Bill Gates predicted a "global pandemic" that could kill 30 million people in the span of 6 months in a speech promoting vaccines.
The post Bill Gates Warns of Doomsday ‘Global Pandemic’ That Could Kill 30 Million in Under a Year appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
Railia Odinga, who swore himself in a president of Kenya this week has claimed their tests prove the government"s tetanus vaccine has sterilized hundreds of thousands of women and children.
The post Pharma Co Has License Suspended as Vaccine Blamed For Sterilization of 500,000 Women & Children appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
Researchers have shown that the current data available is insufficient to prove that the vaccine causes less death or permanent injury than the disease it is supposed to prevent.
The post Doctors Show Common Vaccine Likely Worse than Getting the Disease It’s Suppose to Stop appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
The video above features a lecture by Del Bigtree,1 an Emmy award-winning producer of “The Doctors” talk show for six years, and one of the producers of the documentary “Vaxxed.” I actually attended and saw the talk he gave during the 2017 “Truth About Cancer Live” event in Orlando, Florida, where I was also speaking.
He focuses on vaccine safety and freedom of choice. This presentation was designed to be shared with those who think vaccine safety advocates are foolish and need to “get with the program.” This is one of the best presentations I have seen that could have many rational and objective people change their views on vaccines, so feel free to widely share with those who are in favor of vaccines.
“I am a super fan of science,” he says. “When we talk about vaccines, and if you question vaccines, you are said to be anti-science. The opposite is actually true … and today I’m going to prove to you [that] the science of vaccines has been fraudulent; it’s a lie, it does not exist, and I want you to march out and demand that science begin immediately.”
The official refrain repeated by most mainstream media is that vaccines have been thoroughly researched and “hundreds” of studies have proven they’re safe, and that no link between vaccines and health problems such as autism have ever been found. Unfortunately, this simply isn’t true. Importantly, the industry has long shied away from evaluating vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations to determine general health outcomes.
One such study2 was finally published earlier this year, and its findings were less than encouraging. Here, they examined health outcomes following the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in Guinea-Bissau, which took place in the early 1980s. This population offered the rare opportunity to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children due to the way the vaccines were rolled out. What did they find?
According to the authors, “DTP was associated with fivefold higher mortality than being unvaccinated,” and “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.” In other words, the researchers concluded the DTP vaccine weakened the children’s immune system, rendering them vulnerable to a whole host of other, ultimately lethal, diseases and health problems.
Other West African trials revealed a high titer measles vaccine interacted with the DTP vaccine, resulting in a 33 percent increase in infant mortality.3 In this case, this shocking finding led to the withdrawal of that measles vaccine. But what would have happened had those studies never been done? Clearly, we need many more like them.
In the U.S., federal health officials recommend that children receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines between the day of birth and18 years old, with 50 doses given before age six. How does this affect their health? And is anyone actually tracking the health outcomes of the federal childhood vaccine program?
The answer, I’m afraid, is no. We do not know if and how all of these vaccinations are affecting the general health and mortality of our children. We do, however, know that the U.S. has one of the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any developed nation, and we also have the highest vaccination rates.
Vaccines are not risk-free. Far from it. In fact, both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed and recommended childhood vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”4 Vaccines also have the highest number of recalls5 of any drug or biological product (vaccines are not drugs but, rather, are considered biologicals by the FDA). The short list of adverse events for which victims have received compensation from the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) include:
| Guillain-Barre syndrome | Transverse myelitis |
| Encephalopathy | Seizure disorder hypoxic seizure |
| Death | Brachial neuritis |
| Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis | Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) |
| Premature ovarian failure | Bell’s palsy |
| Juvenile diabetes | Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura |
| Rheumatic arthritis | Multiple sclerosis |
| Fibromyalgia | Anaphylaxis |
| Ocular myasthenia gravis | Infantile spasms |
Potential side effects actually listed on vaccine inserts include:
| Autoimmune diseases | Food allergies | Asthma |
| Eczema | Juvenile diabetes | Rheumatoid arthritis |
| Tics | Tourette syndrome | ADD/ADHD |
| Autism | Speech delay | Neurodevelopment disorders |
| Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) | Seizure disorder | Narcolepsy |
Barring large-scale studies comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated populations, general health statistics can give us an inkling as to how well the U.S. vaccination program protects our children’s health, and it doesn’t look promising.
•One in 6 children has a developmental disability, which includes ADD, ADHD, autism, hearing loss, learning disabilities, mental disabilities, seizures and stammering — many of which are also listed or known side effects of vaccines
•Fifty-four percent of children have a diagnosed chronic illness, including anxiety, asthma, behavioral problems, bone and muscle disorders, chronic ear infections, depression, diabetes, food and/or environmental allergies and epilepsy. This list again mirrors many of the acknowledged side effects of vaccines, and the rise in prevalence of these diseases parallel the rise in required vaccines, yet vaccine promoters insist that these illnesses are in no way associated with vaccinations
Making matters worse, manufacturers of vaccines that are on the childhood schedule are not legally liable for brain damage or other types of injuries occurring from the administration of these vaccines. This is stark contrast to every other industry, where the manufacturer is financially liable and accountable in a civil court of law for faulty, malfunctioning or unsafe products.
Vaccine manufacturers (and vaccine providers), on the other hand, were granted partial immunity from liability in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, after the vaccine industry threatened to cease making childhood vaccines for release in the U.S. unless they were protected from being sued in civil court for damages.
Then, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively handed vaccine manufacturers a total liability shield from lawsuits for harm caused by FDA licensed vaccines recommended for children — even if there is evidence the vaccine could have been made safer!6 The consequences of this are staggering.
As a result of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court removing civil liability for vaccine injuries and deaths, vaccine makers have no incentive to conduct safety studies on their vaccines pre- and post-licensure; the FDA has no incentive to maintain high standards for proof of new vaccine safety; the CDC has no incentive to make vaccine policies safer; NIH has no incentive to fund research into vaccine side effects and high risk factors that make some individuals more susceptible to vaccine harm; and the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created under the 1986 law has little incentive to make awards to the vaccine injured.
In fact, the U.S Supreme Court majority misinterpreted the legislative history of the 1986 law, although that history was correctly interpreted by dissenting Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who disagreed that Congress in 1986 intended to completely shield vaccine manufacturers from civil liability.7
Nevertheless, the net result now is that vaccine manufacturers have gotten a free pass when their products cause vaccine injuries and deaths because the only possible way a vaccine injured person in the U.S can sue a manufacturer is if the company possesses evidence a vaccine causes a particular problem and failed to disclose it to the FDA. If pharmaceutical companies plead ignorance about vaccine side effects because, for example, they didn’t fully investigate potential side effects, they’re in the clear!
Adding insult to injury, if you or your child suffers a permanent injury or dies after getting a federally licensed and recommended childhood vaccine and you file a VICP claim, it is now your responsibility to prove causation.
That’s right, it’s now up to you, your lawyer and whatever experts you can afford, to identify the science to explain your or your child’s injury and argue with U.S. Department of Justice attorneys representing the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services about why you or your child should receive compensation.
Had the vaccine manufacturer or the U.S. government done the appropriate safety studies, you’d be able to use their own research in arguing your case, and this is yet another reason why proper vaccine safety studies are not being done. If you somehow manage to prove your case and win, compensation for pain, suffering and death is capped at $250,000. Despite all of these hurdles, the VICP has paid out more than $3.7 billion for vaccine injuries and deaths since 1988.8
As noted in this lecture, safety studies for vaccines are nothing like what you’d expect. While drugs are typically studied for side effects over a number of years, the hepatitis B vaccine, for example, which is injected into newborn babies, had a safety review period prior to licensure of four days (GlaxoSmithKline’s brand, Engerix) and five days (Merck’s Recombivax).
On top of that, no placebo group was included, making it all the more difficult to discern whether a problem might be related to the injection. The polio vaccine has a safety review period of just 48 hours. What this means is if the child died on day three, it didn’t count, because they were no longer looking for or tracking potential side effects.
Here, the subject group received the polio and DTP vaccine, while the so-called “placebo” group received only the DTP vaccine — the same vaccine that provided evidence it raised mortality in African children fivefold. This is NOT the way to establish vaccine safety, and this is what everyone is referring to when they say “hundreds” of studies have “proven” vaccines are safe.
Manufacturers are also highly incentivized to develop more vaccines, and to get them to market as quickly as possible, which again means cutting corners when it comes to safety studies. Indeed, this is exactly what happened after Congress granted vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability. Before 1986, the CDC only recommended 23 doses of seven vaccines for children between 2 months and 6 years old.9 Today, the total is up to 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6.10
Some 270 experimental vaccines are already in the pipeline. How many of those will be added to the CDC’s schedule of recommended childhood vaccines that are turned into school mandates in the states? How many can a child bear? Where is the breaking point? And how do we know a breaking point has not already been reached? Judging by our health statistics, I’d suggest we’ve passed the breaking point already.
Vaccine safety is further hindered by the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which is in charge of vaccine safety, is also in charge of promoting vaccines to the public and defending vaccine safety in court! (When you file a VICP vaccine injury claim, you’re actually suing the U.S. government, not the vaccine maker.) These conflicts of interest seriously hamper the DHHS’ ability to fulfill its mandate to make sure all vaccines are safe.
But it doesn’t end there. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which tells the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which vaccines should be included on the recommended childhood vaccination schedule, also has significant conflicts of interest. In this case, some panel members have been found to have financial ties to the drug companies making and selling the very vaccines they’re voting to include on the schedule.
And once a vaccine is added to the schedule, these companies have risk-free access to a market of 78 million American children because most federally recommended vaccines are mandated by state governments for children to attend school. With that kind of financial incentive, is it any wonder this federal committee has tacked 46 doses of vaccines onto the childhood schedule since 1986? As noted in a 2000 investigation into ACIP by the U.S. Government Reform Committee:
“The CDC grants blanket waivers to the ACIP members each year that allow them to deliberate on any subject, regardless of their conflicts, for the entire year … [ACIP reflects] a system where government officials make crucial decisions affecting American children without the advice and consent of the governed.”
