US government has already paid out $159 million in damages to vaccine injured children so far in 2017

Image: US government has already paid out $159 million in damages to vaccine injured children so far in 2017
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
May 26, 2017

America has been under the spell of a vaccine hysteria due to the recent measles outbreak among unvaccinated Somali-Americans in Minnesota. Once again, vaccine skepticism and anti-vaccine activists, such as the “discredited” Dr. Andrew Wakefield, have been blamed for the outbreak that affected 48 people.

Americans are constantly told that vaccines are the safest, most effective prevention measures, only causing mild side-effects in very rare occasions. If vaccines are so safe, why has the U.S. government already paid out nearly $159 million to vaccine-injured families in 2017 alone? Since 1989, a grand total of more than $3.6 billion has been awarded to individuals and their families for injuries and deaths attributed to vaccines, according to data published by the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA). (RELATED: Click here to view the latest report on vaccine injuries and payments made by the U.S. government for vaccine damages.)

Not many Americans, however, are aware of the existence of a vaccine fund, known as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), that pays out claims to people and families whose loved ones were injured by vaccines. This special fund was a direct result of a law passed in 1986 that gave pharmaceutical companies total legal immunity from being sued for injuries and deaths related to vaccines.

With no risk whatsoever for vaccine manufacturers, vaccine production has gone through the roof since the initial passing of the law and the creation of the vaccine injury court. Not entirely surprising, the U.S. government is one of the largest purchasers of these vaccines, spending more than $4 billion in taxpayer dollars each year, reported Vaccine Impact.

Has fear driven us completely insane?

In the past, some vaccine proponents have suggested parents who decide not to vaccinate their children with toxic substances are criminals and should be sued or even jailed to protect public health. However, what these people are suggesting is that we keep poisoning the brains of our children while Big Pharma is laughing all the way to the bank. And they know they can get away with it since the government has their back.

Out of fear, imprinted in our brains through our family doctor, schools, and public campaigns, many Americans keep injecting their children with autism-causing substances. These people want us to believe diseases such as the flu and the measles are relentless killers, stressing once more the importance of vaccines to protect our children’s health.

Amidst the heated debate over the question of whether parents should be forced to vaccinate their child, it is often forgotten that most of these diseases aren’t so deadly after all. Between 2004 and 2010, a total of five people died of measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) own data.

Let’s get back to the recent Minnesota measles outbreak for just a second. There are about 5.3 million people living in Minnesota, and only 48 of them got sick. Nobody died. Think of it, is the prevention of 48 cases of people contracting a rather harmless disease in healthy people worth damaging the brains of thousands of children living there?

Even though the mainstream media and government keep spreading fear or lecturing people about how the link between brain damage, autism, and vaccines has been debunked, we should know better by now. Vaccines aren’t the world’s miracle invention. On the contrary. A massive cover-up of their health risks has been ongoing for years. As a country with one of the most aggressive vaccination schedules and skyrocketing numbers of autistic children, it is time we stop ignoring the cold, hard facts and put two and two together.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalNews.comPDF

NaturalNews.com

VaccineImpact.com

NaturalNews.com

CDC.gov

SuburbanStats.org

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!

Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?

Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Celeste McGovern
May 22, 2017

Originally published on CMSRI.org.

The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?

The first-ever study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children (and a subset study) published two weeks ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Translational Science have reappeared online after briefly disappearing while under fire from a small band of Skeptics and the staff at Retraction Watch, an organization that reports Science retraction news. Snopes, the fact-checking website, is still misreporting that the study has been retracted, even while it sits, published, in the science journal’s pages.

It is a troubling saga unfolding in the scientific publishing world, and it is worth paying attention to because it’s revealing of powerful forces in that realm that are trying to censor scientific research and to shield important data from public viewing. Not at all the methodical and logical sort of thing you would expect from modern scientific types.  It looks more like a secret 17th century Salem witch trial…interrupted.

Most readers here will be aware of Anthony Mawson et al.’s pivotal pilot study on the health of homeschooled American children. It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers). And it is the only study (yes, the ONLY study to contain totally unvaccinated American subjects.) There are no other studies of American children who have never had a vaccine compared to kids with the motherload of CDC protection.

The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune –mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents?   (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation — that wasn’t so sick — got?

The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example.  And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children. We better have another study, the researchers concluded. A bigger and better study.

Round One: Suppressing the Study Results

Enter the Skeptics. When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

“I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published. It was never published. NEVER RETRACTED. Just tweeted away by Leonid and his Skeptic friends.

Most scientists are skeptical — they don’t like claims without evidence – but not all scientists are Skeptics. Skeptics are champions of objective scientific inquiry who fight against anything they see as irrational and unscientific, which is everything outside of pharmaceutical manufacturing interests. Functional Medicine is equal to Bigfoot to them.  They know the difference between Good Thinking and Bad Thinking and some theories (like evolution) they think are very good and some ideas, like God, are particularly bad. They don’t like religion, but Skeptics can be quite dogmatic themselves about some things. Like vaccines. According to them, all vaccines are safe and effective. No one is ever injured by vaccines. Every child is healthier because of vaccines. The epidemic of childhood disorders is caused by something that is not vaccines. Questioning vaccines is heresy.

Retraction Watch, which bills itself as “a window into the scientific process,” got a little more involved than window-watching and inaccurately reported that the study was retracted, based on a Tweet. It ignored that accepting science on its merits, and then rejecting it on Tweets from those who disagree, is in violation of the publishing code of conduct.  Not to mention that there is a big difference in the world of science between having a paper retracted – which implies scientific misconduct or gross scientific error – and having a paper declined because of disgruntled Tweets.

Frontiers publicly posts their retraction policy and affirms that they abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction. Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:

  • Retractions are not about punishing authors.
  • Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.

There was no retraction statement ever made or posted by Frontiers; therefore Retraction Watch’s statement about Dr. Mawson’s paper being retracted is inarguably false. This proven lie was used to interfere with and misconstrue Dr. Mawson’s research, resulting in a temporary removal of his article from The Journal of Translational Science pending an inquiry. Inquiry resolved, the articles have been reinstated on the journal’s website, demonstrating sufficient proof that the articles were never retracted as claimed by Retraction Watch.

Round Two: Discrediting the Study Results

Retraction Watch was again the first to misreport the retraction of the Mawson paper from the Journal of Translational Science last week. Rather than reporting on the facts, Retraction Watch took an activist role in the attempted takedown of Dr. Mawson’s research. Misconstruing and misrepresenting another scientist’s research is considered scientific misconduct. Retraction Watch still has (at the time of writing) an article posted that claims the paper has been doubly retracted. Their actions have a ripple effect, furthering the harm to Dr. Mawson and his younger colleagues, actions which are harmful to reputations, careers, and their future livelihoods. Snopes, the “fact-checking” entity, was still reporting that the papers were retracted because of methodological flaws, with only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom showing the papers restored to the Journal’s webpages. I pointed out the error to the editors and they updated the story today, without apology for inaccuracies.

Continuing to retain articles that are demonstrably and provably false on their website shows a lack of regard for the integrity and truth they espouse to protect. The public should be aware that their representations are not well researched and supported by the facts, and that the due diligence they claim to conduct in the interest of scientific integrity is not as it appears once you scratch the surface.

No answers have been forthcoming from Retraction Watch’s editor Alison Cook. She has not replied to my inquiries. Snopes founder David Mikkelson and managing editor Brooke Binkowski did not reply to messages. I did not receive explanations from the journal editors either.

The Digital Media Law Project publishes guidelines for publishing information that “harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization.” Injury to one’s reputation that stems from a falsehood is defamation, and claiming an article was retracted when it wasn’t is false, defamatory and should be corrected when notice and evidence has been provided to the author of the defamatory article. In the case of the Snopes article, the DMLP states “the republication of someone else’s words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won’t be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to its source.”

The DMLP also advises publications to “be prompt and give your correction the same prominent position that you gave the inaccurate information you previously posted.”

Can Snopes and Retraction Watch be Trusted? 

The whole ordeal puts scientific publishing into a bad light. Can it be so easy to push editors out of publishing? Is the code of conduct meaningless? Don’t the researchers have recourse to defend their work if there are allegations against it, in a scholarly manner? Has science stooped so low, so beneath accepted standards of professionalism, that it is time to call in lawyers?

This disturbing event leaves the public bewildered. Is there something to worry about for our children’s health or not? Why did these researchers find such a high risk of autism and other disorders in vaccinated children?  What are the possible mechanisms of immune system injury from vaccination in children?

The way the Mawson study was received undermines public trust in a system that is meant to be seeking better health for humanity. It will continue to erode so long as it fails to answer these questions that our children need answers to, now.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
___________________________________________________________

The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) is a medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

New Ebola Outbreak? Or Is It A Hoax?

TruthFact
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 22, 2017

News outlets are reporting a new Ebola outbreak in Africa. Here is a quick summary of the basic mainstream story—

The Huffington Post cites a World Health Organization (WHO) statement: four people are believed to have died from Ebola in the Congo.

There are 37 more “suspected cases.”

Discussions are underway about using an “experimental vaccine” in the Congo.

WHO has declared the Ebola outbreak an epidemic.

There is an effort to find 400 people believed to have come into contact with the “suspected cases.” Residents in the affected area of the Congo, the remote Bas-Uele province, are fleeing in fear.

That’s it so far.

I’ve been around the block on the Ebola story a dozen times. Here are the issues the press isn’t reporting—

There is one predictable outcome: at Congo clinics and hospitals, frightened people who arrive with what are labeled “early signs” of Ebola will be labeled as probable cases. What are those symptoms? Fever, chill, sore throat, cough, headache, joint pain. Sound familiar? Normally, this would just be called the flu.

Here’s another point you won’t see discussed on the mainstream news: the reliability of tests used to diagnose Ebola.

Two of those major tests—antibody and PCR—are notoriously unreliable.

Antibody tests will register positive for disease because they ping on factors that have nothing to do with the disease being looked for. And even when the test is accurate, a positive reading merely shows that the patient came in contact with the germ in question. It says nothing about whether he’s ill or is going to become ill.

In fact, before 1985, when the science was turned on its head, antibody-positive status was taken to mean the patient’s immune system had successfully warded off the germ.

The PCR test is a sophisticated way of amplifying tiny, tiny bits of what are assumed to be viral material, so they can be observed. The problem here is this: if only tiny bits of material could be found in the patient’s body in the first place, there is no reason to suppose they’re enough to cause disease. Very, very large amounts of virus are necessary to begin to suspect the patient is ill or is going to become ill.

Bottom line: huge numbers of people on whom these tests are done are going to be falsely diagnosed with Ebola.

Here is what I wrote about the Ebola outbreak of 2014 in Africa. It applies today:

Ebola, covert op in a hypnotized world, August 2, 2014:

You show people a germ and you tell them what it is and what it does, and people salute. They give in. They believe. They actually know nothing. But they believe.

The massive campaign to make people believe the Ebola virus can attack at any moment, after the slightest contact, is quite a success.

People are falling all over themselves to raise the level of hysteria.

This is what is preventing a hard look at Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Republic Guinea, three African nations where poverty and illness are staples of everyday life for the overwhelming number of people.

The command structure in those areas has a single dictum: don’t solve the human problem.

Don’t clean up the contaminated water supplies, don’t return stolen land to the people so they can grow food and finally achieve nutritional health, don’t solve overcrowding, don’t install basic sanitation, don’t strengthen their immune systems so they can ward off germs, don’t let the people have power—because then they would throw off the local and global corporate juggernauts that are sucking the land of all its resources.

In order not to solve the problems of the people, a cover story is necessary. A cover story that exonerates the power structure.

A cover story like a germ.

It’s all about the germ. The demon. The strange attacker.

Forget everything else. The germ is the single enemy.

Forget the fact, for example, that a recent study of 15 pharmacies and 5 hospital drug dispensaries in Sierra Leone discovered the widespread and unconscionable use of beta-lactam antibiotics.

These drugs are highly toxic. One of their effects? Excessive bleeding.

Which just happens to be the scary “Ebola effect” that’s being trumpeted in the world press.

(J Clin Microbiol, July 2013, 51(7), 2435-2438), and Annals of Internal Medicine Dec. 1986, “Potential for bleeding with the new beta-lactam antibiotics”)

Forget the fact that pesticide companies are notorious for shipping banned toxic pesticides to Africa. One effect of the chemicals? Bleeding.

Forget that. It’s all about the germ and nothing but the germ.

Forget the fact that, for decades, one of the leading causes of death in the Third World has been uncontrolled diarrhea. Electrolytes are drained from the body, and the adult or the baby dies. (Diarrhea is also listed as an “Ebola” symptom.)

Any sane doctor would make it his first order of business to replace electrolytes with simple supplementation—but no, the standard medical line goes this way:

The diarrhea is caused by germs in the intestinal tract, so we must pile on massive amounts of antibiotics to kill the germs.

The drugs kill off all bacteria in the gut, including the necessary and beneficial ones, and the patient can’t absorb what little food he has access to, and he dies.

Along the way, he can also bleed.

But no, all the bleeding comes from Ebola. It’s the germ. Don’t think about anything else.

Forget the fact that adenovirus vaccines, which have been used in Liberia, Guinea, and Liberia (the epicenter of Ebola), have, according to vaccines.gov, the following adverse effects: blood in the urine or stool, and diarrhea.

No, all the bleeding comes from the Ebola germ. Of course. Don’t think about anything else.

Reporter Charles Yates uncovered a scandal in Liberia centering around the Firestone Rubber Plantation—chemical dumping, poisoned water.

And skin disease.

“Rash” is listed as one of the Ebola symptoms.

Liberia Coca Cola bottling plant: foul black liquid seeping into the environment—animals dying.

Chronic malnutrition and starvation—conditions that are endemic in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea—are the number-one cause of T-cells depletion in the world.

T-cells are a vital component of the immune system. When that system is compromised, any germ coming down the pipeline will cause epidemics and death.

Getting the picture?

But no, blame it all on the germ.

Allow the corporate-government domination to continue.

—end of my 2014 article—

There is more, but I’ll leave it there for the moment.

The mainstream story about Ebola is riddled with hoax.

It’s “blame the virus” for illness and dying that come from other obvious sources.
Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Infographic: Vaccine industry science lies are nothing more than recycled Big Tobacco science lies

Big Tobacco
Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
May 17, 2017

You gotta love it when arrogant science devotees defiantly claim they alone have a monopoly on the “settled facts” of our reality. Throughout much of the 20th century, it turns out, these same sort of arrogant scientists claimed smoking was awesome for your health, too.

“More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” was the headline of a full-page ad carried by the Journal of the American Medical Association. Doctors were paid by Big Tobacco to tout the amazing health benefits of smoking cigarettes, and any doctor who dared point out that smoking might be linked to cancer was subjected to the same industry blackballing, scientific censorship and verbal abuse that’s leveled today against honest researchers questioning the safety of GMOs or mercury in vaccines.

The real truth is that science never has a monopoly on facts, and science makes enormous mistakes (such as condoning smoking cigarettes) on a regular basis. Science is also for sale and easy corrupted by corporate interests.

Peer-reviewed science journals, too, are often little more than a collection of corporate-funded make-believe science tabloids. “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines,” writes the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell.

“I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,” she says in Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.

With that in mind, take a look at the similarities between Big Tobacco science lies and vaccine industry science lies:

Whopping Vaccine Injury Payouts for US Fiscal Year 2017 Released

vaccines
Source: WakingTimes.com
Brendan D. Murphy
May 9, 2017

Yet another shocking blow has been delivered to people who still ardently claim that vaccines are “safe and effective,” and that the only complications they can cause are “mild.” The US government department for Health Resources and Services Administration has recently released the running tally of the just-past-half-way-complete US Fiscal Year (FY) of 2017 for compensable vaccine injuries. It currently stands at over $142 million dollars. You read that right. That covers the 377 cases that were thus far successful in obtaining compensation in fiscal year 2017 through the heavily biased (to put it politely) system allegedly in place to redress damage done by vaccines in the USA.

At the rate things are going, we might expect the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to pay out around $220 million or more by the close of FY 2017. To clarify, US Fiscal Year 2017 runs from October 1st, 2016 to September 30th, 2017 – there’s still over four months remaining to rack up more carnage.

Screenshot source: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/monthlywebsitestats04_01_17.pdf

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was created to “reduce liability and respond to public health concerns.” It granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies and prevented parents from suing vaccine makers for vaccine injuries or death. What other industry has such exceptional standards applied to it? Why the special privilege a.k.a. license to injure and kill with impunity?

According to the CDC’s website, there are “limitations in our knowledge of the risks associated with vaccines” and vaccinations have “the following problems”:

  1. Limited understanding of biological processes that underlie adverse events
  2. Incomplete and inconsistent information from individual reports
  3. Poorly constructed research studies (not enough people enrolled for the period of time)
  4. Inadequate systems to track vaccine side effects
  5. Few experimental studies were published in the medical literature.”1 (emphasis added)

The above very revealing admissions from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) completely undercut the pathological overconfidence exhibited in the extreme portions of the community pushing for mandatory vaccination.

Similarly, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program compensation numbers are, not only not reassuring, but, frankly astonishing, and should give not just all parents, but all people in general, serious pause. If vaccines are “safe and effective” as our medical practitioners and politicians constantly tell us via mainstream media outlets, then why are there already over 370 compensated cases in fiscal year 2017? Why is there a running payout total from 1988 up to now of “around $3.6 billion,” according to the US Health Resources and Services Administration?

Why, if vaccines are just so gosh darned safe, does the HRSA government website state (see image above) that, “Since influenza vaccines (vaccines administered to large numbers of adults each year) were added to the VICP in 2005, many adult petitions related to that vaccine have been filed, thus changing the proportion of children to adults receiving compensation”?2

It seems to make some sense that the true purpose of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is simply to pay lip service to justice and decency, while allowing pharmaceutical companies to receive a minor slap on the wrist (largely in the form of bad PR) before they go right on with business as usual – “pay to play” or something like that (but then I’m a cynic.). The economic losses are affordable and “worth it”; the human losses are an inconvenient public relations issue to be “managed.”

So Many Questions, So Few Answers

Why, if “many” fully grown adults are seeking injury compensation should we make the blanket assumption that these same vaccines will be “safe and effective” for babies and small children? The doses are not weight adjusted. No vaccines are weight adjusted to account for the much smaller and more fragile physiology of a baby. Why? Why does a baby receive the same amount of heavy metals, carcinogens, and the many other toxic ingredients (such as polysorbate-80) that a full grown 200 pound man receives? Where else in medicine is such a lack of dose control not only tolerated, by blindly promoted and held as sacred?

Why are we not seeing any double-blind randomized controlled trials with true placebo groups demonstrating clearly and honestly that flu (or other) vaccines are safe and not causing children any harm – as well as being “effective”? Until 2005, based on the HRSA document, the ONLY petitions filed for flu vaccine injuries were on behalf of injured children. Where are those safety studies again? Where are the weight adjusted doses again? Why isn’t anyone taking up RFK Jr’s $100,000 mercury challenge if mercury-containing vaccines are so demonstrably safe? Why, why, why, Mr Anderson?

A recent peer-reviewed study published in the Pace Environmental Law Review looked at cases of vaccine injury that have been monetarily compensated by the VICP.

The study investigated approximately 1300 cases of childhood brain injury as a result of vaccines in which the Special Masters ruled for the plaintiffs, looking for references to autism, symptoms of autism or disorders commonly associated with autism. It reports that twenty-one cases actually stated “autism or autism-like symptoms” in the court records.  The researchers then identified and contacted 150 more compensated families to find out whether the children had autism.  They were able to find an additional 62 cases (greater than 40% of their sample) for a total of 83 cases of autism.  In 39 cases (47%) there was confirmation of autism beyond parental report.3 (Emphasis added. Autism is a proven vaccine adverse event. It is also listed in vaccine inserts as one of many possible abreactions.)

Since 1988, when the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program began, 5,353 petitions were assessed as compensable out of the 18,072 filed since then. Nearly 1-in-3 is actually fairly impressive, given the incredible medical, social, and legal bias against recognizing vaccine harm when it occurs, as well as the determined efforts by pharmaceutical companies in court to distort reality and manufacture false doubt in defending their products and controlling perception.

This doesn’t look good at a time when proponents of removing freedom of health choice are campaigning for “no jab no fly” policies that would prevent much of Australia from functioning (particularly economically). This fear-mongering and vaccine hysteria is all the more absurd when one pauses to consider that in Australia, as in the US, the clear majority of adults are FAR from being “up to date” with their shots – and have been for decades. We simply don’t worry about it. And yet, the much-feared epidemics never seem to materialize. In fact, most outbreaks seem to follow in the wake of intensive vaccination campaigns – but that’s just a coincidence, right? Just as it’s a coincidence that within hours of getting your baby home from the doctor’s surgery they were seizing, turning blue, and in the nascent stages of encephalopathy…Right?

Because clearly, after $3.6 billion dollars worth of legal payouts in the US alone since 1988 – and with adverse events being under-reported (in the VAERS) to the extent of 90% or more, and with mature adults and children alike being injured by flu (and the other) vaccines to the extent of requiring compensation, clearly, vaccines are simply “safe and effective.”

Logically, if we mandated vaccination across the board, the only possible outcome is an explosion of vaccine injuries and people seeking compensation. It’s simple math. More vaccines means more vaccine injuries and deaths. Aside from the immeasurable human psychological cost and loss of quality of life, who is going to fund the payouts? Is Big Pharma stepping up to the plate and preparing to own the harm it is causing? Not likely, since pharmaceutical companies are legally immune (at least in America). Vaccine Injury Compensation Program funding comes from an excise tax charged on each vaccine:

Vaccine Injury claims are paid from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, managed by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The [VICP] Trust Fund receives its money from a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines recommended by the [CDC] for routine administration to children. The excise tax is imposed on each dose, or preventable disease of a given vaccination. (central-pennsylvania.legalexaminer.com)

This reminds me of the carbon tax, which essentially allows “polluters” to simply pay a tax/”penalty” for their emissions and continue with business as usual. It isn’t a deterrent at all for vaccine manufacturers. They would factor it in to their costs of operating.

Disturbing Changes

In September 2014, the CDC notified federal vaccine advisory committees that soon they will no longer be accepting vaccine adverse event reports via phone, fax, or mail. Instead, officials have stated that they will only accept electronic reports of vaccine reactions, injuries, hospitalizations, and death. (vactruth.com)

According to VacTruth, “70 percent of VAERS reports are still filed the old-fashioned way, handwritten and submitted via mail or fax. A mere 30 percent of adverse event reports are submitted to VAERS online.”4 Therefore, the change to adverse event reporting seems designed to make it harder to keep accurate tabs on the true number of significant vaccine injuries by discouraging reporting them in general. Some parents dealing with a severe abreaction in a child may also be too overwhelmed and distressed to have the time or inner resources to file a report, a fact few people even consider. Other factors make obtaining compensation even harder:

…certain adverse reactions from vaccines have been removed from the injury tables, including encephalopathy (swelling of the brain) and seizure disorders resulting from specific vaccines, two very common adverse reactions…and autism as a primary injury. Injuries from anthrax and smallpox vaccines are not covered under the NVICP…Parents who file a report with VAERS must file a separate report if they wish to seek compensation for their child’s vaccine injury or death. Furthermore, if your child was hospitalized from a vaccine, but they did not require surgery, you would not be able to file a claim seeking compensation, unless you can prove with certain kinds of evidence that the effects of the injury have lasted longer than six months.5

You also need an attorney to file on your behalf. And did you know that injury claims may take from two to ten years to resolve through the VICP? Imagine being a bereaved parent and pondering that life-sucking prospect. The system is very clearly weighted against any kind of justice for vaccine-injured people. This is why I say that nearly 1-in-3 cases receiving compensation so far is actually quite an achievement – all things considered.

You may support blanket vaccination on the way IN to the doctor’s surgery, but you may not support it so much when your child is brain-dead (or just dead) 72 hours later. It happens. I personally know many vaccine-injured people – so many I’ve lost count. My partner is one (thank you very much, Gardasil). The media hides it. Politicians lie about it. Doctors parrot fallacious medical dogmas without thinking. Big Pharma continues doing what Big Pharma does best: poisoning us while we pay them for the privilege.

The x-factor is YOU, the wild card, the ghost in the machine, the one who can stop, think, and say “NO.” You have the power to recognise something that doesn’t make sense and to try a different way – and if you have children then, more to the point, you have the responsibility.

Next fiscal year, let’s aim for $0 in compensation payouts through 100% non-compliance – meaning no vaccine injuries and deaths at all – and a public that understands REAL disease risk and how to actually be resistant and robust rationally. Wouldn’t that be something?

Read More At: WakingTimes.com


Endnotes

  1. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccine_Monitoring/history.html
  2. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/monthlywebsitestats04_01_17.pdf
  3. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/83-cases-of-autism-associated-with-childhood-vaccine-injury-compensated-in-federal-vaccine-court-121570673.html
  4. http://vactruth.com/2015/02/19/vaccine-injury-compensation/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=080e55aa44-02_19_2015_vaers&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce7860ee83-080e55aa44-408191918
  5. Ibid.
About the Author

Brendan D. Murphy – Co-founder of Global Freedom Movement and host of GFM RadioBrendan DMurphy is a leading Australian author, researcher, activist, and musician. His acclaimed non-fiction epic The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science & Spirituality – Book 1 is out now! Come and get your mind blown at www.brendandmurphy.net

“What a wonderful job of collating and integrating you have done! Every person in the field of ‘paranormal’ psychology or related topics should have this book as a major reference.” – Dr. Buryl Payne

“A masterpiece…The Grand Illusion is mind-blowing.” – Sol Luckman, author of Potentiate Your DNA.

“You’ve written the best synthesis of modern science and esoteric science that I’ve seen in 40 years of study in that area. Brilliant!”  – Michael K. Wade

Please visit – www.globalfreedommovement.org

Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase in Chronic Disorders

Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase in Chronic Disorders
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Jefferey Jaxen
May 9, 2017

The move towards mandatory vaccination is no longer a conspiracy theory. California Senate Bill 277 snapped families into a reality where informed consent and health freedom do not apply.

Presently, the American people are facing 173 vaccine-related bills in 40 states. The language of many of the new bills aims to increase tracking, target non-vaccinating families, force vaccine schedules, and further persecute families who choose not to accept vaccines; the private products of for-profit, legally protected pharmaceutical companies. The corporate media and medical industries have thrown their full influence behind Big Pharma’s transparent ‘safe and effective’ messaging. At the same time, both industries are simultaneously censoring discussions around the fraud, dangers, mounting injuries, and criminal behavior inherent within the vaccine industry and those pushing for mandatory vaccination. A central point of contention, and human rights violation, is the fact that historically, no true study has been conducted between vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. However, such a study has now come to fruition.

The Study

Having worked on the study for 15 years, from its original conception to completion, Dr. Anthony Mawson and his coauthors have now had their work published in the Journal of Translational Science.The study, titled, ‘Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year-old U.S. children’. [1] Since long-term health outcomes of the current vaccination schedule haven’t been studied, Dr. Mawson and his coauthors set out to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children across a broad range of health outcomes. The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey of homeschooling mothers on their vaccinated and unvaccinated biological children ages 6 to 12. It included mothers of 666 children ranging from fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated. The mothers were asked to indicate on a list of more than 40 acute and chronic illnesses all those for which her child or children had received a diagnosis by a physician among other questions.

The Results

The vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following: allergic rhinitis, other allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis, a learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, any neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) (i.e., learning disability, ADHD or ASD) and chronic illness.

The following is a breakdown of the specific results for vaccinated children:

  • Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7-fold higher in vaccinated children
  • ADHD risk was 4.7-fold higher
  • Learning disability risk was 3.7-fold higher 
  • Vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of (NDD).
  • Preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD

Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.

The Conclusion 

Given the current global climate as described in this article’s introduction, the study highlighted three extremely noteworthy conclusions as follows:

  • “…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 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 neurodevelopmental disorders after controlling for other factors…”
  • “…preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of neurodevelopmental disorder above that of vaccination alone.

While all three conclusions should be, and are, resonating deeply within the masses of health professionals and parents, the study’s third conclusion is especially timely and relevant beyond its stated assertion. Over the last year, numerous medical whistleblowers and scientific research papers have warned and demonstrated that routine vaccine injury to preterm infants in hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICU) is occurring. Whistleblower nurses Michelle Rowton James and Joanne [last name unavailable] publicly spotlighted how inhuman and commonplace NICU vaccine injury have rooted in the culture of establishment medicine. While three major studies [2],[3],[4] have corroborated the nurse’s whistleblowing admissions. Meanwhile, in April 2017 The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) released a statement asking for all Americans to join them in their call for a ban on vaccination of infants in the NICU. Speaking on the call to action Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, CEO, and Director of IPAK, stated:

We’ve asked the biomedical community to produce studies that show ill effect of vaccines on neonates, and they have not produced them.

There is currently a clash happening between religious-like vaccine dogma and increasingly aware segments of the public, research, and medical communities. In the balance hangs the opportunity for a truly open discussion on vaccines and a rare chance to reform a pharmaceutically-dominated medical community that has lost its way. Giving the current trend, the consequences of not seizing the opportunity for open dialogue appears to lead down a road of mandatory medicine and censorship of exponentially mounting human injury and mortality. Put simply, the battle now rages between openness and transparency versus the protection, through omission and overt censorship, of Big Pharma’s business model and need for ever-expanding bottom lines at all costs.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
__________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES:

[1] Anthony R Mawson, Brian D Ray, Azad R Bhuiyan, Binu Jacob (2017) Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S children, Journal of Translational Science, DOI: 10.15761/JTS.1000186

[2] Sen S, Cloete Y, Hassan K, Buss P (2001) Adverse events following vaccination in premature infants, Acta Paediatrica, Aug;90(8):916-20.

[3] J  Bonhoeffer, C‐A Siegrist, and P T Heath (2006), Immunisation of premature infants, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Nov; 91(11): 929–935. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2005.086306

[4] Stephen D. DeMeo, Sudha R. Raman, Christoph P. Hornik, Catherine C. Wilson, Reese Clark, and P. Brian Smith, (2015), Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants, JAMA Pediatrics, 2015 Aug 1; 169(8): 740–745. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0418