
Shame on the Boston Herald! Shamelessly taking major ad revenue from Big Pharma while simultaneously acting as its threatening “hit man!” The only good thing about this article is all the comments it inspired, which shows how people really feel about the issue.
If you strongly believe in health freedom and informed consent, please contact the Boston Herald — see below for contact information — and demand that they issue a retraction of their support for violence against those who question the vaccine orthodoxy. ~ SVC]
If you have ever wondered what the opposite of love is, let me tell you… it’s not hate. It’s fear.12Yes, I’m aware of the slightly different and perhaps more popular take on that idea by Elie Wiesel: “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”3 I like both of them, but I lean toward the former. So what breeds fear?
What we have in the evolving, ever more contentious debate over vaccines and vaccine policy in the United States is a lot of fear, fueled by a lot of ignorance. Ignorance about vaccine history, science and the ethics of mandatory vaccination laws. That’s bad enough. But what’s worse is the product of that ignorance-bred fear.
All too often, the by-product of fear is violence or the call to violence—which is what we’re starting to see in newspaper and magazine articles written by those who oppose and want to marginalize anyone who publicly criticizes the safety of vaccine policies or advocates for the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking, which includes the right to make a voluntary decision about use of vaccines.
The piece was in response to a recent event in which Somali American families, who have the highest rate of autism in the United States, voiced their concerns about the vaccine injury they were experiencing. The Minnesota Somali community is being aggressively targeted for rounds of MMR vaccines.
Why I am filing a complaint with the FBI and the Boston Police
In conclusion, with its editorial calling for the killing of vaccine skeptics, the Boston Herald has just declared open warfare on people like myself who are informed, compassionate defenders of the lives of children. The Boston Herald has directly threatened rational vaccine skeptics and is now complicit in any acts of aggression or violence against any of us. Today, I am filing an official criminal complaint with the Boston FBI to urge them to investigate the Boston Herald staffers for their criminal intimidation and calls for mass murder, and I am going to inform the FBI that I consistently assert my right to invoke a firearm in my own self-defense against violent lunatics like the Boston Herald terrorists.
As part of this effort, I have already called the Boston police, and they told me where to officially file my complaint in my local jurisdiction so that they can open an investigation into the Boston Herald.
Two recent studies underscore concerns that science has been abandoned in order to promote Big Pharma’s pro-vaccine agenda. Action Alert!
The first study, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated children, looked at the link between preterm (i.e., premature) infants, vaccination, and the development of neurological development disorders (NDD) such as autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and learning disabilities. Preterm babies are already at increased risk for NDD, but the study found that vaccinating preterm babies—which is standard medical practice—significantly increases that risk. Preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with nearly seven-fold increased odds of NDD.
That’s not all. The second study, which surveyed more than 400 homeschooling mothers with 666 children (39% of whom were unvaccinated), found even more causes for concern. It found that vaccinated kids were, on the whole, sicker than unvaccinated kids. Vaccinated children were more than three times as likely to have allergies, six times as likely to have pneumonia, about three times as likely to have NDD, and almost twice as likely to have any chronic illness.
Additionally, the study also found that vaccinated kids were far more likely to use medications and other health services. They were more likely to have been prescribed antibiotics, allergy drugs, and fever medications; fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor in the previous year for a health issue; and been hospitalized. Readers can consult the study for the specific numbers, but we can extrapolate that the healthcare costs of vaccinated children are at least twice that of unvaccinated children—not counting the real costs of caring for children with NDD and chronically sick children for a lifetime.
Like any study, these papers have limitations. The sample size (666 children) is relatively small, and self-reporting surveys can be unreliable. These findings indicate that larger studies comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated kids should be done.
As the authors note, this is not a radical view: the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine), which advises the federal government on health issues, has recommended further study of vaccines. The Academy specifically recommends focusing on the health outcomes of both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the long-term cumulative effects of vaccines, the timing of vaccinations in relation to the child’s age, the total number of vaccines given, the total number of vaccines given at one time, and the effect of vaccine adjuvants.
It is shocking that such studies have never been done, considering that the childhood vaccination program now includes forty-eight doses of vaccines for fourteen diseases—all administered between birth and age six—compared to three vaccinations for seven diseases in the 1970s. If those who wish to force vaccinations on the US population are so confident that vaccines are safe, why not do the studies?
The likely answer: Big Pharma makes Big Money from pumping the most vulnerable among us full of vaccines.
Science is about examining all the currently available evidence dispassionately before reaching a conclusion—and that conclusion is always open to further evidence or analysis. Sadly, those claiming the mantle of “science” in the vaccine debate are actually rejecting science.
The question is not just whether we vaccinate, but rather how and when we do so. The biggest questions concern the use of adjuvants such as aluminum, which we are injecting right into our bodies where the liver cannot protect us; the use of preservatives; and the appropriateness of the schedule of shots. We need an honest, fact-based discussion of these topics.
Action Alert!Write to the FDA and tell them that they must study the long term effects of vaccination. Please send your message immediately.
Editor’s note (5/9/2017): Within hours of publishing this article, we learned of reports that the Journal of Translational Science has retracted these studies. We will keep you updated as we work to confirm these reports and discern the reason for the retraction. It wouldn’t surprise us if special interests are behind this, since industry has used its clout to exert pressure on scientific journals in the past.