Tag Archives: Infection

If your employer says this is “just like a flu vaccination”

From The Health Forum NZ Facebook page

Read this well and ponder these words of warning from a German Doctor and Biochemist, Dr. Jochen Ziegler.

Do not let anyone tell you (as employers currently are, here in NZ) that this is “just like a flu vaccination”. He is referring to a case of thrombocytopenia (destruction of blood platelets causing fatal bleeding) after the Covid mRNA vaccine, in a 56 year old doctor.

Quote…”If this is confirmed, it follows that the side effect of vaccination with BNT162b may be acute thrombocytopenia. Since more than a million people have been vaccinated worldwide, that would be a very rare side effect.

If the vaccine were effective in preventing the severe COVID illness and preventing death, such a rare side effect could still be accepted. But such an effect has not been shown (and it is also unlikely ), nor has it been shown to have any effect on the distribution of evolutionary offspring of SARS-CoV-2, which genetically no longer exists, through infection.

So far, NO STUDY HAS BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT VACCINATION REDUCES INFECTION RATES. That would only be possible with high vaccination coverage. It cannot be ruled out either, but it is also possible that the virus has long since mutated to such an extent that if a large number of people are vaccinated, it cannot develop this effect.

Much more important is that we DO NOT KNOW THE CHRONIC EFFECTS OF BNT162b ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM and DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT CAN LEAD TO AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or lupus erythematosus. THIS IS BECAUSE THE VACCINE HAS NOT BEEN TESTED FOR CHRONIC TOXICITY BEFORE APPROVAL.

These effects can be observed in spring or early summer 2021 at the earliest, when the vaccinees in the first studies have already been vaccinated for nine months to a year. Then you have to wait another year to really know the chronic effects.

That is how long one should have waited with the approval of the vaccine, BECAUSE CURRENTLY ONE VACCINATES WITHOUT KNOWING WHETHER THE SUBSTANCE PROTECTS OLD PEOPLE FROM DEATH BY COVID AND WITHOUT KNOWING THE DANGERS OF THE VACCINE. USUALLY YOU ONLY VACCINATE AFTER CAREFULLY WEIGHING THE BENEFITS AND RISKS. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN WITH THE PFIZER VACCINE.

The G. Michael case tragically suggests what that might mean. He was not at risk from COVID due to his age and health, and we do not know whether the vaccination would have protected others from infection by him. Now he is vaccinated and dead. Further developments will have to be observed very carefully.https://www.achgut.com/…/impfungen_wie_risiken_sichtbar…

Photo: pixabay.com

In October 20202 WHO quietly Changed the Definition of Herd Immunity

Story at-a-glance

  • Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community
  • WHO’s definition of herd immunity long reflected this, but in October 2020 it quietly revised this concept in an Orwellian move that totally removes natural infection from the equation
  • Immunity developed through previous infection is the way it has worked since humans have been alive: Your immune system isn’t designed to get vaccines; it’s designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent
  • This perversion of science implies that the only way to achieve herd immunity is via vaccination, which is blatantly untrue
  • It’s all part of the Great Reset: The rollout of widespread COVID-19 vaccination coupled with tracking and tracing of COVID-19 test results and vaccination status are setting the stage for biometric surveillance and additional tracking and tracing

READ MORE:

LINK: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/01/15/who-changes-definition-of-herd-immunity.aspx?ui=685e66ad79a2084ce1076a1d6f40bd4323d01a706e69013a5023147b938dc9d7&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2HL&cid=20210115&mid=DM765667&rid=1059216802

Image by fancycrave1 from Pixabay

So… the tracing app is voluntary, but you can’t go out without it?

