Vaccine madness

General healthcare discussion, and Obamacare news.
Please note that specific help and support for Gregory Allan's book "How to Survive Hospital Costs Without Insurance" must be directed to the private Forum used for that purpose.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Chickenpox vaccine causes shingles epidemic?

Post by Firestarter » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:00 pm

I think I almost get it now...
Dr. Goldman concluded on the approval of chickenpox vaccines:
... a combination of financial conflicts of interests, lack of proper controls, and poor methodology in varicella studies commissioned by the CDC often yielded improper or confounded results and conclusions— producing research based on pseudoscience that should more appropriately be relegated to a faith-based belief system rather than the realm of science.

A couple of days ago, it was reported that 18 people have filed a lawsuit against Merck, because allegedly its Zostavax shingles vaccine causes shingles: “Merck knew or should have known that its product caused viral infection and was therefore not safe”.

At least 80 deaths associated with the Zostavax vaccine were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), along with over 100,000 reports of other adverse side effects. Only a portion of all adverse effects are reported in VAERS.

According to Dr. Robert Scott Bell the vaccine fails because: “it’s not facilitating natural antibody production”.
Bell thinks: “on some level, it’s by design” and vaccines are one of many medical weapons of the “disease creation machinery”: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-08-28- ... njury.html#

Once again Naturalnews.com leaves out the best information…


Natural chickenpox (varicella) infection in most children (99.9% of healthy children) is a mild disease and results in long-lasting immunity.
In 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approved Merck's chickenpox vaccine Varivax. The varicella vaccine’s protection is only temporary, leaving vaccinated individuals vulnerable to infection at an older age when chickenpox is more serious.
In 2000, the CDC reported that between March 1995 and July 1998, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had received 67.5 adverse event reports per 100,000 doses (1 in 1,481), including bacterial infections (cellulites), transverse myelitis, Guillain Barre syndrome and herpes zoster (shingles).

Gary S. Goldman, served from 1995 until his resignation in 2002 as a researcher for the Varicella Active Surveillance Project in a cooperative project with the CDC. Goldman resigned after he was prevented from publishing his findings about the expected negative impacts of massive vaccination of children with the varicella zoster vaccines.
Goldman predicted that widespread chickenpox vaccination would lead to a loss of natural immunity and a spike create a shingles epidemic among adults and warned of a "50-year shingles epidemic":
the universal varicella vaccination program in the United States...will leave our population vulnerable to shingles epidemics...there appears to be no way to avoid a mass epidemic of shingles lasting as long as several generations among adults.
Goldman thought that a shingles vaccine “would likely fail because adult vaccination programs have rarely proved successful”.

Chickenpox and herpes zoster (HZ, or shingles) are caused by closely related viruses. Shingles used to relatively rare. Shingles is painful, and can be very serious.
So by vaccination, in exchange for avoiding the relatively mild “one week nuisance” of chickenpox as a kid, big pharma has created a new, more dangerous atypical adult form of the illness, and an epidemic of shingles.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Merck's shingles vaccine, Zostavax, to poison people aged 60 and older in 2006 to fix the problem caused by Merck's chickenpox vaccine Varivax, but reportedly "duration of protection after vaccination with Zostavax is unknown".

Big pharma sells their products by what I sometimes refer to as statistrics. The “new” shingles vaccine Zostavax was once heralded as decreasing the rate of shingles with 50%. To gullible fools this sounds impressive.
This really means that the occurrence of shingles went down from 3.3% to 1.7% in the trial. You could just as well label this (50%) as a decrease of a mere 1.6% or conclude that 63 vaccinations are required to prevent a single infection. This sounds a lot less impressive, especially when you consider that every vaccine has adverse effects or that the remaining infections could be worse than the disease without vaccine!
Without specific information on the trial this doesn’t even “prove” that 63 vaccinations on average would prevent 1 shingles infection. The reported decrease from 3.3% to 1.7% in the trial was for age 60; the claimed efficacy falls to only 18% for age 80 and above (for example from 3.3% to 2.7%).
Vaccine manufacturers even admit that the “protection” of the vaccine wanes in time (so we need additional “booster” shots): http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/the-sh ... demic.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/9NhQS)


I’ve found a 2013 scientific looking report with Goldman as an author.

