Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation “Another Final Solution”


Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution
Outside of a conference room a sign states: “Zillionaires R Us 12:00”
George Soros has an invitation: “You are cordially invited to attend the Zillionaires Luncheon”
David Rockefeller: “And furthermore…It has been noted that there are too many people on our planet.”
“We may have to sterilize people that are the parasites of the world… The poor… The Religious… Too many!”
Patty: “hey Bill, My fortune cookie told me I’m meeting my Prince.”
Bill Gates. “Cool speech Dave… My fortune cookie says ‘I’m going to get a raise’, ha, ha, ha”
Oprah Winfrey: “What’s your fortune Butty?”
Warren Buffett: “It says, ‘Be careful what you wish for- You may get it.’ “
Rabbi Avraham Rachamim Chaim Sofer

Rabbi Avraham Rachamim Chaim Sofer

“line up for the Vaccination Showers”

Jeffrey Prather, CYBERTRAGE! 15December2020

infowars-com-logo

Biggest Medical Scandal In History Breaking! UN Comes Clean, Admits Vaccine Death / Damage Coverup

This bombshell report reveals WHO scientist laying out massive vaccine dangers — share this critical link across all platforms!

Infowars.com – 12January2020 https://www.infowars.com/biggest-medical-scandal-in-history-breaking-un-comes-clean-admits-vaccine-death-damage-coverup/

On December 2nd and 3rd, the UN-funded WHO held a Global Vaccine Safety Summit where scientists admitted that vaccines are killing people, adjuvants in the vaccines are part of the problem, and they have not conducted adequate safety studies. This is a bombshell report!
World Health Organization

Leaked Video! Head U.N. Scientist Admits Vaccines Are Killing People

DR. SOUMYA SWAMINATHAN ADMITS SHE HAS NO IDEA IF VACCINES ARE SAFE
The Alex Jones Show
January 10 2020
Rob Dew joins The Alex Jones Show to play a leaked video of Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist of the WHO, admitting in a secret meeting that vaccines kill people and they do not know why.

TOP

Rabbi Avraham Rachamim Chaim Sofer

Rabbi Avraham Rachamim Chaim Sofer


https://www.zerohedge.com/

Big Pharma “Criminal” Influence On Research Exposed In Secret Recording Of Lancet And NEJM Editors-In-Chief

by Tyler Durden 10June2020 https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/big-pharma-criminal-influence-research-exposed-secret-recording-lancet-and-nejm-editors

A secretly recorded meeting between the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine reveal both men bemoaning the “criminal” influence big pharma has on scientific research.

Lancet Editors-In-Chief Richard Horton

Lancet Editors-In-Chief Richard Horton

According to Philippe Douste-Blazy, France’s former Health Minister and 2017 candidate for WHO Director, the leaked 2020 Chattam House closed-door discussion between the EIC’s – whose publications both retracted papers favorable to big pharma over fraudulent data.

“Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,” said Lancet EIC Richard Horton.

According to Douste-Blazy, the the EICs said the influence wielded by big Pharma to influence publications is “criminal.”

Watch:


James Todaro, MD and Kris Held, MD tweet-10June2020

[EDD: From brighteon.com, YouTube’s “Ministry of Truth” take videos down that are not …]

(Eng Subs) Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study: Former France Health Minister blows the whistle

NewsClips

[EDD: Long Description from Youtube:] Virgile Faber 31May2020
May 24, 2020: Philippe Douste-Blazy, Cardiology MD, Former France Health Minister and 2017 candidate for Director at WHO, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, reveals that in a recent 2020 Chattam House closed door meeting, both the editors of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine stated their concerns about the criminal pressures of BigPharma on their publications. Things are so bad that it is not science any longer.
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&v=ZYgiCALEdpE&redir_token=E2f4DZ-b1NGOUGU37yiDA0wTvZt8MTU5MTkzMjk3N0AxNTkxODQ2NTc3&q=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPhilippe_Douste-Blazy

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Va7IY784G8 (Video not posted on the BFMTV mainstream French website)

TOP


cdc-gov-logo

Thimerosal and Vaccines

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html Click to download PDF file Click to download PDF file Thimerosal and Vaccines

Link to Adjuvants and Vaccines

 

Questions and Concerns

Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative that has been used for decades in the United States in multi-dose vials (vials containing more than one dose) of medicines and vaccines. There is no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

About Thimerosal

Mercury is a naturally occurring element found in the earth’s crust, air, soil, and water. Two types of mercury to which people may be exposed — methylmercury and ethylmercury — are very different.

Methylmercury is the type of mercury found in certain kinds of fish. At high exposure levels methylmercury can be toxic to people. In the United States, federal guidelines keep as much methylmercury as possible out of the environment and food, but over a lifetime, everyone is exposed to some methylmercury.

Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is cleared from the human body more quickly than methylmercury, and is therefore less likely to cause any harm.

 

Thimerosal prevents the growth of bacteria in vaccines.

Thimerosal is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose (multi-dose vials) to prevent growth of germs, like bacteria and fungi. Introduction of bacteria and fungi has the potential to occur when a syringe needle enters a vial as a vaccine is being prepared for administration. Contamination by germs in a vaccine could cause severe local reactions, serious illness or death. In some vaccines, preservatives, including thimerosal, are added during the manufacturing process to prevent germ growth.

pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov-logo

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23401210/ Click to download PDF file Click to download PDF file Toxicity of ethylmercury and Thimerosal a comparison with methylmercury
J 2013 Aug;33(8):700-11. doi: 10.1002/jat.2855. Epub 2013 Feb 11.

Toxicity of ethylmercury (and Thimerosal): a comparison with methylmercury

José G Dórea 1 Marcelo Farina, João B T Rocha

Affiliations

Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidade de Brasilia, 70919-970,
Brasilia, DF, Brazil. dorea@rudah.com.br

PMID: 23401210 DOI: 10.1002/jat.2855

Abstract

Ethylmercury (etHg) is derived from the metabolism of thimerosal (o-carboxyphenyl-thio-ethyl-sodium salt), which is the most widely used form of organic mercury. Because of its application as a vaccine preservative, almost every human and animal (domestic and farmed) that has been immunized with thimerosal-containing vaccines has been exposed to etHg. Although methylmercury (meHg) is considered a hazardous substance that is to be avoided even at small levels when consumed in foods such as seafood and rice (in Asia), the World Health Organization considers small doses of thimerosal safe regardless of multiple/repetitive exposures to vaccines that are predominantly taken during pregnancy or infancy. We have reviewed in vitro and in vivo studies that compare the toxicological parameters among etHg and other forms of mercury (predominantly meHg) to assess their relative toxicities and potential to cause cumulative insults. In vitro studies comparing etHg with meHg demonstrate equivalent measured outcomes for cardiovascular, neural and immune cells. However, under in vivo conditions, evidence indicates a distinct toxicokinetic profile between meHg and etHg, favoring a shorter blood half-life, attendant compartment distribution and the elimination of etHg compared with meHg. EtHg’s toxicity profile is different from that of meHg, leading to different exposure and toxicity risks. Therefore, in real-life scenarios, a simultaneous exposure to both etHg and meHg might result in enhanced neurotoxic effects in developing mammals. However, our knowledge on this subject is still incomplete, and studies are required to address the predictability of the additive or synergic toxicological effects of etHg and meHg (or other neurotoxicants).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

cdc-gov-logo

Adjuvants and Vaccines

Questions and Concerns

What is an adjuvant and why is it added to a vaccine?

An adjuvant is an ingredient used in some vaccines that helps create a stronger immune response in people receiving the vaccine. In other words, adjuvants help vaccines work better. Some vaccines that are made from weakened or killed germs contain naturally occurring adjuvants and help the body produce a strong protective immune response. However, most vaccines developed today include just small components of germs, such as their proteins, rather than the entire virus or bacteria. Adjuvants help the body to produce an immune response strong enough to protect the person from the disease he or she is being vaccinated against. Adjuvanted vaccines can cause more local reactions (such as redness, swelling, and pain at the injection site) and more systemic reactions (such as fever, chills and body aches) than non-adjuvanted vaccines.

Adjuvants have been used safely in vaccines for decades.

Aluminum salts, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate have been used safely in vaccines for more than 70 years. Aluminum salts were initially used in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s with diphtheria and tetanus vaccines after it was found they strengthened the body’s immune response to these vaccines.

Newer adjuvants have been developed to target specific components of the body’s immune response, so that protection against disease is stronger and lasts longer.

In all cases, vaccines containing adjuvants are tested for safety and effectiveness in clinical trials before they are licensed for use in the United States, and they are continuously monitored by CDC and FDA once they are approved.

Several different adjuvants are used in U.S. vaccines.

Several different adjuvants are used in U.S. vaccines.
Adjuvant Composition Vaccines
Aluminum One or more of the following: amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS), aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate,
potassium aluminum sulfate (Alum)
Anthrax, DT, DTaP (Daptacel), DTaP (Infanrix), DTaP-IPV (Kinrix), DTaP-IPV (Quadracel), DTaP-HepB-IPV (Pediarix), DTaP –IPV/Hib (Pentacel), Hep A (Havrix), Hep A (Vaqta), Hep B (Engerix-B), Hep B (Recombivax), HepA/Hep B (Twinrix), HIB (PedvaxHIB), HPV (Gardasil 9), Japanese encephalitis (Ixiaro), MenB (Bexsero, Trumenba), Pneumococcal (Prevnar 13), Td (Tenivac), Td (Mass Biologics), Tdap (Adacel), Tdap (Boostrix)
AS04 Monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) + aluminum salt Cervarix
MF59 Oil in water emulsion composed of squalene Fluad
AS01B Monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) and QS-21, a natural compound extracted from the Chilean soapbark tree, combined in a liposomal formulation Shingrix
CpG 1018 Cytosine phosphoguanine (CpG), a synthetic form of DNA that mimics bacterial and viral genetic material Heplisav-B
No adjuvant ActHIB, chickenpox, live zoster (Zostavax), measles, mumps & rubella (MMR), meningococcal (Menactra, Menveo), rotavirus, seasonal influenza (except Fluad), single antigen polio (IPOL), yellow fever

Aluminum
Aluminum-containing adjuvants are vaccine ingredients that have been used in vaccines since the 1930s. Small amounts of aluminum are added to help the body build stronger immunity against the germ in the vaccine. Aluminum is one of the most common metals found in nature and is present in air, food, and water. Scientific research has shown the amount of aluminum exposure in people who follow the recommended vaccine schedule is low and is not readily absorbed by the body. Read the research on aluminum exposure and vaccines.external icon Also, see FDA’s web page on common ingredients in U.S. licensed vaccinesexternal icon for more information.

AS04
Beginning in 2009, monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) was used in one U.S. vaccine (Cervarix®); however, the vaccine is no longer available in the United States due to low market demand. This immune-boosting substance was isolated from the surface of bacteria.

MF59
MF59 is the adjuvant contained in Fluad (an influenza vaccine licensed for adults aged 65 or older). MF59 is an oil-in-water emulsion composed of squalene, which is a naturally occurring oil found in many plant and animal cells, as well as in humans. MF59, used in flu vaccines in Europe since 1997 and in the United States since 2016, has been given to millions of people and has an excellent safety record.

AS01B
AS01B is an adjuvant suspension used with the antigen component of Shingrix vaccine. Shingrix is the recombinant zoster vaccine recommended for persons aged 50 years or older. AS01B is made of up of monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL), an immune-boosting substance isolated from the surface of bacteria, and QS-21, a natural compound extracted from the Chilean soapbark tree (Quillaja saponaria Molina). In pre-licensure clinical trials, AS01B was associated with local and systemic reactions, but the overall safety profile was reassuring.

AS01B is also a component of vaccines currently being tested in clinical trials, including malaria and HIV vaccines. To date, these trials have included over 15,000 people.

CpG 1018
CpG 1018 is a recently developed adjuvant used in Heplisav-B vaccine. It is made up of cytosine phosphoguanine (CpG) motifs, which is a synthetic form of DNA that mimics bacterial and viral genetic material. When CpG 1018is included in a vaccine, it increases the body’s immune response.

In pre-licensure clinical trials, adverse events after Heplisav-B were comparable to those observed after another U.S.-licensed, non-adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine.

 

TOP


BREAKING: American Doctors Address COVID-19 Misinformation. Hydroxychloroquine Works!!

PatriotDude 27July2020
American Doctors Address COVID-19 Misinformation. Hydroxychloroquine Works!! Not only as a cure when in concert with Zinc and Azithromycin, but also as a preventative measure when taken alone.


The Covid Con Game and End Game

Dr. Lee Merritt, an Orthopedic Surgeon in Onawa, Iowa, is interviewed by Jeff Dornik and delivers an amazingly comprehensive overview of the motives behind the Covid-pandemic theater. First, she shows that there is no real pandemic and that the public-health practices being mandated are scientifically absurd. Then she reasons that, if obscene profits were the only motive for this crime, it would not be necessary to put so many exotic and toxic components into the vaccines. A simpler product could be sold at the same price with a greater profit margin. Therefore, there must be some additional purpose for the vaccines. She makes a compelling case that the end game is nothing less than human enslavement and massive depopulation – both of which are long-held ideals of those who direct the pharmaceutical cartel. 2021 April 21 – Source: Freedom One-on-One

TOP


https://www.zerohedge.com/

Big Pharma’s ‘Narrative’ Is Failing

by Tyler Durden 09August2020 – https://www.zerohedge.com/political/big-pharmas-narrative-failing

Authored by Bretigne Shaffer via LewRockwell.com,

So now we don’t have to listen to what those doctors said in front of the US Supreme Court, because it turns out that one of them has some whacky beliefs about sex with demons causing reproductive disorders. What a relief.

I’m not going to pretend that the things Dr. Stella Immanuel has said don’t sound just a little crazy to me. They do.

 

But I’ve been observing this game long enough to have a pretty good idea of how this works:

Someone says something that contradicts the dominant narrative (in this case, the narrative about medical science), and the machine that supports that narrative goes into overdrive to discredit them, with whatever information they can dig up–as long as it doesn’t involve discussing the actual substance of what the person has said.

I understand that for some people, maybe even for a great many, that is the end of the conversation.

So for everyone who is satisfied with the “fringe doctors promoting hydroxychloroquine also believe demon sex causes fybroids” narrative–please, stop here. Your ride is over, and you may go on believing that this group of doctors and other professionals has been thoroughly discredited by these statements.

For everyone else, if you are at all interested in why such a coordinated effort has been launched to silence and discredit this group, why – even before the sex demon stuff was uncovered – videos of the group’s press conference were quickly yanked from YouTube, and why their own website was taken down without warning by its host, SquareSpace, (their new website can now be found here) then please keep reading.

WHAT THE AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS GROUP SAID:

What follows is a brief summary of the key points made by the group America’s Frontline Doctors at their press conference last week. I will not comment on the validity of their claims, however founder Dr. Simone Gold has provided support for much of what the group said, in a white paper that can be found here.

1. They believe that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid-19.

This is the claim made by several of the speakers, including Dr. Immanuel, based on their own clinical experience, as well as on multiple published studies. Many of those studies are listed here, and here.

2. State licensing boards are using their power to forcibly prevent people from having access to this drug.

According to Dr. Gold, many states have empowered their pharmacists to not honor prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine to be used in treating Covid-19. This, she says, is unprecedented:

“It has never happened that a state has threatened a doctor for prescribing a universally accepted safe generic cheap drug off-label.”

Meanwhile, says Gold, the drug is available over the counter in many other countries, including Iran and Indonesia, where it can be found “in the vitamin section”.

3. There is a coordinated campaign to discredit and suppress information about the drug hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for Covid-19:

“If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack going on against hydroxychloroquine,” said Dr. James Todaro, “it’s because there is.”

Dr. Todaro is speaking from experience. He was the co-author of a March 13 white paper arguing for the use of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19. The paper was made public on Google Docs, received a lot of attention, and was then removed–without warning–by Google. (It has since been put back up.)

4. The World Health Organization halted its trials of hydroxychloroquine based on a blatantly fraudulent study that relied on data that it appears never even existed.

Bear in mind that this is the authority upon which YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has said she bases her company’s policy on “misinformation”.

The WHO later resumed trials after independent investigators discovered the problems and the study’s authors retracted it.

5. We should be able to have a free and open discussion about this.

Dr. Dr. Joseph Lapado from UCLA, sums it up:

“We’ve been using (hydroxychloroquine) for a long time. But all of a sudden it’s been escalated to this area of looking like some poisonous drug. That just doesn’t make sense… At the very least, we can live in a world where there are differences of opinion about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, but still allow more data to come, still allow physicians who feel they have expertise with it to use that medication, and still, you know, talk and learn and get better at helping people with Covid-19.”

WHY THE ALL-OUT MEDIA ASSAULT ON THE FRONTLINE DOCTORS?:

The influence that the pharmaceutical industry wields over media outlets is no secret. As of 2018, an estimated 70% of all news advertising in the US came from pharmaceutical companies. I have written elsewhere about how “reporting” on medical issues can be difficult to distinguish from outright marketing for drug companies.

Social-media platforms are not immune to this influence, whether it comes via advertising dollars; “partnerships” such as that between the CDC Foundation and MailChimp (which like many other platforms, has an explicit policy of censoring content about vaccines that does not align with the positions of the CDC and the WHO); direct investment, such as that of Google’s parent company Alphabet; or indeed at the behest of politicians such as Congressman Adam Schiff, who last year wrote to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook and Google, requesting that those companies censor information and products that did not conform to the officially sanctioned position on vaccines. All three complied.

So it should come as small surprise that both Google and YouTube have now taken to removing content supportive of hydroxychloroquine, a drug that is no longer covered by patent, and can be made and sold by any generic producer, for a fraction of the price that Gilead, for example, might charge for its still-patented Remdesivir.

Twitter and Facebook have likewise removed posts about the drug, most notably–and with no visible sense of irony–removing posts of the video in which the Frontline Doctors speak out about widespread media censorship of the topic. (You can now see those videos on Bitchute.)

One need not have an opinion on the merits of the drug hydroxychloroquine in order to recognize that something very odd is happening here. Something that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with free and open inquiry or honest scientific discourse.

Many argue that the politicization of this drug is founded in a desire to unseat President Trump, that the opposition to it is primarily because it was endorsed by Trump, and if it is deemed to be a failure (or even better, dangerous to patients) it will be a powerful strike against the president. That may well be part of what has motivated this. But there is another motivation, having to do with the desire to push a more expensive medication onto the market, and to push a new vaccine on the world’s population.

More broadly, it has to do with the narrative that those in the business of selling drugs demand we believe: that we are all in desperate need of their products (but only the ones still under patent) if we are to be healthy–or indeed, if we are to survive at all.

If it turns out that this “new” virus is easily treatable, with hydroxychloroquine or anything else, then the industry’s dreams go up in smoke. If hydroxychloroquine turns out to be a safe and effective way of treating Covid-19 (as multiple studies and the experience in many other countries outside of the US indicate it may be) then there is much less reason for anyone to receive a vaccine for it, let alone the entire world’s population. Likewise, there is no pressing need to develop a new, more expensive treatment.

But even more than that: If it turns out that hydroxychloroquine is after all a safe and effective treatment for Covid-19, then this whole episode – the silencing of dissenting voices, the “fact-checking” on social media, the campaigns against “misinformation” – will be revealed in plain sight, for what it has always been: Nothing more than a well-funded marketing campaign and damage-control effort on behalf of the industry that wants you to believe that you need to use its expensive products in order to go on living.

 

So when a group of doctors took to the steps of the US Supreme Court and told the world how they were having success using a cheap anti-malarial that had been in use for 65 years to treat the most deadly contagion of our generation, it was a massive blow to the narrative upon which the pharmaceutical purveyors’ success depends. And over the next few days, as viewers engaged in a race with the censors, quickly downloading videos before they were removed, to post them on other platforms… it became clear that the censors and the gatekeepers had lost control of the conversation.

This is not only about hydroxychloroquine. Every time media outlets or social-media platforms engage in outright censorship of content, in a way that happens to benefit pharmaceutical companies, both parties lose just a little more credibility. The actions we are witnessing now are not the actions of an industry confident in the value of what it provides to the world. They are the actions of a desperate, threatened creature. They are the actions of an entity that is not strengthened by the truth, but weakened by it. That is what these (increasingly obvious) acts of censorship tell us. What we are witnessing are the pangs of a lumbering, wounded, behemoth.

TOP


https://www.naturalnews.com

TIMELINE: The CDC’s corrupt history revealed as it pushes mass hysteria to sell dirty vaccines

April 13, 2021 by: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-04-13-cdc-corrupt-history-pushing-mass-hysteria-dirty-vaccines.html

(Natural News) How could it be that we can’t trust the CDC? How could a country so strong and efficient have the regulatory agency for disease control and prevention be so insidious that all they care about today is controlling the populace by actually spreading disease? It’s always all about money and control, and we have a comprehensive timeline of the CDC’s nefarious acts of cruelty and greed, and this timeline dates back to the beginning of the founding of the Center for Damaged Credibility, a.k.a. the CDC. From hoax pandemics to dirty vaccines and biological warfare, the Centers for Disease Control in the USA has a mile-long rap sheet of horrendous crimes, including fraud, felonies and murder, dating back to its founding in Atlanta in 1946.

An inside look at the evil CDC, beginning in 1946

The CDC is a for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet. They support several corrupt industries dating back to 1946. The CDC is supposed to focus attention on food borne pathogens, environmental health and non-infectious diseases like obesity and diabetes. Coincidentally, there were not many cases of cancer or diabetes to speak of in the United States before the CDC was created. Founded just after WWII in the late 1940s, the CDC was first named the “Communicable Disease Center” and was busy fighting mosquitoes by spraying cancer-causing DDT on six million US homes, all in the name of fighting the malaria ‘pandemic’ of the time. Did the CDC run any safety tests on DDT for the environment, humans, pregnant women, food, anything? Of course they did not or they wouldn’t have used it.

By 1957, the Center for Damaged Credibility dipped their wick in STD control (sexually transmitted diseases), and widened their efforts to understand more about birth defects, E. coli and biological warfare (yes, they knew back then). Instead of engaging in preventative measures using nutrition, supplements and natural immune system aids, the CDC began what we know today as chronic care management, which means treating symptoms but never preventing or defeating disease. That’s how vaccines came into play.

The CDC has known mercury in vaccines is deadly since the beginning

Fatal cases of mercury poisoning were reported as early as 1865. It was proven shortly after that BOTH elemental mercury and methyl-mercury are toxic to the human CNS (central nervous system) and peripheral nervous systems. Just the inhalation of mercury vapors can prove fatal, showing severe damage to normal functioning of human systems, including nerves, digestion and immunity. Here comes the rub.

The CDC and EPA both agree that consuming no more than 0.1 micrograms of mercury for each kilogram of your body weight is safe. That equates to a full grown man, average size and weight, consuming 8 micrograms (mcg) of mercury every day. Yet, thimerosal, which is 50 percent mercury, is used in multi-dose flu vaccines, as a preservative, at 25 mcg mercury.

So what happens when you give that severe overdose to an infant or a pregnant woman? The CDC knows exactly what happens. They helped build centers for it, called “Planned Parenthood” (also known as black population control centers). The CDC also promotes the use of formaldehyde (embalming fluid), MSG and aluminum in vaccines scheduled for developing children. The aluminum helps the mercury cross the blood/brain barrier, making the mercury even MORE deadly than it already is. That’s severely taxing your cleansing organs and central nervous system, and it’s all thanks to the CDC.

1955 – 1970: CDC scandals, lies, cover-ups, and lack of safety research

The insidious CDC still promotes the polio vaccine lie today. Way back in 1955, Dr. Jonas Salk, an American virologist, removed the kidneys of rhesus monkeys and incubated those cells with three different strains of Polio virus. Then he deadened it with chemicals. Then he injected it into mice, rabbits and monkeys. Polio cases were on a massive decline already due to hygiene and plumbing advancements, so the timing was perfect. The CDC and Salk announce it to the world — the cure for Polio.

Everyone celebrate by going out and getting inoculated! They injected it into millions of children, with no proof it even worked at all. And that’s how the modern-day medicine “miracle of vaccines” lie was born. A pandemic cured in just one month. Halleluiah!

Swine flu hoax of 1976, and then AGAIN in 2008

How easily Americans forget, all doped up on mercury, margarine and canola oil, that the Swine Flu hoax first came in 1976 and was catalyzed by MASS HYSTERIA whipped up by CDC junk scientists hungry for physical and mental control of the populace. The CDC and Congress worked in tandem to vaccinate 45 million Sheeple, unnecessarily, with a vaccine for a disease that already fizzled by the time the shots came out of the lab. Oops. “Better safe than sorry,” They always say after huge mistakes. That dirty vaccine resulted in case after case of Guillain-Barre syndrome, which leads to muscle weakness and often paralysis.

The swine flu, much like Covid-19, turned out to be normal seasonal virus, like the flu, hyped like swine, in order to sell millions of people on getting dirty vaccines. Turns out the Swine flu wasn’t even as dangerous as the seasonal flu, so that pandemic was also planned and created by the CDC. The whole thing unraveled before everyone’s eyes, yet everyone forgot, twice. It was a hoax.

Then, in 1999, the CDC wasted $22 million on “chronic fatigue syndrome” and embezzled a cool $13 million doing “hepatitis C research.” The CDC went rogue and began functioning without Congress, appropriating their own funds wherever they chose to. Can you guess what that leads to?

2014: CDC budget approaches $7 billion, employing 15,000 people

Add in about 6,000 contractors and 150 different occupations and you’ve got the behemoth of bureaucratic red-tape get-nothing-done agencies. From computer scientists to statisticians and toxicologists, the CDC spends billions upon billions of dollars to tell Americans to shoot mercury into their veins and wear masks all day and night to prevent disease from spreading.

After all of that, the very next year, 2015, the CDC admits on national television that the flu shot doesn’t even work. This is the same time period when the CDC’s top scientist, Dr. William Thompson, blew the whistle on the fraudulent MMR-II vaccine.

Thompson confessed while protecting his life with his attorney, and told the world that the CDC buried the evidence of the MMR-II vaccine causing noticeably higher rates of autism in Black boys under age three. They knew it for 10 years before Thompson caved to ethics and blew the whistle.

Also 2014: CDC imports Ebola to Atlanta and New York City, on purpose

Like the bungling idiots of the TV comedy “Three Stooges,” the CDC exposed the entire country to deadly Ebola, a disease without a cure that eats you alive from the inside. The CDC told an Ebola nurse, Amber Jay Vinson, to go ahead and fly to Texas because, get this, her fever was below the official mark the CDC just made up of 100.4 degrees.

These were the erroneous guidelines for Ebola, just like Covid now. This was October of 2014. Turns out the nurse DID have Ebola, and she was the nurse for Ebola’s USA “Ground Zero” case of Ebola, the now-deceased Mr. Thomas Eric Duncan.

The CDC flew the nurse of the patient who had just DIED of Ebola, from Ohio to Texas, in order to spread the disease, just like they’re spreading Covid into Texas now using infected illegal immigrants. Airplanes themselves are catapults for starting worldwide pandemics and a great vehicle for the CDC to use as a bio-weapon against the American people. The trend continues.

Here was the CDC’s “preparedness report” (ominous warning) about Ebola traveling to NYC: “New York City (NYC) is a frequent port of entry for travelers from West Africa, a home to communities of West African immigrants who travel back to their home countries, and a home to health care workers who travel to West Africa to treat Ebola patients.”

Still, the CDC told a doctor who was exposed to Ebola-infected patients that he could go drinking beer at the bowling alley, as long as he didn’t come into contact with anyone. How easily we forget the CDC’s blatant lies and propaganda.

February, 2016 – Zika virus is detected in Brazil so the White House submits to Congress $1.9 billion emergency money to “prepare” for Zika’s spread to the USA

Oh yes, they did. The insidious “shrunken baby head” syndrome is coming soon, everyone run! Get vaccinated or your newborn baby’s head will be the size of a tennis ball, forever. As Zika virus spread into 18 of the 26 states in Brazil, scientists behind the scenes discovered that the babies being born with shrunken heads all came from the same district where millions of gallons of chemical pesticide were dumped in/near the drinking water for those inhabitants.

Pregnant women were affected most and the babies came out with that specific deformation, having NOTHING whatsoever to do with Zika virus, except for the mass media’s fake news narrative in the USA. All scare tactics to sell everyone on getting vaccinated, and it worked then, and it’s working right now with Covid-19 and the deadly mRNA vaccine series.

By the way, the CDC received $800 million to research the ‘clinical patterns’ of shrunken-baby-head-syndrome-side-effect of Zika, and they never bothered to discredit the myth. Just pure propaganda and the staging of disease pandemics brought to you by none other than the CDC. Remember Zika Bowl Sunday, the Super Bowl during the Zika Pandemic?

Tune your internet frequency to CDC.news for daily updates on the Center for Damaged Credibility using pathogens to wreck red states so the whole USA can turn communist. Yes, the CDC is “in” on the plan; in fact, they are the nucleus of the “cell” – the terror cell.

Sources for this article include:

RealClearPolitics.com

TruthWiki.org

NaturalNews.com

CDC.news

NaturalNews.com

WashingtonExaminer.com

TOP

Jon-Rappoport's-Blog-blog-nomorefakenews-com-logo

How CDC/WHO will fake the effects of the COVID vaccine to make it look like a success

22September2020 by Jon Rappoport https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/22/how-cdc-will-fake-effects-of-covid-vaccine-make-it-look-like-success/

by Jon Rappoport

Making a vaccine look like it’s a champion isn’t difficult for public health agencies. There are a number of strategies.

Of course, these fraudulent strategies would be serious crimes. But when has that stopped the CDC or the World Health Organization?

In no particular order—-

ONE: Rework the definition of a “COVID case.” Presently, the CDC absurdly allows doctors to diagnose a person with COVID who has a cough, or chills and fever, and lives in an area where cases are being claimed. No test necessary.

So change this practice, once the vaccine is approved. Demand testing for a diagnosis. State that cough alone is not enough. Chills and fever must also be present. Require fever to be above 100.

These and other changes would automatically shrink the number of cases. The drop in numbers would be attributed to the vaccine.

This “definitional shrinking” was, in fact, deployed in the 1950s, after the introduction of the polio vaccine.

TWO: Order a change in the way the PCR diagnostic test is done. The practice of amplifying the original test sample from the patient occurs in cycles, or jumps. The greater the number of cycles, the more likely the test will result in a COVID diagnosis. Therefore, order a reduced number of cycles for all testing labs.

Outcome? Fewer COVID diagnoses. Fewer case numbers. “The vaccine is working.”

THREE: Quietly restrict the present hospital practice of arbitrarily writing “COVID” on patient case and death files.

FOUR: Cook up and publish false studies showing more and more people are developing immunity to the virus. Attribute this to the vaccine.

FIVE: Another type of false study—“the transmission of the virus from person to person is slowing, thanks to the vaccine.”

SIX: Pump up the success of issuing Immunity certificates after vaccination. “People are feeling safer now. More businesses are reopening…”

SEVEN: Using the compliant press, simply issue bald declarations that the vaccine is a success.

EIGHT: Hide the many instances of injury and death from the vaccine. When necessary, claim COVID was the cause.

NINE: Warn that the wonderful vaccine-derived immunity is not permanent, and frequent booster shots are necessary.

TEN: Rework the definition of “vaccine-acquired immunity.” Even a very weak antibody response from the shot would qualify as “protective immunity.”

ELEVEN: Huge numbers of people with ordinary flu-like illness, pneumonia, and other traditional lung infections are being called “COVID.” Change this practice. Go back to calling many of these people “flu,” “pneumonia,” etc. COVID case numbers will drop. Claim the drop is the effect of the vaccine.

TWELVE: Presently, millions of so-called COVID cases have “co-morbidities.” These are prior serious health conditions which are, in fact, the true causes of illnesses and death. Of course, this is denied. But after the vaccine is introduced… scale back the practice of counting all these ill and deceased co-morbid patients as “COVID.” Case and death numbers will drop. Claim the vaccine is the reason.

THIRTEEN: After the vaccine is introduced, slow down testing for a brief period. This will automatically reduce the rate of new cases. Attribute the decline to the vaccine.

Committing these crimes are a walk in the park for public health agencies.

And appointing official mouthpieces to carry lies to the public is as easy as training little Faucis to sit up and bark.

TOP


Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation

Death by Vaccination: The Gates Foundation and the New Eugenics – By Gary Null & Richard Gale

By :  | https://therefusers.com/death-by-vaccination-the-gates-foundation-and-the-new-eugenics-by-gary-null-richard-gale/

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotech and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of progressive documentary films

****************************************************************************************************

‘While lecturing at the elitist TED 2010 conference in Long Beach, CA,  Bill Gates slipped a statement while speaking on the dangers of climate change and over population: “Vaccines? I love them.”

Today the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is “the most powerful charity in the world, and one of the most quietly influential international organizations of any sort.”[1] The Foundation is funded to the tune of  $34.6 billion plus an additional $30 billion from Warren Buffet’s investments. This is almost the entire budget of the World Health Organization (WHO) …

In 2000, the Gates Foundation founded the International Finance Facility for Immunization (GAVI) and that organization’s Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines. GAVI is a global collaboration that includes governments, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, WHO, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, UNICEF, vaccine makers, and other influential entities. All of these are zealot vaccination promoters …

We appear, therefore, to be faced with a serious uncertainty over the public image of the very likable, mild-manner Bill Gates, who expresses repeatedly his ambition to improve the health of the developing world, and then the possibility of other ulterior motives that are contrary to saving lives. Should we take Gates and his Foundation’s word that their primary objective is to improve the health and well-being of children in poorer nations by fighting disease and illness with vaccines? Or is his vaccine agenda another ruse with a more sinister agenda? For example, it is hard to imagine that Gates is unaware that his commitment to the Green Revolution is in point of fact a Green Disaster and that no GMO has lived up to its promise. Yet he simply continues his enormous funding of agricultural genetic manipulation projects. Therefore, we believe there is sound reason that his Foundation’s many international vaccine initiatives represent much more than excessively kind-hearted charity …

In his deconstruction of Bill Gates’ charitable agenda, F. William Engdahl writes, “Vaccinating a child who then goes to drink feces-polluted river water is hardly healthy in any respect. But of course cleaning up the water and sewage systems of Africa would revolutionize the health conditions of the Continent.”[9]  Far more effective would be the Foundation donating its billions to improve sanitation and hygiene, and provide nutrition to the 2.6 billion people who have none, for increasing clean water sources so 900 million global residents can have access to drinkable water (now at 1 in 3 Africans). Instead, the Foundation could be funding thousands of health clinics focusing on the chronic illnesses these populations suffer from most.[10]  This is simply common sense. “Bad water,” says the Stockholm International Water Institute’s director, Anders Bentell, “kills more people than HIV, malaria and war together.” Spending billions of dollars to develop new vaccines and launch monumental efforts to vaccinate  African children plagued with diverse infectious illnesses promises to be a fruitless enterprise while these populations continue to live in squalor …

As a keynote speaker at the TED 2010 conference, Gates laid out his rationale for an international effort towards global depopulation.  He said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [projected to 9 billion people by 2050] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.“  New vaccines for depopulation? …

As early as 1968, the Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report recommended anti-fertility vaccines as a viable means for lessening the human population growth rate that should be aggressively pursued …

An early anti-fertility trial using human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a hormone essential for pregnancy, in vaccines was completed in 1988 in India through a Rockefeller collaboration with India’s National Institute of Immunology. The Rockefeller annual report declared success. Yet according to Betsy Hartman, Director of Hampshire College’s Population and Development Program, “although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible.” …

Perhaps the most thorough documented investigation into the covert use of anti-fertility vaccines is a 1995 report, “Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth Control Drugs,” compiled by J.A. Miller, a correspondent for the pro-life missionary movement Human Life International. In the early 1990s, the WHO, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the UN Development Programme, and the US’s National Institutes of Health undertook stealth anti-fertility initiatives under the disguise of tetanus vaccination programs. These vaccines were administered to unsuspecting and poor communities in Mexico, Nicaragua and the Philippines …

A 1995 BBC documentary, “The Human Laboratory,” interviewed Filipino women’s activist Mary Pilar Verzosa, who reported on the vaccine’s adverse effects. These included fertility cycles that were “all fouled up,” spontaneous bleeding and miscarriages.[20] Seemingly, women were not screened to determine whether or not they were pregnant before injections. Consequently in addition to interfering with a woman’s ability to become pregnant the WHO was launching a clandestine experiment to observe whether the vaccine would trigger miscarriages …

Bill Gates’ mission to protect poorer populations from disease through mass vaccination, his sense of urgency that the global population is too large and needs to be reduced, and his deep financial and collaborative enterprises with the oligarchic elite, health agencies and multilateral organizations with a past history of eugenic intentions and experimentation, make for a bizarre mix that raises serious questions about the truth behind his Foundation’s motives.

America has a long history of eugenic science through the first half of the twentieth century–John D. Rockefeller, Margaret Sanger, Paul Popenoe, Madison Grant and others. The names of the organizations and facilities they founded or supported tells the story. Andrew Carnegie’s Institute was the primary funder of the Eugenics Record Office that operated from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. The Laboratory was closed in 1944 after the public became aware of thousands sterilizations it oversaw …

So what are the lessons to be learned from this? The wealthiest elite on the planet are rarely questioned about the correctness of their actions and schemes. As long as one of these individuals say they are giving huge sums of money to a cause to end disease and suffering, we are not suppose to probe further. Rather, in the case of mainstream media, such people are to be worshiped as saviors. The oligarchic elite are so well interconnected on multiple boards of directors, clubs for the rich and powerful, think tanks, and among the high ranks of elected legislators and politicians that it is difficult to have an open and honest debate on the merits of their actions and spending. When a Ted Turner says we should reduce the world’s population by more than half, and Bill Gates suggests a 15 percent reduction, do we really understand they are following a form of eugenic genocide?’

TOP


https://www.naturalnews.com

Bill Gates admits that 700,000 people will be harmed or killed by his coronavirus vaccines

17May2020 by: https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-05-17-bill-gates-harmed-killed-coronavirus-vaccines.html

(Natural News) In his rush to develop one, two, or even seven different vaccines for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), billionaire software tycoon Bill Gates openly admitted that upwards of 700,000 people could become injured or die from these jabs.

The Microsoft co-founder and prominent eugenicist has been more outspoken in recent days than perhaps ever before about his desire to vaccinate the entire world, in this case as soon as possible for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19). And the reality is that many more will die from the vaccine than from the virus itself.

Speaking during a recent segment on CNBC, Gates admitted that in order to make vaccines “work” for the most vulnerable groups, they have to be super-charged, in a sense. And this super-charging means that some people are going to be injured or killed as a result.

“We clearly need a vaccine that works in the upper age range because they’re most at risk of that,” Gates stated about his plans for Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination.

“And doing that so that you amp it up so that it works in older people, and yet you don’t have side effects, if we have one in 10,000 side effects that’s way more, 700,000 people who will suffer from that.”

Bill Gates also says flu vaccines do not work for older people

During this same interview, Gates admitted something that we, too, have reported on: that influenza vaccines are pretty much useless in older people.

Though supposedly high-risk seniors are pushed to get their flu shots annually, Gates confessed to the fact that this yearly ritual does nothing to protect them against the flu.

“The efficacy of vaccines in older people is always a huge challenge,” Gates stated. “It turns out the flu vaccine isn’t that effective in elderly people.”

“And that actual decision of, ok, let’s go and give this vaccine to the entire world, governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed.”

In his own analysis, Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics crunched the data and found that the number of deaths around the world that are being attributed to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pales in comparison to the number of people who will be injured or killed by Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines, based on Gates’ own admission.

While the worldwide death count associated with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is currently right around a quarter-million, the roughly one percent of people who could potentially die from a Gates-funded Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine is about triple that.

This suggests that society is better off telling Gates to hit the road and letting the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) run its course – with proper nutrition, of course.

Vaccine experiments like the ones Gates is pushing for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) have been tried before, by the way. Back in the ’70s, the United States rolled out a vaccine for “swine flu” that was administered to some 45 million people over the course of 10 weeks.

This vaccination effort was halted, however, after it was discovered that no cases of swine flu were even detected outside of the military base where it was said to have originated. Meanwhile, one in 100,000 vaccinated individuals ended up suffering from side effects that included Guillain-Barré syndrome, while another 53 died.

Because of the horrors caused by this vaccination campaign, Guillain-Barré is supposedly monitored every single flu season to ensure that influenza vaccine safety meet certain safety thresholds.

“The side effect of treason is lead poisoning or rope burn, but not usually both,” joked one Big League Politics commenter in reference to Bill Gates.

John the Baptist paved the way for Jesus,” wrote another. “Bill Gates is paving the way for the antichrist.”

Sources for this article include:

BusinessInsider.com

BigLeaguePolitics.com

YouTu.be

NaturalNews.com

TOP


https://www.zerohedge.com/

Robert F Kennedy Jr. Exposes Bill Gates’ Vaccine Agenda In Scathing Report

by Tyler Durden 12April2020 – https://www.zerohedge.com/health/robert-f-kennedy-jr-exposes-bill-gates-vaccine-agenda-scathing-report

Authored by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense,

Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.

Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.

[ZH: The CDC has a large financial interest in pushing untested vaccines on the public and WHO is even more under the control of Big Pharma. The organization is corrupt beyond the meaning of the word. “The WHO is a sock puppet for the pharmaceutical industry.” — Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

‘The CDC is actually a vaccine company’ – Robert F. Kennedy Jr

RT America 31January2020

During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis.

South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.

In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.”

A month later, Gates said in a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”.

In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.  Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development.

The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas.

They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine.

In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.

TOP


https://www.zerohedge.com/

Kennedy Jr. Warns Parents About Danger Of Using Largely-Untested COVID Vaccines On Kids

by Tyler Durden 28July2020 – https://www.zerohedge.com/political/kennedy-jr-warns-parents-about-danger-using-largely-untested-covid-vaccines-kids

Authored by Martin Berger via GlobalResearch.ca,

Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on Thursday to be cautious about any new coronavirus vaccine, pointing out that key parts of testing are being skipped.

“The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether,” Kennedy said during an online debate on mandatory vaccinations with renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. The debate was aired by Valuetainment and moderated by Patrick Bet-David.

Kennedy is part of a political family, being the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. Both were murdered in the 1960s.

Another aspect of testing was equally unsatisfying, Kennedy said. The Moderna vaccine was tested “on 45 people. They had a high-dose group of 15 people, a medium-dose group of 15 people, and a low growth group of 15 people.”

Heated vaccine debate between Robert Kennedy Jr. and Alan Dershowitz

“In the low-dose group, one of the people was so sick from the vaccine they had to be hospitalized,” he explained.

“That’s six percent. In the high-dose group, three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized. That’s twenty percent.”

In spite of these significant problems,

“they’re going ahead, and making two billion doses of that vaccine.”

Another problem with the testing of the coronavirus vaccine is that it’s tested not on “typical Americans,” but a carefully selected group of people who don’t suffer from certain conditions.

“They use what they call exclusionary criteria,” Kennedy said.

“They are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they’re doing to the healthiest people.”

“If you look at their exclusionary idea criteria: You cannot be pregnant, you cannot be overweight, you must have never smoked a cigarette, you must have never vaped, you must have no respiratory problems in your family, you can’t suffer asthma, you can’t have diabetes, you can’t have rheumatoid arthritis or any autoimmune disease. There has to be no history of seizure in the family. These are the people they’re testing the vaccine on.”

He asked,

“What happens when they give them to the typical American? You know, Sally Six-Pack and Joe Bag of Donuts who’s 50 pounds overweight and has diabetes.”

Kennedy stressed several times that

“any other medicine … that had that kind of profile in its original phase-one study would be [dead on arrival].”

“No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with the profile that Moderna has,” he reiterated.

During the course of the debate, Kennedy also talked about the regular vaccines most people take, from Hepatitis B to the flu shot, emphasizing that no proper testing had ever been done, which is mandatory for any other medication. Vaccines “are the only medical product that does not have to be safety-tested against a placebo,” he explained.

In a study involving placebos, one group of people would be injected with the actual vaccine, while another group would be injected with saline solution, which would not have any effect in preventing a particular disease. The people who are part of the study would then be observed to see if there are any differences between the two groups, both regarding the disease vaccinated against, and side effects.

As these tests are never done on vaccines, “nobody knows the risk profile of any vaccine that is currently on the schedule. And that means nobody can say with any scientific certainty that that vaccine is averting more injuries and deaths than it’s causing.

In fact, it should be the opposite, Kennedy said, with vaccines being tested even more thoroughly than any other medication.

“It’s a medical intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people to prevent somebody else from getting sick,” he pointed out.

“And it’s the only medicine that’s given to healthy people … and particularly to children who have a whole lifetime in front of them. So you would expect that we would want that particular intervention to have particularly rigorous guarantees that it’s safe.”

Kennedy said

it’s not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury, and that injuries are not rare. The vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars” over the past three decades, “and the threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting a judgment – [the Department of Health and Human Services] admits that fewer than one percent of people who are injured ever even get to court.”

He mentioned another reason not to trust blindly any company currently producing vaccines in the United States. Each one of the four vaccine producers “is a convicted serial felon: GlaxoSanofiPfizerMerck.”

“In the past 10 years, just in the last decade, those companies have paid 35 billion dollars in criminal penalties, damages, fines, for lying to doctors, for defrauding science, for falsifying science, for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans knowingly.”

“It requires a cognitive dissonance,” Kennedy commented, “for people who understand the criminal corporate cultures of these four companies to believe that they’re doing this in every other product that they have, but they’re not doing it with vaccines.”

While Kennedy is often described as being against vaccines altogether, he stressed that he does not oppose vaccines, as such. He accused his critics of “marginalizing me and silencing me” by misrepresenting his actual position.

In May, Kennedy signed an appeal created by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò aimed at raising public awareness among people, governments, scientists, and the media about the serious dangers to individual freedom caused during the spread of Covid-19.

The appeal raised concern at one point about a COVID-19 vaccination in relation to human freedom.

“We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against Covid-19, however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool.”

The appeal made it clear that for Catholics it is “morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”

Comments on the YouTube video of the debate between Kennedy and Dershowitz indicated, almost unanimously, that Kennedy had won the debate. Dershowitz conceded many points, arguing, however, that from the point of view of constitutional law, the coronavirus vaccine could be made mandatory.

Dershowitz, who has provided legal counsel to and defended people like Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Julian Assange, cited a 1905 Supreme Court ruling as precedent. Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

Kennedy clarified that the state government at the time had offered people to either be vaccinated or pay a five dollar fine. Dershowitz’s argument, however, was that based on constitutional law, including this precedent, “the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

Kennedy said,

“I think there’s a big constitutional chasm between, you know, that remedy, which is paying a fine, and actually going in and holding somebody down and forcibly injecting them.”

President Trump has already said that the new coronavirus vaccine would not be mandatory, but available for those “who want to get it. Not everyone is going to want to get it.” A LifeSiteNews petition saying no to mandatory vaccinations has garnered more than 650,000 signatures and can still be signed here.

The ethical issue of many vaccines being derived from cell lines of aborted babies was not discussed during the debate.

a title=”top” href=”#top”>TOP


https://www.zerohedge.com/

Bill Gates Crosses The Digital Rubicon, Says “Mass Gatherings” May Not Return Without Global Vaccine

By Tyler Durden 09April2020 – https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/bill-gates-crosses-digital-rubicon-says-mass-gatherings-may-not-return-without-global

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

A recurring theme among conspiracy theorists is that the elite are just waiting for the right moment to roll out their ‘mark of the beast’ technology to remotely identify and control every single human being on the planet, thus sealing their plans for a one world government. And with many people willing to do just about anything to get back to some sense of normalcy, those fears appear more justified with each passing day.

In the Book of Revelation [13:16-17], there is a passage that has attracted the imagination of believers and disbelievers throughout the ages, and perhaps never more so than right now: “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark…”

Was John of Patmos history’s first conspiracy theorist, or are we merely indulging ourselves today with a case of self-fulfilling prophecy? Whatever the case may be, many people would probably have serious reservations about being branded with an ID code even if it had never been mentioned in Holy Scripture. But that certainly has not stopped Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who has been warning about a global pandemic for years, from pushing such controversial technologies on all of us.

In September 2019, just three months before the coronavirus first appeared in China, ID2020, a San Francisco-based biometric company that counts Microsoft as one of its founding members, quietly announced it was undertaking a new project that involves the “exploration of multiple biometric identification technologies for infants” that is based on “infant immunization” and only uses the “most successful approaches”.

Alternative-News-tweet-04April2020 In a new interview, Bill Gates authoritatively states that mass public gatherings will not come back "at all" until we have mass vaccination. Who made him king of the world?

 

For anyone who may be wondering what one of those “most successful approaches” might look like, consider the following top contender for the contract. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed what is essentially a hi-tech ‘tattoo’ that stores data in invisible dye under the skin. The ‘mark’ would be delivered together with a vaccine, most likely administered by Gavi, the global vaccine agency that also falls under the umbrella of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

“The researchers showed that their new dye, which consists of nanocrystals called quantum dots… emits near-infrared light that can be detected by a specially equipped smartphone,” MIT News reported.

And if the reader scrolls to the very bottom of the article, he will find that this study was funded first and foremost by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Today, with the global service economy shut down to prevent large groups of infectious humans from assembling, it is easier to imagine a day when people are required to have their infrared ID ‘tattoo’ scanned in order to be granted access to any number of public venues. And from there, it requires little stretch of the imagination to see this same tracking nanotechnology being applied broadly across the global economy, where it could be used to eliminate the use of dirty money. After all, if reusable bags are being outlawed over the coronavirus panic-demic, why should reusable cash get special treatment?

Writing earlier this month in these pages, geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar provided a compelling argument that the coronavirus, which is driving the world towards a New Great Depression, is “being used as cover for the advent of a new, digital financial system, complete with a forced vaccine cum nanochip creating a full, individual, digital identity.

As one possible future scenario, Escobar imagined “clusters of smart cities linked by AI, with people monitored full time and duly micro-chipped doing what they need with a unified digital currency…”

Those fears took on greater significance when Bill Gates sat down over the weekend for a breathtaking interview with CBS This Morning. Gates told host Anthony Mason that mass gatherings might have to be prohibited in the age of coronavirus unless and until a wide scale vaccination program is enacted.

“What does ‘opening up’ look like,” Gates asked rhetorically before essentially changing the entire social and cultural makeup of the United States in one fell swoop.

“Which activities, like schools, have such benefit and can be done in a way that the risk of transmission is very low, and which activities, like mass gatherings, maybe, in a certain sense more optional. And so until you’re widely vaccinated those [activities] may not come back at all

[The interview can be watched in its entirety here].

According to Gates, anything that could be defined as a “mass gathering” – from spectators packed into a stadium for a sporting event, to protesters out on the street in demonstration – would be considered an act of civil disobedience without a vaccine. Little surprise that Gates chose the concept of “mass gathering” to snag all of us, for what is modern democratic society if not one big mass event after another? Indeed, since nobody will want to miss the next big happening, like the Super Bowl, or Comic-Con, or, heaven forbid, Eurovision, millions of people would predictably line up for miles to get their Microsoft-supported inoculation, even if it contains tracking technologies.

 


Roosh-tweet-04April2020 MIT is working on a "quantum tattoo" that will mark you with an invisible identifier while also delivering a vaccine. Can you guess who is the premiere donor of the project?
All of this seems like sheer madness when it is remembered that there are other options for defeating the coronavirus than a mandatory global vaccine regime.

Just last month, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director, told a Senate Subcommittee that over 80 percent of the people who get infected by the coronavirus “spontaneously recover” without any medical intervention. This makes one wonder why the global lockdown was designed for everyone instead of just the sick and elderly. Meanwhile, the drug hydroxychloroquine, which has been downplayed in the media despite being named as the most effective coronavirus treatment among physicians in a major survey, is starting to get a fresh look.

Just this week, following Nevada’s lead, Michigan just reversed course and is now the second democratic state to request the anti-malarial drug from the Trump administration.


John-Solomon-tweet-03April2020 Michigan reverses course, requests anti-malarial drugs from feds to treat coronavirus. Second Democratic governor to change mind this week, following Nevada.

So now it looks as though we are off to the races to see what will become the approved method of fighting the global pandemic – a hastily developed vaccine that may actually worsen the effects of the disease in those who contract it, or the already proven inexpensive drug hydroxychloroquine.

If the winner turns out to be a global vaccine, possibly one that carries ID nanotechnology, don’t expect the wealthy to be lining up with their kids to be the first to get it. In 2015, The American Journal of Public Heath surveyed some 6,200 schools in California – the epicenter of biometric ID research – and found vaccine exemptions were twice as common among kindergartners enrolled in private institutions.

It seems that the elite are betting heavily on the development of an ID-tracking vaccine that would bring all races and institutions together under one big happy roof, but clearly they will continue living in their own fenced-off neighborhood in this one world government. Whether or not they will get a ‘special pass’ from receiving the new-age mark is another question.

TOP

NCF: EUGENICS SPECIAL / Global Extermination Database Exposed

Rockefeller Anti-Fertility Vaccines Exposed

Jurriaan Maessen ExplosiveReports.Com June 9, 2012 https://explosivereports.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/rockefeller-anti-fertility-vaccines-exposed/

In the course of August and September 2010, I wrote several articles for Infowars on the Rockefeller Foundation’s admitted funding and developing of anti-fertility vaccines intended for “mass-scale distribution.” As the soft-kill depopulation agenda accelerates it seems all the more relevant to re-post these articles as one.

1- Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction

In its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale. From page 51 onward we read:

“(…) several types of drugs are known to diminish male fertility, but those that have been tested have serious problems of toxicity. Very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”

The possibility of using vaccines to reduce male fertility was something that needed to be investigated further, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, because both the oral pill and the IUD were not suitable for mass-scale distribution:

“We are faced with the danger that within a few years these two “modern” methods, for which such high hopes have been held, will in fact turn out to be impracticable on a mass scale.”

“A semipermanent or renewable subcutaneous implant of these hormones has been suggested, but whether or not the same difficulties would result has not been determined.”

Saying that research thus-far had been too low-grade to produce any substantial results, the report was adamant:

“The Foundation will endeavour to assist in filling this important gap in several ways:

1- “Seeking out or encouraging the development of, and providing partial support to, a few centres of excellence in universities and research institutions in the United States and abroad in which the methods and points of view of molecular biology are teamed with the more traditional approaches of histology, embryology,and endocrinology in research pertinent to development of fertility control methods;”

2- “Supporting research of individual investigators, oriented toward development of contraceptive methods or of basic information on human reproduction relevant to such developments;”

3- “Encouraging, by making research funds available, as well as by other means, established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control;”

4- “Encouraging more biology and biochemistry students to elect careers in reproductive biology and human fertility control, through support of research and teaching programs in departments of zoology, biology, and biochemistry.”

The list goes on and on. Motivation for these activities, according to the RF?

“There are an estimated five million women among America’s poverty and near-poverty groups who need birth control service (…). The unchecked fertility of the indigent does much to perpetuate poverty, undereducation, and underemployment, not only in urban slums, but also in depressed rural areas.”

It wasn’t long before all the Foundation’s efforts began to have effect. In its annual report of 1988, The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation’s Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines:

“India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule.”

In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines, Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:

“The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…).”

In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.

Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essay Population control in the new world order:

“Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as ‘safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible’. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.”

The Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, quoted “a leading contraceptive researcher as saying:

“Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.”

Animal rights activist ms. Sonya Ghosh also expressed concerns about the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccine and its implementation:

“Instead of giving individual women more options to prevent pregnancy and protect against AIDs and sexually transmitted diseases, the anti fertility vaccine is designed to be easily administered to large numbers of women using the least resources. If administered to illiterate populations the issues of user control and informed consent are further cause for concern.”

To avoid such debates, the Foundation has in the last couple of decades consorted to its long-practised and highly successful methods of either outright lying through its teeth or using deceptive language to hide the fact that it continues to work tirelessly toward its long-stated mission.

2- Global Distribution of Rockefeller-Funded Anti-Fertility Vaccine Coordinated by WHO

In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction– which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”- another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”.

Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:

“basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade.”

In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

“The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):

“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”

Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:

“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.”

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”

Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, the time-line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extension, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and smallscale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol.”

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An antifertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.

“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”

In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 1970s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.

3- On Top of Vaccines, Rockefeller Foundation Presents Anti-Fertility Substance Gossypol for “Widespread Use”

It seems there is no limit to the Rockefeller Foundation’s ambitions to introduce anti-fertility compounds into either existing “health-services”, such as vaccines, or- as appears to be the case now- average consumer-products.

The 1985 Rockefeller Foundation’s annual report underlined its ongoing dedication towards finding good use for the anti-fertility substance “gossypol”, or C30H30O8 – as the description reads.

Indeed, gossypol, a toxic polyphenol derived from the cotton plant, was identified early on in the Foundation’s research as an effective sterilant. The question was, how to implement or integrate the toxic substance into crops.

“Another long-term interest of the Foundation has been gossypol, a compound that has been shown to have an antifertility effect in men, By the end of 1985, the Foundation had made grants totaling approximately $1.6 million in an effort to support and stimulate scientific investigations on the safety and efficacy of gossypol.”

In the 1986 Rockefeller Foundation annual report, the organization admits funding research into the use of fertility-reducing compounds in relation to food for “widespread use”:

“Male contraceptive studies are focused on gossypol, a natural substance extracted from the cotton plant, and identified by Chinese researchers as having an anti-fertility effect on men. Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive. The Foundation supported research on gossypol’s safety, reversibility and efficacy in seven different 1986 grants.”

In the RF’s 1988 annual report, gossypol as a contraceptive was also elaborated upon (page 22):

“Gossypol, a natural substance found in the cotton plant, continues to show promise as an oral contraceptive for men. Because it suppresses sperm production without affecting sex hormone levels, it is unique among the experimental approaches to fertility control in men. Foundation-funded scientists worldwide have assembled an aray of information about how gossypol works, and studies continue on a wide variety of its clinical applications. Dose reduction is being investigated to reduce health risks associated with the use of gossypol.”

The following year, according to the annual report, funds were allocated to several research institutions to see how this “dose reduction” could best be accomplished without interfering with the ant-fertility effects of gossypol.

(1988- $ 400,000, in addition to remaining funds from prior year appropriations) To support research on gossypol, its safety, reversibility, and efficacy as a contraceptive for use by men (…).”

Mention is made on money allocated to the University of Texas, “for a study of gossypol’s effects on DNA replication (…).”

The last mention of gossypol in the Foundation’s annals we find in the 1994 annual report, where funds were appropriated to the University of Innsbruck of Austria “for a study at the Institute of Physiology on the molecular action of gossypol at the cellular level.”

It seems that the funded scientists have indeed found a way of “lowering the dosage” of gossypol, circumventing the toxicity of the substance, so as to suppress or even eliminate these “undesirable side-effects”, which include: low blood potassium levels, fatigue, muscle weakness and even paralysis. If these effects could be eliminated without reducing the anti-fertility effects, the Foundation figured, it would be a highly effective and almost undetectable sterilant.

Although overtly, research into and development of gossypol as an anti-fertility compound was abandoned in the late 1990s, the cottonseed containing the substance was especially selected for mass distribution in the beginning of the current decade. Around 2006 a media-campaign was launched, saying the cottonseed could help defeat hunger and poverty.

In 2006, NatureNews reported that RNA interference (or RNAi) was the way to go. On the one hand it would “cut the gossypol content in cottonseeds by 98%, while leaving the chemical defenses of the rest of the plant intact.” Furthermore, the article quoted Dr. Deborah P. Delmer, the Rockefeller Foundation’s associate director of food security, who was quick to bury any concern:

“Deborah Delmer, associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City and an expert in agricultural food safety, points out that a benefit of using RNAi technology is that it turns off a gene process rather than switching on a novel function. “So instead of introducing a new foreign protein, you’re just shutting down one process,” Delmer says. “In that sense, I think that the safety concerns should be far less than other GM technologies.”

A 2006, National Geographic article Toxin-Free Cottonseed Engineered; Could Feed Millions Study Says, quotes the director of the Laboratory for Crop Transformation (Texas A&M Universtity), Keerti Singh Rathore as saying:

“A gossypol-free cottonseed would significantly contribute to human nutrition and health, particularly in developing countries, and help meet the requirements of the predicted 50 percent increase in the world population in the next 50 years.”

“Rathore’s study”, states the article, “represents the first substantiated case where gossypol was reduced via genetic engineering that targets the genes that make the toxin.”

I bring into recollection the statement made by the Rockefeller Foundation in its 1986 annual report, which reads:

“Before widespread use can be recommended, further investigation is needed to see if lowering the dosage can eliminate undesirable side-effects without reducing its effectiveness as a contraceptive.”

In the 1997 Foundational report, Rathore is mentioned (page 68). A postdoctoral fellowship-grant was given to a certain E. Chandrakanth “for advanced study in plant molecular biology under the direction of Keerti S. Rathore, Laboratory for Crop Transformation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.”

Compromising connections, in other words, for someone who claimed academic objectivity in regards to gossypol and its sterilizing effects. Rathore explained the workings of RNAi in a 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Cottonseed toxicity due to gossypol is a long-standing problem”, Rathore said, “and people have tried to fix it but haven’t been able to through traditional plant breeding. My area of research is plant transgenics, so I thought about using some molecular approaches to address this problem.”

Rathore also mentioned the desired main funder of his work without actually saying the name:

“we are trying to find some partners and will probably be looking at charitable foundations to help us out in terms of doing all kinds of testing that is required before a genetically engineered plant is approved for food or feed. We are in the very early stages and have a lot of ideas in mind, but we need to pursue those. Hopefully, we can find some sort of partnership that will allow us to do them.”

He also expressed the final adaptation of the cottonseed for widespread use is something of the long term:

“(…) right now there are many hurdles when you are dealing with a genetically modified plant. But I think in the next 15 or 20 years a lot of these regulations that we have to satisfy will be eliminated or reduced substantially.”

The Foundation, as is evident from the statements of Rockefeller’s own Deborah Delmer, is more than interested. Even worse, through the process of readying gossypol for mass-distribution in food, the fulfillment of their longstanding goal of sterilizing the populous into oblivion comes into view.

4- Rockefeller Foundation Conceptualized “Anti-Hormone” Vaccine in the 1920s and 30s, Reports Reveal

Rockefeller Foundation minion Max Mason, who acted as president in the mid-1930s, on multiple occasions expressed his master’s desire for an “anti-hormone” that would reduce fertility worldwide. Now keep in mind, this is more than 35 years before the Foundation actually mentioned funding “anti-fertility vaccines” in subsequent annual reports from 1969 onward.

Having traveled far beyond the realm of rumor and speculation, research into the admitted funding of anti-fertility vaccines has uncovered more and more sinister revelations along the way.

By the mid-1930s, Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation thought that “the ultimate solution of the problem [of birth control] may well lie in the studies of endocrinology, particularly antihormones.” The Foundation’s 1934 annual report states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has decided to concentrate its present effort in the natural sciences on the field of modern experimental biology, with special interest in such topics as endocrinology, nutrition, genetics, embryology, problems centering about the reproductive process, psychobiology, general and cellular physiology, biophysics, and biochemistry.”

“(…) research work is being conducted on the physiology of reproduction in the monkey. This work was begun at the Johns Hopkins University in 1921, and since 1923 has been continued at the University of Rochester. It involves observational and experimental studies of the reproductive cycle in certain species of the higher primates, in which this cycle closely resembles that of the human species. The effect of the various interrelated reproductive hormones is being studied.”

In the annual report of the previous year (1933), the Foundation stresses the fact that work on the reproductive hormones of primates serves to experiment on man in the future:

“(…) much work has been done in the formulation and solution of basic problems in the general biology and physiology of sex in organisms other than man. It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”

In the book Discipling Reproduction by Adele E. Clarke, the roots of Rockefeller-funded “anti-hormones” is being described in some detail, pointing out that the family’s ambitions to control man’s fertility date back even further than the 1930s. Clarke writes:

“On a cold morning in 1921, George Washington Corner, a physician and fledgling reproductive scientist, awoke in Baltimore to discover that it was snowing.”

“By 1929”, Clarke writes a bit further on, “Corner had mapped out the hormonal action of progesterone, an essential actor in the menstrual cycle and subsequently an actor in birth control pills.”

The 1935 Rockefeller Foundation annual report acknowledges funding Dr. Corner’s research:

“To the University of Rochester, for research on the physiology of reproduction under the direction of Dr. G. W. Corner during the threeyear period beginning July 1, 1935, and ending June 30, 1938, there has been appropriated the sum of $9,900. Dr. Corner’s activities are concentrated on a study of the oestrus cycle, using monkeys as the experimental animals. A colony of about thirty monkeys has been maintained, and experiments have furnished information on the normal histology of the reproductive cycle, the time of ovulation, the relation of ovulation to menstruation and other anatomically detectable correlations of the oestrus cycle. Work is continuing on two main lines: normal sex reproduction in the monkey, including the histology of ovary and uterus, and, secondly, the effects of the ovarian hormone.”

Again, never forget that the Foundation in 1933 stated outright that “It was essential that this fundamental work on infra-man pave the way for that on man.”

Another essential problem which arises, of course, is how exactly the funding-mechanism worked by which Corner’s research could be made ready for mass-consumption. Clarke mentions that officially the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), was the institute responsible for the task of doing so. More specific: the Committee for Research in Problems of Sex (CRPS):

“The NRC itself was founded in 1916 as an agency to inventory research toward enhanced military preparedness.”

“The NRC”, states the author, “was a prestigious organization from its inception, thanks to its early association with the NAS, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Kohler (1991:109) has argued that the NRC essentially served as an intermediary between the foundations and scientists in the interwar years.(…). The NRC/CRPS itself was funded almost exclusively by Rockefeller monies, initially through the Bureau of Social Hygiene and, after 1931, through the Rockefeller Foundation.”

On the subject of so-called “current immunological contraceptive research”, Clarke channels Rockefeller-president Max Mason:

“Other lines of current immunological contraceptive research continue to seek what, during the 1930s, Max Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation called “anti-hormones”: vaccines to block hormones needed for very early pregnancy and a vaccine to block the hormone needed for the surface of the egg to function properly.”

In a February 1934 “progress report” written by Warren Weaver (director of the Natural Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation) once again underlined the endgame:

“Can man gain an intelligent control of his own power? Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men? Can we obtain enough knowledge of physiology and psychobiology of sex so that man can bring this pervasive, highly important, and dangerous aspect of life under rational control?”

The same Warren Weaver wrote a “biographical Memoir” in honor of his friend Max Mason, revealing some more interesting facts. Weaver, who describes himself as a great personal friend of Mason, gives a general description of him as Rockefeller-minion:

“He had by that time developed a consuming interest in behavioral research, and particularly in the possibility that the physical sciences, working with and through the biological sciences, could shed new and revealing light on the normal and abnormal behavior of individuals, and ultimately on the social behavior of groups of men.”

Here we have it. The blueprint for sterilizing vaccines has been first conceptualized way back in the 1920s and 1930s by social scientists of the Rockefeller Foundation. Although later the eugenic language (“anti-fertility vaccine”) was polished up with the help of some linguistic plastic surgery producing the term “immunological contraceptive”, the ultimate goal remains the same.

TOP


https://www.naturalnews.com

Ten year study shows that UNVACCINATED are far healthier than their vaccinated peers who suffer from more respiratory infections, asthma, allergies, etc.

Sunday, December 13, 2020 by: https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-12-13-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-peers.html

(Natural News) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) refuse to conduct any study comparing the unvaccinated child to his/her peers. While HHS is legally obligated to conduct safety studies every two years and report to Congress in accordance with the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, it was admitted in a 2018 court ruling that none of these vaccine safety studies were ever conducted over a thirty year span!

 

This medical fraud has enabled the rise of a predatory vaccine industry and a growing number of recommended childhood vaccinations. However, as childhood vaccinations increase, the health of American children has not improved in the past thirty years and respiratory infections are rampant. Visits to the pediatrician have skyrocketed, with chronic health issues becoming a normal way of life for many. A whopping 54 percent of children and young adults in the U.S. now suffer from chronic illnesses that lead to life-long pharmaceutical prescriptions.

Ten-year study finds that unvaccinated children are healthier in several metrics and enjoy 25 times fewer pediatric visits

A new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health finds that UNVACCINATED children are far healthier than vaccinated children. As the rate of vaccination increases, so does chronic health issues such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, respiratory infections, eczema and a host of other health problems. The study, titled, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” shows how childhood vaccination causes an increasing number of pediatric visits and an influx of diagnoses. The research followed 3,300 pediatric patients for ten years and was conducted at Integrative Pediatric, a pediatrics practice in Oregon run by Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D.

 

During the study, Thomas’s pediatric practice prioritized parental decision-making and followed the informed consent doctrine of the American Medical Association. The plan allows parents to stop or delay vaccination if vaccine injuries were present. Not every child processes vaccine ingredients in the same way; conditions like eczema, developmental delay, allergies, or autoimmune conditions are typical signs that their body is unable to process the vaccines. Dr. Thomas’s practice contained the perfect mix of children who ranged from being unvaccinated to partially vaccinated to fully vaccinated per the CDC’s guidelines.

 

The study found that the unvaccinated child shows fewer signs of respiratory infections and fewer fevers at well-child visits. The unvaccinated child required twenty-five times LESS pediatric care over a ten year span! The CDC pushes for 70 doses of 16 vaccines on a child before they reach the age of 18. Children who received 90 to 95 percent of the CDC-recommended vaccines for their age group were about 25 times more likely to see the pediatrician than the unvaccinated group.

Vaccinated children (with a family history of autoimmune issues) suffer more compared to their unvaccinated peers

An important feature of this study was Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld’s work, which singled out a predisposition to vaccine injury called autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants. If there is family history of autoimmunity, children who get vaccinated are more likely to suffer from ear infections, asthma, allergies and skin rashes, when compared to the unvaccinated who also share the same family history of autoimmune issues. The aluminum adjuvant and the other various chemicals in the vaccine may turn on the genes that enable autoimmune issues. Family history of disease is important in determining whether vaccines should be used in the child.

Vaccinated children up to six times more likely to suffer from anemia, allergies, sinusitis and asthma

The most concerning aspect of the study was the rise in chronic health issues among the vaccinated children. The vaccinated children were three to six times more likely to wind up in the pediatrician’s office to treat anemia, allergies, sinusitis and asthma. The vaccinated were also 70 percent more likely to suffer from various respiratory infections compared to the unvaccinated. Do the vaccines weaken overall immunity and make children more susceptible to other infections? (Related: Vaccinated children face a 3,000% increase in allergic rhinitis.)

No ADHD in the unvaccinated

There was absolutely no ADHD in the unvaccinated children, but as vaccination uptake increased, ADHD and behavioral issues increased. Thomas’s practice halted vaccination when signs of ADHD were prevalent, which is why his practice saw roughly half the rate of ADHD overall, when compared to the general population.

Vaccine-preventable illnesses were not prevalent in the vaccinated or the unvaccinated

Strangely, a quarter percent of the vaccinated were diagnosed with infections that the vaccines were supposed to prevent, including chicken pox or whooping cough. A slight uptick in chicken pox and whooping cough was observed in the unvaccinated, but they all recovered and gained lifelong immunity to the infections. Predictably, there were no cases of measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, hepatitis, or any other vaccine targeted infection for the children who were vaccinated. Surprisingly, there were also NO CASES of these infections in the unvaccinated during the entire 10.5-year study period. This brings up the question: Are the vaccines even necessary, or do they impose a burden of unnecessary harm to children?

age-specific cumulative office visits

age-specific cumulative office visits

 

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

MDPI.com

NaturalNews.com

HealthImpactNews.com

childrenshealthdefense-org-defender-logo

Groundbreaking Study Shows Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier Than Vaccinated Children

This study adds to a growing list of published peer-reviewed papers that compare the health of vaccinated children to the health of unvaccinated children. These studies suggest we have long underestimated the scope of vaccine harms, and that the epidemic of chronic illness in children is hardly a mystery.

By Alix Mayer, MBA 07 December 2020 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/unvaccinated-children-healthier-than-vaccinated-children/

unvaccinated-kids-feature

Unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children, according to a new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

Click to download PDF file Click to Download the Paper Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U S children-JTS-3-186

 

The study — “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” — by James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
and Paul Thomas, MD, was conducted among 3,300 patients at Dr. Thomas’ Oregon pediatrics practice, Integrative Pediatric.
This study adds to a growing list of published peer-reviewed papers (Mawson, 2017; Hooker and Miller, 2020) that compare the health of vaccinated children to the health of unvaccinated children. These studies suggest we have long underestimated the scope of vaccine harms, and that the epidemic of chronic illness in children is hardly a mystery.

The study the CDC refused to do

Since 1986, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been legally obligated to conduct safety studies and issue a safety report on children’s vaccinations every two years. In 2018, it was determined they had never done so. It is therefore incumbent upon non-governmental groups to do the work the CDC refuses to do.

 

As the leading governmental organization driving vaccination among Americans, the CDC refuses to incriminate themselves in the epidemic of childhood chronic illness. It is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. They are complicit in creating an evidence vacuum to deliberately manage against the possibility of the public turning against vaccination.

 

Since the Lyons-Weiler and Thomas study demonstrates that vaccinated children have more chronic illness and were also more likely to get respiratory infections, those who downplay vaccine risks will be sent into another round of apoplectic machinations to attempt to invalidate the results.
Despite the rigor with which this study was conducted, expect critics to do anything but cite opposing science. They cannot. It simply has not been done. Instead, expect critics to draw from a hackneyed playbook to draw the attention away from these scientific findings by directing ad hominem attacks on the authors, criticizing the journal where it was published, and claiming that the study design was not sound.

 

When research highlights anomalies that diverge from a dominant scientific paradigm, it’s important to remember that the playground of science is not in proof, but in the accumulation of evidence that bolsters an emerging paradigm. The Lyons-Weiler and Thomas study strengthens this emerging paradigm that vaccines may cause more harm than previously documented and characterized.

A perfect pediatric practice to study health outcomes among varying rates of vaccination

Thomas’ pediatric practice follows The Dr. Paul Approved Vaccine Plan, allowing for fully informed consent and parental decision-making in vaccination choices for their children. The plan was developed to reduce exposures to aluminum-containing vaccines and to allow parents to stop or delay vaccinations if some telltale signs of vaccine injury were starting to appear. Conditions like allergies, eczema, developmental delay or autoimmune conditions are typical signs that a child’s immune system is not processing vaccines normally.

 

These conditions serve as early indicators to help the parent and pediatrician consider slowing or stopping vaccination. As such, Dr. Thomas’ practice has an incredible mix of children who range from fully vaccinated, to partially vaccinated, to not vaccinated at all, making it the perfect pediatric practice to mine for insights into side effects of vaccination.

Study results based on relative incidence of office visits

The Lyons-Weiler and Thomas study was conducted among pediatric patient records spanning 10 years, from Thomas’ practice in Oregon. Instead of using odds ratios of diagnoses in the two groups, the authors found that the relative incidence of office visit was more powerful. Even after controlling for health care exposure, age, family history of autoimmunity and gender, the associations of vaccination with many poor health outcomes were robust.

Unvaccinated children have less fever, seek 25X less pediatric care outside well-child visits

The study found that vaccinated children in the study see the doctor more often than unvaccinated children. The CDC recommends 70 doses of 16 vaccines before a child reaches the age of 18. The more vaccines a child in the study received, the more likely the child presented with fever at an office visit.
The study had unique data that allowed the researchers to study healthcare seeking behavior. Unlike increases in fever accompanied by increased vaccine uptake, which is accepted as causally related to vaccination, increases in vaccine acceptance was not accompanied by a major increase in well-child visits. In fact, regardless of how many vaccinations parents decided their children would have, the number of well-child visits was about the same.

 

Any concerns that the non-vaccinated or less-vaccinated children would avoid the doctor are unfounded, and puts the jaw-droppingly large difference in office visits in perspective — outside of well-child visits, children who received 90 to 95% of the CDC-recommended vaccines for their age group were about 25 times more likely than the unvaccinated group to see the pediatrician for an appointment related to fever.

children-got-CDC-recommended-vaccines-office-visit-for-fever-vs-non-vaccine

Compared to their unvaccinated counterparts, vaccinated children in the study were three to six times more likely to show up in the pediatrician’s office for treatment related to anemia, asthma, allergies and sinusitis. The striking charts below show age-specific cumulative office visits for various conditions among the fully vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

age-specific cumulative office visits

age-specific cumulative office visits

 

No ADHD among unvaccinated

In a stunning finding sure to rock the psychiatric community, not a single unvaccinated child in the study was diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD,) while 0.063% of the vaccinated group were diagnosed with ADHD. Likely due to the vaccine-friendly plan parent-doctor dyad decision-making at Dr. Thomas’ practice, the overall rates of ADHD and autism in the practice were roughly half the rates found in the general population of American children.

Low levels of chicken pox and whooping cough in vaccinated and unvaccinated

Regarding the question of whether or not vaccines prevent the infections they are intended to prevent, a quarter of a percent of the vaccinated were diagnosed with either chicken pox or whooping cough, while a half percent of the unvaccinated were diagnosed with chickenpox, whooping cough, or rotavirus.
Significantly, there were no cases of measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, hepatitis or other vaccine-targeted infections in either the vaccinated or unvaccinated, during the entire 10.5 year study period.

Vaccinated 70% more likely to have any respiratory infection

Vaccinations do appear to make recipients more generally susceptible to infections, so it is ironic, yet not surprising that the vaccinated children in the study appeared at the doctor’s office for respiratory infections 70% more often than the unvaccinated. This finding is likely why vaccinated children present to the pediatrician so often with fevers. Your grandmother was right when she asked why kids these days seem to be sick all the time, despite heavy vaccination.

Family history of autoimmunity correlated with ear infection and allergic conditions

Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld and others have described a condition called autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA), where genetics and family history of autoimmunity appear to pre-dispose vaccinated patients to higher risks of developing an autoimmune condition. With this in mind, the authors compared patient records from those with a family history of autoimmune conditions — such as multiple sclerosis, type I diabetes or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis — to patients whose families do not have autoimmunity. The results were striking. Vaccination among children with autoimmunity in their family appeared to increase the risk of ear infection, asthma, allergies and skin rashes relative to the unvaccinated with family history of autoimmunity.

Past studies have used a weaker statistic

Readers of the study will learn about flaws in past vaccine safety studies, such as over-adjustment bias, in which the data are analyzed many times over in search of the right combination of variables to make associations of adverse health outcomes with vaccines go away. One of the most important findings of this study is that the comparison of the number of office visits related to specific health condition is a far more accurate tool than just using the incidence of diagnoses. In fact, the study authors show this with simulation — and they point out that studies that use odds ratios with incidence of diagnosis are using a low-powered special case of the method introduced by their study, the relative incidence of office visits, because patients with a “diagnosis” have at least one billed office visit related to the diagnosis. The authors conclude that future vaccine safety studies should avoid using weak measures such as odds ratios of incidence of diagnosis.

Conclusion

Since the study found healthcare seeking behavior could not explain vaccination rates, the only remaining explanation of why vaccinated patients require more healthcare for symptoms of chronic illness associated with vaccination is that vaccines are not only associated with adverse health outcomes — they are also associated with more severe and chronic adverse health outcomes. Recalling that 54% of children and young adults in the U.S. have chronic illnesses that lead to life-long pharmaceutical prescriptions, it seems a lot of human pain and suffering could be reduced by adhering to informed choice regarding the true risks of vaccination, and heeding signs of vaccine sensitivity. Although the authors call for more studies to be conducted using similar methodology, this study should certainly cause pediatricians to pause and wonder if they are contributing to life-long chronic illness in some of their patients.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Suggest a Correction

Alix Mayer, MBA

Alix Mayer, MBA serves on the board of Children’s Health Defense and is the president of the California chapter of Children’s Health Defense.

TOP

Study Shows Vaccines Cause Infant Deaths

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Click to Download the Formal National Institutes of Health report Click to download PDF file Infant-mortality-rates-regressed-against-number-of-vaccine-doses-routinely-given-10.1177_0960327111407644

“Nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates [IMR]. The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year – the most in the world – yet 33 [out of 34] nations have better IMRs.”
~~  From a study linking vaccines to infant deaths on the National Institutes of Health website

A vaccine study posted on the website of the NIH (U.S. National Institutes of Health) under the National Library of Medicine shows a strong correlation across the 34 countries evaluated between the number of vaccines given to infants and the rate of infant deaths, or in scientific lingo “infant mortality rate” [IMR]. The abstract, conclusion and two key graphs from this study are posted below.

Common sense would tell us that an infant’s immune system is not well developed and that the 26 vaccines scheduled for infants by the age of one year in the U.S. could easily overtax the coping mechanisms of many infants. Now the data from this study confirms that those countries which give only 12 to 14 vaccines to infants have much lower infant death rates (by as much as 50% or more) than the U.S. and other countries with higher numbers of vaccinations.

Remember that huge pharmaceuticals which focus on maximizing shareholder value above all else make billions of dollars on these vaccines. They do everything they can to hide information like this to protect their huge profits. Dozens of major media articles have shown the serious dangers of vaccines, yet the media largely parrots the views of its largest advertisers, including big pharma. Educate yourself and don’t fall for all of the media and government hype. By being well informed and taking action, we can protect the health of our children and future generations.

 


Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
National Institutes of Health website

Abstract

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year – the most in the world – yet 33 [out of 34] nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23, and 24-26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12-14 vaccine doses and those giving 21-23, and 24-26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.

http://org.salsalabs.com/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=11690

http://org.salsalabs.com/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=11690

 

Compare the infant death rates in the left column above with the number of vaccines given to infants listed in the right row. The graph below shows the strong overall correlation with few exceptions.

Figure-1 2009 Infant mortality rates and number of vaccine doses for 30 nations.

Figure-1 2009 Infant mortality rates and number of vaccine doses for 30 nations.

Figure 2. 2009 Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses (five categories). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Figure 2.
2009 Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses (five categories)./PMC3170075/

 

Figure 3. Reclassification of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths to suffocation in bed and unknown causes. The postneonatal SIDS rate appears to have declined from 61.6 deaths (per 100,000 live births) in 1999 to 50.9 in 2001. However, during this period there was a significant increase in postneonatal deaths attributed to suffocation in bed and due to unknown causes. When these sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUIDs) are combined with SIDS deaths, the total SIDS rate remains relatively stable, resulting in a non-significant decline. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Figure 3.
Reclassification of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths to suffocation in bed and unknown causes. The postneonatal SIDS rate appears to have declined from 61.6 deaths (per 100,000 live births) in 1999 to 50.9 in 2001. However, during this period there was a significant increase in postneonatal deaths attributed to suffocation in bed and due to unknown causes. When these sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUIDs) are combined with SIDS deaths, the total SIDS rate remains relatively stable, resulting in a non-significant decline.

Is there evidence linking SIDS to vaccines?

Although some studies were unable to find correlations between SIDS and vaccines, there is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT “may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study.” Walker et al. found “the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization.” Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.

Ottaviani et al. documented the case of a 3-month-old infant who died suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after being given six vaccines in a single shot: “Examination of the brainstem on serial sections revealed bilateral hypoplasia of the arcuate nucleus. The cardiac conduction system presented persistent fetal dispersion and resorptive degeneration. This case offers a unique insight into the possible role of hexavalent vaccine in triggering a lethal outcome in a vulnerable baby.” Without a full necropsy study in the case of sudden, unexpected infant death, at least some cases linked to vaccination are likely to go undetected.

Reclassified infant deaths

It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to over-vaccination. Some infants’ deaths categorized as ‘suffocation’ or due to ‘unknown and unspecified causes’ may also be cases of SIDS reclassified within the ICD. Some of these infant deaths may be vaccine related as well. This trend toward reclassifying ICD data is a great concern of the CDC “because inaccurate or inconsistent cause-of-death determination and reporting hamper the ability to monitor national trends, ascertain risk factors, and design and evaluate programs to prevent these deaths.” If some infant deaths are vaccine related and concealed within the various ICD categories for SUIDs, is it possible that other vaccine-related infant deaths have also been reclassified?

Of the 34 nations that have crossed the socio-economic threshold and are able to provide the basic necessities for infant survival—clean water, nutrition, sanitation, and health care—several require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses and have relatively high infant mortality rates. These nations should take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes. Of course, all SUID categories should be re-inspected. Other ICD categories may be related to vaccines as well. For example, a new live-virus orally administered vaccine against rotavirus-induced diarrhea—Rotarix®—was licensed by the European Medicine Agency in 2006 and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008. However, in a clinical study that evaluated the safety of the Rotarix vaccine, vaccinated babies died at a higher rate than non-vaccinated babies—mainly due to a statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related fatalities. (One biologically plausible explanation is that natural rotavirus infection might have a protective effect against respiratory infection.) Although these fatalities appear to be vaccine related and raise a nation’s infant mortality rate, medical certifiers are likely to misclassify these deaths as pneumonia.

Several additional ICD categories are possible candidates for incorrect infant death classifications: unspecified viral diseases, diseases of the blood, septicemia, diseases of the nervous system, anoxic brain damage, other diseases of the nervous system, diseases of the respiratory system, influenza, and unspecified diseases of the respiratory system. All of these selected causes may be repositories of vaccine-related infant deaths reclassified as common fatalities. All nations—rich and poor, industrialized and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals. Progress on reducing infant mortality rates should include monitoring vaccine schedules and medical certification practices to ascertain whether vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified as ordinary mortality in the ICD.

How many infants can be saved with an improved IMR?

Slight improvements in IMRs can make a substantial difference. In 2009, there were approximately 4.5 million live births and 28,000 infant deaths in the United States, resulting in an infant mortality rate of 6.22/1000. If health authorities can find a way to reduce the rate by 1/1000 (16%), the United States would rise in international rank from 34th to 31st and about 4500 infants would be saved.

Conclusion

The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 [out of 34] nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23, and 24-26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.

Efforts to reduce the relatively high US IMR have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations – rich and poor, advanced and developing – have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.


Note: See all charts and read the full study on this webpage of the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine. The study was published in Sept. of 2011.

Comments:
Devash11/2/20 11:07 AM http://palmtreeofdeborah.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-special-message-about-coronavirus.html#comment-form
The following is information well worth passing on. It’s constructive and reinforces my advice that taking measures to boost your natural immune system could be a lifesaver.

The outbreak of the new coronavirus in China has killed more than 900 people, but one group has escaped with minimal damage: children. Youth can certainly contract the virus. Among the infected are at least two newborns, according to Chinese health officials. But few children are among those sick enough to be diagnosed with the coronavirus. Numbers are changing quickly as the outbreak evolves, but the median age of patients skews older, between 49 and 56 years old. A similar pattern holds for many infectious diseases, from the familiar, such as chickenpox and measles, to the newly emerged, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“One hypothesis is that the innate immune response, that is the early response that is aimed broadly at groups of pathogens, tends to be more active” in children.

“The case we’re seeing with the [emerging] coronaviruses is not that the children are not having any symptoms at all, they’re actually having viral pneumonia. But because their immune systems are so robust, it doesn’t lay them out the way it would as an adult.” Children with mild symptoms probably won’t be tested and confirmed to have the virus.

Adults are 25 times more likely to die from chickenpox than children are. And though influenza can be devastating for infants, older children usually make it through with more ease than adults. Seasonal flu death rates in adults are 10 times that of death rates in children.

(Source: Live Science) https://www.livescience.com/why-kids-missing-coronavirus-cases.html

False V@x Theories and Assumptions Result in a Decline in Health

TOP


Arutz Sheva http://www.israelnationalnews.com/

Tragedy in Betar: Baby receives routine vaccine and dies

Toddler reportedly received routine vaccine and in recent days developed high fever; pronounced dead in hospital.

Mordechai Sones , November 22 , 2020 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/291737

An 8-month-old baby was found this morning in her bed lifeless. A MDA team was called to the scene and performed resuscitation operations on her and evacuated her to Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem, where she was pronounced dead.

About a week ago, the toddler received a routine vaccine and in recent days developed a high fever, reports Israel Hayom. This morning she was found without a pulse in her home. Shaare Zedek Hospital told Israel Hayom: “This is a tragedy.” Circumstances are being examined and the connection to the administration of the vaccine is examined.

A statement from the medical center said: “The toddler was brought without a pulse after undergoing CPR in the field and after suffering from a high fever for several days. Resuscitation efforts continued at Shaarei Tzedek, but unfortunately the medical staff was forced to determine her death.”

TOP


https://www.naturalnews.com

Infant vaccination rates plummeted during the lock down, so why did INFANT mortality rates also plummet to historic lows?

23June2020 by: https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-06-23-infant-vaccination-rates-plummeted-lockdown-mortality.html

(Natural News) Vaccines are praised as the golden standard for saving millions of lives worldwide. That’s the promise that we are led to believe as parents ritualistically submit their infant sons and daughters to a cornucopia of state-sanctioned injections. Well-baby visits are designed to introduce up to 26 liability-free vaccinations in the baby’s first year of life, during six or more visits to a pediatrician.

However, during the covid-19 lockdowns, well-baby visits were cancelled and vaccination rates plummeted as a result. More parents stayed home, nursed their babies, watched them closely, and kept them away from pediatricians.

When the national emergency order was declared, provider orders for routine pediatric vaccines dropped significantly. The Vaccines for Children Program and the Vaccine Safety Data link reported a drop-off in vaccination coverage starting in the third week of March, as hundreds of thousands of parents stayed home and skipped well-baby visits. The downward trend was observed from March 23rd to the end of April for all non-influenza vaccines, especially measles-containing vaccines.

Child Vaccine-rate 2020

Child Vaccine-rate 2020

So why did infant mortality rates drop to historic lows as vaccination coverage fell?

If vaccines are so important for an infant to live, then why didn’t the infant death rate dramatically increase as vaccination coverage fell? The data shows that the opposite effect occurred; infant deaths actually plummeted to historic lows! In the U.S., infants mortality occurs at roughly 700 babies per week. This trend of infant death and sacrifice remained steady from 2014 to 2019. In 2020, this all changed. From early March to mid-April, infant deaths fell by 30 percent on average each week! Throughout April and into mid May, the infant mortality rate had declined to 500 on average per week.

Age ,18 Deaths-per-week

Age ,18 Deaths-per-week

Deaths among children under 18 are relatively rare when compared to deaths from other age groups. For the average death rate to change by 30 percent in the youngest age group (infants) – that is unprecedented!

The main causes of death for infants is congenital malformation (birth defects), representing 32 percent of all infant deaths. On average, accidents account for 31 percent of infant deaths. Circulatory complications (9 percent) and homicide (7 percent) are also contributing causes. The biggest grey area for infant death is “sudden infant death syndrome” which accounts for roughly 32 percent of infant deaths. This is when an otherwise healthy infant suddenly dies in their sleep, through suffocation, poisoning, or from an undiagnosed condition or adverse reaction.

Infant mortality rates fall when less vaccine doses are administered

An important study found that infant mortality rates regressed against the number of vaccine doses routinely given. The study asks: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? After all, the cumulative safety of the entire U.S. vaccine schedule has never been studied.

Infant mortality rate is defined as the number of infant deaths per 1000 live births. The infant mortality rate for the US is an abysmal 6.22. Singapore, Sweden, and Japan have an infant mortality rate that is less than half that of the US (2.80). There were major differences in infant mortality for nations that gave 12-14 doses in the first year of a baby’s life compared to those that gave 21-23 and 24-26 doses. As of 2009, the five nations with the lowest infant mortality rate only require 12 vaccine doses in the infant’s first year, compared to 24-26 doses required by the US. The US pathetically has the highest infant mortality rate out of the 33 developed nations in the study.

The covid-19 lockdowns of 2020 provided more insight into how a nation can lower the infant mortality rate. As a nation that cares for the lives of its citizens, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) must rethink the purpose of well-baby visits and the necessity of pumping infants full of numerous vaccinations. If the US can save 200 or more babies on average each week by simply foregoing well-baby visits and vaccinations, then how many more babies can be saved if pediatric care was reformed entirely, and vaccine doses were lessened? How many babies can be saved if pediatric care adopted a more comprehensive and integrative approach to infant immunology and neurodevelopment? Finally, what if vaccine manufacturers were held liable in a court of law?

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

CDC.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

Image credits: ChildrensHealthDefense.org

TOP


https://www.zerohedge.com/

Authoritarianism In The Age Of Pseudoscience

by Tyler Durden 09May2020 https://www.zerohedge.com/health/authoritarianism-age-pseudoscience

Authored by Colin Todhunter via Off-Guardian.org,

Following the court decision in the US to award in favour of Dewayne Johnson (exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer and its active ingredient, glyphosate, caused Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma), attorney Robert Kennedy Jr said at the post-trial press conference:

The corruption of science, the falsification of science, and we saw all those things happen here. This is a company (Monsanto) that used all of the plays in the playbook developed over 60 years by the tobacco industry to escape the consequences of killing one of every five of its customers… Monsanto… has used those strategies…”

Johnson’s lawyers argued over the course of the month-long trial in 2018 that Monsanto had “fought science” for years and targeted academics who spoke up about possible health risks of the herbicide product.

Monsanto Roundup sign near crops

Long before the Johnson case, critics of Monsanto were already aware of the practices the company had engaged in for decades to undermine science. At the same time, Monsanto and its lobbyists had called anyone who questioned the company’s ‘science’ as engaging in pseudoscience and labelled them ‘anti-science’.

We need look no further than the current coronavirus issue to understand how vested interests are set to profit by spinning the crisis a certain way and how questionable science is again being used to pursue policies that are essentially ‘unscientific’ – governments, the police and the corporate media have become the arbiters of ‘truth’.

Health Ranger DECLARES: End the LOCKDOWNS; launch the TAKEDOWNS

Health Ranger Report 07May2020

What directions to go with science

We also see anyone challenging the policies and the ‘science’ being censored on social media or not being given a platform on TV and accused of engaging in ‘misinformation’.

It’s the same old playbook.

The case-fatality ratio for COVID-19 is so low as to make the lockdown response wholly disproportionate. Yet we are asked to blindly accept government narratives and the policies based on them.

Making an entire country go home and stay home has immense, incalculable costs in terms of well-being and livelihoods. This itself has created a pervasive sense of panic and crisis and is largely a result of the measures taken against the ‘pandemic’ and not of the virus itself.

Certain epidemiologists have said there is very little sturdy evidence to base lockdown policies on, but this has not prevented politicians from acting as if everything they say or do is based on solid science.

The lockdown would not be merited if we were to genuinely adopt a knowledge-based approach. If we look at early projections by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in the UK, he had grossly overstated the number of possible deaths resulting from the coronavirus and has now backtracked substantially.

Ferguson has a chequered track record, which led UK newspaper The Telegraph to run a piece entitled ‘How accurate was the science that led to lockdown?’ The article outlines Ferguson’s previous flawed predictions about infectious diseases and a number of experts raise serious questions about the modelling that led to lockdown in the UK.

Ferguson’s previous modelling for the spread of epidemics was so off the mark that it may beggar believe that anyone could have faith in anything he says, yet he remains part of the UK government’s scientific advisory group. Officials are now talking of ‘easing’ lockdowns, but Ferguson warns that lockdown in the UK will only be lifted once a vaccine for COVID-19 has been found.

It raises the question: when will Ferguson be held to account for his current and previously flawed work and his exaggerated predictions? Because, on the basis of his modelling, the UK has been in lockdown for many weeks, the results of which are taking a toll on the livelihoods and well-being of the population which are and will continue to far outweigh the effects of COVID-19.

According to a 1982 academic study, a 1% increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [including 20,000 heart attacks, 920 suicides, 650 homicides], 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions.

Consider that by 30 April, in the US alone, 30 million had filed for unemployment benefit since the lockdown began. Between 23 and 30 April, some 3.8 million filed for unemployment benefit. Prior to the current crisis, the unemployment rate was 3.5%. Some predict it could eventually reach 30%.

Ferguson – whose model was the basis for policies elsewhere in addition to the UK – is as much to blame as anyone for the current situation. And it is a situation that has been fuelled by a government and media promoted fear narrative that has had members of the public so afraid of the virus that many have been demanding further restrictions of their liberty by the state in order to ‘save’ them.

Even with the promise of easing the lockdown, people seem to be fearful of venturing out in the near future thanks to the fear campaign they have been subjected to.

Instead of encouraging more diverse, informed and objective opinions in the mainstream, we too often see money and power forcing the issue, not least in the form of Bill Gates who tells the world ‘normality’ may not return for another 18 months – until he and his close associates in the pharmaceuticals industry find a vaccine and we are all vaccinated.

In the UK, the population is constantly subjected via their TV screens to clap for NHS workers, support the NHS and to stay home and save lives on the basis of questionable data and policies. Emotive stuff taking place under a ruling Conservative Party that has cut thousands of hospital beds, frozen staff pay, placed workers on zero-hour contracts and demonised junior doctors.

It is also using the current crisis to accelerate the privatisation of state health care.

In recent weeks, ministers have used special powers to bypass normal tendering and award a string of contracts to private companies and management consultants without open competition.

But if cheap propaganda stunts do not secure the compliance, open threats will suffice. For instance, in the US, city mayors and local politicians have threatened to ‘hunt down’, monitor social media and jail those who break lockdown rules.

Prominent conservative commentator Tucker Carlson asks who gave these people the authority to tear up the US constitution; what gives them the right to threaten voters while they themselves or their families have been exposed as having little regard for lockdown norms. As overhead drones bark out orders to residents, Carlson wonders how the US – almost overnight – transformed into a totalitarian state.

With a compliant media failing to hold tyrannical officials to account, Carlson’s concerns mirror those of Lionel Shriver in the UK, writing in The Spectator, who declares that the supine capitulation of Britain to a de facto police state has been one of the most depressing spectacles he has ever witnessed.

Under the pretext of tracking and tracing the spread of the virus, the UK government is rolling out an app which will let the likes of Apple and Google monitor a person’s every location visited and every physical contact. There seems to be little oversight in terms of privacy.

The contact-tracing app has opted for a centralised model of data collection: all the contact-tracing data is not to be deleted but anonymized and kept under one roof in one central government database for ‘research purposes’.

We may think back to Cambridge Analytica’s harvesting of Facebook data to appreciate the potential for data misuse. But privacy is the least concern for governments and the global tech giants in an age where ‘data’ has become monetized as a saleable commodity, with the UK data market the second biggest in the world and valued at over a billion pounds in 2018.

Paranoia is usually the ever-present bedfellow of fear and many people have been very keen to inform the authorities that their neighbours may have been breaking social distancing rules.

Moreover, although any such opinion poll cannot be taken at face value and could be regarded as part of the mainstream fear narrative itself, a recent survey suggests that only 20% of Britons are in favour of reopening restaurants, schools, pubs and stadiums.

Is this to be the new ‘normal’, whereby fear, mistrust, division and suspicion are internalized throughout society? In an age of fear and paranoia, are we all to be ‘contact traced’ and regarded by others as a ‘risk’ until we prove ourselves by wearing face masks and by voluntarily subjecting ourselves to virus tests at the entrances to stores or in airports?

And if we refuse or test positive, are we to be shamed, isolated and forced to comply by being ‘medicated’ (vaccinated and chipped)?

Is this the type of world that’s soon to be regarded as ‘normal’?

A world in which liberty and fundamental rights mean nothing. A world dominated by shaming and spurious notions of personal responsibility that are little more than ideological constructs of a hegemonic narrative which labels rational thinking people as ‘anti-science’ – a world in which the scourge of authoritarianism reigns supreme.

* * *

As this article was going to press, it was announced that Neil Ferguson is resigning from his role as science advisor to Boris Johnson’s government, in the wake of the allegations he has broken the lockdown rules he himself recommended in order to meet his girlfriend .

TOP


https://www.naturalnews.com

Once again, the flu shot proves to be an ineffective joke “medicine” that does nothing but harm people

09February2020 by: https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-02-09-flu-shot-ineffective-joke-medicine-only-harms-people.html
albert einstein definition of insanity

(Natural News) With novel coronavirus showing no signs of relenting anytime soon, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has even more bad news: This season’s influenza vaccines are once again a mismatch, meaning they don’t work.

The public health agency claims that this year’s flu jabs are only a 58 percent match, which is “not an awful match,” according to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (N.I.A.I.D.) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, M.D., “but it’s not a very good match.”

Part of the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H.) and an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (H.H.S.), the N.I.A.I.D. says current flu shots will not provide protection against the B/Victoria strain of flu that’s currently spreading among children. The agency says it will, however, provide some protection against H1N1, which circulated several years ago, as you may recall.

Fauci says that, in lieu of a working flu vaccine, people should stay away from crowded areas and wash their hands frequently. However, he makes no dietary or lifestyle suggestions that could help to naturally protect people against the flu.

The CDC warns that the overall hospitalization rate for seasonal flu this year is up to 19.9 per 100,000 people, while deaths associated with both influenza and pneumonia have jumped from 6.0 to 6.9 percent. So far, about 39 children have died this season from the flu and flu-related diseases.

The CDC also admits that influenza is “constantly changing” and morphing into other strains, which is why “ongoing data collection and characterization of the viruses are required.

This year’s flu strain, which flu shots won’t protect against, is hitting children “especially hard”

In its weekly flu report, the CDC revealed that more than half of those afflicted by this year’s primary circulating flu strain are children and adults under the age of 25, a much higher proportion of young people compared to previous years.

The reason for this, say experts, is that the current flu strain is designated as a B variety, which reportedly afflicts children and young people to a much higher degree than older people.

“We’ve seen something this year that we haven’t seen in probably 27 years, which is a noticeable increase in the number of influenza B infections early in the season,” stated Andi L. Shane, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Emory University‘s School of Medicine and Children’s Healthcare in Atlanta.

Influenza A has also begun to circulate in recent weeks, this being the class associated with the H1N1 viral strain. Keep in mind that influenza A and B are in addition to the circulating novel coronavirus, which appears to be developing into a global pandemic all on its own.

“During the 2019-20 flu season, there have already been 68 reported pediatric deaths in the U.S., according to the CDC; 45 were caused by the influenza B strain,” writes Sumathi Reddy for The Wall Street Journal. “Typically, the flu season peaks between December and February and can go as late as May. There were 143 reported pediatric deaths last flu season and 188 in 2017-18.”

Schools and school districts across multiple states are reporting multi-day closures in response to these virulent strains of seasonal flu. Knox County, Tennessee, for example, closed all 88 of its schools for three days, which affected more than 5,000 students who stayed home and didn’t go to class.

“I think there was a concern that this was more of a novel strain that kids haven’t seen so they are getting sicker,” says Dr. Ari Brown, a pediatrician from Texas.

To keep up with the latest flu-related news, be sure to check out Outbreak.news.

Sources for this article include:

Breitbart.com

NaturalNews.com

NIAID.NIH.gov

WSJ.com

TOP

How can you develop a Coronavirus Vaccine when the COVID-19 virus mutates every 2 months?

https://www.naturalnews.com

Prestigious vaccine journal: Flu vaccine increases coronavirus infection risk 36%

19March2020 by: https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-03-19-flu-vaccine-increases-coronavirus-infection-risk.html
Click to download PDF file
Click to download the full report Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season Greg G.Wolff https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647

(Natural News) A new study published in the prestigious journal Vaccine, a peer-reviewed medical journal, published by Elsevier, titled Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season, reveals that influenza vaccination may increase the risk of infection from other respiratory viruses — a phenomenon known as virus interference.

(Article by GMI Reporter republished from GreenMedInfo.com)

Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference

The purpose of the study was to evaluate so-called “test negative study designs,” which are used to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness without consideration for the effects the flu vaccine may have in changing the risk of infection for other viruses which can cause respiratory illness, which the authors point out may result in, “potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction.” They elaborate further:

“The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction. This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined.”

The study results fly directly in the face of recent health recommendations that one should get an influenza vaccine to protect against Coronavirus-19.

Read the New York Times at your own risk.

According to the study, “vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus.” More specifically,

“Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR?=?1.36 and 1.51, respectively) (Table 5).”

That represents a 36% and 51% increased risk of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in influenza vaccinated individuals, respectively.

According to the study, “vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus.”

While the study did find there was significant protection with flu vaccination against most influenza viruses, including also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections, previous research raises red flags. A 2018 study published in PNAS found that receiving a flu vaccination in the current and previous season may increase aerosol shedding of flu particles 6.3 times more as compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.

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

Read more at: GreenMedInfo.com

TOP

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Comments

  1. Posted כ״ח באב ה׳תש״פ (18/08/2020) at 04:50 | Permalink

    This design is steller! You definitely know how to keep a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Great job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

  2. Posted ב׳ באלול ה׳תש״פ (22/08/2020) at 18:17 | Permalink

    Hello, i think that i noticed you visited my site so i came to “return the favor”.I am attempting to in finding issues to improve my web site!I assume its ok to make use of a few of your ideas!!

  3. Posted י״ז במרחשון ה׳תשפ״א (04/11/2020) at 21:55 | Permalink

    Thanks for finally talking about >Bill Gates
    and the Rockefeller Foundation “Another Final Solution” – Jerusalem
    Cats <Liked it!

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*