Tag Archives: vaccine safety

“Safe and Effective” — Check It Out

Posted on by

CDC Finally Releases VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses For COVID Vaccines

Tyler Durden's Photo

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JAN 09, 2023 – 05:25 AM

Authored by Professor Josh Guetzkow via Jackanapes Junction (some emphasis ours),

SUMMARY

  • CDC’s VAERS safety signal analysis based on reports from Dec. 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022 for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults.
  • There were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals in ages 18+, of which over 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than myocarditis/pericarditis.
  • The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).
  • Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.
  • There are 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure and heartrate, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care, and having anticoagulant therapy.
  • There are 66 safety signals for 5-11 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and cardiac valve incompetencies, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis & appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities, vitiligo, and vaccine breakthrough infection.
  • The safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated, fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID vaccines administered. There are several reasons why, but the simplest one is this: the safety signal analysis does not depend on the number of reports, but whether or not some AEs are reported at a higher rate for these vaccines than for other non-COVID vaccines. Other reasons are discussed in the full post below.
  • In August, 2022, the CDC told the Epoch Times that the results of their safety signal analysis “were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the FDA], revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” So either the FDA’s data mining was consistent with the CDC’s method—meaning they “generally” found the same large number of highly alarming safety signals—or the signals they did find were expected. Or they were lying. We may never know because the FDA has refused to release their data mining results.

INTRODUCTION

Finally! Zachary Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here). The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID vaccines from the period from the vaccine rollout on December 14, 2020 through to the end of July, 2022. The CDC admitted to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022 (coincidentally 3 days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote to them reminding them about our FOIA request for it).

[UPDATE: T Coddington left a link in comments to a website where he made the data in the Excel files more accessible.]

Like me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited over 15 months before doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a document posted to its website that it would begin in early 2021—especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine safety system. You might also wonder how they could insist all the while that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous safety monitoring the world has ever known. I’ll come back to that later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then describe what they found.

BACKGROUND ON SAFETY SIGNAL ANALYSIS

Back in June 2022, the CDC replied to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the safety signal monitoring of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)—the one it had said it was going to do weekly beginning in early 2021. Their response was: we never did it. Then a little later they said they had been doing it from early on. But by August, 2022, they had finally gotten their story straight, saying that they actually did do it, but only from March 25, 2022 through end of July. You can get up to speed on that here.

The analysis they were supposed to do uses what’s called proportional reporting ratios (PRRs). This is a type of disproportionality analysis commonly used in pharmacovigilance (meaning the monitoring of adverse events after drugs/vaccines go to market). The basic idea of disproportionality analysis is to take a new drug and compare it to one or more existing drugs generally considered safe. We look for disproportionality in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported for a specific AE out of the total number of AEs reported (since we generally don’t know how many people take a given drug). We then compare to existing drugs considered safe to see if there is a higher proportion of particular adverse events reported for the new drug compared to existing ones. (In this case they are looking at vaccines, but they still use PRR even though they generally have a much better sense of how many vaccines were administered.)

There are many ways to do disproportionality analysis. The PRR is one of the oldest. Empirical Bayesian data mining, which was supposed to be done on VAERS by the FDA, is another. The PRR is calculated by taking the number of reports for a given adverse event divided by the total number of events reported for the new vaccine or the total number of reports. It then divides that by the same ratio for one or more existing drugs/vaccines considered safe. Here is a simple formula:

So for example, if half of all adverse events reported for COVID-19 vaccines and the comparator vaccine(s) are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.5 = 1. If one quarter of all AEs for the comparator vaccine are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.25 = 2.

Traditionally, for a PRR to count as a safety signal, the PRR has to be 2 or greater, have a Chi-square value of 4 or greater (meaning it is statistically significant) and there has to be at least 3 events reported for a given AE. (This also means that if there are tons of different AEs reported for COVID vaccines that have never been reported for any other vaccine, it will not count as a safety signal. I found over 6,000 of those in my safety signal analysis from 2021.

Of course a safety signal does not necessarily mean there is a problem or that the vaccine caused the adverse event. But it is supposed to set off alarm bells to prompt closer inspection, as in this CDC pamphlet:

Ah yes, shared with the public — after first refusing to share the results and months of foot-dragging following repeated FOIA requests! We will see that the CDC has not done a more focused study on almost any of adverse events with “new patterns” (AKA safety signals).

SO WHAT DID THE CDC ACTUALLY DO?

The Epoch Times obtained 3 weeks of safety signal analyses from the CDC for VAERS data updated on July 15, 22 and 29, 2022. Here I will focus on the last one, since there is very little difference between them and it is more complete. The safety signal analysis compares adverse events1 reported to VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020 through July 29, 2022 to reports for all non-COVID vaccines from Jan 1, 2009 through July 29, 2022.

PRRs are calculated separately for 5-11 year-olds, 12-15 year-olds and 18+ separately. For each age group, there are separate tables for AEs from all reports, AEs from reports marked serious and AEs from reports not marked as serious.2 Recall that a serious report is one that involves death, a life-threatening event, new or prolonged hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, or a congenital anomaly. I will focus on the reports for all AE’s.

They also have a table that calculates PRRs by comparing reports for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to reports for the Moderna vaccine and vice versa, again for all reports, serious reports only and non-serious reports. There were no remarkable findings in those tables, so I will not discuss them. [Edit: I forgot what Norman Fenton noted in his analysis: the overall proportion of reports with serious adverse events is 9.6% for Modern compared to 12.6% for Pfizer.] This isn’t that surprising since both vaccines are very similar and so should present relatively similar adverse events when compared to each other, and any differences are likely not large enough to be picked up by a PRR analysis. [Though the difference in the overall rate of serious adverse events, which are not specific to a particular type of event only how serious it is, was significant.]

The CDC seems to have calculated PRRs for every different type of adverse event reported for all the COVID vaccines examined – though it’s possible they only analyzed a subset. What seems clear is that, among the AEs they examined, the only ones included in the tables satisfy at least one of two conditions: a PRR value of at least 2 and a Chi-square value of at least 4 (Chi is the Greek letter χ and is pronounced like ‘kai’). When both conditions were met, they highlighted the adverse event in yellow, which appears to indicate a safety signal. There were no COVID vaccine AEs listed with fewer than 3 reported events, though for non-COVID vaccines there were many AEs listed that had only 1 or 2 reported since 2009. The CDC tables still include these and highlight them in yellow when the PRR is greater than 2 and the Chi-square value is great than 4, indicating these events are counted as safety signals.

WHAT SAFETY SIGNALS DID THE CDC FIND?

I’m going to divide this up by age groups and the Pfizer v. Moderna comparison. Let’s start with the 18+ group.

There are 772 AEs that appear on the list. Of these, 770 are marked in yellow and have PRR and Chi-square values that qualify them as safety signals. Some of these are new COVID-19 related codes, and we would expect those to trigger a signal since they didn’t exist in prior years to be reported by other vaccines. So if we take those off, we are left with 758 different types of non-COVID adverse events that showed safety signals.

I grouped these 758 safety signals into different categories. The figure below shows the total number of AEs reported for each of the major categories of safety signals:

Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:3

Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:3

You can peruse the adverse events using the Excel tables provided by the CDC, which were posted by The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense at the links at the top of this post.

What about The Children?

If there is anything that looks remotely like a bright spot in all of this is that the list of safety signals for 12-17 and 5-11 year-olds is much shorter than for 18+. There are 96 AEs that qualify as a safety signal for the 12-17 group and 67 for the 5-11. When we take out the new COVID-era AEs, there are 92 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds and 65 for 5-11 year-olds. Here are the most alarming ones:

I don’t know why the list of AE’s is so much shorter for these age groups. It could be that the list of AE’s for other vaccines for these age groups is much shorter, so in a case where AEs have been reported for the mRNA COVID vaccines but not for other vaccines, it will not be counted as a safety signal by definition.

COMPARISONS TO MYOCARDITIS & PERICARDITIS

We are told that the existence of a safety signal doesn’t necessarily mean the AE is caused by the vaccine, and I accept that premise. But the current practice seems to be to ignore safety signals, dismiss them as noise without any evidence, and stall any investigation into them as long as possible. The precautionary principle, however, dictates we should presume that a safety signal indicates causality, until proven otherwise. Since, it has been acknowledged that the mRNA COVID vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis (often referred to as myo-pericarditis), we can take those AEs as a kind of benchmark, and propose that, at minimum, any AE with a signal of equal or greater size should be considered potentially causal and investigated more thoroughly.4

After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).5 This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by use this Excel file provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.

For 12-17 year-olds, there is 1 safety signal larger than myocarditis (it’s ‘troponin increased’) and 14 safety signals larger than pericarditis (excluding myocarditis), which include: mitral valve incompetence, bell’s palsy, heavy menstrual bleeding, genital ulceration, vaccine breakthrough infection, and a range of indicators of cardiac abnormalities.

For 5-11 year-olds, the comparison to myo/pericarditis is less germane, as they seem to suffer less from this side effect. But we can still make the comparison: there are 7 safety signals larger than pericarditis, including bell’s palsy, left ventricular dysfunction, mitral valve incompetence, and ‘drug ineffective’ (presumably meaning they still got COVID). There are 16 safety signals larger than myocarditis (excluding pericarditis), which in addition to those listed above also include: pericardial effusion, diastolic blood pressure increase, tricuspid valve incompetence, and vitiligo. Sinus tachycardia (high heart rate), appendicitis, and menstrual disorder come in just below myocarditis.

Now if we think of a safety signal as having both strength and clarity, then the PRR can be thought of as an indicator of how strong the signal is, while the Chi-square is a measure of how clear or unambiguous the signal is, because it gives us a sense of how likely the signal is due to chance alone: the larger the Chi-square value, the less likely the signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 4 means there is only a 5% chance the observed signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 8 means there is only a 0.5% chance of it being due to chance.6

For the 18+ group, there are 57 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=303.8) and 68 with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=229.5). Again, you can see what these are by going the Excel file linked above and sorting on Column D.

For the 12-17 group, there are 4 AEs with a larger Chi-square than myocarditis (Chi-square=681.5) and 6 larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=175.4).

For the 5-11 group, there are 22 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=30.42) and 34 AEs with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=18.86).

RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS

Let’s dispense with some of the criticisms used to dismiss VAERS data, which will undoubtedly be raised if you try to bring the CDC’s analysis to people’s attention.

  1. Objection: Anybody can report to VAERS. The reports are unreliable. Anti-vaxxers made lots of fraudulent reports. Nobody was aware of VAERS in the past, but now they are. So many people were afraid of the vaccine so they blamed all their health problems on it. Health workers were required by law to report certain adverse events, like deaths and anaphylaxis. Etc. Etc.

    All of these objections ultimately rely on the notion that VAERS reports for COVID-19 vaccines have been artificially inflated over previous years for one reason or another. The thing of it is, though, that the CDC has a method for distinguishing between artificial inflation and real signal. The idea is simple: if adverse events are artificially inflated, they should be artificially inflated to the same degree. Meaning, the PRRs for all of these safety signals should be about the same. But even a casual glance at the PRRs in the Excel file show they vary widely, from as low at 2 to as high as 105 for vaccine breakthrough infection or 74 for cerebral thrombosis. This method does not on the number of reports, but the rate of reporting for certain events out of all events reported. If anything, this method would tend to hide safety signals in a situation where a new vaccine generates a very large number of reports.

    The CDC has even done us the favor of calculating upper and lower confidence intervals, meaning that we can be at least 95% confident that two PRRs are truly different if their confidence intervals don’t overlap. So for example the lower confidence interval for pulmonary thrombosis is 19.7, which is higher than the upper confidence interval for 543 other signals. Artificially inflated reporting cannot explain why so many different adverse events have large PRRs that are statistically distinct from one another.

  2. Objection: The safety signals are due to the huge number of COVID vaccines given out. Never before have we given out so many vaccine doses. By the end of July, the US had administered something like 600 million vaccine doses to people aged 18+. But the CDC analysis compares VAERS reports for these doses to all doses for all other vaccines for this age group since Jan. 1, 2009. But from 2015-2020 there were over 100 million flu doses administered annually to this age group alone. In previous work, I estimated 538 million doses of flu given to people 18+ from July 2015-June 2020. The number of flu and other non-COVID vaccines for this age group administered from Jan 1., 2009 through July 29, 2022 must be well over double this number, meaning VAERS reports for COVID vaccines are being compared to reports for at least double the number of doses for other vaccines. In addition to this, as already noted, the PRR methodology does not depend, strictly speaking, on the number of doses, but rather the rate of reporting of a specific AE out of all AEs for that vaccine.
  3. Objection: the vaccines are mainly being given to older people who tend to have health problems, whereas other vaccines are given to younger people. This objection is dealt with, since the analyses are stratified by age groups. It might be still be somewhat valid for the 18+ group, except that in the safety signal analysis I did in the fall of 2021, I stratified by smaller age bands and still found safety signals. In any case, this objection is not enough to dismiss the safety signal analysis out of hand, but rather calls for better and more refined research.
  4. Objection: The VAERS data is not verified and cannot be trusted. I’ll be the first person to agree that VAERS is not high quality data, but if it is completely untrustworthy, then how is it that the CDC uses these data to publish in the best medical journals such as JAMA and The Lancet? If the data were worthless, then these journals shouldn’t accept these papers. In that JAMA paper, they reported that 80% of the myocarditis reports met their definition of myocarditis and were included in the analysis. Many other reports simply needed more details for validation. Furthermore, the CDC has the ability and budget to follow-up on every report VAERS receives to get more details and even medical records to verify the report.

    So if myocarditis shows a clear signal in the CDC’s analysis, and 80% of those reports were apparently high quality enough to be included in a paper published in one of the world’s top medical journals, how is it possible that all the rest of the reports are junk? That all of the other safety signals are meaningless? Answer: it isn’t.

    And since we’re on the topic of safety signals that turned out to be real, it’s instructive to find appendicitis turn up as a safety signal in all 3 age groups, since a study published in NEJM based on medical records of over a million adult Israelis found an increased risk of appendicitis in the 42 days following Pfizer vaccination (but not following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test). That study also found an increase in lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes) after vaccination, but not after positive COVID test. Lymphadenopathy was another safety signal.

  5. And that brings us to our last objection to be dispensed with: all of these AEs were due to COVID. There was an epidemic and so people were falling ill due to COVID and having all of these problems that were then blamed on the vaccine. Well to begin with, as we just saw, at least two of them (appendicitis and lymphadenopathy) do not appear to have increased risk ratios following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and we know that the mRNA vaccines increase risk of myo/pericarditis independent of infections. So how can we assume the rest of these are and dismiss them with the wave of a hand? We can’t. At minimum, they need further investigation. Furthermore, in the safety signal analysis I did in 2021, I dropped all VAERS reports where any sign of a SARS-CoV-2 exposure or infection was indicated on the report, and I still found large, significant safety signals.

PUTTING IT ALL INTO PERSPECTIVE

The Epoch Times article quotes my esteemed colleague and friend, Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Management and an world renowned expert in Bayesian statistical analysis: “from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID-19 vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID-19 vaccines is essentially zero…. The onus is on the regulators to come up with some other causal explanation for this difference if they wish to claim that the probability a COVID vaccine AE results in death is not significantly higher than that of other vaccines.” (See his post on the CDC analysis here.) The same is true for all the safety signals they found.

The CDC’s VAERS SOP analysis document lists 18 Adverse Events of Special Interest says they are going to pay close attention to. In their 2021 JAMA paper (and similar presentations to ACIP), the researchers responsible for analyzing the millions of medical records in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) using the ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’ only studied 23 outcomes. A Similar analysis in NEJM from Israeli researchers focused on only 25 outcomes. Compare this to over 700 safety signals found by the CDC when they finally decided to look—and that’s not even counting all the adverse events that have never been reported for other vaccines so cannot ever show a safety signal by definition. How can the CDC say that these safety signals are meaningless if almost none of them have been studied any further? And yet we are assured that these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring effort in history. It’s complete and utter hogwash!

*  *  *

Josh Guetzkow is a senior lecturer at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Subscribe to his Substack here.

1) To be precise, the ‘adverse events’ are for ‘preferred terms’ (PTs) which is a type/level of classification used in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), which is the classification system used by VAERS and in other pharmacovigilance systems and clinical research for coding reported adverse events. Not all preferred terms are a symptom or adverse event per se. Some refer to a specific diagnostic test that was done or a treatment that was given.

2) It’s not entirely clear how they divided these up, since there are clearly AEs that should be considered serious that don’t show up in the serious Excel table — though maybe they don’t come up simply because they are looking within serious reports. I believe that they just filtered the reports to include only serious reports or non-serious reports, then did the safety signal analysis on all the AE’s coded in those reports. The reason I think this is that I used the MedAlerts Wayback Machine, selected just the serious COVID-19 vaccine reports, and the numbers of total reports was very close to the one in the table provided by the CDC (MedAlerts actually had a bit less). The files obtained by the Epoch Times do not include much in the way of a description as to how the analyses were done, so I had to infer some details, which might be incorrect. I will try to note when I am drawing an inference about how the analysis was done.

3) Generally speaking, these figures show the top ten AEs in each category. In some cases I combined AEs that indicated the same thing, such as combining ‘heart rate irregular’ with ‘arrythmia.’ [UPDATE: Note that the charts of all categories, cardiac and thrombo-embolic events were updated on Jan 7, 2023. The reason is that I had previously categorized acute myocardial infarction as a cardiac issue and myocardial infarction as thrombo-embolic. To be consistent, I have now combined myocardial infarction and acute myocardial infarction into one AE category in the thrombo-embolic events (which made the total AEs reported for that category larger than for pulmonary ones) and then added a different cardiac AE to the cardiovascular AE category, ventricular extrasystoles, AKA premature ventricular contraction (PVC), which dependent on frequency and the presence of other cardiomyopathies is associated with sudden cardiac arrest.]

4) Note that using the myo-pericarditis signal as a yardstick doesn’t mean that these are the only signals that matter. To give one example, anaphylactic reactions don’t even show up in the list of safety signals, even though that was one of the very first risk of the vaccine that became apparent from day one of the vaccine rollout.

One potential objection to this benchmark is that it is too low of a bar, since myo-pericarditis appears to disproportionately affect younger men and so a proper safety signal should be stratified by age and gender then compared with myocarditis similarly stratified. I agree, and it is the CDC’s job to do that. But the fact is that any adverse reaction might disproportionately affect some subgroup of people, in which case the safety signal for that group would be similarly faint or diluted when we look at everyone together. So objection overruled.

5) In their Standard Operation Procedures document, the CDC said they would combine these and related codes together to assess a safety signal, but never mind – at least they finally got around to doing something.

6) In this context, the Chi-square is largely driven by the sheer number of adverse events: the more adverse events reported, including for the comparator vaccine, the larger the Chi-square. For example, the PRR for pericarditis and subdural haematoma is the same (2.82), but there were 1,701 incidents of pericarditis reported for mRNA COVID vaccines versus 221for the comparator vaccines, with Chi-square of 229.5. For subdural haematoma, these numbers are 162 verus 21, for a Chi-square of 21.2.

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/cdc-finally-releases-vaers-safety-monitoring-analyses-covid-vaccines?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1167

On Vaccine Shedding

Posted on by

Pfizer document describes vaccine “shedding” from person to person

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Pop quiz: During their clinical trial…

If Pfizer insists that certain unvaccinated persons who come into contact with a vaccinated person creates a…

SAFETY SITUATION that must be reported to Pfizer within 24 hours…

Would you say that implies…

The transfer of vaccine components from person to person can occur?

If you answered YES, you win four tickets to Oobladee, a little-known island nation where vaccines are forbidden and the people naturally remain healthy and live to a ripe old age.

Here is a Pfizer document, admitting and warning of person-to-person transfer of dangerous vaccine components [1]: “A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS,” (see page 67).

I’m going to take this in small chunks, and translate the fake-speak clinical language as we go along.

“Exposure to the study intervention under study during pregnancy or breastfeeding and occupational exposure are reportable to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of investigator awareness.”

The “study intervention” means the RNA COVID shot. That’s what the study is FOR—intervening with a jab. “Hi, I’m your intervener, you’re a volunteer in the clinical trial, and I’m going to hit you in the arm with this needle and inject you.”

“Exposure” to the shot doesn’t mean injection. It means somebody who hasn’t been injected gets physically close to somebody who has been injected. Or it could mean an un-injected person touches vaccine-liquid from a vial.

And that un-injected somebody would be a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding. For example, she could be a lab worker, or a person who is giving the shots.

If THIS exposure event happens, it’s a safety situation, and it has to be reported within 24 hours.

A lab worker who is pregnant or breastfeeding gets physically close to a person who has received the vaccine and BANG, it’s serious, and it has to be reported.

Why? Because, obviously, there is a potential danger to the unborn baby. Or the mother, who is already breastfeeding her baby, could pass this danger to the baby through her breast milk.

The woman just came physically close to a person who already received the vaccine. That’s all. That’s all that happened. But it’s enough. It means THERE CAN BE A TRANSFER OF VACCINE COMPONENTS FROM PERSON TO PERSON, AND THIS IS NOT GOOD, THIS IS DANGEROUS TO PREGNANT AND BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS AND THEIR BABIES.

Here is the next piece of the Pfizer document. It’s crucial:

“An EDP [exposure to the vaccine during pregnancy] occurs if a male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”

This is a dangerous situation, too. A man who did get the shot then gets physically close to his female partner, who didn’t get the shot. This doesn’t necessarily mean sex. It means close physical contact. But the warning is obviously all about danger to the woman who is going to conceive a child or has just conceived, and the warning is also about a danger to that child. Some kind of severe injury. Or a miscarriage. Again, the document is obviously referring to the transfer of vaccine components from a vaccinated to unvaccinated person.

And then, in the Pfizer document, we find an example of this dangerous, immediately reportable situation: “A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact….”

Here, as plain as day, we see two meanings of “come in close contact with.” Inhalation, and skin contact. Do not assume this has to mean physically rubbing up against or breathing in the liquid in the vaccine vial. Go back and read the other quotes I gave you from the Pfizer document. They are clearly talking about something much different. They’re talking about close contact between PEOPLE, one of whom has ALREADY had the shot, and one who hasn’t.

They’re talking about vaccine components passing from the inside of one person’s body to another person.

Call it shedding, call it transfer, call it transmission, call it whatever you want to. Pfizer was clearly worried about it, because they insisted that any such occurrence had to be reported to company safety personnel.

They were aware that damage could be the result. Damage to mothers conceiving, mothers pregnant, mothers who are breastfeeding, and damage to babies.

Through person to person passage of components in the vaccine.

A person might object, saying, “Well, maybe the pregnant woman had skin contact with someone who was just vaccinated, and the vaccinated person has a small amount of vaccine on his skin, because that tiny amount of liquid somehow escaped from the needle during injection.”

That’s highly doubtful. And if you go back and read the Pfizer statement about the man who received the vaccine and then had close contact with his female partner, there is no time line mentioned. A) He received the shot and then b) at some point later, he came into close contact with his female partner. It could be days later, weeks later. There would be no amount of vaccine left on his skin.

We ARE talking about the passage of vaccine components from the inside of one person’s body to another person.

SOURCES:

[1] https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/08/06/pfizer-document-describes-vaccine-shedding-from-person-to-person/

Who Benefits?

Posted on by

CHD’s New ‘Medical Racism’ Film Exposes Long-Standing Experimentation on Minorities

Watch the trailer now! Medical Racism, premiering March 11, chronicles the medical cartel’s history of targeting minorities for unethical experiments, the acquiescence of regulatory agencies and medical ethicists, and the silence of physicians who allow these atrocities to continue today. 

Upcoming documentary, “Medical Racism: The New Apartheid.

Children’s Health Defense, in conjunction with Centner Productions and the Urban Global Health Alliance, along with co-producers Rev. Tony Muhammad and author-historian Curtis Cost, today released the trailer for their upcoming documentary, “Medical Racism: The New Apartheid.”

“Medical Racism,” which premieres March 11, illuminates the shocking history of government health regulators and private pharmaceutical companies conducting human experiments on Black Americans.

“Though many Americans are familiar with the history of medical atrocities committed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at Tuskegee, by the father of American gynecology, Dr. J. Marion Sims, on South Carolina slave girls and the continuing medical larceny against Henrietta Lacks, most people are likely unaware of the routine medical barbarism committed against Africans that persists today,” said Curtis Cost, the film’s co-producer.

The documentary, directed by Academy Award nominee David Massey, chronicles the medical cartel’s long history of targeting minority populations for unethical experiments, the acquiescence of regulatory agencies and medical ethicists, and the silence of physicians who allow these atrocities to continue today.

According to “Medical Racism” producer Kevin Jenkins of the Urban Global Health Alliance: “These racially targeted experiments have been hiding in plain sight for decades. It’s time to expose the truth and end inhumane and barbaric forms of racism by the ‘respected’ medical establishment.”

“Medical Racism” explores the recent racially based experimentation by government health officials and pharmaceutical companies on Black children in South Central Los Angeles.

The film also exposes Big Pharma’s medical experiments and “drug dumping” in modern-day Africa, and the World Health Organization’s 2014 population control campaign to sterilize a million Kenyan girls with infertility chemicals hidden in tetanus vaccines.

“The high levels of medical mistrust in the Black community are a rational response to routine callousness and systemic savagery toward Blacks by medical professionals and pharmaceutical interests,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense. “Our hope in producing this film is to learn from past misdeeds, so we can avoid their future repetition.”

For more information and to register to receive a notification on where and how the film can be seen when it’s released, visit medicalracism.org.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/medical-racism-film-exposes-experimentation-minorities/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bbb5bc07-f2eb-4a23-9c99-6a47b24b9753

And Now, Embassies and Military Bases in Exchange for Vaccine

Posted on by
Conspiracy Theater

THE PLANSCAMDEMIC’S LATEST TWISTED TWIST

11 Comments / Call it Conspiracy / By

Whopper-doozie alert! This one is so over the top that I simply had to blog about it. It was shared by W.G., whom I thank for bringing to my attention. To be honest, this is such a whopper-doozie that I don’t even know where to start with respect to today’s high octane speculation, and I rather suspect – once readers dive into the article – that it will stimulate your own speculations. I’m presenting three different sources or versions of this story, because it is so unbelievably breathtaking in its implications:

How Pfizer tried to bully Argentina and Brazil in exchange for vaccines

‘Held to ransom’: Pfizer demands governments gamble with state assets to secure vaccine deal

Let’s look at the second article linked above. Consider these breathtaking paragraphs:

Pfizer has been accused of “bullying” Latin American governments in Covid vaccine negotiations and has asked some countries to put up sovereign assets, such as embassy buildings and military bases, as a guarantee against the cost of any future legal cases, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

In the case of one country, demands made by the pharmaceutical giant led to a three-month delay in a vaccine deal being agreed. For Argentina and Brazil, no national deals were agreed at all. Any hold-up in countries receiving vaccines means more people contracting Covid-19 and potentially dying.

Officials from Argentina and the other Latin American country, which cannot be named as it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, said the company’s negotiators demanded additional indemnity against any civil claims citizens might file if they experienced adverse effects after being inoculated. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer asked for sovereign assets to be put up as collateral for any future legal costs.

One official who was present in the unnamed country’s negotiations described Pfizer’s demands as “high-level bullying” and said the government felt like it was being “held to ransom” in order to access life-saving vaccines. (Boldface emphasis added)

That pretty much sums it up; “Muck Pharmaceuticals” as we like to call Big Pharma here, in the form of Pfizer, is allegedly demanding collateral against potential lawsuits against its “vaccine.” Now my high octane speculation of the day comes in the form of three questions: (1) Why would Pfizer be so concerned about potential lawsuits if it was confident its “vaccine” was safe? (2) why would it ask nations for embassies and military bases? And (3) was the idea of collateralizing embassies and military bases the objective of the planscamdemic/”vaccine” operation one of the goals at the outset of the whole planscamdemic to begin with?

In looking at question one, we gain a bit of  a speculative clue: seizing a nation’s embassies and military bases is, from one point of view, a real estate scam, one which anticipates that lawsuits are likely to be both many and costly, which is in its way a tacit admission that there are “problems” with the “vaccines.” The amounts of money are likely to be vast, and thus, hard assets are required in order to minimize Muck Pharmaceutical’s exposure to the risk.

But that brings us to question two: why ask for embassies and military bases? This, in my opinion, means one of two things, and possibly both together: either Pfizer’s action is on behalf of someone else whom it anticipates can buy those assets – and has the money to do so – should lawsuits ensue, or Pfizer itself views itself as a sovereign entity, in need of embassies and military bases to enforce its corporate will, which implies its having plans for a professional corporate military, or its has already developed one. Or, as I already stated, it is some combination of these two. With regard to the first prospect, there are few actors on the world stage that would have the liquidity to buy such hard assets, and use them for their original intended purpose. China would certainly be one primary suspect, and after all, the planscamdemic did originate there in a certain sense. But there could be others as well, including extra-territorial actors.

And that leads us to question three: was this one of the goals (among many others) that Mr. Globaloney wanted to accomplish through the planscamdemic? I suspect it’s a strong possibility, since it is clear that Mr. Globaloney is using the whole farce to further his agenda of control.  And control doesn’t work unless one has centers for intelligence operations that are “sovereign territory” (embassies) and a means to enforce its dictates (military bases).

When one considers that there are other effective methods of covid treatment, this draconian effort regarding vaccines seems to make the agenda all too obvious.

See you on the flip side…

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2021/03/the-planscamdemics-latest-twisted-twist/

Some Info on Covid Vaccines

Posted on by

COVID-19 VACCINES IMPORTANT POINTS
Please Share with Your Family and Friends

MINOR IMPACT: Vaccine manufacturers claim that Covid-19 vaccines are 95 percent “effective,” but the FDA is allowing companies to define effectiveness as “prevention of mild symptoms.” The studies are not designed to detect a reduction in outcomes such as severe illness, hospitalization or death.(1,2)   For individuals who develop severe symptoms, the vaccine is not a remedy. Instead, nutritional and oxidative support can help keep the illness from going into “overdrive.”(3)

EXPECT ADVERSE REACTIONS: Participants in every Covid-19 vaccine trial have reported adverse reactions including high fever, chills, muscle pains and headaches. (4-6) Some have even reported severe reactions that required hospitalization and invasive treatment. According to the FDA, potential long-term effects may include Guillain-Barré syndrome, brain swelling, muscle weakness and paralysis, convulsions and seizures, stroke, narcolepsy, shock, heart attack, autoimmune disease, arthritis and joint pain, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and death.(7)   Some UK health workers have experienced anaphylactic shock after receiving one dose of the approved vaccine.8

WON’T PREVENT COVID-19: An FDA Pfizer briefing paper published December 10, 2020 revealed 43 percent more suspected cases of Covid-19 in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group within seven days of vaccination.(9)

NO LIABILITY: Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers will be protected from all liability—if you are injured, you cannot sue. (10) Manufacturers will have complete indemnity even though all previous attempts at creating coronavirus vaccines caused harm and never advanced to regulatory approval. (11)

WILL NOT END RESTRICTIVE MEASURES: Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health acknowledges that the vaccines may prevent symptoms but will not block spread of the virus, so vaccine recipients will still need to wear masks, practice social distancing and avoid crowds. (12,13)

NOT NECESSARY: According to the CDC’s current best estimate, the “infection fatality rate” (IFR) for Covid-19 is less than 1 percent for people age 69 and younger, including a .003 percent IFR for children and adolescents. (14)

COULD MAKE YOU STERILE: Two prominent doctors, including the ex-head of Pfizer’s respiratory research, warn that Covid-19 vaccines contain a spike protein called syncytin-1, vital for the formation of the placenta.15 If the vaccine triggers an immune response to this protein, then female infertility, miscarriage or birth defects could result.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (including printable flyers): https://www.westonaprice.org/covid-19-vaccines-important-points/

1.        Doshi P. Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. BMJ. 2020;371:m4037. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037.
2.        Haseltine WA. Covid-19 vaccine protocols reveal that trials are designed to succeed. Forbes, September 23, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/?sh=5da0663d5247.
3.        Brownstein D, Ng R, Rowen R et al. A novel approach to treating COVID-19 using nutritional and oxidative therapies. Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law. 2020;2:4-22. https://ozonewithoutborders.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Novel-Approach-to-Covid-19.pdf.
4.        Jackson LA, Anderson EJ, Rouphael NG et al. An mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 – preliminary report. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;383(20):1920-1931. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.
5.        Allen A, Szabo L. NIH “very concerned” about serious side effect in coronavirus vaccine trial. Scientific American, September 15, 2020. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nih-very-concerned-about-serious-side-effect-in-coronavirus-vaccine-trial/.
6.        Mayer A. Leading COVID vaccine candidates plagued by safety concerns. The Defender, November 13, 2020. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-candidates-safety-concerns/?itm_term=home. .
7.        U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, October 22, 2020 Meeting Presentation, slide #16. https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/covid-19-vaccine-bombshell-fda-documents-reveal-death-21-serious-conditions-possi1.
8.        Reals T. U.K. warns against giving Pfizer vaccine to people prone to severe allergic reactions. CBS News, December 9, 2020. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/covid-vaccine-pfizer-shot-uk-warning-people-with-history-of-significant-allergic-reactions/#app.
9.        https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download, page 42.
10.    Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. COVID-19 PREP Act Declarations. https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx.
11.    Lyons-Weiler J. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity. Journal of Translational Autoimmunity. 2020;3:100051. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7142689/.
12.    Khemlani A. Fauci: Early COVID-19 vaccines will only prevent symptoms, not block the virus. Yahoo! Finance, October 26, 2020. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fauci-vaccines-will-only-prevent-symptoms-not-block-the-virus-195051568.html.
13.    Scipioni J. Dr. Fauci says masks, social distancing will still be needed after a Covid-19 vaccine—here’s why. CNBC, November 16, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/fauci-why-still-need-masks-social-distancing-after-covid-19-vaccine.html.
14.    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 pandemic planning scenarios. Updated September 10, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html.
15.    Petition/motion for administrative/regulatory action regarding confirmation of efficacy end points and use of data in connection with the following clinical trials. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon, petitioners. Filed with European Medicines Agency, December 1, 2020. https://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf.
: Vaccine manufacturers claim that Covid-19 vaccines are 95 percent “effective,” but the FDA is allowing companies to define effectiveness as “prevention of mild symptoms.” The studies are not designed to detect a reduction in outcomes such as severe illness, hospitalization or death.1,2 For individuals who develop severe symptoms, the vaccine is not a remedy. Instead, nutritional and oxidative support can help keep the illness from going into “overdrive.”3

Cui Bono, Dr. Faustus, oops Fauci???

Posted on by

Dr. Fauci’s Attempt to Silence Whistleblower Dr. Judy Mikovits Which Destroyed her Career

The Truth About Fauci—Featuring Dr. Judy Mikovits

“Judy Mikovits is Among Her Generation’s Most Accomplished Scientists.” —Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

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

Dr. Mikovits joined NIH in 1980 as a Postdoctoral Scholar in Molecular Virology at the National Cancer Institute and began a 20-year collaboration with Frank Ruscetti, a pioneer in the field of human retro virology. She helped Dr Russetti isolate the HIV virus and link it to #AIDS in 1983. Her NIH boss Anthony Fauci delayed publication of that critical paper for 6 months to let his protégé Robert Gallo replicate, publish and claim credit. The delay in mass HIV testing let AIDS further spread around the globe and helped Fauci win promotion to director NIAID.

In 2006, Dr Mikovits became director of Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease and collaborated with Dr Ruscetti searching for the cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome which suddenly became epidemic in the 1980s. The male dominated medical community dismissed CFS as psychosomatic “yuppie flu” caused when fragile females cracked in corporate jobs.

Dr. Mikovits discovered that 67% of affected women carried a virus—called Xenotropic Murine Leukemia related Virus—that appeared in healthy women only 4% of the time.

XMRV is also associated with prostate, breast, ovarian cancers, leukemia, and multiple myeloma. Many women with XMRV bore children with autism.

In 2009, Drs. Mikovits and Ruscetti published their explosive findings in the journal Science. But the question remained: how was XMRV getting into people?

Other researchers linked the first CFS outbreak to a polio vaccine given to doctors and nurses that resulted in the “1934 Los Angeles County Hospital Epidemic.” That vaccine was cultivated on pulverized mouse brains. Retroviruses from dead animals can survive in cell lines and permanently contaminate vaccines.

Dr Mikovits’ studies suggested that the XMRV Virus was present in the MMR, Polio and Encephalitis vaccines given to American children and soldiers. XMRV is so hazardous that the mere presence of mouse tissue in a laboratory can contaminate other tissues in the same room.

Dr Fauci ordered Mikovits to keep her mouth shut. When she refused, he illegally confiscated her work books and hard drives, drove her from government work and blackballed her from receiving NIH grants ending her science career. XMRV remains in American vaccines.

Video Transcript

The Truth About Fauci, featuring Judy Mikovits, Joint PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, George Washington University; Postdoctoral Scholar in Molecular Virology National Cancer Institute; Research Director of Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease and target of Anthony Fauci—Twice.

In Washington DC Fauci’s tactics are an open secret. Intimidation. Bullying. And reckless disregard for the health and safety of the American people.

Dr. Judy Mikovits was one of the most skilled scientists of her generation. She had a 20-year collaboration with Frank Ruscetti, a pioneer in the field of human retro virology.

The first Fauci episode:

Mikovits: I took a job at the National Cancer Institute. I was under the direction of Frank Ruscetti. I isolated HIV from blood and saliva confirming Dr. Luc Montagnier’s earlier isolation and description of HIV as a possible causative agent of AIDS. I refused to do that because it’s unethical.

And then, Anthony Fauci intervened.

Mikovits: When Frank Ruscetti was out of town, I received a call from Dr. Fauci and he demanded that I give him our manuscript on the isolation and confirmation of HIV, while it was still in press. I refused to do that because it’s unethical. These manuscripts are confidential and only authors can give him a copy.

Dr. Mikovits’ standards of ethics and moral courage are unparalleled.

Mikovits: He threatened to fire me for insubordination but still I refused. It’s unethical.

Mikovits: When Frank Ruscetti returned a few weeks later, he gave the manuscript to Dr. Fauci, and Dr. Fauci purposely delayed the publication of our manuscript in order that his crony, Dr. Robert Gallo, could copy our work and submit a competing manuscript and get it into press before ours.

On May 4, 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo famously published a series of papers demonstrating that a retrovirus he’d isolated was the cause of AIDS.

Appropriating her work wasn’t the worst of it. This delayed the development of testing and spread the HIV epidemic through the world, killing millions.

Driven by greed and cronyism, Anthony Fauci—”America’s Doctor”—is directly responsible for the further spread of HIV throughout the world.

Rather than being punished for his actions, six months later he was appointed Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases–a position he still holds today.

The second Fauci episode:

Mikovits: In 2006 I co-founded and developed the first neuroimmune disease institute to study the cause and treatments of chronic fatigue syndrome.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome became epidemic in the 1980s. Doctors dismissed the ailment as psychosomatic “yuppie flu.” CFS primarily struck women. The medical community assumed they were physically and emotionally fragile and cracked under the pressure of corporate jobs.

Dr. Mikovits discovered that 67% of women affected with CFS carried a mouse virus–called XMRV– Xenotropic Murine Leukemia related Virus–that appeared in healthy women only 4% of the time.  XMRV is also associated with cancers like prostate, breast, ovarian, leukemia, and multiple myeloma. Many women with XMRV go on to have children with autism.

In 2009, Drs. Mikovits and Ruscetti published their explosive findings in the journal Science. But the question remained: how was XMRV getting into people?

Mikovits: Then in 2011, our research strongly suggested that it entered the human virome through a contaminated blood supply and vaccines.

Other researchers linked the first CFS outbreak to a polio vaccine given to doctors and nurses that resulted in the “1934 Los Angeles County Hospital Epidemic.” That vaccine was cultivated on pulverized mouse brains. Retroviruses from dead animals can survive in cell lines and permanently contaminate vaccines.

Retroviruses from those dead animals can survive in cell lines and permanently contaminate the vaccines.

XMRV is so hazardous that the mere presence of mouse tissue in a laboratory can contaminate other tissues in the same room.

Dr. Mikovits’ studies suggested XMRV is present in the MMR and polio vaccines given to American children and the Japanese encephalitis vaccine given to military personnel.

The dangers of mouse brain derived vaccines are now widely acknowledged.

“… mouse brain derived vaccine has been associated with serious allergic and neurologic adverse events.” –American Academy of Pediatrics

Mikovits: We recognized that this mouse retrovirus was causing an alarming national health crisis. That is if the blood supply and vaccines were heavily contaminated with mouse retroviruses of many strains.

As Dr. Mikovits and her team prepared to sound the alarm, Dr. Fauci used his power to silence her.

Mikovits: What Tony Fauci, Ian Lipkin and Harold Varmus did was pressure me to be silent and withdraw our manuscript. I refused again.

Anthony Fauci gave his own career and the vaccine program priority above the health and safety of all Americans.

Mikovits: When I refused to be silent, Dr. Fauci stepped in and ordered that my computers and notebooks be confiscated and orchestrated the retraction of our science paper.

Dr. Fauci abused his power and misused his office.

Mikovits: He then removed all of my funding and prevented me from getting a job in government research from 2012 forward.

Hundreds of millions of Americans may have received vaccines contaminated with XMRV.

Anthony Fauci has failed us.

Are you prepared to trust him?

Join the movement.

Read the full article at ChildrensHealthDefense.org.

Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.

© 2020 Children’s Health Defense, Inc.

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.

from:   https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/dr-faucis-attempt-to-silence-whistleblower-dr-judy-mikovits-which-destroyed-her-career/

Gardasil Results in Japan

Posted on by

Japan Leading the World in Exposing Fraud with Gardasil HPV Vaccine Injuries and Deaths

In Japan, young women and girls suffering from severe chronic generalized pain following vaccination with Merck’s Gardasil® or GSK’s Cervarix®, have organized and are speaking out.

The issues are being debated at public hearings, at which scientific presentations have been made by independent medical experts who validated the women’s suffering with documented evidence of the severe nature of the pain related to the HPV vaccine.

The opposing view, presented by scientists aligned with the vaccine establishment, disregarded the scientific plausibility of the evidence and declared the pain was a “psychosomatic reaction.”[1]

Such public debates do not take place where vaccine stakeholders are in full control of vaccine safety information. (Like in the U.S., for example.)

Public Hearings Regarding Hpv Vaccine Injuries In Japan Are Allowed Because Pro Vaccine Forces Are Not In Full Control Of Public Health Policies.

Following a public hearing (February 2014), at which scientific evidence was presented by independent scientists [2], the Japanese government, not only rescinded its recommendation that girls receive the HPV vaccine, but established guidelines and special clinics for evaluating and treating illnesses caused by the vaccine.

It is a scenario that Merck, GSK, and vaccine stakeholders globally are extremely anxious to suppress.

The Merck-commissioned, CSIS report, co-authored by Dr. Larson, paints a picture of an all-out war over media coverage – not over the high rate of serious adverse reactions.

The authors resort to the usual tactic of discrediting vaccine-injured individuals; they dismissed the serious health effects suffered by girls and young women following vaccination, as trivial.

The CSIS report presents the entire issue as an epidemic fueled by Internet rumors and “vaccine hesitators.”

“Over the last year, controversy within the Japanese medical and political arenas over the HPV vaccine has touched the public at large. Through social media and highly publicized events, anti-vaccine groups have gained control of the narrative surrounding the HPV vaccine.”

Global Collaborators in Action: Trash Honest Scientists to Suppress Inconvenient Evidence

Hpv Doctors

The following case demonstrates how the global network of government/academic and industry stakeholders suppresses information about genuine scientific findings and, when needed, is engaged in corrupt practices to thwart the airing of information about vaccine safety issues.

This case involves inconvenient scientific laboratory findings in post-mortem tissue samples, showing that the HPV vaccine was contaminated with foreign HPV DNA fragments. The case also involves evidence (contained in internal correspondence) of deceptive practices by officials of “authoritative” international public health institutions.

In January 2016, pathologist Dr. Sin Hang Lee, MD, Director of Milford Medical Laboratory, sent an open letter of complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Margaret Chan, in which he challenges the integrity of the GACVS Statement on the Continued Safety of HPV Vaccination (issued March 2014), and charges professional misconduct on the part of the following individuals (and suggests that others may have also been actively involved) in a scheme to deliberately mislead the Japanese Expert Inquiry on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine safety before, during and after the February 2014 public hearing in Tokyo.

Dr. Lee challenged the integrity of the GACVS Statement on the Continued Safety of HPV Vaccination written by Dr. Pless, accusing him of deliberately misrepresenting his scientific findings in order to mislead non-scientific readers and those who set vaccination policies.

Dr. Pless is accused of deliberately conflating two unrelated articles, dealing with two different chemicals, written by different authors “apparently to create a target to attack.” Furthermore, Dr. Lee notes that the GACVS Statement relied on an unpublished 12-year-old “Technical Report” written by an unofficial, unnamed “group of participants” (according to CDC’s disclaimer).

These are the facts:

In 2011, Dr. Lee found that every one of the 13 Gardasil samples that he examined contained HPV L1 gene DNA fragments.

He also found that the HPV DNA fragments were not only bound to Merck’s proprietary aluminum adjuvant but also adopted a non-B conformation, thereby creating a new chemical compound of unknown toxicity.

This non-B conformation, Dr. Lee believes, is responsible for the array of autoimmune illnesses experienced by children and young women following vaccination with Gardasil.

In 2012, Dr. Lee testified at a coroner’s inquest of the death of a New Zealand teenager, 6 months after receiving 3 Gardasil vaccine injections.

He then published his case report in the open access journal, Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology (2012).

Dr. Lee was a presenter at the Tokyo hearing (2014), at which he disputed those who claimed the young women weren’t really suffering severe pain; they were having “psychosomatic reactions.” He stated:

“I do not believe psychosomatic reactions can cause sudden unexpected death in sleep, or inflammatory lesions in the brain as demonstrated by the MRI images and the brain biopsy histopathology with perivascular lymphocytes and macrophages and demyelination.”

Following the public hearing, GAVC issued a statement (March 12, 2014) aimed at discrediting Dr. Lee’s research by conflating his research with the research of other scientists who presented at the Tokyo hearing.

This case should have been prominently reported in the medical journals and by the mass media, and the allegation should have been investigated.

Mainstream publications have been silent; the case was reported only in alternative news outlets. [3]

In July 2016, a victims’ group filed a multi-plaintiff lawsuit in the district courts of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka against the Japanese government and the two pharmaceutical companies that had produced these vaccines.

Furthermore, in December of the same year, additional victims joined the multi-plaintiff lawsuit, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 119 (Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2017).

The Hazards of Aluminum in Vaccines Is the Focus Of Intense Research

Of note: the placebo comparator in (most) vaccine clinical trials is not inert, it contains aluminum.

Several independent teams of international autoimmune experts have investigated this, led by the internationally recognized authority of autoimmune diseases, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld of Tel Aviv University, Israel, and another group by Dr. Christopher Exley, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry, Keele University in the UK.

However, studies that document the hazards of aluminum in vaccines are not published in major influential medical journals.

Recent surveys of those journals document that medical journal editors have concealed financial conflicts of interest. Most Editors of Top Medical Journals Receive Industry Payments (Retraction Watch, Nov. 2017).

In two cases, journal editors received over $1 million from industry sources. (Ed Silverman, STAT, 2017.)

The following case is an example of how science is subverted by tightly controlled journal gatekeepers. Journal editors who have sold their integrity by accepting industry kickbacks block publication of reports that might pose a financial threat to an intricate web of government and non-government institutions and professional associations – all of whom are financially tied to the pharmaceutical industry.

The case demonstrates the great difficulty encountered by independent scientists who have not sold their integrity to the highest bidder.

Publication Saga: Case Examples of Harassment Aimed At Suppressing Harmful Findings Regarding the HPV-Gardasil Vaccine

The study, Behavioral Abnormalities In Young Female Mice Following Administration Of Aluminum Adjuvants And The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Gardasil, was conducted in Israel by a team of researchers headed by Professor Yehuda Schoenfeld, an internationally recognized authority, who is considered to be the pillar in the field of autoimmunity.

Indeed, Dr. Shoenfeld identified a new syndrome ASIA (Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants).

“The idea of ASIA as a new syndrome developed after some studies on Gulf War syndrome reported that soldiers who had not been deployed to the Gulf area were suffering from symptoms such as severe fatigue, cognitive impairment, myalgias and arthralgias. This raised the question of whether it was the vaccines administered to the soldiers that induced these syndromes. The most common adjuvants are silicone implants and aluminum in vaccines.” [4]

The focus of the research seeks to shed light on “the roles and mechanisms of action of different adjuvants which lead to autoimmune/ inflammatory response.”

Prof. Shoenfeld encountered blockades from journal editors who attempted to suppress the findings of neuroinflammation and “behavioral abnormalities following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the HPV vaccine Gardasil.”

Those editors have financial stakes in the business of vaccines.

Dr. Michael Racke
             Dr. Michael Racke

The HPV-mouse study was first submitted to for publication to the Journal of Human Immunology where it was shelved for 8 months and was then rejected by that journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Michael Racke.

According to the American Academy of Neurology:

“Dr. Racke has received personal compensation for activities with EMD Serone, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Genentech, and Amarantus as a consultant.”

EMD Serono, Inc. is a subsidiary of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

The HPV-mouse study was published in the journal Vaccine in January 2016.

It was summarily withdrawn a month later following orders by the Editor-in-Chief, Gregory Poland. [5]

Dr. Poland’s direct conflicts of interest [5] include those disclosed on the Mayo Clinic website:

“Dr. Poland is the chairman of a safety evaluation committee for investigational vaccine trials being conducted by Merck Research Laboratories. Dr. Poland offers consultative advice on new vaccine development to Merck & Co., Inc. [Dr. Robert Chen is an Associate Editor of Vaccine.]”

How is it that this incestuous relationship did not raise loud cries of foul play? Those rejections by editors who had deeply vested financial interest in protecting vaccination rates, whose own financial interest was intertwined with vaccine manufacturers, elicited no protest from the scientific academic community.

Instead, these rejections were followed by vicious attacks against two of the scientists by industry’s cyber hit-squads that are hired to attack independent scientists whose honest research contradicts vaccine orthodoxy. That is viewed as a heresy inasmuch as it poses a financial threat. [6]

The study was revised, again peer-reviewed, and published in the journal Immunological Research (Nature-Springer) (2017). [7]

The reported findings remained the same:

“Vaccine adjuvants and vaccines may induce autoimmune and inflammatory manifestations in susceptible individuals. To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant exposures can be toxic to humans and animals…It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes…”

“In light of these findings, this study highlights the necessity of proceeding with caution with respect to further mass-immunization practices with a vaccine of yet unproven long-term clinical benefit in cervical cancer prevention.”

The basis for those findings was deemed to be scientifically sound by three sets of peer-reviewers, at three different journals.

By Vera Sharav, Alliance for Human Research Protection – via Healthimpactnews.com

Note: This article was extra from Vera Sharav‘s article Betrayal of Public Trust & Institutional Corruption: Vaccine Safety Ratings & Vaccine Science Falsified – which is part of a multi-document series about vaccine fraud and Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s persecution for exposing the truth regarding vaccines.

from:   https://humansarefree.com/2019/11/japan-exposing-vaccines-fraud.html  (Find References list there.)

Vaccine Settlements & Safety

Posted on by

Interesting quote from the article below:   “… vaccines were ruled to be unavoidably unsafe by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011.”

US Vax Court Sees 400% Spike in Vaccine Injuries – Biggest Payout Goes to Flu Shot

Vaccine injury cases are on the rise people, so if you’ve got your head in the sand and you haven’t been paying attention, it’s time to wake up.

Here’s a little background for those of you just getting started.

By Lori Martin Gregory, Guest writer

Ronnie Reagan… almost 30 years ago to the day, the 40th president of the United States signed away the rights of Americans to sue vaccine makers, replacing them with a law that forces families who have suffered vaccine injury or death to sue the U.S. government instead of a pharmaceutical company.

As a result, special masters from the United States Special Claims Court, also known for our purposes as the vaccine court, are given full authority as judge with no jury to decide the fate of Americans who have had the unfortunate ‘luck’ to be stricken by a vaccine injury — which can range from chronic, mild symptoms to death.

Once a year, this non-traditional court provides the public with a glimpse into its inner workings, by issuing an annual report on its website — a ritual that happens every January.

The report is sent to the President of Congress, otherwise known as the Vice President of the United States, where it is intended to serve as a bell weather monitoring reactions the American public may be having to vaccinations that are increasingly becoming forced by government mandates around the country.

Great, right? Accountability in action?

Wrong.

The report, which is consistently ignored by mainstream media/politicians/health officials and the CDC, lies dormant on the reports page of the U.S. Special Claims Court website.

No headlines, no press release, no analysis, no alert the media, no nothing.

No surprise, given that most people in America don’t even know that vaccines were ruled to be unavoidably unsafe by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011.

Also no surprise, that mainstream, co-opted, globalist elite media constantly ignore this report, along with sane arguments made by health freedom advocates about the dangers and risks of vaccine injury (‘look! a unicorn!’), instead using terms like ‘the science is in,’ and vaccine risk has been ‘debunked,’ to deter rational discussion pertaining to evidence that is hiding in plain sight.

Also no surprise that the U.S. Special Claims Court offers up an ineffective, low tech, archaic version of the report every year.  Instead of a nice, sort-able spread sheet, the court posts a scanned PDF document — a format which requires labor-intensive activities to conduct any sort of concrete analysis.

One must either re-data-entry all 220+ pages which would take weeks, or conduct an extensive, hand-written breakdown by vaccine of each case, combined with extensive tallying and organization efforts in order to identify statistical relevance and trends emerging from the vaccine court.

Is this by design?  Perhaps.  Most definitely it is at the very least a deterrent from having anybody actually sit down and try to analyze the damn thing.

Which is exactly why we do it, every year since 2014.  Not to be deterred, it took us 10 months to finally finish our analysis of this year’s report.

But once we did, the trends we found were shocking — not just because of what they revealed about the continual increase in vaccine injury, but also because of the deafening silence present among the halls of mainstream media, as vaccine injury continues to be a subject that journalists and media outlets ignore — chalking it up to yet another conspiracy theory from yet another fake news site.

Well pull up a chair and hold on to your hats, because guess what we discovered:

  1. Vaccine court settlement payouts increased in total $91.2 million in 2015, up from $22.8 million in 2014 to $114 million in 2015 — a 400% increase.
  2. Vaccine court settlement payments for flu shots increased the most, from $4.9 million in 2014 to $61 million in 2015 —  an increase of more than 1000%, despite autumnal onslaughts every year of media/pr/advertising campaigns urging Americans to ‘get your flu shot,’ with total abandon for the statistical facts coming out of the vaccine court.
  3. Varicella (chicken pox) had the third biggest increase — from $0 in 2014 to $5.8 million in 2015.  (No surprise shingles is on the rise among the elderly population, as recently vaccinated grandchildren continuously shed live virus to their unsuspecting elders.)
  4. Hepatitis B was the fourth largest increase in vaccine court settlements, increasing 321% in 2015 to more than $8 million in 2015 from $1.9 million in 2014.
  5. TDap/DTP/DPT and D/T shots were the fifth largest increase, leaping 75% in 2014 from $5.5 million to $9.8.

The rest of the settlements not pictured here are: Tetanus, $4 million; HPV $3.4 million, up from almost nothing in 2014 (one to watch in January when the 2016 report is issued); MMR, which actually decreased from the number one position last year to under $1 m — an 88%+ decrease in payouts; pertussis, $1.7 million; thimerisol $1.5 million; HIB, $345k, menginococal $500k, HEP A $408k, DPT & Polio, $210k & rotovirus $76k.

You may have noticed we omitted the second place winner, ‘other.’  Here’s why.

‘Other’ illustrates perfectly the dodgy nature of the vaccine court report, and its lack of transparency in the vaccine court process.  Instead of identifying which combination of vaccines are being charged with injury or death and labeling the case accordingly, a special master can decide to label a vaccine case ‘other,’ thereby diluting its affect on the overall numbers in the final analysis.

In 2015, the ‘other’ category was the second largest increase in vaccine settlement payments, totaling $21.5 million in payouts, up 388% from $4.4 million in payouts the year before.

We’re not accusing anybody of anything.  But, 388% increase is a lot.  What combination of vaccines is causing such an increase?  Doesn’t the public have a right to know?

If the court decided, for example, that there were too many flu shot settlements mounting for the year, couldn’t it simply skew the data by categorizing certain cases as ‘other,’ which would artificially deflate the flu category?

Did we mention that these results are ONLY for the judgements — cases that are found in favor of the plaintiff.

It does NOT include the EXTENSIVE legal fees for both sides, which are paid for by the U.S. government whether the lawyer wins or loses the case?  Those are categorized as costs.

And instead of submitting them in the report along with any judgments that are awarded, often they are entered as separate entries, making the exercise of linking them with their judgement payouts that much harder, requiring yet another step in the arduous, analysis of data.

The total dollar payout of legal fees for the vaccine court in 2015 is $42 million.

Also, a hand full of settlements in the payout are based on annuities — that means that the payouts (many of which total more than $1 million) reoccur annually.

That’s because life as they knew it for some plaintiffs disappeared after their vaccine injury occurred, and the costs to care for them in perpetuity for the life of the plaintiff requires an annual sum that is often extensive.

Also no surprise, that mainstream, co-opted, globalist elite media constantly ignore this report, along with sane arguments made by health freedom advocates about the dangers and risks of vaccine injury (‘look! a unicorn!’), instead using terms like ‘the science is in,’ and vaccine risk has been ‘debunked,’ to deter rational discussion pertaining to evidence that is hiding in plain sight.

Also no surprise that the U.S. Special Claims Court offers up an ineffective, low tech, archaic version of the report every year.  Instead of a nice, sort-able spread sheet, the court posts a scanned PDF document — a format which requires labor-intensive activities to conduct any sort of concrete analysis.

from:   http://humansarefree.com/2019/05/us-vax-court-sees-400-spike-in-vaccine.html

Vaccine Researcher Killed

Posted on by

Scientist Who Studied Safer Alternative to Traditional Vaccines Murdered In Front of His Children

By.    

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:35-year-old Tristan Beaudette, a scientist from Irvine was recently murdered. He was in the process of making some important vaccine discoveries.
  • Reflect On:Why are so many holistic Doctors, and those who are doing revolutionary research that could change our medicine, disappearing?

Having researched vaccines for more than a decade, it’s quite easy to see how the rhetoric we commonly hear from the mainstream is simply just not true. We are living in an age where hundreds, if not thousands of scientists are questioning the safety of multiple medications, including vaccinations.  A new study published in the journal EbioMedicineoutlines this point, stating in the introduction:

Over the past two decades, several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science (Larson et al., 2011).

This is actually a big problem in science, I wrote an article a couple of years ago regarding the issues that currently plague a lot of peer-reviewed science, and how most of the findings have actually been proven false. It’s a heavily sourced article, you can check it out here.

The science showing vaccinations are safe is virtually non-existent, and there are a lot showing that they’ve been more harmful than we are aware of. The truth is, not all vaccines have been tested and are completely safe.   The reason Congress exempted vaccine makers from liability in 1986 was that vaccines were causing harm. Since the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act went into effect, the federal government program has paid out 3.8 billion dollars in vaccine injuries and death.

I’m going to link some articles at the bottom of this one that has a lot more detail in it as to why more parents are choosing not to vaccinate their kids.

It’s no secret that more and more people are choosing not to vaccinate, and an increasing number of parents are doing the same. This has come with no short response from the mainstream, who seem to enjoy making it appear ‘stupid’ and making one feel and seem ‘foolish’ for even questioning the safety of vaccines. Obviously, these people are growing in number, and they’re not stupid. In fact, I applaud them for doing their own research and putting their critical thinking caps on, the fact that a number of peer-reviewed scientific publications keep emerging, and scientists continue to raise concerns at various international conferences held throughout the year, don’t worry…You’re far from stupid and you’re in good company. Again, the articles with the science and information will be linked.

It’s odd how we are made to fear not vaccinating our children, especially when the herd immunity hypothesis is constantly pushed.

The problems with vaccines not only comes as a result of recent science but multiple disclosures of scientific fraud and other eye-opening revelations with regards to those whom we deem our ‘health authorities.’ There are too many examples to count from.

When it comes to choosing not to vaccinate your child, and why so many parents are refusing to do so, we need to start understanding instead of reacting and instantly pointing a finger. The science has not spoken, and anytime we stop questioning things, we are far from science. Both sides really need to come together in an open public, honest and most importantly, nice discussion and acknowledge the information that each other has.

This would be great on a global stage with scientists from all over the world getting to speak…

So just to get that clear, parents and individuals are more than justified in refusing to vaccinate.

When I came across this current story about the death, yeah, it’s speculation, but I’m not surprised. I’ve been told personally by a professor at a Canadian university in the field that labs being broken into and shut down in an illegal fashion does happen.

According to TheFreeThoughtProject,

A tragic death has police searching for a killer and a motive in California this week as a beloved father was murdered early Friday morning while camping with his two daughters in Malibu Creek State Park. The victim was identified as 35-year-old Tristan Beaudette, a scientist from Irvine.

Beaudette had taken his two daughters, ages 2 and 4, camping over the weekend so his wife, who is a doctor, could study for an important exam. According to police, they responded to reports of gunfire around 4:44 a.m. at the campsite.

The story was also picked up by the L.A. Times.

“It appears that the victim was camping at the site with family members and no other individuals were injured during the course of the shooting,” police said. “There is no suspect information. There is no known motive for the crime.”

According to his Linkedin page, Beaudette worked as a senior scientist for the pharmaceutical company Allergan where he worked on pharmaceutical drug product development.  He was a father and a reputable scientists who was inside of the pharmaceutical world for years after obtaining his Ph.D in chemistry from Berkeley in 2005.  He studied and worked extensively on research papers about vaccines.

While at Berkeley, Beaudette was a graduate student instructor and worked on several research projects that were focused on pharmaceuticals and vaccines, according to his Linkedin profile. He wrote that he, “Synthesized polyacrylamide, polyacetal, and polysaccharide-based acid-degradable microparticles and used in vitro and in vivo techniques to characterize their ability to elicit cell-mediated immune responses for applications in vaccines and cancer therapy.” He also wrote, he, “Developed methods for chemoselective particle functionalization for use in targeted drug and gene delivery.” And, “Led a multidisciplinary team of chemists, immunologists, and biologists in an NIH-funded collaborative project involving the design of novel protein-based vaccine formulations,” while also composing, “multiple scientific research proposals. Presented and published graduate work at national conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.”

One of the studies he published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmacology dealt with protein vaccines, which, according to the study, are “a safer alternative to traditional weakened or killed the whole organism based vaccination strategies and have been investigated for their ability to activate the immune system against certain cancers.”

 The most recent example comes of this type of activity comes from Italy, when authorities broke into the home and lab of Dr. Antonietta Gatti discovered the relationship between micro- and nano particles as well as a great number of pathologies: cardiovascular diseases, many forms of cancer, multiple neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases.  Currently, she is the coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology’s Project of Nanoecotoxicology, called INESE. She is also a selected expert of the FAO/WHO for the safety in nanotechnological food, and a Member of the NANOTOX Cluster of the European Commission and the author of a book titled “Nanopathology: the health impact of nanoparticles,” and on the Editorial Board of Journal of Biomaterials Applications and a member of the CPCM of the Italian Ministry of Defense.
Furthermore, her and her husband Dr. Stefano Montanari founded a laboratory called Nano-diagnostics for the evaluation of the pathological tissues of patients, it’s presently at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Recently, the Italian police raided their home, the police took all digital assets that were owned by the two nano pathologists, including laptops, computers, and flash-drives, basically years of work and research.

You can read more about that here: World Renowned Scientists Have Their Lab Shut Down After Troublesome Vaccine Discovery

I don’t know much about this man’s research, but to suggest he was murdered for his work might be a long leap, but it’s not out of the question. This is something that can happen, does happen, and has happened in the past. The fact that it happened so mysteriously is nothing new.

We’ve covered strange stories as such in the past, for example,

77th Holistic Doctor Shot Dead In Her AZ Home With Her Entire Family

It’s one of many examples, and if you think about the take-over of medicine by chemical medicine and the Rockefeller initiative in the early 1920’s, again, it’s really not that far-fetched. We can’t say for sure, but at the same time, it doesn’t seem right to rule out foul play in the unfortunate passing of Beaudette.

Related Articles:

The top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children

Study Shows Where Almost 100 Percent of Aluminum From Vaccines Could Go Inside A Baby’s Body

“Sacrificial Virgins” – A Must-See Film About Young Girls Being Severely Damaged BY HPV Gardasil

More of our articles on the HPV Vaccine 

CDC Blocks Testimony of Their Senior Scientist Who Blew The Whistle On Severe Medical Malpractice

Pediatric Vaccines Market To Become Worth More Than $40 Billion USD Globally Ny 2022

First Measles Death In US Science 2003 Highlights These Unkown Variables

From:    https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/07/01/scientist-who-studied-safer-alternative-to-traditional-vaccines-murdered-in-front-of-his-children/

Vaccinate My Child – First Sign This Form

Posted on by

You Want To Vaccinate My Child? No Problem, Just Sign This Form

Sunday, April 12, 2015 0:35

(Before It’s News)

Informed_consent2893 (1)

I have yet to meet a Physician that will sign this form now downloaded by hundreds of parents. The reason they won’t sign is two-fold: First, they do not want to place themselves in a vulnerable position of being negligent for not providing informed consent to thousands of other parents; and second, many of them realize after their own extensive research that the risks far outweigh any benefits when it comes to vaccination.

It’s been over a year since hundreds of parents have downloaded this form and there are still no reports of any signatures. Many physicians won’t even look at the form while they dismiss a parent’s anti-vaccination stance as ridiculous. The behavior is a clear indication of a very misinformed Physician who does not have his or her patient’s best interests at heart. They are not willing to inform their patients of the risks, only the benefits they feel are acceptable. They are not open-minded to any other side of the debate except their own biased view passed down through the medical system.

Then are those Physicians who have questioned the vaccination schedules and will pursue their own research. Many of them are now awakening themselves thanks to ongoing research and pressure from parents and even other colleagues to look at other perspectives besides their own indoctrination. If you are pressured by any Physician to vaccinate, please download and print this form (and send us a Physician signed copy if possible). Assertively state to your Doctor that it is the only way you will fully informed to consider vaccination, and that an analyses of the risks and benefits will better allow you evaluate the decision.

100% of Physicians approached with this form have so far declined to sign it.

Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety Form

The following form was adapted from Ken Anderson’s original.

Download PDF English
Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety

Download PDF Espanol
Garantia Medica para la Seguridad en las Vacunas

Download PDF Francais
Formulaire a faire signer (Vaccins)

PHYSICIAN’S WARRANTY OF VACCINE SAFETYI (Physician’s name, degree)_______________, _____ am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State/Province of _________. My State/Provincial license number is ___________ , and my DEA number is ____________. My medical specialty is _______________I have a thorough understanding of the risks and benefits of all the medications that I prescribe for or administer to my patients. In the case of (Patient’s name) ______________ , age _____ , whom I have examined, I find that certain risk factors exist that justify the recommended vaccinations. The following is a list of said risk factors and the vaccinations that will protect against them:
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________I am aware that vaccines may contain many of the following chemicals, excipients, preservatives and fillers:* aluminum hydroxide
* aluminum phosphate
* ammonium sulfate
* amphotericin B
* animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain,
* arginine hydrochloride
* dog kidney, monkey kidney,
* dibasic potassium phosphate
* chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg
* calf (bovine) serum
* betapropiolactone
* fetal bovine serum
* formaldehyde
* formalin
* gelatin
* gentamicin sulfate
* glycerol
* human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
* hydrocortisone
* hydrolized gelatin
* mercury thimerosol (thimerosal, Merthiolate(r))
* monosodium glutamate (MSG)
* monobasic potassium phosphate
* neomycin
* neomycin sulfate
* nonylphenol ethoxylate
* octylphenol ethoxylate
* octoxynol 10
* phenol red indicator
* phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
* potassium chloride
* potassium diphosphate
* potassium monophosphate
* polymyxin B
* polysorbate 20
* polysorbate 80
* porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein
* residual MRC5 proteins
* sodium deoxycholate
* sorbitol
* thimerosal
* tri(n)butylphosphate,
* VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells, and
* washed sheep red bloodand, hereby, warrant that these ingredients are safe for injection into the body of my patient. I have researched reports to the contrary, such as reports that mercury thimerosal causes severe neurological and immunological damage, and find that they are not credible.I am aware that some vaccines have been found to have been contaminated with Simian Virus 40 (SV 40) and that SV 40 is causally linked by some researchers to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and mesotheliomas in humans as well as in experimental animals. I hereby warrant that the vaccines I employ in my practice do not contain SV 40 or any other live viruses. (Alternately, I hereby warrant that said SV-40 virus or other viruses pose no substantive risk to my patient.)I hereby warrant that the vaccines I am recommending for the care of (Patient’s name) _______________ do not contain any tissue from aborted human babies (also known as “fetuses”).In order to protect my patient’s well being, I have taken the following steps to guarantee that the vaccines I will use will contain no damaging contaminants.

STEPS TAKEN: _________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________

I have personally investigated the reports made to the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and state that it is my professional opinion that the vaccines I am recommending are safe for administration to a child under the age of 5 years.

The bases for my opinion are itemized on Exhibit A, attached hereto, — “Physician’s Bases for Professional Opinion of Vaccine Safety.” (Please itemize each recommended vaccine separately along with the bases for arriving at the conclusion that the vaccine is safe for administration to a child under the age of 5 years.)

The professional journal articles I have relied upon in the issuance of this Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety are itemized on Exhibit B , attached hereto, — “Scientific Articles in Support of Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety.”

The professional journal articles that I have read which contain opinions adverse to my opinion are itemized on Exhibit C , attached hereto, — “Scientific Articles Contrary to Physician’s Opinion of Vaccine Safety”

The reasons for my determining that the articles in Exhibit C were invalid are delineated in Attachment D , attached hereto, — “Physician’s Reasons for Determining the Invalidity of Adverse Scientific Opinions.”

Hepatitis B

I understand that 60 percent of patients who are vaccinated for Hepatitis B will lose detectable antibodies to Hepatitis B within 12 years. I understand that in 1996 only 54 cases of Hepatitis B were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 year age group. I understand that in the VAERS, there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from Hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 year age group, with 47 deaths reported.

I understand that 50 percent of patients who contract Hepatitis B develop no symptoms after exposure. I understand that 30 percent will develop only flu-like symptoms and will have lifetime immunity. I understand that 20 percent will develop the symptoms of the disease, but that 95 percent will fully recover and have lifetime immunity.

I understand that 5 percent of the patients who are exposed to Hepatitis B will become chronic carriers of the disease. I understand that 75 percent of the chronic carriers will live with an asymptomatic infection and that only 25 percent of the chronic carriers will develop chronic liver disease or liver cancer, 10-30 years after the acute infection. The following scientific studies have been performed to demonstrate the safety of the Hepatitis B vaccine in children under the age of 5 years.
____________________________________
____________________________________ _____________________________________

In addition to the recommended vaccinations as protections against the above cited risk factors, I have recommended other non-vaccine measures to protect the health of my patient and have enumerated said non-vaccine measures on Exhibit D , attached hereto, “Non-vaccine Measures to Protect Against Risk Factors” I am issuing this Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety in my professional capacity as the attending physician to (Patient’s name) ________________________________. Regardless of the legal entity under which I normally practice medicine, I am issuing this statement in both my business and individual capacities and hereby waive any statutory, Common Law, Constitutional, UCC, international treaty, and any other legal immunities from liability lawsuits in the instant case. I issue this document of my own free will after consultation with competent legal counsel whose name is _____________________________, an attorney admitted to the Bar in the State of __________________ .
_________________________ (Name of Attending Physician)
______________________ L.S. (Signature of Attending Physician)
Signed on this _______ day of ______________ A.D. ________
Witness: _________________ Date: _____________________
Notary Public: _____________Date: ______________________

I’m really anxious to hear back from any readers whose doctor decides to sign this document in an effort to satisfy your peace of mind. I also have a lengthy list of legal professionals who are very curious as well.

Source:

preventdisease.com

Philosophers stone – selected views from the boat http://philosophers-stone.co.uk

from:    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/04/you-want-to-vaccinate-my-child-no-problem-just-sign-this-form-2-3136652.html

Source: http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2015/04/you-want-to-vaccinate-my-child-no-problem-just-sign-this-form-2/