Why The Only Thing Influenza May Kill Is Germ Theory

Influenza and the Death of Germ Theory

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Sayer Ji
January 9, 2017

Why The Only Thing Influenza May Kill Is Germ Theory

Groundbreaking research indicates that nearly everything we once believed about the purportedly deadly properties of flu virus may be based on institutionalized superstition and myth. 

Germ theory is an immensely powerful force on this planet, affecting everyday interactions from a handshake, all the way up the ladder to national vaccination agendas and global eradication campaigns. But what if fundamental research on what exactly these ‘pathogens’ are, how they infect us, has not yet even been performed? What if much of what is assumed and believed about the danger of microbes, particularly viruses, has completely been undermined in light of radical new discoveries in microbiology?

Some of our readers already know that in my previous writings I discuss why the “germs as our enemies” concept has been decimated by the relatively recent discovery of the microbiome. For background, feel free to read “How The Microbiome Destroyed the Ego, Vaccine Policy, and Patriarchy.”

In today’s article, I will take a less philosophical approach, and focus on influenza as a more concrete example of the Copernican-level paradigm shift in biomedicine and life sciences we are all presently fully immersed within, even if many in the establishment have yet to fully acknowledge it.

Deadly Flu Viruses: Vaccinate or Die?

The way health policy makers talk about it today, flu virus is a deadly force, against which all citizens, of all ages 6 months or older, need to take an annual influenza vaccine to protect themselves against, lest they face deadly consequences. Worse, those who hold religious or philosophical objections, or who otherwise conscientiously object to vaccinating, are being characterized as doing harm to others by denying them herd immunity (a concept that has been completely debunked by a careful study of the evidence, or lack thereof). For instance, in the interview below Bill Gates tells Sanjay Gupta that he thinks non-vaccinators “kill children”:

But what if I told you that there isn’t even such a thing as “flu virus,” in the sense of a monolithic, disease vector existing outside of us, conceived as it is as the relationship of predator to prey?

First, consider that the highly authorative Cochrane collaboration acknowledges there are many different flu viruses that are not, in fact, influenza A — against which flu vaccines are targeted — but which nonetheless can contribute to symptoms identical to those attributed to influenza A:

Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Source: Cochrane Summaries).” [emphasis added]

This makes for a picture of complexity that powerfully undermines health policies that presuppose vaccination equates to bona fide immunity, and by implication, necessitates the herd collectively participate in the ritual of mass vaccination campaigns as a matter of social responsibility and necessity.

Even the use of the word “immunization” to describe vaccination is highly misleading. The moment the word is used, it already presupposes efficacy, and makes it appear as if non-vaccinators are anti-immunity, instead of what they actually are: pro-immunity (via clean air, food, water, and sunlight), but unwilling to subject themselves or their healthy children to “unavoidably unsafe” medical procedures with only theoretical benefits.

Why Flu Virus Doesn’t Exist (The Way We Were Told)

But the topic gets even more interesting when we consider the findings of a 2015 study entitled “Conserved and host-specific features of influenza vision architecture.” This was the first study ever to plumb the molecular depths of what influenza virus is actually composed of. Amazingly, given the long history of vaccine use and promotion, the full characterization of what proteins it contains, and where they are derived from, was never previously performed. How we invest billions of dollars annually into flu vaccines, and have created a global campaign to countermand a viral enemy, whose basic building blocks we don’t even know, is hard to understand. But it is true nonetheless.

The study abstract opens with this highly provocative line:

“Viruses use virions to spread between hosts, and virion composition is therefore the primary determinant of viral transmissibility and immunogenicity.” [emphasis added]

Virion are also known as “viral particles,” and they are the means by which viral nucleic acids are able to move and ‘infect’ living organisms. Without the viral particle (taxi) to carry around the virus DNA (passenger), it would be harmless; in fact, viruses are often described as existing somewhere between living and inanimate objects for this reason: they do not produce their own energy, nor are transmissable without a living host. And so, in this first line, the authors are making it clear that virion composition is also the primary determinant in how or whether a virus is infectious (transmits) and what affects it will have in the immune system of the infected host.

Influenza viral particles.

This distinction is important because we often think of viruses as simply pathogenic strings of DNA or RNA. The irony, of course, is that the very things we attribute so much lethality to — viral nucleic acids — are not even alive, and can not infect an organism without all the other components (proteins, lipids, extra-viral nucleic acids) which are, technically, not viral in origin, participating in the process. And so, if the components that are non-viral are essential for the virus to cause harm, how can we continue to maintain that we up against a monolithic disease entity “out there” who “infects” us, a passive victim?  It’s fundamentally non-sensical, given these findings. It also clearly undermines the incessant, fear-based rhetoric those beholden to the pro-vaccine use to coerce the masses into undergoing the largely faith-based rite of vaccination.

Let’s dive deeper into the study’s findings…

The next line of the abstract addresses the fact we opened this article with: namely, that there is great complexity involved at the level of the profound variability in virion composition:

“However, the virions of many viruses are complex and pleomorphic, making them difficult to analyze in detail”

But this problem of the great variability in the virion composition of influenza is exactly why the study was conducted. They explain:

“Here we address this by identifying and quantifying viral proteins with mass spectrometry, producing a complete and quantifiable model of the hundreds of viral and host-encoded proteins that make up the pleomorphic virions of influenza virus.  We show that a conserved influenza virion architecture, which includes substantial quantities of host proteins as well as the viral protein NSI, is elaborated with abundant host-dependent features. As a result, influenza virions produced by mammalian and avian hosts have distinct protein compositions.”

In other words, they found that the flu virus is as much comprised of biological material from the host the virus ‘infects,’ as the viral genetic material of the virus per se.

How then, do we differentiate influenza virus as fully “other”? Given that it would not exist without “self” proteins, or those of other host animals like birds (avian) or insects, this would be impossible to do with any intellectual honesty intact.

There’s also the significant problem presented by flu vaccine production. Presently, human flu vaccine antigen is produced via insects and chicken eggs. This means that the virus particles extracted from these hosts would contain foreign proteins, and would therefore produce different and/or unpredictable immunological responses in humans than would be expected from human influenza viral particles. One possibility is that the dozens of foreign proteins found within avian influenza could theoretically produce antigens in humans that cross-react with self-structures resulting in autoimmunity. Safety testing, presently, does not test for these cross reactions. Clearly, this discovery opens up a pandora’s box of potential problems that have never sufficiently been analyzed, since it was never understood until now that “influenza” is so thoroughly dependent upon a host for its transmissability and immunogenecity.

Are Flu Viruses Really “Hijacked” Exosomes?

Lastly, the study identified something even more amazing:

“Finally, we note that influenza virions share an underlying protein composition with exosomes, suggesting that influenza virions form by subverting micro vesicle” production.”

What these researchers are talking about is the discovery that virion particles share stunning similarities to naturally occurring virus-like particles produced by all living cells called exosomes. Exosomes, like many viruses (i.e. enveloped viruses) are enclosed in a membrane, and are within the 50-100 nanometer size range that viruses are (20-400 nm). They also contain biologically active molecules, such as proteins and lipids, as well as information-containing ones like RNAs — exactly, or very similar, to the types of contents you find in viral particles.

Watch this basic video on exosomes to get a primer:

When we start to look at viruses through the lens of their overlap with exosomes, which as carriers of RNAs are essential for regulating the expression of the vast majority of the human genome, we start to understand how their function could be considered neutral as “information carriers,” if not beneficial. Both exosomes and viruses may actually be responsible for inter-species or cross-kingdom communication and regulation within the biosphere, given the way they are able to facilitate and mediate horizontal information transfer between organisms. Even eating a piece of fruit containing these exosomes can alter the expression of vitally important genes within our body.

Exosomes.

In light of this post-Germ Theory perspective, viruses could be described as pieces of information in search of chromosomes; not inherently “bad,” but, in fact, essential for mediating the genotype/phenotype relationship within organisms, who must adapt to ever-shifting environmental conditions in real-time in order to survive; something the glacial pace of genetic changes within the primary nucleotide sequences of our DNA cannot do (for instance, it may take ~ 100,000 years for a protein-coding gene sequence to change versus seconds for a protein-coding gene’s expression to be altered via modulation via viral or exosomal RNAs).

This does not mean they are “all good,” either. Sometimes, given many conditions outside their control, their messages could present challenges or misinformation to the cells to which they are exposed, which could result in a “disease symptom.” But with the caveat that these disease symptoms are often if not invariably attempts by the body to self-regulate and ultimately improve and heal itself.

In other words, the virion composition of viruses appears to be the byproduct of the cell’s normal exosome (also known as microvessicle) production machinery and trafficking, albeit being influenced by influenza DNA. And like exosomes, viruses may be a means of extracellular communication between cells, instead of simply a pathological disease entity.  This could explain why an accumulating body of research on the role of the virome in human health indicates that so-called infectious agents, including viruses like measles, confer significant health benefits. [see: the Health Benefits of Measles and The Healing Power of Germs?].

Other researchers have come to similar discoveries about the relationship between exosomes and viruses, sometimes describing viral hijacking of exosome pathways as a “Trojan horse” hypothesis.  HIV may provide such an example.

Concluding Remarks

The remarkably recent discovery of the host-dependent nature of the influenza virus’ virion composition is really just the tip of an intellectual iceberg that has yet to fully emerge into the light of day, but is already “sinking” ships; paradigm ships, if you will.

One such paradigm is that germs are enemy combatants, and that viruses serve no fundamental role in our health, and should be eradicated from the earth with drugs and vaccines, if possible.

This belief, however, is untenable. With the discovery of the indispensable role of the microbiome, and the subpopulation of viruses within it — the virome — we have entered into an entirely new, ecologically-based view of the body and its environs that are fundamentally inseparable. Ironically, the only thing that influenza may be capable of killing is germ theory itself. 

For an in-depth exploration of this, watch the lecture below on the virome. I promise, if you do so, you will no longer be able to uphold germ theory as a monolithic truth any longer. You may even start to understand how we might consider some viruses “our friends,” and why we may need viruses far more than they need us.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
_____________________________________________

© January 9, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.
_____________________________________________

Advertisements

Trump, RFK Jr. & Vaccines

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 3, 2017

Regular readers of this site are aware that from time to time I have blogged about the controversy over vaccines and autism, and more recently, about vaccines being used covertly, under the guise of mandatory vaccination laws, to inject people with a whole host of things from nanobots to new types of vaccines designed to vaccinate others, against their will and even without their knowledge, through such a simple thing as a human sneeze, which is the latest gizmo being cooked up in Big Corporation Land. I have also blogged about studies of the vaccine-autism link that were based on the testimony of mothers who have had their children vaccinated who then came down with symptoms on the autism spectrum. The paper was first approved for publication, then withdrawn with the usual Big Corporation pressure was exerted.The paper was withdrawn for being based on “anecdotal” and not “scientific” evidence. As I pointed out at the time, this was a whole short-circuiting of the diagnostic process, for every human therapy begins when the patient tells his or her physician “what’s ailing them,” and this anecdotal evidence becomes, and must become, the basis on which the physician makes his or her initial diagnosis in most instances. To dismiss hundreds of stories in the historical record as merely “anecdotal” is to dismiss a priori a whole class of evidence simply on the basis of a dogma, rather than sincere investigation. The film Vaxxed came out detailing similar concerns, and was quashed.

In this context a story has emerged recently that President Trump was (or is) considering the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to head a panel to explore not only this question, but the wider role of the Center for Disease Control and the role of Big Pharma in manipulating its results. Consider these two articles, and particularly the second one by our friend and colleague Jon Rappaport, which has extensive quotations from Mr. Kennedy(Oh, and by the way and for the record, it was Mr. Rappaport who, years ago, coined the term “fake news” for his website, which of course recently the corporate controlled media tried to run with):

Trump Sets Off Media Firestorm With Creation of Vaccine Safety Review Panel

Robert F Kennedy’s devastating quotes on vaccines and the CDC

Mr. Kennedy “gets” it, and so does Mr. Rappaport. Consider first Mr. Rappaport’s take on what the CDC is:

Kennedy understands the inherent conflict of interest at the CDC, which operates as a vaccine sales and marketing company, while at the same time posing as a neutral scientific body that assesses vaccine safety—AND OF COURSE, THE CDC PRESENTS AN EVER-EXPANDING SCHEDULE OF “NECESSARY” VACCINES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Think of it: the CDC has the power—backed by federal and state governments, and supported by the fake-news media—to buy and sell vaccines, while deciding how many vaccines the population should submit to. What salesman wouldn’t want to work for an outfit like that?

As we’ve also noted before on this website, note how the CDC mirrors in an almost exact way the role of the FDA in certifying the safety of GMOs under the doctrine of “substantial equivalence”, first promulgated by the administration of (you guessed it) the ever-deplorable Bush family during the administration of G.H.W. Bush. F. William Engdahl and other researchers into the GMO issue have chronicled the revolving door of personnel between that agency and the very GMO companies it was intended to monitor. And of course, there were no long-term inter-generational study of GMOs, just as there were not of the vaccine cocktails currently being urged, or forced, on the public, as pointed out in the first article noted above. The Ukrainian crisis was driven, in part, by the GMO issue, as the Ukraine was to be the lever by which to coopt agriculture in Russia. The sanctions regime was intended to reinforce that. Something went wrong however; Russia didn’t cave in to surrendering another significant portion of its economy to the West. Instead, it embarked on what I have been calling “GMO geopolitics,” and placed bans on the products, began to increase its natural agricultural production, and passed laws undertaking long-term intergenerational studies, the very studies missing in corporate-dominated western regulatory agencies.

But if you think Rappaport’s comments are strong, just consider Mr. Kennedy’s which are, as Mr. Kennedy points out, based on actual investigations of the agency:

“The CDC is a very troubled agency, and it’s not just me saying that. There have been four separate, intensive federal investigations by the United States Congress—a three year investigation, 2001, 2002, 2003, by the United States Senate, Tom Coburn’s committee, by the Inspector General of HHS in 2008, by the Office Integrity in 2014. All of them have painted the CDC as a cesspool of corruption, of an agency that has become an absolute subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry, and that has become a sock puppet, a spokesperson, a shill for the industry.”

“CDC is not an independent agency. It is a vaccine company. CDC owns over twenty vaccine patents. It sells about $4.6 billion of vaccines every year. And its primary metric for success in all the departments in the agency are vaccine sales. The groups, for example the Immunization Safety Office, where the scientists who are supposed to be looking at efficacy and safety in vaccines, they are no longer a public service…agency. They are subsumed in that metric: We have to sell as many of these things as possible. And so they do things to their science to make sure that nothing interferes—no information—interferes with sales. (Emphasis added)

And Mr. Kennedy echoes my own experience with vaccines:

“When I was a boy, I got three vaccines. My children got sixty-nine vaccines. It changed in 1989.”

“Why did it change in 1989?”

“Because in 1986, Congress, [was] drowning in pharmaceutical industry money—pharma puts more money into lobbying than any other industry—Pharmaceutical companies have more lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are Congress people.”

“Do you think oil and gas has big influence in the Capitol? Well, that’s the next biggest. The pharmaceutical industry puts twice into lobbying, double the amount that the oil and gas, and four times what defense and aero space put in. So they control Congress.”

“In 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Act, and there were good reasons for them to pass it. …At that time vaccine companies were being sued and were threatening to stop making vaccines. [Congress] said, okay, we’re going to insulate them from lawsuits. They made it illegal to sue a vaccine company in this country, no matter how reckless the behavior, no matter how negligent, no matter how toxic the product, no matter how grievous the injury to the child, you cannot sue.”

“You know how badly the pharmaceutical industry behaves when they are being sued, when there’s a whole bar of lawyers who spend their whole life looking for ways to sue the pharmaceutical industry and tell these stories to juries, and how many billions every year are won from that industry.”

“What do you think would happen if all of a sudden, all the lawyers disappeared, all the class action suits, all the multi district litigation, all the depositions, all the document searches, the discovery? Just gone. Nobody can sue. You can make anything you want.”
(Emphases added)

You can make anything you want. Let that sink in. This is not Mr. Trump and his right wing populist “deplorables” talking; this is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talking, hardly a right-winger and a populist. You can make anything you want, and not get sued: you can slip in a microchip for tracking (and other) purposes (like a “kill switch”?). You can slip in a “sneeze vaccine” and vaccinate others involuntarily against whatever it is you want to vaccinate against. You can turn children into autism victims thus requiring families to spend even more money on costly drugs from your company over the years. And maybe you could even combine “vaccines” and GMOs and have people eat their “disease prevention.” And all this, let it be noted, with no real long term intergenerational science to…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About 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”.

Trump Sets Off Media Firestorm With Creation of Vaccine Safety Review Panel

vaccine safety panel
Source: Mecola.com
Dr. Mercola
January 24, 2017

Only nine days away from his swearing-in as president, Donald Trump held his first press conference since the election and announced that the pharmaceutical industry was “getting away with murder” and that during his presidency he would do something about high drug prices with more competitive bidding for federal contracts. His remarks sent drug stocks into a sudden nosedive.1

As noted by Brad Loncar, manager of Loncar Cancer Immunotherapy ETF: “When somebody that high-profile says something that negative, people do not want to invest in it.” According to Reuters:2

“Trump’s campaign platform included allowing the Medicare healthcare program to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, which the law currently prohibits.

He has also discussed making it easier to import drugs at cheaper prices. ‘We are going to start bidding. We are going to save billions of dollars over time,’ Trump said.”

Trump’s comments came only one day after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told reporters that Trump had asked him to “chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity.”

Although the Trump transition team quickly denied that any decision had been made on such a commission, shockwaves reverberated throughout the drug industry in speculation as to what impact this commission, if formed, might have on vaccine uptake and sales.3

Robert Kennedy and Media Coverage of a Possible New Vaccine Safety Commission

Although Trump himself has not made a public statement, if you had any doubts whatsoever that conventional media is following an industry-created script, look no further than the incredibly biased coverage of Kennedy’s reported appointment.

A vast majority of the articles written are so blatantly slanted and unbalanced, it is hard to understand why self-respecting professional journalists would ever want their names associated with them. Repeatedly, such articles claim the science on vaccines is settled and vaccines are safe.4 Period.

The New York Times — which recently promised to rededicate itself “to the fundamental mission of Times journalism … to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives”5 — wrote a remarkably biased article about Kennedy’s appointment, saying:6

“Mr. Trump … asked a prominent anti-vaccine crusader to lead a new government commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, ushering debunked conspiracy theories about the dangers of immunization into the White House …

Among his many political pursuits, Mr. Trump picked up the anti-vaccine cause a few years back. In 2012, he tweeted … ‘A study says @autism is out of control — a 78 percent increase in 10 years. Stop giving monstrous combined vaccinations.’ These views, to say the least, are not the scientific consensus …”

So, The New York Times, supposedly newly rededicated to impartial reflection on all sides of the issue, simply decides there’s a consensus among all scientists and makes no attempt to address a single argument made by those who provide substantial evidence that there are big gaps in vaccine safety science.

That’s hardly upholding journalistic integrity. Yet, this is what we’re seeing everywhere in news reporting by conventional media dominated by corporate interests these days.

Is Vaccine Safety as Established a Fact as Gravity?

There are no long-term studies comparing differences in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

The pharmaceutical and medical trade industries claim a vaccine’s benefits always outweigh the potential harms, but no solid scientific evidence is provided to back up such claims. It’s really little more than opinion.

The government and pharmaceutical industries say it would be unethical to study vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, as the unvaccinated children would be put at risk. Yet more and more parents are having first-hand experience with adverse reactions, and choosing to opt-out of the government vaccine schedule.

Ask a parent of a child who died or suffered permanent brain damage after vaccination and I’m sure you’ll get a very different response. Curiously, anyone who dares to question the quality and quantity of vaccine studies is immediately branded anti-science and a medical heretic.

In response to Kennedy’s announcement that Trump had asked him to head up a commission on vaccine safety, Dr. David Kimberlin, co-director of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said:7

“We don’t have to keep asking if gravity is real. We don’t have to keep asking if clean water is a good thing. Yes it is. Vaccines are good things. They save lives.”

According to Kimberlin, “The science proving the safety of vaccination is settled and does not need to be investigated again.” But if it’s settled, where are the studies?

Where’s the research showing that 50 doses of 14 vaccines administered to children in combination and repeatedly in the first six years of life equals long-term health and results in few, if any, problems? What are the multi-generational effects to the immune system with so many vaccine doses?

The sad fact is the often repeated mantra that vaccines are absolutely safe and that there is nothing to worry about is a case of thinking that if a falsehood is repeated over and over again, and long enough, people will believe it’s true.

Why are vaccine proponents so terrified of an honest vaccine safety review? This in and of itself raises serious questions.

Another fact that should give everyone pause is the witch hunt unleashed on anyone who dares to question the never-proven-hypothesis that vaccines are so unequivocally safe and beneficial for everyone that everyone should be forced, by law, to get vaccinated with every government-recommended vaccine.

Cleveland Clinic Doctor Faces Disciplinary Action for Stating the Obvious

One of the latest victims of such a witch hunt is Cleveland Clinic physician Daniel Neides, director of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute. Neides writes a monthly column for cleveland.com, a publication that is part of the Sun News organization, which also publishes the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

In his January 6 column,8 Neides expressed his concerns about the ever-growing toxic burden humans face and his disappointing experience with the annual flu shot, which left him bedridden for two days. He also touched on the potential vaccine-autism link, saying:

“Why do I mention autism now twice in this article. Because we have to wake up out of our trance and stop following bad advice. Does the vaccine burden — as has been debated for years — cause autism? I don’t know and will not debate that here.

What I will stand up and scream is that newborns without intact immune systems and detoxification systems are being over-burdened with PRESERVATIVES AND ADJUVANTS IN THE VACCINES.

The adjuvants, like aluminum — used to stimulate the immune system to create antibodies — can be incredibly harmful to the developing nervous system.

Some of the vaccines have helped reduce the incidence of childhood communicable diseases, like meningitis and pneumonia. That is great news. But not at the expense of neurologic diseases like autism and ADHD increasing at alarming rates.”

His comments ignited a media fire storm and prompted the Cleveland Clinic to issue a statement saying Neides would face disciplinary action for his comments.9

The column was briefly removed from the cleveland.com site, but mysteriously reappeared and became accessible again after Neides retracted his statements and apologized for what his physician colleagues and the media are characterizing as an anti-vaccine “rant.”

If a prominent, well-respected physician cannot state the obvious without facing potentially career-ending consequences, what hope do we have of ever getting at the truth? WHY is open dialogue about vaccination not permitted?

It’s simply not reasonable to shut every discussion down with the old “the science is settled” claim, while the scientific literature is still littered with outstanding questions.

Coincidence Claims Falter as Vaccine Damage Becomes More Common

On January 11, a group of concerned parents rallied at the State Capitol in Mississippi in the hopes of having their voices heard in the vaccine debate.10 One of those parents was Dr. Scott Guidry, whose son developed autism spectrum symptoms following some of his childhood vaccinations. Guidry told WJTV:

“My son was vaccine-injured, and we reversed the vaccine injury, and now he’s recovered from autism. I’m not against vaccines. I learned the same importance of vaccines like every other physician who went to med school did. I know. But it’s never really been studied, the safety of vaccines. There’s never been a long-term safety study on vaccines.”

According to this news report, Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates, as well as the highest infant mortality rate in the country.11 Coincidence? No one knows, but in the absence of firm proof either way, many parents are renewing their call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given.

The same scenario is playing out in other states across the nation. The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing.

It has become so common that a majority of people now have a family member or know someone who has been adversely affected by one or more vaccines. Eventually, this first-hand experience with vaccine reactions will come to include most physicians and politicians, as well.

At a certain point, the coincidence-theory simply cannot hold water any longer, and that’s what we’re starting to see now. Very often, people don’t care enough to get involved in the discussion until it’s personal and, in recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of influential people speaking up and describing their personal experiences with vaccine reactions in the public forum.

Robert De Niro is the latest example of a well-known celebrity parent, who has gone on the public record questioning vaccine safety and the reported link between vaccines and autism. Not surprisingly, like everyone who raises questions about vaccine safety, he has been attacked by the media as being uninformed and promoting dangerous ideas.

Rick Rollens, former secretary of the California State Senate, and retired Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are two examples of individuals who worked for government and publicly shared their personal experiences with vaccination and autism. They were strongly criticized for speaking out as they attempted to open up discussions about vaccine safety. Absolutely no one is above ridicule should they dare question the safety of vaccines.

Paul ‘For Profit’ Offit’s at It Again

Wherever discussion about vaccine safety is covered by the media, Dr. Paul Offit is there in the middle of it. A vaccine developer for Merck and author of several books attempting to marginalize vaccine safety critics, Offit has become the “go-to” doctor whenever corporatized conventional media wants a spokesperson to deny vaccine risks and defend “vaccine safety.”

Rarely, if ever, does media note his deep ties to the vaccine industry, and the fact that he stands to profit personally from maintaining the illusion that vaccines are absolutely safe for everyone all the time, which also protects the status quo for industry profitmaking.

The Daily Beast recently ran an article12 penned by Offit, in which he says “Trump needs vaccine experts, not conspiracy theorists.” How do you know a propagandist when you see one? For starters, they’re extremely fond of throwing around derogatory and humiliating terms like “conspiracy theorists,” “hacks” and “quacks,” in lieu of making a solid argument.

Offit has earned tens of millions of dollars in royalties from the Rotateq vaccine, and has notoriously stated that infants can tolerate 10,000 vaccine doses at once without ill effect. He’s also been caught making unsubstantiated and false statements about former CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, and lying to the OC Register about providing CBS News with the details of his financial relationship with the vaccine maker Merck.13

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), sued Offit for defamation in 2009, along with reporter Amy Wallace and publisher Conde Nast. “She lies,” Offit was quoted as stating “flatly” about Fisher in Wired magazine. However, no evidence supporting his accusation was provided and Fisher was never asked by the reporter for a comment on Offit’s baseless allegation.

Fisher sued in the Fourth Circuit federal court in Virginia for a jury trial and $1 million in damages, but Judge Claude Hilton dismissed the defamation lawsuit. Hilton’s primary argument for dismissal was that both Fisher and Offit are public figures and that, in his opinion, Offit’s allegation that “she lies” was made in a moment of emotional exasperation and the heat of spirited public debate, which is the hallmark of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

It is interesting how the free speech argument was used to dismiss a clear-cut case of defamation. The big question today is: Will the First Amendment protect Neides or anyone else in the U.S. who dares to publicly criticize the safety or effectiveness of vaccines?

In Absence of Reliable Injury Reporting, How Can Safety Be Ascertained?

In 2015, media reports noted that a “study” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had confirmed that vaccines rarely ever cause serious reactions. The study in question used CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, concluding there were only 33 “confirmed vaccine-triggered anaphylaxis cases” among the 25,173,965 vaccine doses administered between January 2009 and December 2011.14

However, there’s a significant problem with using this study to “prove” safety, as…

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com

 

Medical Fake News Is The Mt. Everest Of Fake News

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 24, 2017

Deep medical fraud and the destruction of health: this was the subject that prompted me to exit the news business.

As I probed deeper into that swamp, I found editors running away from my story-pitches. They didn’t want to go there. It was too scary. Too threatening to the status of their newspapers and magazines.

Lesson learned in the late 1980s: if you want to go deep, go independent.

I never looked back.

Here are three examples of going deep:

ONE: Proponents claim a vaccine stimulates a person’s immune system to produce antibodies, which are immune-system scouts.

This is supposedly a rehearsal. The immune system gets a chance to respond to a “test run,” so that when the real disease hits, the immune-defense will be ready and will knock out the disease quickly.

Except there are many diagnostic tests for disease that look for antibodies, and if antibodies show up, the doctor tells the patient he has the disease.

It’s absurd.

Antibodies from a vaccine=immunity. Same antibodies produced by the body in response to a germ entering the body=illness.

On top of this insanity, antibodies are only one component of a very complex immune system. The production of antibodies doesn’t guarantee a person’s whole immune system is in good shape.

In 1987, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I queried the FDA about the development of an HIV vaccine. Here is what I was told: if a vaccine was ever deployed, it would produce antibodies to HIV and the person would be given a letter to carry around with him in case he was ever tested for HIV.

The letter would say, this person is immune from HIV. The antibodies are an indication of immunity, not disease.

You see, the two standard diagnostic tests for HIV were the Elisa and the Western Blot. They both tested for antibodies. If a person tested positive, he was told he had AIDS.

But if the SAME antibodies were produced by the vaccine, he’d be designated immune from AIDS.

And it’s instructive. You find out where the boundaries are. You learn, in your gut, how shallow and fear-ridden the mainstream news business is, behind its pompous front.

You discover what “going independent” really means. That’s very important. Because if you’re going to leave the fold, your commitment to what you’re writing has to become relentless.

Fortunately, I discovered “relentless” was right up my alley.

It makes a cloudy day turn sunny.

Since those days when I made my exit, I’ve watched many reporters I know stop being reporters. Some of them went into real estate. Some started selling cars. Some became teachers at prep schools. Some landed jobs with partisan think-tanks and foundations.

And some are still around, turning out fake news like pancakes at a diner. Their faces are gray. They’re standing over their griddles like robots.

In off-the-cuff conversations, I told them they were making a mistake. They didn’t want to listen. I told them how vastly bored they would become.

They said it wasn’t a problem.

But it is a problem. Especially when the truth is the first casualty.

It always is the first casualty, in the news biz.

No, that couldn’t be.

Yes, it could be and was.

TWO: Obamacare is about control, so it’s an answer to the prayers of the medical cartel.

So what do we know about their mainstream medicine, the hospital-based drug-addled modern version?

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a landmark review by Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), “Is US health really the best in the world?” In it, Starfield revealed what many people inside the medical establishment already knew: every year, like clockwork, the medical system was killing huge numbers of people.

Each year in the US, as Dr. Starfield reported, there are:

12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. (a conservative estimate)

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer.

In the wake of Starfield’s devastating report, other facts came to light: 2.1 million people in America, every year, are hospitalized as a result of reactions to FDA-approved medicines. Annually, 36 million serious adverse reactions to those drugs occur.

So, inclusive health coverage for many more Americans under the Obama Plan means these horrendous figures will rise.

This is the dirty secret.

Obama and his allies are promoting a medical system that is the third leading cause of death in America. It’s that stark and it’s that simple.

THREE: The gold standard test for disease diagnosis is called the PCR.

Example: ABC New York reports (in “Mount Sinai patient likely does not have Ebola, health official says”):“Testing for Ebola is done at the CDC. According to a CDC spokesperson testing for Ebola takes 1-2 days after they receive the samples. The primary testing is PCR. This is performed on blood that has been treated to kill and live virus [sic]. So far CDC has tested samples from around 6 people who had symptoms consistent with Ebola and a travel history to the affected region.”

But the PCR test is completely unreliable for a disease diagnosis. Why? Two reasons. First, technicians start with a tiny, tiny sample of genetic material from the patient. This sample is supposed to be part of a virus. It may or may not be. Mistakes can be made. Obviously, the techs want the sample to be viral in nature; otherwise, the diagnostic test will be complete bust.

But more importantly, the whole rationale for PCR is wrongheaded. Doctors and researchers only find a miniscule bit of hopefully relevant material in the patient to begin with. The PCR amplifies that bit many times so it can be observed. That’s the whole rationale behind the PCR.

But to consider the possibility that a virus is causing a disease in a patient, there must be huge numbers of that virus working actively in his body.

The PCR never establishes that.

Finding a tiny, tiny trace of viral material in a patient says absolutely nothing about whether he is ill, has been ill, or will become ill.

The PCR test is an irrelevant bust and a lie.

—Those are just three examples, out of many, where “going deep” gets you a strange stare and glare from medical editors at newspapers and magazines.

They run away. They disappear. They huff and puff and turn red in the face. They do whatever they can to let you know you’re no longer welcome in their presence.

It’s fun. I used to enjoy pitching stories like these to the guardians on the watchtower of truth. Their various reactions were priceless. I used to call it “watching the egg crack.”

And it’s instructive. You find out where the boundaries are. You learn, in your gut, how shallow and fear-ridden the mainstream news business is, behind its pompous front.

You discover what “going independent” really means. That’s very important. Because if you’re going to leave the fold, your commitment to what you’re writing has to become relentless.

Fortunately, I discovered “relentless” was right up my alley.

It makes a cloudy day turn sunny.

Since those days when I made my exit, I’ve watched many reporters I know stop being reporters. Some of them went into real estate. Some started selling cars. Some became teachers at prep schools. Some landed jobs with partisan think-tanks and foundations.

And some are still around, turning out fake news like pancakes at a diner. Their faces are gray. They’re standing over their griddles like robots.

In off-the-cuff conversations, I told them they were making a mistake. They didn’t want to listen. I told them how vastly bored they would become.

They said it wasn’t a problem.

But it is a problem. Especially when the truth is the first casualty.

It always is the first casualty, in the news biz.

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.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: CDC An “Edifice Of Fraud”

duplicity
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 16, 2017

Robert Kennedy, Jr. “All the things that I do are bent on forcing this [vaccine] debate out into the open—because once the science is in the open, the CDC’s position is so fragile, it’s an edifice of fraud, fraud stacked upon fraud, so high and so wobbly, that even a slight breeze of public scrutiny will topple it.”

Kennedy states that President Trump has appointed him to head up a task force investigating vaccine safety. The above quote indicates Kennedy, would, if given the green light, probe much more than the use of mercury in vaccines—his main topic of interest thus far.

This would be a very good thing. The CDC is most certainly an edifice of fraud. It has concealed many of its crimes over the years.

If he hasn’t already, Kennedy should make contact with an anonymous group of scientists at the CDC who call themselves Spider. They have written a letter to the CDC chief of staff accusing the agency of widespread “unethical practices…influenced and shaped by outside parties…[that] threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

In my recent open letter to Spider, I presented three shocking areas of fraud at the CDC that they should expose:

Swine Flu, a dud and phony “epidemic,” presented as a dire global threat requiring vaccination;

A structural conflict of interest, in which the CDC buys billions of dollars of vaccines and, at the same time, carries out many studies assessing vaccine safety—with this much money on the line, the Agency would never, under any circumstances, admit vaccines are dangerous;

A massive overestimation of annual flu deaths in the US, in order to push the necessity of the flu vaccine.

In this second memo, I present two more shocking areas which should receive the immediate attention of the dissident Spider scientists at the CDC, and Mr. Kennedy:

ONE: THE CASE OF JULIE GERBERDING.

On August 27, 2014, CDC scientist William Thompson came out of the shadows and revealed that he had participated in a major scientific fraud:

Ten years earlier, he and his co-authors had published a study claiming there was no MMR-vaccine connection to autism. They had omitted vital data which contradicted that finding.

The MMR vaccine was increasing the risk of autism. Thompson knew it. So did his co-authors. They buried that chilling fact.

Before their fake study was published, Thompson wrote to the head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, informing her that, at an upcoming conference, he would be “presenting the summary of our results from the Metropolitan Atlanta Autism Case-Control Study [and]…I will have to present several problematic results relating to statistical associations between the receipt of MMR vaccine and autism.”

In other words, Thompson was ready to blow the whistle on the MMR vaccine-autism connection. He received no reply from CDC Director Gerberding, and his presentation at the conference was canceled.

Fast forward: in 2009, Gerberding left the CDC.

She eventually went to work as the president of the vaccine division at Merck.

Merck. Manufactures. The. MMR. Vaccine.

Get it?

TWO: OVERWHELMINGLY, FLU IS NOT FLU. THEREFORE, EVEN PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLU VACCINE ARE BEING DECEIVED.

Peter Doshi, PhD, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off. The CDC is supposed to be doing an accurate count of case numbers of diseases in the US. They’re lying and covering up the facts.

—Those of you in the Spider group of rebel scientists at the CDC, get busy. There are many more instances of massive corruption at your Agency. Dig in. Don’t let the American people down.

Go all the way.

You, too, Mr. Kennedy.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

CDC “Spider” Scientists Attack The CDC, Blow The Lid Off

corruption3
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 15, 2017

There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control—they call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here). He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism—when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed (trailer).

Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.

If, in fact, President-elect Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.

Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply: “I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”

You can read the full Spider Group’s letter here at US Right To Know. (More on the letter by Carey Gillam here.)

And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.

Dear Spider Group:

I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.

ONE: SWINE FLU FRAUD.

Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

TWO: THE CDC BUYS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF VACCINES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, HEADS UP RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF VACCINES. EXPLOSIVE STRUCTURAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation that exists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

“The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.

THREE: MASSIVE OVERESTIMATE OF FLU DEATHS IN THE US, IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FLU VACCINE.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the American people you’re sworn to serve.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The Latest Gimmick – Transmittable Vaccines


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 22, 2016

Most readers of this website are acutely aware of the dangers of vaccines, and particularly of the vaccine cocktails now being given, and in some cases, mandated for infants and small children, when just a few years ago, doctors hesitated to do this, knowing that that the immune system of children could suffer as a result. There have been other stories lately of the dangers of vaccines, some coupling them – in my opinion unmistakably – to the rise in autism, and in a more recent story, to the strange appearance of polio-like symptoms in some children. Then we have the usual autumnal flu scares – swine flu, SARS, bird flu – and the push for everyone to go “get your flu shot.” Add to all of this the nearly constant bombardment of this state or that state – think only of always wacky and one-party-state California – mandating vaccines. At best, they have a checkered history: no one doubts Jenner’s success with small pox, the history of the Salk vs Sabin polio vaccine is yet another story of both failure and success. Now, however, it seems they’re inventing vaccines faster than there are diseases being discovered to vaccinate against.

In other words, it’s vaccination for vaccination’s sake, and that simply means, its vaccination for the sake of ongoing profits for Big Pharma, whether or not there is a real disease threat, and whether or not there is reasonable testing and science behind them. Just think of the GMO issue, and the revolving door of personnel flowing back and forth between I.G Farbensanto and the supposedly “independent” and “unbiased” Food and Drug (Mis)Administration.

All of this, of course, has spawned a focus on the issues of whole health, alternative and preventive medicine,  health freedom, and the mercantilist policies of a run-amok government doing nothing but kowtowing to this or that corporate interest. The result, of course, has been a focus in the free and alternative media on vaccines, while globalist corporate media continues to run commercials from Big Pharma about the newest wonder drug that can cure everything from male penile dyslexia to female mammary disperkia, and restore your clear white smile and end male (or female) pattern baldness, restore natural hair growth, and end toenail fungus, all at the same time! Aren’t drugs wonderful? Particularly the expensive kind you have to get from your doctor. You all know the commercials I’m talking about; they’re the ones that begin with slow soothing music of attractive women bounding through flower strewn fields in slow motion, holding the hands of their presumptive lover (who now has a clear white smile and no longer suffers from the previous maladies), and end with thirty seconds of legalese, caveats, exceptions, and wherefores, read in a rapid  auctioneer staccato blitz, warning you of a host of side effects, up to and usually including stroke, dementia, heart attack, or death from other side effects including suicide in a certain narrow percentage of the population. Consult with your physician, &c &c.

The backlash has of course been health freedom, and a healthy skepticism in the free and independent media about all these newest wonder drugs and vaccines which many in government want to force everyone to take. Well, the scientists at I.G. Pharmasanto (a sister company to I.G. Farbensanto, with many shared and interlocking personnel on their boards of directors) may now have found away around the whole problem of persuading various states, provinces, federal governments, or their corrupt bureaucracies, to force people to take vaccines: enter the “transmissible vaccine,” and this article shared by Mr. A:

New Transmissible Vaccine Spreads Like Virus, No Consent Necessary

How devilishly clever of I.G. Pharmasanto to come up with this idea:

As governments move forward in their attempts to force their citizens into vaccination, whether they want it or not, researchers are now moving forward with what may become the future of forced vaccination – transmissible vaccines.

This is an area of research that scientists have been interested in for quite some time but that is only now becoming feasible.

The idea behind these vaccines are that they would themselves be infectious, passing along the vaccine from one person to another as if it were a virus.

Thus, it would be possible to vaccinate a small number of people manually, but as a result of the vaccine’s self-transmission, actually vaccinate a very high number of people.

And, oh yea, let’s not forget, they discovered this wondrous possibility in the way that – you guessed it – those  polio vaccines spread, via such transmission, in the 1960s to parts of the population that weren’t vaccinated:

But transmissible vaccines pose a special risk, essentially, they could become a virus themselves and spread rapidly amongst the population that was vaccinated. This has already happened with the oral polio vaccine and both the 1960s and the 2000s, but with a transmissible vaccine, the danger of spread of a disease would become even more dangerous since spread and transmission are what the vaccines are designed to do.

Now, reading a bit between the lines here, as diseases themselves mutate and are able to become stronger and override the triggered immuno-response to a disease that vaccines are designed to trigger(wow, talk about circular, but that’s the “mind” of I.G. Pharmasanto), what the transmissible vaccine may end up doing is to provide an environment which compels the disease to adapt and become strong enough to overcome those immune systems which the vaccine triggers! What a cash cow! This one can be milked to death!

Did You Read:  PENTAGRAM WANTS REUSABLE SPACE PLANE AT TOP OF BUDGET

Now, we’ve heard all of this before, but here comes the kicker, and see if this doesn’t remind you of the arguments we all heard about Frankenfoods, i.e., about GMOs:

Scott Nuismer, a Professor of Biological Sciences and Mathematics at the University of Idaho and co-author of a study on transmissible vaccines published this year in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, stated,

Obviously this is a controversial and potentially risky endeavor, so we wanted to figure out, is the potential benefit actually worth the risk?(Emphasis in the original)

Why, of course it’s worth the risk… we can all hear the death-rattle of scientific experts even now muting their minds, and accepting those big government and/or corporate grants to churn out studies designed to reassure the public that there’s no danger here, nothing to see, nothing to fear, move along. We’re the government, and we’re here to help you.

Stop and think about this: you could be inoculated against a whole panoply of diseases (real or otherwise) whether you like it or not, by…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About 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”.