More and more parents around the globe are choosing to opt out of vaccinating themselves and their children, and the “pro-vaccine” community is not happy, criticizing parents for their decision to not vaccinate. At the end of the day it’s not really about “pro-vaccination” or “anti-vaccination,” however; it’s not about pointing fingers or pitting one against the other, it’s simply about looking at all of the information from a neutral standpoint. It’s about asking questions and communicating so people can make the best possible decisions for themselves and their children. Parents love their kids and the vaccine “controversy” has made it difficult for many parents to know what to do.
It’s not just parents, it’s doctors too.
A new study published in the journal EbioMedicine outlines this point, stating in the introduction:
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services (Group, 2014,Larson et al., 2014, Dubé et al., 2013). VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.
The study concludes with the observation that “after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some vaccine hesitancy exists among French GPs, whose recommendation behaviours depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them.”
As a result, the study explains, “16% to 43% of GPs sometimes or never recommended at least one specific vaccine to their target patients.”
The percentages differ because the study asks about specific vaccines, and whether they are recommended never, sometimes, often, or always. You can refer to the study for more details.
The authors’ overall findings “suggest that VH [vaccine hesitancy] is prevalent among French GPs. It may make them ill at ease in addressing their patients’ concerns about vaccination, which in turn might reinforce patients’ VH.”
Again, this isn’t a secret. Another study (out of many, cited in the France publication) outlines how “more research is needed to understand why some health professionals, trained in medical sciences, still have doubts regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.”
Parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are not just doing it based on belief, they are doing it based on science, some of which will be presented in this article, and all of which does not get the mainstream representation that “pro-vaccine” science does. Parents who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children are clearly intelligent, and should not be ridiculed for their concern. On the other hand, parents who are choosing to vaccinate their children are also intelligent. Those who choose to vaccinate should not be made out to be the ones who have made the “right” decision when there is evidence on both sides of the coin that clearly shows parents who are not vaccinating their children could also be making the “right” decision.
I’d also like to state that there are multiple vaccines. Some may be safe, some may not be. There are also criticisms of all the studies mentioned, as well as bias. That being said, all of the studies in this article, with the exception of one or two, have been published in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals. That should not take away from the important work of many independent scientists from all over the world.
This article will present a few of the many reasons why parents are choosing to not vaccine their children.
# 1 The Vaccine/Autism Controversy
The idea that vaccines might be linked to autism can be triggering for a lot of people. Some people won’t even entertain the idea, or look at information that suggests there could be a link, but the truth is, there are plenty of studies showing one. At the same time, there are plenty of studies that stress there is no link, and that vaccines are not in any way linked to autism. I am referring to both peer-reviewed publications and important independent research that’s not sponsored by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.
STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES ARE NOT LINKED TO AUTISM
Starting off with some of the most recent data available, a study published in the journal Vaccine determined that:
- There was no relationship between vaccination and autism
- There was no relationship between vaccination and ASD (autism spectrum disorder)
- There was no relationship between the MMR vaccination and autism/ASD
- There was no relationship between autism/ASD and thimerosal
- There was no relationship between austism/ASD and mercury (Hg)
The study concluded that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. It was a meta-analysis done by researchers at the University of Sydney, in Australia. It examined ten studies involving more than one million children affirming that vaccines don’t cause autism.
In March 2013, the Journal of Paediatrics published a study titled “Increasing exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides (antigens) in Vaccines is Not Associated with Risk of Autism.” The study found that vaccines given during the first couple of years of life are not related to the risk of developing an ASD diagnosis. They analyzed data from a case-control study conducted in three managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex and MCO.
Another study published in the Journal of Paediatrics titled “Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association” concluded that, with the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via the DTP/DT vaccines causes any neurodevelopment disorders.
A report published in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences emphasized how there is an “overwhelming” majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) and autism. It also determined that there was no convincing evidence that thimerosal has any role in autism.
A study published straight from the CDC and National Immunization program determined that “the evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccines do not cause autism or any type of autism spectrum disorder.”
The list literally goes on and on here. Study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claim no link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism.
This is why many people reject the notion that vaccines could be linked to autism. But that rejection is usually the result of simply not being exposed to the science on the opposing side.
STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES COULD BE LINKED TO AUTISM
As I did in the previous section, I will begin with a couple of more recent studies. If vaccines aren’t linked to autism, why are scientists/researchers emphasizing that they could be, and showing that there is a possible link? These studies are contradictory to the ones above, yet conducted by people with the same qualifications and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Let’s take a look.
A study published in the Journal of Toxicology by scientists from the University of British Colombia, the University of Louisiana, and MIT outlines how up until the 1820s — when the industrial extraction of aluminum made it possible to bring it into our food, manufacturing, medicines, and more — aluminum was almost completely absent from the biosphere. The paper outlines how aluminum is harmful to the central nervous system (CNS), “acting in a number of deleterious ways and across multiple levels to induce biosemiotic entropy.”
Biosemiotic entropy refers to the corruption of biological messages from genetics, epigenetics, proteins, cells, tissues and organs. The paper points out how CNS problems are correlated with diseases like autism spectrum disorder, and makes a strong argument that aluminum adjuvants in the form of pediatric vaccines could be contributing to increased rates of autism spectrum disorders (page 8).
One of the authors of this paper, Dr. Chris Shaw, a neurologist at the University of British Columbia, explains the danger of putting aluminum in vaccines. When aluminum comes from a vaccine, it stays in the body, and studies have shown that the adjuvants do not stay localized but rather travel to the brain, where they can be detected up to a year after the injection.
A study published in the journal Current Medical Chemistry in 2011 stated:
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.
The paper points out how aluminum could be a culprit in the development of a wide body of neurodegenerative disease, one of them being autism.
Here is a statement I took from the paper. For the specific citations you can look at the actual paper:
The issue of vaccine safety thus becomes even more pertinent given that, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate clinical studies have been conducted to establish the safety of concomitant administration of two experimentally-established neurotoxins, aluminum and mercury, the latter in the form of ethyl mercury (thimerosal) in infants and children. Since these molecules negatively affect many of the same biochemical processes and enzymes implicated in the etiology of autism, the potential for a synergistic toxic action is plausible [31, 47]. Additionally, for the purpose of evaluating safety and efficacy, vaccine clinical trials often use an aluminium-containing placebo, either containing the same or greater amount of aluminum as the test vaccine [48-51]. Without exception, these trials report a comparable rate of adverse reactions between the placebo and the vaccine group (for example, 63.7% vs 65.3% of systemic events and 1.7% vs 1.8% of serious adverse events respectively ).
The paper also points to the fact that brain inflammatory responses have long been recognized as a factor in etiology of many neurodegenerative diseases like autism, and provides a host of citations for that as well.
Shaw and Tomljenovic also published a paper in 2011 that was approved for publication in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry that stated:
We show that Al-adjuvanted vaccines may be a significant etiological factor in the rising prevalence of ASD. According to the FDA, vaccines represent a special category of drugs as they are generally given to healthy individuals. Further according to the FDA, “this places significant emphasis on their vaccine safety.” While the FDA does set an upper limit for Aluminum in vaccines at no more that 850/mcg/dose, it is important to note that this amount was selected empirically from data showing that Aluminum in such amounts enhanced the antigenicity of the vaccine, rather than from existing safety. Given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude paediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopment outcomes, including those associated with autism.
Shaw and Seneff also recently published a paper in the journal Immunome Research outlining a lot of evidence pointing to the dangers regarding aluminum in vaccines.
A paper published in the peer reviewed International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health titled “Thimerosal Exposure and the Role of Sulfation Chemistry and Thiol Availability in Autism” concluded:
With the rate of children diagnosed with an ASD in the US now exceeding 1 in 50 children and the rate of children with neurodevelopment/behavioural disorders in the US now exceeding 1 in 6 children, and the preceding evidence showing that there is vulnerability to ™ that would not be known without extensive testing, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that ™ should be removed from all vaccines.
A paper published in the journal Entropy draws similar conclusions:
Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.
A paper published in the Journal of Toxicology titled “B-Lymphocytes from a population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal” clearly demonstrates that certain individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to mitochondrial specific toxins like thimerosal. What does this mean? It means that people with a slight DNA difference are at risk for developing neurodegenerative diseases via vaccination. They determined that ASD patients have a heightened sensitivity to thimerosal which would restrict cell proliferation that is typically found after vaccination.
A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition determined that an increased vulnerability to oxidative stress and decreased capacity for methylation may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism. It’s well known that viral infections cause increased oxidative stress. Research suggests that metals, including those found in many vaccines, are directly involved in increasing oxidative stress.
Oxidative stress, brain inflammation, and microgliosis have been heavily documented in association with toxic exposures, including various heavy metals.
A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences determined that the autoimmunity to the central nervous system may play a causal role in autism. Researchers discovered that because many autistic children harbour elevated levels of measles antibodies, they should conduct a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies. They used serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 controlled children. Their analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. The study concludes that the autistic children had an inappropriate or abnormal antibody response to MMR, and determined that autism could be the result of an atypical measles infection that produces neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant of MV, or “it could be the MMR vaccine.”
A study published in the International Journal of Toxicology outlines the biological plausibility of mercury’s role in neurodevelopmental disorders. It suggests that early mercury exposure could indeed increase the risk of autism.
“To sum up, there has been a great deal of information from different studies that seems to indicate that repetitive mercury exposure during pregnancy, through thimerosal, dental amalgam, and fish consumption, and after birth, through thimerosal-containing vaccinations and pollution, in genetically susceptible individuals is one potential factor in autism.” (source)
A study conducted by the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Arkansas determined that thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with the depletion of intracellular glutathione (GSH) in both cell lines. The study outlines how many vaccines have been neurotoxic, especially to the developing brain. Depletion of GSH is commonly associated with autism. Although thimerosal has been removed from most children’s vaccines, it is still present in flu vaccines given to pregnant women, the elderly, and children in developing countries.
According to Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry, is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, and worked on the above studies with Chris Shaw:
The assertion that vaccine-autism concerns rest merely on spurious claims made by uneducated parents is in stark contrast with a large body of scientific literature. As mentioned previously, extensive research data has underscored the tight connection between development of the immune system and that of the CNS, and thus the plausibility that disruption of critical events in immune development may play a role in neurobehavioral disorders including those of the autism spectrum. Indeed, early-life immune challenges in critical windows of developmental vulnerability have been shown to produce long-lasting, highly abnormal cognitive and behavioral responses, including increased fear and anxiety, impaired social interactions, deficits in object recognition memory and sensorimotor gating deficits. These symptoms are highly characteristic of autism. It is thus indeed naive to assume that a manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during sensitive periods of early development will not result in adverse neurological outcomes. Consistent with this, Shoenfeld and Cohen (world’s leading experts in autoimmune diseases) noted that, ‘‘vaccines have a predilection to affect the nervous system.’’ Also, please refer to a number of publications we and others have authored on this subject (link between immune challenges and adverse neurological outcomes.)
For more studies, you can refer to these to start off your research.
- Gallagher, C.M. and Goodman, M.S. (2010) Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health A 73, 1665-77.
- Gallagher, C.M. and Goodman, M.S. (2008) Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years. Tox Env Chem. 90, 997-1008.
- Ratajczak, H.V. (2011) Theoretical aspects of autism: causes–a review. J Immunotoxicol 8, 68-79.
The list literally goes on and on. Study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claims a possible link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism.
So, for the “pro-vaccine” community to say there is no link, and can’t be a link, and that vaccines could not be one out of several possible causes contributing to the development of autism, seems a little bit ridiculous, don’t you think?
Concluding Statement About the Vaccine/Autism Controversy
As you can see above, there are many peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals claiming no link. On the other hand, we have the same type of research, also in abundance, that claims there could be a link, and that it is probable — and through science they’ve shown how.
What are parents who do their research supposed to think when they come across this information? Why is the “pro vac side” so adamant in saying that there are no scientific peer-reviewed published studies that posit a potential link to autism when there are, in fact, many?
So, this is one reason why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. To say there is absolutely no way a vaccine can be a contributing factor in causing autism is completely false and dangerous.
#2 Scientific/Industry Fraud
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (source)
When a parent points to the idea that scientific and industry fraud contributed to their decision to not vaccine their child, most people are quick to call them conspiracy theorists or outright fools, but this couldn’t be further from the truth, and those types of responses often come from those who have failed to do any investigation for themselves.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
Here is why parents are pointing to scientific/industry fraud when it comes to making their decision, and to be honest, with this type of information out in the public domain, who can really blame them?
It’s hard to know where to start when there are so many examples.
In the past few years, more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of The Lancet — considered one of the most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false:
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness
Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, is also a medical investigator. A few years ago she uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and this practice continues to this day. The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations. The JCVI made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates.”
The transcripts of the JCBI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufactures on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website.
A Congressional Record from May 1, 2003 shows that there could be, and that many scientists themselves believe there to be, a high risk of autism as a result of Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Again, this is a Congressional Report, not a pseudoscientific and unsourced article on the web, and parents who choose not to ignore it should not be bashed by others, don’t you think? The report even shows information from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) that postulates the vaccine-autism connection.
Insider whistleblowers with verified credentials have also played a role in this debate. Take Robert F. Kennedy Jr, for example. He repeatedly stated that there is a “cover up” of data that clearly shows a definitive link between vaccines and autism. He also revealed that he has met with some of these people, that they know what they are doing, and that they are terrified of the public ever finding out. Think about that for a second: We have the former president’s nephew, who circulates in elitist circles and obviously connected to people who’ve held powerful positions, making these comments. These are concerning comments, and wanting to learn more isn’t a bad thing. One of the biggest concerns for parents relates to an article he authored in June 2005 for Rolling Stone and Salon.com alleging a government conspiracy to cover up connections between vaccines and autism. Both of the articles were retracted. There are many speeches he made, and compelling statements that are available in the form of articles and YouTube videos, if you are interested in seeing more.
Although a whistleblower is not science, such testimony does add weight to the science that is already there.
We also have statements from scientists and doctors like the one below that also seem to be contributing to a lack of trust for vaccine manufacturers and the studies they sponsor. Most of the published scientific studies that say there is no need to worry about vaccines and that there is no autism link are actually sponsored by the vaccine manufactures themselves.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
– Dr. Marcia Angell, physician, author, former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine
A more recent example (and perhaps one of the biggest) is longtime CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson, who has authored and co-authored dozens of studies, many of which are commonly cited by the “pro-vaccine” movement, including a couple referenced above. Yet, just a few months ago, he had this to say: “The CDC has put the research 10 years behind, because the CDC has not been transparent. We’ve missed 10 years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. Really what we need is for congress to come in and say, give us the data.”
He pointed to a specific study that he co-authored, a 2004 CDC study commonly cited and used by the scientific community, among others, that determined: “The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.”
He also mentioned another study published in the Journal of Pediatrics that concluded: “The evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.”
This is what he had to say about that study: “It’s the lowest point in my career that I went along with that paper and uh, I went along with this, we didn’t report significant findings. I’m completely ashamed of what I did, I have great shame now that I was complicit and went along with this, I have been a part of the problem.”
This story was becoming so big across alternative news networks, like CE, that mainstream media outlets like CNN picked up on it as quick as they could and tried to spin the story:
“I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article,” Thompson said in a statement sent to CNN by his lawyer. “I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.”
That being said, he also said in an official statement from his lawyers on August 27th 2014: “I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.”
This brings me to my next point. With regards to the data omitted above, Dr. Thompson made the call to scientist Dr. Brian Hooker, who published the real findings, which found that there was a 340% increased chance of autism in African American boys receiving the MMR vaccine on time. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration and was retracted a couple of days later. This is why I am linking it here and not with the studies above.
That being said, Dr. Hooker has published a number of peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in reputable scientific journals, the journal Translational Neurodegeneration being one, where his study provided epidemiological evidence supporting an association between increasing organic-Hg exposure from Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and the risk of an ASD diagnosis. Furthermore, an abstract obtained by Hooker shows “increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in the first month life.”
Here is a video of a ‘pro-vaccine’ Congressman telling us about this case.
Concluding Comments About Scientific/Industry Fraud
As you can see, parents who cite scientific/industry fraud as one of the reasons for not vaccinating their child are right to be concerned. Most vaccine supporters are completely unaware of this information, which is understandable, as it’s not presented in the mainstream.
#3 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
During the mid-1970s, there was an increased focus on personal health, and more people became concerned about vaccine safety. Several lawsuits were filed against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers by people who believed they had been injured by vaccines, and the evidence presented in court was good enough to win.
As a result, this act was developed to protect any pharmaceutical company, doctor, or medical association from any “fault.” It’s not about pointing fingers, as many people really do believe that every vaccine is safe. Instead of suing the vaccine manufacturer directly, parents must ask the government to admit that the vaccine was responsible for their child’s injury, and ask for compensation for the child’s care.
Pharmaceutical companies are exempt from participating in these proceedings, and taxpayers are the ones who pay for all the vaccine related damages, of which there have been many. Below is a great video explaining the process in detail.
This is clearly another contributing factor as to why parents are not vaccinating their children. Many grey areas and shady practices are involved with the legal process when it comes to vaccine induced injury. The children who have been injured by vaccines alone is another cause for concern, which brings me to my next point.
#4 The Ineffectiveness of Some Vaccines and Vaccine Injury
Again, there are dozens upon dozens of vaccines that are out there. Some might be completely safe, harmless, and necessary, and some might not be.
Let’s take a look at Gardasil. There have been several documented cases of injury as a result of the Gardasil vaccine. According to Dr. Chris Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia in the Department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences, “It is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are over-hyped, and the dangers are underestimated.”
Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper. She helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s very unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved.
“They created a huge amount of fear in mothers, and appealed to mothers’ sense of duty to get them to get their daughters vaccinated.”
– Dr. Diane Harper (source)
If we are talking about recent research regarding the HPV vaccine, a new review was just published in the journal Autoimmunity Reviews titled “On the relationship between human papilloma virus vaccine and autoimmune disease.”
The authors of this study came to the same conclusion as Dr. Harper, writing, “The decision to vaccinate with HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease in 95% of the infections; and the other 5% are detectable and treatable in the precancerous stage.”
They also listed several conditions in which HPV vaccination is most likely the culprit, having been linked to a variety of autoimmune diseases that include: Multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, primary ovarian failure, and more. Gardasil has also been linked to a number of deaths.
You can access more information regarding that vaccine in a recent article I wrote:
Are you going to tell a parent who cites this information as part of the reason they choose not to get this vaccine that they don’t know what they are talking about?
For another example of the literature that’s out there regarding the flu vaccine, a report published in the British Medical Journal shows how “marketing influenza vaccines thus involves marketing influenza as a threat of great proportions.” The paper outlines this theme throughout. It also shows how recorded deaths from influenza declined sharply over the middle of the 20th century, and that this occurred before the great expansion of mass vaccination campaigns at the start of the 21st century.
Are vaccine manufactures marketing vaccines in a completely wrong way?
Another marketing strategy used to push the flu vaccine is the claim by vaccine manufactures that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The paper outlines how even the ideal influenza vaccine can only deal with a small part of the “flu” because most “flus” appear to have nothing to do with influenza.
Furthermore, a study published in the Journal of Paediatrics found that 85% of newborn infants experienced abnormal elevations of CRP when given multiple vaccines and up to 70% of those given a single vaccine. CRP is a protein found in the blood, and a rise in this protein is a response to inflammation. Overall, 16% of infants were reported to experience vaccine-associated cardiorespiratory events within 48 hours of immunization. (29)
A great example is the fact that poorly tested vaccines have been administered to young children, which explains why there have been large numbers of major adverse reactions from seasonal influenza vaccines. As a result, they were suspended for use in children under five years of age in Australia. (30)
In a series of rapid responses addressing this issue, published in the British Medical Journal and titled “Adverse events following influenza vaccination in Australia-should we be surprised?,” Peter Collignon, the Director of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology at Australian National University, concluded: “There is poor evidence on how well influenza vaccines prevent any influenza complications in children  and other age groups. There is good evidence that influenza vaccines study reports cherry pick results and achieve spurious notoriety. Exposing human beings to uncertain effects is a risky business.”
The list goes on and on, and I could cite hundreds of studies both “for” and “against.”
Instances like children in Europe developing narcolepsy after the H1N1 pandemrix vaccine aren’t helping matters. There are so many examples, and no doubt these examples contribute largely to the decisions parents are making.
# 5 Vaccine Ingredients
This topic was touched upon in the studies presented in the first point. There are numerous studies suggesting that current vaccine ingredients are not a cause for concern. At the same time, there are many that point out they should be a cause for concern.
Common vaccine ingredients include:
- Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
- Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
- Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
- Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
- Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
- Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria
With regards to aluminum, studies (6)(7)(8)(9) are a good place to start if you want to examine the dangers of aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.
A recent meta-analysis published in the journal Bio Med Research International found:
The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies.
Dr. Theresa Deisher, a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University, the first person to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells, determined that residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccines may be one of the causes of autism in children through vaccination. (31)
Again, significant association between exposure to thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children including autism, speech disorders, mental retardation, thinking abnormalities and personality disorders has been reported in a number of studies. Many have been cited in this article, here are a couple more:
Geier, D.A. and Geier, M.R. (2006) A meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 27, 401-13. 
Young, H.A., Geier, D.A. and Geier, M.R. (2008) Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. J Neurol Sci 271, 110-8.
There is abundant evidence for both viewpoints and to support either choice a parent decides to make. There is no reason to ridicule one side and praise the other when both are simply doing what they feel is best.
No Safety Assessments Exist (Toxicity Studies) for Vaccine Ingredients
This is another very important point. Aluminum has been being added to vaccines for approximately 90 years, and one disturbing fact that many people still don’t know is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers themselves have not conducted or included appropriate toxicity studies/testing proving the safety of aluminum, or any other ingredients, for that matter. These ingredients have been put into vaccines based on the assumption that they are safe. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s kind of disturbing, isn’t it?
So because vaccines have been viewed as non-toxic substances, the FDA and vaccine manufactures have not conducted appropriate toxicity studies to prove the safety of vaccine ingredients – more specifically, aluminum.
“I have a document from 2002 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)… discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients… and testing specifically in animal models.
Back then, the FDA stated that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe. When I read that I was kind of pulling my hairs out [thinking] ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ “
– Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic, PhD., a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia, where she works in neurosciences and the Department of Medicine (source)
She also has documents which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. They show that health authorities and vaccine manufacturers made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates, which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity.’ ”
If we take a look at the FDA’s website/guidelines, it’s not like this is a secret. The statement above (from Lucija) comes from their 2002 guidelines, which is a fairly recent document, but more than 10 years later, despite all of the studies demonstrating clear cause for concern, very little has changed.
“Until recently, few licensed vaccines have been tested for developmental toxicity in animals prior to their use in humans.” (source)
“Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children.”
– José G. Dórea, professor at the University of Brasillia’s Department of Nutritional Sciences (source)
The use of this adjuvant has been connected to all kinds of diseases, from autism to brain disease to Alzheimer’s and much more.
“Experimental research . . . clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.”
– Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic (source)
Numerous studies have shown aluminum’s potential to induce toxic effects, and this is clearly established in medical literature, and has been for a long time.
If significant aluminum load exceeds the body’s capacity to get rid of it, it is deposited into various tissues that include bone, brain, liver, heart, spleen, and muscle. Aluminum is found in cigarettes, cosmetics, food, medicines (aspirin), and much much more. It’s in our environment, and we are surrounded by it. This is concerning, because aluminum was not really around until the industrial revolution. Today, it shows up in so many products. And we know, from the work of Richard Flarend, that aluminum is commonly absorbed into the body, into areas it shouldn’t be, and has been found in various urine samples from multiple studies examining this topic — and that’s not just for aluminum in vaccines.
“We increasingly have this compound that was not part of any biochemical process on Earth, that can now only go and do havoc, which is exactly what it does. It causes all kinds of unusual biochemical reactions.”
– Dr. Chris Shaw, a Neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia
Here is a great video by Dr. Christopher Exley, a professor in bioinorganic chemistry at Keele University and an honorary professor at UHI Millennium Institute. He is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.
Related CE Article:
# 6 Vaccine Safety Evidence Is Not Rock Solid. One Size Does Not Fit All.
All drugs are associated with some risks and adverse reactions. The “greater good” argument is concerning because causes of permanent neurodevelopmental disabilities and even deaths following vaccination in children (with genetic and other susceptibilities) have been firmly established in scientific literature. (7)(8)
One important point parents often raise is the fact that clinical trials that could address vaccine safety concerns have not been conducted. No studies have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals that examine the health outcomes of vaccinated populations versus unvaccinated populations. This lack can be attributed to the assumption that vaccines are safe, an assumption that clearly contradicts a lot of scientific data. (32)
Even strong supporters of vaccinations within the scientific community have questioned the scientific legitimacy of “one size fits all” vaccination practices.
For example, Gregory Poland, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Vaccine and co-author of “The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists” (33), along with fellow researchers, asks whether, “with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,” it is time to consider how “new genetic and molecular biology information [might] inform vaccinology practices of the future?” They concluded that the “one-size fits all” approach for all vaccines and all persons should be abandoned.
This assumption is also as a result of vaccine trials commonly excluding vulnerable individuals who might be more susceptible to injury via vaccine. As a result, adverse reactions that occur as a result of vaccinations might be very underestimated.
I also wanted to point out that data also demonstrates that over-stimulating the host’s immune system by repeated immunization with immune antigens and/or adjuvants inevitably leads to autoimmunity, even in genetically non-susceptible animals. (34)(35)
Here is a related video explaining why vaccines should not be considered completely safe.
Can you really blame parents, with all of this information out there?
The “pro-vaccination” side seems to be all that is offered in the media, at the doctor’s office, in schools, and in most government sponsored studies. I wrote this article t o help shed light on why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children, as their side of the story is so rarely discussed. There are countless documents and peer-reviewed scientific studies showing adverse events after vaccination and the dangers associated with vaccinations. It appears that the risks associated with them are far greater than what we are being told, and an unnecessary amount of pressure is placed on parents to vaccinate their children.
Some people might ask, “What about the polio vaccine?” and completely ignore all of the relevant information in this article. They might not know that in 1977 Dr. Jonas Salk, the inventor of the Salk polio vaccine, testified with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the U.S. since 1970 were the by-product of the polio vaccine. The Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) is the only known cause of polio in the U.S. today. I am not sourcing this particular fact because I want to encourage others to go out and look for themselves. That is the whole point of this article.
After reading this, it’s hard to imagine why a parent would ever ridiculed for choosing not to vaccinate their child. It’s also not even a fraction of the amount of information out there that explores history, more science, fraud, and more. I cannot do your research for you, so I hope I’ve inspired you to do some of your own.
Next time you come across a parent who has chosen not to vaccinate their baby, try not to judge; instead, try to understand where they are coming from.
(32) Tomljenovic, L. and Shaw, C.A. (2011) One-size fits all? Vaccine. 2012; 30(12):2040.9
Brain Imaging Shows Autistic Brains Contain HIGH Amounts of Aluminum
- The Facts:
A study published early in 2018 identified very high amounts of aluminum lodged in the brains of multiple autistic people.
- Reflect On:
We know little about where the heavy metals used as adjuvants in vaccines and where they end up in the body. We now know that injected aluminum doesn't exit the body like aluminum intake from other sources. When injected, it ends up in the brain
A study published earlier in 2018 should have made headlines everywhere, as it discovered historically high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains. The study was conducted by some of the worlds leading scientists in the field.
Five people were used in the study, four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.
Of course, this caused people to downplay the study, citing a low sample group, but that’s not entirely a valid argument given the reason why this study was conducted. As cited in the study above, recent studies on animals, published within the past few years, have supported a strong connection between aluminum, and aluminum adjuvants used in human vaccinations, and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.)
Studies have also shown that injected aluminum does not exit the body, and can be detected inside the brain even a year after injection. That being said, when we take aluminum in from sources such as food, the body does a great job of getting it out, but there is a threshold. It’s important to acknowledge that the aluminum found in the brain, could be due to the presence of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. This latest study also identified the location of aluminum in these tissues, and where they end up. This particular study was done on humans, which builds upon, and still supports, the findings of the animal studies.
This is also important because the majority of studies that previously examined human exposure to aluminum have only used hair, blood and urine samples. The study also makes a clear statement regarding vaccines, stating that “Paediatric vaccines that include an aluminum adjuvant are an indirect measure of infant exposure to aluminum and their burgeoning use has been directly correlated with increasing prevalence of ASD.”
Aluminum, in this case, was found in all four lobes of the brain.
The aluminum content of brain tissues from donors with a diagnosis of ASD was extremely high (Table 1). While there was significant inter-tissue, inter-lobe and inter-subject variability the mean aluminium content for each lobe across all 5 individuals was towards the higher end of all previous (historical) measurements of brain aluminium content, including iatrogenic disorders such as dialysisencephalopathy, , , , , . All 4 male donors had significantly higher concentrations of brain aluminum than the single female donor. We recorded some of the highest values for brain aluminum content ever measured in healthy or diseased tissues in these male ASD donors
We Know, And Have Known, Aluminum Is Not Safe, Yet We Ignore It
When we talk about the ‘safe’ amount of aluminum here, there is no such thing. Aluminum is extremely toxic to any biological process, it’s not meant for us which is why it stayed deep within the Earth until we took it out. It has no place within us, and that’s simply due to the fact that it causes nothing but havoc. This makes it odd that we would put them in vaccinations despite the fact that for 100 years there has been no appropriate safety testing.
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.
The quote above comes from a study published in 2011, it’s 2018 now and we’ve come along way in our understanding. We are starting to see even more research confirming the statement above.
Almost every study you read regarding previous studies on aluminum adjuvants within vaccines emphasized how the nature of its bioaccumulation is unknown, and a serious matter. We now know that it goes throughout the body, into distant organs eventually ends up in the brain.
Another fairly recent study from 2015 points out:
Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph notes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.(source)
The pictures below come from the recent 2018 study and show ‘bright spots’ that indicate heavy metals in the brain.
The more recent study discussed in this article is adding to that evidence. Below you can watch one of the most recent interviews with Dr. Eric Exly, one of the world’s foremost leading authors on the subject, and one of the authors of this most recent study. He is a Biologist (University of Stirling) with a Ph.D. in the ecotoxicology of aluminum. You can read more about his background here.
People need to understand that despite media bullying, it’s ok to question vaccine safety, and there is plenty of reason to. There are many concerns, and heavy metals are one of them. In fact, the persistence and abundant presence of heavy metals in our environment, foods and medications is a concern, one that has been the clear cause for a variety of health ailments, yet it’s one that’s hardly addressed by the medical industry.
You can detox from this with items such as Spirulina, and waters that contain a high Silica content. There are studies that show various methods of detoxing can be used to get this lodged aluminum, or some of it, out of your body, organs and brain. This is where educating yourself regarding the medicinal value of food and nutrition is a key Perhaps this can be a motivation to better your diet, especially if you have, are someone, or know someone with an ASD diagnosis.
The CDC’s Influenza Math Doesn’t Add Up: Exaggerating the Death Toll to Sell Flu Shots
- The Facts:
The flu shot is irresponsibly marketed, unnecessary and in some cases dangerous. This perspective comes from many people and health professionals, yet it's a narrative that's constantly ignored.
- Reflect On:
Is a flu shot really necessary? Are our immune systems suffering from a lack of real immunity? Are vaccines doing more harm than good?
Every year at about this time, public health officials and their media megaphones start up the drumbeat to encourage everyone (including half-year-old infants, pregnant women and the invalid elderly) to get a flu shot. Never mind that more often than not the vaccines don’t work, and sometimes even increase the risk of getting sick.
To buttress their alarmist message for 2018-2019, representatives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other health agencies held a press conference and issued a press release on September 27, citing a particularly “record-breaking” (though unsubstantiated) 80,000 flu deaths last year. Having “medical experts and public health authorities publicly…state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)” is part and parcel of the CDC’s documented playbook for “fostering public interest and high…demand” for flu shots. CDC’s media relations experts frankly admit that “framing” the current flu season as “more severe than last or past years” or more “deadly” is a highly effective strategy for garnering strong interest and attention from both the media and the public.
If accurate, 80,000 deaths would represent an enormous (and mystifying) one-year jump—tens of thousands more flu deaths compared to the already inflated numbers presented for 2016 (and every prior year).
Peter Doshi (associate editor at The BMJ and a MIT graduate) has criticized the CDC’s “aggressive” promotion of flu shots, noting that although the annual public health campaigns deliver a “who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message,” the “rhetoric of science” trotted out each year by public health officials has a “shaky scientific basis.” Viewed within the context of Doshi’s remarks, the CDC’s high-flying flu numbers for 2017-2018 raise a number of questions. If accurate, 80,000 deaths would represent an enormous (and mystifying) one-year jump—tens of thousands more flu deaths compared to the already inflated numbers presented for 2016 (and every prior year). Moreover, assuming a roughly six-month season for peak flu activity, the 80,000 figure would translate to an average of over 13,300 deaths per month—something that no newspaper last year came close to reporting.
The CDC’s statistics are impervious to independent verification because they remain, thus far, unpublished—despite the agency’s pledge on its website to base its public health pronouncements on high-quality data derived openly and objectively. Could the CDC’s disappointment with influenza vaccination coverage—which lags far behind the agency’s target of 80%—have anything to do with the opacity of the flu data being used to peddle the unpopular and ineffective vaccines?
There are a variety of reasons to question the precision with which the CDC likes to imbue its flu statistics. First, although the CDC states that it conducts influenza mortality surveillance with its partner agencies, there is no actual requirement for U.S. states to report adult flu deaths to the CDC. (In public health parlance, adult influenza deaths are not “reportable” or “nationally notifiable.”) In fact, the only “flu-associated deaths” that the CDC requires states and other jurisdictions to report are deaths in children—180 last year.
…when actual death certificates are tallied, influenza deaths on average are little more than 1,000 yearly.
How did the CDC reach its as-yet-unpublished conclusion—widely shared with the media—that 79,820 American adults in addition to 180 children died from the flu in 2017-2018? The agency states that it relies on death certificate data. However, members of the Cochrane research community have observed that “when actual death certificates are tallied, influenza deaths on average are little more than 1,000 yearly.”
Other knowledgeable individuals have also noted that the death records system in the U.S. is subjective, incomplete and politicized, and have suggested that citizens should adopt a “healthy skepticism about even the most accepted, mainstream, nationally reported CDC or other ‘scientific’ statistics.” This skepticism may be especially warranted for the influenza stats, which are so inextricably intertwined with the CDC’s vaccination agenda that the statistical techniquesand assumptions that the agency uses focus specifically on “project[ing] the burden of influenza that would have occurred in the absence of vaccination.”
skepticism may be especially warranted for the influenza stats, which are so inetricably intertwined with the CDC’s vaccination agenda.
Notwithstanding its incessant use of influenza statistics to justify its flu vaccine policies, the CDC tries to have it both ways, cautioning that because “influenza activity reporting…is voluntary,” influenza surveillance in the U.S. “cannot be used to ascertain how many people have become ill with influenza during the influenza season.” A larger problem is that the vital statistics that form the basis of the CDC’s surveillance data conflate deaths from pneumonia and influenza (P&I). The CDC concedes that this conflation complicates the challenge of specifically estimating flu deaths:
The system “tracks the proportion of death certificates processed that list pneumonia or influenza as the underlying or contributing cause of death. This system…does not provide an exact number of how many people died from flu” [emphasis added].
Curiously, the CDC presented its cause-of-death data slightly differently prior to 2015. Through 2014, the agency’s annual National Vital Statistics Reports included tables showing influenza deaths and pneumonia deaths as separate line items. Those reports made it abundantly clear that pneumonia deaths (at least as transmitted by death certificates) consistently and dramatically outstripped influenza deaths. The table below illustrates this pattern for 2012-2014.
Starting in 2015, the annual vital statistics reports began displaying P&I together and eliminated the distinct line items. At present, only one tool remains to examine mortality associated with influenza as distinct from pneumonia—the CDC’s interactive FluView dashboard—which provides weekly national breakdowns. The dashboard shows the same general pattern as in the annual reports—that is, lower numbers of influenza deaths and much higher numbers of pneumonia deaths. Bearing in mind all the shortcomings and potential biases of death certificate data, dashboard reports for the first week of March (week 9) for the past three years show 257 influenza deaths versus 4,250 pneumonia deaths in 2016, and 534 and 736 flu deaths (versus over 4,000 annual pneumonia deaths) in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
When clinicians in outpatient settings do order testing, relatively few of the “flu” specimens—sometimes as low as 1%—actually test positive for influenza.
Semantics also play a key role in the CDC’s slippery communications about “flu.” For example, CDC’s outpatient surveillance focuses on the broad category of “influenza-like illness” (ILI)—an almost meaningless term describing general symptoms (fever, cough and/or sore throat) that any number of non-influenza viruses are equally capable of triggering. Cochrane lists several problems with the reliance on ILI to make inferences about influenza:
- There is “no reliable system to monitor and quantify the epidemiology and impact of ILI” and no way of knowing what proportion of ILI is caused by influenza.
- There are almost no reliable data on the number of ILI-related physician contacts or hospitalizations—and no one knows what proportion of ILI doctor visits and hospitalizations are due to influenza.
“Pneumonia,” too, is a catch-all diagnosis covering lung infections caused by a variety of different agents: viruses (non-influenza as well as influenza), bacteria, fungi, air pollutants and many others. Interestingly, hospitalization is a common route of exposure to pneumonia-causing pathogens, and mortality from hospital-acquired pneumonia exceeds 60%. In a plausible scenario, an adult hospitalized for suspected (but unconfirmed) “flu” could acquire a lethal pneumonia bug in the hospital, and their death might be chalked up to “flu” regardless of the actual facts, particularly because clinicians do not necessarily order influenza testing. When clinicians in outpatient settings do order testing, relatively few of the “flu” specimens—sometimes as low as 1%—actually test positive for influenza. Over the past couple of decades, the proportion of specimens testing positive has averaged around 15%—meaning that about 85% of suspected “flu” specimens are not, in fact, influenza.
Roughly four-fifths of the vaccine injury and death cases settled through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program are flu-vaccine-related.
Propaganda with a purpose
It takes little subtlety to recognize that the principal reason for flu hyperbole is to sell more vaccines. However, more and more people—even infectious disease specialists—are realizing that flu shots are fraught with problems. Roughly four-fifths of the vaccine injury and death cases settled through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program are flu-vaccine-related. A University of Toronto-based expert recently stated, “We have kind of hyped this vaccine so much for so long we are starting to believe our own hype.”
Pro-flu-vaccination studies—through their skillful placement in prestigious journals—tend to drown out other influenza studies that should be ringing warning bells. Published peer-reviewed studies show that:
- Previous influenza vaccination, particularly in those who get a flu shot every year, diminishes or “blunts” the already low effectiveness of flu shots.
- Getting vaccinated against influenza increases susceptibility to other severe respiratory viruses and also to other strains of influenza.
- Mothers who receive influenza vaccines during pregnancy face an increased risk of miscarriages and their offspring face elevated risks of birth defects and autism.
A systematic review of influenza vaccine trials by Cochrane in 2010 urges the utmost caution. Noting that “studies funded from public sources [have been] significantly less likely [than industry-funded studies] to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines,” and citing evidence of “widespread manipulation of conclusions,” the Cochrane reviewers’ bottom line is that “reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin.” We should all keep those words in mind the next time the CDC and the media try to mischaracterize flu facts and science.
CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission. Please visit our crowdfunding page.
Purdue Pharma Funds ‘Opioid Antagonist’ In Obvious Ploy To Appear To Actually Care
- The Facts:
Purdue Pharma is providing a $3.42 million grant to 'Harm Reduction Therapeutics' to advance the development of its low-cost, over-the-counter (OTC) naloxone nasal spray which purportedly can reverse the effects of opioid overdose.
- Reflect On:
Can we use the blatant deception that characterizes marketing efforts of Big Pharma as motivation to really spread awareness amongst our friends, family and our fellow humans about better practices of health and wellness?
In the CE article ‘Study Reveals Big Pharma Paid Doctors Millions of Dollars To Push Opioids,’ Kalee Brown makes a cogent argument that the Opioid epidemic, which is responsible for at least two thirds of the record 72,000 overdose deaths in the U. S. last year, is the product of a carefully crafted strategy that stems from a sinister alignment of self-interest between Big Pharma, doctors, and the government. This strategy, it would seem, has no limits to its wickedness:
It’s no secret that Big Pharma is a money-making machine. Many even suggest that they design drugs with negative side effects so you remain sick, thus growing their market of sick consumers — a view supported by the reality that doctors get compensated for selling you drugs, not for getting you off of them.
It’s not as though there is not a clear understanding about this among awakening individuals. There are numerous people who individually and collectively are fighting against this evil. Many have spurred efforts by city and state officials to sue Purdue Pharma, makers of the ruthlessly marketed opioid Oxycontin that is at the center of this epidemic. These efforts have made some inroads, in that they have stopped their aggressive marketing campaign in the US.
How They Defend Themselves
Typically, Purdue Pharma will argue in court that they should not be to blame for the recommendations of doctors or the free will choices of patients. This despite the fact that court cases have revealed that one of the prongs of their marketing strategy is to get doctors to minimize the dangers of Oxycontin in their discussions with their patients, or to deceive the doctors altogether about the dangers of Oxycontin.
Before becoming aware of how the pharmaceutical industry worked, I would have assumed (naively) that if a pharmaceutical company saw that its medications were causing harm to people (let alone an epidemic of overdose deaths) they would quickly take their product off the market. And short of that, doctors would simply stop prescribing the drug to their patients in deference to the Hippocratic oath they took which dictates primarily to “Do no harm.” Alas, far too many doctors do not take their oath to heart, preferring instead to defer their responsibility to the recommendations of regulatory agencies like the FDA and continue to take their profits for writing up prescriptions.
As for taking Oxycontin off the market? Well everybody knows by now that profit, not human health or even human life, is the sole decision-making marker for pharmaceutical giants like Purdue Pharma. And despite the inconvenience of all these lawsuits, they are willing to deal with those so long as the legal costs remain covered by the outlandish profits that Oxycontin and other opioids continue to generate.
Staying In The Game
In their minds, there are still too many people who are in pain and want that pain alleviated the easy way, through drugs, they are willing to listen to their doctors, and trust the FDA and other government agencies. In other words, there is still too much money to be made to actually take the product off the market.
Having said that, with sales in decline, and restrictions now on their formerly successful marketing maneuvers, how can they position themselves to keep the lucrative Oxycontin game going longer?
Perhaps it was the new guy in the think-tank that raised his hand and came up with this outrageous idea one day. “Hey, why don’t we fund and promote a drug that we can say prevents death by overdose from Oxycontin? We can say it’s coming from some non-profit called, hmm, er, ‘Harm Reduction Therapeutics.’ Yeah. Some people will think we’re heroes!”
Don’t laugh. That’s exactly what they’ve done. Whether ‘Harm Reduction Therapeutics’ is truly an independent non-profit or the brainchild of Big Pharma giants doesn’t matter. The game remains the same.
New Wrinkle Of Depravity
And so just when we think we’ve seen and reported on all the possible depravity coming from Big Pharma, a new wrinkle appears on an already hideous face. And we don’t need to read any anti-Big Pharma commentary to see it. The thinly veiled ruse is broadcast on their website for all to see:
STAMFORD, Conn. and PITTSBURGH, Penn., September 5, 2018 – Purdue Pharma L.P. (Purdue) and Harm Reduction Therapeutics, Inc. today announced that Purdue is providing a $3.42 million grant to Harm Reduction Therapeutics to advance the development of its low-cost, over-the-counter (OTC) naloxone nasal spray in the United States. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist used to reverse the effects of a life-threatening opioid overdose.
Harm Reduction Therapeutics is an independent, non-profit pharmaceutical company whose mission is to “prevent opioid overdose deaths by making low-cost naloxone available to everyone.” Purdue’s contributions will help Harm Reduction Therapeutics accelerate the development of its OTC naloxone nasal spray by approximately 12 months.
This product will provide a low-cost alternative to prescription naloxone for both consumers and first responders. Given the nature of this grant, no revenues or royalties will be paid to Purdue.
The U.S. Surgeon General, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and The President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis all recommend expanded use of naloxone due to its potential for saving lives. Unfortunately, cost has been a barrier, especially in communities hardest hit by the opioid crisis.1
“Purdue is committed to advancing patient care and public safety. While naloxone accessibility cannot be seen as a single solution, it must be part of our collective actions,” said Craig Landau, MD, president and CEO, Purdue Pharma. “This grant is one example of the meaningful steps Purdue is taking to help address opioid abuse in our communities. Collaborating with a variety of partners is crucial to address the crisis we’re facing, and we are honored to support Harm Reduction Therapeutics as they work to prevent opioid-related deaths by increasing access to naloxone.”
So follow along here: instead of taking Oxycontin off the market, they’ve decided to gift a ‘Harm Reduction’ non-profit organization with a research grant of $3.42 million (peanuts) to hurry up with their low cost death-defying product. Purdue will receive no revenues or royalties from this low cost product, and thus can now position themselves as a company that is committed to ‘advancing patient care and public safety’ by showing their heartfelt concern about the opioid epidemic (which they caused).
The reality? Getting this low-cost ‘overdose prevention nasal spray’ into circulation as quickly as possible will actually allow them to get more people on to Oxycontin and prevent some others from breaking their addiction to it. Purdue’s hope is that the fear these patients might have about all the overdose deaths they’ve heard about may be assuaged by having access to a ‘super nasal spray’ to save them from the brink of death–if, that is, they are in any condition to properly operate the nasal spray in the throes of a drug overdose episode.
Most of the readers of this article are likely aware of the nature of the Pharmaceutical Industry, and by extension the nature of the Western Medical Establishment in general. But reminders like this may help in giving us the courage to bring up such deceptive practices with friends and family who still think that Western medicine is geared towards our health, or that powerful opioids are really the best option for our symptoms.
Our compassion with others is fueled by our understanding, and in this way the blatantly self-serving actions like those of Purdue Pharma can help us to speak and act more effectively with our friends and loved ones, and help them reach a higher state of awareness about our health and how we can deal more safely with our pain.
Catholic Church Ignores Pedophilia, But Bishop Warns Reiki & Energy Healing Are Satanic
It is wisely said that, ‘you should clean up your own backyard first before you come running over to fix mine.’...
Many Insiders Believe Military Tribunals For Deep State Will Happen Any Time Now
There is a growing consensus in the narrative within the alternative news community (commentators, their insiders, and members in general) that has...