In 2000, the vaccination campaign had decreased the varicella incidence dramatically to 28% of the pre-vaccine rate - from 2834 in 1995 to 836 in 2000. By 2002, the varicella vaccination efficacy fell below 80%.
From 2000 to 2001, HZ (shingles) incidence significantly increased among adults aged 20–69 years. Children that were previously infected with varicella demonstrated (high) HZ rates similar to adults. The CDC still claimed that no increase in HZ had occurred in any US surveillance site.
From 2000 to 2001, Goldman noted that the number of HZ case reports had maintained or increased in every adult age category except adults aged 70 years and older. The increase in HZ cases for ages 20–69 from 158 in 2000 to 203 in 2001 (a 28.5% increase) is statistically significant.
The light grey bars are hard to see…
Image

From January 2000 - April 2002 (2 years and 4 months) the recurrent HZ incidence rate (a second infection after an earlier infection) was 2440/100,000 p-y. This is 3.3 times as high as the 744/100,000 p-y reported before varicella vaccination was approved.

Yih et al. reported and 22.5% annual increase from 1999 to 2003 in Massachusetts.
The AV-VASP reported an increase of 28% from 2006 to 2007 among adults aged 50 years and older and even a 38% increase in HZ incidence among adults aged 50–59 years.
From 2000 to 2006, the HZ incidence in age group 10–19 approximately doubled.
Image

After Goldman resigned because he wasn’t allowed to publish his findings on the relationship between the chickenpox vaccination and the shingles “epidemic”, Dr. Laurene Mascola of the ACDC Unit of LADHS demanded that he wouldn’t publish his report. After Goldman hired attorneys the county dropped its opposition to publication in a medical journal.
Goldman’s main conclusions are:
• The high recurrent HZ incidence rate of 2440/100,000 p-y relative to the 744/100,000 p-y reported by Donahue et al. [6].
• The high HZ incidence rate among children under 10 years of age with a prior history of natural varicella of 307/100,000 p-y during 2000–2001 [3] and 446/100,000 p-y during 2000–2003 [4]—higher than any other historical rates.
• The 18% overall increase in adult HZ from 2000 to 2001; case counts maintained or increased in every age category except elderly adults 70+ years (Fig. 1); the 28.5% increase in HZ reports among adults 20–59 years was statistically significant (p < 0.042).
• The 56% increase in HZ case reports among adults 20 years of age and older from 236 in 2000 to 368 in 2002 [39].
• Baseline prevaccine cumulative 1987–1995 true HZ incidence rate of 145/100,000 p-y among children under 10 years of age [31].

In 2006, 20% of children that had been vaccinated were infected with varicella and so the CDC recommended a booster shot for children (for every health problem, the "solution" is another shot...). The CDC ignored the assumptions that had justified the initial approval of the vaccine of life-long “immunity”.
In 2007, the HZ (shingles) vaccine Merck's Zostavax was approved for adults aged 60 and older.
In 2011, the FDA approved Zostavax for adults aged 50 and older.

Zostavax was approved based on a study (was an inert placebo used?) that showed an HZ incidence rate of 5.42 cases/1000 p-y in the vaccinated group compared to 11.12 cases/1000 p-y for the placebo group.
That would probably be called a 50% efficacy…
Because the vaccine “protection” wanes efficacy is lower.

Eliminating varicella (chickenpox) in the US (280 million) would prevent approximately 186 million cases of varicella and 5,000 deaths over 50 years.
Goldman’s model predicts that varicella vaccination would generate an extra 21 million cases of herpes zoster resulting in 5,000 deaths.
Patel et al. report that the net hospitalization costs for complications of HZ have increased by more than $700 million per year by 2004 for adults 60 years and older.
HZ morbidity costs exceed the cost savings from the reported varicella-disease reductions.

G.S. Goldman and P.G. King – Review of the United States universal varicella vaccination program: Herpes zoster incidence rates, …” (2013): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759842/


Based on Goldman’s report, I conclude that possibly the increase in shingles cases was (is) caused by another factor than the chickenpox vaccine...
I’m also not sure about the explanation on how chickenpox vaccination causes an increase in shingles, in people that weren’t vaccinated in the first place.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

More on shingles (vaccine)

Post by Firestarter » Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:38 pm

I’ve looked for more information on shingles, and while the official story is that shingles (HZ: herpes zoster) rates are increasing worldwide - I’m not sure.
It’s easy to either underreport or overreport the number of shingles cases. The shingles scare could be nothing but fear mongering to get us all to take the shingles vaccine.
Isn’t it strange that the state propaganda claims that it is unknown what causes the reported huge increase in shingles, but provides a vaccine anyway? How could they know that a vaccine would make things better if they don’t even know what causes the increase in shingles rates?

Even the cause of shingles is something of a mystery.
It’s impossible to get shingles if you’ve never had chickenpox.
The strange explanation is that the virus that first causes chickenpox remains “dormant” in the body and then years later supposedly causes shingles.
It’s possible to get shingles more than once, so obviously it’s different than (other) viral diseases, where that you can’t get more than once. How could a vaccine work if our immune system isn’t able to make us immune?


According to the following scientific looking report from the period 1945 – 1949 to 2000 to 2007, the shingle rate climbed from 0.76 people per 1,000 to 3.15 per 1,000 (a 4-fold increase in 55 years).
Increases in the HZ rates have been reported in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Spain, Japan, and Taiwan. The majority of prior studies are limited to the last 2 decades with relatively short study periods of 5–10 years. Most studies rely on administrative data without medical records for confirmation.
Image

The complete increase couldn’t be caused by varicella vaccines alone, as the rise had already started before these vaccines were introduced.
It’s also unlikely that antiviral therapy, or change in amount of immunodeficient people could be THE cause. It’s certainly possible that any of these factors played a role in the huge increase in shingles rates.

Studies from Poland, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia reported that incidence of HZ is higher in the summer; however other studies reported no seasonal difference.
The cause of the increase of shingles remains unknown.

This study that doesn’t find a link between the chickenpox vaccine and the rise in shingles is really, really “independent”; supported by Merck, the CDC and the Rochester Epidemiology Project (that is supported by the NIH).

K. Kawai et al. – Increasing Incidence of Herpes Zoster Over a 60-year Period From a Population-based Study (2016): https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/63/2/221/1745553
(archived here: http://archive.is/0xlKZ)


After introduction of the chickenpox vaccine, from 1997/98 to 2013/14, HZ incidence in Canada increased by 49.5%.
A portion of this increase is related to demographic changes in age. Older people supposedly have a higher shingles rate. After correcting for age, there remained a significant 21% increase in HZ (compared to 49.5% not corrected for age).

The huge increase in the crude incidence of HZ, began to rise sharper from July 2009 (after introduction of the (first) shingles vaccine in 2009).
Chickenpox vaccinations were only added to the Canadian routine childhood vaccination schedule in 2004.
Image

The costs of the increase of HZ, has been compensated by dramatic drops in hospitalisation rates, holding the total costs for HZ treatment relatively constant.

This study that disagreed that the chickenpox vaccine has caused an increase in shingles incidence was also very “independently” financed by Merck Canada.

K.J. Friesen et al. – Cost of shingles: population based burden of disease analysis of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia (2017): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5237245/


The following shows that Australia HZ notification rates are on the rise (not hospitalisation): https://www.phaa.net.au/documents/item/2281


By now the “first” shingles vaccine Zostavax (of Merck) with a reported decrease in shingles of 51%, isn’t recommended anymore.
Since 2017, the CDC recommends the Shingrix shingles vaccine (of GlaxoSmithKline) for ages 50 and older that supposedly is 90% effective in preventing shingles. The study was funded and performed by a team with many, many ties to big pharma (including GlaxoSmithKline) and funded by GlaxoSmithKline.

Herpes zoster (HZ, shingles) was “confirmed” in only 6 in the vaccine group but 210 participants in the placebo group.

The placebo consisted of a 0.9% saline solution. That sounds good to me...
Unsolicited symptoms within 7 days after vaccination were reported in 84.4% of participants in the vaccine and 37.8% in the placebo group.
Within the first 30 days after vaccination, 231 serious adverse events were reported in 87 of 7698 vaccine recipients (1.1%) and 97 of 7713 placebo recipients (1.3%).

How come an inert placebo causes “symptoms” in 37.8% and serious adverse events in 1.3% of the people injected with it: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1501184


408 subjects reported suspicion of HZ: 78 on the vaccine and 330 on placebo. This sounds a lot less impressive than 90%.
After careful “study”, they excluded 164 non-HZ-cases; after which 244 HZ-cases were confirmed.
6 in the 7698 vaccine group (0.1%) and 210 in the 7713 placebo group (2.7%).

This doesn’t add up...
216 is NOT 244 cases!
72 of the 78 suspicion cases in the vaccine group (92%) were excluded.
120 of the 330 suspicion cases in the placebo group (36%) were excluded.
At the start there were just as many in the placebo as in the vaccine group. Why did more from the vaccine group drop out?

Unfortunately the report doesn’t explain these discrepancies.

I don’t see a noticeable difference in death rate between the 2 groups: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/ ... pendix.pdf
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Vaccine trials covered up

Post by Firestarter » Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:19 pm

After Goldacre’s report, the Telegraph reported about 3 vaccine trials conducted by/for Public Health England (PHE) for which the results have never been published (according to the EU Clinical Trials Register). This is in violation with EU law that requires publication within one year.
The EUCRT was set after people found out that big pharma simply didn’t publish negative results on their drugs.
Experts accused PHE of an “incomprehensible” violation of the trust of parents who gave their consent for their children participating in the tests.

The largest trial involved a new meningococcal and whooping cough booster vaccine with 640 children under the age of 16; concluded in 2016.
The second PHE trial was concluded in 2010, investigated effectiveness of a meningitis C vaccine in a group of 130 one-year-olds.
The third, concluded in 2011, involved 75 adults getting a meningitis B vaccine.

Ben Goldacre said:
It is incomprehensible to me that Public Health England of all the trials it could leave unreported to have failed to comply with the legal requirements to report trials of vaccines.
When patients participate and they take a risk with their own health. We have to respect their contribution by publishing the results properly. If we don’t, that is a betrayal of trust.
Withholding the results of a clinical trial makes a mockery of all our efforts to promote trust in medicine, and i’m particularly sad to see vaccine trials going unreported.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... mpossible/

The 2008 study by Turner et al., referred to in the following post, shows that studies that show that big pharma's products have a positive efficacy are published in time (97% of the trials), but NOT studies that show they don’t: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... t=20#p5389
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Flu vaccine hoax

Post by Firestarter » Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:56 pm

The state media are again making us afraid for the coming flu epidemic, so we all behave like good citizens and get our flu vaccine...

Mark Geier worked 10 years at the National Institute of Health, was a professor at Johns Hopkins University as a geneticist, and was the author of over 150 peer-reviewed publications. Geier studied vaccine safety and efficacy for more than 30 years and is basically pro-vaccine, but against the flu vaccine.

In the following video, Geier explains that because they can only test “old” strains of the flu, they don’t know the efficacy of flu vaccines for the coming flu season. Therefore the flu vaccine is really an “experimental vaccine” that they want to inject into 300 million people every year in the US alone.

Because in medical trials they only report on adverse effects for 2 weeks, they really don’t know about long-term adverse effects.
There has never been a study to evaluate what happens when you give yearly flu vaccines. An 80-year-old getting flu shots every year would get 80 shots, probably this will cause cumulative damage that the single dose in a medical trial won’t show: https://vaccineimpact.com/2018/get-your ... ne-in-u-s/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvXIqUyOdK4&feature=youtu.be


The study “Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?” by Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller found a direct statistical correlation between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates.
It concluded a 4250% increase in foetal deaths according to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data when comparing 3 consecutive influenza seasons.

A Rice University study predicted that this fall’s flu vaccine will likely have the same reduced efficacy as in 2016 and 2017 due to viral mutations related to vaccine production in eggs.
pEpitope has predicted that the efficacy will be only some 19” against the most common type of influenza A in the US, H3N2, in the past 2 years.

Hugh Fudenberg claims that if a person had 5 flu vaccinations between 1970 and 1980 he/she is 10 times more likely to get Alzheimer’s disease than with only 1 or 2 flu shots. According to Fudenberg this is caused by the aluminium and mercury in (almost) every flu vaccine: https://www.naturalblaze.com/2018/10/fl ... myths.html
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Aluminium causes Alzheimer’s

Post by Firestarter » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:55 pm

For some reason aluminium (Al) is added to vaccines. In this post evidence that suggests that aluminium causes Alzheimer’s disease (AD).


The following literature review evaluated 34 studies: 68% concluded a relation between aluminium and Alzheimer’s, 23.5% were inconclusive and 8.5% concluded that there is no relation between the 2.
Pricilla Costa Ferreira et al. – Aluminum as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (2008): http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script= ... so&tlng=en


Aluminium causes death of neurons and glial cells. Aluminium can cause severe health problems in infants, elderly people, and patients with impaired renal functions, and exposure to aluminium should be avoided for such patients.
Martyn et al. reported a high incidence of Alzheimer’s in areas with a high level of aluminium in the drinking water in England and Wales. Frecker likewise reported that high aluminium concentrations in drinking water in a Norwegian area were linked with high dementia mortality.
Aluminium neurotoxity is complex, and should be further researched.
In 2007, the tolerable weekly intake was lowered from 7.0 mg/kg to 1.0 mg/kg body weight because of effects on the reproductive system and the developing nervous system.
Masahiro Kawahara et al. – Link between Aluminum and the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer's Disease: The Integration of the Aluminum and Amyloid Cascade Hypotheses (2011): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/


Many people ingest aluminium salts through processed foods and aluminium-treated drinking water. Aluminium enters and accumulates in vulnerable neurons, to cause neurofibrillary damage involved in Alzheimer's progression. Aluminium toxicity causes brain disease. Evidence suggests that Alzheimer's is a form of chronic aluminium neurotoxicity that occurs in humans.
Some vaccines include aluminium. Simulated vaccination in mice produces an aluminium peak in their brains 2–3 days post-injection.
Aluminium is the only common neurotoxicant to accumulate in the brain. Alzheimer's patients absorb about 64% more aluminium than non-demented humans with a similar age on a similar diet.
J.R. Walton – Aluminum Involvement in the Progression of Alzheimer's Disease (2013)
https://content.iospress.com/articles/j ... /jad121909


Alzheimer's disease is a form of chronic aluminium neurotoxicity. The causality analysis shows that chronic aluminium intake causes Alzheimer's.
J.R. Walton – Chronic Aluminum Intake Causes Alzheimer's Disease: Applying Sir Austin Bradford Hill's Causality Criteria (2014): https://content.iospress.com/articles/j ... /jad132204


That aluminium contributes to Alzheimer's is based upon at least 7 different observations.
There are currently no effective treatments for Alzheimer's that prevent or cure its onset or propagation. The most effective clinical treatment yet devised for Alzheimer's is the first generation anti-oxidant and trivalent iron/aluminium chelator desferrioxamine to remove aluminium from the brains.
Surjyadipta Bhattacharjee, et al. – Aluminum and its potential contribution to Alzheimer's disease (AD) (2014): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986683/


The aluminium content of brain tissue from individuals that died diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease was statistically very high.
Ambreen Mirza et al. – Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer’s disease (2017)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: HPV-vaccines – infertility

Post by Firestarter » Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:41 pm

Firestarter wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:41 pm
Gayle DeLong – A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection (2017): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 18.1477640
Big pharma trolls have been attacking the author of the report, Gayle DeLong. The frustrating thing is that while they don’t have any evidence to defend the genocidal HPV vaccine, their ad hominem attacks do succeed in discrediting the study.
In July I read the study for free. The study isn’t freely viewable anymore. It now costs 42 Euro for a single day and a whopping 284 Euro for 30 days. If anybody knows of a better word than “censorship” please let me know...

The big pharma trolls first quack that Gayle DeLong isn’t even a medical doctor but only an “economist”. DeLong did a statistical analysis of the data. If we take this kind of reasoning to the extreme only mathematicians should be allowed to do a statistical analysis.
I’ve regularly seen big pharma supporting “doctors” make the claim that after clean water vaccines are the cheapest health intervention. For evidence they regularly point to propaganda of the WHO, that isn’t backed up by any evidence. But we can’t really blame these doctors can we? They aren’t financial “experts” so wouldn’t know...

That the study contradicts all of the scientific studies on HPV vaccines that – supported and controlled by big pharma – concluded that HPV vaccines have no adverse effects at all.
So we can only conclude that these studies are biased, but instead they accuse DeLong.

No explanation on how HPV vaccines cause infertility.
Why would anybody doing a statistical analysis that shows that the HPV vaccine causes infertility, have to explain which poisons in the vaccines causes infertility? It is highly probable that when a vaccine has adverse health effects (the HPV vaccines have even more adverse effects than most other vaccines) this includes infertility.

Bizarrely that DeLong didn’t correct for contraception, with the addition of
In fairness, if the correlation is not positive but negative (i.e., HPV vaccination is associated with less oral contraceptive use), the results could be more robust than what Gayle found.
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptic ... -blogging/

Surprise, surprise, Gayle DeLong has provided data that shows that HPV vaccines is associated with less contraceptive use:
I find 51.5% of married women who did not receive the shot and 36.6% of married women who received the shot were actively seeking to prevent pregnancy. The 14.9% difference is statistically significant at the 1% level.

This finding suggests that a greater percentage of married women who received the shot should be conceiving compared with married women who did not receive the shot. However, my original study finds that married women who received the shot are less likely to conceive than married women who did not receive the shot. The finding of my original study is not the result of married women who received the HPV vaccine actively avoiding pregnancy more than women who did not receive the HPV shot.
https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/06/new ... ation.html
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Herd immunity sham

Post by Firestarter » Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:15 pm

For a while I’ve wanted to post something on “herd immunity”. Of course it’s ridiculous to claim that (the parents of) kids who don’t vaccinate are responsible for outbreaks of epidemics, because according to that same propaganda all the vaccinated sheeple are already immune...
But I was looking for something more - epidemics in highly vaccinated groups of people. Strangely it’s difficult to find this kind of information.


The “herd immunity” theory was first recognised in 1933 by A.W. Hedrich as a naturally occurring phenomenon. Big pharma adopted the phrase for vaccination and increased the figure from 68% to 95% without scientific justification; and then claimed that there has to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity.

In Germany between 1947-1974, there were 10 outbreaks of Smallpox including 94 people who had been vaccinated.
Despite the introduction of large-scale pertussis vaccination in 1953 and high vaccination coverage, there are still pertussis outbreaks every 3-5 years in the Netherlands.
In March 2006, there were 245 cases of mumps in Iowa, US, where the law requires vaccination for school entry.

In the US, children are injected with 5 doses of the pertussis vaccine before they reach the age of 4 and then another “booster” shot at 11 years of age.
In Nebraska there were 117 cases of whooping cough in 2019, up from 70 in all of 2018 and 99 in 2006. There were 312 cases in Nebraska in 2005.
In Douglas County, 48 cases have been reported in 2019. In 2018, there were 21 cases of whooping cough.
In 2019, Lake County has already reported 82 cases of pertussis. According to Plotkin, Lake County had pertussis cases of only some 8 to 10 per year before 2004.

In 1984, it was reported that since pertussis vaccination rate has declined in England, hospital admission and death rates from whooping cough have fallen “unexpectedly”: http://vaccineriskawareness.com/news/th ... ke-cattle/


In 1994, a report on 18 measles outbreaks throughout North America, in school populations with high vaccination coverage for measles (71% to 99.8%), vaccinated children were 30% to 100% of all reported measles cases: https://kellybroganmd.com/herd-immunity-fact-fiction/
(archived here: http://archive.is/y7z6H)


In the first half of 2016, more than 40 students at Harvard University contracted mumps. All of them had been injected with the required 2 doses of the MMR vaccine and were, theoretically, immune to measles, mumps, and rubella. The vaccine didn’t protect them.
There were similar mumps outbreaks throughout the United States last year, including the University of Missouri, Pennsylvania State University, Boston University, MIT, and Sacred Heart University.

Nearly every year, there are outbreaks of infectious diseases in the US in, supposedly immune, highly vaccinated communities.
There is no herd immunity.

In the past years, numerous outbreaks of pertussis have occurred in US communities where 80 to 90% of those infected had been vaccinated.

Even though the herd immunity theory has repeatedly failed, doctors, public health officials, legislators, and the media are still pushing this bogus theory to justify mandatory vaccination and calls everybody that disagrees a unscientific, quacking, conspiracy theorist: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2017/05/ ... disproven/
(archived here: http://archive.is/cjd3u)


The “herd immunity” theory also fails in another way.

There has never been a vaccination rate anywhere close to the 95% “herd immunity” (a.k.a. Community Immunity). So where are all the epidemics?

According to the CDC, adult vaccination rates have been, and remain, much lower than the required 95%. Adult vaccination rates are lower than 50% for most vaccines.
In 1985, there were only 3 vaccines, for which vaccination rates were much lower than the “herd immunity” 95% treshold. Nine of the vaccinations that children are routinely injected with today didn’t even exist in 1985.

Until not so very long ago, for more than 70 years, we were told that childhood vaccine immunity lasted a lifetime. It was not until relatively recently that it was finally admitted that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given.
If the effectivity of most vaccines “wanes”, so don’t protect you anymore, the “immunisation” will even fall below 95% if every single individual is vaccinated.

In a lawsuit, Merck was accused that it knew its measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was less effective than 95%, but senior management oversaw testing to conceal the actual effectiveness. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to “report efficacy of 95% or higher regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy”.
If efficacy is lower than 95%, it is completely impossible to achieve the needed 95% immunisation level for “herd immunity”: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/herd-i ... ng-gimmick
(archived here: http://archive.is/RTcHB)
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine madness

Post by Firestarter » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:56 pm

Last week, Rockland County banned all unvaccinated children from public places because of a measles “epidemic” of a grand total of 5 active measles cases: https://vaccineimpact.com/2019/breaking ... r-to-door/


Could it be so simple?!? Maybe...
According to the following story the measles hysteria has been staged because Merck’s MMR vaccine batch was about to expire and they needed to sell it quickly.
Image
https://vaxopedia.org/tag/measles-outbreaks/


On 8 February 2019, Brian Hooker testified for the Washington State House Health Committee that it are actually the vaccines that cause measles outbreaks.

Before measles vaccines, measles was a routine part of childhood so basically everybody from 10 years and older was immune. In the four years before introduction of the measles vaccine, the measles death rate in Washington State was only 1.4 in 10,000 cases and 2 in 1,000,000 in the general population.

It has been reported that in Clark County, WA there is a 22% exemption rate, but this is just another lie, and according to CDC statistics for the state of Washington the MMR coverage among 19 to 35 month olds, is 95.3% (+/- 2.6%): https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news ... gislators/


One of the arguments against those “dangerous” anti-vaxxers is that they “cause” epidemics. The argument is something like if more than 95% of the population would be “immunised” they can’t spread epidemics – the myth of herd immunity.
According to the following scientific looking report it could actually be the other way around for those magical flu vaccines (that at best could protect you against last year´s flu virus)...

People that were vaccinated in the last 2 years “fine-aerosol” shed more than six times - 6.3 - the amount of infectious flu A virus than individuals that weren´t vaccinated in the last 2 years.
Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. Vaccination was not associated with coarse-aerosol or NP shedding (P > 0.10). The association of vaccination and shedding was significant for influenza A (P = 0.03) but not for influenza B (P = 0.83) infections (Table S4).
This suggests that vaccines “promote lung inflammation, airway closure, and aerosol generation”. More study is needed to confirm these hypotheses.
Another interesting conclusion is that men have a threefold greater shedding impact of coughing than women.

Jing Yan et al. - Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community (2018): https://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

NYC mayor orders mandatory vaccination

Post by Firestarter » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:45 pm

Last Friday, a state Supreme Court judge ruled against New York’s emergency 26 March order banning unvaccinated people under 18 years from public places in Rockland County. The judge ended the “state of emergency” with a temporary injunction, so unvaccinated children can once again go where they want.
The judge said such emergency orders cannot exceed 5 days. He also noted that 166 measles cases in a population of 330,000 in 6 months isn’t an “epidemic” meriting an emergency declaration.

Then only a couple of days later, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio took even more drastic actions by ordering forced vaccinations for measles...
Even though there are no reported deaths due to measles in the US this year at all.

The order forces EVERYONE who is unvaccinated in zip codes 11205, 11206, 11221 and 11249 – in Williamsburg and Brooklyn - to be vaccinated within 48 hours:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person who lives, works or resides within the 11205, 11206, 11221 and/or 11249 zip codes and who has not received the MMR vaccine within forty eight (48) hours of this Order being signed by me shall be vaccinated against measles unless such person can demonstrate immunity to the disease or document to the satisfaction of the Department that he or she should be medically exempt from this requirement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parent or guardian of any child older than six months of age who lives, works or resides within the 11205, 11206, 11221 and/or 11249 zip codes and who has not received the MMR vaccine within forty eight (48) hours of this order being signed by me shall cause such child to be vaccinated against measles unless such parent or guardian can demonstrate that the child has immunity to the disease or document that he or she should be medically exempt from this requirement.

City officials will check medical records to track down children who haven't been vaccinated. People who haven’t received the MMR vaccine could be fined $1,000.
According to WCBS radio:
Members of the city’s Health Department will check the vaccination records of any individual who may have been in contact with infected patients.
Those who have not received the vaccine or do not have evidence of immunity may be given a violation and could be fined $1,000.

State Sen. David Carlucci is pushing legislation that would end most exemptions for vaccinations for children going to school:
We have to stop this practice of allowing people to opt out of the vaccination process.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2019/break ... -brooklyn/
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1241
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Censored data on MMR trials

Post by Firestarter » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:27 pm

Del Bigtree has gotten hold on some information through a FOIA request on the 8 “studies” that were done to approve the MMR vaccine by the FDA in 1978...
The vaccine trials only ran for only 42 days, most of them had no placebo group for controls. For none of the studies, placebo results have been released. The value of these studies is that they did report on a variety of illnesses. Because information has been blatantly deleted, it’s obvious that there was/is a cover-up!
I’ll only look at the first 3 studies, if I understand correctly the other 5 only compared the new MMR vaccine to the old MMR vaccine, so these results don´t have much value anyway.

First study #442, 199 children on the new MMR, 73 children reported complaints (“only” 36,7%), including – 22 Gastrointestinal illness; 23 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 13.
Data has been released on the Rubella “control” of 197 children.
On the other MR “control” group, 150-200 children, information has blatantly been deleted.

Second study #443, 102 children on the new MMR, 78 children reported complaints (76.4%), including - 43 Gastrointestinal illness; 64 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 28.

Third study #459 only 41 children on the new MMR, 34 children reported complaints (82.9%), including - 24 Gastrointestinal illness; 28 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 20.
More than 90% of the data has been blatantly deleted from the report, there were supposed to be 550 children included in this study - MMR (1) 150; MMR (2) 150; Measles 50; Mumps 50; Rubella (1) 50; Rubella (2) 50; Placebo 50.
All of the other data on adverse effects (on more than 500 children) has intentionally been left out.

Here is a link to the full set of received information (28 MB): https://icandecide.org/government/FDA-P ... n-FOIA.pdf

In the following relatively short video (9 minutes), Del Bigtree of High Wire that filed the FOIA request, tries to explain what he received.
He makes some strong arguments, but doesn’t even realise that they fooled him by giving him a censored set, probably to hide the ugly truth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fil_fsdL4ZA
Post Reply