When the passing of a mandatory vaccine law for children in California took place in 2015, various public figures and activists, including Jim Carrey, took to social media to voice their thoughts around the new mandate. The bill removes all exemptions to vaccine requirements for school entry except those medically indicated. The law applies to students attending any public or private school in the state, so parents who choose not to vaccinate children for non-medical reasons would need to homeschool their children. The only other states with similar immunization policies that do not allow any non-medical exemptions are Mississippi and West Virginia.
Carrey is not the only one making noise, a documentary which explores the possible harmful health outcomes of vaccines titled Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe was set to premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival later this month, but after receiving severe public backlash, was pulled from the festival.
One of the founders of this major film festival is Hollywood star Robert De Niro, who recently made an appearance on live television to comment on the move:
I think the movie is something that people should see. There was a backlash which I haven’t fully explored, and I will, but I didn’t want it to start affecting the festival in ways that I couldn’t see. But definitely there’s something to that movie and there’s another movie called Trace Amounts. There’s a lot of information about things that are happening with the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, there’s a lot of things that are not said. I as a parent of a child who has autism, I’m concerned, and I want to know the truth, and I’m not anti-vaccine — I want safe vaccines. . . .
To shut [the film] down, there’s no reason to. If you’re scientists, let’s see, let’s hear, everybody doesn’t seem to wanna hear much about it, it’s shut down, and you [reporters] are the ones that should do the investigating.
Below are Carey’s tweets after the decision was made.
This Is Why So Many People Are Concerned
It’s great to see celebrities with such a large reach speak up on topics that most people are afraid to question. With all of the information below, if we ever reach a state of certainty without question, especially when it comes to science, it means we’ve headed in the wrong direction.
Below is just a tidbit of information as to many citizens around the world, including those like Jim Carrey and Robert Dinero are concerned.
More and more parents around the globe are choosing to opt out of vaccinating themselves and their children. As a result of this trend that’s been gaining more and more momentum, a harsh response has come from the “pro-vaccine” community -criticizing parents for their decision to not vaccinate. At the end of the day it’s not really about “pro-vaccination” or “anti-vaccination,” it’s not one “against” the other or about pointing fingers and judgement, 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 outlines how “up to 43 % of GPs sometimes. or never, recommend at least one specific vaccine to their patients.”
The percentages differ because the study was broken down as to which 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.” (source)
Parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are not just doing it based on belief, they are doing it based on science and information, some of which will be presented in this article. This science and information is nowhere near emphasized to the point where the science and information on the other side of the coin is (“pro vaccine”). Parents who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children are clearly intelligent, and they should not be made to look like fools. 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 as to why parents are choosing to not vaccine their children. I am choosing to do this article and not one on why parents are choosing to vaccinate their children because it’s already very well known as to why they choose to vaccinate their children. I am also doing it to show you why parents who do not vaccinate are not crazy at all, and in fact quite intelligent and up to date on important information.
# 1 The Vaccine/Autism Controversy
Bringing up the idea that vaccines, in some way, are linked at all to autism can be greeted with a harsh reaction. Some people won’t even entertain the idea, or look at information that suggests there could be a link. Truth is, there are plenty of studies that stress the idea that there could be a link, and that there is a link. 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 peer reviewed publications all the way to 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. (1)
In March of 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, 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 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex and MCO. (2)
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. (3)
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.(4)
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.” (5)
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 (in any way) be linked to autism. But that rejection is usually out of ignorance, and those guilty are parents, people like me and you, medical professionals and more. It’s our tendency to believe what we are told (usually through mass marketing alone) without ever doing the research for ourselves.
STUDIES SHOWING VACCINES COULD BE LINKED TO AUTISM
As I did in the previous section, I will try to start of 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? (Keep in mind the Bradford -Hill Criteria, which is explained in some of the studies) These studies are contradictory to the ones above, yet conducted by people of 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, Louisiana, and MIT outlines how Aluminum up until the 1820s -when the industrial extraction of AI made it possible to bring it into our food, manufacturing, medicines, and more -it 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.” (6)
Biosemiotic entropy is basically 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 author’s of this paper, Dr. Chris Shaw, a neurologist at the University of British Columbia explains the danger of 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 that:
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. (7)
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.
They (Dr, Shaw and Dr. 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. (8)
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. (9)
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 (10)
A paper published in the Journal Entropy Identifies “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.” (source)
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. (11)
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. (12) 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. (14)
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. The study determined that autism could be a result from 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.” (13)
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. (14)
“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 to children in developing countries. (15)
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’’ [emphasis added]. 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 specific publications on the links between vaccinations and autism, refer to the following citations . – Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine. (source)
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 claim 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 by experts at various institutions 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 on saying that there are no scientific peer-reviewed published studies that posit a potential link to autism – when there are 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.” – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
When a parent points to the idea that scientific and industry fraud contributed to their decision to not vaccine their child, they can instantly be deemed “conspiracy theorists” or greeted with some sort of rude response that makes them out to be “fools.” 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 actually 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 to be one of the most well 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.” (source)
– 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 suggests that 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.” (16)
— A congressional record from May 1, 2003 shows that there could be, and that many scientists themselves believe that there is a high risk of autism as a result of Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Again, this is a congressional report 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. (17)
– Insider “whistle-blowers” with verified credentials have also played a role with parents who are concerned about vaccinating their children. This type of thing has been going on for quite a while. 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 alluded to the fact 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 presidents nephew, who has been in elitist circles and obviously in and around people who’ve held powerful positions making these comments. Of course these are concerning comments, and to not completely dismiss them as false isn’t a “bad” thing. One of the biggest concerns for parents was the fact that he, in June 2005, authored an article in Rolling Stone and Salon.com alleging a government conspiracy to cover up connections between vaccines and autism. Both of the articles were retracted. (18)(19) 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 “whistle-blower” is not science, it does add to the science that is already there by giving it an “extra leg” so to speak. stuff like this seems to be cropping up every year giving parents more reasons not to vaccinate their children, just as it is cropping up every year giving parents more reasons to vaccinate their children.
We also have statements (hundreds) from scientists and doctors like this one (quote below) which also seem to be contributing to a lack of trust for vaccine manufacturers and the studies they sponsor. Much 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” (considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world). – Dr Marcia Angell, Physician, Author, Former Editor in Chief of the NEJM (20)
— A more recent example (and perhaps one of the biggest) would be long time CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson. In fact, he has authored and co-authored dozens of studies, many of which are commonly pointed out by the “pro-vaccine” movement. A couple of them are actually cited above that show there is no link between vaccines and autism. Just a few months ago this is what he had 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.” (22)
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.” (21)
He also alluded to 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.” (23)
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.” (22)
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. At least they admitted that yes, Dr. Thompson did actually blow the whistle:
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. (24)(25)
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. (25)
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 holds a great deal of validity. Most vaccine supporters are completely unaware of this information, which is understandable, it’s not really “out there” so to speak, it’s something you have to look for. These are just a few of many examples, as I am trying to make this article as short as possible (not easy).
#3 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
During the mid-1970’s, 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, many people really do believe that every vaccine is fine to inject into somebody. Instead of suing the vaccine manufacturer directly, they have to go through a long process where parents have to 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 tax payers are the ones who pay for all the vaccine related damages, which there have been many. Below is a great video explaining the process in detail.
This is clearly another contributing factor as to why parent’s are not vaccinating their children, Many grey areas and shady practices that 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.
If we take a look at Gardasil, for example:
“It is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are over-hyped, and the dangers are underestimated.” – Dr. Chris Shaw, Professor at the University of British Columbia, in the department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences.
There have been several documented cases of injury as a result of the Gardasil vaccine. A recent article in the Toronto Star recently brought this issue up as well, you can view that here.
Another doctor making noise regarding the HPV vaccine is Dr. Diane Harper. Dr. Harper 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. They concluded that:
“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.” (If you are interested you can access the paper here)
They also listed several conditions in which HPV vaccination is most likely the culprit, having been linked to a variety of autoimmune diseases which 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, and what I am referring to 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?
If we look at another example of the literature that’s out there regarding the flu vaccine, just to pick one, 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 outlines 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. (28)
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 “flu’s” appear to have nothing to do with influenza.
“Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flu’s” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flu’s, they can’t.” (28)
A study published in the Journal of Paediatrics, found that 85 percent of newborn infants experienced abnormal elevations of CRP when given multiple vaccines and up to 70 percent in those given a single vaccine. CRP is a protein found in the blood, a rise in this protein is a response to inflammation. Overall, 16 percent 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 that 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 British Medical Journal, titled “Adverse events following influenza vaccination in Australia-should we be surprised?” Collignon (Director of Infectious Diseases & 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 does not help either. There are so many examples, and no doubt these examples contribute largely in 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 fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the Journal Bio Med Research International found that:
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. (30)
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 clearly enough information out there regarding the ingredients in vaccines, throughout this article, that makes a parent look pretty sane for choosing not to vaccinate their baby. At the same time there is a lot of medical research out there that shows the parents who choose to vaccinate their babies are pretty sane as well.(32)
No Safety Assessments Exist (Toxicity Studies) For Vaccine Ingredients, this is another very important point.
For example, aluminum has been 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.(source)
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 states 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 this 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.’ ” (source)
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, not much 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. – Jose G. Dores, 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)
There are numerous studies which have examined aluminum’s potential to induce toxic effects, and this is clearly established in medical literature, and has been for a long time. (source)
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, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University and 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.
Forcing a parent to vaccinate their child is not a sound scientific one. 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 established (firmly) in scientific literature (7)(8).
One important point parents often point to is the fact that clinical trials that could address vaccine safety concerns have not been conducted. There are no studies that have been published in these peer reviewed medical journals examining the health outcomes of vaccinated populations versus unvaccinated populations. The lack of these controlled trials appears to be because vaccines have been assumed to be safe since their inception, which 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, Poland (Editor in Chief of the journal Vaccine and co-author of “The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists” (33)) and fellow researchers ask whether “with the advances coming from the new biology of the 21st Century,” it is time to consider “how might new genetic and molecular biology information inform vaccinology practices of the future?” They concluded that “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, which is important to consider. (34)(35)
Here is a related video explaining why vaccines should not be considered completely safe.
Again, 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, and in schools, and most government vaccine sponsored studies. The reason I wrote this article was to give a small amount of information to help shed light on why parent’s are choosing not to vaccinate their children, simply because this side is so rarely discussed. The number of documents and peer-reviewed scientific literature alluding to adverse events after vaccination and the dangers associated with vaccinations; how they are not nearly as emphasized as they should be. It appears that the risks associated with them are far greater than what they are telling us, and an unnecessary amount of pressure is placed on parents to vaccinate their children.
Too many people are uninformed, and might make a comment such as “what about the polio vaccine” and completely ignore all of the relevant information in this article. They might not know things like in 1977 Dr. Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the US 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 US today. I am not sourcing this little tidbit here 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 how a parent could ever be made to look like a “fool” for choosing not to vaccinate their child. It’s also not even a fraction of the amount of information out there that goes into history, more science, fraud, and more. I cannot do your research for you, 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 and understand where they are coming from.
(32) Tomljenovic, L. and Shaw, C.A. (2011) One-size fits all? Vaccine. 2012; 30(12):2040.9
New Study Finds That Measles Outbreaks Are Occurring In Many VACCINATED Individuals
- The Facts:
A new study from China has been added to the long list that questions the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine given the fact that outbreaks are occurring in highly vaccinated populations and within vaccinated individuals.
- Reflect On:
Are vaccines really as safe as they're marketed to be?
There is a lot of hysteria surrounding measles outbreaks right now, and a lot of mainstream media bombardment in North America whereby unvaccinated children are wrongfully blamed for multiple measles outbreaks. This media hysteria capitalizes on terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” instead of actually acknowledging the points that are being made by vaccine awareness advocates, many of whom are scientists and doctors. The point is, when people are trying to shut down and block credible information and critical thinking, you know something is up.
When it comes to the measles, blaming these outbreaks on unvaccinated people makes absolutely no sense at all. Why? Because, since the introduction of the measles vaccine, outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated populations. Furthermore, ample evidence has been presented showing that vaccinated people might also be shedding their virus and infecting others with it.
For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine’s failure to provide immunity. (source)
There are dozens of studies on measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations that found that the cause of these outbreaks was not due to failure to vaccinate, but rather because of a failing vaccine. I will provide more examples further in the article, but for now, I want to get to some recently published information.
This research was published in the journal Vaccine, titled “Assessing measles vaccine failure in Tianjin, China,” and it’s another study showing measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
“Despite increasing global measles vaccination coverage, progress toward measles elimination has slowed in recent years. In China, children receive a measles-containing vaccine (MCV) at 8 months, 18– 24 months, and some urban areas offer a third dose at age 4–6 years. However, substantial measles cases in Tianjin, China, occur among individuals who have received multiple MCV doses.”
The study explains how there has been an increase in global measles vaccinations, and they’re right. Despite this fact, mainstream media in America continues to blame low vaccination rates for these outbreaks, when that could not be further from the truth. Luckily, the CDC has a super-easy, interactive map that illustrates this data very clearly, and it would be great if members of the mainstream media actually started to take a look at the data. Vaccination rates in the States are actually very high. So why are they blaming the unvaccinated? Washington State, for example, has a 90 percent MMR vaccination coverage.
The study from China goes on to explain:
Twenty-nine percent of those in the surveillance dataset and 54.4% of those in the case series received at least one dose of MCV. The minimum and median time-to-diagnosis since vaccination revealed an increase in time since vaccination for incremental doses. Considerable measles cases in Tianjin occur in vaccinated children, and further research is needed to understand the reasons for vaccine failure.
Another study published in the highly authoritative Bulletin of the World Health Organization looked at recent measles occurrences throughout China and found that there were 707 measles outbreaks in the country recorded between 2009 and 2012, with a steep upward trend in 2013. “The number of measles cases reported in the first 10 months of 2013 – 26,443 – was three times the number reported in the whole of 2012.” This is odd considering that since 2009 “…the first dose of measles-virus-containing vaccine has reached more than 90% of the target population.” (source)
A study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases – whose authorship includes scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA – looked at evidence from the 2011 New York measles outbreak, which showed that individuals with prior evidence of measles vaccination and vaccine immunity were both capable of being infected with measles and infecting others with it (secondary transmission). The study concluded that “measles may occur in vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.” (source)
Furthermore, according to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS and HHS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported and the families of the vast majority of people injured by vaccines are picking up the costs, once again, for vaccine makers’ flawed products.
From 2013 to 2017, measles killed 2 people, but the vaccine killed 127 people. The odds of dying from the measles are 0.01 – 0.02 percent, meaning you have a greater chance of getting hit by a lightning bolt multiple times. Furthermore, if your child contracts the measles, they will be immune for life, but that cannot be said for vaccinated children.
Our Episode About Vaccines On CETV
On a recent episode of CETV, we discussed the mainstream media and the way they fear monger and blame the unvaccinated without addressing important facts. We talked about the history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, provided multiple clips from scientists and doctors sharing information related to the above, and cited examples of fraud, specifically with regards to the MMR vaccination and the CDC.
Below you can watch our discussion, and the first hour is free. To watch the other 2 hours of this episode, become a member of CETV.
Another Episode Specifically About The MMR Vaccine
In a later episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, Joe, Richard and I discussed New York’s mandatory vaccination order as well as Del Bigtree’s analysis of the MMR studies he received and the reason that Big Pharma does not want to do proper, large-scale studies on the safety of vaccines.
A FOIA request by Del Bigtree reveals that the 8 studies supporting the release of the MMR vaccine were only 6 weeks long, used only 800 children, and led to respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses in many of the children.
Related Recent & Important Articles On Vaccines
We now know that aluminum, once injected, does not leave the body but travels to distant organs and the brain. More information on that in the article linked above.
More Examples of Measles Outbreaks In Highly Vaccinated Populations
A measles outbreak in vaccinated individuals occurred in Israel during 2017—reported on by the CDC—where all but one patient had laboratory evidence of a “previous immune response” (secondary vaccine failure), and the one patient who did not display such evidence reported having received two doses of the vaccine (primary vaccine failure). In addition, the index patient—the one who launched the chain of transmission—had received three doses of the measles-containing vaccine.
If we go back in history a little bit:
Barratta et al. (1970) investigated an outbreak in Florida from December 1968 to February 1969 and found little difference in the incidence of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. (source)
Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986, 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among persons who had previously received the measles vaccine. “Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance.” (source)
In 2010, there were a number of children in Croatia who had contracted measles that were fully vaccinated (source). The interesting thing about this case was the fact that not only had they become infected with measles from the vaccine strain, rather than the normal “natural” strain, but they were also contagious.
According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.” They concluded that “outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.” (source)
An article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures,” looked into an outbreak of 137 cases of measles in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.” (source)
According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, “In early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity…” due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded that “…measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations.” (source)
According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was “largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage,” but following an extensive review the researchers concluded that “incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.” (source)
According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccines before their first birthday. (source)
According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, “[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised.” Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak. (source)
Furthermore, what about the bioaccumulation of vaccine ingredients? Studies have shown that injected aluminum does not exit the body, and can be detected inside the brain up to a year after injection. There are several other concerning vaccine ingredients like aborted human fetal cells, formaldehyde, and MSG. Why are these never looked at when studies are being conducted? You can read more and access information and studies about aluminum here.
How safe are our vaccines? Why does the mainstream constantly use terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” to brainwash people instead of actually addressing the points made by vaccine awareness advocates? Why are they always attacking instead of just discussing? It’s OK to question vaccines, think for yourself, utilize critical thinking, and seek out information that mainstream media seems to ignore.
Watch:Robert F. Kennedy Shares Bombshell Information About The Gardasil Vaccine (Video)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—“Many of the things I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they weren’t true. And, if they are not true, then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that. And they won’t do that because in the United States, truth is an absolute defense against slander.”
This must-watch video details the many problems with the development and safety of Merck’s third-highest grossing product, Gardasil. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD’s Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel, ask that you watch and share this video so that you, and others, may make an informed decision of whether or not to give your child, boy or girl, a Gardasil vaccine. It can also be a useful tool for pediatricians who are trying to understand how this vaccine, that is actually causing health problems with young people, could have been approved by FDA and then recommended by CDC. The video is full of jaw-dropping facts about Gardasil and the clinical trials leading up to its release upon an unsuspecting public.
- Court Hears Gardasil Science and Moves Forward
- Related Peer-Reviewed, Published Gardasil Research From the CHD Science Library
- Related Gardasil Articles on the Children’s Health Defense Website
Transcript of “The Science” presentation:
Children’s Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—Science Day Presentation for Gardasil
Hi, I’m Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I’m making this video for the sake of parents who are trying to make an informed decision of whether or not to give their child, their boy or girl the Gardasil vaccine.
I’m also making this video as a tool for pediatricians who are trying to understand how this vaccine—if it’s actually causing all of these problems with young girls—could have been approved by FDA and then mandated by CDC.
Virtually all of the things that I’m going to talk about in this video are available to the public on public documents as I’m going to show.
Finally, I want to say this about Merck which is the company that makes the Gardasil vaccine.
Many of the things that I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they were not true. And if they’re not true then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that and they won’t do it because in the United States truth is an absolute defense to slander. And second of all Merck knows that if they sue me, I’m going to immediately file a discovery request, and many, many, more documents are going to emerge that illustrate even more fraud by this company on the American public and the people all over the world.
Finally, as a footnote I’m not going to talk today about the specific biological mechanisms that allow this vaccine to cause harm in human beings. That information is out there it’s in dozens of peer-reviewed, published scientific documents. Many of these are described on our website and I urge people to go to the Children’s Health Defense website to educate themselves on those issues.
Today we’re going to talk about the clinical trial about Merck’s fraud in that process…and this is Merck’s claim:
The HPV vaccine will “eliminate cervical cancers and other HPV associated cancers.”
The danger of dying from HPV cancer in this country is 1 death in 43.5 thousand people.
Imagine you have a deck of cards but instead of 50 cards. There’s 43,500 on a on a big, big table and one of those cards is a black card. If you get that, you die.
So, Merck’s deal is that it’s going to remove that black card from the deck. But in order to play the game and make sure that Merck removes the black card, everybody who participates has to put in $420 because that’s the cost of the three-dose Gardasil vaccine.
So, here’s Gardasil by the numbers. So, the cost of the three-jab series average is about $420. There are 76 million children who essentially have been mandated by CDC to receive these vaccines. A blockbuster product from Merck, and global revenues from this vaccine today are about $2.3 billion dollars. It’s the third largest product in the company’s inventory.
The cost of saving one American life is 18.3 million dollars. People could argue whether or not that’s a reasonable value of a human life. What I would say was is that the criteria that we should use for evaluating reasonableness—is there a cheaper way to save more lives? And people would argue that Pap smears are the most effective way that 80 percent of cervical cancer deaths have already been eliminated by Pap smears. And this is the most effective technology.
Incidentally in another context HHS has already put a value on human life and the value is $250k. That is the maximum number that the vaccine compensation program will pay for killing an American citizen.
Prior to marketing the vaccine, the FDA licenses the vaccine, and in that licensing process Merck had to show that the vaccine was safe. According to Federal regulations the word “safety” means “relative freedom from harmful effects, taking into consideration the character of the product in relationship to the condition of the recipient at that time.”
So, what is the condition of the recipients of that target group for this vaccine. And this vaccine targets millions of preteens and teens, for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is practically zero. Cervical cancer’s median age of death is 58. It is first diagnosed at age 50 (median).
A teenage girl or boy has zero chance of dying of this illness. Which means the threshold for giving this medication is very, very high.
Secondly it is mandated in some jurisdictions So the government is actually—government officials are actually—coming in and ordering people to take this medical intervention. So, we have to be sure that the threshold for risk, “the risk profile” for that medical intervention should be very, very low.
Third, unlike other medical interventions Gardasil recipients are perfectly healthy. So, when you give medication to a healthy individual you have to make sure that the risk profile is practically zero. And in order to determine risk, there is a standardized protocol. And it’s called double-blind placebo studies. What does that mean?
It means that the drug company that’s trying to license this product gives the medication to one group of people, maybe 5,000 or 10,000 people, and gives a placebo, an inert placebo, either an identical looking pill that is inert—it’s either saline or sugar—to a similarly situated group of 5,000 or 10,000 people and it’s double blind meaning that neither the patients nor the researchers knew who got the placebo and who got the actual medication.
And you can see here, here’s what the NIH says about the National Institute for Health placebos: an inactive substance that looks like a drug.
So here are typical examples:
Lipitor was given during its study phase to about 17k subjects. Half of them received Lipitor half of them received a sugar pill that looked identical to Lipitor and they were observed and studied for up to 3.3 years.
Why for so long? Because many of the injuries that are caused by medication are latent—they don’t show up for two or three or four or five years cancer for example may not show up for four or five years after the exposure. Autoimmune diseases and allergies and these kind of things take a long time to diagnose. Enbrel for that reason was delayed for 6.6 years and against a control group that received a saline injection.
Botox, there was a national emergency to get Botox to market so people could get their wrinkles cured, was studied for 51 weeks and it was studied against a saline injection.
Now I’m going to show you one of the really outrageous frauds that Merck committed during the clinical trials. This is an insert that is part of every vaccine package. And you can go on the Internet right now and look up that Merck product and search and find these two tables.
In the initial table you can see a there are three columns and this is a table that just looks at injuries at the vaccine site for redness and itching and bruising and pain at the vaccine site and they use one…there were 5,000 girls—5,088 girls who got the Gardasil vaccine.
Number two, there were 3,470 girls who got the AAHS control, what is that? That is the adjuvant in the vaccine. That is a toxic neurotoxin, that’s put in the vaccine to make it more long-lasting to provoke an immune response in the subject of the vaccine.
And most people believe that it is that aluminum adjuvant that is causing all of these injuries in the girls who are getting the vaccine. And there were 3,470 people who received just the neurotoxin with no antigens and no other vaccine components.
And you have a third group which is the placebo group. What I want you to look at is at these numbers. That in the Gardasil and AAHS control there is virtually the same number of injuries.
And when you get to the saline placebo, that injury rate is cut in half.
Now let’s go to the table where they talk about real systemic injuries…autoimmune diseases, and instead of showing us real science, which is to show us what happened to the saline group, they hide the saline group as a way of fooling you, your pediatrician and the regulatory agency by compressing it into the aluminum group and they never tell us. They say this is a combination of the aluminum adjuvant and the saline placebo. They don’t tell us how many in each category were compressed there. The real thing that you need to watch here is what happened.
These are all very, very serious injuries. These are injuries that in some cases people would feel were worse than death—and that affect people and debilitate for a lifetime in many cases.
And if you look at the bottom of the Gardasil group an astonishing 2.3 percent of the girls in the clinical study who received the Gardasil vaccine got ill from autoimmune diseases, many within seven months of taking the vaccine.
And look what happened in the aluminum group—the same number exactly. 2.3 percent.
Nobody, no parent would allow their daughter to take a substance that had a one-in-40 chance of giving them a lifetime disability.
World Health Organization says that using a spiked placebo, or a faux-cebo as Merck did with Gardasil, puts you at a methodological disadvantage that “it may be difficult or impossible to assess vaccine safety.”
Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who developed the polio vaccine…who developed the pertussis vaccine, who developed the rotavirus vaccine—the Stanley Plotkin award is the Nobel Prize of vaccinology it’s given to the top vaccinologist every year—and what he says is:
Unless you have a true control group you are in LA LA LAND.
Finally, the American Medical Association says the absence of double-blind placebo testing and short-term studies of chronic disease are “the indicia of marketing masquerading as science.”
And that’s what Merck gave us.
The Cochrane Collaboration—thirty thousand scientists from all over the world who came together to create an independent assessment of medical protocols which they saw as being increasingly controlled by the industry—The Cochrane Collaboration said the use of active comparators probably increased the occurrence of harms and the comparative group thereby masking harms created by the HPV vaccine.
And that indeed was Merck’s point…to hide those harms.
So, if you do the math women are 100 times more likely to suffer serious adverse events from the Gardasil vaccine than they are to be protected from cervical cancer.
So now we have a very different bargain in this card game that we’re playing with Merck.
If 43 thousand cards and the black card—the death card is gone—but now, there are a thousand blue cards which if you pick one of those by mistake you have a good chance of getting an autoimmune disease. Nobody would take that bargain.
So, in order to get the FDA license to market this vaccine Merck did a number of studies, which are called protocols. We don’t know how many they did because they’re not telling us they never disclosed it.
The one we’re most concerned with is protocol 18. The reason protocol 18 is critical is because that was the basis for FDA giving Merck the license to produce and market the vaccine.
Why is that? Because protocol 18 is the only one in which the target audience for this vaccine. 11- and 12-year old girls was actually tested, and had a control group. The other ones looked at big cohorts of women were 16 to 25-year old and 16 to 26-year old women.
Protocol 18 looked at girls and boys from ages 9 to 15. It was a total of 1200 children. and almost 600 controls. That is a very, very, tiny group of people to study in order to determine the safety of a product is going to be marketed to billions of children around the world.
Now I’m going to show you one of the key fraudulent flimflams that Merck used to get this license. FDA said they approved Gardasil based on protocol 18 because protocol 18 was of particular interest because it’s the only protocol in which Merck used a true saline placebo instead of the aluminum adjuvant as a control.
That’s what Merck told FDA and the CDC but Merck was lying. It actually did not use a true saline placebo. It used what Merck called the “carrier solution.” Which is all of the components of the vaccine except for the aluminum and the viral particles the antigen.
Among the compounds that we know were in the carrier solution are Polysorbate 80 which we have no idea what the safety profile is because it’s never been tested for safety independently in vaccines. Sodium borate which is borax which is banned by FDA in food products and all food products in the United States, and is banned altogether in Europe, genetically modified yeast, (there’s no safety test ever been done on it in vaccines) L-histidine, the same, and possibly DNA fragments.
I say possibly because we know there are DNA fragments in the final vaccine, we don’t know how they got there. And Merck has lied about the DNA fragments from the outset.
And despite these potentially toxic components of compounds that are in the vaccine, the 596 children that were given the carrier solution fared much better in the other than any other cohort in the study. The girls and boys who receive the carrier solution were the only significant cohorts with no serious adverse events for the first 15 days.
And here’s another one of the gravamen of the fraud that Merck committed in its Gardasil trials, but it turns out in the protocol 18 study, it appears Merck cut the amount of aluminum that was given to the vaccine group in half. They tested a completely different formulation. If true, we theorize that they took the aluminum out to reduce the number of injuries and to mask the really bad safety profile of this vaccine.
And since the protocol 18 data are not based on the Gardasil vaccine formulation, the trial itself constitutes rank scientific fraud.
Here’s another bag of tricks that was used by Merck in order to skew the clinical trials results in favor of Gardasil.
Merck and its researchers use what they call exclusion criteria—for example people who had zero allergies, people who had prior genital infections were thrown out of the clinical trials. People who had over four sex partners in their entire lives were excluded from the trials. Anybody who had a history of immunological or nervous system disorders, people with chronic illnesses and seizure disorders, people with other medical conditions, people who had reactions to vaccine ingredients including the aluminum, yeast and the benzonase. or anybody with a history of alcohol and drug abuse.
If you really wanted to know whether the vaccine was helping people—if it was effective—wouldn’t you want those people in your study wouldn’t you want people who had a genetic vulnerability to cancer in your study to see if it actually was capable of preventing cancer.
Then Merck had one catch all exclusion category which was any condition which in the opinion of the investigator might interfere with the evaluation of the study objectives. Well, that gave Merck and its paid investigators complete control to throw people out of the study who they thought might make the study look not successful. All of these exclusionary categories gave Merck the ability to limit the study to people who were like All of these exclusionary categories gave Merck the ability to limit this study to people who were like an elite club of superheroes…the people who get the vaccine are not the same people they tested on. They tested it on the Avengers. They didn’t test it on, you know, Joe Bag-of-Donuts … the people are actually receiving this vaccine in day to day life. And by doing that they were able to mask whatever injury might show up in a larger and more vulnerable population who are actually receiving the vaccine.
Experts used an arsenal of sloppy protocols to again, hide vaccine injuries. Among these, Merck gave report cards—the daily journal report cards— only to 10 percent of the people who they tested the vaccine on and told those people only make reports for 14 days after the injection. And the report cards were only designed to collect jab site information. So, redness, itching, bruising, fever.
And they ignored altogether the autoimmune diseases and menstrual cycle problems and fertility problems and pain and dizziness and seizures and all of the other things that we’ve now seen are associated with the vaccine. In fact, there are numerous girls who report that they were injured that they attempted to report those injuries to Merck, and that Merck rebuffed them.
Furthermore, Merck gave extraordinary discretion to its researchers to determine what was a vaccine injury in what was not a vaccine injury and because there was no inert placebo, it was completely within their discretion. If a girl came back with seizures or autoimmune disease or menstrual cycle problems they could just say to the girl, well that’s not related to the vaccine.
In some cases, we know that Merck actively covered up and lied about injuries that it had a duty to report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. For example, in the case of Christina Tarsell, a Maryland girl, who died from the Gardasil vaccine, Merck lied about that death in its official reports of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It told the system that Christina’s doctor had told Merck that her death was the result of a virus.
And the doctor adamantly denies that. Merck has refused to remove the misinformation from the VAERS system.
Furthermore, Merck lied to the girls who participated in these studies, telling them No.1, that the placebo was saline and that it contained no other ingredients. And No. 2, that the study in which they were participating was not a safety study. They were told that there had already been safety studies and that the vaccine had been proven safe.
What did this do for Merck? It made it so the girls were less likely to report injuries associated with the vaccine. Because they believed that the vaccine that they were receiving had already been proven safe and that any injuries they did experience maybe a month or two months or three months after the vaccine must be simply coincidental and had nothing to do with the vaccine.
Despite all of these efforts by Merck to discourage those from reporting vaccine injuries during the clinical trials, half of the girls in the Gardasil group and half of them in the aluminum adjuvant group reported serious injuries after receiving the vaccine.
In order to conceal the link between these injuries and the vaccine, Merck invented a brand new medical metric that had never been heard of before called “new medical conditions” and it dismissed all of these new injuries which affected 50 percent of the girls who received the vaccine and the adjuvant as “new medical conditions”, unrelated to the vaccines, simply sad coincidences.
Many of these diseases were serious diseases—blood lymphatic diseases, anemia, endocrine diseases, autoimmune diseases, G.I., Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, vaginal infections musculoskeletal injuries, arthritis, neoplasm, Hodgkin’s disease, neurological diseases, psychiatric diseases, depression, reproductive and breast disorders, menstrual irregularities, and pain. Over 3 percent of the girls—1 in 30—in both groups required surgical and medical procedures.
So, this card game that we’re playing with Merck has now become a really bad bet.
Merck has removed the one black card but you now have a 1 in 40 chance of drawing a blue card and getting an autoimmune disease that may afflict you for the rest of your life and you have a 1 in 2 chance of having some other serious medical condition.
So now let’s look at Merck’s central claim which is that the Gardasil vaccine will prevent cervical cancer.
Merck’s in a sweet position here, let’s face it because the target group vaccine is 11-year olds, and the median age of death for cervical cancer is age 58. Merck essentially is making this bargain.
It’s telling the 11-year old girl if you take our vaccine 47 years from now you won’t die of cervical cancer. And of course, that truth is you can’t make a vaccine that proves that it’s going to prevent cancer 47 years from now. There’s no way to test for that.
So, Merck used a shortcut. It said we’re going to prove that it prevents these what it called surrogate end points. The best thing that Merck had come up with was CIN2 and CIN3 lesions which it called precancerous lesions even though most of those lesions never mature into cancer.
So how can you call something precancerous when it was never going to turn into cancer?
And here’s what a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology said about Merck’s scheme: CIN3 is an imperfect diagnosis of precancer, and an intermediate surrogate for cancer.
Their own attorneys told them for these products, the indication is the surrogate, not the ultimate. Promotion cannot make any claim, vis-a-vis the ultimate end point, based upon the fate of a surrogate endpoint.
Merck has another problem. Recent peer reviewed scientific studies indicate that perhaps only a third of cervical cancer cases are even associated with the HPV vaccine. That would completely put the lie to Merck’s claims that Gardasil is going to eliminate cervical cancer altogether.
So now we have a really dubious deal because we need to put that black card back in the deck because now, we have doubts about whether or not this vaccine can prevent cervical cancer at all.
But the news gets worse. Gardasil may actually cause cancer. Gardasil’s insert states Gardasil has never been evaluated for potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity. And Gardasil’s ingredients include possible carcinogens including human DNA.
And look at this…This is Merck’s own pre-clinical trial records and those records show that girls or women, who already had HPV—had been exposed at some point in their life to it—actually had a negative efficacy of 44.6 percent.
What is negative efficacy? It means those girls had a 44.6 increased risk of getting those precancerous lesions. To make things even worse, there are recent scientific studies that suggest a phenomena of what is known as type replacement—some 200 different strands of HPV, some of them are more cancerous than others, and the current HPV vaccine goes after 9 of those 200 viral types. What these studies indicate is by eliminating those particular strains of the virus it opens up an ecological niche in the woman so that more lethal and virulent viruses can actually colonize that spot and dramatically increase the risk of cervical cancer.
So now Merck’s deal is looking really grim. Not only do we have a one-in-40 chance of getting an autoimmune disease and a 50 percent chance of getting some serious medical condition but now the cancer risk has been reinserted and actually amplified.
And now let’s look at some of the non-cancer injuries that Merck found in its preclinical studies.
The miscarriage rate in the preclinical studies after Gardasil doubled the background rate. The birth defects in the Gardasil group were five times the rate of birth defects from the control group. As to reproductive disorders an astonishing 10.9 percent of the women in the pool group reported reproductive disorders within seven months of receiving Gardasil compared to 1.2 percent in the placebo group. The death rate in the Gardasil group and the clinical trials was 8.5 per 10 thousand.
Death risk from this vaccine according to Merck’s own studies is 37 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.
Oh, now look at the deal that Merck has offered us they’ve actually increased our risk of dying by 37 times.
So now let’s look at post-licensing surveillance. So, Merck can argue that we might have missed something in our pre-licensing studies but surely if there were any injuries being caused by this vaccine we would see them in post-licensing surveillance.
And the problem with that is that the post-licensing surveillance system, the principle one, is called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The system is a voluntary system that simply does not work. It’s broken. In fact, in 2010 HHS hired another federal agency the agency for healthcare research quality and a group of Harvard researchers to study Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and those researchers found fewer than 1 percent of adverse events of vaccines are ever reported.
But even under that system, Gardasil has distinguished itself as the most dangerous vaccine ever invented.
In fact, when you compare it to Menactra which is a meningitis vaccine that’s given to the same age group—teenagers—Gardasil had an 8.5 times more emergency room visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disabilities than Menactra.
The vaccine court which is within HHS has made awards for numerous deaths and very, very serious injuries from the Gardasil vaccine. So, HHS itself admits that this vaccine kills people and it’s given compensation to the families that were injured.
The same wave of serious injuries and deaths that have been seen in nations around the globe, when they adopt mandates for the Gardasil vaccine. Even Gardasil’s own insert, the package insert that the company provides, acknowledges that the injuries that can be caused by this vaccine include death, pancreatitis, fatigue, malaise, immune system disorders, autoimmune diseases, anaphylaxis, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, nervous system disorders, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, that’s brain injuries, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and other neuron diseases, paralysis, seizures, Transverse myelitis, and vascular disorders.
In Australia, in 2015, the Australian Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration reported that the adverse rates in girls is 17 times the incidental rate for cervical cancer throughout their lifespan. The country only looked at a handful of conditions including demyelinating disorders, complex regional pain syndrome and premature ovarian failure. There are many, many other injuries that included hospitalizations that were not subject to that study.
India suspended its Gardasil trials after numerous deaths and serious injuries.
A south Asian Journal of Cancer found that “a healthy 16-year old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small, but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.”
Japan de-recommended Gardasil three months after it had added the vaccine to the immunization schedule. Japan’s health ministry discovered adverse events reported after Gardasil’s approval were many times higher than other vaccines on the recommended schedule—these included seizures severe headaches partial paralysis complex regional pain syndrome and an undeniable causal relationship between persistent pain and the vaccination.
Japanese researchers found that the adverse event rate for the HPV vaccine was as high as nine percent and that pregnant women injected with the vaccine aborted or miscarried 30 percent of their babies.
In 2015 the Japanese Association for Medical Sciences issued official guidelines for managing symptoms of injuries caused by the Gardasil vaccine and the association announced there was no proof that this vaccine even prevents cervical cancer.
Alarmingly Merck’s own studies indicate that the Gardasil vaccine may disproportionately impact Asian women. For example, in protocol 19 there were 8 deaths among 3800 women and 7 those were Asians. That was 87 percent for Asian women, while only 31 percent of study participants were Asian.
Denmark in 2015 announced the opening of five new HPV clinics to treat women who were injured by the Gardasil vaccine. The day that they announced that opening there were 1300 applicants for treatment in those clinics.
In Colombia in 2014 800 girls in the town Carmen de Bolivar were grievously injured by Gardasil vaccine. Protests erupted all over Columbia. The attorney general of Colombia ordered the National Health Service of that country to immediately begin treating girls who were injured by the Gardasil vaccine and 2017 Colombia’s highest Constitutional Court ruled that the HPV vaccine would no longer be considered mandatory in Colombia and ordered that girls who showed symptoms after receiving the vaccine be given appropriate medical care.
Pompilio Martinez, who now teaches at the National University of Colombia, described the HPV vaccine as “a crime against humanity.”
Recent studies have shown that in nations with robust HPV vaccination programs and heavily vaccinated populations—in the UK and Sweden and Australia—were actually seeing dramatic upticks rises in the rate of cervical cancer rather than the downtrends that Merck promised everybody.
Now I’m going to show you some of the reasons why your pediatrician is insisting despite all of this evidence that your daughter or son gets the HPV vaccine. And the reason is the pediatrician is getting his information from agencies that have compromised through financial entanglements with Merck.
This is what the FDA is telling the public about vaccine safety: it says that vaccines are regulated by FDA and undergo a rigorous review of laboratory and clinical data to ensure the safety efficacy and purity and potency of these products.
But this is a very different story the FDA is acknowledging in-house, (and this comes from a 2007 document—this is the year that Gardasil got its license from the FDA), FDA’s inability to keep up with scientific advances mean that American lives are at risk. FDA is evaluations and methods have remained largely unchanged over the last half century. The world looks to FDA as a leader today. Not only can the agency not lead, it cannot even keep up with the advances in science.
But, the most troubling problem at FDA is it has nothing to do with incompetence. It has to do with corruption. The panel within FDA that licenses new vaccines and anoints them as safe is called the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, the acronym is VRBPAC. And in 2000 Congress investigated VRBPAC because of charges of corruption from outside the agency.
And here’s what the congressional committee found: the overwhelming majority of members, both voting members and consultants have substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Conflicts of interest rules employed by FDA have been weak enforcement has been lax. Committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies are given waivers to participate in committee proceedings. In many cases significant conflicts of interest are deemed to be in conflict at all.
And here are some specific examples of the conflict of the advisory committee that approves vaccines:
- Three out of five FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December of 1997 had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
- One of the five voting members had a 9 plus million dollar contract for a rotavirus vaccine.
- One of the five voting members was the principal investigator for a Merck grant to develop the rotavirus vaccine.
- One of the five voting members received approximately a million dollars from vaccine manufacturers toward vaccine development.
Once they get by FDA, vaccine companies then go to CDC, where another committee, which is called ACIP Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, will then take that vaccine that FDA has licensed and they will put it on the recommended list which means it becomes essentially mandatory for 76 million American children.
A listing on CDC’s recommended list is the holy grail for vaccine companies. It means a bonanza of wealth for those companies. If ACIP votes to add your vaccine to the recommended list, it means:
- mandating the vaccine to millions of American children, (half of those are paid for by the government);
- Immunity from liability for the manufacturers so nobody can sue them no matter how dangerous that vaccine is, no matter how toxic its components no matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue that vaccine manufacturer for damages liability;
- Inclusion of the Vaccine for Children’s program which is a program that guarantees that half the vaccines that you manufacturer are going to be purchased by the CDC at full cost.
This means billions of dollars for companies that are fortunate enough to get their vaccines listed on this recommended list. It means that you’re going to sell 74 million vaccines to people who have no choice—you have no marketing cost you have no advertising cost, you have limited testing expenses, and you have no liability for injuries caused by your vaccine.
In 2006 and 2007 while Gardasil was getting its approvals, ACIP did not pretend to base its recommendations on scientific evidence. It only adopted evidence-based standards in 2011.
But what did it base its recommendation on? It turns out it was mainly just friendships and money. The conflicts at ACIP are as bad as the conflicts within the FDA.
This is from the same year—2000— investigation by Congress quote the CDC grants blanket waivers to ACIP members each year that allow them to deliberate on any subject regardless of their conflicts for the entire year. ACIP members are allowed to vote on vaccine recommendations even when they have financial ties to the drug companies related to similar vaccines.
The ACIP’s prolific use of working groups to track vaccine policy is outside the specter of public scrutiny, opens the door to special interest access. ACIP’s policy of allowing government employees to vote encourage the system where government officials make crucial decisions affecting American children without advice or consent of the governed.
Here is a typical committee panel that approved Merck’s rotavirus vaccine. The majority of ACIP’s members were conflicted and their most recent vote. Again, this is Congress’s words not mine.
- The chairman served on Merck’s immunization Advisory Committee the same committee that approved Merck’s vaccine.
- Another member who shares the patent on a vaccine underdeveloped for this same disease at $350,000 grant from Merck to develop this vaccine and was a consultant from Merck.
- Another member was under contract with the Merck Vaccine Division.
- Another member received salary from Merck and other payments.
- Merck another member was participating in vaccine studies with Merck.
- And another member received grants from Merck.
And unfortunately, that congressional investigation had virtually no impact on the way CDC does and continues to do business. For example, a 2009 report by the inspector general of HHS on the same conditions existed at CDC had systematic lack of oversight. Ninety seven percent of committee members’ conflict disclosures had omissions. 58 percent had at least one unidentified potential conflict. 32 percent of the committee members had at least one conflict remained unresolved and the CDC continues to grant waivers.
This shows that CDC is really just an arm of the vaccine industry it shouldn’t be regulating the industry. It’s part of it.
This is CDC’s entire budget $11.5 billion, and almost half of that almost 5 billion dollars goes to purchasing and promoting vaccines. And this little sliver here is the Immunization Safety Office.
That’s how much money, less than 1 percent of the total goes to vaccine safety.
Not only that but Merck exercises control over CDC through the CDC Foundation. Merck contributes millions of dollars every year to the CDC Foundation. The CDC Foundation has received six hundred and twenty million dollars from Merck and other pharmaceutical companies to pay for 824 programs at the CDC.
Merck representative sit on the CDC Foundation Board and control the agency activities.
This is what the British Medical Journal said about those conflicts:
“Most of us were shocked to learn that the CDC takes funding from the industry. It is outrageous that industry apparently is allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has the potential to cut into profits.”
Corruption is systemic at FDA too shockingly 45 percent of FDA’s budget comes from the industry. Pharmaceutical companies pay billions of dollars in fees annually to FDA to fast track drugs. Between 2000-2010 pharmaceutical companies paid 3.4 billion dollars to FDA to get drug approvals, and those payments by industry have caused FDA and CDC to treat the vaccine makers not as a regulated entity but as partners and clients and friends.
According to Michael Carome, who is a former HHS employee “Instead of a regulator and regulated industry, we now have a partnership that relationship has tilted the FDA away from public health perspective to an industry friendly perspective. And that’s why your doctor does not know the truth about Gardasil.”
This is another thing your doctor probably doesn’t know. The government agency NIH actually developed the key component for the Gardasil vaccine and NIH owns part of the patent and receives royalties on it. Not only does NIH the agency receive millions and millions of dollars annually from the vaccine, but also the individual scientists who worked on the vaccine within the agency are entitled to make one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year in royalty payments from Merck.
Oh, every time your pediatrician sells one of those four hundred and twenty dollar vaccines to your child or you, NIH scientists and HHS scientists and the agencies themselves are making money on that transaction. And that’s why your doctor doesn’t know what’s happening because he’s getting his information or her information from those agencies.
So, there are many, many, other shocking conflicts that I don’t have time to talk about today between Merck and the other regulated vaccine makers and the industry that’s supposed to be protecting the public from that regulated industry.
I just want to talk for a moment about one example. From 2002 to 2009 Julie Gerberding was the director of CDC and she oversaw all, all of this crooked science that went into the approvals in 2006 and 2007 of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. She was rewarded by Merck.
When she left the agency in 2009, she was hired by Merck as the president of its vaccine division and Merck gave her a salary of 2.5 million dollars a year, and 38 million dollars in stock options. And that kind of dough buys a lot of loyalty from regulators.
They know what’s at the end of the line for them if they behave and if they do what Merck and the other company has asked them to do. And these are the reasons that your pediatrician, who’s giving your daughter that Gardasil vaccine believing that it may someday save her life doesn’t know about the risk and perils and the inefficacy that are attended to that vaccine cause that regulators from whom he’s getting or she’s getting her information have been corrupted by this company.
And most of you probably know this is a difficult issue for people like myself who are concerned with vaccine injuries to address, because the press will not cover these issues because there’s 5.4 billion dollars that go from these companies to advertising on TV and radio and newspapers and on the web every year and nobody wants to lose advertising revenue. And the Congress has been bought off the regulatory agencies have been captured and we can’t use the courts because you can’t sue a vaccine maker for injuring yourself or your child.
We’ve figured out ways around those laws and we’re going to sue Merck. And if you are Merck and you’re listening to this tape.
We’re going to come for you and we’re gonna get justice for these girls and these boys who you’ve injured because of your greed.
And if you’re a mother or a father who are listening to this, we’d like your support. It’s just the fact that the more monetary support the Children’s Health Defense has, the more of these cases that we can bring and we’re going to get justice. And we’re going to bring these cases, and sue companies like Merck until we get that justice. We want your money and we want your support and we want your membership.
But more than anything, we want you to protect your child on this vaccine and for other injuries and for that reason we made this tape. Not only so that you can be informed about the science and you can ask the questions of your pediatrician or you can give him a copy of this tape and ask him to watch it and respond to it.
And if you’re a pediatrician I would ask you to actually look at the science and not resort to appeals to authority because, to say “well I know it’s safe because CDC says it’s safe”, or WHO says it’s safe or the AAP says it’s safe because all of those agencies and organizations have been corrupted by pharmaceutical industry money. You need to actually look at the science.
And you need to read the science critically and if you do that, you’ll find that the things that I’ve talked about in this tape are real. That these injuries are real and that we have got to save our children from this cataclysm.
I want to thank you for listening to this video and urge you to join Children’s Health Defense.
New Study Finds Chemicals In Sunscreen Break Through Your Skin & Seep Into Your Bloodstream
- The Facts:
A new study, one out of many, has shown that it takes less than a day for the chemicals within sunscreen to penetrate the skin and enter into ones bloodstream, beyond levels that are considered safe.
- Reflect On:
What goes on your skin goes in your skin. We've known this for at least a decade, yet these products still get approved without any appropriate safety testing. Why? Have corporations compromised our federal health regulatory agencies?
Collective Evolution has been creating awareness about the potential dangers of sunscreen since the beginning of 2009. When we started to, despite presenting credible peer-reviewed scientific publications and interviews with doctors and scientists, many simply thought this wasn’t true. The idea that our federal health regulatory agencies are really looking out for our health and the idea that we can put absolute trust into these agencies as well as the products that they approve are no longer valid. Enormous amounts of corruption have been exposed over the past decade, which goes to show that we really need to rely on ourselves, utilize our critical thinking, and do our own research instead of allowing government authoritative bodies to do it for us.
Sunscreen, and the entire cosmetics industry for that matter, is a great example of how a lack of oversight exists when it comes to the approval of these products. How were they ever approved and marketed as safe?
A new study published Monday in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA found that several active ingredients in different sunscreens enter the bloodstream at levels that far exceed the FDA’s recommended threshold without a government safety inspection.
The study used 4 commercially available sunscreens, which all resulted in plasma concentrations that exceeded the safety levels established by the FDA. These safety levels themselves should also be questioned, as any amount of toxic chemicals is not really safe in the body, even in trace amounts. The study also points out that it’s questionable that the FDA waved “some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens.” Clearly more are needed. The study concluded that “the systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients supports the need for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings,” although, strangely, it did mention that the results “do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.”
It’s odd that the authors would state that, perhaps they did so because it’s a study that was conducted by the FDA? You would think that “plasma concentrations” that exceed safety levels would have the authors urging individuals to seek out less harmful sunscreen products, since these are available at multiple natural health stores.
The big takeaway here is that, what goes on your skin goes into your skin, and it doesn’t take long. The study mentioned observed chemicals seep into the bloodstream via sunscreen in just 24 hours.
It’s interesting how this particular study caught the attention of the mainstream, when numerous studies have shown the same thing. For example, a study led by researchers at UC Berkeley and Clinica de Salud del Valle Salinas demonstrated how taking even a short break from various cosmetics, shampoos, and other personal care products can lead to a substantial drop in the levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals present within the body. (source)
After just a three-day trial with the girls using only the lower-chemical products, urine samples showed a significant drop in the level of chemicals in the body. Methyl and propyl parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, dropped 44% and 45%, respectively, and metabolites of diethyl phthalate, used often in perfumes, dropped by 27%, and both triclosan and benzophenone-3 fell 36%.
Pretty, crazy, isn’t it?
Back to sunscreen! As far back as 2004, a study conducted at the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Manitoba, Canada, sought to develop a method for quantifying common sunscreen agents. Results demonstrated a significant penetration of all sunscreen agents into the skin, meaning all of these chemicals are entering multiple tissues within the body. (source)
What type of chemicals are we talking about? Oxybenzone is present in multiple popular sunscreens, for example. There are multiple studies that have outlined the dangers of this chemical, as it’s linked to several ailments. For example, a study out of the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology from the University of Zurich determined that oxybenzone may also mimic the effects of estrogen in the body and promote the growth of cancer cells.
Prompted by multiple studies, a study out of the Queensland Cancer Fund Laboratories at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Australia recognized the significance of systemic absorption of sunscreens. Researchers discovered that oxybenzone inhibited cell growth and DNA synthesis and retarded cycle progression in the first of the four phases of the cell cycle. They determined that sunscreen causes mitochondrial stress and changes in drug uptake in certain cell lines.
These are a few of multiple examples, and it’s only for one chemical out of the multiple hormone disrupting, harmful chemicals found within sunscreen.
Furthermore, various studies have shown that sunscreen ingredients, like oxybenzone, actually increase the absorption of other harmful chemicals, like herbicides, which we are constantly exposed to as well.
Agricultural workers are encouraged to use sunscreen to decrease the risk of UV-related skin cancer. Our previous studies have shown certain commercial sunscreens to be penetration enhancers. The focus of this project is to determine whether active ingredients in sunscreen formulations (i.e., the UV absorbing components and insect repellants for the sunscreen/bug repellant combinations) also act as dermal penetration enhancers for herbicides in vitro. Additional studies demonstrated that the penetration enhancement seen across hairless mouse skin also occurred with human skin. Thus, the active ingredients of sunscreen formulations enhance dermal penetration of the moderately lipophilic herbicide 2,4-D. (source)
Again, the main point here is that what you put on your body goes into your body. If you’re putting on sunscreen, or make-up, and you read all of the ingredients, all of those ingredients are also entering into your bloodstream.
So, What’s The Solution?
Are we really supposed to avoid the sun? It doesn’t seem too natural, as it provides us with an enormous amount of nourishment. Not just us, but all life on Earth. Was fear of the sun simply used as a marketing tactic to avoid it and sell these products? Sure, sunburns are bad and can cause cancer, but simple sun exposure is not bad for you. We burn because our skin is not used to so much sun exposure, as we now live unnatural lives out of the sun. When we all of a sudden spend more time outdoors, our skin doesn’t have the time to adjust, and so it burns.
If you want to wear sunscreen, the answer is simple: Seek out sunscreen products without harmful chemicals. Go to a natural health store, do your own research, look online, seek out natural alternative products, and perhaps slowly begin to spend more time outside so your skin adjusts and becomes less prone to burning.
Should we really be spending more time in the sun? According to a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, the life expectancy of people that avoided sun exposure was reduced by about 2 years compared to those who regularly sun bathed. The study even pointed out that nonsmokers who stayed out of the sun had a life expectancy similar to smokers who had the highest level of sun exposure. (source)
In the study, the researchers looked at data from 29,518 Swedish women. The women were 25-64 years of age at the start of the study. The study was originally designed to evaluate the rate of melanoma, a type of skin cancer, so sun exposure was one of the variables that was being examined.
The results showed that women who regularly sun bathed lived longer because they had a lower rate of death, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and deaths that were not due to cancer or CVD as compared to those who avoided sun exposure. However, these women did have a higher rate of death due to cancer, which was in part because they lived longer.
Because nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, the researchers concluded that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.
This isn’t a big surprise, as the sun gives us vitamin D, which plays a huge role in our overall health, especially when it comes to our cardiovascular strength, organ function, blood pressure, bone health, and our immune system. We need sun exposure, and if we are putting on sunscreen every time we are out in the sun as a result of fear propaganda, we are not getting all of those health benefits. Please understand that this list of important benefits represents a fraction of the many ways in which vitamin D helps optimize your health. And, although you can obtain vitamin D from natural food sources, experts agree on one thing: Sunlight is by far the best way to get your vitamin D. The so-called experts who advise you to avoid all sunlight and religiously apply sunscreen are actually encouraging you to increase your risk of cancer, not lower it.
A huge and growing amount of research has now shown that avoiding sun exposure has created an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. Current estimates are that at least 50% of the general population and 80% in infants are deficient in vitamin D. Low levels of D3 are now known to play a major role in the development in many of the chronic degenerative diseases. In fact, vitamin D deficiency may be the most common medical condition in the world and vitamin D supplementation may be the most cost effective strategy in improving health, reducing disease, and living longer. Those deficient in vitamin D have twice the rate of death and a doubling of risk for many diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma and autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. – Dr. Michael Murray (source)
There are so many more studies that back up the information shared in this article. One study revealed that melanoma patients who had higher levels of sun exposure were less likely to die than other melanoma patients, and patients who already had melanoma and got a lot of sun exposure were prone to a less aggressive tumor type. Perhaps there are more prominent causes of skin cancer than the sun?
An Italian study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in June 2008, also confirms and supports earlier studies showing improved survival rates in melanoma patients who were exposed to sunlight more frequently in the time before their melanoma was diagnosed.
This suggests sunlight can actually help skin cancer.
Let’s be clear, healthy sun exposure may not cause skin cancer, but a bad sunburn and unhealthy exposure can. We do need shade, but spending a day out in the sun may be natural and not as dangerous as it’s been made out to be. You can also cover up with clothes, which is more effective than sunscreen as it doesn’t block 100 percent of UV rays.
Many natural oils have also been shown to have SPF protection, so you could do some more research on this if you’re interested.
Below is a video of Dr. Elizabeth Plourde, a licensed Clinical Laboratory Scientist who also has degrees in Biological Science and Psychology. Dr. Plourde has degrees from California State University, Pepperdine University and San Diego Univeristy for Integrative Studies. Currenty, Dr. Plourde uses her experience in her fields of study as well has her work in medical laboratories to focus attention on the hazards of sunscreen, among other things.
A lot of fear has been pumped into the population, to the point where people are terrified to go out into the sun without putting on sunscreen every single time. We are now only starting to understand the long term health consequences of such a practice, and this could be one of many environmental causes contributing to several age-related diseases. Don’t be too scared — it’s not like you’ll develop cancer or a hormone disrupting disease after using conventional sunscreen once. This requires long-term exposure to these chemicals, which is in part why so many people don’t care about what they put on their bodies.
At the end of the day, there are other things you can do, but just know that sunlight is really nothing to fear. It’s very healthy in appropriate amounts, and given the amount of time we spend indoors, the more sunlight we are exposed to the better.
New Study Reveals Many Cancer Patients Are Killed By Chemotherapy & Not The Cancer
Up until recently, chemotherapy and radiation have been the only two approved treatment methods for treating cancer by mainstream medicine,...
Everything You Think You Know About Herpes Is Wrong
Let’s be honest: There’s a huge stigma surrounding herpes. It ends up being a make or break for tons of...