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
The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.
In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!
Roll Up Your Sleeves Folks: 271 New Vaccines in Big Pharma’s Pipeline
“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” – President Ronald Wilson Reagan, as he signed The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, absolving drug companies from all medico-legal liability when children die, become chronically ill with vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders or are otherwise disabled from vaccine injuries. (That law has led directly to an expected reckless, liability-free development of scores of new, over-priced, potential block-buster vaccines, now numbering over 250. The question that must be asked of Big Medicine’s practitioners: How will the CDC, the AMA, the AAFP and the American Academy of Pediatrics fit any more potentially neurotoxic vaccines into the current well-baby over-vaccination schedule?)
PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), the pharmaceutical industry’s trade association and powerful lobbying group, says that
“today, more than 7,000 medicines are in development globally, all of which have the potential to help patients in the United States and around the world. According to another data source, there are 3,400 medicines in development today just in the United States, an increase of 40 percent since 2005.” (http://phrma.org/pipeline#sthash.TnxVihsT.dpuf)
PhRMA also says that today
“the 271 vaccines in development span a wide array of diseases, and employ exciting new scientific strategies and technologies. These potential vaccines – all in human clinical trials or under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – include 137 for infectious diseases, 99 for cancer, 15 for allergies and 10 for neurological disorders.” (http://phrma.org/press-release-medicines-in-development-vaccines#sthash.rI4cQ6Tg.dpuf)
Whenever the FDA signals that it is ready to grant marketing approval for a new vaccine or drug, the first step for the pharmaceutical company’s marketing department is to promote an “educational” advertising campaign designed to instill fear in parents (and their pediatricians) about the horrible illnesses (albeit previously unknown, benign or rare) that even us doctors hadn’t yet recognized as being significant up until recently, most of us physicians have gone along with the fear-mongering that makes our practices busier while it also makes billions of dollars in profits for some unworthy CEO or Wall Street investment banker, hedge fund manager or mutual fund investor – all at the expense of America’s precious and vulnerable children who are at high risk of being sickened along the way.
The TV commercials, medical journal articles and drug representatives will be trying to educate us about a new, unaffordable vaccine that will somehow be squeezed into an already crowded and potentially deadly group of shots that America’s already at-risk-of-vaccine-injuries infants will now be receiving at their next well-child (perhaps soon to become chronically ill).check-up.
Recognizing this, and so as not to overload the already over-loaded well-child inoculation schedule, perhaps he CDC (the Big Pharma-subsidized and vaccine cheerleader Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) will be adding shots to the in-hospital and irrational Hepatitis B shot that it recommends be given on day one – when vulnerable mothers are too exhausted and emotionally confused to give truly informed consent.
Many state legislatures are, as we speak, considering (or have already passed laws) criminalizing the previously legal parental right of refusing vaccinations on the basis of religious or philosophical beliefs. That is happening right now in Wisconsin’s Republican-dominated legislature, Minnesota’s split GOP/DFL legislature, and California’s Democratic Party-dominated legislature – where it is already signed into law by Democrat Jerry Brown. These poorly informed – and heavily bribed politicians don’t realize that their legislative efforts will be blindly forcing unsuspecting patients to submit to every new blockbuster vaccine that successfully emerges from the pipeline. Talk about making decisions on the basis of partial information or propaganda from sociopathic corporate entities! Attention, Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar and other assorted legislators. Are you listening to the real science or to the corrupted, pseudoscience of Big Pharma?
Below is a list of 146 new vaccines that were in the pipeline as of 2010. The list, PhRMA proudly tells us, is now up to 271 new vaccines as of 2013. For a full listing of these vaccine trials, go to: http://phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/infectiousdiseases2010%20%281%29.pdf
For parents whose infants’ brains and bodies are immunologically and developmentally immature, be aware that your children may be forced to suffer untested-for and therefore unacknowledged long term neurological, autoimmune and chronic illness adverse effects. Parents need to be aware that if their infant dies, is sickened or is made chronically ill by vaccine ingredients, they, as protective parents, will be forbidden to sue the guilty drug company (or the doctor that administered them) for appropriate damages.
Parents and grandparents of children need to be aware of the fact that many of these new vaccines will be containing contaminants (such as unfilterable viral particles, bacterial particles, monkey kidney cell fragments, human fetal cells, squalene (in anthrax and some experimental swine flu vaccines), peanut oil (a likely cause of the epidemic of peanut allergies), formaldehyde and even foreign DNA fragments) as well as known neurotoxic additives such as formaldehyde and aluminum (and perhaps even mercury), all of which are known genetic toxins and known causes of (sometimes subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle – but always preventable) brain damage, vaccine-induced epilepsy, autoimmune disorders, the so-called, but erroneously labeled “shaken baby syndrome” (now increasingly understood to represent a vaccine-induced encephalitis), SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), dementia, autism spectrum disorders, mitochondrial toxicity, damage to the brain’s microglial and astroglial cells (the brain’s immune system), etc.
NOTE: Much of the information in this column is derived from easily accessible books and websites, including Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child by Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH; The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination is Not Immunization, by Tim O’Shea, DC; Screening Sandy Hook, Causes and Consequences by Deanna Spingola (an online e-book); the writings and lectures of Russell Blaylock, MD; Immunologist J. Barthelow Classen, MD; Harold E Buttram, MD, Dr Sherri Tenpenny, Dr Suzanne Humphries, Dr Kenneth Stoller, Dr Andrew Wakefield, Dr Mark Geier, and Dr Joseph Mercola, and the following two articles: http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf. http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccine-induced-immune-overload-and-the-epidemic-of-chronic-autoimmune-childhood-disease/5431013.
A List of 146 of the 271 Vaccines in Big Pharma’s Developmental Pipeline (as of 2010)
(NOTE: The corporations that have the largest financial interest in the success of the trials is listed in bold letters.)
sanofi pasteur prevention of Clostridium difficile
ACE BioSciences prevention of traveler’s diarrhea caused by Campylobacter jejuni
ACE BioSciences prevention of traveler’s diarrhea caused by Escherichia coli
sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis Phase III DTP vaccine
Aeras Global tuberculosis
Novartis Vaccines prevention of influenza A infection (H5N1 subtype)
Antigenics treatment of herpes simplex virus
BioSante Pharmaceuticals anthrax Phase I/II vaccine
Intercell USA anthrax
KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections
Aduro BioTech treatment of hepatitis C
Emergent BioSolutions anthrax vaccine
AlphaVax prevention of influenza virus infections in the elderly
DynPort Vaccine botulism vaccine
Inviragen Chikungunya virus vaccine
Celldex Therapeutics cholera vaccine (live attenuated)
ChronTech Pharma hepatitis C (DNA vaccine)
Virionics prevention and treatment of hepatitis C
Vical prevention of cytomegalovirus (DNA vaccine)
AlphaVax prevention of cytomegalovirus infections
Hawaii Biotech prevention of dengue fever
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of dengue fever (tetravalent)
Acambis mild to severe dengue fever
sanofi pasteur DTP-Hep B
sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, hepatitis B, polio, Hib
Dynavax treatment of hepatitis B
Crucell prevention of Ebola virus infections
Vical prevention of Ebola virus infections
GenPhar Ebola virus vaccine
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of infectious mononucleosis (Epstein-Barr virus)
BioSolutions Escherichia coli infections
Celldex Therapeutics prevention of cholera, Escherichia coli infections
Protein Sciences prevention of influenza virus infections in adults and children
sanofi pasteur influenza virus infections (new mass production method)
sanofi pasteur prevention of influenza virus (intradermal micro-injection)
Protein Sciences influenza virus infections
GlaxoSmithKline rotavirus infections in infants
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of cytomegalovirus (recombinant vaccine)
GlaxoSmithKline influenza virus (trivalent, thimerosal-free) for children ages 3-17
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Streptococcus pneumoniae
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilus infections, hepatitis B, meningococcal group C infections, poliomyelitis (infants)
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Haemophilus and pneumococcal infections
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Haemophilus and pneumococcal infections
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus infection in children
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) for children and infants
GlaxoSmithKline staphylococcal infections
MedImmune influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype) intranasal
Novavax prevention of influenza A virus infection
Hawaii Biotech prevention of West Nile virus infection
Novartis Vaccines helicobacter pylori
Pfizer hepatitis B (DNA)
Emergent BioSolutions hepatitis B
GenPhar hepatitis B
Novartis Vaccines treatment of hepatitis C
GlaxoSmithKline hepatitis E (recombinant)
Dynavax prevention of hepatitis B
Pfizer treatment of herpes simplex virus infections (DNA vaccine)
AuRx prevention and treatment of herpes simplex virus infections
sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, Hib
Intercell prevention of influenza virus seasonal influenza
Novartis Vaccines prevention of herpes simplex virus infections
Acambis prevention of encephalitis virus
Bavarian Nordic smallpox vaccine
sanofi pasteur influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) in adolescents, children and infants
CSL Behring prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) for the elderly
Baxter Healthcare prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype)
Vical prevention of influenza A virus (DNA – H1N1 subtype)
Baxter Healthcare prevention of influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype)
DynPort Vaccine influenza virus
Antigen Express influenza virus infections H5N1 vaccine
Novavax prevention of influenza virus (particle vaccine)
Dynavax prevention of influenza virus infections
Vaxin influenza virus infections (intranasal)
Abbott Laboratories prevention of influenza virus (cell culture-derived)
Intercell prevention of Japanese encephalitis in children
Novartis Vaccines malaria vaccine (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)
Vical malaria vaccine
BioSante Pharmaceuticals prevention of malaria (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)
GenVec malaria vaccine (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)
Crucell malaria vaccine
Sanaria malaria vaccine
GenPhar Marburg virus (DNA vaccine)
MedImmune parainfluenza virus infections in children and infants
MedImmune prevention of respiratory syncytial virus infections in infants
MedImmune prevention of parainfluenza virus infections in children and infants
MedImmune prevention of influenza virus (quadrivalent) for adolescents and children
sanofi pasteur Neisseria meningitidis A, C in toddlers 9 months-12 months
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Neisseria meningitidis groups C and Y, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and tetanus toxoid
sanofi pasteur meningitis in infants
Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group B infections vaccine group B
Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group A, C infections in children
Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group A, C infections in infants
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of malaria (recombinant vaccine)
NanoBio prevention of influenza virus (intranasal)
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus inactivated split-trivalent vaccine
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Neisseria meningitidis groups A, C in children
LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals norovirus infections (intranasal)
Novartis Vaccines prevention of influenza virus
Protein Sciences prevention of influenza A pandemic (H5N1 subtype)
Meridian Biosciences parvovirus infections
Crucell prevention of influenza virus infections
Pfizer meningococcal group B infections (meningococcal “plague” vaccine)
DynPort Vaccine Yersinia infections (injectable)
Baxter Healthcare prevention of seasonal influenza virus
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza A virus (“pre-pandemic”)
Pfizer prevention of pneumococcal infection in the elderly (Prevnar 13 Adult™)
sanofi pasteur rabies vaccine
BioSante Pharmaceuticals ricin poisoning (“biodefense” vaccine)
Soligenix ricin poisoning
sanofi pasteur prevention of rotavirus infections
Bharat Biotech prevention of rotavirus infections
Emergent BioSolutions anthrax (Fast Track) “protective antigen” vaccine
Inhibitex staphylococcal infections
Vical prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus infections
Emergent BioSolutions shigella infections
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of herpes simplex virus infections
PharmAthene anthrax (“protective antigen” – rPA)
BioSante Pharmaceuticals staphylococcal infections (“biodefense” vaccine)
Nabi Biopharmaceutical prevention of staphylococcal aureus infections
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of staphylococcal aureus infections
Nabi Biopharmaceutical prevention of streptococcal B infections
Emergent BioSolutions prevention of streptococcal infections
Novartis Vaccines prevention of streptococcal infections
sanofi pasteur prevention of meningitis and pneumonia (tetravalent)
Inviragen treatment of dengue fever
Intercell USA prevention of traveler’s diarrhea due to E. coli (“patch” technology)
Aerus Global TB prevention of tuberculosis in young children
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of tuberculosis in adults
sanofi pasteur prevention of tuberculosis
DynPort Vaccine tularemia
Emergent BioSolutions prevention of typhoid (live typhoid organisms – oral vaccine)
Novartis Vaccines prevention of typhoid fever
Celldex Therapeutics typhoid fever
Merck prevention of herpes zoster (shingles)
Merck hepatitis B in infants
Merck human papillomavirus infections
Merck staphylococcal infections
GlaxoSmithKline prevention of varicella zoster virus
VaxInnate prevention of influenza A virus
VaxInnate influenza A virus infections in elderly patients
VaxInnate prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype)
Inovio Pharmaceuticals human papillomavirus infections
Inovio Pharmaceuticals prevention of influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype)
Xcellerex prevention of yellow fever
Dr Gary G. Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement from medicine, he had spent the last decade practicing what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) mental health care”. Dr Kohls has been actively involved in peace, justice and nonviolence issues for much of his adult life and, since he retired, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine (www.readerduluth.com). His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, psychiatry and other movements that threaten American democracy and civility.
This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission and request of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Click here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”
The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.
In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!
Las Vegas Man Unable to Speak, Walk, See or Breathe Just Days After Getting Flu Shot
- The Facts:
A few days after getting a flu vaccine, Shane Morgan fell ill with a disease in which a person’s nerves are attacked by the immune system, causing paralysis and, in extreme cases, death.
- Reflect On:
How much 'evidence' do we need that the Pharmaceutical Industry is not an advocate for human health? Can we see our way out of this system of deception?
It is starting to seem like we can write a new story every few days about someone having an adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. As I mentioned in an article from last week, ‘After Getting Flu Shot, New York State Senator Gets Sick For Two Weeks, Then Dies,’ the latest flu vaccine is being suspected of actually delivering a dangerous strain of the flu that is resistant to vaccines.
And whether or not Las Vegas’ Shane Morgan had a highly adverse reaction to the vaccine itself or actually contracted this strain of flu, it is very clear in his and his wife’s mind that his adverse reaction was caused by the flu shot. Here’s what happened, according to this Las Vegas Review-Journal article:
On Nov. 2, Shane and Monique, 31, who live in North Las Vegas and are new parents to 8-month-old Briar, got their flu shots. They were planning to see Shane’s 23-year-old daughter, Sidnee Nutter, and her 4-month-old, and Nutter requested the whole family get vaccinated to protect her infant. They typically didn’t get vaccinated, but they happily obliged.
“The only reason I took this was because I didn’t want to lie to my daughter,” Shane said. In the days that followed, Shane fell ill. He was weak and achy; he had a fever and a sore throat. By Nov. 14, he asked his wife to take him to the hospital. “That’s when we really started getting worried,” Monique said. His arms and legs were going numb.
Soon after he was admitted to the hospital, he ‘was sedated and intubated, unable to breathe on his own.’ Now, two weeks later he still ‘can’t walk. His left eye is paralyzed and shut. Tubes protrude from his neck.’
The doctors have made a diagnosis of ‘Guillain-Barre syndrome.’ More on this disease from the article:
He may have months of recovery left from the rare disease, in which a person’s nerves are attacked by the immune system, causing paralysis and, in extreme cases, death. The cause of the disease that affects one or two in a million isn’t known, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the disease can creep up after a bout of diarrhea, a respiratory infection or an infection from Campylobacter jejuni bacteria.
In rare cases, people come down with Guillain-Barre after having the flu or getting a flu shot, though the CDC can’t show a causal effect.
So let’s go over this slowly. The Western Medical Establishment has put a fancy name to a symptom, a person’s immune system going out of whack, and called it a disease. Of course, the CDC will say it doesn’t know what causes this disease; they are only willing to offer a few conditions which precede the onset of the disease, including having the flu or getting the flu shot. Again, this admission with the disclaimer that ‘the CDC can’t show a causal effect.’ And why? Is it perhaps because that would give someone direct grounds to sue Big Pharma?
What has the CDC really done here? They have concocted a fancy hyphenated name to de-couple immune system degradation from the introduction of pathogens into the body that would seem logically to be the cause of that immune system degradation. For an organization that prides itself on their research and commitment to objective science, they certainly pull the ‘we don’t know the cause’ rabbit out of the hat whenever it serves the purposes of Big Pharma.
Are Anti-Viral Vaccines Actually Delivering A Toxic Virus?
You may have seen in my earlier article ‘Researcher Jailed After Uncovering Deadly Virus Delivered Through Human Vaccines‘ that respected researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits had isolated a murine leukemia virus, essentially a mouse virus, in examining patients who had a variety of serious diseases such as cancer, motor-neuron disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). It was later suggested that this mouse virus likely had been transmitted to these people through vaccines. She explains how vaccines could become infected by this mouse virus when the vaccines are being made:
What we were doing to attenuate, to make the virus less pathogenic, less toxic, is we were passing them through mouse brains, so we were passing them through the brains of mice, and every scientist who works with these viruses, and worked at the National Cancer Institute recognized the possibility that if you put human tissue and mouse tissue together the possibility is that you’re going to pick up a virus that is silent, in the mouse, that is it doesn’t hurt the mouse, but it kills the human, or causes serious disease in the human.
As discussed in that article, the very possibility that people could start to believe that vaccines are transmitting a toxic virus to those who are injected with the vaccine was such a threat to the Big Pharma’s vaccine industry that she was immediately pressured into discrediting her own study, and in refusing to do so she was immediately jailed, and told that she would be ‘destroyed.’ Such is the fate of people who look too deeply and honestly into the true causes of many of our diseases and illnesses.
Flu Strains Getting More Dangerous
The business of vaccination is certainly a huge money-making venture, such that Big Pharma continues to be willing to put out the many fires that are brought on by honest researchers as well as a population getting more sick and diseased in lock step with the increase in the proliferation of vaccines. One of those fires is the clearly documented notion that the ubiquity of the flu vaccine is the actual cause of new deadlier strains of the flu that are more resistant not only to vaccines but to the protective mechanisms of our immune system.
If you consider the fairly straightforward idea that vaccines are working against our immune system and thus are degrading our natural immunity to diseases, then it stands to reason the logical step to take would be the complete cessation of all flu vaccination in our society. My bet is that it would not be long before we would see an increase in the health in the general population, the dying off of many strains of the disease, and an increase in ‘natural immunity’ to diseases in general that parents are able to pass on to their offspring. In the video below, researcher Dr. Andrew Wakefield explains the idea of ‘natural herd immunity’ very cogently:
As far as vaccines go, I would not argue that there is absolute, definitive proof that vaccines are harmful to the average person–and that is because proper, objective testing is not being undertaken. But far more sinister than proper testing not being undertaken due to costs or proper scientific mechanisms is the indisputable fact that Big Pharma, with the CDC in their pocket, care absolutely nothing about human health. Everything they do is based on the metric of profit. They do not want the causes of human disease to be found whenever that would force them to remove pharmaceuticals from human consumption, and are willing to try to convince us that they simply ‘don’t know’ the cause of certain diseases, that they are complicated, mysterious. It’s an embarrassment.
Doctors and advocates in the mainstream will continue to say whatever they can, spin things in whatever way necessary, to make it seem like, despite the evidence, it’s still a good idea to take the flu vaccine. In fact, their continued livelihood depends on it. Here is the typical example from that same article:
While adverse reactions to the flu vaccine happen, it’s still considered the standard to protect against the flu, which can be dangerous and deadly, said Dr. Fermin Leguen with the Southern Nevada Health District. “The likelihood of people developing Guillain-Barre after the flu shot are very small compared to the risks of developing the flu itself,” Leguen said. “Events like this are unfortunate … but it’s a very rare condition.”
So rather than saying, ‘Shane Morgan had a serious adverse reaction to the flu vaccine and we are going to find out why so it doesn’t happen again,’ the medical establishment would hypothetically say something more like this:
‘Shane Morgan has somehow contracted Guillain-Barre syndrome. We don’t know how it got it, maybe he always had that condition and it just got triggered somehow. While sometimes people come down with Guillain-Barre after having the flu or getting a flu shot–in rare cases, it must be noted over and over again–we can’t show a causal effect. So we will treat his Guillain-Barre syndrome using our pharmaceutical wizardry, and if he survives, we expect to be treated as heroes for saving him.’
Suffice it to say that, simply on the basis of their motives and those of the industry, nothing they say can really be trusted, including the fact that they can’t show a causal effect.
I personally became much healthier and much more resistant to illness when I consciously moved away from allowing pharmaceutical products to enter my body. My 4-year old son is bright, healthy, energetic, and has neither taken any vaccines nor has ever been seen by a Western doctor. And I am soundly convinced that this is a part of the reason for his good health. When we see that the Western Medicine Establishment has overly complicated and obfuscated ‘health’ to suit their own nefarious agenda and purposes, then we come to realize that completely stepping away from this industry and their synthetic products is what is really best for our health.
The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.
In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!
CDC Caught Spreading Misinformation About The Flu Shot: Here Are The Details
- The Facts:
The CDC declares to the public that the flu vaccine greatly reduces the risk of elderly people dying of the flu as though it was a scientifically proven fact. Yet, the reality is that the CDC’s bold claim has been thoroughly discredited.
- Reflect On:
Why are we bombarded through mass marketing and media to support and get the flu shot every year, without no mention of all of the scientists and doctors that are creating awareness about why we shouldn't. What is going on here?
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone aged six months and up, including pregnant women, get an annual influenza vaccine. The two fundamental assumptions underlying the CDC’s policy are that vaccination reduces transmission of the virus and reduces the risk of potentially deadly complications. Yet multiple reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that there is no good scientific evidence to support the CDC’s claims.
Notwithstanding the science, to increase demand for the pharmaceutical companies’ influenza vaccine products, the CDC makes use of fear marketing, asserting as fact that tens of thousands of people die each year from the flu, even though the CDC’s numbers actually estimate that are controversial because they are based on dubious assumptions that appear to result in a great overestimation of the negative impact of influenza on societal health.
The primary justification for the CDC’s flu vaccine policy is the assumption that it significantly reduces the mortality rate among people aged 65 and older, the group at highest risk of potentially deadly complications from the flu. The CDC declares to the public that the vaccine does so as though this was a scientifically proven fact. Yet, the reality is that the CDC’s bold claim that the vaccine greatly reduces the risk of death among the elderly has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community.
… contrary to the CDC’s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.
The Implausibility of the CDC’s Claims
Concerns about the CDC’s mortality claim were raised by researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a study published in April 2005 in Archives of Internal Medicine (now JAMA Internal Medicine). Their concern was prompted by the observation that, despite a considerable increase in vaccination coverage among people aged 65 or older—from at most 20 percent before 1980 to 65 percent in 2001—pneumonia and influenza mortality rates had actually substantially risen.
That is to say, to quote a review published in Virology Journal in 2008, contrary to the CDC’s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, “influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.” (Emphasis added.)
As the authors of the 2005 NIH study commented, this result was “surprising” since vaccination was supposed to be “highly effective at reducing influenza-related mortality”—an assumption underlying CDC policy that “has never been studied in clinical trials”.
Relying instead on post-marketing observational studies of the general population, the CDC has claimed that vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-related deaths is as high as 80 percent. Furthermore, to support its claim of an enormous benefit, the CDC has relied on a meta-analysis of observational studies that concluded that vaccination reduces the number of flu-season deaths from any cause among the elderly “by an astonishing 50%.”
In their own study, however, the NIH researchers found that, over the course of thirty-three flu seasons, influenza-related deaths were on average only about 5 percent and “always less than 10% of the total number of winter deaths among the elderly.”
The obvious question was: How could it be possible for the influenza vaccine to reduce by halfdeaths during winter from any cause when no more than one-tenth of deaths in any given flu season could be attributed to influenza?
The most obvious answer was that it couldn’t, and so the researchers examined more closely the methodology of the observational studies that the CDC was relying upon. The conclusion they drew from doing so was that the CDC’s implausible numbers were due to a systemic bias in those studies. There was a “disparity among vaccination” in these studies between cohorts that received a flu vaccine and those that didn’t.
Specifically, it wasn’t that vaccinated individuals were less likely to die, but that sick elderly people whose frail condition made them more likely to die during the coming flu season were less likely to get a flu shot.
Faced with this identification of a systemic bias in their methodology and despite the obvious implausibility of its own claims, the CDC’s response was to question the methodology of the NIH researchers’ study while reiterating its unshaken faith in the studies it was relying upon to promote the flu vaccine.
Notwithstanding the lack of science to support the statement, and no doubt prompted by the need for government agencies to show solidarity on public vaccine policy, the CDC and NIH subsequently published a joint statement claiming that the seasonal flu shot was the best way to protect old people from dying.
Ironically, and tellingly, while commenting on the lack of evidence that the vaccine was preventing deaths among the elderly and the observed increase in mortality, the NIH researchers in their 2005 study had also acknowledged the effectiveness of naturally acquired immunity at reducing mortality (emphasis added):
“The sharp decline in influenza-related deaths among people aged 65 to 74 years in the years immediately after A(H3N2) viruses emerged in the 1968 pandemic was most likely due to the acquisition of natural immunity to these viruses. Because of this strong natural immunization effect, by 1980, relatively few deaths in this age group (about 5000 per year) were left to prevent. We found a similar pattern in influenza-related mortality rates among persons aged 45 to 64 years, an age group with substantially lower vaccine coverage. Together with the flat excess mortality rates after 1980, this suggests that influenza vaccination of persons aged 45 to 74 years provided little or no mortality benefit beyond natural immunization acquired during the first decade of emergence of the A(H3N2) virus.”
The way the NIH’s joint statement with the CDC contrasted with its own research findings is a remarkable illustration of the institutionalized cognitive dissonance that exists when it comes to public vaccine policy.
The CDC’s Mortality Claims Further Debunked
Numerous additional studies have since been published highlighting the lack of credibility of the CDC’s claims about the vaccine’s effectiveness. A systematic review published in The Lancet in October 2005 found a “modest” effect of the vaccine on mortality, but its authors—which included lead author Tom Jefferson, a top researcher for the Cochrane Collaboration—cautioned that this finding must be interpreted in light of the apparent systemic bias of the observational studies. They likewise attributed the perceived effect of the vaccine to a difference in vaccination rates among the cohorts “and the resulting selection bias”.
Randomized controlled trials could minimize any such bias, they observed, but the evidence from such studies was “scant and badly reported.” Hence, placebo-controlled trials were needed to “clarify the effects of influenza vaccines in individuals”. The problem was that such studies were considered impossible “on ethical grounds” due to the fact that mass vaccination was already recommended as a matter of public policy.
In other words, the science wasn’t done before the CDC made its universal vaccination recommendation, and now they refuse to do the science on the grounds that government technocrats have already made up their minds that everyone aged six months and up should get an annual flu shot.
The lead author of the 2005 NIH study, Lone Simonsen, was also coauthor with W. Paul Glezen of a commentary in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2006 that reiterated the problems with the CDC’s claims. Although the vaccination rate for elderly people had increased by as much as 67 percent from 1989 to 1997, there was no evidence that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or deaths. On the contrary, “mortality and hospitalization rates continued to increase rather than decline”. The studies the CDC cited to support its claim of a dramatic reduction in mortality suffered from a selection bias that resulted in “substantial overestimation of vaccine benefits.”
A study in the International Journal of Epidemiology also published in 2006 confirmed the systemic selection bias of the observational studies. Its authors concluded that not only had the results of those studies indicated “preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors”, but that the magnitude of this demonstrated bias “was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed”. (Emphasis added.)
Influenza vaccine researcher Peter Doshi followed up with a letter to the BMJ published in November 2006 under the headline “Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence”. As he summed up the situation, “Not only is the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination lacking, but there are also reasons to doubt conventional estimates of the mortality burden of influenza.”
Furthermore, “influenza vaccines impose their own particular burden—to the tune of billions of dollars annually.”
Indeed, the very high cost of yearly vaccination for large parts of the population was among the considerations of a 2014 Cochrane meta-analysis that concluded that the results of a systematic review of existing studies “provide no evidence for the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.”
A randomized controlled trial studying the cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination in healthy adults under aged 65 and published in JAMA in 2000 found that this practice “is unlikely to provide societal economic benefit in most years”—when, according to their data, it generated greater costs than to not vaccinate.
Peter Doshi followed up in 2013 with another BMJ commentary. After all those years, the CDC was still sticking to its claims. And yet, if the CDC’s claims were true, it would mean “that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.”
Despite scientists pointing out the “healthy user bias” inherent in the observational studies that the CDC relied on to support its bold claims, “CDC does not rebut or in any other way respond to these criticisms.”
“If the observational studies cannot be trusted,” Doshi asked, “what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none…. This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes.” (Emphasis added.)
“Perhaps most perplexing,” Doshi added, “is officials’ lack of interest in the absence of good quality evidence.”
He further observed how government agencies promote the flu shot by claiming it’s been proven safe. He cited the example of a YouTube video produced by the NIH in which the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, declared that it was “very, very, very rare” for a serious adverse event to be associated with the influenza vaccine.
Yet, “Months later, Australia suspended its influenza vaccination program in under five year olds after many (one in every 110 vaccinated) children had febrile convulsions after vaccination. Another serious reaction to influenza vaccines—and also unexpected—occurred in Sweden and Finland, where H1N1 influenza vaccines were associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents (about one in every 55,000 vaccinated). Subsequent investigations by governmental and non-governmental researchers confirmed the vaccine’s role in these serious events.”
The NIH’s presenter in the video, Anthony Fauci, also happened to be among the opponents of conducting randomized, placebo-controlled studies to determine the safety of the influenza vaccine. “The reason? Placebo recipients would be deprived of influenza vaccines—that is, the standard of care, thanks to CDC guidelines.”
“Drug companies”, Doshi continued, “have long known that to sell some products, you would have to first sell people on the disease.” Only, in the case of the influenza vaccine, “the salesmen are public health officials”.
In summary, there is no good scientific evidence to support the CDC’s claim that the influenza vaccine reduces hospitalizations or deaths among the elderly. The types of studies the CDC has relied on to support this claim have been thoroughly discredited due to their systemic “healthy user” selection bias, and the mortality rate has observably increased along with the increase in vaccine uptake—which the CDC has encouraged with its unevidenced claims about the vaccine’s benefits, downplaying of its risks, and a marketing strategy of trying to frighten people into getting the flu shot for themselves and their family.
By Jeremy R. Hammond, Guest Contributor, Children’s Health Defense
Beyonce’s Ex Drummer Exposes Her Supposed Satanistic & Sexually Perverted Practices
When it comes to the topic of Satanism, a ‘religion’ that’s practiced by many in our world atop the financial...
Why We’re All Deficient In Magnesium, The Many Signs, & What To Do
Signs of magnesium deficiency are everywhere in the United States, if you know what to look for. Unfortunately, the symptoms...