Vax Info Start Here

Polio Outbreaks And Vaccines – A Story

Robin — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 05:39:26 +0000

In the United States the first outbreak of poliomyelitis, 26 cases, was in Boston in 1893, at the same time as its citizens were desperately spraying the just-invented insecticide lead arsenate to combat the plague of imported gypsy moth grubs that was denuding their trees.

Then the formula for lead arsenate was published in 1894, so people could mix up their own to use against a variety of pests including the codling moth whose worms damaged their apple crops. Use of the insecticide became much more wide-spread, as did outbreaks of poliomyelitis, which now included deaths. Outbreaks were usually in summer and autumn when apples and other fruit and vegetables were sprayed.

In the 1940s lead arsenate was replaced by DDT, and it was sprayed everywhere; on crops, in houses, on meals, in water supplies, particularly in the hope of preventing polio. People believed polio was carried by insects because it appeared in summer.

After the worst polio outbreaks in the early 1950s, spraying with DDT became less popular; people were starting to think it might not be good for them, and a few insects were becoming resistant to it. Then in 1962 Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring about DDT use in agriculture was published, which lead to DDT going very much out of favour and use stopping altogether not long after. Around this time poliomyelitis subsided.

Poliomyelitis could have been caused by any number of factors that led to lesions in the spinal cord. The strongest contenders are pesticides alone and pesticides in concert with infection with various enteroviruses, other viruses and nano-sized bacteria.

In 1955 the first polio vaccine came out, but it was injected, so it stimulated antibody production in the blood, while the target virus they named poliovirus is an enterovirus that lives in the gut. This meant the vaccine could not stop infection or transmission of poliovirus (this is also the case with today’s inactivated polio vaccine, IPV, used here in Australia and in other developed nations).

The Sabin oral live virus vaccine, the first vaccine that prevented infection and transmission of the virus (because it targeted the virus where it lives) came out in 1963 and poliomyelitis subsided. Poliovirus had been circulating through our digestive tracts harmlessly for thousands of years, by the way.

When the first vaccine came in the diagnosis of polio was standardised.

Here is the WHO diagnostic criteria in 1954, before the vaccine:
“Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: Signs and symptoms of non-paralytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.”

The changes were:
1. Non-paralytic polio was no longer called polio.
2. Paralysis had to last for 60 days rather than 24 hours.

Also, pathology testing for poliovirus in the stool was introduced.

It’s no wonder polio went away so quickly. There was still polio-like paralysis, but due to the change in definition and in many cases failure to find poliovirus in a pathology test, it was called various other names such as coxsackie virus, ECHO virus (enteroviruses) and some generic names such as aseptic meningitis, acute flaccid paralysis, acute flaccid myelitis and transverse myelitis.

DDT is still produced and used widely in India and parts of Africa, and there’s as much polio-like paralysis in India today as there was in 1980, except instead of being called polio it’s called acute flaccid paralysis.

We know polio is often at least partly caused by an infectious agent because the live oral vaccine given today in the third world spreads polio and paralysis is often preceded by flu-like symptoms including fever which can spread amongst contacts. Investigators suggest environmental toxins such as pesticides damage the gut lining and gut immune system and also nerves, allowing normally harmless viruses to enter the nerves and cause lesions in the spinal cord.

Another way of viruses getting into the nervous system is by needle-stick injury, which can cause ‘provocation polio’. Doctors back in the 1940s started to recognise routine vaccination for diphtheria and whooping cough was causing paralysis in the limb injected, and it became policy to suspend routine vaccination while there was a polio outbreak (the needle injury allows polio-causing viruses to enter the nerves if there is an active infection). Melbourne journalist Andrew Rule wrote an article about his friend Kevin Norbury, who suffered polio paralysis in his arms and nearly died, and who has researched this topic. Here’s three articles:

Polio and losing the use of a hand did not stop Kevin Norbury (Herald Sun) – by Andrew Rule

Suffer the little children (The Age) – by Kevin Norbury

Acute Flaccid Myelitis and Routine Childhood Vaccinations: This is Nothing New by Marcella Piper-Terry (Nov 2016)

There’s outbreaks of acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) in the United States today; they call it a “polio-like illness”, they are clustered in summer-autumn, they include deaths and those patients with breathing paralysis use a portable ventilator rather than an iron lung. Bear in mind AFM would have been diagnosed as polio before the polio vaccine, when there was no pathology testing, but in these outbreaks poliovirus has not been found in pathology tests. Here’s an article about 2018’s outbreak:

Polio-like syndrome caused by several viruses, CDC says – NBCNews (Nov 2018)

Sister Elizabeth Kenny was an Australian nurse who treated thousands of polio patients from the early 1930s till her death in 1952. She treated paralysed limbs with gentle movement, massage and hot compresses with great success, and set up many clinics in Australia and overseas that used her method.

This treatment was very different from the painful and cruel medical practice of cutting tendons and putting paralysed limbs in casts for 3 months to 2 years, which was sure to cause permanent paralysis and distortion in limbs that would otherwise have often only had temporary paralysis. We wouldn’t do that today to a paralysed patient who we hoped would recover, such as today’s AFM patients, would we?

Sister Kenny has been called the “mother of physiotherapy” and her story is really worth looking up – there’s lots about her on the internet.

What do you think?

Do you think the polio vaccine saved us from polio? Do you believe poliovirus is the real cause of polio? Do you think polio vaccines deserve to be held up as the ultimate defence of vaccines, with the cry… “what about polio?”

The False Claim That Science Research Has Proven Vaccination Does Not Increase The Risk Of SIDS

Robin — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 06:28:22 +0000

Today’s post is from Wendy Lydall, author of the book Raising a Vaccine Free Child. To buy the book, visit this website: Raising a Vaccine Free Child

Around the world, medical authorities tell parents that it has been scientifically proven that vaccination does not cause SIDS, and sometimes they even tell parents that vaccination prevents SIDS. However, the studies that are used to justify these claims use research methods that are scientifically flawed.

One type of study that is often quoted as proving that vaccination does not cause SIDS is the temporal study. Central to these studies is the assumption that if vaccination were to cause a sudden unexplained death, it would do so within 12 hours, or 24 hours, or 48 hours, or 7 days, or 14 days.[1,2,3,4]

No one knows what vaccines do once they get inside the body, so no one knows what the time frame is for a negative effect. Implying that they do know is bordering on fraudulent.

Antibodies only start appearing two weeks after vaccination, and the production of antibodies continues for a few more weeks. The researchers, who are sometimes being paid to do the study by a vaccine manufacturer, have no basis for assuming that any negative effects of the ingredients in vaccines would take less time to develop than it takes for antibodies to develop.

The famous Tennessee study

One of the studies that used assumptions about timing was done in the American state of Tennessee. The study was supported by the FDA and the CDC, partially funded by the NCHSR, and two of the four doctors in the study were Burroughs Wellcome Scholars in pharmacoepidemiology.[4] Burroughs Wellcome is a drug company that makes vaccines. The study was an exercise aimed at whitewashing vaccines, but, ironically, it ended up providing evidence that vaccines do cause SIDS.[4]

A typical statement about this study is:

An American study of 129,834 babies looked at the possible risk factor between sudden infant death syndrome and immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. A total of 109 deaths in the ten-year period were classified as due to SIDS. The study published in 1988, concluded that there was no increase in the risk of SIDS after immunisation with the DTP vaccine.[5]

This sounds very impressive, but when you get to the library and read the study, you find that it is not at all impressive. For a start, it is not a study of 129,834 babies; it is a study of 109 babies. All the other babies are discarded from the study, for one reason or another.

The authors make no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated babies, and they use a dubious method to try to prove their point. Ironically, the method they used ends up showing that vaccination does increase the risk of SIDS.

The researchers had access to the records of all the babies born in four counties in the state of Tennessee. In those days polio vaccine and DPT vaccine (sometimes called DTP vaccine) were the only vaccines given to babies.

At the onset of the study the authors excluded the 1.9% of babies who had been vaccinated too early according to the schedule, and the 9% for whom there was no vaccination record, and the 14% who were known to be unvaccinated. That 14% should have been used as controls to be compared with the vaccinated babies, and the 1.9% who had been vaccinated too early should not have been ignored, because in the real world babies are often vaccinated earlier than the schedule recommends, and this might be a factor that contributes to SIDS.

The researchers then went on to exclude all the babies who had not died of SIDS, and they were left with 109 babies. They then measured the amount of time that had passed between the date of last vaccination and the date of death. They should instead have compared the incidence of deaths in the vaccinated group with the incidence of deaths in the 14% who were not vaccinated.

The study found that there was no increase in deaths in the seven days following vaccination, so the authors conclude that DPT vaccine does not cause SIDS. Pseudo-scientists who merely want to promote a particular point of view make baseless assumptions all the time. In this study they made the assumption that if DPT vaccine can cause SIDS, it will do so within seven days.

There is no scientific reason to assume that the adverse effects of DPT vaccine, or any other vaccine, will occur only during the first seven days after vaccination.

The length of time it takes for DPT to depress the immune system has not been researched, but studies of provocation disease suggest that immune suppression becomes more pronounced during the second week after vaccination.

When there is a virulent polio virus in the environment, vaccination against other diseases suppresses the immune system, so that people who would otherwise not have caught polio, do catch it. A study of polio in Britain in 1949 found that most cases of polio that are provoked by vaccination, start 8 to 17 days after vaccination.[6] Another study, covering 1951 to 1953, and done by the Medical Research Council in Britain, found that the greatest number of provocation cases started from 8 to 14 days after vaccination, with the next highest number of cases starting 15 to 21 days after.[7] In Bavaria, bad reactions to smallpox vaccination peaked 8 to 13 days after.[8]

These and other studies indicate that there is no basis for assuming that if DPT causes death, it will do so within seven days. In fact they indicate that death is more likely to occur from the eighth day onwards.

In accordance with this pattern, the data from the Tennessee study showed that in the 8 to 15 days and 16 to 30 days periods there was a higher rate of SIDS than the national average. This suggests that DPT vaccine does cause SIDS. As I have mentioned, it is ironic that by attempting to prove that DPT vaccine does not cause SIDS, the Tennessee study authors ended up with data that supports the hypothesis that DPT vaccine does cause SIDS.

In an effort to keep up the vaccination rate, a high-ranking medical bigwig in New Zealand issued a printed handout to be given to parents to persuade them that vaccination does not cause SIDS. On it he listed some studies, and next to the Tennessee study he wrote that it showed that “there was no increase in SIDS deaths among vaccinated vs unvaccinated children.”

This is a peculiar thing to say when the study did not compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children. It makes one wonder if medical bigwigs read anything while they are being paid large salaries by the taxpayer.

Hot lots divided

The Tennessee study was carried out in an attempt to convince parents that DPT vaccine does not cause SIDS, because there had been public disquiet about a cluster of deaths that had occurred soon after the administration of DPT in a part of Tennessee. Eleven babies had died, and nine of them had been injected with vials of vaccine from the same lot. Vaccine authorities had felt a need to convince the public that the deaths had been a coincidental cluster, and had not been caused by a “hot lot.”

The manufacturer of the vaccine, however, had its own strategy for maintaining public confidence in the vaccine. They circulated an in-house memo instructing employees that from then on, vials of vaccine from the same lot must be distributed widely, instead of each lot going to just one outlet.

The purpose of this was to geographically spread any lots that were far more toxic than the officially acceptable level of toxicity. Being separated geographically would mean that if the lot did cause a high number of deaths, the deaths would not be clustered in one area, and would not attract public attention.

The memo is dated 27 August 1979, and the first sentence states, “After the reporting of the SID cases in Tennessee, we discussed the merits of limiting distribution of a large number of vials from a single lot to a single state, county or city health department and obtained agreement from the senior management staff to proceed with such a plan.” The last sentence ends with the phrase, “… make arrangements for split delivery.”

Paul Offit

One would expect Dr. Paul Offit, the world’s most notorious vaccine defender, to actually read studies before he comments on them, yet in 1999 he made the shameless statement, “Several studies performed over the past 10 years comparing children who received the DTP vaccine with those who did not receive it proved that the DTP vaccine did not cause SIDS.”[9] No such studies had been done during the previous 10 years, nor have they been done at any other time.

The case-control method

Another type of study used by researchers who are looking at the relationship between vaccination and SIDS is the case-control method. Case-control studies compare babies who died with babies who did not die. The researchers select a group of babies who died of SIDS within a particular geographical area, and these babies are called the cases. Each case is matched with two or three live babies who are called the controls.

The vaccination history of the baby who has died is then compared with the vaccination histories of the two or three babies who have not died. Babies who have not received any vaccinations are excluded from the study.

In the case-control studies that have been published, researchers have found that when the live babies were at the age at which the case baby died, they had received more vaccine doses than those who had died. This leads the authors to conclude that vaccination does not cause SIDS, a happy conclusion for those who want to promote vaccination, but far from scientifically sound.

One problem with the case-control method is that it could be comparing fragile babies who are susceptible to dying from an immunological onslaught, with tougher babies who can survive being injected with animal tissue, human tissue, attenuated germs, toxic metals, toxic chemicals, and genetically engineered yeast.

Case-control studies can be useful for investigating something that is static at the time of death; for example, whether the baby was sucking a pacifier, or lying face down, but the effects of vaccination are not static; they are ongoing, and they are unknown.

Case-control studies can also be useful if you take all the confounding factors into account, but in the case of vaccine susceptibility, no one yet knows what the confounding factors are. Controlling for factors that are known to increase the risk of SIDS does not mean that you are controlling for factors that increase the risk of SIDS from vaccination.

In the most recent case-control study, which was done in Germany, researchers found that the babies who died had had fewer vaccinations than the ones who were still alive, and that their vaccinations had been done later.[10] The latter finding may be significant.

Parents can be reluctant to turn up on time for vaccinations when they feel that their baby is unusually fragile, or when they know that vaccine reactions run in the family. Some parents who are not keen on vaccination eventually comply because of the extreme pressure that is put on them, but they do it later than at the prescribed time.

Interestingly, the researchers did find a statistically significantly higher rate of developmental problems, hospital admissions, and special investigations, like x-rays or electrocardiograms, in the SIDS babies compared to the live babies.[11]

This discovery might mean that the babies with these problems, who were only 22% of the SIDS babies, were more susceptible to dying unexpectedly, and that vaccination played no role in their deaths. Alternatively, it might mean that these babies were susceptible to an unknown effect of vaccination, and that vaccination killed them.

The fact that these babies had had fewer doses of vaccine than the live babies with whom they were compared does not mean that they were not pushed over the edge by the vaccines that entered their bodies. It is illogical to say, “Baby A had 6 vaccines and is dead, while Baby B had 11 vaccines and is still alive, so that proves that vaccines had nothing to do with the death of Baby A.”

Tobacco science compares smokers who died with smokers who did not die, instead of comparing smokers with non-smokers. Vaccine case-control studies are tobacco science.

Another problem with case-control studies is that they often begin with the data concerning all of the babies who are said to have died of SIDS in a selected geographical area, and then discard all the babies whose deaths were not really cases of SIDS. Back in the real world the latter babies’ death certificates still say “SIDS”, and the parents are still left with the impression that their child died of SIDS. One such study discarded 5% of the babies who had officially been declared to have died from SIDS.[2]

Vaccination, blood sugar and SIDS

Low blood sugar might be a significant factor in SIDS. During a three-year period in New Zealand the blood sugar level of 84 babies who had died inexplicably was measured at autopsy, and in 81 of them, the level was found to be below the normal range.[12] Other studies have shown that low blood sugar is strongly associated with SIDS.[13,14,15,16]

The whole cell whooping cough vaccine causes low blood sugar by stimulating insulin production.[17,18] The drop starts at about 8 days after injection, reaches its lowest point at about 12 days after injection, and becomes normal at about 24 days after injection.[19]

When a person dies from low blood sugar they just lie there and quietly die. It is not obvious to an onlooker why the person has died. When a baby dies from low blood sugar, the symptoms fit the criteria of SIDS. Every vaccine that is recommended for infants should be tested to find out whether it causes blood sugar levels to drop at any time after vaccination.

There is anecdotal evidence that the adult whooping cough vaccine causes a drop in blood sugar in pregnant women. An adult is able to rectify the situation, while an infant is not.

Metabolic disorders

In 2010 a group of Canadian doctors published an article in which they considered the possibility that some children who were born with metabolic disorders may have died from the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine.[20] There are many types of metabolic disorders, but each one occurs in only a few children.

The Canadian doctors paid special attention to a metabolic disorder called medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency. After considering the biological pathways in children with medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, the doctors concluded that one third of the babies who were born with this disorder, and who were also injected with the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine, could have died from resultant low blood sugar.[20]

Because medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency is very rare, this amounted to only 39 babies per year in the USA. The consideration of medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency was only done seven decades after the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine was introduced. There are more than four hundred metabolic disorders that need to be considered and studied.

There may be other types of vulnerability apart from metabolic disorders that make babies susceptible to dying quietly from vaccination. Case-control studies are unable to detect deaths that occur because of individual susceptibility.

I once mentioned to a pediatrician who publishes articles about SIDS that I considered case-control studies to be an inadequate way of testing whether vaccination increases the risk of SIDS. He replied, “That’s the way it has always been done.”

Valentina A. Soldatenkova is a mathematician and physicist who has also expressed the opinion that case-control studies are inadequate for assessing the relationship between vaccination and SIDS. In her published critique of the existing case-control studies, she criticises the study designs employed and statistical methods used.[21]

The Institute of Medicine in the USA has the job of publishing complicated whitewashes about vaccine adverse effects, and they, of course, have done exactly that in regard to the question of whether vaccination may cause some cases of SIDS.

Their lengthy report on the existing studies concludes that “the evidence does not support a causal link” between vaccination and SIDS. Soldatenkova says that their report should have stated that “the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation between SIDS and vaccines.”[21]

Promising new protocols

In recent years many countries have passed legislation that an autopsy must be done after every SIDS death, and they have introduced protocols that have to be followed. This is a great step forward.

Previously autopsies were only done if someone felt like doing one, and they could decide what to investigate and what to ignore. One of the benefits of the introduction of autopsy protocols is that explanations are found for some of the otherwise mysterious deaths. In Germany, for example, a non-SIDS explanation for 11.2% of the SIDS deaths was found because of the autopsies.[22]

In the future, the protocols will help to identify ways to reduce the incidence of SIDS. In the mean time they help to detect infant abuse, and they help to prevent parents from being falsely accused of abuse.

The protocols also mean that doctors can no longer write off blatantly obvious reactions to vaccination as SIDS. The usefulness of the autopsies would be enhanced if they were to include an assessment of the blood sugar level at the time of death, which can be done even though blood glucose continues to be broken down for a short while after death.[13,23]

Absurd studies

There are some absurd studies that have been done to “prove” that vaccination does not cause SIDS. One of them[24] compared the number of SIDS deaths that occurred in a geographical region during the time that a certain batch of DPT vaccine was in use with the number of deaths that had occurred in the same region when the previous batch of DPT had been in use. There were a similar number of deaths in the two time periods, so the conclusion was made that DPT does not cause SIDS.

The fact that one batch of DPT is not shown to cause more deaths than another batch does not prove that DPT vaccine cannot cause death.

Another absurd study surveyed the breathing patterns of “at risk” babies for twelve hours after injection with DPT vaccine.[1] They found that there was no increase in abnormal breathing during this time frame, and they concluded that this proves that vaccination does not cause SIDS.

The twelve hour cut-off time is ridiculous, and periodic breathing is not an indicator of SIDS. Most babies who die of SIDS do not have a history of apnoea,[25,26] and in most cases asphyxiation is not the primary cause of death. Out of 629 autopsy reports on SIDS cases in New Zealand, only 4.9% showed evidence of oxygen deprivation.[12]

The studies that already exist range from flawed to absurd, and of course the vaccine industry is assiduously avoiding doing any studies that compare the rate of SIDS in the vaccinated with the rate in the unvaccinated.

References

1. Keens, T.G., Ward, S.L., et al., Ventilatory Pattern Following Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Immunization in Infants at Risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Am J Dis Child. 1985 Oct;139(10):991-4.

2. Hoffman, H.J., Hunter, J.C., et al., Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Immunization and Sudden Infant Death: Results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Risk Factors. Pediatrics. 1987 Apr;79(4):598-611.

3. Brotherton, J.M., Hull, B.P., et al., Probability of coincident vaccination in the 24 or 48 hours preceding sudden infant death syndrome death in Australia. Pediatrics. 2005 Jun;115(6):643-6.

4. Griffin, M.R., Wayne, M.P.H., et al., Risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome after immunization with the diptheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. New Engl J Med. 1988 Sep 8;319(10):618-23.

5. Editor’s note, Little Treasures, Christmas ’90;53.

6. Hill, A.B., Knowelden, J., Inoculation and Poliomyelitis: A statistical investigation in England and Wales in 1949. Br Med J. 1950 Jul 1;2(4669):1-6.

7. Medical Research Council Committee on Inoculation Procedures and Neurological Lesions, Poliomyelitis and Prophylactic Inoculation Against Diphtheria, Whooping-cough and Smallpox. Lancet. 1956 Dec 15;268(6955):1223-31.

8. Stickl, H., Die Nichtenzephalitischen Erkrankungen nach der Pockenschutzimpfung. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 1968;93:511-7.

9. Offit, P. A., Bell, L.M., Vaccines: What every parent should know. IDG Books, New York, 1999, 41.

10. Vennemann, M.M., Butterfaß-Bahloul, T., et al., Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunization. Vaccine. 2007 Jan 4;25(2):336-40.

11. Vennemann, M.M., Findeisen, M., et al., Infection, health problems, and health care utilisation, and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Arch Dis Child. 2005 May;90(5):520-2.

12. Horvarth, C.H.G., Sudden infant death syndrome. NZ Med J. 1990 Mar 14;107.

13. Hirvonen, J., Jantti, M., et al., Hyperplasia of Islets of Langerhans and Low Serum Insulin in Cot Deaths. Forensic Sci Int. 1980 Nov-Dec;16(3)::213-26.

14. Read, D.J.C., Williams, A.L., et al., Sudden Infant Deaths: Some Current Research Strategies. Med J Aust. 1979 Sep 8;2(5):236-8, 240-1, 244.

15. Aynsley-Green, A., Polak, J.M., et al., Averted Sudden Neonatal Death Due to Pancreatic Nesidioblastosis. Lancet. 1978 Mar 11;311(8063):550-1.

16. Cox, J.N., Guelpa, G., Terrapon, M., Islet-cell Hyperplasia and Sudden Infant Death. Lancet. 1976 Oct 2;2(7988):739-40.

17. Stewart, G.T., Vaccination against whooping-cough. Efficacy versus risks. Lancet. 1977 Jan 29;1(8005):234-7.

18. Hannik, C.A., Cohen, H., Changes in plasma insulin concentration and temperature of infants after Pertussis vaccination. 4th International Symposium on Pertussis, Bethesda, Md. USA, IABS Special publication, 1979, 297-299, cited in Hennessen, W., Quast, U., Adverse Reactions After Pertussis Vaccination. Dev Biol Stand. 1979;43:95-100.

19. Dhar, H.L., West, G.B., Sensitization procedures and the blood sugar concentration. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1972 Mar;24(3):249-50.

20. Wilson, K., Potter, B., et al., Revisiting the possibility of serious adverse events from the whole cell pertussis vaccine: Were metabolically vulnerable children at risk? Med Hypotheses. 2010 Jan;74(1):50-4.

21. Soldatenkova, V.A., Why case-control studies showed no association between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccinations. Medical Veritas. 2007;4:1411-3.

22. Findeisen,M., Vennemann, M.M., et al. German study on sudden infant death (GeSID): design, epidemiological and pathological profile. Int J Legal Med. 2004 Jun;118(3):163-9.

23. Palmiere, C., Mangin, P., Postmortem chemistry update part I. Int J Legal Med. 2012;126(2):187-98.

24. Bernier, R.H., Frank, J.A., et al., Diphtheria-tetanus toxiods-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant deaths in Tennessee. J Pediatr. 1982 Sep;101(3):419-21.

25. Apnoea and Unexpected Child Death. Lancet. 1979 Aug 18;2(8138):339-40.

26. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Infantile Apnea and Home Monitoring, Sept 29 to Oct 1, 1986. Pediatrics. 1987;79:292-9.

* * *

Thanks very much Wendy – Robin

To buy Wendy’s book, head to this website: Raising a Vaccine Free Child

The post The False Claim That Science Research Has Proven Vaccination Does Not Increase The Risk Of SIDS appeared first on Vax Info Start Here.

Discovery Of Super-High Aluminium Levels In Brains Of Autistic People

Robin — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:42:50 +0000

In a breakthrough study, shockingly high levels of aluminium have been found in the brains of autistic people, and aluminium in vaccines is implicated as having a part in the mechanism that causes autism.

Hear Professor Christopher Exley from Keele University Staffordshire UK explain his group’s discovery, and his interpretation of it – there is also a transcription of the video below.

Transcription

What we had the opportunity to do was to measure the aluminium content of the brain of individuals who died with a diagnosis of autism. So we were able to do two things. We were able to measure how much aluminium is in the brain of individuals who died with autism but also we were able to look at the aluminium in the tissue, using microscopy technique or fluorescence.

The amount of aluminium in the brain tissue was, I would say, extraordinarily high, very high. My group has measured the aluminium content of probably more than 100 human brains. And these brain tissues taken from the individuals with the diagnosis of autism were some of the highest we’ve measured bar none. The only ones we’ve seen the similar were a recent study in familial Alzheimer’s.

So in this relatively young group of people, some 13, 14, 15 years of age, we saw more aluminium than we’ve seen in almost any other circumstance. So this in itself is a very important finding.

Perhaps equally important if not more important were the microscopy studies. The microscopy studies enabled us to identify where the aluminium was in the brain tissue. When we looked at our brains from people with the diagnosis of autism, we found something completely different and something we’ve never seen before as yet in any other set of human brains.

We found that the majority of aluminium was actually inside cells, intracellular. Some of it was inside neurons but actually the majority of it was inside non-neuronal cell populations. So we found that these cells were heavily loaded with aluminium.

We also saw evidence that cells in the lymph and in the blood were passing into the brain. So they were carrying with them a cargo of aluminium from the body into the brain. This is the first time in any human brain tissue we have seen this. So this is a standout and as yet, unique observation in autism.

For myself, it very much implicates aluminium in the etiology of autism. That doesn’t mean the aluminium causes it but it means that it’s almost certainly playing a role in the disease.

Before we did this piece of research, there were a number of possible links between aluminium and autism. I did not see that the science there was strong enough in any way to make that a really positive link. So I did not see a role for aluminium in autism and I didn’t see a role for aluminium in vaccines in autism.

I have to change my mind now on both of these. I have to change my mind that aluminium has a role in autism, I believe it now does. You know, I’ve often said when asked, “Should we stop using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines?” And I’ve sort of said, “No,” because I didn’t think that there was a safe alternative.

I’m not saying safer alternative, I’m saying safe alternative. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t believe that aluminium could be responsible for some of the effects that we see following vaccination.

But now, because I have seen the same cells that we will see at the injection site, carrying a cargo of aluminium into the brain tissue of individuals who died with autism, I would now say that we have to think very carefully about who receives a vaccine which includes an aluminium adjuvant.

You know, we need to think carefully: is this vaccine a life saving vaccine or not? And if it isn’t, don’t have it with an aluminium adjuvant. We are not necessarily talking about immediate effects either, we’re talking about potential long-term effects as we’ve seen with autism. This is not something that is necessarily immediate and it is something that can happen over months, years or even decades. So we need now to be extremely careful and cautious about when we decide to use a vaccine which has an aluminium adjuvant.

It worries me enormously to see this data and I was not worried before we had this data. It is incredibly difficult to do this research. No government funded this research, this research came because of philanthropy. It became because of individuals who wanted to know answers and were prepared to use their own money. We pay our government and our government should really be using our money to fund this type of research.

Further information

Here is a copy of the paper
Aluminium in brain tissue in autism

Read about this discovery in detail in JB Handley’s very comprehensive article:
Did British scientists just solve the autism puzzle?

Please share this information far and wide!

– Robin

The post Discovery Of Super-High Aluminium Levels In Brains Of Autistic People appeared first on Vax Info Start Here.

Don’t Blame The Unvaccinated For Whooping Cough

Robin — Sun, 07 May 2017 10:45:23 +0000

Here in Australia, unvaccinated children are blamed for young infants becoming seriously ill or dying from whooping cough (pertussis), and the government say it is very important to raise the vaccination rate. However, when we had much lower vaccination rates for pertussis, the number of reported cases was also much lower.

In 1991, around 70% of Australian children were fully vaccinated and there were only 347 cases of Whooping Cough, while in 2011 with over 90% of children vaccinated, we had 38,758 cases. How can the unvaccinated be blamed for this disease spreading?

See the evidence here:

Find number of cases in 1991 and 2011 here:
Notifications of a selected disease by State and Territory and year
Choose pertussis

Find the percentage vaccinated for DTP in 1991 here:
Vaccination Coverage in Australian Children – ABS Statistics and the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR), 2001
See: 4. RESULTS – VACCINATION COVERAGE STATISTICS

Find the percentage vaccinated for DTaP in 2011 here
Immunisation coverage annual report, 2011
See: Fig 1 and Tables 2, 3 & 4

The government has no right to insist our children should be vaccinated—we can see that from these figures the vaccine does not protect the community against whooping cough.

Please see science studies and other evidence about pertussis on this website at Let the SCIENCE speak: Whooping Cough

– Robin

The post Don’t Blame The Unvaccinated For Whooping Cough appeared first on Vax Info Start Here.

Andrew Wakefield Is Not A Fraud

Robin — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:45:58 +0000

So many times we see and hear people saying Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud. They even say he “made up his whole paper” and has “been in jail”!

These statements are far from the truth, and I hope the information on this page is useful for anyone wanting to understand what has happened.

Below is an infographic about the fraud claim—please share either the graphic or this post. Under it is sources and explanations.

Item 1

In 2010 the General Medical Council in Britain found Dr. Andrew Wakefield guilty of a range of allegations, mostly about a 1998 paper that suggested a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. He lost his medical license as a result.

This is a statement of established fact. The paper in question was published by the Lancet medical journal in 1998 and retracted in 2010. Find it on the Lancet website here:
Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children

Item 2

Wakefield was never charged with fraud, or altering test results, let alone found guilty of it. He has never faced charges in a court of law, so could never have been in jail.

Please see the list of General Medical Council (GMC) allegations and their findings here:
GMC charge sheet

You will see there is no charge of fraud or manipulating data.

The idea Wakefield has been in jail is totally fanciful. To anyone who believes this, I ask you to provide evidence of a trial in a court of law.

Item 3

The 1998 paper was retracted from the Lancet in 2010, but not because the study’s findings were questioned.

The findings of this study were observations of an unusual bowel disease in 12 autistic children. It was also reported that parents of 8 of the 12 children claimed their child’s decline into autism started soon after receiving the MMR vaccine. If you would like to read the paper to confirm this, please find the link under item 1.

When the editor of the Lancet retracted the paper on Feb 2 2010, he gave his reasons – you will find a link to the retraction statement on the right hand side of the paper. It reads:

Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.

Source: Retraction notice

You will notice the editor only listed two specific concerns, neither of which were about the paper’s findings being altered. He had adequate opportunity to list more concerns, but mysteriously referred to “incorrect” elements instead, which suggests he believed these were not substantial enough to mention.

Item 4

The paper concerned, about 12 autistic children with bowel problems, was not written by one person, but by 13 doctors altogether, who stand behind the paper.

Please look at the paper (find link in item 1), and see there are 13 authors, all doctors at the Royal Free hospital. In 2004 the editor of the Lancet asked the authors to retract the suggestion the MMR possibly caused autism. Ten agreed, out of fear for their careers. Paragraph two of their statement supports the paper, saying:

The main thrust of this paper was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend these findings. While much uncertainty remains about the nature of these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal problems.

Read the statement:
Retraction of an interpretation

Item 5

Brian Deer

Allegations of “fixing results” were first made by a journalist, in the pages of the Sunday Times newspaper, in early 2009. At this time the Times was managed by James Murdoch, who was on the board of GlaxoSmithKline, maker of the MMR vaccine in Britain.

See the following 2 Sunday Times articles published February 8 2009, by part-time freelance journalist Brian Deer:
MMR doctor fixed data on autism
Focus: Hidden records show MMR truth

These articles were written while the GMC hearing was in progress, but shortly after closing testimony from witnesses. Deer’s allegations were not included in the charges.

The fact that James Murdoch was on the board of GlaxoSmithKline at that time is on the public record.

Item 6

The journalist raised the allegations again in early 2011, in 3 articles in the BMJ, a British medical journal. The journal’s editor wrote that Wakefield’s paper was “an elaborate fraud”. This was the first time the word “fraud” was used, and 7 months after Wakefield had lost his license.

Here are Brian Deer’s 3 articles in the BMJ, early 2011:
How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed
How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money
The Lancet’s two days to bury bad news

Here is the editorial written by the BMJ’s editor Fiona Godlee:
Editorial – Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

These articles, which held more weight than the 2009 Times articles because they were published in a medical journal and endorsed by the journal’s editor, were published January 2011. Wakefield lost his license on May 24 2010, so the BMJ articles and editorial were published over 7 months after he lost his license, and nearly 12 months after the GMC findings were announced January 2010. This timing, combined with the fact the GMC did not charge Wakefield with fraud or “fixing results”, means Wakefield could not have lost his license to practise medicine “because he was a fraud”, as many people claim.

Item 7

The main fraud allegation was that Wakefield had altered pathology results. This has been refuted by esteemed pathologists and the BMJ’s editor has backed down from saying fraud had been committed here.

Brian Deer first raised these allegations in 2009, then in April 2010, the latter in an article in the BMJ:
Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” under the microscope

This article was published 3 months after the GMC had announced their guilty verdicts of the 3 men accused, in January that year.

Deer had gone through a lot of paperwork and found there were different versions of pathology reports on the children’s bowel biopsies.

The reason for this was that biopsies were examined first by a duty pathologist, whose expertise may not be bowel disease in children. Then the biopsies were examined again by doctors expert in children’s bowel disease, including Professor John Walker-Smith who was a co-author of the paper and the world’s leading paediatric gastroenterologist at the time. Results were updated where necessary.

In November 2011 the Scientific American published an article about the pathology tests:
Discredited Vaccine-Autism Researcher Defended by Whistleblower Group

The article discusses views by various pathologists, and it reports on the response by Fiona Godlee—the BMJ editor who claimed “fraud”—to the discussion. They say:

Fiona Godlee, author of the BMJ editorial, says that the journal’s conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children’s records and the claims in the Lancet paper.

In other words, Godlee was now backing down from the strongest tenet of her fraud claim. Since then she has continued to support her claims in public, but without giving any justification.

Item 8

Another fraud allegation was that some of the children had developmental concerns before the MMR jab. Nonsensical reasoning was given, such as saying a child’s ear infection before the jab was evidence of autism.

Deer claimed in his article that

Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns.

Deer deduced this from seeing the children’s private National Health Service records, to which he was given access. Wakefield’s team did not have access to these records. Deer has drawn many conclusions from the information, despite having no medical training whatsoever.

In an article by Martin Hewitt, Deer’s claims are systematically debunked, with information gathered from the GMC hearing transcripts, which describe each child. The transcripts are available here, if you would like to check these discussions for accuracy.

See Hewitt’s article here:
How the BMJ and Brian Deer Fixed the Record to Destroy Andrew Wakefield Part 2

Briefly, the concerns Deer raised were:

Child 4 had wide bridging of his nose and concerns about his development.
Child 8 had a faulty aorta and concerns about her development.
Child 1 had hearing issues, found to be related to ear wax or infection.
Child 5 had febrile convulsions and high fever before the MMR.

In his conclusion, Martin Hewitt says of Deer:

He selects those parts of the transcripts that support the case for Wakefield fixing the data and ignores other parts that undermine the case. He ignores letters, reports and witness statements that show the children developing normally before the MMR. For example, he ignores accounts of child 4’s normal development at nine months (apart from the coarctation), and child 8’s normal development at 11 months. He does not mention child 4’s measles vaccination several years before his MMR. He misses the significance of child 8’s convulsions and gastroenteritis immediately after MMR. He sets down false trails that lead nowhere, such as child 4’s fragile X gene or child 1’s hearing before MMR. He confuses a syndrome associating autism and bowel disease ‒ presented as part of the case series paper ‒ with the ‘MMR syndrome’. He oversimplifies the everyday complexities and uncertainties doctors and parents grapple with in reaching an autism diagnosis.

Deer also said Child 11 had symptoms before the MMR, which was recorded on a hospital discharge sheet (but other documents had a different date for symptoms). This child lives in the USA, so was not discussed in the GMC hearing. Deer’s claims about this child are debunked here:
An Elaborate Fraud Series Part 7: In Which the BMJ’s Prime Example of Wakefield’s Alleged Misconduct Proves Flagrantly False

Deer replies to this article on his blog by saying “who can say, years later?”, in an extraordinary backdown—see below:
Brian Deer’s blog article

Item 9

A third fraud allegation was that the 12 children did not all have autism. This claim came about due to difficulties in diagnosing autism, and varying terminology used in the 1990s. For example, the journalist said Asperger’s is not autism.

Deer wrote

But only one—child 2—clearly had regressive autism. Three of nine so described clearly did not. None of these three (children 6, 7 & 12) even had autism diagnoses, either at admission or on discharge from the Royal Free.

See this discussion, about the autism diagnoses of children 6, 7 and 12:
How the British Medical Journal and Brian Deer Fixed the Historical Record to Destroy Andrew Wakefield’s Reputation

From the article:

We see clearly how Deer works. First he selects extracts from the transcripts to build up his case, ignoring other extracts that might cast doubt on his case such as the above extracts. Secondly he applies his reasoning rigidly to the evidence as though medical diagnosis is about 100% certainty, for example that there is a clear indisputable difference between autism and Asperger’s. On this basis no doctor’s practice would survive this standard of certainty.

Item 10

If Wakefield did not commit fraud, what does it say about the observations reported in the 1998 paper?

The allegations of fraud have never been examined in any kind of court, by any judge or jury. They are fanciful, and made solely by a part-time, freelance journalist, and supported by the editor of the BMJ medical journal, who has provided no justification for her support (she said sub-editors had fact-checked Deer’s articles, but this turned out to be false).

As the fraud allegations are false, it follows the 1998 paper’s findings are valid, that is, that the 12 autistic children examined had an unusual bowel disease, and that the parents of 8 of them reported their child’s decline into autism started soon after the MMR jab.

A very strange thing about Deer’s articles is he constantly suggests Wakefield manipulated the study results to provide evidence he could use in litigation, for which he was being paid. This is ludicrous, as this type of observational study, with no research protocol or conclusion, could never provide evidence for litigation.

Deer’s claim “the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation” is not true, by the way. The Legal Aid Board funding was for a viral detection study, which Wakefield undertook after the 1998 Lancet study, completing a pilot study for it in 1999 (with the LAB funding declared on it). The funds for this work were not even made available to Wakefield until 7 months after the last child in the 1998 Lancet paper had been seen, and after the paper had been submitted to publishers, so could not have been used for this study.

About Brian Deer

Meet the man behind the fraud claim, Brian Deer. He is a journalist, but has very little work to his name, apart from his Wakefield articles.

Watch this film released in May 2009, towards the end of the GMC hearings. It is about Brian Deer and children from the 1998 Lancet paper, and their parents.

– Robin

The post Andrew Wakefield Is Not A Fraud appeared first on Vax Info Start Here.

Let’s Demolish The Exaggerated Claims About Measles Danger

Robin — Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:39:01 +0000

The CDC says that for every 1000 measles cases, one or two will die, and one will develop encephalitis, which commonly leads to brain damage, here and here

Another example from the CDC:

That makes measles look rather dangerous.

Many news stories about measles or vaccines quote these statistics, often with a prominent doctor saying it.

These figures have for a while struck me as odd because the death rate from measles in the US was more like one in 10,000 cases in the decade before widespread measles vaccination started in 1967. I also did a very rough calculation for Australia and got a similar result.

Could they be talking world-wide? I don’t think so—it does appear they are referring to rates in the first world.

Also, there have been very few, if any, deaths from measles in first-world nations for many years if not decades. How on earth can they come up with such precise figures for the present day, when there have been far too few measles cases and measles deaths for drawing conclusions? They obviously can’t. But let’s look at some data.

The figures

The figures quoted today by health authorities appear to come from surveillance data of measles from 1985 to 1992 in the US, when there were many thousands of measles cases and quite a few deaths (the worst period 1989-1991 had 55,622 cases and 123 deaths).

They are reported in the CDC’s measles Pink Book under the heading ‘Complications’.

There have been other outbreaks in first-world nations since then (US, UK, Netherlands), but none with enough cases or deaths for drawing conclusions, so it does appear the CDC are mainly using the 1985-1992 data for their measles complications figures.

Reported cases

The 1985 to 1992 data shows there was encephalitis in 0.1% of reported cases (1 in 1000) and deaths were at 0.2% of reported cases (1 in 500), see table on the right.

The first thing that caught my attention was that the data was of reported measles cases. Really? Authorities are promoting figures gathered from reported cases only?

In the post-vaccine era, measles cases are recorded if a strict pathology test gives a positive result, or a case is linked to one with a positive test result. See Measles – National guidelines for public health units.

So what about all the children who have measles but their parents very sensibly keep them at home, with bed rest, warmth and cod-liver oil (for vitamin A), and they don’t see a doctor?

Or the people who see a doctor, who gives them a generic fever/rash diagnosis because the doctor doesn’t recognise measles, after decades of widespread vaccination? See Once easily recognized, signs of measles now elude young doctors

Or the doctor does suspect ‘measles’ but follows CDC guidelines and does not order the strict pathology test if the patient has been vaccinated? The guidelines say:

To minimize the problem of false-positive laboratory results, it is important to restrict case investigation and laboratory tests to patients most likely to have measles (i.e., those who meet the clinical case definition, especially if they have risk factors for measles, such as being unvaccinated,…

Or the doctor does give a patient a measles diagnosis but his practice simply does not follow the process of testing and reporting, see these articles:
Measles reporting completeness during a community-wide epidemic in inner-city Los Angeles.
Reporting efficiency during a measles outbreak in New York City, 1991.

Or those who catch measles directly from the vaccine, but their cases are not counted?

Two CDC scientists had a letter published in the Lancet medical journal in 2005, reviewing studies on measles reporting rates in the Netherlands and USA: Measles surveillance: the importance of finding the tip of the iceberg To read whole letter put title into https://sci-hub.se

They report:

Most measles cases are unreported.

Getting back to the measles death-to-case ratio of one death per 500 in the period 1987-92, we need to know if the reporting of measles deaths was accurate, before we assume the ratio is inflated.

The following report in the Journal of Infectious Diseases examines this: Acute Measles Mortality in the United States, 1987–2002. It states

Also, the efficiency of reporting for measles deaths may be higher than for all measles cases, which would artificially inflate the estimated DCRs.

We do know that in the current era, authorities go to great lengths to hunt down and report any measles death they find. So all up, I think it would be fair to say measles cases are very under-reported, while measles deaths are much more likely to be reported, making the real death-to-case-ratio much lower than 1 in 500.

Incidentally, the article about measles mortality reporting above points out the high death-to-case ratio of the 1989 period was associated with patients having pre-existing immune deficiency such as AIDS:

The 1989 resurgence was the first measles epidemic in the United States since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic; the AIDS epidemic may have contributed to the high DCRs observed in this study.

This speaks for itself, really.

Before the vaccine

Before the measles vaccine, virtually all children had measles by the time they were 15, and most by the time they were 9. Then they had life-long immunity – they did not catch measles again.

As I mentioned earlier, deaths in the decade before the vaccine were around 1 in 10,000 cases in the US. We can see this in an article written in 1962 by Dr. Alexander Langmuir, chief epidemiologist at the CDC at the time. It is called The Importance of measles as a health problem, and Langmuir was attempting to convince fellow doctors it was worth developing a vaccine to target measles.

He was doing this because the predominant feeling amongst health professionals was that measles was a mild disease and intervention was not needed, and they also felt parents, who saw measles as a routine part of childhood, would not welcome another vaccine.

Remember at this time doctors were very pleased with themselves over their vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and polio, diseases which they did believe were serious.

Langmuir produces a case fatality ratio graph, in Figure 3. We can see less than 10 in 100,000 cases (1 in 10,000) died for most age groups. Only young infants had a higher death rate, but it was not common for those to catch measles at that time.

The CDC even say in the Pink Book (under Secular Trends in the United States) that before the vaccine, cases were much higher than reported, here:

Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually.

So I’ll do some arithmetic, assuming deaths were recorded accurately:

500 deaths in 3,500,000 cases = 1 in 7,000

The CDC also state elsewhere that there were 400 to 500 deaths per year in the decade before the vaccine – if you use 450 the death rate is 1 in 7,777.

This range of estimations is supported by Babbott and Gordon in ‘Modem measles’. American Journal of Medical Science 1954; 228:334-361, reported here:
“Whatever its toll in industrialized countries, where the measles fatality rate is 1 per 10,000 cases (Babbott and Gordon, 1954)…”

Curiously, Peter Hotez, writer of this pro-vaccine New York Times article How the Anti-Vaxxers Are Winning states:

Such high levels of transmissibility mean that when the percentage of children in a community who have received the measles vaccine falls below 90 percent to 95 percent, we can start to see major outbreaks, as in the 1950s when four million Americans a year were infected and 450 died.

That makes a death to case ratio of 1 in around 9,000, not 1 or 2 in 1000. I wonder if Peter Hotez thought about that.

Alexander Langmuir also gives weight to the argument measles was considered a mild disease in the pre-vaccine era in his closing remark in his article mentioned above. He says:

To those who ask me, “Why do you wish to eradicate measles?” I reply with the same answer that Hilary used when asked why he wished to climb Mt. Everest. He said “Because it is there.” To this may be added “…and it can be done.”

To be honest it sounds like ego and justifying his position to me.

Then there is this letter from a doctor asked to report on measles in his practice, and published in the British Medical Journal in 1959:

In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week, from the prodromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked “how much good the attack has done their children,” as they seem so much better after the measles. . . In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.

Source: MEASLES – REPORTS FROM GENERAL PRACTITIONERS (p 381, under “Mild Ailment”)

In Australia

In the following 2015 article on ABC News, Professor Robert Booy, who is today head of the Clinical Research team at the ‘National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance’ here in Australia, is quoted making two statements that are ridiculous when taken together: ‘Surge’ in number of measles cases in Australia for 2014 prompts immunisation warning

He says

“If we didn’t have vaccination at all, we would have a quarter of a million cases of measles on average every year.”

and

“One in 500 could die and one in 500 could end up with a nasty brain infection.”

Well, if we have 250,000 cases in a year, and 1 in 500 “could” die, he is suggesting there “could” be 500 deaths per year.

That is astonishing really, when you consider that in the 10 years 1956 to 1965, just before Australia’s introduction of measles vaccination in 1970, there were 210 measles deaths altogether, according to this government document, page S1 (Table 1.1), an average of 21 deaths per year.

Here’s the table:

According to the table, Australia’s population was around 11 million in that decade, which is about half what it is now.

If we assume that if we had never had the vaccine the measles death/population rate today would be the same as it was in the 1950s and 60s, then Booy’s estimation is out by a huge factor. Double 21 deaths to allow for total population growth, and it gives you 42 deaths per year, not Booy’s 500 per year.

I wonder if Booy has bothered to look at these figures, and if he has, what his explanation for them would be.

Actually, while we are looking at Table 1.1 in the table above, have a look at the sharp decline in measles deaths over the decades before the vaccine, while the population nearly doubled. The number of deaths per decade were 1102, 822, 495, 210, 146 (measles vaccine went on the recommended list in 1975 in Australia), while the population went from 6,600,00 to 13,750,000.

How many deaths do you reckon there would be today if there had been no measles vaccine?

That rather plays havoc with Booy’s numbers, doesn’t it?

Our Professor Booy also said in this video that “thousands and millions” of children have died from measles, in an attempt to emphasise the danger of measles.

What is he talking about? We had 21 deaths per year from measles in Australia, about 450 per year in the US and around 100 per year in the UK, over the decade before the vaccine – where were the thousands and millions? The nineteenth century? The third world? How are they relevant to our situation?

Measles complications

It should be obvious that if measles deaths were declining steeply in the decades up until 1970, then those complications that didn’t result in death, such as pneumonia and encephalitis, would have been coming down too, and would have continued to do so without the vaccine. Because it is the complications that cause death.

With encephalitis, the authorities say the vaccine lowered measles encephalitis, and this is true, because with measles cases drastically reduced, there had to be fewer cases of measles encephalitis.

To see if the measles vaccine was really of benefit regarding encephalitis, we would need to look at encephalitis cases from all causes, before and after the measles vaccine.

A Finnish researcher did this, and found that measles vaccination reduced the rate of encephalitis cases from all causes, but did not reduce the number of severe cases. And the rate from all causes increased again anyway, after a few years, because encephalitis is a disease of susceptibility—any number of pathogens can cause it, and if one is removed others will step up to the plate in a susceptible person. For an explanation see this video (24:50 to 29:30) and these papers: here and here.

Of course, it is always possible measles is now more dangerous than it was pre-vaccine, for those who catch it – vaccination programs have left young infants and adults more vulnerable to measles complications, and can lead to the rise of more dangerous mutants of the virus. And the modern-day insistence of giving panadol to reduce fever would make measles more dangerous too.

But it’s doubtful medical authorities such as Professor Booy are basing their estimations on these factors – if they are aware of them they’d certainly not admit it in the current climate.

– Robin

Fear Of Measles

Robin — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:13:43 +0000

Today I am very pleased to be bringing you a guest post by Wendy Lydall, author of the book Raising A Vaccine Free Child. BUY NOW here: Raising a Vaccine Free Child (edition 2).

On Sunday the 14th of June 2015 the Australian population was treated to a blast of the terrifying “news” that measles cases were increasing and some people could die or become brain damaged because not every parent was vaccinating.

The chief protagonist of this scare campaign was Professor Robert Booy of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. Professor Booy had chosen to not learn something from me when we both appeared on a TV morning show in May 2013. The news anchor had introduced me as someone who claims, “… that diseases like the measles are beneficial for a child’s development.”

Professor Booy’s response to this was, “… hoping that you’ll get some kind of boost to your immune system has never been proved for measles. It’s a theory that’s been around for decades and there’s no proof for it.”

I interjected with, “I beg to differ. There is proof. There are studies in the medical literature which show that it is beneficial. For instance, a person who has had measles as a child is less likely to get chronic diseases in their adult life. And that is in the medical literature.”

“Is that right Robert?” asked the anchor.

Professor Booy avoided admitting that he had not read the medical literature on this topic by changing the subject. “I think the focus of this debate is being lost on the fact that thousands and millions of children have died from measles and we need to protect children against measles by the most effective and the safest way. Immunisation is second only to clean water, sanitation, in protecting babies’ lives.”

In this short interchange four of the issues that confound health-conscious parents were raised; that measles is beneficial, that measles can kill, that vaccines are claimed to be safe, and that vaccines are claimed to be effective.

Benefits

Professor Booy is partially correct in saying that the idea that measles is beneficial has been around for decades. The idea has actually been around for centuries. It can be observed that children take a jump in development during the course of measles.

Some people refer to the self-resolving childhood diseases as “developmental diseases” because they bring about a jump in development. It is sometimes seen that measles or another of the self-resolving childhood diseases makes a chronic condition clear up, and a few reports of chronic diseases being permanently cured by chicken pox, measles, or rubella have been published in medical journals.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox are all self-resolving diseases, and under natural conditions they usually occur during childhood. They do not need any action to be taken to make them come to an end. They automatically come to an end by themselves.

They cannot be prevented by good nutrition, but the level of nutrition affects the way that the child copes with the disease. A natural infection of one of the self-resolving infectious diseases creates life-long immunity, unlike the infectious diseases that do not automatically come to an end without intervention.

The age-old theory that the self-resolving childhood diseases are beneficial extends to the conviction that people who have had these diseases are less likely to experience chronic diseases in adulthood.

In more recent times evidence that supports this conviction has been published in medical journals. The age-old theory has focused mainly on conditions like cancer and arthritis, as well as skin conditions like eczema and psoriasis, but surprisingly there is now evidence that these diseases also protect against heart disease. When properly managed to avoid complications, the self-resolving childhood diseases have profound long-term benefits.

Complications

However, children who die from measles, or suffer complications that result in permanent damage, are not healthier after measles. Children who are severely malnourished before they get measles are at risk of dying from measles. Usually their immune systems are so damaged by malnutrition that they cannot raise a fever to protect their brains from the measles virus.(1)

Severely malnourished children who survive measles often suffer from worsened malnutrition, even to the point that if they did not have full blown kwashiorkor (severe protein malnutrition) before measles, they have it afterwards.(2) For children who have long-standing malnutrition there is usually insufficient food available during the recuperation phase after measles.

Children lose their appetite during the acute phase of measles, which is the phase when they lie down, have a fever, and are covered in spots. But once the acute phase is over, they become extremely hungry, and if sufficient food is available they undergo a growth spurt. Children who cannot obtain sufficient food during the recuperation phase end up shorter as adults than their genetic predisposition programmed them to be.(1)

While non-government organisations are working hard to end world poverty, the World Health Organisation is trying to jab every child in poor communities with MMR vaccine. Epidemics of autism are now appearing in these communities. African languages use the term “the absent disease” for this new condition.

Children in affluent communities can also die or suffer permanent damage from measles. They are vulnerable if they have a pre-existing condition like cancer or pneumonia, or are taking immune-suppressing drugs.

Harmful treatments

There are also borderline children who are not constitutionally strong enough to cope with the harmful treatments that doctors and nurses use for measles. Doctors and nurses are trained to treat all the self-resolving childhood diseases with chilling, and with drugs that suppress fever.

These harmful treatments, which go against all the scientific studies that are published in medical journals, cause complications like encephalitis, pneumonia, and death. Medical journals are brimming with studies which show that suppressing fever in a patient with an infectious disease increases the risk of death, yet doctors and nurses are trained to treat measles with chilling and drugs that suppress fever. This is not surprising, as BigPharma controls what they are taught, and BigPharma makes billions out of drugs that suppress fever.

A shallow cough is normal with measles, but bronchitis and pneumonia are complications. Pneumonia is the most common severe complication of measles, and it is also the most common cause of death during measles.(3) It boggles the mind that medically trained personnel want to chill a child with measles when they should know that this causes pneumonia.

Fear campaign

The fear campaign about measles of June 2015 lasted only one day, and then the media lost interest. If the aim was to cause the level of hysteria that was generated by the Disneyland measles outbreak, the attempt fell flat.

The outbreak of measles that started in Disneyland in December 2014 resulted in 189 cases being officially reported in the US, and there were also a few cases reported in Mexico and Canada. Of those that were reported in the US, 45% were in the unvaccinated. There would have been other cases among unvaccinated children that were not reported to the authorities because the parents wisely kept their children at home, and managed the disease properly, with bedrest, warmth, and liquids.

In November 2012 a measles outbreak started in Britain. This was a great opportunity for the vaccine promoters to create fear and hysteria about measles, and to promote MMR vaccine. As is always the case, both vaccinated and unvaccinated people got measles while the measles virus was having this episode of virulence.

One thing that struck me as odd was that some parents whose children got measles were shocked to discover that measles makes their children become covered in a rash, have a high fever, and want to lie down. In previous generations people knew that tiredness, fever, and spots are to be expected with measles.

A measles death

Five months into the outbreak in Britain a 25-year-old man who had measles died from pneumonia. The unfortunate man had all the risk factors for dying while he had measles; he was an adult, not a child, he had pneumonia, he was severely malnourished (which is unusual in Britain), and he had two serious chronic diseases before he caught measles.

He was also taking a variety of prescription drugs, which may or may not have weakened his immune system. On top of all this he was given paracetamol, which is known to cripple the immune system.(4) The day before he died his mother had taken him to a medical centre because he had a measles rash, a high fever, an infected chest, and he was in a state of collapse.

Even though there was hysteria in the community about measles, it did not occur to the three GPs who examined him that he might have measles and that his chest infection might be pneumonia. They told his mother to take him home and give him paracetamol. She obeyed, and he died during the night. Because he was an unhealthy person he might have died from the pneumonia without the extra burden of paracetamol, but it did not help that the paracetamol made his immune system less able to fight the pneumonia.

If he had been put in a hospital bed with an electrolyte drip, been given an antibiotic for the pneumonia, and been given vitamin A because he was severely malnourished, he would have had a good chance of survival, even though they would have given him paracetamol as well.

The official cause of death was given as pneumonia. The medicrats who used the poor man’s death to create fear about measles and to promote MMR vaccine failed to mention the factors that led to his death. The doctors whose negligence resulted in this man’s death have not been held accountable.

Vaccine safety testing

Vaccine promoters frequently use the word “safe” to describe vaccines. Another favourite word is “rigorous”, used when they are describing the process of trialling vaccines before they are licensed. The reality is that the process of pre-licensure trialling is quite the opposite of rigorous.

Ten years before the MMR controversy appeared on the scene I had correspondence with the two institutions in Britain that were supposed to ensure that measles vaccine was safe before it was put on the schedule. At that time the institutions were called the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control.

I started correspondence with them in 1989, asking them questions about how the vaccine was tested for safety. The replies I received were evasive. Their inability to provide me with the information made me realise that they had not tested the vaccine for safety before putting it on the schedule.

Kangaroo court

When mumps and rubella were added to measles vaccine, creating MMR vaccine, public disquiet about adverse reactions began to rumble. Some parents were saying that MMR vaccine had made their children develop autism. The mindless mainstream media continually repeats the non-truth that it was Dr. Andrew Wakefield who started the disquiet.

What actually happened is that when Dr. Wakefield added his voice to the disquiet, the Murdoch Empire targeted him and some other doctors who had expressed the opinion that there was a need for the possible relationship between MMR and autism to be properly investigated. The Murdoch Empire set up a kangaroo court which found Dr. Wakefield and Dr. John Walker-Smith guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Dr. Walker-Smith had the financial resources to take the matter to the British High Court, which found that the ruling of the kangaroo court had been inadequate, had used superficial reasoning, and had come to a wrong conclusion. It quashed the kangaroo court’s finding, but despite that, mainstream journalists continually repeat defamatory statements about Dr. Wakefield, and refrain from mentioning the High Court ruling.

Lack of MMR safety studies

When measles cases started happening in Britain in 2012, the government and the vaccine fanatics escalated their vendetta against Dr. Wakefield, and the mindless mainstream media did not allow him to defend himself against the false allegations. So he posted a video online, and this is what he said about the trialling of MMR vaccine:

Such was my concern about the safety of that vaccine that I went back and reviewed every safety study, every pre-licensing study of the MMR vaccine and other measles containing vaccines before they were put into children and after. And I was appalled with the quality of that science. It really was totally below par and that has been reiterated by other authoritative sources since.

The mainstream media continually repeats the fiction that it has been scientifically proven that MMR does not cause autism. There are no studies that show that MMR or any other vaccines do not cause autism. The vaccine industry has churned out a variety of shonky studies, none of which compare the rate of autism in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

Anecdotal evidence

The vaccine defenders scorn the anecdotal evidence that MMR vaccine causes autism in some children, saying that anecdotal evidence is “not scientific”. If they truly believed in science, they would want the anecdotal evidence to be followed up with methodologically sound scientific studies.

Anecdotal evidence is not enough to draw scientific conclusions, but it is an indicator that proper scientific research needs to be done, and while the industry is refusing to do proper studies on the possible relationship between MMR and autism, they have no right to dismiss the anecdotal evidence.

An example of anecdotal evidence is the toddler who was using some words at 18 months and was “chatting” in the morning before his MMR vaccination. He suffered a violent reaction to the vaccination and lost the use of words. At ten years old he still has no language, and the doctors and government are denying that his loss of language, and all of the other problems that started with the injection, were caused by the injection. They say that it is all just a coincidence.

What these vaccine defenders are saying is that if that boy had not been injected with MMR that morning, he still would have screamed while clutching his head all afternoon, banged his head and jerked his limbs all night, lain on his bed and stared at the ceiling the whole of the next day, never made eye contact again, and never spoken again. They are saying that all of these things would have happened without the injection.

The vaccinators are also saying that it is a complete coincidence that similar reactions with similar long term outcomes have presented in millions of other toddlers soon after injection with MMR. They defend themselves from facing up to reality by claiming that they believe in “science”, not in anecdotal reports.

But the “science” to which they are referring is a raft of warped studies that do not compare the rate of autism in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Dr. Paul Offit is the world’s most prominent vaccine defender, even going so far as to say that aluminium is a nutrient, not a neurotoxin.

He did not serve his masters well when he made the admission that the lack of studies that compare vaccinated with unvaccinated means that there is, “limited ability to assess associations between vaccination and adverse events with delayed or insidious onset (eg, autism).”(5)

Excuses

The vaccine industry has a variety of excuses for not doing studies that compare the rate of chronic disease in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, the most ridiculous of which is that it would be unethical to do these studies.

The makers of this excuse range from hysterical bloggers to the sedate pharma shills at the Institute of Medicine. In its 2013 report, the Institute of Medicine admits that comparing vaccinated children with unvaccinated children would be the best kind of study, and it admits that the existing research about vaccine safety is not adequate, but it then goes on to say it would be unethical and too expensive to do comparative studies.(6)

Another reason given by them for not doing comparative studies is that, “There are very low observed rates of adverse events with vaccination”.(7)

Wrong. Very high rates of adverse effects have been observed, but most adverse effects are not recorded as such, and are dismissed as “just a coincidence”.

So high rates of adverse effects are observed, but very low rates of adverse effects are acknowledged. Ironically, by talking about “observed rates of adverse events with vaccination”, the Institute of Medicine is basing its stance on anecdotal evidence. They are saying that there is not the anecdotal evidence to warrant scientific studies.

Wrong again. Even the tiny fraction of adverse reactions that are reported to official channels are enough to warrant proper scientific studies that compare the rate of autism in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

Journalists

Some vaccine defenders claim that a study done in Denmark(8) compared autism in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, but it did not.

Whenever a new autism/MMR study appears in the armoury of the vaccinators, journalists around the world report that another study comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated has been done, proving yet again that MMR vaccine does not cause autism.

Journalists do not read the studies before reporting on them, they only read a press release about the study and repeat what it says. An investigative journalist would read the actual study instead of just assuming that the study has been done properly.

In Australia

The vaccine industry has been skilful at manipulating the narrative about vaccines, so that politicians, all the way from Hillary Clinton down to Daniel Andrews, chant the mantra, “The science is in”. Daniel Andrews is the premier of Victoria, Australia, a state that has introduced a law forbidding any child who is not “up to date” with all 39 vaccines that are on the preschool schedule from attending any kind of preschool institution.

Conscientious and religious exemption have been abolished, and medical exemption has been tightened considerably. Any institution found harbouring a child who is not “up to date” will be fined $20,000. This is in line with a global crusade by BigPharma to make as many countries as possible force vaccines onto their reluctant citizens.

Britain is unlikely to follow suit because policy makers are aware of the strife that resulted from vaccination being made compulsory for infants in 1853. They also know that the vaccination rate increased after the law was repealed in 1898.

On 21 October 2015, the day that the draconian law was passed by the Victorian parliament, Premier Daniel Andrews posted this on his Facebook page,

No jab, no play – and no apologies from me. If your child isn’t vaccinated you aren’t just putting them at risk. You’re putting every other child in the playground at risk. We won’t stand for it in Victoria. Your health matters more than your opinions.

The irony of his contempt for health-conscious parents is that he thinks his opinion is based on science. He does not realise that he has been manipulated by the vaccine industry into believing their false narrative.

References

1. Ebrahim, G.J., The Problems of Undernutrition, in, Jarrett, R.J., (ed), Nutrition and Disease. Croom Helm, London, 1979
2. Axton, J.H., Measles: a protein-losing enteropathy. Br Med J. 1975 Jul 12; 3(5975):79-80.
3. Hussey, G.D., Clements, C.J., Clinical problems in measles case management. Ann Trop Paediatr. 1996;16(307):17.
4. Shalabi, E.A., Acetaminophen inhibits the human polymorphonuclear leukocyte function in vitro. Immunopharmacology. 1992 Jul-Aug;24(1):37-45.
5. Offit, P.A., DeStefano, F., Vaccine Safety, in Plotkin, S.A., Orenstein, W., Offit, P.A., (eds.) Vaccines, 6th Edition. Elsevier Saunders, 2013, printed in China.
6. Institute of Medicine, Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies. January 16, 2013.
7. Ibid., 133.
8. Madsen, K.M., Hviid, A., et al., A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. New Engl J Med. 2002;347(19):1477-82.

– by Wendy Lydall

– – – – –

Thanks very much Wendy!

If you would like to purchase Wendy’s book Raising a Vaccine Free Child 2nd edition, head to her website www.vaccinefreechild.com.

Wendy and I would love to hear from you, if you would like to leave a comment or question in one of the comment areas below.

Robin

– – – – –

Here’s Wendy’s appearance on Sunrise:

The post Fear Of Measles appeared first on Vax Info Start Here.

Australian Premiere Of VaxXed Movie

Robin — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:00:18 +0000

At long last the film Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe is coming to Australia!

It is showing first in Brisbane, on Thursday December 6. Find the Press Release here, with all the information.

VaxXed Press Release Australia

Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe is a documentary film detailing the claims made by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Senior Scientist, Dr. William ‘Bill’ Thompson.

Dr. Thompson led the agency’s 2004 study on Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine, investigating its alleged link to autism. Dr. Thompson confessed that the CDC had omitted crucial data in their final report, data that revealed a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism.

The film is not anti-vaccination, and it makes the following calls to action:

That Congress (USA) subpoena Dr. William Thompson and investigate the CDC fraud.
That Congress repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and hold manufacturers liable for injury caused by their vaccines.
That the single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines be made available immediately.
That all vaccines be classified as pharmaceutical drugs and tested accordingly.

There has been, and will continue to be, false claims made about this film, from allegations about the film’s creators, to the content within.

Banned in the US?

Mainstream media have reported the film was banned in the US, but this has definitely not been the case. It was initially going to premiere in April at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City, run by Robert De Niro and others, but organisers had to pull the film due to “pressure” we can only guess at.

De Niro was very adamant everyone should see this film, and has strongly supported it ever since – despite this, press have said he withdrew the film because he did not support it. Watch him talking about it in this segment on the Today Show:

The film then debuted on April 1 this year, with only 3 day’s notice, at the Angelika Film Center, also in NYC. Since then it has been playing constantly in theatres across the United States.

A few months after its debut the filmmakers and some support people set up a RV, by painting it black with the VaxXed logo huge across the side, and started to tour all around the US filming people’s stories of vaccine damage and death.

Go to this website to watch the interviews: VaxXed.com

Victims have signed their names on the bus, there are thousands of them now.

Now VaxXed has come to Australia, people here will have the opportunity to learn about vaccine corruption by the US health authorities. Bring it on.

For the latest on Australian screenings of VaxXed, go to this page: VaxXed|AVN and this Facebook group: Bring Vaxxed to Australia/New Zealand

Robin

The post Australian Premiere Of VaxXed Movie appeared first on Vax Info Start Here.

Why The No Jab No Pay Legislation Is Flawed

Robin — Tue, 31 May 2016 02:46:17 +0000

At the start of this year the No Jab No Pay law came into effect here in Australia – parents on low incomes are denied certain child payments if their children, up to the age of 18, have not had every vaccine on the government’s recommended schedule.

In addition, the way was paved for No Jab No PLay laws in the states (note the L in Play), where working parents who don’t vaccinate cannot put their children into child care – this has been taken up by Victoria and Queensland, which has a watered-down version, all up making Victoria the most draconian state in the world regarding vaccine mandates, at this time.

The purpose of these laws is supposedly to get all children vaccinated so everyone in the community will be protected from the 14 infectious diseases we currently vaccinate for in this country.

The problem is that many parents know their children have had serious adverse reactions to vaccines in the past, and will do everything they can to avoid giving their children any more vaccines. Other parents have done their research, and are fully aware of the adverse reactions other people’s children have had, and also the way vaccines compromise the individual’s immune system well into the future, and they too do not wish to vaccinate their children.

So these parents, should they be on a low income, are left in a situation where if they don’t vaccinate their children they cannot afford to support them, but if they do they know they are risking their lives and well-being.

Typhoid Mary?

Politicians and health authorities say we should not have freedom of choice when it comes to protecting our communities from contagious infectious disease, and in some situations I would agree with them.

If someone showed up with ebola or some similar disease, I think we would all have no hesitation in isolating that person from everyone else, until they recover. If they say they want to go to their friend’s birthday party and have the “right” to do what they want, we would say… “er… we don’t think so”.

But what has happened with the push for mandating vaccines is that the population has been educated by the media to believe unvaccinated children are a danger to others, and this simply is not true.

Unvaccinated children are not carriers of disease. Sick children are carriers of disease. Unvaccinated children are known to be, in the main, very healthy and rarely get sick or need antibiotics. Vaccinated children these days, who receive many, many more vaccines than their parents or grandparents had, visit a doctor 11 times a year on average, and generally have antibiotics often. See Studies Prove Without Doubt That Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier Than Their Vaccinated Peers

Older children and adults who have been vaccinated for whooping cough can, as a result of the vaccination, carry that disease without symptoms should they come into contact with it, endangering newborns – it says so right here: Whooping cough resurgence due to vaccinated people not knowing they’re infectious?

and here: FDA study helps provide an understanding of rising rates of whooping cough and response to vaccination

Vaccinated children also often get the very diseases they have been vaccinated for, their parents believing the untrue hype that the illness would have been worse had they not been vaccinated (knowledgable doctors out there do not subscribe to this belief). Then they can spread it, too – many outbreaks of measles have been in highly vaccinated populations.

Measles, mumps and chicken pox

In the pre-vaccine era, measles, mumps and chicken pox had been stable in the human population for a long time, occurring in regular cycles in the under 10 age group. Most children caught these diseases, immunity after infection was life-long, and maternal antibodies gave infants protection. This was real herd immunity in action.

Deaths from measles, mumps and chicken pox had plummeted, becoming very rare, before the respective vaccines came into use (look for mortality data going back to 1900 or earlier).

Today, because the vast majority of children in the US and Australia are vaccinated for these diseases, they only get the short-term, weak, vaccine immunity, so now:

they are getting these diseases as adults, when all are very nasty
mothers are not passing antibodies on to their babies, leaving infants vulnerable
the viruses are not circulating in communities, giving us boosters to immunity (in the case of chicken pox vaccination this has lead to increased shingles in older people, in the US).

It is true unvaccinated children may well catch these diseases should they come into contact with them. Luckily for them, they will gain life-long protection, so won’t have to suffer the illness as adults, girls will have the antibodies to protect their babies, and they will even have a natural protection from cancer most of their peers miss out on.

But will they spread these “deadly” diseases? Well, they can stay at home if they are sick, but they might. The thing is that these diseases are not as deadly or dangerous as made out by health authorities – figures like 1 in 1000 children who catch the disease will die or be brain damaged are simply untrue. Lies, actually. These sorts of figures come from reported cases only, or from the third world where children are dehydrated and undernourished – do challenge your doctor to show you the evidence if he/she tells you that.

Please do not fall for the hype around protecting the immunocompromised – often they are this way from unwise medical intervention in the first place, and they can be treated with immunoglobulin, see Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy in Primary Immunodeficiencies

And the sad fact is that these people can still die without any contact with measles or the like, as there are just so many infectious microorganisms around they can’t all be removed from our environment. Have you caught a cold lately?

Medical intervention

To me, the glaring fault in a program of mandating vaccines for all, is that it comes from an underlying assumption that we cannot be healthy without medical intervention. That if we don’t get this, that or vaccines from “the doctor” we’re gonna die.

We have law-makers who apparently sit there shivering and shaking at the thought they could be taken at any moment by some random microbe, not understanding that healthy humans actually have an immune system that Works. Well.

Our communities are made of individuals, only when the individuals fully understand they can be responsible for their own health and don’t need outside intervention as a preventative measure, or cure, for every single ailment, will our communities really be healthy – and they certainly are not at the moment.

Del Bigtree, producer of Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, chimes in on the issue of constant medical intervention in this short video, in the second half:

I’m all for getting medical help for something serious, if it looks like the best option, by the way.

Cheers – Robin

The post Why The No Jab No Pay Legislation Is Flawed appeared first on Vax Info Start Here.

Vax Info Start Here

Polio Outbreaks And Vaccines – A Story

What do you think?

Further reading

The False Claim That Science Research Has Proven Vaccination Does Not Increase The Risk Of SIDS

The famous Tennessee study

Hot lots divided

Paul Offit

The case-control method

Vaccination, blood sugar and SIDS

Metabolic disorders

Promising new protocols

Absurd studies

References

Top Australian Immunisation Official Admits Problems With Vaccines And Vaccine Laws

Pertussis (whooping cough) and the media

Measles and mothers

Measles in older groups

Measles comes from somewhere else

Australia’s vaccination laws

Discovery Of Super-High Aluminium Levels In Brains Of Autistic People

Transcription

Further information

Don’t Blame The Unvaccinated For Whooping Cough

Andrew Wakefield Is Not A Fraud

About Brian Deer

Let’s Demolish The Exaggerated Claims About Measles Danger

The figures

Reported cases

Before the vaccine

In Australia

Measles complications

Further reading

Fear Of Measles

Benefits

Complications

Harmful treatments

Fear campaign

A measles death

Vaccine safety testing

Kangaroo court

Lack of MMR safety studies

Anecdotal evidence

Excuses

Journalists

In Australia

References

Here’s Wendy’s appearance on Sunrise:

Australian Premiere Of VaxXed Movie

Banned in the US?

Why The No Jab No Pay Legislation Is Flawed

Typhoid Mary?

Measles, mumps and chicken pox

Medical intervention