Sudden Death of Your Child After Vaccination May Be Written Off by Researchers

By WENDY LYDALLl | VACTRUTH | MARCH 28, 2013

Around the world, medical authorities tell parents that vaccination has been proven not to cause SIDS, and sometimes they are even told that vaccination prevents SIDS. However, the studies that are used to justify these claims use research methods that do not adequately investigate the possibility that vaccination may actually increase the risk of SIDS in susceptible babies.

The Case-Control Method

A favourite method used by researchers who are looking at the relationship between vaccination and SIDS is the case-control method. Case-control studies compare babies who died with babies who did not die.

The researchers select a group of babies who died of SIDS within a particular geographical area, and these babies are called the cases. Each case is matched with two or three live babies who are called the controls. The vaccination history of the baby who has died is then compared with the vaccination histories of the two or three babies who have not died. Babies who have not received any vaccinations are excluded from the study.

In the case-control studies that have been published, researchers have found that when the live babies were at the age at which the case baby died, they had received more vaccine doses than those who had died. This leads the authors to conclude that vaccination does not cause SIDS, which is a happy conclusion for those who want to promote vaccination, but far from scientifically sound.

One problem with the case-control method is that it could be comparing fragile babies who are susceptible to dying from an immunological onslaught with tougher babies who can survive being injected with animal tissue, human tissue, peanut oil, attenuated germs, toxic metals, toxic chemicals, and genetically engineered yeast. Case-control studies can be useful for investigating something that is static at the time of death; for example, whether the baby was sucking a pacifier, or lying face down.

However, the effects of vaccination are not static; they are ongoing, and they are unknown. Case-control studies can also be useful if you take all the confounding factors into account, but in the case of vaccine susceptibility, no one yet knows what the confounding factors are. Controlling for factors that are known to increase the risk of SIDS does not mean that you are controlling for factors that increase the risk of SIDS from vaccination.

An Important Discovery

In the most recent case-control study, which was done in Germany, researchers found that the babies who died had had fewer vaccinations than the ones who were still alive, and that their vaccinations had been done later. [1]

The latter finding may be significant. Parents can be reluctant to turn up on time for vaccinations when they feel that their baby is unusually fragile, or when they know that vaccine reactions run in the family. Some parents who are not keen on vaccination eventually comply because of the extreme pressure that is put on them, but they do it later than at the prescribed time.

Interestingly, the researchers did find a statistically significantly higher rate of developmental problems, hospital admissions and special investigations, like x-rays or electrocardiograms, in the SIDS babies compared to the live babies. [2] This discovery might mean that the babies with these problems, who were only 22 percent of the SIDS babies, were more susceptible to dying unexpectedly, and that vaccination played no role in their deaths.

Alternatively, it might mean that these babies were susceptible to an unknown effect of vaccination, and that vaccination killed them. A different study design would need to be used to ascertain whether vaccination played a part in the deaths of this 22 percent. The fact that these babies had had fewer doses of vaccine than the live babies with whom they were compared does not mean that they were not pushed over the edge by the vaccines that entered their bodies.

Metabolic Disorders

There has been some consideration of the role that metabolic disorders might play in making children susceptible to adverse reactions from vaccination, but while the possible relationship to SIDS has been considered by one group of doctors, there has not been an actual study. There are many types of metabolic disorders, but each one occurs in only a few children.

In 2010, a group of doctors published an article in which they considered the possibility that some children who were born with metabolic disorders may have died from the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine. The doctors paid special attention to a metabolic disorder called medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency.

After considering the biological pathways in children with medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, the doctors concluded that one third of the babies who were born with this disorder, and who were also injected with the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine, could have died from resultant low blood sugar. [3]  Because medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency is very rare, this amounted to only 39 babies per year in the USA.

The consideration of medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency was only done seven decades after the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine was introduced. There are more than four hundred metabolic disorders that need to be considered and studied. There may be other types of vulnerability apart from metabolic disorders that make babies susceptible to dying quietly from vaccination. Case-control studies are unable to detect deaths that occur because of individual susceptibility.

Long ago, I mentioned to a pediatrician who publishes articles about SIDS that I considered case-control studies to be an inadequate way of testing whether vaccination increases the risk of SIDS. He replied, “That’s the way it has always been done.”

Valentina A. Soldatenkova is a mathematician and physicist who has also expressed the opinion that case-control studies are inadequate for assessing the relationship between vaccination and SIDS. In her published critique of the existing case-control studies, she criticises the study designs employed and statistical methods used by researchers to conclude that there is no relationship between vaccination and SIDS. [4]

The Institute of Medicine in the USA has the job of publishing complicated whitewashes about vaccine side effects, and they, of course, have done exactly that in regard to the question of whether vaccination may cause some cases of SIDS. Their lengthy report on the existing studies concludes that “the evidence does not support a causal link” between vaccination and SIDS.

Soldatenkova says that their report should have stated that “the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation between SIDS and vaccines.” [4]

Temporal Studies

Another type of study that is often quoted as proving that vaccination does not cause SIDS is the temporal study. Central to these studies is the assumption that if vaccination were to cause a sudden unexplained death, it would do so within 12 hours, or 24 hours, or 48 hours, or 7 days, or 14 days. [5,6,7,8] No one knows what vaccines do once they get inside the body, so no one knows what the time frame is for a negative effect. Implying that they do know is bordering on fraudulent.

Antibodies only start appearing two weeks after vaccination, and the production of antibodies continues for a few more weeks. The researchers, who are sometimes being paid to do the study by a vaccine manufacturer, have no basis for assuming that any negative effects of the ingredients in vaccines would take less time to develop than it takes for antibodies to develop.

The Possible Link Between Vaccination, Blood Sugar, and SIDS

It is possible that some SIDS deaths may be caused by low blood sugar. Dr. C. Horvarth reported that during a three-year period in New Zealand, the blood sugar level of 84 babies who had died inexplicably was measured at autopsy, and in 81 of them, the level was found to be below the normal range. [9]

Other studies have shown that low blood sugar is strongly associated with SIDS. [10,11,12,13] When the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine causes the level of blood sugar to drop, the drop starts at about 8 days after injection, reaches its lowest point at about 12 days after injection, and becomes normal at about 24 days after injection. [14]

Promising New Protocols

Many countries have passed legislation that an autopsy must be done after every SIDS death, and they have introduced protocols that have to be followed. This is a great step forward. Previously autopsies were only done if someone felt like doing one, and they could decide what to investigate and what to ignore.

One of the benefits of the introduction of autopsy protocols is that explanations are found for some of the otherwise mysterious deaths. In Germany, for example, a non-SIDS explanation for 11.2% of the SIDS deaths was found because of the autopsies. [15]

In the future, the protocols will help to identify ways to reduce the incidence of SIDS.  In the mean time, they help detect to infant abuse, and they help to prevent parents from being falsely accused of abuse. The protocols also mean that doctors can no longer write off blatantly obvious reactions to vaccination as SIDS.

The usefulness of the autopsies would be enhanced if they were to include an assessment of the blood sugar level at the time of death, which can be done even though blood glucose continues to be broken down for a short while after death. [10, 16]

Conclusion

SIDS has been occurring since long before vaccination was invented. [17]  As records of its incidence were not kept until relatively recently, it is not possible to know whether the rate of SIDS in modern times is different to what it was in the distant past. To gain more insight into the distressing phenomenon of SIDS, blood sugar levels at the time of death should be assessed in every SIDS autopsy, and every vaccine that is recommended for infants should be tested to find out whether it causes blood sugar levels to drop at any time after vaccination.

References

1. Vennemann, M.M., Butterfaß-Bahloul, T., Jorch, G., Brinkmann, B., Findeisen, M., Sauerland, C., et al. (2007). “Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunization.” Vaccine: 25(2), 336–340.

2. Vennemann, M.M., Findeisen, M., Butterfass-Bahloul, T., Jorch, G., Brinkmann, B., Kopcke W. et al. (2005). “Infection, health problems, and health care utilisation, and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.” Archives of Disease in Childhood: 90(5), 520–522. http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/5/520.long

3. Wilson, K., Potter, B., Manuel, D., Keelan, J., & Chakraborty P. (2010). “Revisiting the possibility of serious adverse events from the whole cell pertussis vaccine: Were metabolically vulnerable children at risk?” Medical Hypotheses: 74(1), 150–154.

4. Soldatenkova, V.A. (2007). “Why case-control studies showed no association between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccinations.” Medical Veritas: 4, 1411–1413. http://pdfdownloadfree.net/?pdfurl=1qeXpurpn6Wih-SUpOGunKqnh8PX74XXy…

5. Keens, T.G., Ward, S.L., Gates, E.P., Andree, D.I., & Hart, L.D. (1985). “Ventilatory pattern following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization in infants at risk for sudden infant death syndrome.” American Journal of Diseases of Children: 139(10), 991–994.

6. Hoffman, H.J., Hunter, J.C., Damus, K., Pakter, J., Peterson, D.R., van Belle, G., et al. (1987). “Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death: results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome risk factors.” Pediatrics: 79(4), 598–611.

7. Brotherton, J.M., Hull, B.P., Hayen, A., Gidding, H.F., & Burgess, M.A. (2005). “Probability of coincident vaccination in the 24 or 48 hours preceding sudden infant death syndrome death in Australia.” Pediatrics: 115(6), 643–646. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/6/e643.long

8. Griffin, M.R., Ray, W.A., Livengood, J.R., & Schaffner, W. (1988). “Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine.” New England Journal of Medicine: 319(10), 618–23.

9. Horvarth, C.H. (1990). “Sudden infant death syndrome.” New Zealand Medical Journal: 103(885), 107.

10. Hirvonen, J., Jantti, M., Syrjala, H., Lautala, P., & Akerblom, H.K. (1980). “Hyperplasia of islets of Langerhans and low serum insulin in cot deaths.” Forensic Science International: 16, 213–226. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7009350

11. Read, D.J., Williams, A. L., Hensley, W., Edwards, M., & Beal, S. (1979). “Sudden Infant Deaths: Some Current Research Strategies.” Medical Journal of Australia: 2(5), 236–238, 240–241, 244.

12. Aynsley-Green, A., Polak, J.M., Keeling, J., Gough, M.H., & Baum, J.D. (1978). “Averted sudden neonatal death due to pancreatic nesidioblastosis.” The Lancet: 311(8063), 550–551.

13. Cox, J.N., Guelpa, G., & Terrapon, M. (1976). “Islet-cell hyperplasia and sudden infant death.” The Lancet: 308(7985), 739–740.

14. Dhar, H.L. & West, G.B. (1972). “Sensitization procedures and the blood sugar concentration.” Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology: 24, 249.

15. Findeisen,M., Vennemann, M.M., Brinkmann, B., Ortmann, C., Röse, I., Köpcke, W. et al. (2004). “German study on sudden infant death (GeSID): design, epidemiological and pathological profile.” International Journal of Legal Medicine: 118(3), 163–169. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042379

16. Palmiere, C. & Mangin, P. (2012). “Postmortem chemistry update part I.” International Journal of Legal Medicine: 126(2), 187–98.

17. Limerick, S.R. (1992). “Sudden infant death in historical perspective.” Journal of Clinical Pathology, 45(Suppl), 3–6.

Inflammation in Pregnancy Linked to Autism and Vaccines

By JEFFREY AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | MARCH 25, 2013

If you are pregnant, your doctor may be the greatest threat to your child’s developing brain.

Let me explain.

During pregnancy, your immune response is more prone to systemic inflammation than when you are not pregnant. This type of response may be harmful to the developing fetus and an unintended consequence of your body protecting itself throughout pregnancy.

For example, scientists know that women infected with the flu early in their pregnancy are considerably more likely to give birth to a child with schizophrenia, cerebral palsy, or autism. It was once thought that the mother passed the virus to the baby.

However, it is now known that the mother’s inflammatory immune response to a bacterial or viral infection can injure the baby’s brain. But here’s the catch often ignored by doctors and health agencies.

Data from Caltech researcher Paul Patterson shows that stimulation of the immune system without an infective agent in mice can produce similar results. [1]

Does this mean doctors can continue to pretend the 25 micrograms of mercury in every flu vaccine is safe?

Regardless, many doctors, professional organizations, and government agencies use a shotgun approach and recommend flu vaccines to all pregnant women in any trimester. [2]

Instead of a few pregnant women being at risk for excessive immune stimulation, I’m going to show you powerful information that shows the government’s foolish vaccine policy is putting all pregnant women at risk.

Before I show you how vaccines are causing inflammation in pregnant women, though, I think it is wise to consider the counsel of economist Milton Friedman. He once said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Important Recent Study Finds Autism Linked with Inflammation

A recent study in January 2013 funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that maternal inflammation during early pregnancy increased a child’s risk of developing autism. [3]

Researchers from the study were able to review a central archive known as the Finnish Maternity Cohort (FMC) serum bank – a collection of prenatal serum samples gathered since 1983. Serum is drawn during the first and early second trimesters from more than 98% of pregnant women in Finland. [3]

Out of 1.6 million+ samples, scientists analyzed 677 cases of autism, looking for a well-established low-grade inflammation marker called C-reactive protein (CRP). High levels of CRP can be an indication that the body is responding to a bacterial or viral infection. [3]

The results of the study were clear: A potential 80% increased risk of childhood autism followed exposure to elevated maternal CRP. The data shows the higher the level of CRP in the mother, the greater the risk of autism in the child.

What can vaccines do while you are pregnant?

Vaccines Cause Inflammation in Pregnant Women

Given in context with the information provided above, what you read next may anger you.

In 2011 a study measured the levels of inflammatory responses in pregnant women who were injected with the flu vaccine. Samples were taken at one day, two days, and one week following injection. [4]

Here is how the researchers explained what they found.

Significant increases in CRP (C-reactive protein) were seen at one and two days post-vaccination (ps<05). A similar effect was seen for TNF-α, for which an increase at two days post-vaccination approached statistical significance (p=.06). There was considerable variability in magnitude of response; coefficients of variation for change at two days post-vaccination ranged from 122% to 728%, with the greatest variability in IL-6 responses at this timepoint.(emphasis mine)

They concluded:

As adverse perinatal health outcomes including preeclampsia and preterm birth have an inflammatory component, a tendency toward greater inflammatory responding to immune triggers may predict risk of adverse outcomes, providing insight into biological mechanisms underlying risk… further research is needed to confirm that the mild inflammatory response elicited by vaccination is benign in pregnancy.

This last paragraph is an admission that vaccines are interfering with the maternal immune system and likely changing the outcome of the pregnancy! The simple fact is the “experts” don’t know if vaccines are harming the baby’s brain.

The children in this study are now two to three years old. How about following up and seeing how many of them have autism or are delayed in reaching their developmental milestones?

If I were a mother in this vaccine trial, I would want to know if vaccine-induced inflammation could have had an effect on my child’s brain. The tragedy is even if there was evidence a vaccine harmed my child, current laws completely protect vaccine manufacturers and doctors from any liability.

This should be a huge red flag for you.

Conclusion

The message here isn’t necessarily that viruses and bacteria damage the fetus; it is the mother’s inflammatory response. It is well established that vaccines cause systemic inflammation, which could be harming your child’s brain.

Think about this. 1 in 50 children now have autism!

Doctors and nurses will give you a lot of lip service telling you vaccines are safe. They have a nasty habit of assuming everyone is of the exact same health status and genetic makeup.

The fact is, they have no way of knowing if injecting you with toxic vaccines will injure your child’s brain in the long term.

As a concerned parent, investigate the vaccine schedule right now. See how many vaccines your doctor plans to inject into your child. Check out what is in the vaccines. Lastly, make your decision based on information and not your doctor fearing you.

References

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135697/
2. http://www2.aap.org/immunization/illnesses/flu/influenza.html
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23337946
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204610/

Jeffry John Aufderheide

Jeffry John Aufderheide is the father of a child injured as a result of vaccination. As editor of VacTruth.com, he promotes well-educated health professionals, informed consent, and full disclosure and accountability of adverse reactions to vaccines.

17 examples of admitted vaccine failures

By JEFFREY AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | FEBRUARY 26, 2013

Let’s face it.

As parents, we’re inundated with mixed messages about vaccines.

On one hand, doctors and mainstream media tell you how effective and safe vaccines are. On the other hand, you have parents like me who claim vaccines injured their children, or, in this case, that vaccines really “don’t work” as advertised.

What is often quickly forgotten is how often (and badly) vaccines fail. Ask yourself, “Why don’t these vaccine failures regularly make the news?”

If you can imagine in your mind’s eye, for a moment, the cash register “cha-chinging” while Big Pharma is pulling out a wad of cash, I think you may be getting close to the real answer. There’s big money in making sure the vaccine program is perceived as a success by you.

But this isn’t why you’re here.

Before I give you the 17 examples of how vaccines have failed, please investigate the United States vaccine schedule. Children are injected with 36 vaccines by the time they are 6 years of age.

“>

The United States has the most aggressive vaccine schedule in the world.

You’ll notice a common theme that when vaccines fail, the proposed solution is often more vaccines, even when the child has already received multiple doses to “protect” them.

As promised, here are examples of the children being injected with toxic and ineffective vaccines, which their parents trusted would protect their children from getting the disease.

Vaccine Failure #1 – Mumps Outbreak in Orthodox Jewish Communities in the United States (2010)

A large mumps outbreak occurred among highly vaccinated U.S. Orthodox Jewish communities during 2009 and 2010. Of the teenagers vaccinated,

• 89% had previously received two doses of a mumps-containing vaccine
• 8% had received one dose

Those infected who received a vaccine: 97%. [1]

Vaccine Failure #2 – Mumps Epidemic in Iowa (2006)

In March, 2006, a total of 219 mumps cases had been reported in Iowa – the largest epidemic of mumps in the United States since 1988.

Of the 219 cases reported in Iowa, the average age of infection was 21. Of the 133 patients investigated with a vaccine history,

• 87 (65%) had received 2 doses
• 19 (14%) had received 1 dose
• 8 (6%) had no doses
• 19 (14%) vaccine status could not be documented

Those infected who received a vaccine: 79% (at least). [2]

Vaccine Failure #3 – Mumps Outbreak at a Summer Camp in New York (2005)

On July 26, 2005, the New York State Department of Health identified 31 cases of mumps, possibly introduced by an unvaccinated camp counselor from the United Kingdom (UK). The vaccine coverage for the entire camp was 96%. Of the infected 31,

• 16 (52%) had received 2 doses
• 4 (13%) had received 1 dose
• 9 (29%) had no doses
• 2 (6%) vaccine status could not be documented

20 of the 31 people infected (65%) of the people infected were vaccinated.

Vaccine coverage for the camp: 96%. [3]

Vaccine Failure #4 – Mumps Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated Population (1989)

From October 1988 to April 1989, an outbreak involving 269 cases of mumps occurred in Douglas County, Kansas. Of the 269 cases, 208 (77.3%) occurred among primary and secondary school students, of whom 203 (97.6%) had received a mumps vaccination. [4]

Vaccine Failure #5 – Two Fully Vaccinated Doctors Get Measles (2009)

A measles outbreak in 2009 exposed and infected two physicians, both of whom had been fully vaccinated with two doses of the MMR vaccine. These physicians were suspected of having been infected by treating patients diagnosed with measles.

Scoreboard: Measles 2 – Vaccinated Doctors 0. [5]

Vaccine Failure #6 – Major Measles Epidemic in Quebec Despite 99% Vaccine Coverage (1989)

The 1989 measles outbreak infecting 1,363 people in the province of Quebec was attempted to be explained away as occurring because of “incomplete vaccination coverage.”

However, upon further investigation, it was discovered the vaccination coverage among cases was at least 84.5%. Vaccination coverage for the total population was 99.0%.

Vaccine coverage for population: 99% [6]

Vaccine Failure #7–Outbreak of Measles Despite Appropriate Control Measures (1985)

In 1985, of 118 cases of measles which occurred on a Blackfeet reservation in Montana, 82% were vaccinated. Twenty-three of those cases occurred in the schools in Browning, Montana, where 98.7% of students were vaccinated. [7]

Vaccine Failure #8 – Measles Outbreak in a Fully Immunized Secondary-School Population (1985)

In 1985, an outbreak of measles occurred in a secondary school located in Corpus Christi, Texas. More than 99% had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. The investigators 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.”

Vaccine coverage for school: 99%. [8]

Vaccine Failure #9 – Measles in an Immunized School-Aged Population in New Mexico (1984)

The story keeps repeating.

In 1984, 76 cases of measles were reported in Hobbs, New Mexico. Forty-seven cases (62%) occurred among students. The school reported that 98% of students were vaccinated against measles before the outbreak began.

Vaccine coverage for school: 98% [9]

Vaccine Failure #10 – Measles Outbreak Among Vaccinated High School Students in Illinois (1984)

In 1984, 21 cases of measles occurred in Sangamon County, Illinois.

• 16 (76%) were vaccinated
• 4 (19%) were unvaccinated preschool children
• 1 (5%) vaccinated college student

All 411 students of the local high school were documented as having received the vaccination on or after their first birthday. Investigators remarked, “This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%.”

Vaccine coverage in school children contracting measles: 100% [10]

Vaccine Failure #11 – Analysis of Measles Epidemic; Possible Role of Vaccine Failures (1975)

In 1975, a measles epidemic occurred in schools in Greensville, Ontario. Out of the 47 cases of measles,

• 26 (55.3%) had been vaccinated
• 18 (18.3%) had not been vaccinated
• 3 (6.4%) vaccine status unknown

Researchers concluded one vaccine isn’t enough to protect children. They recommended children be injected with an additional measles vaccine.

Cases of measles in vaccinated children: 55.3%. [11]

Vaccine Failure #12 – Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak (2012)

In 2012, doctors at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center identified 171 cases of pertussis – 132 in children. They noticed increased cases in children between the ages 8-12. They claim vaccine effectiveness was as follows:

• For ages 2-7: 41% effective (?!?)
• For ages 8-12: 24% effective (?!?)
• For ages 13-18: 79% effective

Outside of using colorful adjectives such as garbage, worthless, or junk, the doctors hypothesized children need more vaccines to become “adequately protected.”

Vaccine effectiveness for ages 8-12: 24%. [12]

Vaccine Failure #13 – Clinical Presentation of Pertussis in Fully Immunized Children in Lithuania (2001)

In 2001, Lithuania’s vaccine coverage was 94.6% as a country. From May to December of that year, 53 children showed a serological confirmation of pertussis. Of the 53 children,

• 32 (60.4%) were fully vaccinated
• 21 (39.6%) were partially vaccinated or unvaccinated

Researchers conveniently grouped both partially vaccinated and unvaccinated children together. Twenty-eight of 32 fully vaccinated children (87.5%) had also received antibiotics.

Vaccinated children (who received at least three DTP vaccine doses) represented 43.2% of all pertussis cases diagnosed in 2001.

Vaccine coverage for Lithuania: 94.6%. [13]

Vaccine Failure #14 – Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day Care Centers (2000)

Many health professionals are adamant that vaccines protect against infection. Evidence from a field investigation in Israel challenges this belief.

In 2000, a child died suspected of having pertussis. The baby received the first dose of DTP at two months of age – all family members were completely vaccinated with four doses of DTP.

The day care centers that two siblings had attended during the child’s illness were investigated. All the children in the day care had been vaccinated in infancy with four doses of diphtheria-tetanus toxoid pertussis (DTP) vaccine, and a booster dose at 12 months of age.

Five fully vaccinated children were found to be colonized with Bordetella pertussis.

At the conclusion of the investigation, researchers stressed the following information:

“Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants. The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection. Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.”

They re-emphasized again, “Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community.”

Vaccine coverage in daycare: 100% [14]

Vaccine Failure #15 – Pertussis Outbreak in Vermont (1996)

In 1996, over 280 cases of pertussis cases were identified in Vermont. Here is the breakdown of the age groups of those infected:

• 12 (4%) were aged less than 1 year
• 32 (11%) were 1-4 years
• 42 (15%) were 5-9 years
• 129 (46%) were 10-19 years
• 65 (23%) were greater than or equal to 20 years

How many of these 215 children were vaccinated? According to the report, of the children who had a known vaccine status,

• 5 children aged 7-47 months were partially vaccinated
• 14 children aged 7-47 months were vaccinated with 3 doses
• 49 children aged 7-18 years were partially vaccinated
• 106 children aged 7-18 years were fully vaccinated

Disturbingly, 174 children were vaccinated and over half (61%) of the school children were considered “fully vaccinated!” It’s also important to keep in mind that in 1996, 97% of children aged 19-35 months in Vermont had received three or more doses of DT or DTP vaccine.

Complete failure in vaccinated children: at least 80.9% [15]

Vaccine Failure #16 – Outbreak of Varicella at a Day Care Center Despite Vaccination (2012)

Sometimes instead of saying a vaccine is a complete failure, a term such as “breakthrough varicella” is used to describe how children get the disease for which they were vaccinated.

In December of 2012, an outbreak occurred in a private day care center in a small community near Concord, New Hampshire. There were a total of 25 cases of varicella reported in children.

• 17 (68%) were vaccinated
• 8 (32%) were unvaccinated – two of these children were vaccinated in late December and classified as “unvaccinated”

The investigators lamented that the vaccine was 44% effective, saying, “The reasons for the poor performance of the vaccine are not apparent…the findings in this investigation raise concern that the current vaccination strategy may not protect all children adequately.”

Vaccine coverage: 73.1% [16]

Vaccine Failure #17 – An Outbreak of Chickenpox in Elementary School Children with Two-Dose Varicella Vaccine Recipients (2006)

When it is apparent one vaccine isn’t working, the answer is almost always more vaccines… ever notice?

In June 2006, a second dose of the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine was recommended for school entry. Shortly after school had begun, the Arkansas Department of Health was notified of a varicella outbreak in students.

Vaccination information was available for 871 (99%) of the 880 children. Ninety-seven percent of the children had been vaccinated for varicella! In this outbreak, 84 cases were reported.

Vaccine coverage: 97%. [17]

Conclusion

As you can see from the above examples, vaccines fail and do so often. Trust me, there are many more examples I didn’t cover here.

Here’s a tip for you if you want to look for more information. Open your browser right now. Go to Google.com and do a search for the terms “previously immunized for (x)” or “breakthrough (x) in school.” X, of course, represents a “vaccine preventable” disease such as pertussis, measles, varicella, etc., – you get the point.

As a parent, you trust doctors to provide you with accurate information. When doctors say vaccines work and they are effective, from whom are they getting their information?

Maybe even more importantly, why aren’t the vaccine failures covered by mainstream media to inform you? The likely answer is the organizations who really need protection from the truth are the members of Big Pharma – and I don’t think there is a vaccine for that (although they may try to create one).

If you find other examples, please post them below (with the link to PubMed) for other parents to read.

References

1. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1202865
2. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d330a1.htm
3. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5507a2.htm
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1861205
5. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S559.full.pdf+html
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1884314
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=3618578
8. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303
9. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000476.htm
10. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1956577/
12. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/cid.cis287
13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15918913
14. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm
15. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049244.htm
16. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021662
17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19593254

Vaccine injuries in Africa being covered-up

By CHRISTINA ENGLAND | VACTRUTH | FEBRUARY 14, 2013

Millions of children across Africa have been included in meningitis vaccine trials, many without parental consent. VacTruth recently revealed this information, resulting in many agencies desperately trying to cover up this travesty and the sacking of two leading heads of state.

Shortly after VacTruth published the first of three articles covering the MenAfriVac vaccine tragedy in which dozens of children were paralyzed, in Gouro, Chad, in northern Africa, the prime minister of Chad, Emmanuel Nadingar, was relieved of his duties and replaced by the former chief of cabinet, Djimrangar Dadnadji. According to an excellent article by the human rights organization Ecoterra International, this abrupt change in leadership was ordered by Chad’s president Idris Déby, a patron of the anti-meningitis campaign. [1]

BIG NAMES, BIG MISTAKE

On January 13, 2013, VacTruth published the second of the three articles. By this time, Chadian authorities had reported that a total of 38 children who were suffering from adverse reactions to the vaccine had been evacuated to hospitals in N’Djamena, Chad’s capital. [2]

A few weeks later, VacTruth was informed that the health minister of Chad, Mamouth Nahor N’Gawara, had also been relieved of his duties and replaced by Dr. Mahamat Ahmat Djidda. [3]

So, why the sudden changes in leadership? It may have had something to do with the fact that VacTruth had reported the conflicting views from involved organizations on whether or not the MenAfriVac vaccine could be used outside of the usual controlled temperature chain (CTC) of 2 – 8 °C.

The organizations involved with the promotion of the vaccine had stated that MenAfriVac was a vaccine specifically designed to meet the needs of Africa’s meningitis belt, which stretches across sub-Saharan Africa. These organizations stated that the vaccine could be kept in a controlled temperature chain (CTC) at temperatures of up to 40°C for up to four days without the need for ice packs or refrigeration.

The organizations involved in the promotion of this information were the CDC, FDA, BMGF, PATH, MVP, WHO and UNICEF. (For meanings of these acronyms, please refer to key at the end of this article.)

YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT

Of course this information would have been fantastic news for Africa, except for one vital point: at the time we published our articles, Serum Institute of India, the manufacturer of the vaccine, was promoting conflicting information. They had stated on their website:

“MenAfriVac should be stored and transported between 2-8ºC. Protect from light. The diluent should be stored at 25°C. It is recommended to protect the reconstituted vaccine from direct sunlight. Do not exceed the expiry date stated on the external packaging.”

Here is a snapshot of the original page.

An archived snapshot of the vaccine manufacturer’s website show they changed information about the storage of the vaccine shortly after the children became paralyzed.

However, when this information was checked for verification last week, the recommendations for vaccine storage had mysteriously changed to the following statements:

“MenAfriVac should be stored and transported between 2-8ºC. Protect from light. The diluent should be stored at 25°C. It is recommended to protect the reconstituted vaccine from direct sunlight. Do not exceed the expiry date stated on the external packaging. Immediately prior to reconstitution the vaccine is stable and can be used when exposed up to 40ºC for period of 4 days provided the vaccine has not reached its expiry date and the vaccine vial monitor has not reached the discard point.” [4]

Why was this information suddenly changed, after the vaccine had already been stored and administered according to the previous guidelines? Was it because we reported that dozens of children were paralyzed and suffering other adverse reactions after receiving MenAfriVac? Was it because we reported that this vaccine was administered to third-world children before it was licensed?

In October 2012, WHO had stated:

“The session began with an introduction by Mr. Michel Zaffran, who highlighted the groundbreaking progress made with MenAfriVac®, which will be the first EPI vaccine licensed for use in a controlled temperature chain (CTC).

… This is the final review of the document by IPAC prior to the planned field testing during the MenAfriVac® campaign in Benin in November 2012, where one district will use the vaccine in a CTC. After the field testing has been conducted, the revised final guidance document will come back to IPAC for endorsement in 2013.” [5]

The reasons why the manufacturer suddenly changed their recommendations for storage and transport remain a mystery. However, this new controversy still does not take away the fact that MenAfriVac was not licensed to travel in a CTC of temperatures of up to 40°C at the time the children of Gouro were vaccinated.

THIS DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!

What exactly is a controlled temperature chain? If these vaccines do not need refrigeration or ice packs for up to four days, how does the word “controlled” come into the process? Surely, without ice packs or refrigeration, there is no controlled temperature chain.

MenAfriVac is an inactivated vaccine (a vaccine which does not use a live virus). Previously, according to the CDC guidelines for vaccine temperature and storage, inactivated vaccines needed refrigerator storage at temperatures between 35°F and 46°F (2°C to 8°C), with a desired average temperature of 40°F (5°C). (Note, that is 40°F not 40°C.) [6]

So, what makes the MenAfriVac vaccine so different from other vaccines, that it does not require refrigeration for up to four days?

Another important point to consider is the fact that temperatures across Africa can exceed 40°C. According to the website Weather Spark, the average weather for N’Djamena, Chad varies between 15°C and 41°C. Their temperatures are rarely below 12°C or above 44°C. This means that outdoor temperatures can reach 44°C in a typical year. [7] In fact, in June 2010, temperatures in Chad reached an all-time high of 47.6°C. [8]

MORE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

This information leads me to ask the following questions:

If the outdoor temperatures can reach 44°C in a typical year and the MenAfriVac vaccine is traveling inside a vehicle which may not have air-conditioning, in a container without ice packs or refrigeration, then how do the vaccinators know the true temperature the vaccine has reached at any given time?

If the truck carrying the vaccines is traveling across Africa at the time that the outdoor temperatures rise above 40°C, does the team return to base and scrap that particular batch of vaccines?

Can both the vaccine and the diluents be kept at the same temperature?

I ask the third question because it is usual for the vaccine and the diluents to be kept at different temperatures in accordance with recommendations from the manufacturer and the CDC.

ANOTHER SUSPICIOUS TRIAL

Another interesting point to consider is this: at the time the MenAfriVac vaccine was being administered to the children in Gouro, it was being tested to see whether or not it was safe to be administered to children in temperatures of up to 40°C. Therefore, it is odd that the vaccinators chose to vaccinate the children at the time of year when temperatures are usually below 30°C.

The children of Gouro were not the only children being used in clinical trials for the MenAfriVac vaccine. Babies between the ages of 14 –18 weeks were also being used for clinical trials in Ghana.

According to the Meningitis Vaccine Project (MVP), a MenAfriVac phase 2 clinical trial was carried out in Ghana, testing the vaccine for use in the under-one age group. The trial was carried out over a four-year period from November 2008 to November 2012 at the Navrongo Health Research Center, Navrongo, Ghana. A total of 1,200 infants took part in the trial, aged between 14 to 18 weeks on enrollment. MVP stated:

“Study results: Preliminary results show that the vaccine is safe and highly immunogenic. Final results will be presented in a forthcoming scientific publication.” [9]

The MVP News Digest reported the following:

“Research to document an indication for MenAfriVac™ use in infancy (in under 1-year-olds) is progressing well and according to schedule. A database lock for PsA-TT-004 was completed on December 21. PsA-TT-004 is a Phase 2 study that evaluates the safety and immunogenicity of different dosages and schedules of the MenA conjugate vaccine in 1,200 healthy infants when administered concomitantly with EPI vaccines. The study is conducted at the Navrongo Health Research Centre in Ghana and is scheduled for completion in early 2013.” [10]

On February 4, 2013, Spy News Ghana stated that the research findings show that MenAfriVac is safe and can be given to children under one year old, providing long-term protection from Group-A meningococcal meningitis in this age group. [11]

CONCLUSION

Today, the latest news from Gouro is that 40 children remain paralyzed in hospitals in both Chad and Tunisia, and a further 56 remain ill in the village of Gouro. However, news from Ecoterra International on February 9, 2013, said that the new heath minister wants to send them back home to their ill-equipped village. [12]

Until our intervention, there had been no publicity about the serious vaccine injuries in Chad. However, since our articles were published, there has been a flurry of worldwide media attention, including an extremely biased report in the Guardian UK telling the world that MenAfriVac is a wonderful vaccine. Mind you, to be fair, as you will see from the article, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a well-known supporter of vaccination initiatives, funded this section of the Guardian. [13]

The whole debacle is one coverup after another. The Chadian government has not asked any independent experts to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the MenAfriVac campaign, stirring up anger among the citizens of Chad. They have been left to cope with extremely sick children, many of whom are still reported to be paralyzed and suffering from severe convulsions. The children need appropriate medical care and their parents deserve answers.

Key

CDC – Centers for Disease Control
FDA – Food and Drug Administration
BMGF – The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
PATH – Program for Appropriate Technology in Health
MVP – Meningitis Vaccine Project
WHO – World Health Organization
UNICEF – United Nations International Children’s Emergency Funding

References

1.  http://www.tolerance.ca/Article.aspx?ID=157421&L=en
2.  http://www.sante-tchad.org/Renforcer-les-ressources-humaines-en…
3.  http://vactruth.com/2013/01/13/children-paralyzed-by-vaccine/
4.  http://www.seruminstitute.com/content/products/product_menafrivac.htm
5.  http://www.who.int/immunization_delivery/systems_policy/IPAC_2012_October_report.pdf
6.  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/vac-storage.html#temperatures
7.  http://weatherspark.com/averages/29142/N-Djamena-Chari-Baguirmi-Chad
8.  http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/9-countries-have-recorded…
9.  http://www.meningvax.org/clinical-004.php
10. http://www.meningvax.org/files/MVPnewsdigest_2010_Q4_27_EN.pdf
11. http://www.spyghana.com/research-shows-that-new-meningitis-vaccine-is-safe-for-children/
12. http://www.groundreport.com/World/Do-to-them-what-they-are-doing-to-you/2951229
13. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/feb/04/aid-vaccines…

8 Damn Good Reasons Not to Get the Flu Shot

By JEFFRY J. AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | FEBRUARY 4, 2013

Every year the mainstream media war drum beats for you to get vaccinated against the flu. They rarely discuss anything but the benefits of the vaccine.

Why?

Maybe it is because many people are already skeptical about the flu vaccine.

I’m going to be very up front with you here. You rarely hear about the adverse reactions or about the toxic chemicals being injected into you. My goal is to get you to investigate vaccines more closely. Here are eight reasons to question the flu shot.

Let’s begin…

REASON #1: NEUROTOXIC INGREDIENTS

A common urban myth is that the mercury has been taken out of vaccines. This is not true.

Several of the flu vaccines contain a neurotoxic ingredient called thimerosal (mercury). Each one of the flu vaccines listed below contains 25 micrograms of mercury. [1] The vaccines are:

• Afluria CSL (Limited for Merck)
• FluLaval (GlaxoSmithKline)
• Fluvirin (Novartis)
• Fluzone (Sanofi Pasteur)

Keep in mind you are being told conflicting stories.

After parents and scientists discovered that mercury was present in the vaccines, they had concerns about the substance causing neurological problems in children.

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control have told you mercury in the vaccines isn’t bad for us, but as a precaution, it will be taken out of the vaccines.

Now the same organizations are telling parents if mercury isn’t kept it in the vaccines, millions will suffer. Why? Removing the mercury from vaccines would cause a major disruption in the manufacturing and supply of vaccines.[2]

Much of the evidence on the toxicity of thimerosal was swept under the rug at a secret meeting held by the Centers for Disease Control in Simpsonwood, Georgia. I’d like to invite you to read a few quotes from the meeting. I think you will see why the Centers for Disease Control wants to keep the lid on thimerosal.

Here are three important quotes from the Simpsonwood Document:

“…the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” – Dr. William Weil, American Academy of Pediatrics. Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000

“Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.” – Dr. Robert Johnson, Immunologist, University of Colorado, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000

“But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say…My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.” – Dr. John Clements, World Health Organization, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000 [3]

We at VacTruth encourage you to investigate what is being injected into your child.

 REASON #2: 4250% INCREASE IN FETAL DEATHS REPORTED

Speaking of mercury being unsafe — if you’re pregnant, beware of doctors using aggressive fear tactics pushing you to get vaccinated. Here’s why…

On September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal (HET) published a study by Dr. Gary Goldman reporting a 4,250 percent increase in the number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season. [4]

That year the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had recommended the double-dosing pregnant mothers with two flu shots spiked with mercury.

In his abstract, Goldman said:

“The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season.” [4]

How can injecting these filthy vaccines into pregnant mothers be remotely safe?

 REASON #3: VACCINE-INDUCED NARCOLEPSY

Do you recall the vaccine-frenzied media telling us to get our flu shots during the H1N1 pandemic? What they didn’t tell you are the possible long-term side effects of those vaccines that are now being revealed.

Recent news about the flu vaccine suspects one of the experimental vaccines causing narcolepsy in about 800 European children. [5]

Specifically, two studies in Finland directly point the finger at the vaccine. [6, 7]

The conclusion of one study states:

“We observed a 17-fold increase in the annual incidence of narcolepsy in 2010 as compared to previous years in children aged under 17 years of age. A common feature in the history of our 54 newly diagnosed childhood narcoleptic patients was that 50 children had received an adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine (Pandemrix) within 8 months before the onset of symptoms. In most cases, the development of symptoms was fast. We consider it likely that Pandemrix vaccination contributed to the increased incidence of narcolepsy in Finland…” [7]

The children’s misfortune is they now have to deal with an illness that all but destroys their once normal life. Do you think the pharmaceutical companies will take any responsibility?

 REASON #4: “THEY ARE PROTECTED” … FROM YOU!

I’m not sure about other countries, but in the United States, if your child is harmed by a vaccine, there is little action you can take legally.

The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed was to protect pharmaceutical companies from anyone claiming a vaccine injured their child. Under this law, no parent can sue a vaccine manufacturer. [8]

If you decide to vaccinate your children, you do so at your own risk. No vaccine manufacturer is liable for your child’s vaccine-related injury or death from a recommended vaccine, regardless if the FDA or CDC helped get an untested flu vaccine approved.

 REASON #5: IF YOU GET VACCINATED, YOU SHED THE VIRUS

If getting injected with neurotoxins or suffering from narcolepsy isn’t enough, expect to shed the flu virus and likely infect others if you decide to get the nasal spray vaccine.

Information from the Centers for Disease Control website indicates “that both children and adults vaccinated with live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses.” [9]

In one study of children in a daycare setting, 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains for an average of 7.5 days. [9]

 REASON #6: IF YOU GET THE FLU VACCINE, EXPECT TO GET THE FLU

This might be a shock to you – if you investigate the vaccine carefully enough, you’ll discover that getting vaccinated can actually predispose you to getting the flu!

One particular study surprised researchers when they discovered “a significant positive association between the seasonal influenza vaccine and lab confirmed pH1N1 was observed.” [10]

As anecdotal evidence, you may or may not have seen what happened to television host Piers Morgan. If you didn’t, here is the condensed version.

Piers Morgan went on the Dr. Oz television show to get injected with the toxic flu vaccine in front of a live audience. Days later he came down with the flu. [11]

Did the flu vaccine cause him to get the flu? You can decide for yourself on this one.

 REASON #7: EVERY YEAR THE EXPERTS GUESS

Do you know how the flu strain is picked to put into the vaccine every year? The “experts” guess.

Every year, the influenza viruses in the seasonal flu vaccine are selected through calculations about what flu viruses are most likely to cause illness in the coming season. The FDA, acting in concert with the CDC, decides what vaccine strains for influenza vaccines to be sold in the U.S. [12]

What happens if the virus mutates or the “experts” guess incorrectly? Please see Reason #1…

 REASON #8: THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL’S RECIPE FOR GENERATING FEAR

Many people believe the Centers for Disease Control is beyond using propaganda ploys. You might get a different impression from the information I’m about to share with you. It may seem as if the CDC fears you into getting vaccinated, much like doctors do.

What do I mean and where is this recipe?

Some years ago, the associate director for communications for the national immunization program, Glen Nowak, made a presentation entitled Planning for the 2004-05 Influenza Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis.

I am going to include the entire “recipe” so you can see the complexity of the propaganda being regularly used on you to get vaccinated.

The slide on page 27 of the presentation reads:

“Recipe” that Fosters Higher Interest and Demand for Influenza Vaccine

1. Influenza’s arrival coincides with immunization “season” (i.e., when people can take action)

2. Dominant strain and/or initial cases of disease are:

–Associated with severe illness and/or outcomes

–Occur among people for whom influenza is not generally perceived to cause serious complications (e.g., children, healthy adults, healthy seniors)

–In cities and communities with significant media outlets (e.g., daily newspapers, major TV stations)

3. Medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)–and urge influenza vaccination.

4. The combination of ‘2’ and ‘3’ result in:

A. Significant media interest and attention

B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”)

C. Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people–helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.

6. Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)

7. References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza– along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.” [13]

The message is extremely familiar. You see it played out every year on the news channels. To be clear, what you just read is a recipe to sell more of Big Pharma’s toxic vaccines.

References

1. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm

2. http://vactruth.com/2012/12/23/mercury-in-vaccines/

3. http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html

4. http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.abstract?rss=1

5. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-narcolepsy…

6. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033536#close

7. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033723

8. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

9. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/laiv-shed.htm

10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001885

11. http://www.infowars.com/piers-morgan-falls-ill-days-after-receiving-flu-vaccine/

12. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/virusqa.htm

13. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19212191/2004flunowak