The improved
measles vaccine rolled out in Africa in 1989 was found to double
mortality from other diseases in girls. The diphtheria, tetanus and
pertussis vaccine (DTP) was found to have the same disastrous effect,
doubling mortality among children under the age of 5, and girls were
again more likely to die
Inactivated
(non-live) vaccines — the DTP, pentavalent vaccine, inactivated polio
vaccine, H1N1 influenza vaccine and the hepatitis B vaccine — all
increased all-cause mortality, especially among girls, even when they
offered a high degree of protection against the target disease
GlaxoSmithKline’s
antimalarial vaccine Mosquirix, which appears to offer 18% to 36.3%
protection against malaria depending on the age group, was found to
increase all-cause mortality by 24%
In Phase 3
trials, Mosquirix increased the risk of meningitis 10fold, as well as
the risk for cerebral malaria, and doubled female all-cause mortality
According to
bioethicists, the World Health Organization’s malaria vaccine study
breaches international ethical standards as they are testing vaccine
safety in clinical trials without first obtaining informed consent from
parents of child participants in Malawi, Ghana and Kenya
The December 27, 2019, Science News DK article,1
“Vaccines — An Unresolved Story in Many Ways,” touches on one of the
crucial talking points of vaccine safety and informed consent
advocates, which is the intentional cover-up of real-world vaccine
injuries and deaths.
While the vaccine industry and most public health organizations
insist vaccines are universally safe and effective and that the science
on this “is settled,” much of the actual data tells a very different
story.
‘Vaccination Opponents Are Justified in Being Concerned’
The problem is, most people never see that data, much less take the
time to interpret it and, thus, the lie, through simple repetition,
becomes “established fact.” As noted in the Science News DK article:
“For 40 years, Danish researchers … have shown that vaccines
against everything from polio and smallpox to malaria and tuberculosis
have both beneficial and harmful health effects that are unrelated to
the diseases the vaccines protect against.
Now these researchers have put the research into a historical
perspective that they hope can help make the world’s health authorities
realize that the relationship between vaccines and disease is not
always simple.
In fact, their research shows that some vaccines protect against
completely different diseases than those for which they are designed.
Unfortunately, other vaccines are associated with excess mortality from
unrelated diseases …
‘What do researchers do when they discover that vaccination
opponents are justified in being concerned? No vaccines have been
studied for their non-specific effects on overall health, and before we
have examined these, we cannot actually determine that the vaccines
are safe.
In addition, our research shows that some vaccines actually
increase overall mortality, especially among girls, and this is very
worrying,’ explains Christine Stabell Benn, Clinical Professor,
University of Southern Denmark, Odense.”
So, where are the headlines declaring the scientific conclusion that
vaccination opponents are justified in their concern? As expected, the
information — published in Clinical Microbiology and Infections2
— has not been well received by health authorities, including the
World Health Organization. It’s been largely ignored wholesale.
This, despite the researchers’ intentional attempt to highlight the
beneficial effects of vaccines in their paper. “Communicating this
message is a little easier,” admits Stabell Benn, one of the authors of
the paper.
The fact, though, is that while there appear to be benefits, there
also appear to be significant drawbacks and risks, and this too needs
to be fully acknowledged, especially in light of the current march
toward medical fascism where people who point out potential problems
are branded as dangerous and threatened with everything from loss of
employment to imprisonment.
Six of 10 Vaccines Investigated Found to Increase Mortality
As reported in “Vaccines — An Unresolved Story in Many Ways,”3
a new high titer measles vaccine rolled out in Africa in 1989 was
found to double mortality from other diseases in girls. At first, the
WHO refused to believe the results. The WHO didn’t withdraw the vaccine
until 1992, after studies in Haiti, Sudan and other countries
confirmed that female young children were dying in higher numbers.
During the 1990s, Stabell Benn and her colleague Peter Aaby
continued studying the effect of many other vaccines on overall
mortality, coming to the shocking conclusion that six of the 10 vaccines
investigated actually INCREASED mortality by rendering children more
susceptible to other lethal diseases.
The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis
(whooping cough) vaccine (DTP) had the same disastrous effect as the
measles vaccine — it doubled mortality among children under the age of
5, and girls were again more likely to die.
Overall, live attenuated vaccines — the older measles vaccine, the bacillus Calmette-Gueri against tuberculosis, oral polio vaccine
and the smallpox vaccine — all seemed to offer nonspecific protection
against deadly diseases, contributing to lowering overall mortality.