Last but not least, the CDC, which also has a role to play in vaccine safety, spends $4.9 billion of its annual $11.5 billion budget on the purchase and promotion of vaccines. Now, if any FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccine were found to be dangerous, what incentive does the government have to pull it off the market? Federal agencies have basically morphed into becoming funders, advertisers and product distributors for the vaccine industry.
The CDC even holds at least 27 human vaccine-related patents, plus another five patents for veterinary vaccines,11 which dampens the agency’s incentive to find or acknowledge any safety or effectiveness issues with vaccines. The revolving door between government agencies and the industry adds further complexity to these conflicts of interest.
Julie Gerberding is a perfect example of this. After promoting and defending the safety of vaccines as director of the CDC from 1998 until 2009, she left CDC to accept a lucrative executive position with Merck & Co. as president of the company’s vaccine division. Since 2014, she has served as Merck’s executive vice president of strategic communications, global public policy and population health.12
In his presentation, Bigtree addressed the federal vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS). VAERS was a vaccine safety provision included in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and is a passive reporting system. As such, it suffers from the same malady as other passive reporting systems, which is underreporting. Research has confirmed passive reporting systems underreport by 50-to-1, meaning only 1 in 50 adverse events are ever reported.
In the case of VAERS, published estimates suggest only between 1 and 10 percent of serious health problems that occur after vaccination are ever reported,13,14 so VAERS may have an underreporting rate as high as 100-to-1. This means that for every vaccine adverse event report that makes it to VAERS, it may need to be multiplied by 100 to get closer to reality.
Under the 1986 law, doctors and all vaccine providers have a legal obligation to report vaccine side effects to VAERS, but they don’t, and there are no legal sanctions or professional ramifications for failure to make a report. Parents can also make a vaccine reaction report to the VAERS database themselves, and I encourage all parents to do so, should your child experience a vaccine reaction and your doctor or vaccine provider refuse to make a report.
At present, VAERS has over 500,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines, and every year, more than 30,000 new reports are added to it. (An easy way to review information in the VAERS database is the user-friendly MedAlerts website, accessible through NVIC.org, which contains searchable information on vaccine adverse events that have been reported to VAERS since the reporting system began operating in 1990.)
In 2016 alone, 59,117 reports were added. According to Bigtree, these included 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations and 10,284 emergency room visits. Again, you likely need to multiply these figures by 100 to get a more accurate estimate of how many vaccine-related health problems have really been occurring in the U.S.
This means the annual vaccine-related death toll may be closer to 43,200, and permanent disabilities may number around 109,100. Mind you, that’s just in one year. Regardless, as Bigtree notes, “This is no way to conduct science.” How can you assess harm when you likely have only 1 percent of the data?
In 2010, the CDC had the brilliant idea of hiring a company to automate VAERS in such a way that any potential vaccine reactions reported to doctors participating in the Harvard Pilgrim HMO would automatically be uploaded into the VAERS database. What did they find? Preliminary data showed that out of 376,452 individuals given 45 different vaccines, 35,570 possible vaccine reactions were identified.
This means nearly 1 in 10 people suffered a reaction after vaccination concerning enough to be reported, yet the official CDC mantra is that the risk for serious vaccine injury or death is 1 in 1 million. Alas, while creation of VAERS in the 1986 law presented an opportunity to finally get a better understanding of the number of potential vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths occurring after vaccinations given in the U.S., the CDC didn’t follow through.
According to the company hired and paid $1 million to create this automated reporting program, “There was never any opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”
Neil Z. Miller, author of “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies,” downloaded the VAERS database and created a program to extract all reports involving infants. In all, there was an extraction and analysis of the reports of 38,000 infants who experienced an adverse reaction following the receipt of one or more vaccines to determine the number of vaccines each infant had received before suffering an adverse reaction.
The reports were stratified by the number of vaccines (anywhere from one to eight) the infants had received simultaneously before the reaction took place, focusing on serious adverse reactions requiring hospitalization or that led to death. Here are the results:
Bigtree also summarized vaccine safety reports issued by physician committees at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 199115 and 1994.16,17 These reports were among the vaccine safety provisions included in the 1986 National Chlldhood Vaccine Injury Act. Both IOM committees found much of the evidence in the medical literature was too inadequate to be able to ascertain whether nine government recommended childhood vaccines reviewed were — or were not — causing commonly reported health problems.
Another IOM report, published in 2012, “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,”18 is one of the most important reviews of scientific evidence about vaccine injuries and deaths. This report summarized evidence for 155 reported vaccine-related adverse effects associated with eight government recommended childhood vaccines.
Out of 155 health problems reported after vaccination, 134 of them could not be evaluated due to a lack of enough methodologically sound scientific studies! The vaccine-related health problems being evaluated include very serious effects such as encephalitis, seizure disorders, multiple sclerosis, psoriatic arthritis and much more. Clearly, vaccine science is simply either not there or not solid enough for rational conclusions to be made about cause and effect.
Although vaccine safety advocates have criticized the IOM’s reports as minimizing the full extent of vaccine risks, no other recognized scientific institution in the world has so clearly acknowledged that vaccines can and do cause injury and death, especially for susceptible individuals, and that there are large vaccine science knowledge gaps about safety that need to be addressed.
For the 2012 IOM report, over a period of three years, a physician committee reviewed over 1,000 vaccine studies related to safety issues associated with eight childhood vaccines. The committee excluded studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry (but did include studies funded by the federal government). The eight vaccines studied were:
| Hepatitis A-hepatitis B | Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine | Meningococcal vaccine | Pneumococcal vaccine |
| Diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis, also known as DTaP or Tdap | Varicella zoster (chickenpox) | HPV vaccine | Influenza vaccine |
Also of great importance, the IOM looked at two distinct categories of science in this report:
This is important because many of the studies the CDC relies on as evidence that vaccines don’t cause any problems are epidemiological studies and, if poor methodology is used, the conclusions of epidemiological studies can be fatally flawed. In the 2012 review, the IOM committee reviewed both kinds of science.
The most shocking conclusion of this report is that, for more than 100 adverse health outcomes reported after these eight vaccines were given, the IOM committee was unable to determine whether or not the vaccines caused a commonly reported brain or immune system disorder. In short: The scientific evidence was insufficient to make a conclusion in most cases.
So, the committee was unable to confirm or deny causation for most reported poor health outcomes following receipt of certain vaccines, including multiple sclerosis, lupus and autism. In 2013, a physician committee at IOM also pointed out that the current federally recommended childhood vaccine schedule for infants and children from birth to age 6 had not been adequately studied for safety.19 According to the IOM’s20 2013 “Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety” report, studies are needed to examine the:
All of these facts point to why we simply must protect flexible vaccine exemptions in federal vaccine policies and state vaccine laws. We must have the right to choose and refuse. Moreover, when an individual experiences a deterioration in health after vaccination, doctors also need to understand the danger of giving more vaccinations until or unless the vaccine can be conclusively exonerated as a causative or contributing factor to that health deterioration.
And guess what? There are well over 100 brain and immune system disorders associated with vaccination for which there’s insufficient science to ascertain whether or not the vaccine might be a causative factor.
What this tells us is that physicians — or anyone — recommending and administering vaccines to people, particularly to vulnerable infants and children, need to apply the precautionary principle of “first do no harm” and respect the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking, including vaccine risk-taking. This is critically important when the foundation of science supporting the safety of any given vaccine, alone or in combination, for any given individual is so weak.
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.
THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.
Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smart phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.
Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury, or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination, will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.
The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.
I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:
If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination. However, there is hope.
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.
It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.
The post How Much Do You Really Know About Vaccine Safety? (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.
"Perhaps we now have the putative link between vaccination and ASD, the link being the inclusion of an aluminum adjuvant in the vaccine."
A vaccine company funded by billionaire Peter Thiel was caught illegally testing a herpes virus on unsuspecting victims in Holiday Inn.
Detroit, MI — Only days after Judge Karen McDonald sentenced Rebecca Bredow to jail for choosing not to vaccinate her son, another mother is facing the same potential fate. Lori Matheson is now facing the same court who, only days earlier, sent a mom to jail for refusing to vaccinate.
According to WXYZ:
Lori Matheson is objecting to a friend of the court order that found her daughter should get vaccinated.
She argues her family is pre-disposed to auto-immune injuries and a “23 and Me” genetic test will show that, and that the test should have been done before the referee made their determination.
The attorney for her daughter’s father says the daughter’s doctor recommended the vaccines and said her church allows them.
Matheson is now facing the same potential fate as Bredow and it’s all over the court’s decision to punish those who refuse vaccinations.
It is important to note that Matheson is not yet at the point to which Bredow had made it. Right now, she is only in court because she is choosing not to vaccinate their two-year-old while the father is.
The fact that this is the second case in only a couple of weeks, however, unfolding in the exact same manner, indicates where this could end up. It is indeed likely that the court will again side with the father.
Advertisment
Just like Bredow, the father in Matheson’s case, who does not have custody of the children, now wants to vaccinate his children to the fullest extent. Matheson disagrees, but the court has already shown that they couldn’t care less about what a mother thinks—despite Michigan law allowing for vaccine exemption.
READ MORE: State Bill to Mandate Children to Receive Every Vaccine — Citizens Fighting Back
While vaccinating your children is certainly the decision of both parents — the idea of one parent being kidnapped and thrown in a cage for not wanting to vaccinate is the very fabric of tyranny.
“Why automatically side with the father that wants the vaccines? What about my choice as a mother?” said Bredow — and she has a point.
Judge McDonald noted during Bredow’s sentencing that the boy has two parents and “Dad gets a say.” However, if the roles were reversed, would the father be in a cage right now?
Now, as this second case unfolds, we will likely again see that it’s the dad that gets a say—just so long as he chooses to vaccinate.
Instead of punishing Bredow for refusing vaccines, why didn’t the judge simply grant temporary custody to the father and allow him to bring the child in to get vaccinated?
This decision by McDonald forecasts the potentially bleak outlook for Matheson.
In court, Matheson told the judge that outside of her concerns over potential health problems the vaccines may cause her child, that she religiously objects to vaccines because of their ties to aborted fetal cells.
“I started reading literature on vaccinations,” Matheson told McDonald. “When I started reading them that’s when I found out there are some vaccinations that are cultured in aborted fetal cells.”
Before you dismiss the rest of this article, know that there is, in fact, truth to that statement.
Some childhood vaccines, including the one against rubella — which is part of the MMR vaccine given to millions of children worldwide for measles, mumps and rubella — is cultured in “WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts,” according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s fact sheet on the vaccine’s ingredients.
READ MORE: First Ever Study of Unvaccinated Vs. Vaccinated Kids, Pulled from Journal, Erased from Internet
Vaccine manufacturer, Merck, has publicly acknowledged that those cells were obtained from an electively aborted fetus.
“Merck, as well as other vaccine manufacturers, uses two well-established human cell lines to grow the virus for selected vaccines,” Merck said in a statement to ABC News. “The FDA has approved the use of these cell lines for the production of these Merck vaccines.”
According to the FDA, other common vaccines, including those for chicken pox, hepatitis, and rabies, are also propagated in cells originating from legally aborted human fetuses.
Naturally, if one is vehemently and religiously opposed to abortion, the idea of injecting a medicine into your child’s body that was originally created from an abortion, may cause some apprehension.
Regardless of your stance on vaccinations, the idea of a court being able to threaten jail for vaccine refusal is sinister and goes against any aspect of a free society.
Detroit, MI — In a seemingly unprecedented violation of rights, a case out of Detroit, Michigan should worry even the most stringent pro-vaccine advocates. A mother has been sentenced to jail for failing to have her 9-year-old son vaccinated.
While the Free Thought Project has reported on instances of children being denied public services, like school, for not vaccinating their children, the idea that someone is now being thrown in jail for choosing to abstain from vaccination is chilling.
“I would rather sit behind bars standing up for what I believe in, than giving in to something I strongly don’t believe in,” said Rebecca Bredow last week when given the ultimatum—vaccinate your son or go to jail.
On Wednesday, she stood by those words and refused to back down. Judge Karen McDonald then told her she was in violation of the court order to vaccinate her son and she was sentenced to jail.
For refusing to go against her beliefs and vaccinate her son, Bredow will spend the next seven days in a cage.
Advertisment
As the Free Thought Project previously reported, Bredow did not fully abstain from all vaccinations. She is merely choosing to space them out, like lots of parents do.
As WXYZ reports, Rebecca believes in parents having the choice to make the right decision for their children based on the parent’s knowledge of vaccines and the child.
Rebecca told 7 Action News that she and dad made the decision to space out and delay some of their little one’s vaccines.
“It wasn’t until they started grouping them together that I backed off of doing vaccines,” she says.
READ MORE: Victim Shaming: Cops Kill 12-Year-Old Boy, Charge Him with Two Crimes a Week Later to Justify It
However, the father, who does not have custody of the children, changed his mind and now wants to vaccinate his children to the fullest extent. Bredow disagrees, but the court has shown that they couldn’t care less about what she thinks—despite Michigan law allowing for vaccine exemption.
Bredow says the court never cared to hear her side of the story, and despite her having custody of the children, the court automatically sided with the father who wants their son vaccinated.
While vaccinating your children is certainly the decision of both parents — the idea of one parent being kidnapped and thrown in a cage for not wanting to vaccinate is the very fabric of tyranny.
“Why automatically side with the father that wants the vaccines? What about my choice as a mother?” says Bredow — and she has a point.
Judge McDonald noted that the boy has two parents and “Dad gets a say.” However, if the roles were reversed, would the father be in a cage right now?
If the court sided with Bredow instead of the father, would the father now be in jail if he vaccinated their child?
Not likely.
“I feel angry. I feel backed into a corner. I feel like my rights as a parent have been taken away,” she said and now she is feeling the wrath of the state.
While there will likely be some folks cheering on the state in this situation, how you feel personally about vaccines should never lead to a loss of freedom. No person should be forced by government regulation or societal pressure to receive any medication or treatment, including vaccines, against his or her will.
READ MORE: WATCH: Senator Says Shooting at Cops During No-Knock Raids is Entirely Justified
Now, in the Land of the Free, the precedent has been set. Parents can and will be thrown in a cage for choosing to not to vaccinate their children.
“There is tremendous evidence showing vaccinations prevent childhood diseases. Should public health officials do everything they can to encourage, inform and facilitate childhood vaccinations? Yes. Do they have the right to force parents to vaccinate their children? Absolutely not.
In America we believe parents are capable of making their own decisions about their children’s health. We believe in freedom of choice. This freedom of choice extends to when — and even whether— parents vaccinate their kids.”
-Jennifer Margulis, former Senior Fellow at the Schuster Institute at Brandeis University
In a state with legal vaccine exemptions, a well-meaning mother has been given an ultimatum by a court—vaccinate your child or go to jail.
It is no question that the subject of vaccines is profoundly controversial. On both sides of the argument exists truth and lies that can hinder the ability of some to make rational decisions.
While we have everyone from attorneys to biologists, to political scientists who write for the Free Thought Project, none of us are doctors, so we do not make recommendations about what you and your family should do in regards to vaccination. That being said, when we see critical information about vaccines that fails to be covered in the mainstream media, we will cover it every time.
This is one of those times.
A peer-reviewed study published online this week and set to be published in the December volume of the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, conducted by scientists at the University of British Columbia, has established a link between a popular aluminum vaccine ingredient and autism.
Advertisment
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Aluminum is present in U.S. childhood vaccines that prevent hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP, Tdap), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), human papillomavirus (HPV) and pneumococcus infection.
This aluminum is added, according to the CDC, “ to increase the body’s immune response to the vaccine.”
While the CDC considers the addition of aluminum to vaccines to be safe, this study refutes that claim. Even outside of this study, it has been well established that Aluminum is a known neurotoxin and is highly biologically reactive and uniquely equipped to do damage to essential cellular (neuronal) biochemistry.
However, the findings of this study show the specific reactions aluminum administered through vaccines have in the brain that are homologous with biomarkers of autism.
READ MORE: Lead Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents & Young Girls It’s All A Giant Deadly Scam
The study’s title says it all.
As J.B. Handley, Jr., co-founder of Generation Rescue, points out, this study corroborates a previous study conducted in France by Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), published in the journal Toxicology earlier this year which came to a similar conclusion. According to that study, the authors disputed the reasoning the FDA and CDC use to claim that it is safe to inject developing children with known neurotoxins.
“As a possible consequence, comparing vaccine adjuvant exposure to other non-relevant aluminum exposures, e.g. soluble aluminum and other routes of exposure, may not represent valid approaches.”
The French study found that as small doses of aluminum are injected over time, like during childhood vaccinations, it was more likely to end up in the brain. They concluded with the following warning:
“In the context of massive development of vaccine-based strategies worldwide, the present study may suggest that aluminum adjuvant toxicokinetics and safety require reevaluation.”
Now, only months after the French study, this Canadian study is showing similar results.
It thus appears that Al [aluminum adjuvant] triggered innate immune system activation and altered cholinergic activity in male mice, observations which are consistent with those in autism. Female mice were less susceptible to Al exposure as only the expression levels of NF-κB inhibitor and TNFA were altered. Regional patterns of gene expression alterations also exhibited gender differences, as frontal cortex was the most affected area in males and cerebellum in females. Thus, Al adjuvant promotes brain inflammation and males appear to be more susceptible to Al′s toxic effects.
What is important to note here is the fact that autism is more prevalent in male humans as well — about 80% of autistic children are boys — which coincides with the results of this study.
READ MORE: Groundbreaking Study: Vaccines Cause Children More Adverse Reactions Than Any Other Drug
While the CDC claims the aluminum injected into children stays at the injection sites, this study actually showed the opposite.
Collectively, these findings refute the notion that adjuvant nanoparticles remain localized and act through a “depot effect”. On the contrary, Al derived from vaccine formulations can cross the blood-brain and blood-cerebrospinal fluid barriers and incite immunoinflammatory responses in neural tissues.
While this study is not a smoking gun, the fact that it corroborates a similar study on the other side of the globe, published in a different journal just months prior, should not be overlooked.
While the vitriolic crowd, who refers to everyone who seeks to make vaccines safer as rabid anti-vaxxers, will undoubtedly attempt to shout this study down, it is important that everyone heed the warning from the scientists who conducted it. They are not calling for the end of vaccinations, only issuing a warning about the potentially dangerous effects of injection aluminum.
“In addition, the continued use of aluminum adjuvants in various vaccines (i.e., Hepatitis A and B, DPT, and so on) for the general public may have even more widespread health implications. Until vaccine safety can be comprehensively demonstrated by controlled long-term studies that examine the impact on the nervous system in detail, many of those already vaccinated as well as those currently receiving injections may be at risk in the future. Whether the risk of protection from a dreaded disease outweighs the risk of toxicity is a question that demands urgent attention.”
The Boston Herald is one of the oldest newspapers in the United States. It has won eight Pulitzer Prizes since its founding in 1846 and was named one of the “10 Newspapers That ‘Do It Right"” in 2012 by Editor & Publisher. And, the media outlet, which is also a former arm of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, just said that anti-vaxxers should be hanged — seriously.
In an editorial last week, titled: Preying on parents’ fear, the Boston Herald verbally lambasted those who question the safety of vaccines and then took it one step further — calling for their execution.
Before dismissing this article as some ‘anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory,’ it is important to note that the Free Thought Project takes no stand on the issue and believe it is the individual’s right and responsibility to decide what medicines they can and cannot put into their body. We are not anti-vaccine by any means — only pro-safety.
Every human being has the right to informed about any medical procedure or intervention on ourselves or our children, and we have the right to consent or not consent to that intervention.
The above statement is not some conspiracy theory, it is what a free society does. However, the Boston Herald disagrees with this assertion of one’s medical rights and has called for the violent punishment of those who choose to assert them.
After the Herald’s “editorial staff” bashes people for simply talking about the potential dangers of vaccines — and claiming, without providing evidence, that these people caused a massive measles outbreak — they called for physical violence against those people.
Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense.
If a doctor lies to patients and causes grave harm by doing so, that doctor is liable for malpractice. This doctor can be the sole cause of a child’s suffering and eventual death, and, yet, their punishment would still not be the death penalty.
READ MORE: Statist Middle School Principal to Report Child to the FBI for "Throwing a Flag"
While basing medical decisions on hearsay or false information gleaned online is a terrible decision, the idea of executing those who put it out is as insane as it is tyrannical.
This newspaper called for the execution of those who it considers liars — because they question vaccine safety. But, was anyone arrested or otherwise warned? No. Did the paper even issue a retraction or apology? No.
In fact, the article is still very live and very read on its website and no one is calling them out for it. Well, we have to point it out.
Imagine for a moment if these roles were reversed and some ‘anti-vaxxer’ called for the execution of vaccine proponents using a massive forum such as the Boston Herald. For starters, that person would be immediately fired, the paper would issue an apology and retraction, and they could be looking possible charges. However, that is clearly not the case in this instance.
Sadly, these calls for violence or action against those who simply question the paradigm are not isolated. In a similar manner, just two months ago, the magazine Scientific American published an article by Peter Hotez, MD of Texas Children’s Hospital, who called for the ‘snuffing out’ of people who question vaccines.
An American antivaccine movement is building and we need to take steps now to snuff it out.
Before that, USA Today published an article by Alex Berezow advocating that “anti-vax” parents be imprisoned.
Unfortunately, more states are proposing and passing laws designed to chip away at informed consent. The right on an individual to do with their own body as they see fit is slowly being degraded — one piece of legislation at a time.
READ MORE: Things You Don’t Say in Polite Society
Thinking that the state — given its fallible, brutal, and outright criminal history — can make and mandate medical decisions that will be forced on everyone, is sheer insanity.
Yes, vaccines were a major breakthrough for society, but this breakthrough happened voluntarily.
If you truly want a dystopian future, in which state-run medical programs are forced onto you and your children regardless of your opposition and those who object are punished or executed, then keep advocating for state mandates.
Until then, educate yourself by sifting through the lies by the ardent anti-vaxxers as well as the staunch and heavily subsidized medical industrial complex pro-vaxxers. The answer to better human health, as with most things, likely lies somewhere in the middle.
In recent years, the glaring spotlight of skepticism has been turned to the topic of vaccines, bitterly dividing parents and giving doctors of modern medicine conniption fits — but no matter where you stand on vaccinations, the fact two groundbreaking, scientific, peer-reviewed studies painting inoculations in not-so favorable light have vanished from the Internet is cause for concern.
Originally, the study, titled, “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children,” was published in Open Access Text.
Until, that is, Open Access Text removed it and a second, similar study by the same authors from their archives without explanation. In fact, The Free Thought Project attempted to contact Open Access Text on multiple occasions for an explanation on the abrupt decision to pull the studies — but, as of publishing, had yet to receive a response.
Lead author Anthony R. Mawson, Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Jackson State University’s School of Public Health, establishes that his team takes no issue with vaccinations, in their own right, stating in the study’s introduction,
“Vaccines are among the greatest achievements of biomedical science and one of the most effective public health interventions of the 20th century. Among U.S. children born between 1995 and 2013, vaccination is estimated to have prevented 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 premature deaths, with overall cost savings of $1.38 trillion. About 95% of U.S. children of kindergarten age receive all of the recommended vaccines as a requirement for school and daycare attendance, aimed at preventing the occurrence and spread of targeted infectious diseases. Advances in biotechnology are contributing to the development of new vaccines for widespread use.”
Mawson responded by email to The Free Thought Project’s request for a comment concerning the studies’ abrupt disappearance, stating only,
“I am forwarding your inquiry to our funding agency for comment. I am not at liberty to provide details at this moment.”
Although that sheds no light on the motivation for OAT to pull the study, it provides added evidence studies running counter to the long-held assumption vaccinations should not be questioned are far more frequently so explosive, the ensuing controversy and rush by modern medicine — often backed by the pharmaceutical industry — to denigrate such results is powerful and swift.
The study stated,
“Under the currently recommended pediatric vaccination schedule, U.S. children receive up to 48 doses of vaccines for 14 diseases from birth to age six years, a figure that has steadily increased since the 1950s, most notably since the Vaccines for Children program was created in 1994. The Vaccines for Children program began with vaccines targeting nine diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b disease, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, and rubella. Between 1995 and 2013, new vaccines against five other diseases were added for children age 6 and under: varicella, hepatitis A, pneumococcal disease, influenza, and rotavirus vaccine.”
Mawson and his team of researchers included nine charts and a full 71 references in their comparison of the long-term health prospects between vaccinated children attending public schools and their unvaccinated, homeschooled peers, to determine what results from the current scheduling of vaccines that could, perhaps, be overlooked under the general assumption of vaccine safety.
Results were astonishing.
“Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited,” the study stated, with paragraphs artificially inserted for clarity. “In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions.
“Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent ‘dose-response’ relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs [Neurodevelopmental disorders] all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.
“Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination.
“In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution.
“First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.”
Explosive, indeed.
The study continued,
“Although short-term immunologic and safety testing is performed on vaccines prior to their approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the long-term effects of individual vaccines and of the vaccination program itself remain unknown. Vaccines are acknowledged to carry risks of severe acute and chronic adverse effects, such as neurological complications and even death, but such risks are considered so rare that the vaccination program is believed to be safe and effective for virtually all children.”
Mawson and his team found vaccinated children significantly more likely their unvaccinated counterparts to be prone to allergic rhinitis (hay fever) [10.4% versus 0.4%], other allergies [22.2% vs. 6.9%], eczema/atopic dermatitis [9.5% vs. 3.6%], a learning disability [5.7% vs. 1.2%], ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) [4.7% vs. 1.0%], ASD (autism spectrum disorder) [4.7% vs. 1.0%], any neurodevelopmental disorder (learning disability, ADHD, ASD) [10.5% vs. 3.1%], and “any chronic illness” [44.0% vs. 25.0%].
Children receiving only part of the full vaccination schedule had a mixed resultant development of these afflictions.
Obviously, these results were unexpected — and call to task the increased number of vaccines highly recommended, and in some instances required, by the medical community.
Cancer, depression, and a host of other ailments and afflictions were not found to have a significant difference in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. Mawson continues:
“A possible contributory role for vaccines in the rise in NDD diagnoses remains unknown because data on the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children are lacking. The need for such studies is suggested by the fact that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid $3.2 billion in compensation for vaccine injury since its creation in 1986.
“A study of claims compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for vaccine-induced encephalopathy and seizure disorder found 83 claims that were acknowledged as being due to brain damage. In all cases it was noted by the Court of Federal Claims, or indicated in settlement agreements, that the children had autism or ASD. On the other hand, numerous epidemiological studies have found no association between receipt of selected vaccines (in particular the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine) and autism, and there is no accepted mechanism by which vaccines could induce autism.”
While the Mawson study immediately found detractors — many of whom questioned the results and method of inquiry — the preceding paragraph shows the researchers not glibly intent to prove vaccinations responsible for the astronomical rise in diagnoses of autism. This was not intent to prove the movie Vaxxed correct.
In fact, while the most common concern and complaint among those who question whether or not their children should receive so many vaccines surrounds possible connections to autism spectrum disorder, the author clearly states any correlation or link has not been substantiated.
Incidentally, this isn’t the first time this study has been pulled from the Internet: the same thing happened last year, under similar circumstances — i.e., furious backlash on methodology and sampling — but, notably, not for the results. While detractors could indeed dissect some flaws in the Mawson team’s analysis, the astonishing differences between the inoculated and unvaccinated populations should at minimum prove resoundingly the imperative for further study.
Vaccinations, as Mawon clearly states, have performed miracles by eliminating some of the most pernicious diseases and afflictions humans have faced — but the categorical increase in the number of vaccines physicians recommend, coupled with the dearth in studies of potential reactions among them, make the oblivious rush to inoculate children and adolescents against as many as possible seems foolhardy, at best.
Vaccinating children remains the guardianship decision of parents, but truly informed consent only comes with comprehensive research, evaluation, and study of every conceivable outcome — both positive and negative.
These substances cannot be removed from a human body once injected. Deciding whether to fully or partially vaccinate — or to abstain, altogether — should not be blindly undertaken because the majority of the medical community deems it so.
Science has brought innovation, advancement, and betterment of health unimaginable a century or two ago — but science isn’t perfect. It was science, after all, which once deemed the Earth a flat disc, around which the Universe spun.
Yes, we should indeed turn to those with greater knowledge and education on a subject than ourselves to make an informed decision on any medical procedure — but it would behoove us all to understand new information can dramatically change the field of medicine.
With that in mind — and with the deletion of yet another controversial study questioning the dominant vaccine paradigm — the choice to vaccinate your children is yours.
Following are charts from the Mawson study, captured prior to its deletion from Open Access Text:
