60 Lab Studies Now Confirm Cancer Link To A Vaccine You Probably Had As A Child

By Liberty Beacon,  March 05, 2013            NATIONAL HEALTH FEDERATION

Dr. Maurice Hilleman made astounding revelations in an interview that was cut from The Health Century — the admission that Merck drug company vaccines had been injecting dangerous viruses into people worldwide.

Bear in mind that Dr. Hilleman was the developer of Merck’s vaccine program. He developed over three dozen vaccines, more than any other scientist in history. He was a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science, the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society.

He received a special lifetime achievement award from the World Health Organization. Hilleman was one of the early vaccine pioneers to warn about the possibility that simian viruses might contaminate vaccines.

I think it’s important to remember history when it comes to vaccines, especially in light of current developments.
For starters, the HPV vaccine Gardasil, which is being vigorously pushed on unsuspecting young girls and women to theoretically guard against cervical cancer still has never been proven to actually prevent cancer. On the contrary, evidence suggests that under certain circumstances the vaccine increases your risk of precancerous lesions by nearly 45 percent, and an ever increasing number of girls are being seriously injured by this unnecessary vaccine.
As of December 13, 2010, 20,915 adverse reactions had been reported in the United States alone, including 89 deaths, 297 miscarriages or stillbirths, and 370 reports of abnormal pap smears post vaccination.
All of this from a vaccine that has only been on the market for four years!
Making matters worse, as of 2009 the US FDA approved Gardasil for use on young boys as well, and the first male death has also been reported. In September of last year, a young boy died just eight days after being vaccinated with Gardasil.
So what’s going on here?
Is it possible that vaccines sold by drugmakers like Merck are causing lethal disease? Judging by history, the answer may be yes.

Contaminated Polio Vaccine Responsible for Human Cancer Cases

In 2002, the journal Lancet published compelling evidence that contaminated polio vaccine was responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases that were occurring each year.
What was it contaminated with?
SV40, a cancer-causing monkey virus. The puzzle began in 1994, when Dr. Michele Carbone, a Loyola University researcher, found the virus SV40, which had never before been detected in humans, in half of the human lung tumors he was studying. Since then, 60 different lab studies have confirmed the results, and SV40 has been found in a variety of human cancers, including lung-, brain-, bone-, and lymphatic cancer.
At first no one could fathom how the virus had been transmitted into the human population.
But in the censored interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman above, Hilleman admits Merck’s responsibility in unleashing this virus via their polio vaccine, as well as the likelihood that there was an importing and spreading the AIDS virus in the same manner.

Just Who is Dr. Maurice Hilleman?

Now, for those of you who may think Dr. Hilleman was just another crackpot (he passed away in 2005), think again. He was, and still is, the leading vaccine pioneer in the history of vaccines. He developed more than three dozen vaccines—more than any other scientist in history—and was the developer of Merck’s vaccine program.
He was a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science, the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, and received a special lifetime achievement award from the World Health Organization.
When he was chief of the Department of Respiratory Diseases with what’s now the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, he discovered the genetic changes that occur when the influenzavirus mutates, known as shift and drift. He was also one of the early vaccine pioneers to warn about the possibility that simian viruses might contaminate vaccines.So Dr. Hilleman knew what he was talking about. And in his own words, “vaccines have to be considered the bargain basement technology for the 20^thCentury.”

Vaccines Can Cause the Very Disease They’re Meant to Prevent, and Worse

For years, researchers suggested that millions of vials of polio vaccine, contaminated with SV40, infected individuals between 1953 and 1963 and caused human tumors, and by 1999, molecular evidence of SV40 infections were showing up in children born after 1982. Some experts now suggest the virus may have remained in the polio vaccine until as late as 1999.
Still, the FDA and health authorities turned a blind eye.
In addition, just like Gardasil may well increase your risk of cervical cancer rather than reduce it, the live polio vaccine has also been found to cause polio. And, in rare instances the virus in the vaccine has even been known to mutate into a much deadlier version.  As reported by MSN News in 2009, genetic analysis has proven such mutated viruses have caused at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria.
According to the CDC the last case of wild polio in the US—meaning polio caused naturally and not due to the live polio vaccine—occurred in 1979. From 1980 through 1999, there were NO wild polio cases in the US. Instead we had 144 cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral polio vaccine.
Polio outbreaks in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 were also traced back to a strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to virulence.
According to a report by Neil Z. Miller of the Global Vaccine Institute, the live polio virus from the vaccine can remain in your throat for one to two weeks and in your feces for up to two months. So not only is the vaccine recipient at risk, but he or she can potentially spread the disease to others.
In 1999, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that the United States replace the live-virus vaccine with an inactivated “killed” virus vaccine, which is what remains in use today. However, the inactivated polio virus vaccine has not been without its share of serious side effects either.

Rotavirus Vaccine Contaminated with Pig Virus

Last year, the US FDA suspended the rotavirus vaccine Rotarixafter an independent lab discovered it was contaminated with “a substantial amount” of DNA from the porcine circovirus. In pigs, this virus causes poor growth, weight loss, weakness, enlarged lymph nodes, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, jaundice, stomach ulcers, and sudden death.
As expected, both the FDA and GlaxoSmithKline spokespeople stated that the contaminated Rotarix vaccine carried no known human health risks. However, this is easy to say since there are no studies to confirm or deny a link between these viruses and human disease.
In the case of the polio vaccine, the link between the SV40 virus and human cancer wasn’t discovered until 40 years later!  It is actually surprisingly common for vaccines to contain various animal matter, including foreign animal tissues containing genetic material (DNA/RNA).
Once the Rotarix contamination was discovered, new technology was used to test eight infectious attenuated viral vaccines, and in addition to Rotarix, two others contained “unexpected viral sequences”:

1. A measles vaccine was found to contain low levels of the retrovirus avian leukosis (AVL) virus—a virus known to cause cancer in chickens. This despite the fact that vaccine manufacturers have been required to use eggs from leucosis-free stocks for over 40 years.
2. Rotateq, Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, was found to contain a virus similar to simian (monkey) retrovirus—the SV40 virus previously linked to human cancer.

Are you willing to bet that they a) know what they’re talking about, and b) are telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the potential health dangers of all these vaccines?

HPV Vaccine Now Routine for Boys as Well…

So far, very few parents have voluntarily lined up their sons for the HPV vaccine, but that may soon change. As reported by Paging Dr. Gupta, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2011 schedule of recommended routine vaccines for children and teens now includes the HPV vaccine for boys aged 9-18 as well.
Folks, this is a disaster in the making. I shudder to think about the statistics we’ll see in a few years if parents fall for this nonsense.
I urge you to consider the risks already revealed in the four short years since Gardasil came on the market. Already, there are close to 21,000 reported incidents of adverse effects and death, despite the fact that only two out of every 10 women in the approved age group have gotten the vaccine so far.
Add to this the fact that an estimated 90 to 99 percent of all adverse effects are never reported, and the abnormally large risks of the HPV vaccine compared to other vaccines should give most people reason to pause.
Although the FDA ultimately dismisses all side effects, including deaths, as being within the norm, even they have stated that:

“In VAERS, a higher proportion of Gardasil reports were of syncope [fainting] and VTEs [venous thromboembolic events] compared with other vaccines.“

And according to the National Vaccine Information Center, the incidents of miscarriage and still birth events from Gardasil supersede the same event from all other vaccinations.
According to a recent Sane Vax press release on PR Log:

“There is no doubt the vaccine’s safety and efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated. And independent investigation on the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix must be conducted before there are more injuries and deaths.”

What’s most frustrating about this is that not a single one of these 21,000 children and young women needed to be harmed or die.
Why?
There are still outstanding questions about whether HPV is or is not the direct cause of cervical cancer. The FDA knows there are many other co-factors involved with the development of cervical cancer, and as of 2003 acknowledged that “most infections (by HPV) are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer.” The same news release also states that “with proper screening, cervical cancer is avoidable, and if caught early, curable.”
In essence, three years before the HPV vaccine came upon the scene, they knew that what was needed—if anything—was simply improved screening methods, such as regular pap smear testing for girls and women that are far less risky than getting an HPV shot.
Interestingly, and disturbingly, routine pap smears have DECLINED, coinciding neatly with the release of the HPV vaccine. Between 2007 and 2010, cervical cancer screening rates declined by nearly 7 percent, the New York Times reportedin December of last year.
When you consider that the HPV vaccine increases your risk of cancer if you’re already infected with certain types of HPV, this is a double-whammy of bad news since rarely, if ever, are girls and women given HPV pap screening before they get an HPV shot.
It’s all madness! Not only is the HPV vaccine is one of the mostunnecessary vaccines on the market, it is also the most dangerous! And now they want to unleash it on young boys, and they’re trying to get it approved for older women as well.

Weighing Benefits versus Risks

Even without a potential contamination scare, there are serious risks to every vaccine. The HPV vaccine is a perfect example. So before vaccinating you really need to be certain that the benefits will outweigh those risks.

In the case of Rotarix, along with RotaTeq (a similar vaccine made by Merck), the benefits are very questionable, especially if you live in the United States or another developed country. Typically, when a child in the United States contracts rotavirus, and most do in infancy and early childhood, all that is required is lots of rest, good nutrition and plenty of fluids to prevent dehydration from diarrhea. This infection also provides natural immunity that will protect your child for life.

Along with showing little benefit for a disease that is typically entirely treatable with fluids and rest, a recent drug review by the FDA found that Rotarix is associated with an increase in pneumonia-related deaths in children, compared to a placebo.

So with this particular vaccine, children living in developed countries like the US are potentially taking on serious risks with what appears to be very little benefit — and that was before the contamination was uncovered.

In the case of the HPV vaccine (Gardasil and Cervarix) the choice is clear. It has a high rate of risk and the potential benefits are unproven:

• In more than 70 percent of cases, HPV clears up on its own within a few weeks or months. In over 90 percent of cases, it’s gone within two years, causing no symptoms or disease.
• Only about 26 percent of girls and women ages 14 to 59 have been exposed to any HPV strain at all; and
• Only 2 percent have been exposed to strains 16 or 18 – the two that Gardasil and Cervarix protect against – meaning this vaccine is completely unnecessary because HPV infection very rarely leads to cancer.
• Women whose partners wore condoms during vaginal intercourse are 70 percent less likely to become infected with HPV. That’s a FAR greater level of protection than you can get from this vaccine!

For more in-depth information about the HPV vaccine along with the top 10 reasons why you don’t need it, please see this previous article.

The moral of the story?

Do your homework before subjecting your children to any vaccine. A great way to get started is to simply use the Search Feature at the top of each of my Web pages and search my site as it contains a litany of research on vaccine safety, and the lack thereof. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) also provides well-referenced information on vaccines and diseases, such as HPV, rotavirus and polio.

 Source: http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=3643

Studies Demonstrate The More Educated You Are, The Less Chance You Will Vaccinate

 Dave Mihalovic , PreventDisease.com

More educated parents are less likely to vaccinate, which contradicts the misconceptions of many health professionals who profess that parents don't vaccinate because they are under-educated, poor or misinformed.

One publication of medical research linking the MMR vaccine to autism in The Lancet in February 1998 sparked a decade-long controversy about the triple jab. Following the initial publication, the uptake rate of the MMR vaccine dropped from 92% in 1997/98 to 80% in 2003/04.

A report examines how the response to the MMR controversy varied between parents with different levels of education. It revealed that:

• Before 1998, highly educated parents were up to 8% more likely to take up the MMR vaccine than parents with lower education.
• By 2002, this gap had not only closed; it had actually been reversed, with highly educated parents being 2-3% less likely to accept the MMR vaccine.
• Most of the relative decline in the MMR uptake by highly educated parents occurred soon after the controversy broke when the media coverage was still relatively low.
• After the increased media attention in 2001 and 2002, there were no discernible differences in trends across educational groups.
• The controversy also appears to have had effects on the uptake of other childhood vaccines: after 1998, highly educated parents also reduced their relative uptake of other non-controversial childhood vaccines.

The relative decline in uptake by highly educated parents also potentially has wider significance. Generally speaking, individuals with more education have better health. This is possibly because they are better informed about how to achieve better health outcomes. The finding that highly educated parents were the first to react to the information that the MMR had potential side effects is consistent with this hypothesis.

More encouraging for anti-vaccine advocates is the finding that highly educated parents also reduced their uptake of other non-controversial childhood vaccines, a good sign that most of the hidden toxins in vaccines are slowly being discovered by parents and the public in general.

Another finding published in the journal PLoS Medicine, showed that parents with more education were less likely to let their daughters get HPV shots. It also adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests vaccination efforts are being rightfully eroded not by people who are under-educated, but by upper-middle class folks with degrees.

"People are slowly empowering themselves by cross referencing reputable information in the alternative media and questioning the frequent pseudoscience of public health officials, academics or doctors which make up the bulk of vaccination misinformation." said Naturopath, Dr. Dave Mihalovic.

"They're used to making choices in their jobs and in their life, one. And two, they make those choices based on information. And the information that one gets here probably is primarily through places like the Internet, which is a source of both good and bad information about vaccines," vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit said when asked to comment on the study.

The study comes on the tail of another published Tuesday which showed that there has been a sharp increase in the percentage of U.S. parents who are refusing to vaccinate their children or delaying vaccination against the advice of the medical community.

That study, presented at an international conference in Vancouver, found 39 per cent of parents refused or delayed vaccinations for their children in 2008, up from 22 per cent in 2003.

Offit, who is chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, was not involved in either study.

The HPV study was conducted primarily by researchers at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and the University of British Columbia.

The group surveyed parents of Grade 6 girls who had been eligible to get HPV or human papillomavirus vaccine through a free, school-based program in B.C. in the 2008-09 school year.

Lead author Dr. Gina Ogilvie said lots of studies had explored whether parents intended to let their daughters get vaccinated, but the group wanted to follow up to see what drove parents' decisions to grant or decline permission for their daughters to get the shot when it was available.

About half of the 4,000-plus randomly selected households agreed to take part. Just over 65 per cent of the daughters in those households had received the vaccine; 35 per cent of the parents had refused permission.

Parents were asked to describe the primary reason behind their decision and asked for secondary reasons as well.

Nearly half (47.9 per cent) of those who let their daughters get HPV shots said they did so because they had confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine. Advice from a doctor and concern for the health of the daughter also played into yes decisions.

Among the parents who said no, concern about vaccine safety was listed as the major reason for the decision (29.2 per cent). A substantial portion -- 15.6 per cent -- felt their daughters were too young to get the vaccine and listed that as their major reason.

When the researchers compared the families that said yes and those that said no, interesting differences came to light.

Girls from two-parent households were less likely to have been given permission to get the shot. And parents with more education were more likely to have said no.

Ogilvie called it "the main surprise" of the study. "This is a flip from our traditional understanding," she said.

A 2004 study by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showed children ho hadn't received any shots at all "tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000 and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children," said the study, published in the journal Pediatrics.

Offit said the trend is indeed a shift.

"The surprising part is that someone who would be better educated would be less likely to get the vaccine," he said.

Another study in the journal The American Journal of Public Health, which surveyed 11,860 families, found that mothers who had not finished high school were 16% more likely to have completed the whole vaccination schedule for their children.

Lower education levels and socioecomonic status was associated with higher completion rates for vaccination.

Rates of compliance were also higher in Hispanic and black low income families.

"It's a an excellent example of how more education and awareness translates to better health," said Dr. Mihalovic.

Dr. Kronenfeld, a professor of sociology in the School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University, said
'“There is a controversy among more educated mothers about the safety of certain kinds of immunization, That may be part of what is going on here, but we don’t know for sure.”

Vaccination rates for children insured by commercial plans dropped almost four percentage points between 2008 and 2009, even though the rate of children on Medicaid getting vaccinated is rising.

"Rates had been gradually improving in the commercial plans. This was the first time we'd seen a drop -- and it was a pretty big drop," said Sarah Thomas, vice president of public policy and communication for the National Committee for Quality Assurance, which recently released its annual State of Health Care Quality report.

Although vaccination rates last year were still mostly higher among children in private health plans rather than Medicaid, researchers and other experts suspect that a counterintuitive trend in American demographics is at work: Parents in a relatively high socio-economic bracket -- with more education and relatively high incomes -- forgoing vaccines because of fears about their safety, with poor individuals taking good advantage of their access to free or extremely low-cost care to have their children immunized.

"We didn't really explore the reasons [for the trend], but one leading hypothesis is that parents have decided not to get their children vaccinated because of concerns about the potential for side effects and even autism," said Thomas.

The authors found a drop in several routine childhood vaccinations. Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines decreased from 93.5 percent in 2008 to 90.6 percent in 2009; diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough rates fell from 87.2 percent to 85.4 percent in that one-year period; and the proportion of kids getting vaccinated for chickenpox fell from 92 percent in 2008 to 90.6 percent in 2009 (Source: US News Health, 3rd November 2010)

Parents are gradually waking up to the dangers of vaccines. Those who have a university education and a well paid job, are in a better position to research vaccinations and know their rights. Education is power and they and those most invested in health and research are most likely to avoid vaccinations at all costs, a trend that is welcome and timely for future generations.

Sources:
vaccineriskawareness.com
winnipegfreepress.com
whystudyeconomics.ac.uk

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.
 

US Research Fraud, Tax Dollars And Italian Vaccine Mercury Study

 CHILD HEALTH SAFETY

Documents disclosed here under US Freedom of Information show the US Centers for Disease Control [CDC] spends US tax dollars in foreign countries on studies to claim the vaccination programmes they promote for US children are safe when they know the results of the studies will produce false and misleading negative results.

Just such a study recently published from Italy funded by the US CDC claims to show that the known neurotoxic mercury additive in vaccines, Thiomersal, is not harmful to children and the study has received wide-spread publicity ["Neuropsychological Performance 10 Years After Immunization in Infancy With Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines" Tozzi et al, Pediatrics 123:2:475-482]. 

Mercury is toxic in parts per billion.What the US public were not told is that the study was certain to be unable to detect any effect.  The US CDC internal email exchange disclosed here [see more below] obtained under US Freedom of Information shows that to be able to detect any effect in children with the methods used, the dose applied by the age of 3 months had to be more than 50 millionths of a gramme of mercury and more than 100 millionths of a gramme by the age of 6 months.

Table 1 of the paper shows Italian children received by the age of 3 months two thirds of that minimum amount; no more 37.5 millionths of a gramme.  By 4 months they had only three quarters of that minimum: 75 millionths of a gramme and the maximum by six months was 100 millionths of a gramme, not enough to hit or exceed the threshold needed.

The 2001 exchange of emails was between Dr Thomas Verstraeten and Dr Robert Chen of the US CDC and Dr Elizabeth Miller of the UK’s Public Health Laboratory Service.  This also shows a dose of 75 microgrammes of mercury by the age of four months was insufficient to detect an effect.  Chen and Miller were at the time looking into a possible study of British children.  Italian infants were in the same category as British infants, receiving 75 microgrammes by the age of 4 months.

Do not be deceived into thinking there are no problems with the lower levels of mercury.  Studies like this Italian one and previous  internal studies by the US CDC are unable to measure the effects at lower levels.  It is an issue of precision – not absence of effect.

There were many other deficiencies in the Italian study.  The Journal, Pediatrics has today published a letter entitled “This study is misleading and was not scientifically worth doing” [John Stone, Pediatrics Online, 27 Jan 2009].

Notably, the study only included healthy children in the original vaccine trial so those most at risk were excluded.  The authors also missed out large numbers of other children most likely to be at risk. And as an example of how unrepresentative of the Italian child population this study was, 70% of the Italian parents  had College Degrees.

Children excluded from the study included:

• an unknown number of underweight children who are likely to be more susceptible to injury
  • the body burden of mercury would be proportionately higher
  • underweight children are likely to include premature infants – [whose effective age is less and who are underdeveloped by the time they are vaccinated compared to full-term infants]
    
• all unwell children at time of vaccination (susceptible group)
• over 30% of children dropped out of the study and the authors acknowledged these may have included those injured, the parents not participating “because their children had cognitive developmental problems“
• there was no proper control group to make a comparison
  • the authors compared children who had mercury containing vaccines not against children who had no vaccines or no mercury but against children who had different vaccines with less mercury
    

Only one case of autism was identified from medical records out 1,704 (an order of magnitude lower than the UK and the US) which also casts doubts on the value of the study.

Stop Press

Evidence from the new Italian study of child disorders linked to vaccination provides strong evidence that independent impartial unbiased objective research is urgently needed comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children

["Neuropsychological Performance 10 Years After Immunization in Infancy With Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines" Tozzi et al, Pediatrics 123:2:475-482].

Why Is This Important?

Despite the US CDC expecting

• no positive results
• the blunt and imprecise nature of the study
• its numerous defects

there were positive results.

Why “Only Two” Cases Are So Significant?

The study used tests and methods which are “blunt instruments”,  unlikely to distinguish anything other than large differences between the children studied.  The number of children was relatively small 1403, 30% of those most likely to have been affected had dropped out between the first study 10 years ago and the present one. so if there was any difference in the groups, this study started off by looking for “a needle in a haystack”.  In other words, the study would only be likely to distinguish only a very small proportion of “normal” from “abnormal”. Many kinds of differences like a drop in IQ of 5 to 25 points, or a fall in linguistic ability just less than a speech impediment would be unlikely to be revealed.

So if with such an imprecise study there are any positive results any statistically significant association would demand further enquiry.“Significantly associated” means that statistically the results  could not be dismissed as just within the expected error of the study.

Why Is Vax’ed vs Un-Vax’ed Research So Important?

The most likely means of standing any chance of detecting differences would be a very large study of vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated.  More sophisticated tests and assessments would be appropriate – not imprecise tests – “finger-tapping” tests or “Boston Naming”.

In addition, comparing vaccinated with vaccinated made it harder still to distinguish differences.  Children studied had been vaccinated and compared to some shall we say “a little bit less vaccinated than others”.  This meant that it was likely children with impaired ability were being compared with children with slightly less impaired ability.  This would narrow the size of any differences in impairment between the groups studied and made the whole exercise more imprecise still.

Is there Evidence of “Author Bias”?

The Italian authors state “only two” of the outcomes were “significantly associated”.  Why important? It shows author bias – coupled with the so far undisclosed financial conflicts of interests. “Only two” is like saying you are “only a little bit pregnant”.  It is more significant as the study was to be expected to produce no positive results of any kind, as ChildHealthSafety reported on 28th January.

Details of the main Italian author, Tozzi’s so far undeclared financial conflicts of interest have not been published by the US Journal Pediatics, although recently submitted by UK vaccine and health safety advocate, John Stone.

Fooling Third World Governments

The British study the US CDC was involved with with Dr Elizabeth Miller went ahead and also claimed to find no problems.  It was used to reassure third world governments that mercury in vaccines was safe.  It claimed the UK level of mercury was the same as the amount of thimerosal used by developing countries that follow the World Health Organisation’s expanded immunization schedule.  It was not.  Disclosed here is information under UK Freedom of Information showing the WHO schedule exposes the less well fed and more susceptible third world infants to 187.5µg of mercury  but by 14 weeks, not 6 months.  Third world children are at a much higher risk than US children ever were.

The US Centers For Disease Control and Drug Companies

This is not the first time the US CDC has been mired in controversy over mercury in vaccines. On 7-8 June 2000, a confidential private meeting without public scrutiny took place between vaccine manufacturers’ representatives, 51 US scientists, and a representative of the World Health Organization.  This was to discuss a study by US Centers for Disease Control expert Dr Thomas Verstraeten of increasing doses of Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children.  Verstraeten used US Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, an official US governmental data bank on the children from US health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

Verstraeten’s study showed a dose-response relationship between Thimerosal in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders in children that held up to rigorous statistical analyses.  This means Verstraeten’s study showed a causal association between the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines a child received and the extent to which the child developed the symptoms of impaired brain development .  These ranged from tics, speech impairment to symptoms of and full autism. The discussions can be read in the transcript of the Simpsonwood Conference obtained by US organisaton SafeMinds under Freedom of Information. 

Three years later Dr Thomas Verstraeten, MD, MSc  [now working for GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Belgium] published a different paper in the journal Pediatrics: ["Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases".  Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al.  Pediatrics.2003; 112 :1039 –1048].   The new paper included another set of data from a third HMO, reorganised the criteria for inclusion of children and restructured the patient groupings, and  a less than statistically significant link was demonstrated. It was heavily criticised by campaigners and concerned experts. Verstraeten published a vigorous letter in his defence in which he rejected any suggestion of impropriety: ["Thimerosal, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and GlaxoSmithKline"]: PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 4 April 2004, pp. 932.

What can be said about this?  When Verstraeten was a public official working for the US CDC there was a serious problem.  When Verstraeten was working for GlaxoSmithKline there was no problem.

Vaccine Risks Outweigh Risk of Disease

Autism – A serious problem being ignored

19 Children A Day – 4 in 5 is a Boy

Autism in Britian outstrips all other major disorders affecting British children combined and is substantially more serious than measles.  Every day 19 British children develop autism spectrum disorders:

• this will be 600,000 British children and adults in the future (birth rate approx 600,000 p.a.)
• and horrific prospects for expectant parents
  • 1 in every 54 boys will be on the Autistic Spectrum
  • autism affects 4 times as many boys
  • so 1 in 215 girls are affected as well

[* 19 a day and 1 in 54 come from: Baird et Al Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP); Lancet 2006;368:210 –15.  This research revealed 1 in 86 British children are being diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders (116.1 in 10,000).

4/5   x   116.1/5000 =  1 in 54 (4/5ths of the 116.1 are boys and approx 5000 of the 10,000 children affected will be boys)]

Measles Comparison

See here how the risk to children in Western economies from measles is now insignificant for the vast majority MEASLES MORTALITY UK & USA.

Mercury in British Vaccines, Autism and Your Child’s Allergies

[First Exclusive Worldwide Revelations By ChildHealthSafety 22/Jan/2009]

In addition to the new MMR vaccine, in 1990 infants were also “hit” with the “accelerated” DTP vaccine schedule – receiving three DTP shots – one each at 2, 3 and 4 months.  Prior to this the intervals were 3, 5 and 9 to 12 months of age. The DTP vaccine contained a highly neurotoxic ingredient.  The ingredient was an organo-mercury excipient called “Thiomersal” ["Thimerosal" in the USA].   Thiomersal is toxic in parts per billion – in extremely small dilutions. The vaccine was The Wellcome Foundation’s Trivax AD DTP vaccine. The Wellcome Foundation is now GlaxoSmithKline. Thiomersal was first introduced by pharmaceutical company Merck in the 1930s and was not clinically trialled for safety in use in vaccines.
 
Research shows that children with autism appear to have deficient mechanisms for expelling toxins like mercury and it accumulates in the body. 

Revealed by ChildHealthSafety exclusively worldwide for the first time [22/Jan/09] information obtained under  the UK’s Freedom of Information confirms the British MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency] has no data on how much Thiomersal was in Trivax AD DTP vaccine. Although the British DoH [Department of Health] claimed publicly to have known, that claim therefore appears incorrect. 

Video: University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine – How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration

Your Child’s Allergies and Vaccines

Thiomersal is also known to induce allergy. Many children, in particular those with regressive autism, have serious problems with allergies.  Some have exceptionally high levels of IgE, [the allergic antibody immunoglobulin E].

Since the introduction of the accelerated DTP vaccination schedule in 1990 the prevalence of life-threatening food allergies in British children has also increased exponentially “Time trends in allergic disorders in the UK” R Gupta, A Sheikh, D P Strachan, H R Anderson, Thorax 2006;000:1–6.  Big rise in patients with deadly allergies – Jamie Doward, The Observer 16 Apr 2006.  Number of children treated for nut allergies soars Daniel Foggo, The Sunday Times April 2, 2006.

The date of the rise can be tracked back to 1990 using publicly available data. This increase has occurred in parallel with significant increases in other disorders like autism, asthma and childhood diabetes.

Thiomersal is a well recognised cause of allergies: [The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products - Medicines Evaluation Unit - Safety Working Party Assessment of the Toxicity of Thiomersal in Relation to Its Use in Medicinal Product SCPMP/SWP/I898/1998 - 8 September 1998].

And again revealed exclusively worldwide by ChildHealthSafety [22/Jan/09] is the recent British 2006-7 Parliamentary session House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Report “Allergy” [6th Report of Sesssion] makes no mention whatsoever of Thiomersal in vaccines being a potential and possibly most likely cause of the exponential rise in childhood allergies which has occurred since 1990 in the UK.

The use of Thiomersal in other pharmaceuticals [eg. contact len cleaning fluid] has been strictly controlled in Europe: CPMP Position Paper on Thiomersal – Implementation of the Warning Statement Relating to Sensitisation. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products London, 21 October 1999 CPMP/2612/99]

Thiomersal contains 50% by weight of mercury.  There is no safe limit – only a “permitted daily/weekly tolerable” limit.  This is measured in parts per million per kilogramme of body weight.  Those limits apply when ingested in food]. This neurotoxic organo-mercury compound was injected directly into infants’ bodies at a time their bodies and nervous systems were developing the most rapidly at any time in their lives. The amount of thiomersal claimed to be in Trivax AD DTP vaccine was 50 millionths of a gramme injected directly into the body.

A 4 kilo weight 2 month old baby would have received in one injection 63 times higher than the permitted tolerable daily intake in food set by the US Environmental protection Agency and the UK’s Committee on Toxicity.

To protect infants the PTWI set by the UK Committee on Toxicity for intake of mercury compounds in food for women who are pregnant, or who may become pregnant within the following year, or for breast-feeding mothers is one tenth of a millionth of gramme per kilogramme of body weight per day – for a 9 stone woman [57 kg] that is 5.7 millionths of a gram per day.

Calculation of an infant’s daily and overall body burden of toxic mercury must also include the burden from environmental pollution.  [Sources include mercury in the air from power station emissions and in fish as a result of oceanic pollution by anti-fouling applied to ships' hulls.  Mercury is liquid at room temperature and evaporates forming a toxic vapour in the air].

Also revealed worldwide by ChildHealthSafety [22/Jan/09] is that the British Government also had no data on Thiomersal content of many other vaccines around that time and some had more than claimed by the British government was in DTP.  Examples are Duncan Flockhart’s DTP vaccine – 130 millionths of a gramme  thiomersal per millilitre and Lister Institute Pertussis vaccine – 120 mcg/ml Thiomersal.  Accordingly, this brings into question how much was in Trivax AD DTP vaccine.

The British Government also hid this lack of knowledge from Parliament.  A further revelation made exclusively worldwide by ChildHealthSafety [22/Jan/09] is that British Health Minister Hazel Blears MP misled the English Parliament in 2001 when she said in a Parliamentary answer that “All childhood vaccines licensed since 1986 which have ever contained thiomersal as an excipient are listed in the table” [to the answer]. [House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 3 Jul 2001 (pt 19)]. The table contained no such details and listed only those vaccines granted a licence in the UK since 1993.

Julie Kirkbride MP had asked for the “vaccines …. licensed since 1986 which contain thiomersal“.

If you are asked have you been licensed to drive your car since 2006, you will answer “yes” even if you have held a licence since 1980.  Blears’ answer was in fact the answer to the question of the “vaccines granted a licence since 1986 which contain Thiomersal”.

But, it seems mercury is not the only problem [See US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments - It’s Not Just MMR - here Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action].

In Whom Can You Trust

The British Government

The British Government claims Thiomersal was phased out of its childhood vaccines in October 2004 [but vaccine stocks may have taken longer to run down and how safe is what has replaced it?]. 

A previously confidential 1991 internal Merck memorandum published by the USA’s  Los Angeles Times shows the UK authorities had then known about the problem and were privately expressing concern to the vaccine manufacturer about the presence of mercury in vaccines.  This was along with Sweden, Japan and Switzerland: [‘91 Memo Warned of Mercury in Shots - By Myron Levin - LA Times - February 08, 2005]. 

So why did they take 13 years to do something about it and why did they and do they continue to tell the British public there is and was no problem when they knew there was and is?  And as vaccines also alter the functioning of the immune system, the removal of Thiomersal may well not be the only factor affecting the increases in autism, asthma, allergies and childhood diabetes.  [see more below - US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments].

Independent Medical Professional Organisations

The US Institutes of Medicine published a report in 2001 on whether MMR caused autism [Immunization Safety Review - Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autism]. 

The IOM committee held closed meetings to discuss the report’s content and before considering the evidence.  A transcript of a meeting on 12th January 2001 was disclosed in Court proceedings [US District Court of Texas, Eastern District; Case #5:03-CV-141].

Here are some quotes from the transcript:-

• [the Centers for Disease Control] “wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis.” [p33]
• “We said this before you got here, and I think we said this yesterday, the point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is to pull the vaccine, change the schedule. We could say it is time to revisit this, but we would never recommend that level.   Even recommending research is recommendations for policy.  We wouldn’t say compensate, we wouldn’t say pull the vaccine, we wouldn’t say stop the program.” [p74] 
• “we are not ever going to come down that it is a true side effect,” [p97] 
• “Chances are, when all is said and done, we are still going to be in this category. It is just a general feeling that we probably still are not going to be able to make a statement,” [p123]

What You Can Do

If you found this information helpful there are two things you can do about it.

Please share these pages with others

• email the links to this page to others
• post links to this page
  • on your website
  • on your blog
  • in comments on relevant websites and blogs

• email them to health journalists and journalists from your local newspapers, TV and radio stations – [phone them for details of email addresses or look them up on the internet]

Here are links for you to copy and paste :-

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action
CDC Fraud Tax Dollars And Italian Vaccine Mercury Study

UK Residents – Write To Your Politicians – Do It Now!

Write to your Member of Parliament with the link to this page. If you do not write to your MP, and do not keep on writing them, then don’t complain when politicians  do nothing.  Write to your Member of Parliament with the link to this page. It is their job to represent you.

Ask your MP to ask the UK’s Secretary of State to explain why the British Government allows officials of the UK’s Department of Health to cause the human rights of children to be violated.
To email your MP, all you need to know is your MP’s name.  MP’s email addresses are in the form:-

surname.initial@parliament.uk.

To find out who your MP is click on this link:-
http://www.writetothem.com/
_____________________________________________
Notes on terminology:-

In the US the official diagnostic definition of what we call “Autism Spectrum Disorders” or ASD are  instead called “Pervasive Development Disorders” or PDD for short.  That is under the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn)” or “DSM IV” for short.
“Autistic Spectrum Disorder” is the term applied internationally under the “ICD” or “International Classification of Disease”
Many refer to ASD and PDD as “autism” but “autism” is a subset of the spectrum and is often referred to also as “childhood autism”, “typical autism” and “Kanner autism”.  [The common behaviours like hand flapping, loss of eye contact and suchlike in young children are unmistakable, whereas other spectrum disorders like mild Aspergers Syndrome can be more difficult to diagnose.]

Source: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/cdc-fraud-tax-dollars-and-italian-vaccine-mercury-study/

Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys given standard doses of popular vaccines develop autism symptoms

Ethan A. Huff, staff writer, NaturanNews.com

If vaccines play absolutely no role in the development of childhood autism, a claim made by many medical authorities today, then why are some of the most popular vaccines commonly administered to children demonstrably causing autism in animal primates? This is the question many people are now asking after a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh (UP) in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research developed autism symptoms.

For their analysis, Laura Hewitson and her colleagues at UP conducted the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted -- but never has -- for such regimens. And what this brave team discovered was groundbreaking, as it completely deconstructs the mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism.

Presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, the findings revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys' sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

Included in the mix were several vaccines containing the toxic additive Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others. Also administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children (http://www.greenhealthwatch.com)

"This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children," said Lyn Redwood, director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. "SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen."

Vaccine oversight needs to be taken from CDC and given to independent agency, says vaccine safety advocate

Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.

"The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal," said Wrangham. "But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency."

Be sure to read this thorough analysis of the study by Catherine J. Frompovich of VacTruth.com:

http://vactruth.com/2012/04/29/monkeys-get-autism/

Sources for this article include:

http://vran.org

http://www.safeminds.org/

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035787_vaccines_autism_monkeys.html#ixzz2AtM5cVOj
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/035787_vaccines_autism_monkeys.html

The Original Study that this report refers to can be found in the following link:
http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf

About the Researcher: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/07/26/laura-hewitson-has-left-the-university-of-pittsburgh/

Autism Data & Statistics: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Vaccine awareness: http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Infant-Vaccines-Produce-Autism-Symptoms-In-Primates

Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy

Jurriaan Maessen – Explosive Reports

On October 2nd a retired demographer at the World Bank admitted that vaccination campaign are an integral part of the World Bank’s population policies. John F. May, the Bank’s leading demographer from 1992 to 2012, told the French web journal Sens Public (and in turn transcribed by the think-tank May works for) that vaccination campaigns, especially in so-called “high-fertility countries”, are means to achieve population reduction in those countries. May:

“The means used to implement population policies are “policy levers” or targeted actions such as vaccination campaigns or family planning to change certain key variables.”

Defining “population policy” as “a set of interventions implemented by government officials to better manage demographic variables and to try to attune population changes (number, structure by age and breakdown) to the country’s development aspirations”, May continues to explain that the World Bank is taking up the lead role in achieving general population reduction.

It is not the first time that World Bank officials boast about their willingness to implement strict population control policies in the Third World. In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank suggests using “sterilization vans” and “camps” to facilitate its sterilization policies for the third world. The report also threatens nations who are slow in implementing the bank’s population policies with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”:

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”, the report states.

Some of those steps are now being taken.

A study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology in May of 2011 concluded that “nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.” (page 8).

After an in-depth study into the effects of vaccine-coverage in relation to mortality rates among infants, the authors Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman came to this disturbing conclusion and advised that “a closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential.”- but naively concluded that “All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”

The authors cannot be expected to know that, actually, that the desired goals are exactly being achieved. Their final point is significant in this regard, that they obviously were not working on the notion that vaccines were harmful and obviously drew their final conclusions on the basis of the idea that the increase in high mortality rates among infants were unintended. The opposite is the case. The World Health Organization, the World Bank, The UN environmental department, the UN Population Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and all the other arms of the creature we call the scientific dictatorship are closing in on all of humanity with mass-scale vaccination programmes and genetically engineered food.

Where the mantra used to be “to combat global warming, we need a one world government”, now it sounds something along the lines of “when we wish to eradicate poverty, we must have a global government and reduce human numbers, by the way.” Any pretext will do. More recently it were oceans in need that prompted the World Bank to initiate a global “alliance”. The same argument can of course be applied and is being applied to every other possible calamity.

Following this line of reasoning will inevitably bring you to pretexts under which global population control can be sold. Want to reduce victims of drunk driving? Reduce human numbers. Looking to cure cancer? Reduce the birthrate so less people will die as a result of it. The scientific community has joined the effort, attempting to sell population reduction to stop poverty and disease worldwide.

Under the guidance of Ban Ki-moon’s top advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Sachs and his protégé’s Pejman Rohani and Matthew H. Bonds wrote the paper Poverty trap formed by the ecology of infectious diseases. They write that the “poverty trap may (…) be broken by improving health conditions of the population.”

The question that arises, of course, is how to improve “health conditions”. In another study from 2009 Bonds and Rohani say:

““(…) the birth of a child in the poorest parts of the world represents not only a new infection opportunity for a disease, but also an increase in the probability of infection for the rest of the susceptible host population. Thus, epidemiological theory predicts that a reduction in the birth rate can significantly lower the prevalence of childhood diseases.”

Earlier that same year, Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. The study concludes that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well… eradicate humans.

“We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud”, Bonds writes.

“(…) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.”

“This model”, Bond continues, “is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptible for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time.”

If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease- problem solved:

“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?”

The answer to that question is given by Bill Gates in 2010 when he promoted using vaccines to lower the population by 10 to 15%:

Disease and poverty, intertwined as they are, can therefore be eliminated by mas-scale fertility reduction. The religion of the scientific dictatorship in a nutshell.

It wasn’t the first time that Mr. Sachs called for global coordination in regards to population control. In a September 2009 UN press release, Sachs not only lamented human activity on the planet, but argued for scientists and engineers to take the steering-wheel in this process:

“We’re in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth’s processes. Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the climate, the hydrologic cycle,” he told the UN Conference on Trade and Development.”

“We don’t necessarily need diplomats around the table”, Sachs continued. “We need engineers around the table, scientists around the table. We need to put the cards down and have a new kind of process.”

What kind of model does Sachs envision for his usurping utopia? He stated in an Economist publication in 2000:

“The model to emulate is the Rockefeller Foundation, the pre-eminent development institution of the 20th century, which showed what grant aid targeted on knowledge could accomplish.”

I don’t have to remind readers that it was the Rockefeller Foundation that funded and developed vaccines designed to reduce your fertility, and intended to distribute these vaccines on a mass-scale.

In his commentary The Specter of Malthus Returns, Sachs gives an adequate description of Agenda 21 without actually mentioning the UN plan for wealth redistribution and global population reduction:

“We will need to rethink modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also reduce consumption. And to stabilize the global population at around eight billion, we will have to help Africa and other regions in speeding their demographic transition. We are definitely not yet on such a trajectory. We will need new policies to push markets down that path and to promote technological advances in resource saving. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it.”

As Paul Joseph Watson reported in his September 2010 article Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate Change to Poverty, the pretexts under which the ongoing effort to establish a world government is moving forward is undergoing a transformation. The focus has now drifted away from the thoroughly debunked global warming myth to poverty-reduction. As usually is the case, once the pretext is sold to the unsuspecting, the eugenicists move in to “reduce fertility.” Global government, in other words, to facilitate global scientific dictatorship. 

Source: http://explosivereports.com/2012/10/04/leading-world-bank-demographer-vaccination-campaigns-part-of-population-reduction-policy/