Inactivated (non-live) vaccines, on the other hand — the DTP,
pentavalent vaccine, inactivated polio vaccine, H1N1 influenza vaccine
and the hepatitis B vaccine — increased overall mortality, especially
among girls, even when they offered a high degree of protection against
the target disease.
More recently, GlaxoSmithKline’s antimalarial vaccine (RTS, S/AS01
or RTS,S, sold under the brand name Mosquirix), which appears to offer
between 18% to 36.3% protection against malaria depending on the age
group,4 was also found to increase overall mortality.
As reported by “Vaccines — An Unresolved Story in Many Ways,”
“Overall mortality was 24% higher among people who had been vaccinated
against malaria compared with unvaccinated individuals.” Stabell Benn
told Science News DK:5
“A vaccine that protects against malaria that does not reduce
mortality makes no sense. We therefore asked GlaxoSmithKline for access
to the original data and found that the vaccine reduced mortality
among boys by a modest 15% while doubling the overall mortality rate
for girls. This was the sixth non-live vaccine that we associated with
mortality among girls — exactly as we had seen for other non-live
vaccines.”
Advertisement
Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Is Bad Policy
Stabell Benn also admits she “would not voluntarily give my newborn
the hepatitis B vaccine let alone want to be forced to do it,”
considering its hazards. She told Science News DK:6
“Vaccination this early only makes sense if the mother is
chronically infected with hepatitis B, for which there is a test, and
only a few percent have it. So the vast majority of infants who get the
vaccine at birth do not need it, and no one has tested what the vaccine
means for overall morbidity and mortality.
The only study to investigate this is our study, showing the
hepatitis B is associated with higher female than male mortality, which
is a serious danger signal given our results for other non-live
vaccines.”
Scientists Criticize WHO’s Malaria Vaccine Rollout Plan
Despite Stabell Benn and Aabel’s disturbing findings, showing
GlaxoSmithKline’s new antimalarial vaccine doubles mortality among
girls, the WHO went ahead and introduced the vaccine in Malawi, Ghana
and Kenya anyway.
January 24, 2020, Stabell Benn, Aaby and colleagues published a pointed analysis7 in The BMJ, noting that Phase 3 trials of the vaccine have already identified three safety concerns:
Increased risk of meningitis (10 times higher that of unvaccinated individuals8)
Increased risk of cerebral malaria
Doubled female all-cause mortality
The WHO is now planning to decide whether to extend the vaccine to
other African countries, even though it’s only been in use for 24
months. This is problematic, as the initial data tend to provide a
skewed view of the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.
According to Stabell Benn and Aaby, the vaccine appeared to be “more
efficacious in the first year to follow-up in the Phase 3 trials.” The
rise in cerebral malaria and female mortality doesn’t become apparent
until after the booster dose, which is given 20 months after the first
dose.
“We recommend that the pilot studies use ‘overall mortality’ to
assess vaccine performance and that study populations are followed for
the full four to five years of the study before a decision on rollout
is made,” the authors state.9
WHO Study Breaches Ethical Standards
A February 26, 2020, BMJ special report10
by associate editor Peter Doshi brings up yet another malaria
vaccine-related concern — that of informed consent or, rather, the lack
of it. Doshi reports that “WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a
serious breach of international ethical standards,” as there’s an
“apparent lack of informed consent” in the study. He writes:11
“Charles Weijer, a bioethicist at Western University in Canada, told The BMJthat
the failure to obtain informed consent from parents whose children are
taking part in the study violates the Ottawa Statement, a consensus
statement on the ethics of cluster randomized trials … and the Council
for International Organizations of Medical Sciences’ International
Ethical Guidelines …
WHO contends that the study is a ‘pilot introduction’ and not a
‘research activity.’ It says that those children living in areas
randomized to receive the new vaccine will do so as part of each
country’s routine vaccination schedule and that consent is ‘implied’ …
Weijer says that so called implied consent is 'no substitute for
informed consent. Indeed, implied consent is no consent at all. We
have no assurance that parents in fact received information about the
study let alone that they understood it’ …
Christine Stabell Benn … professor in global health and a vaccine expert who recently published concerns about WHO’s study in The BMJ, added her concerns: ‘I think parents should be made aware of this doubled female mortality.
Imagine that this mortality was a true finding (and remember that
it comes on top of five other non-live vaccines being associated with
increased female mortality). If true, then how will this be
perceived by the participants — that their children were unknowingly
involved in a huge experiment by the authorities? This could be a
disaster for public trust in vaccines and health authorities.’”
WHO training materials shared with The BMJ do not mention the
doubled risk of death among girls, Doshi points out. It’s also unclear
whether the WHO’s Research Ethics Review Committee has formally waived
the informed consent requirement, and WHO did not answer the question
directly.
McGill bioethicist Jonathan Kimmelman told Doshi that human subjects
in research trials must provide informed consent, and that since the
Malaria Vaccine Evaluation Programme in Malawi, Ghana and Kenya has been
registered in clinicaltrials.gov,12 they are clearly being conducted as research, and thus must conform to “all sorts of rules and oversight mechanisms.”
WHO Aids and Abets Vaccine Injury Cover-Up
The WHO has also come under fire for changes that make it even
easier than before for vaccine makers and researchers to hide adverse
events. The 2018 paper, “Revised World Health Organization’s Causality
Assessment of Adverse Events Following Immunization — A Critique,”
makes a number of salient points:13
“The … WHO has recently revised how adverse events after
immunization (AEFI) are classified. Only reactions that have previously
been acknowledged in epidemiological studies to be caused by the
vaccine are classified as a vaccine-product–related-reaction.
Deaths observed during post-marketing surveillance are not
considered as ‘consistent with causal association with vaccine’, if
there was no statistically significant increase in deaths recorded
during the small Phase 3 trials that preceded it. Of course, vaccines
noted to have caused a significant increase in deaths in the
control-trials stage would probably not be licensed.
After licensure, deaths and all new serious adverse reactions
are labelled as ‘coincidental deaths/events’ or ‘unclassifiable’, and
the association with vaccine is not acknowledged. The resulting paradox
is evident.
The definition of causal association has also been changed. It
is now used only if there is ‘no other factor intervening in the
processes’. Therefore, if a child with an underlying congenital heart
disease (other factor), develops fever and cardiac decompensation after
vaccination, the cardiac failure would not be considered causally
related to the vaccine.
The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has documented
many deaths in children with pre-existing heart disease after they were
administered the pentavalent vaccine. The WHO now advises precautions
when vaccinating such children. This has reduced the risk of death.
Using the new definition of causal association, this
relationship would not be acknowledged and lives would be put at risk.
In view of the above, it is necessary that the AEFI manual be
revaluated and revised urgently. AEFI reporting is said to be for
vaccine safety. Child safety (safety of children) rather than vaccine
safety (safety for vaccines) needs to be the emphasis.”
Bribery, illegal kick-backs, and defrauding Medicare, Medicaid and even the FDA
Immoral threat and intimidation tactics
(recall Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be "neutralized"
or discredited for criticizing the lethally dangerous painkiller
Vioxx)
Merck’s Fraudulent HPV Vaccine Science
More recently, the Children’s Health Defense, chaired by Robert F.
Kennedy, has exposed Merck’s fraudulent HPV vaccine science. Kennedy
says the fraud Merck committed in its safety testing is (a) testing Gardasil
against a neurotoxic placebo, and (b) hiding a 2.3% incidence of
autoimmune disease occurring within seven months of vaccination.
On average, 1 in 43,478 women will die from cervical cancer. If 2.3%
of girls develop an autoimmune disease from Gardasil, then that
translates into 1,000 per 43,500. Even if a 1 in 43,478 chance of dying
from cancer is eliminated (which there is absolutely no proof of14),
girls and young women trade that risk elimination for a much larger 1
in 43 chance of getting an autoimmune disease from the vaccine.
Kennedy also describes another trick used by Merck to skew results:
exclusion criteria. By selecting trial participants that do not reflect
the general population, they mask potentially injurious effects on
vulnerable subgroups.
For example, individuals with severe allergies and prior genital
infections were excluded, as were those who’d had more than four sex
partners, those with a history of immunological or nervous system
disorders, chronic illnesses, seizure disorders, other medical
conditions, reactions to vaccine ingredients such as aluminum, yeast
and benzonase, and anyone with a history of drug or alcohol abuse.
Despite these deceptions, Merck’s own trial data still reveal
Gardasil increases the overall risk of death by 370% and the risk of a
serious medical condition by 50%.
Since its U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 2006,15
Gardasil has raised a firestorm of controversy, as young, healthy girls
(and boys) have been permanently injured and died after receiving it.
In January 2020, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
published16
a critique of Merck’s clinical trials for Gardasil, stating they were
never designed to detect whether HPV vaccination actually prevents
cervical cancer.
Disturbingly, Merck’s trial data even shows Gardasil may actually
increase the risk of cervical cancer if given after HPV infection.17
If you have been exposed to HPV strains 16 or 18 prior to vaccination,
you may increase your risk of precancerous lesions caused by these two
strains by 44.6%.
In January 2020, Cancer Research UK announced the cervical cancer
rate among 24- to 29-year-olds (the first generation to receive the HPV
vaccine) has skyrocketed by 54%.18,19,20 Similarly, a 2019 study21 found the cervical cancer rates in Alabama are highest in counties with the highest HPV vaccination rate.
Gardasil Trial Design Prevents Safety Assessment
A 2012 systematic review22
of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine also concluded
that the vaccine’s effectiveness is both overstated and unproven.
According to the authors, the review revealed:
“… evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical
trials ... Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines
long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions
(or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant
misinterpretation of available data …
Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety
profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and
is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance
databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to
serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).”
A December 2017 Slate magazine article detailed yet other ways in which Gardasil trials were intentionally hiding safety risks.
The public has been told HPV vaccines marketed in the U.S. have been
tested on tens of thousands of individuals around the world, without any
compelling evidence of serious side effects having emerged.
In fact, those studies were designed in such a way that makes
detecting and evaluating serious side effects essentially impossible.
One of the most egregious examples of this is the recording of serious
side effects as “medical history” rather than vaccine adverse events.
When adverse events following vaccination are marked down as
“medical history” instead of being tagged and investigated as potential
side effects, is it any wonder “no side effects have been found” in
any of these trials!?
Actually, even that statement is a gross misstatement of facts, as
at least one Gardasil trial of the new nine-valent vaccine reported
9.7% of subjects who received the vaccine suffered “severe systemic
adverse events” affecting multiple organ systems within 15 days of
vaccination, and 3.3% reported “severe vaccine-related adverse events.”23
Facebook Removes Memorial to Child Killed by Vaccines
As discussed in several previous articles, Google and most major internet platforms are now actively censoring vaccine safety news,
preventing the sharing of information that questions vaccine safety or
highlights the dangers associated with routine immunizations. They’re
even blocking first-hand testimony of vaccine harms.
That’s precisely what happened to Nick Catone, a former professional
mixed martial arts fighter, who blames the DTaP vaccine for the death
of his 20-month-old son. His son, Nicholas, died just 17 days after
vaccination.24
In the wake of Nicholas’ death, Catone took to Facebook, creating an
online memorial where he shared and processed his grief daily.
February 25, 2020, Facebook permanently removed his account without
warning, which included not only Nicholas’ memorial page, but also
Catone’s business and fan pages.
“One of our main priorities is the comfort and safety of the people
who use Facebook, and we don’t allow credible threats of harm to
others, support for violent organizations or exceedingly graphic
content on Facebook,” the Facebook notification reads,25
suggesting Catone’s account was permanently closed on the grounds that
he was spreading dangerous anti-vaccine propaganda that might hurt
public health. February 26, 2020, Catone posted the following note to
Instagram:26
“For 33 months every single day I have been writing to Nicholas
on Facebook & IG since he has passed. It’s been my way of
expressing my feelings and trying to go on day after day with him gone.
As of yesterday Facebook has taken that away from me and probably only
matter of time until they take IG away.
All of my posts and pictures of him every day gone … People say
just start a new page. They don’t understand what the last 33 months
without their child feels like. Hundreds of hours pouring my heart out
writing to him day after day wishing he was here with his family.
Those posts have been a way for me to keep moving forward each
day and also a way for me to keep my son’s memory alive. I can’t get
those posts back now just like I can’t get back my son. I’m hoping
someone can help me get my old pages back soon. I need to find a way.
Some things just can’t be replaced.”
Clearly, Catone has cause to be suspicious. A perfectly healthy
child doesn’t just die for no reason, and classifying injuries and
deaths shortly after immunization as “coincidental” simply doesn’t
confer trust.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The public’s growing
distrust of vaccines is not due to ignorant people crying wolf over
things they don’t understand. It’s driven by an ever-growing number of
parents who have lost their children or watched them regress into
chronic poor health after being told vaccines are perfectly safe and
essential — a “promise” based on falsified or shoddily constructed
studies designed to hide rather than reveal safety problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment