The Great Vac­ci­na­tion Controversy

Traveling Minds - - Table Of Contents -

Vac­cines: Med­i­cal Mir­a­cle or Life-threat­en­ing Fraud?

It is a sad but deadly mul­ti­fac­eted re­al­ity. Vac­cines, for so long a part of medicine’s bag of tricks in deal­ing with ev­ery­thing from small­pox to measles, mumps and more, have been cel­e­brated as he­roes in ei­ther com­pletely erad­i­cat­ing or at least slow­ing the spread of deadly and crip­pling ill­nesses from gen­er­a­tion to gen­er­a­tion. They have also been im­pli­cated as the prime cul­prit be­hind the rise of autism from an es­ti­mated 1 in 15,000 chil­dren born in the 1970s to 1 in 68 births as of 2014. The truth of the mat­ter is that vac­cines do have a vi­able place in mod­ern life. But a com­bi­na­tion what is in many cases in­volves a lot of trial and er­ror in the syn­the­sis part of the process, and the ugly pres­sures, cor­rup­tion and coverups of the mod­ern med­i­cal in­dus­try, have cre­ated a mod­ern med­i­cal mess rather than a mir­a­cle in many cases.

How Vac­ci­na­tion Works

The con­cept be­hind vac­cines rests in part of the sci­en­tific magic about how the hu­man body’s dis­ease-fight­ing sys­tem works. When a per­son is ex­posed to an ill­ness, the body’s im­mune sys­tem kicks into ac­tion. In most cases, part of that ac­tion is to cre­ate an­ti­bod­ies to what­ever has en­tered the body. Those an­ti­bod­ies may al­ready ex­ist be­cause of a prior ex­po­sure to the same or sim­i­lar dis­ease in the past. If so, the body dis­patches the an­ti­bod­ies and the in­fec­tion is killed in the process. If the ill­ness is a new one the body has never en­coun­tered, then the body re­sponds by cre­at­ing new an­ti­bod­ies de­vel­oped ex­plic­itly to at­tack the dis­ease in ques­tion. The an­ti­bod­ies then go af­ter the newly-dis­cov­ered dis­ease and kill it. When a child is born, it nor­mally in­cludes in its im­mune de­fenses an­ti­bod­ies passed on from the mother. Af­ter birth, just by be­ing ex­posed to a va­ri­ety of po­ten­tial pathogens, it de­vel­ops its own unique mix of bod­ily im­mune de­fenses. That process is con­sid­ered so im­por­tant that it is now felt that hav­ing too clean an en­vi­ron­ment in a child’s early years can ac­tu­ally cause the child to be more vul­ner­a­ble to dis­ease. When a vac­cine is given to a per­son, ei­ther a weak­ened live ver­sion of a dis­ease strain, or a dead ver­sion of the dis­ease strain, or a weak­ened live or dead in­fec­tious blend which is sim­i­lar to the dis­ease strain gets in­tro­duced into the body. The quan­tity of ma­te­rial is small so as to avoid the chance of a full-blown in­ci­dence of the dis­ease be­ing passed on with the vac­cine.

They also in­clude, mostly be­cause there are few other ways to have them be ef­fec­tive, var­i­ous dis­pers­ing agents such as wa­ter, as the sim­plest. They also of­ten in­clude preser­va­tives of some kind, which are in­cluded to ex­tend the shelf life and tem­per­a­ture sta­bil­ity of the prod­ucts. They also may in­clude, just as a nor­mal by-prod­uct of how they are cre­ated in mass pro­duc­tion, ma­te­ri­als such as small quan­ti­ties of egg (in the case of some flu vac­cines) be­cause eggs were used in grow­ing the vac­cines and can­not be com­pletely sep­a­rated from the “ac­tive” in­gre­di­ents of the vac­cine it­self. Vac­cines can in­clude other in­gre­di­ents not listed, such as peanut oil — which causes peanut al­ler­gies, aborted hu­man fe­tal cells, an­i­mal cells, in­ad­ver­tent live virus and other harm­ful things. Vac­cines are in­tro­duced ei­ther by in­jec­tion or orally. For ef­fi­ciency in their ap­pli­ca­tion, vac­cines are also of­ten cre­ated which in­clude a mix of dif­fer­ent po­ten­tial pathogens. The flu vac­cines pro­duced ev­ery year are a good ex­am­ple of that, as they in­clude in one shot a blend of what med­i­cal pro­fes­sion­als be­lieve will be the strains of flu which will be most wide­spread in the com­ing flu sea­son. There the con­cept of ‘ef­fi­ciency’ al­lows one shot to cover mul­ti­ple some­what sim­i­lar ill­nesses in one dose. A sec­ond kind of ef­fi­ciency in­volves lump­ing to­gether mul­ti­ple vac­cines of com­pletely dif­fer­ent dis­eases in one dose. The logic be­hind this has some sim­i­lar­i­ties with the flu vac­cine con­cept, in that com­bin­ing sev­eral vac­ci­na­tions one was prob­a­bly go­ing to take any­way – into one shot – does save time and even stock­ing com­plex­ity on the med­i­cal side of things. But this sec­ond kind of ef­fi­ciency is meant to cover putting vac­cines for un­re­lated ill­nesses into a sin­gle shot, with the logic that one was also plan­ning to take them any­way around the same time. A good ex­am­ple here is the MMR vac­cine, which is in­tended to pro­tect against measles, mumps, and rubella (also known as Ger­many measles). That is the vac­cine orig­i­nally cre­ated by Mau­rice Hille­man, a re­search sci­en­tist, while he was em­ployed by bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal gi­ant Merck. The vac­cine is per­haps one of the ul­ti­mate “one stop shop­ping” vac­cines, with three once-quite-com­mon child­hood dis­eases in the­ory be­ing pro­tected by a sin­gle vac­ci­na­tion shot for very young chil­dren. It is also the vac­cine which has been more closely tied to the rise of autism than any other.

Some His­tory

Even with­out a full un­der­stand­ing of the bio­med­i­cal prin­ci­ples be­hind vac­ci­na­tion, peo­ple have been mak­ing use of vac­ci­na­tions of var­i­ous kinds for over 1100 years. One of the first ill­nesses to be at­tacked with vac­ci­na­tion as the weapon of choice was small­pox, a par­tic­u­larly deadly dis­ease. Ac­cord­ing to his­tor­i­cal records, dur­ing the 10th cen­tury, the Chi­nese, long re­garded as in­no­va­tors in many of the sciences, first ex­per­i­mented with a method known as “nasal in­suf­fla­tion” to pro­tect peo­ple from catch­ing the ill­ness. This worked by tak­ing small­pox sam­ples (or from its re­lated cousin, cow­pox), and blow­ing pow­ered small­pox ma­te­ri­als, of­ten de­rived from scabs, up through the nose. There are also records of ac­tual blood ex­po­sure to the small­pox ma­te­ri­als go­ing back that far as well. In­for­ma­tion about th­ese meth­ods was widely spread by Dr. Martin Lis­ter af­ter hear­ing about them from those who had vis­ited China. Vac­cines be­came more sci­en­tific in their cre­ation, test­ing and de­ploy­ment over time. A ma­jor break­through hap­pened with the cre­ation of the more sta­ble small­pox vac­cines in the 1790s by sur­geon/apothe­cary Ed­ward Jen­ner. He had no­ticed that dairy work­ers of­ten would never catch the of­ten deadly small­pox, in part be­cause they had al­ready been ex­posed to cow­pox, a re­lated ill­ness with only mild symp­toms in peo­ple. He took pus from the hand of a milk­maid who had cow­pox and then in­tro­duced it into an 8-year old boy by scratch­ing him with it. Six weeks later Jen­ner then de­lib­er­ately ex­posed the boy to small­pox (some­thing which sounds hor­rific in ret­ro­spect but was for Jen­ner a nec­es­sary part of the so­lu­tion). And the boy never caught small­pox. Louis Pas­teur of France picked up the next ma­jor wave of vac­cine de­vel­op­ment, with the cre­ation of spe­cific vac­cines for chicken cholera and an­thrax. Vac­ci­na­tion be­came such a mat­ter of im­por­tance to the health of na­tions that in the 19th cen­tury the first gov­ern­men­tal reg­u­la­tions man­dat­ing vac­ci­na­tions for cer­tain ill­nesses went into ef­fect. In the 20th cen­tury the mass busi­ness side of vac­ci­na­tion went into full gear. Vac­cines against once far more com­mon ill­nesses of diph­the­ria, measles, mumps and rubella were cre­ated. Po­lio was vir­tu­ally erad­i­cated by Dr. Jonas Salk’s work on the po­lio vac­cine start­ing in the 1950s. Small­pox be­came mostly the sub­ject of med­i­cal his­to­ri­ans with its vir­tual erad­i­ca­tion from the planet thanks to mod­ern vac­cines de­ployed widely in the 1960s and 1970s. And to­day, among the many ill­nesses which many credit vac­cines for hav­ing put in check world­wide in­clude:

Tetanus

Yel­low Fever

Whoop­ing Cough

Hep­ati­tis B

Tick Encephalitis

Bac­te­rial Menin­gi­tis

Pneu­mo­coc­cus

Chicken pox

Hep­ati­tis A

Ro­tavirus

Papil­lo­mavirus

Th­ese are all very much mod­ern mir­a­cles, both in their

in­ven­tion and what they have meant to mod­ern med-

ical health. But as with many things which in small

quan­ti­ties can be good things, when the sheer vol­ume

of vac­cine dis­tri­bu­tion and uti­liza­tion gets too big, bad

things can eas­ily be­gin to hap­pen. And the ev­i­dence

sug­gests that it al­ready has.

The Mod­ern Vac­ci­na­tion In­dus­try

The cre­ation, man­u­fac­tur­ing and de­ploy­ment of vac­cines has be­come a mas­sive multi-bil­lion-dol­lar busi­ness. The more vac­cines re­quired by gov­ern­ments and ad­min­is­tered to chil­dren, all the more prof­its for share­hold­ers. Be­cause it is such a large in­dus­try and is highly prof­itable, vac­ci­na­tion pro­grams are heav­ily in­flu­enced by in­dus­try on mul­ti­ple lev­els. Gov­ern­ment, academia, the med­i­cal in­dus­try, NGOS and me­dia have been en­listed to sup­port in­dus­try prof­its to point where the vac­cine in­dus­try has be­come al­most like a re­li­gious cult, where dogma is un­ques­tion­able, zealots spread doc­tine with al­most re­li­gious fer­vor and non-be­liev­ers are vil­li­fied and at­tacked. Need­less to say, there are ma­jor prob­lems with the vac­cine in­dus­try.

There is way too much vac­ci­na­tion go­ing on.

Be­sides that the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies keep pro­mot­ing the lat­est vac­cines through all chan­nels pos­si­ble, many coun­tries man­date vac­cines in large quan­ti­ties. The United States is the most ag­gres­sive of all coun­tries in this re­spect, with – as of 2009 – it be­ing re­quired by some state laws that 36 vac­cines be given to chil­dren be­fore they reach the age of 5. When that sur­vey was done, that num­ber was twice the av­er­age manda­tory vac­ci­na­tion re­quire­ments of any other Western coun­try – at ‘only’ 18 re­quired per child.

The manda­tory vac­cines re­quired in the United States have in­creased rapidly in re­cent years. The list be­low shows which vac­cines be­came added to the list of re­quire­ments since the 1940s, along with the num­ber of vac­ci­na­tions man­dated of that type per per­son: • 1940s: Dipthe­ria, Tetanus, Per­tus­sis (DTP) – 5 re­quired 1955: In­ac­ti­vated Po­liovirus (IPV) – 4 re­quired 1971: Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) – 2 re­quired 1990: Hae­mophilus In­fluen­zae type B (Hib) – 4 re­quired 1991: Hep­ati­tis B (Hepb) – 3 re­quired 1995: Vari­cella – 2 re­quired 1998: Ro­tavirus (RV) – 3 re­quired 2000: Pneu­mo­coc­cal (PCV) – 4 re­quired 2004: In­fluenza – 7 re­quired 2004: Hep­ati­tis A (Hep A) – 2 re­quired 2006: Meningo­coc­cal

And in Canada, pub­lic health au­thor­i­ties now rec­om­mend 32 to 41 doses of 13 to 16 dif­fer­ent vac­cines to be ad­min­is­tered to chil­dren dur­ing their first 18 months of life. And as of 2012 the prov­inces of New Brunswick, North­west Ter­ri­to­ries and Nu­navut be­gin in­ject­ing ba­bies with their first dose of Hep­ati­tis B vac­cine at birth; the rest of the coun­try fol­lows quickly be­hind with mul­ti­ple in­jec­tions and/or drops to be given be­fore ba­bies are even two months old. With so many vac­ci­na­tions be­ing in­tro­duced, the sheer vol­ume of pro­duc­tion alone re­quired to meet the man­dated de­mand can in­tro­duce its own risks. There also are other is­sues that hap­pen with large vol­ume, such as the need to pro­long shelf life through the use of preser­va­tives of var­i­ous kinds, and the de­sire to cre­ate vac­cines with pro­tec­tions from mul­ti­ple ill­nesses in a sin­gle dose – in the in­ter­ests of ef­fi­ciency as had been noted ear­lier. In those lat­ter cases – as will be­come clear later in this ar­ti­cle – it is pos­si­ble com­pli­ca­tions can be in­tro­duced that would never have been pre­dictable with­out ex­ten­sive test­ing. Hav­ing so many man­dated vac­cines also brings into ques­tion the abil­ity of the hu­man body to deal with so many ar­ti­fi­cially-stim­u­lated ad­just­ments to the hu­man im­mune sys­tem. Each vac­cine is gen­er­ally tested by it­self, with only some – but min­i­mal – con­sid­er­a­tion for in­ter­ac­tive side ef­fects.

With manda­tory and highly-rec­om­mended vac­cines so much a part of what the med­i­cal in­dus­try re­lies on for its sales, this is an in­dus­try which is enor­mous and go­ing to be much big­ger still – fast.

Far from be­ing about just help­ing peo­ple be health­ier, the vac­ci­na­tion in­dus­try is now so big that sales vol- umes are – even af­ter all this time – still ex­plod­ing. A re­cent mar­ket study re­cently an­nounced by Mar­ket­sand­mar­kets.com states that 2016 es­ti­mated to­tal world­wide rev­enues for the vac­cine mar­ket was $32.24 bil­lion. It also projects a com­pound growth rate of 8.3% over the next five years, grow­ing to a $48.03 bil­lion mar­ket by 2021. It also notes the “ma­jor fac­tor(s) driv­ing the growth of this mar­ket are high preva­lence of dis­eases, ris­ing gov­ern­ment and non­govern­ment fund­ing for vac­cine de­vel­op­ment, in­creas­ing in­vest­ments by com­pa­nies, and in­creas­ing fo­cus on im­mu­niza­tion pro­grams”. Im­mu­niza­tion pro­grams, in part be­cause they treat in ad­vance of a dis­ease, are an easy sell to law­mak­ers to man­date their use and par­tially fund their de­vel­op­ment through re­search con­tracts, tax cred­its and other legally-avail­able op­tions. With so much at stake in the process, it is no won­der that lob­by­ists ded­i­cated to just this as­pect of medicine are be­com­ing far more com­mon.

The vac­ci­na­tion busi­ness is so big that there is ma­jor pres­sure to hide prob­lems when they come up.

This last is­sue is per­haps the worst of the three ma­jor prob­lems here. And long ago the big med­i­cal com­pa­nies seem to have aban­doned their “first do no harm” part of the Hip­po­cratic oath.

What the In­dus­try Has Cre­ated

With so much ac­cess to health care and so many vac­ci­na­tions, one would think that chil­dren in North Amer­ica should be health­ier than ever be­fore. Ac­cord­ing to Vac­cines Choice Canada ( http://www. vac­cine­choice­canada.com), the ex­act op­po­site ap­pears to be the case. As it notes there, “to­day’s chil­dren are the first gen­er­a­tion whose par­ents will out­live them”. As spe­cific sam­ple sta­tis­tics ref­er­enced by the group: >27% of Cana­dian chil­dren are be­hind on at least one mea­sure of emo­tional or cog­ni­tive de­vel­op­ment when they en­ter kinder­garten 10% of Cana­dian chil­dren have At­ten­tion Deficit Hy­per­ac­tiv­ity Dis­or­der (ADHD) 1 in 6 Chil­dren have learn­ing dis­abil­i­ties 1 in 30 have Se­vere Mood Dys­reg­u­la­tion (such as bipo­lar dis­or­ders) 50% of all Cana­dian 2 to 3 year olds have had at least one ear in­fec­tion since birth Al­ler­gies have in­creased 6X since 1980 Ana­phy­lac­tic Food Al­ler­gies have gone up 2X in the last decade 20% of all chil­dren have al­ler­gic Eczema 10% of all Cana­di­ans 2 to 7 years old have Asthma

The group also noted in its re­port that: An emerg­ing body of ev­i­dence in­di­cates that vac­cines can dam­age a child’s de­vel­op­ing im­mune sys­tem and brain, lead­ing to life-threat­en­ing or de­bil­i­tat­ing dis­or­ders like autism, ADHD, asthma, peanut al­lergy, ju­ve­nile di­a­betes, etc or to SIDS, death it­self. If this is true, the num­ber of vac­cine-re­lated deaths per year out­num­bers deaths from so-called “vac­cine-pre­ventable” ill­nesses. As part of the sci­ence be­hind that, the or­ga­ni­za­tion also points out that when an­tibi­otics are used, the num­ber of bac­te­rial tox­ins re­leased into the body goes up – by killing other bac­te­ria that was not part of the orig­i­nal tar­gets of the ill­ness. An is­sue re­lated to all this in­volves how ill­nesses are treated to­day ver­sus in ear­lier decades. In the past, it was ac­cepted and un­der­stood that fevers were just part of the process the body uses to fight off ill­ness and should ac­tu­ally be en­cour­aged rather than stopped. Rais­ing the body tem­per­a­ture can kill off un­wanted dis­ease while at the same time nat­u­rally cre­at­ing an­ti­bod­ies spe­cific to what ill­ness has in­fected one’s body. Nowa­days an­tibi­otics are be­ing over­pre­scribed to re­spond to new ill­nesses, as­pirin and other fever-re­duc­ing drugs of­ten sold over-the-counter are be­ing overuti­lized, and a push to vac­ci­nate in ad­vance rather than take the risk that their bod­ies can­not fight it. Peo­ple now ap­proach many ill­nesses as some­thing that the body must have ex­tra help to fight rather than do­ing it or their own.

When Big Pharma Goes Too Far Alu­minum Ad­ju­vants in Vac­cines

There are many ex­am­ples of what it means for the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try to over­step in the vac­ci­na­tion in­dus­try. One such area is in the use of what are called ‘ad­ju­vants’, which are phar­ma­co­log­i­cal and/or im­muno­log­i­cal agents that mod­ify the ef­fects of other agents. Alu­minum is one such agent. And al­though nu­mer­ous re­search re­ports have pointed out the toxic ef­fects of us­ing such agents in large quan­ti­ties, cur­rently the U.S. Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s reg­u­la­tions in this area only re­late to how much alu­minum is needed to en­hance the med­i­cal ef­fects of a drug or vac­cine. There are no lim­i­ta­tions that are based on re­search as to how much is too much to be toxic. As noted in a study en­ti­tled “Mech­a­nisms of alu­minum ad­ju­vant tox­i­c­ity and au­toim­mu­nity in pe­di­atric pop­u­la­tions”, by Lu­cija Toml­jen­ovic and Christo­pher Shaw, and pub­lished in the jour­nal Lu­pus, there are ma­jor risks in the use of alu­minum com­pounds in this way. And al­though it is well-known that adding alu­minum to a phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal can stim­u­late the im­mune sys­tem in a pos­i­tive way, “Alu­minum is highly neu­ro­toxic and has been shown to im­pair both pre­na­tal and post­na­tal brain de­vel­op­ment in hu­mans and ex­per­i­men­tal an­i­mals”. One of the spe­cific con­cerns in the use of such ad­ju­vants is that most of the safety test­ing for the use of alu­minum in vac­cines has been done on adults. As the pa­per says, “An ad­di­tional con­cern to us­ing a neu­ro­toxic sub­stance such as Al as an ad­ju­vant in pe­di­atric vac­cine for­mu­la­tions is the fact that in­fants and young chil­dren sh­old not be con­sid­ered sim­ply as “small adults” when it comes to tox­i­co­log­i­cal risk. In spite of this, a re­view of the lit­er­a­ture to date re­lat­ing to Al-tox­i­col­ogy in­di­cates that the vast ma­jor­ity of pre­vi­ous re­search and test­ing has been ded­i­cated to Al ex­po­sure in adults.” The pa­per goes on to note sev­eral ma­jor ar­eas of con­cern in the use of alu­minum ad­ju­vants in very young chil­dren: With child’s brain de­vel­op­ment evolv­ing at a very rapid rate dur­ing those first 18 months of life, even very small im­mune chal­lenges – such as posed by alu­minum ad­ju­vants – can cre­ate po­ten­tially harm­ful changes in brain and im­mune re­sponses. Re­search backs up that a child’s built-in ge­netic re­sis­tance to au­toim­mune dis­or­ders can be over­come by strong ad­ju­vant ef­fects. Mul­ti­ple vac­ci­na­tions just mul­ti­ply the amount of alu­minum be­ing ab­sorbed into chil­dren, mak­ing risks higher. And yet in the face of such re­search, alu­minum ad­ju­vants con­tinue to be part of the vac­ci­na­tion cock­tail be­ing ad­min­is­tered to chil­dren world­wide – and in larger quan­ti­ties than ever be­fore.

Preser­va­tives and Mer­cury in Vac­cines

As men­tioned ear­lier in this ar­ti­cle, one of the con­se­quences of mass vac­ci­na­tions be­ing part of daily life is the need to find a way to in­crease the sta­ble shelf life of those vac­cines. One of the ad­di­tives be­ing com­monly used for that – and in a large num­ber of vac­cines – is thimerosal, a mer­cury preser­va­tive. They are not used in live virus vac­cines such as MMR, and have been re­duced in re­cent years from a num­ber of chil­dren’s vac­cines. But they re­main in some in­ac­ti­vated in­fluenza and meningo­coc­cal vac­cines, and cer­tain tetanus-con­tain­ing vac­cines (T, TD/DT). In a pa­per en­ti­tled “Tobacco Sci­ence and the Thimerosal Scan­dal”, by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the re­cently-ap­pointed “Vac­cine Czar” in the ad­min­is­tra­tion of U.S. Pres­i­dent Don­ald J. Trump states:

“Mount­ing ev­i­dence sug­gests that thimerosal, a preser­va­tive in many chil­dren’s vac­cines that breaks

down to re­lease neu­ro­toxic ethyl mer­cury, may be re­spon­si­ble for the ex­po­nen­tial growth of autism, at­ten­tion deficit dis­or­der (ADD), hy­per­ac­tiv­ity (ADHD), speech and lan­guage de­lays, and other child­hood neu­ro­log­i­cal dis­or­ders now epi­demic in the United States. It is undis­puted that ex­po­sure to mer­cury in in­fancy re­duces a child’s in­tel­li­gence, with boys suf­fer­ing the most dra­matic in­jury (testos­terone tends to am­plify mer­cury’s dam­age, while es­tro­gen seems to mod­er­ate it). Some sci­en­tists be­lieve that thimerosal in chil­dren’s in­oc­u­la­tions may even be the cause of the 100-point loss in scholas­tic ap­ti­tude scores among chil­dren born in the “Thimerosal Gen­er­a­tion” (be­tween 1989 and 2003). Crit­ics also fret about a pos­si­ble link be­tween thimerosal-laced vac­cines and the new epi­demic of sud­den in­fant death syn­drome, asthma, and ju­ve­nile di­a­betes.”

Fur­ther in the same pa­per Kennedy goes on to speak to num­bers be­hind th­ese se­ri­ous con­cerns, with em­pha­sis on how things have changed in the man­dated de­liv­ery of vac­cines to chil­dren:

“Prior to 1989, Amer­i­can preschool­ers gen­er­ally re­ceived only three vac­ci­na­tions, given in up to eleven in­jec­tions: DTP (diph­the­ria, tetanus, per­tus­sis), po­lio, and MMR (measles/mumps/rubella). In the early 1990’s, pub­lic health of­fi­cials dra­mat­i­cally in­creased the num­ber of thimerosal-con­tain­ing vac­ci­na­tions, in­clud­ing hep­ati­tis B, DTAP (diph­the­ria, tetanus, acel­lu­lar per­tus­sis) and Hib (Hae­mophilus In­fluen­zae type b), with­out con­sid­er­ing the cu­mu­la­tive im­pact of the mer­cury load on de­vel­op­ing brains. Fed­eral of­fi­cials in­sti­tuted a re­quire­ment for a hep­ati­tis B vac­ci­na­tion within 24 hours of birth when a child’s brain is most sus­cep­ti­ble to toxic ef­fects. Ac­cord­ing to Pro­fes­sor Dr. Boyd Ha­ley, the chair of the De­part­ment of Chem­istry at the Univer­sity of Kentucky and one of the world’s lead­ing au­thor­i­ties on mer­cury tox­i­c­ity, an in­fant re­ceiv­ing the hep­ati­tis B in­oc­u­la­tion would have to weigh 275 pounds to bear its mer­cury load­ing at EPA’S safety stan­dards.”

Kennedy is suf­fi­ciently adamant about how bad the sit­u­a­tion is re­gard­ing the use of thimerosal as a preser­va­tive that – in a Fe­bru­ary 15, 2017 press con­fer­ence out­lin­ing its dan­gers – he has of­fered jour­nal­ists a prize of $100,000 to any­one who can find a pub­lished study prov­ing mer­cury at the lev­els present in vac­cines are harm­less at the lev­els given.

Later in the same pa­per Kennedy puts the whole thing in per­spec­tive by show­ing what ap­pears to be a vast con­spir­acy con­nect­ing the med­i­cal in­dus­try and its re­volv­ing door with gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tives at the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion. There he noted that “the FDA had cal­cu­lated that a birth dose of hep­tatis B vac­cine would re­sult in ex­po­sure nearly 38 times the EPA safety guide­line” for mer­cury.

In re­sponse to that, Ken­ney re­ports that Peter Pa­tri­arca, the di­rec­tor of FDA’S Di­vi­sion of Vi­ral Prod­ucts and an Amer­i­can As­so­ci­a­tion of Pe­di­atrics In­fec­tious Dis­ease Com­mit­tee mem­ber, said:

“We must keep in mind that the dose of ethyl mer­cury was not gen­er­ated by ‘rocket sci­ence … [It] in­volves ninth grade al­ge­bra. What took the FDA so long to do the cal­cu­la­tions? Why didn’t CDC and the ad­vi­sory bod­ies do th­ese cal­cu­la­tions when they rapidly ex­panded the child­hood im­mu­niza­tion sched­ule?” He added, “I’m not sure if there will be an easy way out of the po­ten­tial per­cep­tion that the FDA, CDC and im­mu­niza­tion pol­icy bod­ies may have been ‘asleep at the switch’ re: thimerosal un­til now.”

Kennedy goes on to present ev­i­dence of col­lu­sion be­tween the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies, the FDA and the CDC to sup­press, mis­rep­re­sent, and ob­scure the in­creas­ing amount of ev­i­dence that mer­cury preser­va­tives in vac­cines for chil­dren are way above any rea­son­able level – and likely re­spon­si­ble for a wide va­ri­ety of in­creas­ingly harm­ful ef­fects on chil­dren.

Autism and the MMR Vac­cine

Per­haps one of the ugli­est and most fright­en­ing sto­ries of what has hap­pened as a re­sult of mass vac­ci­na­tions of chil­dren is in the story of the MMR Vac­cine.

As men­tioned ear­lier in this ar­ti­cle, this vac­cine, called “MMR” as short­hand for “Measles, Mumps and Rubella (Ger­man Measles”, was cre­ated to al­low all three dis­eases to be han­dled by one sin­gle shot. It some­what uniquely in­cluded three live virus vac­cines in the one dose.

The orig­i­nal vac­cine was de­vel­oped by Merck not to fa­cil­i­tate dis­ease preven­tion but to boost prof­its.

In what now many rec­og­nize as one of the most im­por­tant land­mark stud­ies in vac­cine lit­er­a­ture, for­mer re­searcher Dr. A. J. R. Wake­field of the Royal Free Hos­pi­tal of Medicine pre­sented his find­ings about the links be­tween treat­ments of cer­tain gas­tro-intestinal symp­toms and autism. In his re­port, he de­scribed a sit­u­a­tion where he ob­served chil­dren who had re­ceived the MMR vac­cine, then had a fever, and then – im­me­di­ately fol­low­ing the fever break­ing – had highly pro­nounced symp­toms of autism.

Th­ese symp­toms, which have now been care­fully de­fined by agen­cies such as the CARD™ Cen­ter for Autism & Re­lated Dis­or­ders, states that autism gen­er­ally in­cludes three sep­a­rate con­di­tions:

No so­cial/emo­tional rec­i­proc­ity with oth­ers. There is also no non-ver­bal com­mu­ni­ca­tion with oth­ers, in­clud­ing eye con­tact.

The pres­ence of stereo­typic, repet­i­tive be­hav­iors. Ex­am­ples in­clude things such as on­go­ing hand-slap­ping and body rock­ing.

The pres­ence of a sen­sory dys­reg­u­la­tion, the in­abil­ity to sense cer­tain things cor­rectly.

In ex­am­in­ing the ev­i­dence of sim­i­lar sit­u­a­tions in­volv­ing the use of the MMR vac­cines and other chil­dren, Dr. Wake­field con­cluded that it was the unique mix of the MMR vac­cine that should be chal­lenged. As he said in state­ment fol­low­ing re­lease of his re­search, “I strongly rec­om­mend the use of mono­va­lent vs. poly­va­lent vac­cines”. By that he meant that vac­cines which ad­dressed just one type of po­ten­tial dis­ease were fine, but he rec­om­mended against the use of vac­cines comin­gling mul­ti­ple im­mu­niza­tions in a sin­gle dose.

Af­ter his re­port came out and was more widely cited, the pres­sure was on from par­ents and cer­tain med­i­cal pro­fes­sion­als for the mono­va­lent vac­cines.

The phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try re­sponded, how­ever, by do­ing two things: be­gin­ning a mas­sive cam­paign to dis­credit Wake­field’s re­search and by ceas­ing pro­duc­tion of the mono­va­lent vac­cines Wake­field had rec­om­mended. The com­bined MMR vac­cine was far more cost-ef­fec­tive to pro­duce and there­fore more prof­itable. So if one wanted the MMR dis­ease “cov­er­age”, some­thing now re­quired by many re­gions across North Amer­ica, one had no choice but to get the com­bi­na­tion vac­cine which Wake­field had warned against.

In Eng­land, just to make the point even clearer, the gov­ern­ment there ac­tu­ally blocked the im­por­ta­tion of mono­va­lent vac­cine ver­sions of the MMR mix at the same time. So that even if some third party de­cided to cre­ate such vac­cines in com­pe­ti­tion with what had been dis­con­tin­ued in the United States, one could still not get them. Col­lu­sion and gov­ern­ment cor­rup­tion were sug­gested by oth­ers as be­hind the move in the United King­dom to do this.

The at­tacks against Wake­field went so far as to even en­list Mi­crosoft Founder and for­mer CEO Bill Gates to say that the pa­per was not just bad sci­ence but fraud­u­lent.

Af­ter that, years later, a for­mer Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol (CDC) sci­en­tist, Dr. Wil­liam Thomp­son, be­gan re­search in­ter­nal to that agency about the re­la­tion­ship be­tween MMR im­mu­niza­tions and the pres­ence of autism.

In his re­search, Thomp­son found strong cor­re­la­tions be­tween the rapid in­crease in autism in young chil­dren and the use of the MMR vac­cines. He also saw an es­pe­cially high sus­cep­ti­bil­ity of African-amer­i­can boys to autism when given the vac­cines, with fac­tors over 3X that of oth­ers in some of his data.

That might have seemed fi­nal vin­di­ca­tion for Wake­field’s ear­lier and less-ex­ten­sive re­search of a sim­i­lar cor­re­la­tion. But it was not to be dis­closed to the pub­lic un­til 2014, when Wil­liam Thomp­son be­came a whistleblower, and spoke of a for­mal con­spir­acy at the CDC to cover up the con­nec­tions be­tween the use of the MMR vac­cine and in­creased autism, es­pe­cially in African-amer­i­can boys.

Ac­cord­ing to Thomp­son, that con­spir­acy in­cluded ev­ery­thing from de­stroy­ing in­crim­i­nat­ing data from Thomp­son’s re­search every­where within the CDC – to re­jig­ging the data to make it close to im­pos­si­ble to un­der­stand the cor­re­la­tions Thomp­son had dis­cov­ered.

Thomp­son him­self con­tin­ues to speak out about the ac­tual re­sults he found, us­ing other copies of his own data which the CDC was un­able to de­stroy first. But, ac­cord­ing to in­ves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist Sharyl At­tkisson, the CDC still has suf­fi­cient con­trol over Thomp­son so that Thomp­son has been stopped in tes­ti­fy­ing in a court case, a case in which a teenage boy de­vel­oped autism fol­low­ing a vac­ci­na­tion.

And – just as in the case of the Wake­field pa­per – forces from within the gov­ern­ment as well as the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­mu­nity have un­leashed a con­cen­trated at­tack on Thomp­son’s cred­i­bil­ity and the re­sults he so me­thod­i­cally pre­sented in his orig­i­nal work.

Big Pharma's Free Pass

Be­cause vac­cines hurt so many kids, the in­dus­try got the cor­rupt U.S. Congress to ex­empt it from prod­uct li­a­bil­ity laws and civil suits in 1986. Since then, those in­jured by vac­cines must ap­ply to a spe­cial Vac­cine Court for mea­ger com­pen­sa­tion while the in­dus­try can­not be held ac­count­able for its un­safe prod­ucts.

A 2014 Gen­eral Ac­count­ing Of­fice re­port on the Court de­tails how it has failed on many of the rea­sons it had been cre­ated in the first place.

Even though the CDC fraud­u­lently claims that vac­cines don't cause autism, the court has paid on at least 83 cases.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.