Tag Archives: vaccine

Brian Deer Accusations Against Wakefield Fraudulent

On January 11, 2011, journalist Brian Deer published an article in the British Medical Journal entitled, “How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed” in which he alleges that Andrew Wakefield falsified data pertaining to the children in his 1997 study which linked the MMR vaccine to a condition he named autistic enterocolitis, a novel bowel disease associated with autistic behavioral symptoms.

Wakefield’s study had resulted in parental suspicion of the MMR vaccine and a decrease in MMR uptake. It was retracted by the Lancet, where it had been published, and a massive campaign was launched to increase public confidence in the MMR vaccine and portray Wakefield as a fraud and an unethical scientist. His medical license was also revoked and he was charged with professional misconduct.

However, what has emerged since the publication of Deer’s article are newly-published documents proving that the medical histories and behavioral changes reported by Wakefield had previously and independantly been documented by researchers Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Dhillon, and had been reported in a 1996 presentation to the a meeting of The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group
at the Royal Free Hospital entitled, “Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR – A Review of the First Seven Cases.”

According to Dr Wakefield, this new evidence “completely negates the allegations that I committed scientific fraud. Brian Deer and Dr. Godlee of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) knew or should have known about the facts set out below before publishing their false allegations”.

Of note, Brian Deer is a journalist, not a doctor or other medical expert. Yet his ‘study’ has been blared all over the propaganda media as new evidence that Wakefield is a dishonorable person guilty of fraud. In light of the new evidence, however, one might want to re-think who is truly committing fraud here and why Deer’s article has been given such publicity and prominent publication in the BMJ in the first place.

Despite the media and medical/pharmaceutical industries best efforts to demonize Wakefield and exonerate the vaccine industry, parents are not stupid and more and more of them are investigating matters of vaccine safety and coming to their own conclusions. From the great amount of material avaiable showing, without a doubt, that vaccines cause auto-immune and neurological disease in animals and have never actually been proven safe in humans either, many parents are deciding that the theoreticl risk of not vaccinating is overshadowerd by the mounting evidence that vaccines do cause extensive damage to the human organism.

People are indeed not stupid and the more the industry pushes their propaganda instead of performing real studies with unvaccinated control groups, the less confidence the public has in vaccines, especially in light of things like the ‘swine flu’ vaccine campaign, which proved to be unnecessary (the swine flu turned out to be far less deadly than regular seasonal flu) and unsafe (a 700% increase in miscarriages was documented in vaccinated mothers).

Try as they might, the industry is losing ground. People are waking up and the change in consciousness is unstoppable.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html#ixzz1CeJjNHNe


Gulf Blue Plague is Evolving

Below is a link to an article about BP and the 2010 oil disaster, and the role of Craig Venter of Synthetic Genomics and the artificial life bacteria he created and dubbed ‘Synthia’. Following the spill, the public was informed of the discovery of a new oil-eating bacteria in the Gulf, which was rapidly cleaning up the goop. Wonderful news? Or is this ‘new’ bacteria actually the ‘self-replicating artificial life form whose parent was a computer’ created by Venter’s company and announced to the public as a ‘scientific breakthrough’ earlier this year in the mainstream media?
Has this antibiotic-resistant bacteria been released into the wild and what will the consequences be? Could it be, as this article suggests that the BP Flu or Blue Plague is the result of infection with this artificial bacteria? Marine toxicologists from the Gulf have reported extensive poisoning of cleanup workers and the local population, but they have also disclosed that the mixture of oil and Correxit is what, by absorption through the skin, can cause such devastating symptoms as internal bleeding.

You may remember that in the spring of 2010, we were told that the coming summer was to be the worst hurricane season in several years, with 17 hurricanes expected to hit the Gulf Coast, threatening to carry the oil and dispersant-laden waters inland. As it turned out, however, NO hurricanes hit the coast this year. This is absolutely not normal. Is this the result of the loop current being stalled or is this evidence of weather-modification technology being used to prevent not the oil and dispersants from coming ashore (Correxit has been intentionally sprayed on the coast line), but to keep the potentially disastrous effects of this artificial bacteria at bay?

From reading this article, I cannot come to any solid conclusions. It is all worthy to take note of the information gathered by the author, but I would like to point out that when it comes to conspiracies and conspiracy theories, retrospective analysis of an event often reveals truths while projections and speculations often do nothing more than create unnecessary hype and fear. Some of the comments to this article engage in such speculations.

When the advent of Synthia was made public knowledge, it was stated that immediate uses included speeding up flu shot production. While this is nasty and distasteful as it is, a comment left under the article below proposes the possibility that these new vaccines will serve the purpose of innocuating the population against not flu, but the deadly infections that could be caused by the artificial bacteria itself. And the author of the comment hypothesizes that it may turn out that only half a billion shots will be made available, serving the openly stated goal of reducing the world’s population to that number, as only the innoculated will survive.

Could this be a trick to weed out vaccine refusers? This, to me, is nothing but speculation and I wouldn’t dwell on it. First of all, the depopulation plans include a number of existing vaccines, covert and open sterilization techniques, war, biotech-induced famine and disease, and a number of other strategies such as weather modification and destruction of agriculture through techniques like spraying aluminum that changed the Ph of soil, making it inhospitable to plant life. Even if a synthetic, self-replicating bacteria were to escape and cause disease, I don’t believe it this plague would smite the world’s population uniformly. Organisms with disease-creating potential and generally not equal-opportunity killers and require the host to have a compromised immune system in order to make it a victim. Besides, why take such a multi-pronged approach to depopulation if all it takes is the release of an artificial bacteria to accomplish these goals?
Personally, I would take note of the information provided in the article below, but I would not succumb to the notion that this is to be the golden instrument of worldwide depopulation by disease. The attacks of the NWO are many and stealthy, but their greatest weapon is fear.


Scientific Evidence of Vaccine Damage in Dogs

Although many parents witness their children’s health deteriorate rapidly after vaccination, we are repeatedly told that there is no evidence that vaccines cause damage. The main reason this claim can be made is that there has never been a study done on humans that compared the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. The control group either receives a different experimental vaccine or regular ‘baby shots’. The closest we can get to seeing the true extent of the damage that vaccines do is through animal studies. While it is hard to find raw data from animal studies that are done for the purpose of testing a vaccine ultimately to be marketed to humans, some studies done on the effects of vaccines on dogs and monkeys are avaiable to us, and the results don’t look good.

The following link will take you to a summary of the evidence of vaccine damage on dogs. Aside from the fact that you can extrapolate the results to mean that vaccines likely cause such damage in humans as well, isn’t this enough to make you re-think vaccinating your pet?


Here is an excerpt from the report:

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs — ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”– were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.

Dogs and cats, like our children, are more and more often falling victim to auto-immune diseases and cancer. In recent years, reports of ‘autistic’ dogs have even surfaced. Whether you have a pet or a child, you owe it to them to make an informed decision when it comes to vaccinating them. And likely, if you are truly informed, you will find that you cannot possibly submit them to this kind of assault.

Flumist with Toxins for Canadians 2010 Flu Season

Canadians To Be Vaccinated With Live H1N1 Virus with MSG For The 2010/11 Flu Season

Dave Mihalovic
Prevent Disease
September 23, 2010

The Public Health Agency of Canada has once again given their seal of approval for the injection of a dangerous cocktail of toxic chemicals they call a trivalent vaccine. The 2010/11 recipients of AstraZeneca’s FLUMIST will be exposed to several strains of live viruses including H1N1 and H3N2. The vaccine also contains MSG and other known neurotoxins and immunotoxins.

Similar to last year’s Arepanrix Vaccine, FLUMIST was approved without evaluating its safety and effectiveness on a single Canadian.

The vaccines are especially being promoted for children since the nasal spray vaccine can be marketed as less invasive due its intranasal delivery that does not require needles. Ontario’s chief medical officer of health said a non-injectable vaccine is an “attractive option.” The product has been on the U.S. market for the last seven years.

AstraZeneca Canada is currently ensuring that all Canadian pharmacies are making preparations to stock the vaccine this fall. The influenza vaccine will be one of several vaccines to be offered on the Canadian market.

On August 26, 2010, Health Canada issued a Notice of Decision to AstraZeneca Canada for the FLUMIST vaccine.

The FLUMIST Trivalent vaccine product information:

Three Live Viruses:
– Influenza Virus Type A (H1N1);
– Influenza Virus Type A (H3N2); and
– Influenza Virus Type B

Route of Administration:
Intranasal Spray

Dosage Strength:
0.2 mL

Clinically Relevant Nonmedicinal Ingredients
– Gelatin hydrolysate (porcine Type A)
– sucrose
– arginine
– gentamicin

Additional Toxic Ingredients:
– Monobasic potassium phosphate: Immunotoxin
– Arginine hydrochloride: Toxic to lungs and mucous membranes
– Monosodium glutamate: Neurotoxin, Excitotoxin
– Gentamicin: Nephrotoxic


There are currently NO clinical trials or results which have validated the long-term safety and efficacy of the FLUMIST vaccine. Regulatory health agencies are refusing to acknowledge this fact or the nature of toxicity levels associated with the FLUMIST and its ingredients. The well documented toxicity evidence for each ingredient presented above are simply ignored.

If you’ll notice, most of the ingredients that are considered non-clinically relevant excipients are ALL TOXIC and yet still injected in every person that receives the vaccine.

No Pharmacokinetic, Carcinogenic or Fertility Studies

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. AstraZeneca and Medimmune do not consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine ingredients or excipients including FLUMIST. This means that the bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients within the vaccine are not known or even considered in safety assessments.

FLUMIST has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or its potential to impair fertility. There have also been NO animal reproduction studies or studies in pregnant or lactating women and it is not known whether FLUMIST is excreted in human milk..

Hospitalizations and Deaths

An increased rate of hospitalizations (for any cause) through 180 days after final vaccination dose of FLUMIST was observed in children 6-11 months of age.

There were eight deaths reported within 180 days of FLUMIST
dosing. Of the 8 deaths, 4 occurred within 42 days after the last dose of FLUMIST. 43 and 180 days after FLUMIST dosing, deaths were due to diarrhea and sepsis, encephalopathy, suffocation, and posterior fossa tumor and malignant hyperthermia.

Adverse Reactions

– Pain
– Redness
– Swelling
– Fatigue
– Headaches
– Arthralgia (joint inflammation)
– Myalgia (muscle inflammation)
– Shivering
– Sweating
– Swollen lymph nodes
– Fever
– Vomiting
– Tingling or numbness of the hands or feet
– Shortness of breath
– Vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels)

Serious Adverse Reactions

Congenital, familial and genetic:
– Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome)

Immune system:
– Anaphylactic reactions, facial edema and urticaria

Nervous system:
– Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s Palsy

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal:
– Epistaxis

Skin and subcutaneous tissue:
– Rash

The information above clearly demonstrates that the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada have no interest in meeting some of the most basic precautions to safeguard the health of Canadians.

Last year, just as flu activity increased across Canada, federal authorities warned Canadians not to buy natural remedies and to strictly confide in the anti-viral drugs and vaccines authorized by Health Canada.

172,000 doses were eventually recalled and withdrawn after serious adverse reactions, notably in the heart and lungs, and hundreds of deaths were reported.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Please protect yourself naturally from the flu. Learn what colds and flus really are and use common sense to best of your ability.

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

H1N1 Miscarriage Risk

New evidence that H1N1 vaccine is linked to fetal demise.

I had been going on about this last year, such as in the video below. I hate to say that I told you so, but I told you so.

It is stated plainly in the Arepanrix adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine package that the product was associated with miscarriage, birth defects and developmental delays in rats.Nonetheless, our government continues to recommend that pregnant women take the adjuvanted vaccine if flu rates are increasing and they are unable to get the unadjuvanted version at that time. How can our public health officials consider this an acceptable risk/benefit ratio?About 1 in 450 pregnant women who catch influenza will go on to develop complications. According to data from Australian epidemiological surveillance, one in 3800 pregnant women are hospitalized for flu-related complications, but these women had other risk factors such as obesity. The risk of pregnant women dying from flu was found to be about 1/300000.
As of the making of this video on November 16, 2009, there had only been one “H1N1-related” death in a pregnant woman in Canada since the virus first appeared in April 2009, and this woman actually died of blood loss following an emergency C-section done because she was suffering respiratory distress. In other words, the flu was only very loosely connected to a single death. Meanwhile, the vaccine has to date never been tested in pregnant women and is known to have adverse outcomes in the offspring of treated rats. Clinical trials on pregnat women were SUSPENDED because the women developed fever, which is known to affect fetal development. Whether the public health officials are totally incompetent or are being negligent, either way there is a serious problem.
Arepanrix package insert stating risk of m/c, birth defects and developmental delays:
“Non-clinical data reveal no special hazard for humans based on conventional studies of safety pharmacology, acute and repeated dose toxicity, local tolerance, female fertility, embryo-fetal and postnatal toxicity up to the end of the lactation period.


“Two reproductive studies were conducted with AS03-adjuvanted H5N1 antigen and evaluated the effect on embryo-fetal and peri-and post-natal development in rats, following intramuscular administration. Although no definite conclusion could be reached, regarding a possible relation to treatment with the H5N1 vaccine and/or the adjuvant AS03, and other findings were considered normal, the following observations deserve to be mentioned: In the first study, there was an increased incidence of fetal malformations with markedly medially thickened/kinked ribs and bent scapula as well as an increased incidence of dilated ureter and delayed neurobehavioral maturation. In the second study, there was an increased incidence of post-implantation loss, and the fetal variation of dilated ureter. Not all findings were observed in both studies, and hence the toxicological significance is uncertain.”

To monitor vaccine safety, the Public Health Agency of Canada collects information on serious and unexpected adverse events following vaccination. If you suspect you have had a serious or unexpected event following receipt of a vaccine you may notify the Public Health Agency of Canada:
By toll-free telephone: 1-866-844-0018
By toll-free fax: 1-866-844-5931
By email: caefi@phac-aspc.gc.ca

Canadian Government dosing recommendations:

Cocaine Vaccine a Bust

In the early days, mental health professionals who dealt with drug addiction hoped that sson a new vaccine would cure cocaine addiction. In 2000, a Phase I study at Yale used:
The vaccine, TA-CD, is designed to generate drug-specific antibodies, which bind to cocaine and prevent it from traveling to the brain from the bloodstream. This neutralizes its psychoactive effect.
Inclusio criteria for the study was 30 days of abstinence, a desire to stop using and willingness to seek treatment. The study authors mentioned that the vaccine did not reduce cravings for cocaine, but simply interfered with its effect to produce a high. What they are being injected with is actually succinylnorcocaine linked to recombinant cholera toxin B-subunit protein. This means that the cocaine molecule is attached to the cholera toxin protein in order to trick the body into making antibodies against the cocaine along with the protein.
To override the vaccine’s effects, it may be possible to take massive amounts of cocaine, but it is unlikely that addicts who are actively working to overcome their addiction would want to do that.
From this last statement, one would gather that either these scientists were being overly optimistic or they really just didn’t understand how addiction works. In any case, they knew this outcome was possible, but they played it down.

2004: BBC Headline States “Cocaine Vaccine Stops Addiction”

The vaccine is created by attaching the cocaine to a large protein molecule which is used to stimulate the body’s immune system to produce antibodies that recognise the drug.
Trials carried out in the US showed almost half of those given the TA-CD vaccine, developed by Xenova, were able to stay off the drug for six months.

Yes, it turns out that half these people were able to stay of cocaine for 6 months- which means it didn’t work so well for the other half, and who knows what heppened after the 6 months were up and they were out of treatment. Nonetheless, the scientists remained optimistic and the drug company had the MSM touting the benefits of their new wonder-drug, as usual. Of note, no reference is given to the actual study so readers can look at the data for themselves.
Fast forward to 2010: Washington Post reports “Testing of Cocaine Vaccine Shows It Does Not Fully Blunt Cravings For The Drug’
Well, as we saw from the earlier reports, it was never designed to blunt cravings. And you kow what happened? According to the article,
some of the addicts participating in a study of the vaccine started doing massive amounts of cocaine in hopes of overcoming its effects
That’s right, they just kept trying to get high even though it wasn’t working anymore. Now, that is not surprising, really, because that is what all addicts do once they get to a certain point, especially with cocaine, where tolerance develops very quickly and after te first hit off the crack pipe, you spend the rest of the night making yourself feel like crap hoping to catch the buzz you did with that first puff. The doctors at Yale mentioned that this could be a possibility back in 2000, but they forged ahead anyway and hoped for the best. The article goes on to elaborate that,
Nobody overdosed, but some of them had 10 times more cocaine coursing through their systems than researchers had encountered before, according to Kosten. He said some of the addicts reported to researchers that they had gone broke buying cocaine from multiple drug dealers, hoping to find a variety that would get them high.
That’s not what I would call a success, heh heh.

An article on the blog Addiction Inbox, entitled “Cocaine Vaccine Hits Snag’ gave us more details:

Of 115 addicts involved in the study, only 38 % produced sufficient antibodies to dull the effects of cocaine, Rachel Saslow of the Washington Post reported. And among the high-antibodies group, only 53 % stayed free of cocaine 50 % of the time. “Immunization did not achieve complete abstinence from cocaine use,” said Thomas Kosten of Baylor college of Medicine, one of the authors of the paper.

Not everyone produced ‘adequate antibodies’, and when they did, the vaccine mad a mediocre success rate. Nonetheless, “NIDA director Nora Volkow characterized the work as “a promising step toward an effective medical treatment for cocaine addiction,” with the proviso that “larger follow-up studies confirm its safety and efficacy.”

When you hear ‘safety and efficacy’- watch out! it means they are going full steam with this. Confirm safety? How can it be confirmed when studies so far have shown that a significant amount of recipients increased their cocaine use, risked overdose, and went broke in the process? Confirm efficacy? When only 38% of people ‘responded’ to it, and among those only 53% stayed clean 50% of the time? That amounts to what- 19% of people who received it being able to abstain half the time? In other words, 81% of participants failed to stay clean, which is equivalent to the success rate for most regular rehab centers. Is that really a success rate for the vaccine or is it roughly how many cocaine addicts would stay clean 50% of the time with standard treatment anyway?

Remeber that efficacy is n ot equivalent to effectiveness. Efficacy represents something you measure in the lab, such as antibodies. Effectiveness is how well the product succeeds in achieving the desired result in real life. For example, a flu vaccine that claims 90% efficacy, may translate to 35% effectiveness in terms of actually preventing you from catching the flu (and remember that, speaking of flu shots, only 5-15% of the population actually catches the flu in any given flu season, so 35% effectiveness means it has lowered your chance of getting sick by about 2-5%, but I digress…)

In a 2009 clinical trial on 109 methadone patients, 21 out of the 50% receiving the vaccine achieved purportedly adequate antibody levels. Of these, 45% had cocaine-free urine tests, vs 35% for the remaining 88 who eithe rreceived a placebo or did not develop high enough antibodies. That means that about 9/21 people in the high antibody group stayed off the coke for a few weeks. How anyone could create statistics and come to any kind of conclusions on the vaccine’s effectiveness when the sample size was so small is beyond me. I was taught in school that you can never talk about statistics unless you have a sample of at least 100 people. But this becomes an effective way for pharmaceutical companies to make data appear to work in their favor. For example, you take 200 people with lung cancer, give 50% chemo and 50% chemo +radiation, and if you have 10% 1-year survival in the chemo group and 11% in the chemo +radiationn group, you can claim that radiatio exteded survival by 10%. Really, this is a lot of nonsense. All you had was one extra person live a year, but it is enough for somebody to make a lot of money giving somebody some kind of additional useless treatment.

And so it seems to be with the cocaine vaccine. They overlook the obvious red flag that it doesn’t work for most people, works shabbily when it does, and even drives a sizeable number of recipients to increase their cocaine use to dangerous levels. But none of that would deter Big Pharma, whose priority is evidently profit, never mind at whose expense.

Here are a couple of the original studies:


Lobotomy in a Needle

Vaccine against ‘stress’ made from genetically engineered herpes virus, alters your brain so you just don’t give a fuck anymore.