Posts Tagged Vaccine
Sunday, August 05, 2012
By: Scott Morefield
[NaturalNews] In yet another example of mad science gone awry, approximately 7 to 17 percent of the chicken population of Australia’s two main chicken producing states, Victoria and New South Wales, has died as a result of two deadly new disease strains; strains created when three vaccines used to prevent the herpes virus infectious laryngotracheitis in chickens ‘unexpectedly’ swapped genes. The disease normally kills five percent of the chicken populations it infects, so in this case the ‘solution’ has turned out to be far worse than the original potential problem.
In Australia there are usually two similar live virus vaccinations against the virus, which causes mild to severe respiratory disease (difficulty breathing, sneezing, coughing) in chickens. However, because of shortages in 2008/2009, a new European vaccine was introduced. Because of the use of multiple live virus vaccines in the same poultry population, an entirely new, more virulent, disease has been created, one that results in death for a significant percentage of the population it was meant to protect. According to the journal Science, “These findings highlight the risks of using multiple different attenuated herpes virus vaccines, or vectors, in the same populations.”
Joanne Devlin, a lecturer at the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Melbourne and the lead author of the paper detailing the problem, wrote, “To try to understand the origin of the new field strains, what we did is sequence the entire genome of the new field strains and we also sequenced the genome of the vaccine strains at the time.” Similar elements to the two vaccines were found in the new viruses.
Move on, nothing to see here
Devlin also acknowledges that the new, deadly variants were possible because the vaccines contained live viruses. Not to worry; however. The University of Melbourne’s Ian Gust assures us that this couldn’t possibly occur in humans because chickens and people are vaccinated using different methods and different strains of the herpes virus. Since the herpes virus is delivered with three entirely different diseases, measles, mumps, and rubella, we are told it cannot breed across various species. Currently, there are five live virus vaccines given to humans – measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and polio. What could possibly go wrong?
30 years of secret, official transcripts prove vaccine schedules in US and UK are based on government lies
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
By: Ethan A. Huff
[NaturalNews] A comprehensive investigation into the inner workings of the U.K.’s nationalized healthcare system has revealed a shocking legacy of corruption and lies concerning the country’s vaccine policy. According to Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic, Ph.D., from the University of British Columbia in Canada, the advisory and governing bodies that set vaccination policy in the U.K. have, for many decades now, hidden the truth about vaccine dangers, and deliberately pushed unsafe vaccines on the public in order to uphold the official vaccination schedule.
Official documents uncovered from secret meetings of the U.K.’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), an independent body that helps set vaccination schedule policy in the U.K., reveal that JCVI ignores independent data showing vaccines to be unsafe, and reinforces questionable data produced by vaccine companies claiming that vaccines are safe. The group also discourages all research that might question the safety of vaccines, and knowingly lies to parents in order to increase the overall vaccination compliance rate.
“[T]he JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe, adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity,’ a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence,” writes Dr. Tomljenovic in her paper.
“Official documents obtained from the U.K. Department of Health (DH) and the JCVI reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.”
The 45-page paper blows the lid off the myth that government vaccination policy is based on sound science, and instead shows that vaccine advisory committees, which help set vaccine policy, are typically padded with vaccine industry shills that specifically promote vaccines in spite of evidence showing their dangers. This has been true in the U.K. since at least the early 1980s, and it is certainly true in the U.S. as well.
Dr. Tomlijenovic explains; for instance, how JCVI has known since as early as 1981 that the measles vaccine, which is part of the government’s official vaccine schedule, is linked to long-term neurological damage and death. She also outlines, with full citations, evidence showing that JCVI has long been aware that many of scheduled vaccines cause permanent brain damage in children, but have continued to promote those vaccines anyway.
JCVI knew MMR vaccine was capable of causing brain damage
Another stunning discovery in Dr. Tomlijenovic’s paper deals with the MMR vaccine, and how JCVI was aware that this controversial jab can cause brain damage. The transcript from a 1990 meeting of the JCVI CSM/DH Joint Sub-Committee on Adverse Reactions notes that JCVI was aware that MMR was definitely linked to causing at least 10 known cases of both meningitis and encephalitis.
JCVI addressed the issue of MMR safety again in 1991, noting that in a follow-up review of the earlier cases of meningitis and encephalitis that were definitively linked to the vaccine, two of the children developed permanent neurological damage as a result. One other developed behavioral problems, which are linked to autism, and another developed cerebral astrocytoma, a type of brain tumor. None of this critical information was publicly disclosed.
You can read Dr. Tomlijenovic’s full 45-page paper on vaccine corruption here:
Sources for this article include:
Mounting Evidence Shows Many Vaccines Are Ineffective & Contribute To Rise Of Outbreaks Caused By Mutated Viruses
By: Dr. Mercola
July 30, 2012
“The U.S. is on course for a record year for whooping cough, health officials said this week. And while vaccinating kids is clearly the most important defense, health experts say adults may not realize they’re supposed to be getting regular shots, too.”
The article goes on to hype what are actually predictable pertussis (whooping cough) increases and promote the ineffective pertussis vaccine—basically giving the media their marching orders for this fall’s propaganda campaign, which centers on blaming increases in pertussis on parents who file non-medical exemptions for their kids, which is pure nonsense.
Surprise! Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly through Vaccinated Populations
In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years occurred in California. Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in the California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials and national media, targeting people opting out of receiving pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the outbreak.
In fact, the study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated.
“This first detailed analysis of a recent North American pertussis outbreak found widespread disease among fully vaccinated older children. Starting approximately three years after prior vaccine dose, attack rates markedly increased, suggesting inadequate protection or durability from the acellular vaccine.” [Emphasis mine]
The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is included as a component in “combination” shots that include tetanus and diphtheria (DPT, DTaP, Tdap) and may also include polio, hepatitis B, and/or Haemophilus Influenza B (Hib). CDC data shows 84 percent of children under the age of three have received at least FOUR DTaP shots—which is the acellular pertussis vaccine that was approved in the United States in 1996—yet, despite this high vaccination rate, whooping cough still keeps circulating among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
So, as clearly evidenced in this study, the vaccine likely provides very little, if any, protection from the disease. In fact, the research suggests those who are fully vaccinated may in fact be more likely to get the disease than unvaccinated populations.
by: Sayer Ji
July 28, 2012
A newly published article written by a former WHO vaccine committee member has revealed that estimates for pertussis vaccine efficacy have been greatly inflated because of inaccurate case definitions adopted by the WHO in 1991 which required laboratory confirmation and 21 days or more of paroxysmal cough, excluding and therefore concealing a veritable submerged iceberg of vaccine-resistant cases of pertussis infection.
I was a member of the WHO committee and disagreed with the primary case definition because it was clear at that time that this definition would eliminate a substantial number of cases and therefore inflate reported efficacy values.4–11 Nevertheless, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration accepted this definition, and package inserts of the US-licensed DTaP vaccines reflect this.
The article, written by James D. Cherry, and published in the July. 2012 edition of Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, pointed out that following the 2010 pertussis epidemic in California, “there was considerable concern in the press and in public health communications about the possible contribution of vaccine failures to the problem.” At that time, the media and government health officials focused on the lack of sufficient vaccine coverage and subsequent waning herd immunity, without questioning whether pertussis vaccination actually results in effective immunization, which clearly it was not.
Perhaps already a tacit acknowledgement that the vaccines are much less effective than the manufacturers state is the fact that the CDC recommends infants and children get the DTaP vaccine no less than 5 times by age 6 (2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 15 months through 18 months of age, with a booster at 4 through 6 years of age).
The reality is that pertussis vaccines have failed many times in the past, and will continue to do so. In three major outbreaks in Great Britain (1974-5, 78-78 and 82) 30% of infected children had received all three required doses of pertussis vaccine.[i] Worse yet, in the 1993 pertussis epidemic in Cincinnati, OH, infection occurred primarily among children who had been immunized. The authors concluded:
Since the 1993 pertussis epidemic in Cincinnati occurred primarily among children who had been appropriately immunized, it is clear that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine failed to give full protection against the disease.[ii]
More recently, in Kings County Washington, between 2002-2007, of the 176 cases of pertussis in infants under age 1 77% were age-appropriately vaccinated.[iii]
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
By: J. D. Heyes
[NaturalNews] Whooping cough – otherwise known as Pertussis – is looking to make a rather nasty comeback this year. So much so that health officials are already warning of the danger.
In fact, they say, the U.S. could face its worst year for whooping cough in nearly 50 years. Already the numbers of cases are rising so fast it’s become a full-blown epidemic. What’s worse, the epidemic may have been caused; in part, by a faulty, ineffective vaccine.
So far some 18,000 cases of pertussis have been reported, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said recently, a figure that is more than twice the number seen at this point a year ago. At the current rate, the number of those affected for the entire year will be the highest since 1959; then, 40,000 cases were reported, The Associated Press said.
Health officials say the disease has claimed the lives of nine children so far, and they are urging all adults, especially women who are pregnant and adults who spend a lot of time around children, to get a booster shot as quickly as possible.
“My biggest concern is for the babies. They’re the ones who get hit the hardest,” Mary Selecky, health department chief in Washington state, where outbreaks have been particularly high.
Wisconsin and Washington have each reported more than 3,000 cases of whooping cough; other states with high numbers of cases include Arizona, Minnesota and New York.
The children of parents who opt out of vaccines not generally affected
Pertussis cases have been rising steadily for a number of years, officials say, but nothing like this year’s spike. The current unusual spike has led health officials around the country to look into why so many cases are suddenly occurring. Theories being floated include better reporting of cases and better detection methods, an evolution in the bacteria that causes the sickness, or problems with the vaccine.
AP said the vaccine that had been given to kids for decades was replaced in the late 1990s after concerns about rashes, fevers and other side effects surfaced. The newer version is considered to be safer but now there are fears it doesn’t remain as effective over the long haul, according to Dr. Anne Schuchat, head of the CDC’s immunization and respiratory disease programs.
What the dramatic uptick in pertussis cases does not appear to be linked to; however, is an increasing number of parents in some of the most affected states exempting their children from vaccines. Washington state; for instance, has one of the highest vaccine exemption rates in the country, but CDC officials said most of the children who have come down with whooping cough were vaccinated.
Pertussis is caused by bacteria that infect the top of the throat (pharynx), where it meets the nasal passages. The bacteria cause irritation in the throat, which in turn causes coughing that can sometimes be so violent as to injure ribs. The name “whooping cough” comes from the sound children make as they try to gasp for air during coughing episodes.
The illness spreads easily between people; when someone afflicted with pertussis coughs, sneezes or otherwise spews forth little droplets of fluid, the bacteria are put into the air and are easily inhaled. After the bacteria infect someone, symptoms appear in one to two weeks.
Vaccine may not be working
There are a number of indicators that suggest there could be a problem with the vaccine.
For one, health officials in Washington say they are alarmed to see high rates of whooping cough among youngsters who are 13-14 years old.
For another, whooping cough cases – once a common threat but which fell dramatically following the introduction of a vaccine in the 1940s, nearly to the point of becoming an afterthought in history – began to climb again in the 1990s. For about a quarter century before then, there were only about 5,000 cases reported each year.
And in 2004 and 2005 cases rose to more than 25,000. After dipping for a few years, they rose to more than 27,000 in 2010, a year which saw the incidence of pertussis rise most in California.
All of those factors have some investigators wondering if the vaccine thought to be safer is actually less effective.
by: Alan Phillips, J.D.
July 24, 2012
A recent news story described a newborn being taken away from her mother shortly after birth because of the mother’s refusal to accept a Hepatitis B vaccine. In my law practice, I also hear stories from time to time about newborns being vaccinated in the hospital after birth without the parents’ permission and against the parents’ wishes. Most of the time, these kind of problems are avoidable with a information about your rights and some common sense preparation.
The mother whose child was taken away had planned a home birth, and made the mistake of not having a contingency plan, a “Plan B” in case they ended up in the hospital, as some planned home births inevitably do for one reason or another. Once in the hospital, they refused the Hep B vaccine, but not in a manner consistent with their state’s legal options. Sadly, we don’t have the right to decide what goes into our and our children’s bodies, at least not absolutely. As disturbing as that be to many of us, it’s the legal reality. So, if you’re expecting a baby, find out what your state’s vaccine requirements and exemption options are!
These may vary from state to state, so go to an authoritative source—a site that posts the actual laws (links to three such sites are here (www.vaccinerights.com/exemptions.html), or to your local or state health department (call them or go to their website). Non-authoritative sources such as anti-vaccine websites mean well, and they often have great information about vaccine health concerns, but they also often misunderstand and misrepresent exemption rights and procedures, and some have lost rights by relying on them. Where legal rights are concerned, if it’s important, it’s worth getting right the first time.
It’s not only important to know the law for your own sake, but because many people on the other side of the fence misunderstand the law and your rights, too. For example, North Carolina has health department regulations allowing parents up to three months to get their newborn his or her first Hep B vaccine. You don’t need an exemption to say “no” in a NC hospital at the time of your child’s birth, at least according to the law. However, I was once contacted by a new parent who said she was threatened by a doctor with having her baby taken away from her right after birth if she didn’t get the baby vaccinated. So, we need to know our rights to be able to defend against, and counter the abuse of, the medical community.
Why would a doctor do this? Well, in addition to being among the all-too-common narrow-minded pharmaceutical salespeople that so many doctors are, the truth is that most professionals have a legal requirement to report suspected cases of abuse and neglect, and that could include any parent who is not in compliance with the law with respect to their children. The woman referred to above whose child was taken away? She was, essentially, attempting to exercise a philosophical exemption in a state that had only medical and religious exemptions.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
By: Ethan A. Huff
[NaturalNews] The Institute of Medicine (IoM), an organization under the umbrella of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is currently in the process of putting together an assessment on the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. And part of this process includes accepting public comments about the government’s recommended vaccination schedule, a provision that represents a key opportunity for the natural health community to collectively share with the IoM our thoughts and concerns about the safety of vaccines.
As many NaturalNews readers are well aware, there is still plenty of controversy over whether or not vaccines are safe and effective, despite what the government claims. And this debate spills over into other debates about the federal government’s official vaccination schedule, and whether or not it is appropriate for young children. The vaccine schedule is one particular area of concern that has received far less attention than it deserves, and one that the IoM seems ready to address as part of its new study.
In a commissioned paper titled “Study Designs for the Safety Evaluation of Different Childhood Immunization Schedules,” consultant Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., provides suggestions to the IoM about various ways in which a comprehensive vaccine safety study could be constructed, particularly with the CDC’s vaccination schedule in mind. The paper addresses key issues of importance such as the timing of vaccinations, the quantity of vaccines given in a single day, the interaction of various vaccines with one another, the short and long-term effects of various vaccinations, and other intricacies that are often ignored when discussing vaccine safety.
“The core of this paper is a set of proposals for the type of study designs and methods that would be appropriate for the comparative evaluation of vaccine adverse events under different vaccine schedules,” says the paper. “When evaluating the safety of different vaccine schedules, it is … important to study the whole range of issues, from the timing of a single vaccine to summary metrics based on the timing of dozens of vaccines.”
You can read the full 41-page revised commissioned paper, which was published on July 12, 2012, here: http://www.iom.edu
Submit your comments about the Childhood Immunization Schedule before July 31
As the IoM considers how it will evaluate the safety of childhood vaccinations based on the recommendations outlined in this paper, the group will also be considering what you and I have to say about the matter. To facilitate this, the IoM has set up a public survey portal through which you can express your thoughts about vaccines, and highlight specific issues related to vaccines that are most concerning to you.
You can access the survey portal here: http://www.surveygizmo.com
This is a great opportunity for health-conscious individuals everywhere, including those who have experienced first-hand the devastating effects of vaccines, or who know a family member or friend who has, to share their concerns about vaccines with a group that is well-respected among many in America and around the world. But it is important that you submit your comments by July 31 to ensure that the IoM receives them and includes them as part of its assessment considerations.
Be sure to take some time to read the report, or at least browse key portions of it, so you are familiar with the issues addressed. If you are already well-versed about the vaccination schedule, or have your own thoughts about how it should be studied to properly identify links between vaccines and health damage, be sure to include those in your survey answers as well:
It is important to note that your survey answers and comments, as well as all other personal information you enter as part of the survey, will be published in a Public Access File in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Sources for this article include: