See the list of the top 5 most dangerous vaccines whose victims received high payouts from the U.S. government

Image: See the list of the top 5 most dangerous vaccines whose victims received high payouts from the U.S. government
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
June 8, 2017

It’s no secret that vaccines can and do harm innocent people. But just how many people have been harmed by them — and how much has the government awarded to families of vaccine victims? Between the fiscal years of 1989 and 2015, the U.S. government’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded over $3 billion in injury compensation and legal fees to the sufferers of vaccine injury and their families.

As you might expect, some vaccines seem to be more harmful than others. For example, the vaccines with the highest number of complaints filed are DTP and Influenza vaccines. The MMR rounds out the top three with 947 complaints filed, and is followed by the Hepatitis B vaccine, with 672 complaints filed. The inoculation with the fifth highest number of complaints (and payouts) is the DTaP vaccine, with 454 complaints.

As of 2015, there were a total of 3,982 complaints filed against the DTP vaccine, with 696 instances of death. Sadly, only 1,270 of those cases were awarded compensation. As for influenza vaccines, or flu shots, a total 1788 complaints were filed and 985 cases resulted in compensation.

When looking at some of the ingredients found in the flu shot, it comes as no surprise that so many complains have been filed. There are an array of flu vaccine formulations on the market these days and many contain questionable ingredients, such as: squalene-based adjuvants (you may recall squalene as the cause of Gulf War Syndrome), formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate, and thimerosal. Thimerosal is a mercury-containing ingredient that is used both as a preservative and a processing agent in several vaccines, according to the FDA. The FDA itself admits that some vaccines contain up to 24.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

While world health authorities claim that there is no convincing evidence that thimerosal is harmful, they themselves cannot escape the truth. In document from the World Health Organization, they acknowledge that studies of infant macaques monkeys and rats have found that there is indeed evidence of harm caused by clinically relevant amounts of thimerosal. As the WHO summarizes, “preliminary evidence of behavioral neurotoxicity in infant macaques following a single dose of HBV containing a clinically relevant dose of thimerosal on day of birth.”

Furthermore, the same document states “Half-life of ethylmercury in blood has been shown to be similar in human and macaque infants,” which would likely indicate that the effects of the ethylmercury in thimerosal would be similar as well. Yet, this evidence is dismissed because of “limitations” that necessitate replication, according to the WHO. How is it that the studies showing thimerosal harms infant macaques are not “relevant” enough and require further replication, when they themselves state that these animals’ response to ethylmercury is similar to humans? And since when do we apply the “innocent until proven guilty” stance to things we are injecting into humans, anyways? Any inkling of harm should not be so readily discarded by agencies that purport themselves to be leading health authorities, yet here we are: the WHO acknowledges evidence of thimerosal’s dangers exists, and then writes it off.

Thimerosal, of course, is just one of many troubling ingredients that we see used in vaccines. Aluminum salts are also often used to help “stoke” the immune system into action — and it too can come with consequences. Aluminum is known to be a neurotoxic metal, and is even linked to conditions like Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.

Concerns about the ingredients used to manufacture vaccines continue to be waved off as “conspiracy theories” and other such drivel, but the truth is that many people have been harmed by these dangerous inoculations — and the powers that be are doing everything they can to obscure and deny these facts, and not near enough to prevent them from happening in the first place.

Read More at: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

Encognitive.com

Vaccines.ProCon.org

FDA.gov

WHO.int

USA’s National Embarrassment: Mandatory Vaccinations


Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine Frompovich
June 3, 2017

Saturday, June 3, 2017, is the International Vaccine Injury Awareness Day.  Millions of children and adults have been permanently damaged by mandatory vaccines, so it’s not all “peaches and cream” when it comes to those mandated toxic inoculations.

U.S. citizens are not told, nor permitted to know from the vested-interest-controlled-media, what goes on in other countries and all the damage that occurs GLOBALLY from mandated vaccines and vaccine trials often performed under dubious circumstances.  One example of such a vaccine program gone horribly wrong was the 2011 polio vaccine campaign promoted by Bill Gates and his foundation.  That vaccine campaign left 47,500 children paralyzed [1] ! Other countries have had their problems with vaccines:  Italy [6]; Nordic Countries [7]; United Kingdom [8].

However, in the African country of Nigeria, here’s what happened in 2003, which may not have been too far-fetched from the facts of what ingredients may have been in the vaccine:

In northern Nigeria in 2003, the political and religious leaders of Kano, Zamfara, and Kaduna states brought the immunization campaign to a halt by calling on parents not to allow their children to be immunized. These leaders argued that the vaccine could be contaminated with anti-fertility agents (estradiol hormone), HIV, and cancerous agent. [9], (considering what you will hear in the 1971 vaccine news report on what was in vaccines later on in this article.)

Citizens of other countries can and do sue vaccine manufacturers. 

Italian courts award vaccine-caused Autism damages [10].

Norway is paying victims of the swine flu vaccine [11].

Japan has discontinued promoting the HPV vaccines Cervarix® and Gardasil® [2-3] and there are lawsuits too.  Did you know the Obama administration pushed the HPV vaccines in the U.S.?

The Obama administration gave dozens of state and municipal health agencies tens of millions of dollars to boost the number of adolescents that get Gardasil. [12]

There are numerous other examples, but my computer censor deleted them while I was writing this article and I was not able to recoup what I had written.

However, the U.S. Congress sold out young children, in particular, to vested pharmaceutical interests, i.e., vaccine makers and pushers, and our children are paying the price for such outrageous disregard for factual vaccine science, but obviously bought into and accepted “lock-stock-and-barrel” the pseudoscience of Big Pharma while the CDC/FDA continue to promote fraudulent vaccine information, especially about vaccines not causing Autism.

The film VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe documents the FACT the CDC DESTROYED confirming scientific data the MMR vaccine caused Autism in young black boys less than three years of age!  “Grievous harm to innocent children.”

U.S. children and their families are paying the price for vaccine fraud and no one in the U.S. Congress or medical professional societies is doing anything to stop it!  WHY? If anything, federal agencies are promoting more harmful damage to U.S. children by mandating more and more vaccines, even giving newly-born infants the Hepatitis-B vaccine with 24 hours of birth!

Below is a chart The Washington Post published in September of 2014 indicating the U.S. “infant mortality rate is a national embarrassment”! According to 2010 statistics, U.S. children were 27th in infant mortality rate at 6.1—not in first place, if the U.S. is supposed to have the ‘best’ medical system in the world.

What the USA has is one of the best police-state medical systems in the world, in my opinion.  Taking children away from parents who refuse to have their children damaged by neurotoxic vaccines should be prosecuted as a crime against humanity, not make children and parents victims of pharmaceutical fraud, in my opinion.

Since the push on vaccines, various medical anomalies or conditions have risen to the forefront: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), ADD, ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and neurological encephalopathies—just to mention the more prominent children’s health problems appearing on medical radar since the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the mandated push on vaccines went into effect.

The Washington Post Wonkblog September 29, 2014

The police-state medical system is outrageously enforced in the U.S.

One researcher, Professor Gayle DeLong, has taken a probable unprecedented step to document “threats to and violations of academic freedom in the field of vaccine safety research.”  Notice of her research project is listed below.  I sincerely suggest everyone at CUNY and all her friends, professional and personal, keep close tabs on Professor DeLong so she doesn’t wind up floating in either the Hudson or East Rivers.  Is that a terrible thing to say?  No—I don’t think so.  How many integrative medical doctors suddenly have been found dead and “offed”? [4-5]

Have You Been Denied Academic Freedom On Vaccine Safety Research?

NOTE: We received this request from AofA contributor Professor Gayle DeLong.  Thank you.

I am writing a paper on threats to and violations of academic freedom in the field of vaccine safety research.  I need information about specific cases in any academic discipline.  You can contact me (in confidence) at gayle.delong@baruch.cuny.edu.

Prof. Gayle DeLong
Department of International Business and Finance
Baruch College CUNY
New York, NY 10010
http://www.ageofautism.com/2017/03/have-you-been-denied-academic-freedom-on-vaccine-safety-research.html

Finally, there’s documented proof of what’s happened to the U.S. media vaccine reporting, plus the controls Big Pharma and vested media interests have and supply support for vaccine pseudoscience, fraud and cover-ups.

In 1971—many years before the U.S. Congress gave Big Pharma and vaccine makers a “get out of jail free” card in 1986 and absolved that industry of product liability issues—the media candidly reported on the FACTS about vaccines, which was counter to the gag-orders imposed currently.  Below is a most incredible archived…

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com

 

 

 

 

What Causes Autism? This Explanation Might Be the Best We’ve Heard

Source: iHealthTube.com
Dr. Suzanne Humphries
May 26, 2017

Dr. Suzanne Humphries discusses the potential connection between vaccines and autism. She says there is an undeniable connection between the two, but that it does deeper than that. Find out what else is going on with most kids before they are diagnosed with autism!

$142 million dollars has been paid out to families from the secret vaccine injury fund so far in 2017

Image: $142 million dollars has been paid out to families from the secret vaccine injury fund so far in 2017

Source: NaturalNews.com
D. Samuelson
May 24, 2017

Do you know the vaccine schedule for newborns and infants in the United States? In 2017, there are currently 27 doses of 11 different vaccinations that are currently injected, or orally dispensed, to children up to fifteen months of age. All of these are approved and recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). These vaccines include Rotavirus (RV), Hepatitis B, Influenza, Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), Tetanus, diphtheria & acellular pertussis (Tdap), just to name a few. The complete list can be found here. All of these vaccines that your pediatrician willingly supplies to your new baby allow foreign and toxic substances to flow into their bloodstream and brain causing unknown damage.

In 1950, as reported by VacTruth.com, a child would only receive “7 vaccines by the age of 6.” In 2013, by the time a child was six years old that number shot up to 36. That’s an increase of 414 percent! How much did the profits of pharmaceutical companies rise in the last 67 years? We can only imagine. But the parents of children injured by this ever multiplying number of required toxic vaccinations don’t always fare so well. WakingTimes.com reports that during the first half of the current fiscal year, $142 million was awarded to 337 vaccine injured families who had the tenacity, support and appropriate documentation to claim damages in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VCIP). That seems like a paltry sum compared to the enormity of damage and pain that families have endured at the behest of pharmaceutical companies.

The VCIP was created in conjunction with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 which “granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies and prevented parents from suing vaccine makers for vaccine injuries or death.” It was signed into law by President Reagan although, as reported by the New York Times, he expressed “serious reservations” about the vaccine compensation program. Conversely, Reagan readily endorsed a provision of the bill that would allow, for the first time, “pharmaceutical companies to export drugs to other countries that have approved their use, without waiting for the United States to approve the drugs’ sale here.” It was all about increasing the “competitiveness of the American pharmaceutical industry abroad.” Indeed. But wasn’t it First Lady Nancy Reagan who, almost that very same year, coined the phrase, “Just Say No?”

Over $3.6 billion has been awarded to injured parties since the compensation program began, and it’s not always due to injuries received by children. After 2005,  the influenza shots were being made more available and marketed primarily to adults. Since that time, so many adults have filed claims that it has changed “the proportion of children to adults receiving compensation.”

While there have been many payouts from the court, the majority of families affected by vaccines do not receive the justice they deserve. There are untold vaccine injured families that couldn’t get the support, the documentation, the right representation or the funds they needed to fully prepare their case in order to bring it in front of the court for consideration. One tragic example of this is the case of little Aysia Hope Clark. Aysia was the daughter of Louisiana residents Hope Doucet and Joseph Clark. She was born on May 11, 2015, and sadly, died on July 4, 2015.

Vactruth.com tells the tragic story. Aysia Hope Clark died shortly after receiving eight vaccinations in ten days. These were recommended by her pediatrician even though she had been born premature, was jaundiced and a heart murmur was suspected. The parents were denied the specific medical records necessary to appeal the case to the VCIP. Poor Aysia and her family will never see their day in court. The chart below reveals the ingredients in each of the eight vaccines little Aysia was given. These vaccines are nowhere to be found on the autopsy report. The official cause of death was determined to be “co-sleeping.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

CDC.gov

VacTruth.com

WakingTimes.com

NyTimes.com

YouTube.com

VacTruth.com

Facing Vaccination Opposition? Then Just Spray!


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 20, 2017

When Mr. B.H. shared the following article published in 2016, I had to say “you’re kidding” out loud to my otherwise empty office, for it seems the proverbial “they” have found yet another way around the growing movement to question just why we need all those vaccines: just spray it from airplanes (copy and paste into your browser: http://yournewswire.com/australia-to-forcibly-vaccinate-citizens-via-chemtrails/ ).

Now, I have to admit that while I have not blogged much on this website concerning the subject of chemtrails, and what their ultimate purpose may be, I can say in all honesty that (1) I do believe that the phenomenon is real, and (2) that it represents some sort of covert agenda, or perhaps several agendas, on the part of “them.” The following paragraphs from the article – which I am assuming to be true for the sake of my speculation of the day – provide at least one clue:

In 2006 Michael Greenwood wrote an article for the Yale School of Public Health entitled, “Aerial Spraying Effectively Reduces Incidence of West Nile Virus (WNV) in Humans.” The article stated that the incidence of human West Nile virus cases can be significantly reduced through large scale aerial spraying that targets adult mosquitoes, according to research by the Yale School of Public Health and the California Department of Public Health.

Under the mandate for aerial spraying for specific vectors that pose a threat to human health, aerial vaccines known as DNA Vaccine Enhancements and Recombinant Vaccine against WNV may be tested or used to “protect” the people from vector infection exposures. DNA vaccine enhancements specifically use Epstein-Barr viral capside’s with multi human complement class II activators to neutralize antibodies. The recombinant vaccines against WNV use Rabbit Beta-globulin or the poly (A) signal of the SV40 virus. In early studies of DNA vaccines it was found that the negative result studies would go into the category of future developmental research projects in gene therapy. During the studies of poly (A) signaling of the SV40 for WNV vaccines, it was observed that WNV will lie dormant in individuals who were exposed to chicken pox, thus upon exposure to WNV aerial vaccines the potential for the release of chicken pox virus would cause a greater risk to having adult onset Shingles.

CALIFORNIA AERIAL SPRAYING for WNV and SV40

In February 2009 to present date, aerial spraying for the WNV occurred in major cities within the State of California. During spraying of Anaheim, CA a Caucasian female (age 50) was exposed to heavy spraying, while doing her daily exercise of walking several miles. Heavy helicopter activity occurred for several days in this area. After spraying, she experienced light headedness, nausea, muscle aches and increased low back pain. She was evaluated for toxicological mechanisms that were associated with pesticide exposure due to aerial spraying utilizing advanced biological monitoring testing. The test results which included protein band testing utilizing Protein Coupled Response (PCR) methods were positive for KD-45. KD-45 is the protein band for SV-40 Simian Green Monkey virus. Additional tests were performed for Epstein-Barr virus capside and Cytomeglia virus which are used in bioengineering for gene delivery systems through viral protein envelope and adenoviral protein envelope technology. The individual was positive for both; indicating a highly probable exposure to a DNA vaccination delivery system through nasal inhalation.

In other words, if you cannot prevail in the court of public opinion, then simply spray the public without their consent. What’s of interest here is that (1) the article confirms the reality of spraying, (2) shows a rather provocative picture of an airplane in “spraying mode”, which defies the dismissive explanation of simple “condensation contrails”, and (3) most importantly, offers details of what is contained in the chemicals being sprayed, and thus (4) suggests that at least one agenda concerns experimentation on vaccination and genetic modification via spraying involuntary subjects.

Other researchers who are far more informed on the subject of chemtrails than I have suggested other possibilities for the spraying, from increasing the electrical conductivity of the atmospheric cavity as a component of exotic energy defense (or offense) systems, to comprehensive efforts to geo-engineer either the atmosphere, the Earth itself, or both, to actual genetic manipulation of large swaths of the human population.

Throw in involuntary vaccination and one has quite a list of even more extended possibilities.

Herewith my first high octane speculation on the subject: given all the enumerated possibilities that various people have proposed for this activity, I suspect that the phenomenon must be viewed whole, i.e., that all the various hypotheses – terraforming and geoengineering of the environment (including weather modification), genetic modification, vaccination, and so on – serve some common over-arching agenda. The scale and enormity of the project plus the fact that it arose rather quickly in past years suggest – at least to me – that the activity is being provoked by some perceived threat. I suspect, though not being terribly familiar with the subject, without much evidence, that perhaps this means it is being done under some sort of duress. And I strongly suspect, again without evidence, that this might have something to do with space, and perhaps even with the strange events we’ve seen taking place in Antarctica (recall that many visitors to the polar continent have had to be medically evacuated and briefly quarantined). The latter thought is provoked by the strange coincidence of the rise of spraying in the years that strange events were allegedly occurring at the Russian Antarctic mission exploring Lake Vostok some years ago, and also more or less concurrently with President Clinton’s well known announcement of the possible discovery of fossilized microbial life from Mars allegedly discovered in a meteor from… Antarctica. Many have speculated that this activity is part of some vast de-population agenda, but that hypothesis I don’t think has much traction, since the spraying began years ago and continues, with no overall reduction in the rate of population.

I fully realize I’m connecting quite a few dots here as I’m “thinking out loud” and speculating on the subject. But I cannot help the feeling that the Australian project and the public explanation for it is just that, a public explanation for an activity, that may conceal a very different one.

But in the meantime, the details of the article seem, at least to my mind, to confirm one thing: the phenomenon is real, and it is serious.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE

Image: American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE
Source: JeremyHammond.com
Jeremy Hammond
May 7, 2017

When asked whether it could provide studies to support specific claims it made about vaccine safety, the American Academy of Pediatrics ultimately declined.

On January 10, 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a press release to express its opposition to a federal commission that has been proposed by the Trump administration to examine vaccine safety and efficacy. The AAP argues that since we already know that vaccines are safe and effective, therefore there is no need for further examination into their safety and efficacy.

This argument, however, begs the question — it presumes in the premise the proposition to be proven (the petitio principii fallacy). And the press release itself illustrates why, apart from the question of whether there should be a federal commission, critical examination of public vaccine policy is very much warranted.

In its press release, among other things, the AAP stated that:

  • Vaccines prevent cancer.
  • Claims that vaccines are linked to autism “have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.
  • Claims that vaccines “are unsafe when administered according to the [CDC’s] recommended schedule” have likewise “been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.

According to the AAP, its own claims are backed by solid science. Yet when asked whether it could provide citations from the medical literature to support its claims, the AAP first failed to do so, then essentially offered a “No comment” when pressed for a comment about its failure to do so.

With respect to the claim that vaccines prevent some forms of cancer, the AAP was asked:

  • Can you please direct me to any studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature showing any vaccine prevents cancer?

With respect to the other two, the AAP was asked the following questions:

  • Can you please direct me to the studies you are referring to in this body of literature that took into account the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation?
  • Can you please point me to the studies in this body of literature that have compared health outcomes, including but not limited to developmental regression (i.e., autism), for children who’ve receive the CDC’s full schedule of vaccinations with children who’ve remained completely unvaccinated?

An initial email to the AAP containing these questions went unanswered.

The email was followed up with a phone call. Lisa Black, the AAP’s Media Relations Manager, assured that she would get back with answers to the questions. In a subsequent email, Ms. Black replied, “Please see information that AAP has posted for parents on this page”, which was followed by a link to a list of studies on the website HealthyChildren.org.

However, none of the listed studies on that page supports the AAP’s claim that “vaccines prevent … forms of cancer”.

None apparently considered the possibility of a susceptible subpopulation with a genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions to vaccines.

And none compared health outcomes of fully vaccinated children with completely unvaccinated children.

The list provided does contain numerous studies finding no association between vaccines and autism, but even the listed safety review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) doesn’t go so far as to say that the hypothesis has been “disproven”.

On the contrary, the IOM acknowledges that it is biologically plausible that vaccines might cause autism in a genetically susceptible subpopulation, but characterizes this hypothesis is still “speculative” and “unsubstantiated”.

That is a world apart from saying it has been “disproven”.

One would think that the IOM’s conclusion, if its inquiry was a scientific one, would be that since this is such an important question and this specific hypothesis is plausible and not well studied, therefore there should be further study into this question of whether vaccines could trigger autism at least in some children with a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury.

But rather than calling for more research into this area, the IOM actually advocated that no further studies to test this hypothesis be done. Its stated reason for this was partly medical, but at least equally political — and certainly favorable to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The IOM’s reason was:

Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

In other words, since studying this hypothesis further would undermine public vaccine policy with its one-size-fits-all approach to disease prevention, therefore no further research to test the biologically plausible hypothesis should be done.

The AAP was sent a follow up email noting that none of the studies listed appeared to support the claims it made in the press release. The AAP was welcomed to correct the record, but did not dispute the observation that none of the studies listed showed that vaccines can prevent cancer, considered genetic susceptibility to vaccine injury, or compared health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The additional follow up questions were also asked:

  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that considered the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?
  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that compared health outcomes between children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and children who remained unvaccinated, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?

The AAP did not reply via email to the follow up questions.

In a second phone call requesting the AAP to produce such studies to support its claims, Ms. Black replied that she had provided everything the AAP was going to provide.

When confronted with the observation that none of the studies provided supported the AAP’s claim that vaccines can prevent cancer, she repeated that the AAP was not going to provide any additional information.

When asked whether the authors of the press release, AAP President Fernando Stein and Executive Vice President Karen Remley, would like to comment, Ms. Black abruptly ended the phone call by saying she was going to hang up and then doing so.

Questions Unanswered

The questions seem pertinent, particularly given the fact that the government has acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage resulting in developmental regression.

In 2008, then director of the CDC Julie Gerberding offered the following carefully worded acknowledgment:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

The context in which she was speaking was with respect to Hannah Poling, a child with a mitochondrial disorder who developed autism after receiving numerous vaccines on the same day and whose family was awarded compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

The VICP was established in the mid-1980s under a law that granted broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers. The government’s reason for doing so was that vaccine injury lawsuits were threatening to undermine public policy by putting vaccine manufacturers out of business.

The Supreme Court has upheld that legal immunity on the grounds that certain adverse reactions are “unavoidable” and “design defects” are “not a basis for liability.”

Around the same time as Gerberding’s admission, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, the late Bernadine Healy, criticized the refrain that any link between vaccines and autism has been debunked. She pointed out the kinds of studies that would be necessary in order to confidently draw that conclusion hadn’t yet been done.

Specifically, she noted the lack of studies taking into consideration a genetically susceptible subpopulation.

Ms. Healy also slammed the IOM for advocating that no further research be done and noted that as a potential cause of autism, “vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility”.

Similarly, in contrast to the AAP’s claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”, one of the CDC’s lead researchers on that very question, CDC Director of Immunization Safety Dr. Frank DeStefano, admitted in an interview in 2014 that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could trigger autism in genetically susceptible individuals.

“It’s hard to predict who those children might be”, DeStefano observed, and trying to determine what underling conditions put children at risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.

Acknowledging the lack of studies in this area, he added that, “if we ever get to that point, then that kind of research might be fruitful.”

The AAP’s list of studies includes one or more for which DeStefano was an author.

The CDC also admits the need for further study in this area. Its website at the time of this writing acknowledges that “More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.”

So how can the AAP claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven” when the studies that would be necessary to invalidate the hypothesis haven’t been done?

No comment.

That’s the AAP’s answer to the question, anyway.

The AAP’s attitude should perhaps come as no surprise, given its close relationship with the vaccine industry.

As CBS News reported in 2008, “The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters.”

A Discussion to Be Had

The AAP argues in its press release against the formation of a federal commission, but its argument would apply to any public debate about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. By the AAP’s logic, like the IOM’s, also unnecessary are any discussion about it in the media and any further scientific inquiry.

But as Daniel Sarewitz observes, “as science approaches the cutting edge, it tends to raise as many questions as it resolves, so there is always room for debate about what the science is actually saying.”

Parents dubbed “anti-science” by the media are naturally curious why that label doesn’t seem to apply to those calling for no further inquiry into pertinent questions.

Parents aren’t just asking legitimate questions about vaccines. They’re doing what most doctors haven’t and spending a lot of time researching vaccines themselves. And they’re not just going to “anti-vaccine” websites to research it. They’re organizing, sharing information, and digging into the medical literature for themselves.

Parents can see the fundamental contradiction between public health officials and the media constantly insisting that vaccines are harmless even while the government grants legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and while the government manages a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in order to shift the costs for damages and keep the vaccine manufacturers profitable — all to maintain public policy.

Parents understand how government and industry funding influences the direction and findings of scientific research, and how the medical establishment that has given us soaring costs and a population in which nearly 40 percent are chronically ill will tend to justify itself despite its abysmal performance and a long history of being wrong time and again, from tobacco science (older generations may remember how the industry used to get product endorsements from doctors) to the USDA recommended high-carb diet (which has contributed to the obesity epidemic and is more about satisfying food industry lobbyists than providing science-based advise) to the role of cholesterol in heart disease (scientific research no longer supports the hypothesis that dietary cholesterol contributes to blood cholesterol and heart disease risk).

Parents are aware of how government agencies like the FDA and the CDC serve the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. They see the corruption and the “revolving door” of Washington, such as how Julie Gerberding left her government job pushing vaccines as head of CDC to become president of the vaccine division for the pharmaceutical giant Merck.

They see how the AAP, too, has an incestuous relationship with “Big Pharma”. They understand how willful ignorance goes beyond the individual operating within the system and becomes institutionalized. And they watch as an organization that influences how their child’s pediatrician practices medicine accepts money from an industry they feel the AAP ought to be protecting them from.

They can witness how the AAP makes statements it claims are solidly backed by science, but which it is unwilling or unable to provide any studies to support. They understand that the truly “anti-science” position is the one that says no further scientific inquiry into an admittedly biologically plausible hypothesis is necessary.

Parents know there are many studies that have found no association between vaccines and autism. They don’t need the AAP to point this out to them. But they wonder why the AAP ignores all the studies that do support the hypothesis.

They wonder how the AAP can claim that the vaccine-autism hypothesis has been “disproven” when the most any of the studies it cites have concluded is that those particular studies, with their own particular focus, designed around their own particular assumptions, using a particular methodology, did not find an association between vaccines and autism.

And parents are asking questions like: What was the actual purpose of the study? What were the underlying assumptions made by the authors? What vaccines were being studied, and what outcomes? Who were the study groups? What were the criteria for their selection? What was the study’s methodology? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Do the conclusions drawn follow from the actual findings? How conclusive is it? What does the study actually prove, if anything?

Parents can see for themselves the huge disparity between what they are told science has to say about vaccines  — by public health officials, the medical establishment, and the mainstream media — and what science actually has to say about it.

The parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children aren’t doing so because they are uneducated or unintelligent. On the contrary, studies show that they tend to be wealthier and more highly educated than the general population.

They aren’t choosing not to vaccinate because they are ignorant of the science. They are choosing not to vaccinate because they are digging into the medical literature (which can be searched via PubMed.gov) and awakening to the deceit they see coming out of the government and the mainstream media.

They see how mainstream journalists, rather than seriously investigating what the science actually says, rely on statements from agencies like the CDC and industry-funded organizations like the AAP to “inform” the public about the subject.

They see how the establishment is seeking to stifle debate not by respectfully addressing their legitimate questions, but by bullying them into silence and conformity, and they understand how such a phenomenon can arise because institutions with a life of their own feel threatened by the truth and act to preserve the status quo.

The AAP and other actors interested in preserving the public vaccine policy so far seem to have assumed that they can end the discussion by declaring authoritatively that there is no need for further discussion.

But if they ever hope to truly end the discussion, they are going to have to start taking parents’ concerns seriously and answering their legitimate questions with more than disingenuous public relations talking points that might as well have been written by the vaccine industry.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

PROPAGANDA ALERT: Pediatricians Now Advised ‘It’s Dangerous to Call Breastfeeding Natural’

breastfeeding benefits
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
May 3, 2017

When making decisions that affect your health, and the health of your children, it’s important they are grounded on clear, fact-based information, and not influenced by those who may stand to gain financially. In past years, this was sufficiently demonstrated in results from industry-funded studies that are widely divergent from results of non-industry biased studies.1

For instance, studies funded by the sugar industry claimed fats were the primary trigger for heart disease, when research has demonstrated it is sugar and trans fats that are the culprit. For years the tobacco industry hid the dangers of lung cancer. This misinformation damaged the health of innumerable individuals.

Breastfeeding has suffered some of the same erroneous advice over the years. Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were advised to bottle feed in order to improve the health of their children. Today, multiple studies demonstrate breastfeeding is more beneficial, both for you and your baby.

A recent bioethical (ethics in medical and biological research) argument in the journal Pediatrics now advises pediatricians it’s time to stop referring to breastfeeding as something “natural.”2 However, while the article focuses on breastfeeding, the intent appears to be aimed at bolstering the vaccine program.

Science Struggling With ‘Natural’

Authors Jessica Martucci, Ph.D., and Anne Barnhill, Ph.D., published a short essay3 in the journal Pediatrics, in which they discuss the use of the word “natural” to describe breastfeeding. Their argument is against using the word and built on a previous publication from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.4

The 109-page Nuffield Council report attempts to classify and understand how the term “natural” may affect an individual’s process in making decisions about health care. They stated:5

“Commending, praising or [favoring] something on the basis of its being natural, or [criticizing], condemning or disapproving of something on the grounds that it is unnatural connects the notion of what is natural with value.”

Using this as a basis for their argument, the authors proceed to recommend the term “natural” not be used as pediatricians encourage new mothers to breastfeed. It is almost opposite of published breastfeeding initiatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics,6 which state:7

“Breastfeeding and human milk are the normative standards for infant feeding and nutrition. Given the documented short- and long-term medical and neurodevelopmental advantages of breastfeeding, infant nutrition should be considered a public health issue and not only a lifestyle choice.”

It appears the authors’ underlying assumption is that public health initiatives must be built based on the hypothesis individuals cannot differentiate between what is natural or normal and what is healthy. The authors propose:8

“Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier. This may ultimately challenge public health’s aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination.”

The Value of ‘Natural’

The definition of natural is “existing in or formed by nature.”9 At no point in this definition is there a value-added implication that natural is healthier. In fact, there are many sources of natural products that are not safe, not the least of which is the opium poppy and the natural source of opiate drugs.10

In an article published months after the initial piece in the journal Pediatrics, Martucci describes the backlash she and her colleague experienced. She described how many groups took offense to the way her article defined individuals who believe in working with the body to promote health, as opposed to starting with technology to treat illness. In the original article, Martucci and Barnhill wrote:

“Studies have shown that parents who resist vaccination tend to inhabit networks of like-minded individuals with similar beliefs.

These pockets of anti-vaccination sentiment tend to overlap with reliance on and interest in complementary and alternative medicine, skepticism of institutional authority, and a strong commitment and interest in health knowledge, autonomy and healthy living practices.”

While the authors may have meant this statement negatively, it is a strong assessment of the change in thinking currently underway. No longer are physicians and institutions given carte blanche to determine what is best for your health. Instead, individuals are taking responsibility to become educated in how to maintain their own health.

In her rebuttal, Martucci described herself as a “natural motherhood sympathizer,” until the article in Pediatrics was published.11 She and Barnhill became increasingly disturbed by the way “nature” was used by government agencies addressing public health issues. From this came an observation that ultimately led to their article:12

“The “nature” arguments used by vaccine skeptics to critique public health efforts seemed highly reminiscent of the “nature” arguments used by public health authorities to promote breastfeeding.”

Comparing Apples and Oranges

However well-meaning Martucci and Barnhill’s arguments may appear on the surface, they are comparing two different public health initiatives using their model to imply an inability to recognize the difference between “natural” and “healthy” or “safe,” and comparing the benefits of breastfeeding against the risks associated with vaccination. They write:13

“Meanwhile, synthetic substances, products, and technologies mass produced by industry (notably, vaccines) are seen as “unnatural” and often arouse suspicion and distrust. Part of this value system is the perception that what’s natural is safer, healthier and less risky.”

The juxtaposition between breastfeeding, which has no associated risk, and vaccinations that have a long history of drug-related side effects, is not an accident and likely meant to draw a parallel between the two, insinuating they are both equally safe.

The backlash from the article has focused on the breastfeeding issue. However, the underlying issue may not be the implication that the word “natural” may have an additional value that could possibly influence a health care decision, but rather that it could negatively influence the decision to vaccinate.

It is interesting that both authors14,15 have enjoyed employment at the same institution as Dr. Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and professor of vaccinology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Offit’s book, “Autism’s False Prophets,” came under scrutiny after he and his publisher, Columbia University Press, were sued for fabricating an online conversation.16 He has also been widely criticized for profiting millions from royalty payments on a vaccine he invented and promotes heavily.17

Offit more recently has written about eating a gluten free diet. In his article he endorses the benefits of technologically based products, including genetically engineered food, BPA and eating wheat based foods, saying:18

“At Whole Foods, you can buy products guaranteed to be free of: (1) one of the most important scientific advances in the 20th century (‘GMO-free’); (2) a chemical resin that the Food and Drug Administration as well as every other regulatory agency that has weighed in on this subject has declared safe (‘BPA-free’); and (3) a component of wheat that causes a disease that affects about 1 percent of the American population (‘gluten-free’).”

Is It Possible to Be Too Clean?

As civilization moved from living outdoors, in the dirt and under the sun, to inside buildings, our children have had less exposure to a variety of germs.

This reduction in exposure may have led to an increase in illness and disease. Most parents worry about the germs their children may pick up from floors, dropped pacifiers and toys, but exposure to some germs may actually help to develop a more robust immune system by seeding the gut microbiome.19

A recent study20 compared the immune systems of children who grew up in an Amish community, generally on small single family farms, with Hutterite children who are genetically similar but live on more industrialized farms. They found the Amish children, whose environment was rich in a variety of microbes, had unusually lower rates of asthma than their research counterparts.

While there is no question that improved hygiene has saved many children and adults from illness, disease and infection, the movement to eradicate all germs in your immediate area may have backfired. Vaccinations are the pharmaceutical industry’s answer to correct the situation. However, the options pumped out by drug companies do not address the complexities of your body’s response to germs as discussed in the video below, and are not the solution.

Studies now demonstrate it is important to strike a balance between protection from rampant illness and creating a sterile environment where the immune system is not challenged to develop normally. Seeding the microbiome of children is critical to a vigorous immune system, which infants receive through breastfeeding.21

Vaccines Are Not Risk Free

Drug companies were granted immunity against vaccine injuries and deaths after the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court determined licensed vaccines were unavoidably unsafe.22 This essentially became a “free pass,” protecting manufacturers and physicians against those seeking to sue for death or injury resulting from a vaccination. In this interview, Dr. Suzanne Humphries dismantles the historical arguments used to defend vaccines.

Without legal liability, pharmaceutical companies are free to release vaccines that are poorly tested and have produced dubious results. However, poor performance is not the only negative effect. Included with the active ingredient, all vaccines contain some combination of suspending fluid, preservative, stabilizer and enhancers (adjuvants).23 One of the more common adjuvants or enhancers, used in attenuated vaccines delivered to neurologically developing children, is aluminum.

As illogical as it seems, children are thus injected with a known neurotoxic substance — aluminum. As noted in a 2011 study by Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw:24

“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds.

In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”

Aluminum Is Not an Essential Trace Metal

Offit argues that “aluminum is an essential metal … believed to play an important role in the development of a healthy fetus.”25 However, he is in the minority, as most scientists not associated with the vaccine industry acknowledge that while aluminum is found in most humans, it is not required by biological systems, nor does it participate in biological processes.26

Studies have demonstrated the lack of participation in the biological process,27 and its neurotoxic results in the body.28,29 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also clearly states the action of aluminum inside a child’s body is not the same as in an adult, as children are not neurologically mature, have an increased susceptibility to hazardous chemicals, and their unique physiology influences the results of exposure.30

Today, American children are the most highly vaccinated in the world — and the most chronically ill. The CDC reports 1 in 6 children, or 16 percent, have learning disabilities, while in 1976 the prevalence was less than 1 percent.31 In that same period between 1976 and 2008, the number of vaccines children received more than doubled.

Exposure to aluminum is only one of the identified health challenges associated with vaccinations, for both children and adults. Removing the word “natural” from recommendations to breastfeed will not change the side effects from the vaccine program in the U.S. It is more important to use public health initiatives to educate individuals about the fact-based risks and benefits to any healthcare choice.

Benefits of Breastfeeding for Mother and Infant

Infant formula, created in a lab, cannot replace breast milk when it comes to providing exactly what your baby needs, at the time they need it. Breast milk is produced based on your baby’s growing requirements, unlike infant formula which cannot accommodate your child’s nutritional needs.

Breast milk is loaded with nutrient growth factors that prime your child’s gut to promote the growth of a healthy microbiome and thus a healthy immune system. Breast milk also contains the exact amount of cholesterol your child’s brain needs for optimal neurological development. Breastfed babies also have fewer ear, respiratory, stomach and intestinal infections than their formula-fed counterparts.

Breastfeeding benefits the mother too, as it helps burn more calories and shed “baby weight,” and may reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease later in life.32 The additional load on your metabolism may lower a diabetic’s requirement for insulin, and reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes if you suffered from gestational diabetes during pregnancy.33

While breastfeeding is a natural and healthy means of meeting your child’s nutritional needs, it is important to note your child’s nutrition is dependent upon what you consume. Some drugs will pass from mother to child through breast milk, for example, making the process of breastfeeding natural, but only as safe and healthy as the foods and medications you consume.

Martucci’s and Barnhill’s argument that there is value added to the term “natural” in our society, thus making it a dangerous word to use in public health initiatives, is not a reasonable assumption. Instead, it is important to provide fact-based information to ensure safe health care decisions are made, regardless of whether the choices are natural or created in a laboratory.

When it comes to breastfeeding, there’s simply no doubt that it is the healthiest and safest choice available for the vast majority of women and children, and I find it truly disturbing that Martucci and Barnhill would risk undermining the global effort to promote and increase breastfeeding, as it is a crucial component of optimal health.

Considering the fact that babies have been successfully raised on breast milk since the dawn of mankind, it stands to reason that breastfeeding is as natural as it gets, and that breast milk is an ideal, healthy and safe food, providing a growing infant with everything it needs.

Read More At: Mercola.com