European Food Safety Authority identifies toxic gene in Genetically Modified Crop

Presence of segments of Gene VI create proteins that are deadly to humans.


A virus gene that could be poisonous to humans has been missed when GM food crops have been assessed for safety.

GM crops such as corn and soya, which are being grown around the world for both human and farm animal consumption, include the gene.

A new study by the EU’s official food watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), has revealed that the international approval process for GM crops failed to identify the gene.

As a result, watchdogs have not investigated its impact on human health and the plants themselves when assessing whether they were safe.

The findings are particularly powerful because the work was carried out by independent experts, rather than GM critics.

It was led by Nancy Podevin, who was employed by EFSA, and Patrick du Jardin, of the Plant Biology Unit at the University of Liege in Belgium.

They discovered that 54 of the 86 GM plants approved for commercial growing and food in the US, including corn and soya, contain the viral gene, which is known as ‘Gene VI’.

In this country, these crops are typically fed to farm animals producing meat, milk and eggs.

Significantly, the EFSA researchers concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI ‘might result in unintended phenotypic changes’.

Such changes include the creation of proteins that are toxic to humans. They could also trigger changes in the plants themselves, making them more vulnerable to pests.



U.S. Hospitals illegally firing workers who do not take the flu shot

Note: Hospitals and other healthcare facilities use vaccination “policies”, not laws, to force workers to take the shots. That is because forcing someone to take a vaccine is illegal, therefore no law exists to truly mandate vaccinations.


Patients can refuse a flu shot. Should doctors and nurses have that right, too? That is the thorny question surfacing as U.S. hospitals increasingly crack down on employees who won’t get flu shots, with some workers losing their jobs over their refusal.

“Where does it say that I am no longer a patient if I’m a nurse,” wondered Carrie Calhoun, a longtime critical care nurse in suburban Chicago who was fired last month after she refused a flu shot.

Hospitals’ get-tougher measures coincide with an earlier-than-usual flu season hitting harder than in recent mild seasons. Flu is widespread in most states, and at least 20 children have died.

Most doctors and nurses do get flu shots. But in the past two months, at least 15 nurses and other hospital staffers in four states have been fired for refusing, and several others have resigned, according to affected workers, hospital authorities and published reports.

In Rhode Island, one of three states with tough penalties behind a mandatory vaccine policy for health care workers, more than 1,000 workers recently signed a petition opposing the policy, according to a labor union that has filed suit to end the regulation.

Why would people whose job is to protect sick patients refuse a flu shot? The reasons vary: allergies to flu vaccine, which are rare; religious objections; and skepticism about whether vaccinating health workers will prevent flu in patients.

Dr. Carolyn Bridges, associate director for adult immunization at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says the strongest evidence is from studies in nursing homes, linking flu vaccination among health care workers with fewer patient deaths from all causes.

“We would all like to see stronger data,” she said. But other evidence shows flu vaccination “significantly decreases” flu cases, she said. “It should work the same in a health care worker versus somebody out in the community.”

Cancer nurse Joyce Gingerich is among the skeptics and says her decision to avoid the shot is mostly “a personal thing.” She’s among seven employees at IU Health Goshen Hospital in northern Indiana who were recently fired for refusing flu shots. Gingerich said she gets other vaccinations but thinks it should be a choice. She opposes “the injustice of being forced to put something in my body.”

Medical ethicist Art Caplan says health care workers’ ethical obligation to protect patients trumps their individual rights.

“If you don’t want to do it, you shouldn’t work in that environment,” said Caplan, medical ethics chief at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “Patients should demand that their health care provider gets flu shots — and they should ask them.”

For some people, flu causes only mild symptoms. But it can also lead to pneumonia, and there are thousands of hospitalizations and deaths each year. The number of deaths has varied in recent decades from about 3,000 to 49,000.

A survey by CDC researchers found that in 2011, more than 400 U.S. hospitals required flu vaccinations for their employees and 29 hospitals fired unvaccinated employees.

At Calhoun’s hospital, Alexian Brothers Medical Center in Elk Grove Village, Ill., unvaccinated workers granted exemptions must wear masks and tell patients, “I’m wearing the mask for your safety,” Calhoun says. She says that’s discriminatory and may make patients want to avoid “the dirty nurse” with the mask.

The hospital justified its vaccination policy in an email, citing the CDC’s warning that this year’s flu outbreak was “expected to be among the worst in a decade” and noted that Illinois has already been hit especially hard. The mandatory vaccine policy “is consistent with our health system’s mission to provide the safest environment possible.”

The government recommends flu shots for nearly everyone, starting at age 6 months. Vaccination rates among the general public are generally lower than among health care workers.

According to the most recent federal data, about 63 percent of U.S. health care workers had flu shots as of November. That’s up from previous years, but the government wants 90 percent coverage of health care workers by 2020.

The highest rate, about 88 percent, was among pharmacists, followed by doctors at 84 percent, and nurses, 82 percent. Fewer than half of nursing assistants and aides are vaccinated, Bridges said.

Some hospitals have achieved 90 percent but many fall short. A government health advisory panel has urged those below 90 percent to consider a mandatory program.

Also, the accreditation body over hospitals requires them to offer flu vaccines to workers, and those failing to do that and improve vaccination rates could lose accreditation.

Starting this year, the government’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is requiring hospitals to report employees’ flu vaccination rates as a means to boost the rates, the CDC’s Bridges said. Eventually the data will be posted on the agency’s “Hospital Compare” website.

Several leading doctor groups support mandatory flu shots for workers. And the American Medical Association in November endorsed mandatory shots for those with direct patient contact in nursing homes; elderly patients are particularly vulnerable to flu-related complications. The American Nurses Association supports mandates if they’re adopted at the state level and affect all hospitals, but also says exceptions should be allowed for medical or religious reasons.

Mandates for vaccinating health care workers against other diseases, including measles, mumps and hepatitis, are widely accepted. But some workers have less faith that flu shots work — partly because there are several types of flu virus that often differ each season and manufacturers must reformulate vaccines to try and match the circulating strains.

While not 100 percent effective, this year’s vaccine is a good match, the CDC’s Bridges said.

Several states have laws or regulations requiring flu vaccination for health care workers but only three — Arkansas, Maine and Rhode Island — spell out penalties for those who refuse, according to Alexandra Stewart, a George Washington University expert in immunization policy and co-author of a study appearing this month in the journal Vaccine.

Rhode Island’s regulation, enacted in December, may be the toughest and is being challenged in court by a health workers union. The rule allows exemptions for religious or medical reasons, but requires unvaccinated workers in contact with patients to wear face masks during flu season. Employees who refuse the masks can be fined $100 and may face a complaint or reprimand for unprofessional conduct that could result in losing their professional license.

Some Rhode Island hospitals post signs announcing that workers wearing masks have not received flu shots. Opponents say the masks violate their health privacy.

“We really strongly support the goal of increasing vaccination rates among health care workers and among the population as a whole,” but it should be voluntary, said SEIU Healthcare Employees Union spokesman Chas Walker.

Supporters of health care worker mandates note that to protect public health, courts have endorsed forced vaccination laws affecting the general population during disease outbreaks, and have upheld vaccination requirements for schoolchildren.

Cases involving flu vaccine mandates for health workers have had less success. A 2009 New York state regulation mandating health care worker vaccinations for swine flu and seasonal flu was challenged in court but was later rescinded because of a vaccine shortage. And labor unions have challenged individual hospital mandates enacted without collective bargaining; an appeals court upheld that argument in 2007 in a widely cited case involving Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle.

Calhoun, the Illinois nurse, says she is unsure of her options.

“Most of the hospitals in my area are all implementing these policies,” she said. “This conflict could end the career I have dedicated myself to.”

Vote on our Poll below:

Reduce Two Leading Childhood Diseases by 50% or More without Vaccines


It’s not black magic or some out-of-date belief—just good old-fashioned common sense.

Better hygiene, sanitation, and organic food are the foundations for good health. But to what degree could one of those elements (hygiene, for example) have an effect on decreasing a disease? I think finding the answer to this question and considering the evidence is valuable for parents who are considering vaccinating their children.


Mainstream health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and other such agencies in the United States use emotionally charged language to declare that vaccines—not better sanitation or hygiene— saved the world from deadly diseases.

It is for this reason that I must warn you: Those who push vaccines often trivialize or underestimate the information I am going to share with you. It completely destroys what they have been told for many years.

If you’re interested in learning more, read on.

The Gold Standard

The big secret vaccine peddlers avoid like the plague is, one amazingly simple act reduced two diseases by 50% or more. The most vital point to remember: The decrease in morbidity of—or the rate of incidence of a disease—those affected by the diseases had nothing to do with vaccines!

To get our answer, we turn to Karachi, Pakistan.

In 2002, a randomized controlled trial (a gold standard of scientific research) was performed by Dr. Stephen P. Luby in Karachi, Pakistan. The goal of the study was to assess the impact of hand washing and bathing with soap in settings where infectious diseases are leading causes of childhood disease and death. [1–3]

It is known as the Karachi Health Soap Study.

It’s noteworthy to keep in mind that the variable studied was hand washing—not improved sanitation (waste water treatment), clean drinking water, better food or storage, or even vaccines. In Karachi, sewage contaminates the drinking water and feces contaminates the environment. This is what makes the study so radically powerful!

If you want to see an overview of what was done, read on.

The Power of Simplicity and Education

Here are the some relevant facts you should know about the Karachi Health Soap Study[3]:

  • 25 neighborhoods were either given an antibacterial soap (containing 1.2% triclocarban) or plain soap.
  • 11 neighborhoods were the control. In other words, no hygiene promotion occurred, and no soap was dispensed in these neighborhoods.
  • Both the antibacterial soap and plain soap looked and smelled identical.
  • Both types of soap were packaged identically in generic white wrappers. Neither the fieldworkers nor the families knew whether the soaps were antibacterial or plain.
  • Fieldworkers reviewed with the families the health problems that resulted from contaminated hands and provided them with specific hand-washing instructions.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged households to wash their hands after defecation, after cleaning an infant who had defecated, before preparing food, before eating, and before feeding infants.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged participants to bathe once a day with soap and water.

Here’s what happened next…

Dramatic Decrease in Diseases

Remember my warning in the beginning of the article about the information being dismissed? As you will see, the results are very dramatic.

As noted by the study, in the first 6 months not much change or variation (only 6%) was noted between the different groups. In the graph below, the biggest change came in the second half of the year.


The results of the study were analyzed after 51 weeks.

  • Primary diarrhea outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 47% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
    • Plain soap: 52% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
  • Primary respiratory outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 45% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group
    • Plain soap: 50% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group

It is essential to reemphasize, the World Health Organization lists pneumonia (lower-respiratory infection) and diarrhea as the number 1 and number 2 diseases, which kill more than 3.5 million children worldwide each year. [3–5]

This seems to be in harmony with the principle that Antoine Bechamp—and even Weston Price—wrote about many years ago: The health of the host is everything. The disease is nothing. [6]

Considering that the people in the Karachi study drank the same water, ate the same foods, had the same indoor plumbing (or lack thereof), etc., a significant question has to be asked. If simple hand washing can decrease the morbidity of diarrhea and pneumonia by 50% or more, what happens when better sanitation facilities, food storage, and quality of food are introduced?

Even more important, I’d think there would be comparative data on the effectiveness of hand washing and vaccines. But if that were to happen—given the safety track record of soap versus vaccines—the entire vaccine program would receive a severe death blow.

What we know is when the standard of living increases, mortality and morbidity rates fall.

As an example, mortality rates (not morbidity) in the United States decreased prior to the introduction of vaccines (notice there was not a vaccine for scarlet fever).


What could cause such an intense drop in mortality rates? It obviously wasn’t the vaccines. If vaccines caused a 50% drop in morbidity or mortality rate of a disease within a 6-month period, the media would broadcast it all over the news, singing the praises and benefits of getting injected.

The irony of this study is that the Centers for Disease Control provided some funding and reviewed the data. Here’s an excerpt from the study:

The balance of the funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Inclusion of soap trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services. These data were presented in part at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, GA, USA, in February, 2004. [3]

So, now you know that some people at the Centers for Disease Control know. But here’s the clincher.

Vaccine Pushers

The Centers for Disease Control recommend the following vaccines in the United States to prevent the very same diseases discussed above.

For diarrhea: RotaTeq® (RV5) and Rotarix® (RV1). [7]

For pneumonia: Pneumococcal, haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pertussis (whooping cough), varicella (chickenpox), measles, and influenza (flu) vaccine. [8]

Does the Centers for Disease Control mention washing hands as a means of prevention? Sure—in passing.

They say something to the effect that good hygiene is important, but is not enough to control the spread of the disease. They recommend vaccines.

handwashing-karachi-e1356757852356Then again, you might want to consider why the CDC is so adamant about recommending vaccines. For example, this is from an article on

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned millions of dollars as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine … The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine— effectively, to vote himself rich. [9]

Could the deep ties to the pharmaceutical companies be the reason the CDC puts more emphasis on vaccines? Considering the evidence presented in the Karachi Health Soap Study, which would you choose—better hygiene or a vaccine?


What’s the moral of the story?

The data revealed by Stephen P. Luby in the Karachi Health Soap Study is nothing short of spectacular. Children who washed their hands and skin with plain soap had 52% less diarrhea and 50% less pneumonia. Good hygiene has a significant impact on decreasing disease, and I think it is something we take for granted in the United States.

Please remember this point: If better nutrition and sanitation were added as components of this or a future study, I suspect that Karachi, Pakistan, would see a more dramatic drop in diseases, much like in the United States—and I would highly encourage such efforts.

Just imagine the implications of a comparative study being performed between hygiene practices and vaccines for decreasing disease. What do you think the outcome would be? My money would be on hygiene practices being the clear winner.

Here’s the shocking reality.

You hold in your hands the real power and master key to good health. It doesn’t come through the tip of a needle.


  3. Luby, Stephen P., Mubina Agboatwalla, Daniel R. Feikin, John Painter, Ward Billhimer, Arshad Altaf, and Robert M. Hoekstra.“Effect of Handwashing on Child Health: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” The Lancet 366, no. 9481 (July 16, 2005): 225–233. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66912-7.
  4. WHO Pneumonia Fact Sheet:
  5. WHO Diarrhoeal Fact Sheet:

The Logical Aspects of Vaccines

What do vaccine makers and vaccine pushers hope you don’t understand is that vaccines are a cocktail of chemicals that cause, not cure disease.


I have good news for those of you who did not have time to read our in-depth report about the history of collusion between Big Pharma and Big Government regarding vaccination policy and what both groups have been doing for at least 30 years. The first piece of good news is that you can still read it, as it is readily available on our news site. It is titled VaccineGate: 30 years of secret meetings and dubious science. In the report, we make a detailed account of multiple cases where conflict of interest, dubious science and intentional omission of data ruled over vaccination policy and how this policy sidelines vaccination safety.

The second piece of good news is that if you are one of those people who learn better by watching a video, instead of reading a full, in-depth report, Mike Adams from prepared a fantastic video that summarizes important medical aspects about vaccinations. I believe that after you watch his video, you’ll feel interested to learn more about the dangers of vaccines, and so you’ll come back and read out in-depth article. So I am posting Mike’s video below so you can calmly watch it and make your own conclusions. In the video you’ll find straight to the point, logical, cause – consequence analysis that will make it easier to clear up many of the questions about vaccines that you may not currently understand.

If you think Mike’s video is good and you want to know more, click on any of the two links above to read our in-depth report, which explains how the pharmaceutical industry and government have colluded to promote and in many cases force people to inject themselves with vaccines. The report also provides a historical account that proves that vaccines were never intended to treat or cure disease, and that they have never achieve such a thing. Make sure you click on the links and read the documents provided to confirm that out assertions are correct and that we have documents and proof to say what we claim.

Enjoy the video!


If after watching this video you still believe that vaccines are needed to keep us all safe from disease, that they are a necessary evil, or that government and Big Pharma have the best intentions to help you be healthier, please don’t bother reading our in-depth report. I am sorry to say that you are a lost cause.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

VaccineGate: 30 years of Secret Meetings, Conflict of Interests, Dubious Science

Vaccination policy was put over vaccine safety to save compulsory vaccination programs.


For the past 30 years, vaccination policy was put over vaccine safety … health agencies asked the pharmaceutical industry to ‘correct the print’ when the lab results did not match reality, but did nothing about vaccine safety itself. Although this report only includes information about the hoax known as compulsory vaccination as it has been documented for the past three decades, the horrors of vaccinations have been recorded since at least 1910. As exposed by Child Health Safety, vaccines not only did not save us from disease, but indeed immersed us into it.

For three decades, collusion between Big Pharma and government agencies around the world served to conceal the dangerous side effects vaccines have always had on human health. Such secrecy prevented the public from making informed decisions regarding the use of vaccines. Parents who take their children’s doctors word at face value before deciding whether or not it is a good idea to vaccinate them have been cheated and lied to either by ignorant doctors who never read a real vaccine study, or who were bought off to publicize the ‘wonders’ of vaccines.

The decision to put vaccination policies above the well-being of millions of people around the world is a gross example of ethical misconduct, which as shown on documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, has been imposed as a way to protect the vaccination programs in almost every country. The effectiveness and safety of vaccines has been supported by a list of false premises upon which pseudo-science has been built to make it look as if vaccines were the best to come around since the invention of the wheel.

In truth, though, concepts like “herd immunity”, the importance of maintaining certain vaccination rates, vaccine effectiveness, safety and their role in preventing mass disease have all been embellished to make up for the lack of solid scientific evidence. Perhaps the most outrageous fact is that health agencies have effectively waived the right of individuals to receive critical information about the demonstrated risks of vaccines, which were well-known by people who were supposed to protect the population from risky science.

As pointed by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, author of the document “The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention“, which compiles the history of deception behind vaccination policy, health authorities have unquestionably violated the Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics by ignoring or hiding the dangers that vaccine ingredients represent for human health. Organizations such as the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) of the UK, have made it their jobs to withhold information concerning vaccines, their effectiveness and the health effects on humans, as shown on its protocol from March 30, 2010.

The question is why would health authorities lend themselves to this kind of corrupt schemes? The answer is simple: Many members of government health agencies had, and continue to have deep ties to the pharmaceutical corporations. We know this because that is what documents obtained through FOIA requests show. Health officials and pharmaceutical companies’ representatives met in what is described as “commercial in confidence meetings” which were supposed to be kept secret. These meetings served as fora to decide what information would be published and what would be kept from the public regarding vaccine safety. The names of many participants in those meetings were also removed from JCVI’s website.

In her report The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention, Lucija Tomljenovic not only shows proof of generalized collusion between Big Pharma and government health agencies, but also collects enough proof to detail exactly what those responsible for protecting the health of the public have done in order to further the vaccine industry’s commercial goals. Proof of these and other assertions made below is taken from the Minutes of JCVI CSM/DH Joint Sub-committee on Adverse Reactions.

According to Tomljenovic, between 1983 and 2010, health authorities failed to examine safety concerns about vaccines that had been found during their own investigations. She cites as an example JCVI’s decisions not to investigate, skew data and select information that showed unfavorable results to be taken out of safety reports.

Besides trying to hide negative data or select only beneficial information to be put on medical reports, health authorities restricted contraindication criteria to boost vaccination rates, while not concerning themselves with safety issues. On multiple occasions it was requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to data sheets when such data was in conflict with official advice on immunization. The Minutes show that the health authorities sought, above all, to maintain acceptance rates for vaccination as high as possible even though the effectiveness of vaccines such as the one indicated to treat whooping cough, for example, were suspicious of causing serious respiratory disease. Authorities failed to investigate in detail.

The Chairman of the Committee asked members to consider “History of seizures, convulsions, or cerebral irritation in the neonatal period”. Professor Hull said that this contra-indication would include children with disguised brain damage; this was good for the reputation of the vaccine in that it prevented an apparent association between vaccination and the discovery of brain damage.”

As it has been abundantly proven before, vaccine safety has been based on dubious studies, whose methodology was more than questionable, while health agencies discarded independent research that showed the real results from clinical studies. This type of actions, says Tomljenovic, intended to promote vaccination policies above all. While only official studies were taken into consideration in order to evaluate the safety of vaccines, authorities always treated safety concerns as overblown and insignificant.

“That boosting vaccine uptake appeared to be the major force driving the JCVI’s decision process can be inferred from their request to the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine Merieux to modify the data sheet information related to contraindication to adverse effects, at the 1st May 1987 meeting. Apparently, it was not sufficient to amend existing information on immunisation in their Memorandum to Infectious Diseases, it was also necessary to make that information concordant with the advices stated on manufacturer’s data sheets,” reports Tomljenovic.

“At a later meeting on 23rd October 1987, the JCVI also pressed for a change in the pertussis vaccine licensing details from the manufacturers, in spite of a pertussis vaccine-suspected injury litigation that was ongoing at that time. The Chairman of the JCVI approached the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries to resolve this issue.”

Health authorities such as JCVI, promoted in-house plans and propaganda campaigns to present new vaccines as the solution to treat and cure disease, even though the science behind those vaccines did not prove their efficacy. Both the pharmaceutical industry and the scientific community charged with taking care of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines sought to include new vaccines into the pediatric vaccine schedule, even though licenses had not even been granted. In one case, the committee reviewing data resulting from studies performed to test the safety of the MMR vaccine, agreed that “data from Dr Fombonne was persuasive and indicated that the frequency of regressive autism appeared not to have increased.” The big problem with most epidemiological studies such as the one performed by Fombonne is that they only show results regarding “association” and not “causation”, which basically means that the results are unreliable since they do not estimate true risk.

While in private the tests conducted to determine vaccine safety did not actually test causation, in public, health agencies said that their tests “did not show evidence to support a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease.” Statements such as this one, issued by the CSM found fertile soil at JCVI, who saw the papers as helpful and expressed its strong support for the conclusion reached by the CSM.

During their secret meetings, vaccine industry representatives and their government insiders attempted to create new ways to curb or completely eradicate independent vaccine research that questioned official studies. But worse than everything cited above, both the vaccine industry and health officials took advantage of parents’ ignorance and trust to promote false information about vaccine safety and effectiveness. They did so by promoting questionable data originated in their unchallenged studies which not only were not scientifically supported, but that also put the health of children, women, the elderly everyone else at risk.

On a May 7th, 1999 meeting, officials discussed the importance of keeping the Minutes and the discussions about the new Group C meningococcal vaccines confidential. Professor Hull, the Chairman of the Committee at the time, said that “this was the main agenda item for the meeting.” He said that too much  information had been published and that such publications were making important decisions more difficult to take. Apparently, three new brands of  meningococcal Group C conjugate vaccine were about to hit the market and the decision to sell them would be dependent on providing those vaccines
licenses and the wording of those licenses. For the specific case of the Group C meningococcal vaccines, doctors who had a seat at the Committee had been actively involved in the production and testing of the vaccines while working with the manufacturers.

“Professor Cartwright was involved in manufacturers’ studies on the vaccines, including health trials. Dr Goldblatt was involved in one company-sponsored study and had provided a clinical expert report to the MCA for one manufacturer. Dr Jones was involved in trials for two of the companies involved. Dr Schild said that NIBSC was evaluating the vaccines.” Despite the obvious conflicts of interest, no objections were presented. In fact, it was agreed that these and other doctors would be welcome to provide “valuable input to the discussion in common interest.” What would that common interest be?

Health officials and vaccine manufacturers continued to meet to talk about availability of supposedly scarce vaccines, as well as the introduction of new ones. They also talked about obtaining financial support to train staff from the health services about immunisation. “The Chairman said that Departmental officials had recently met vaccine manufacturers who were keen to be informed, in confidence, of the outcome of JCVI discussions which might affect their own plans.” reads the report detailing the JCVI meeting from 4th May 1990. The studies taken into account to determine whether or not vaccine-related adverse effects should be or not a concern did not properly study, much less detected long-term outcomes.

So what exactly have the pharmaceutical industry and the health official tried to hide from the public by selectively reporting on the results of studies that test the efficacy and safety of their vaccines? In one simple sentence, that their vaccines have played no part in the eradication of disease throughout history, that the idea to push vaccines on the public has its origins — at the very  least — on a purely mercantilist scheme. Big Pharma has intentionally tried to sell their pharmaceutical products even though they know of the health risks of using them.

Take for example the vaccination that sought to end Scurvy, Typhoid and Scarlet Fever. Scurvy is a disease caused by poor nutrition, more specifically low levels of vitamin C. In the UK, the end of the Scurvy plague was not the result of the vaccination campaign to immunize children against the disease, but a consequence of improved living conditions that meant people had more access to fresh fruit and vegetables. (see chart on page 4) The same occurs with the other two diseases cited above. Both in Australia and the United States, mortality rates decreased substantially in the absence of vaccination campaigns, where better living conditions were present. (see chart on page 6).

Similar situations occur when reviewing the danger of getting sick with measles as late as 2007. The chance that anyone in England or Wales, for example, got sick of measles in 2007 was of 1 in 55 million. That is 30 to 60 times lower than getting struck by lightning. Measles mortality rates had fallen sharply between 1912 and 1975, 13 years before the measles vaccine was introduced. By 2010, measles mortality in the United States was at a rate of 4 in every 100 million people. (see chart on page 8)

The same is true for mumps, whose death rates went from about 32 million in 1901 to nearly 0 in 1996. In the case of mumps, though, the medical profession is taken beyond operating on the base of ignorance and into the criminal law and unethical treatment of children. That is because treating a patient unnecessarily for a medical condition or misleading a patient to adopt clinical treatment even when it is dangerous, is a criminal offense. This is the case with the mumps vaccine. According to the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, “since mumps and its complications are rarely serious, there is little indication for the regular use of the mumps vaccine.” In fact, males all over the world who received the mumps vaccine, and who were not allowed to create natural resistance to mumps by contracting it, are now at risk of getting mumps as teenagers or adults which would make them victims of orchitis and sterility.

The next case is Rubella. Graphic information — chart — about death rates is not provided due to the rarity of cases of death in the last century, and the few ones encountered are not even enough to plot a graph. In spite of this reality, the medical industry managed to introduce Rubella vaccines in the immunisation schedule. As it happens with mumps, the risks of injecting vaccines against Rubella are higher than any medical complication caused by the disease, which in most cases are limited to rashes. According to the Danish Medical Bulletin of March 1987, 92% of women with Rubella cases managed to deliver healthy babies. The risk is even lower if those women caught Rubella as children. Of course government health agencies reject the reality of how inoffensive Rubella is to people; even to children, and come up with papers to scare parents into believing that it is necessary to vaccinate them with the MMR poison cocktail. Three examples of this kind of scare tactic are exposed on three papers: False Government Rubella Scare Stories: Reply to Professor Louis Z. Cooper, from June 6, 2005Rubella Scares: Demonstrating the Figures are False from August 11, 2005 and False Government Rubella Scare Stories: Only 20,000 percent Overstated, from June 1, 2005.

Additional proof of falsehood on government and medical industry’s assessment of the effectiveness and safety of vaccines are found repeatedly on studies related to other disease such as Diphtheria, Tetanus and Smallpox. (see graphs on page 17-23).

Amazingly, despite the well known dangers of vaccines, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are being persecuted by police, health officials and school staff. Also, philanthropic organizations are working extra hours to come up with ways to deliver vaccines to the population in a way people have no say about whether they want to use them or not. For example, as we reported last week, Bill Gates is actively working on drone delivery systems to spray vaccines over entire populations, in programs that he says are full of ‘bold ideas’. In the United States the American Medical Association recently presented a plan that would make vaccines mandatory. “AMA recently published a paper proposing the introduction of a new law to force you and your children into experimental vaccine trials, says the report by Christina England. Back on October 9, Lisa Garber from Natural Society reported on how 13,000 people injected with spinal steroid injections for back pain are now victims of fungal meningitis. The vaccines were contaminated with steroids.

Despite the fact vaccines have only caused disease and death for the past century, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry continue to use people as guinea pigs in the open air and lab experiments. Last July, DARPA announced its plan to produce massive amounts of flu vaccines, in case that a global pandemic hit us hard. DARPA said their experimental vaccines would be grown in vegetables. Of course, we now know that it was the flu vaccine what really caused the last flu pandemic, not the H1N1 strain. On July 16, Reuters reported that a new vaccine which contained weakened live viruses in it mutated and created two new deadly strains. The vaccine had been administered to a population of chickens. The animals got sick and experienced respiratory disease. “The viruses emerged in 2008, a year after Australia started using a European vaccine along with two very similar Australian vaccines to fight acute respiratory disease in poultry. The illness causes coughing, sneezing and breathing difficulties in birds, normally killing 5 percent of them.” Back in January, the state of Texas air-dropped rabies vaccine of 7,000 square miles, a true open air experiment that endangered the health of the population in that area. The spraying was done even though rabies cause 2 or less deaths a year in the whole American territory.

The accounts of the type cited above are numerous. You can read more about government’s criminal actions regarding vaccine use by typing the word “vaccines” on our search box for a long list of articles.

If this information and the rest contained in the sources cited within the article is not enough to indict governments and the medical industry for crimes against humanity, then there is nothing that will be able to achieve it. Governments and their corporate cohorts have knowingly poisoned humanity for at least 100 years and using many patients are subjects for experimental pharmaceutical products whose effectiveness and safety have never been properly evaluated. They have prioritize vaccination policy over vaccine safety, and in doing so, they have helped concealed the dangers that vaccines pose to those who are swindled into believing that vaccines treat and / or cure disease, when the contrary is true. Health authorities have published inaccurate and misleading information with the explicit intention to hide the risks of vaccine side effects. What else there needs to be found?

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.