Do familiarize yourself with what contact tracing entails. NZ’s app is mentioned in here. To get the full story go to the official nz covid govt website, you will find it all there. Watch this video as they have looked carefully at it. Basically wherever you go now you may be required to prove you are not infected. You may also find you’ll be phoned up because you were in contact with somebody who is infected … at the local shop, the park, a cafe. And you didn’t even know. Here we are being told to keep track of where we go, innocuously at the moment of course, but it’s easy to see where it is headed. Get the app, make it easy…. Right now they are boasting about NZ’s success with infection, meanwhile the lockdown rules continue pretty much. Wake up folks. EWR

aplanetruth 4u 59.1K subscribers

Image by Anastasia Gepp from Pixabay

Coronavirus Lockdown and What You Are Not Being Told – Part 1

From off-guardian.org

We have been given a very clear narrative about the declared coronavirus pandemic. The UK State has passed legislation, in the form of the Coronavirus Act, to compel people to self isolate and practice social distancing in order to delay the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (SC2). We are told this “lockdown”, a common prison term, is essential. We are also told that SC2 has been clearly identified to be the virus which causes the COVID 19 syndrome.

1Police002
Necessary? Lawful?

At the time of writing SC2 is said to have infected 60,733 people with 7,097 people supposedly dying of COVID 19 in the UK. This case fatality ration (CFR) of 11.7% is seemingly one of the worst in the world. Furthermore, with just 135 people recovered, the recovery rate in the UK is inexplicably low.

Some reading this may baulk at use of words like “seemingly” and “alleged” in reference to these statistics. The mainstream media (MSM) have been leading the charge to cast anyone who questions the State’s coronavirus narrative as putting lives at risk. The claim being that questioning what we are told by the State, its officials and the MSM undermines the lockdown. The lockdown is, we are told, essential to save lives.

It is possible both to support the precautionary principle and question the lockdown. Questioning the scientific and statistical evidence base, supposedly justifying the complete removal of our civil liberties, does not mean those doing so care nothing for their fellow citizens. On the contrary, many of us are extremely concerned about the impact of the lockdown on everyone. It is desperately sad to see people blindly support their own house arrest while attacking anyone who questions the necessity for it.

1Police003
Exercise? Yes? / No?

The knee jerk reaction, assuming any questioning of the lockdown demonstrates a cavalier, uncaring disregard is puerile. Grown adults shouldn’t simply believe everything they are told like mindless idiots. Critical thinking and asking questions is never “bad” under any circumstances whatsoever.

Only the State, with the unwavering support of its MSM propaganda operation, enforces unanimity of thought. If a system cannot withstand questioning it suggests it is built upon shaky foundations and probably not worth maintaining. Yet perhaps it is what we are not told that is more telling.

Among the many things we are not told is how many lives the lockdown will ruin and end prematurely. Are these lives irrelevant?

We are not told the evidence for the existence of a virus called SARS-CoV-2 is highly questionable and the tests for it unreliable; we are not told that the numbers of deaths reportedly caused by COVID 19 is statistically vague, seemingly deliberately so; we are not told that these deaths are well within the normal range of excess winter mortality and we are not told that in previous years excess winter deaths have been higher than they are now.

We didn’t need to destroy the economy in response to those, far worse, periods of loss so why do we need to do so for this?

We will look at this in more detail in Part 2.

Understanding Mainstream Media Disinformation

1Propaganda
Understanding mainstream media disinfo

Before we address what we are not being told it’s worth looking at how the MSM is spreading disinformation. On February 22nd one rag printed a story which absurdly alleged, without a shred of evidence, that Russia was somehow deliberately spreading disinformation about coronavirus. It reported this uncritically, questioning nothing. Their opening paragraph read:

Thousands of Russian-linked social media accounts have launched a coordinated effort to spread misinformation and alarm about coronavirus, disrupting global efforts to fight the epidemic, US officials have said.”

On March 10th the same rag reported another story about disinformation in which it was noted:

Disinformation experts say, there remains little evidence of concerted efforts to spread falsehoods about the virus, suggesting that the misleading information in circulation is spread primarily through grassroots chatter.”

The irony shouldn’t be overlooked. Directly contradicting their own previous disinformation, this MSM pulp assumes we are all so stupid we won’t notice their perpetual spin and evidence-free claims. The UK’s national broadcaster the BBC is perhaps the worst of all the disinformation propagandists. The sheer volume of disinformation they are pumping out is quite breathtaking.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights spells out what freedom of expression means. All human beings are born free with equal dignity and rights. All are afforded these rights without any distinction at all. Article 19 states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

1BBC

The BBC, who obviously couldn’t care less about human rights, gleefully supported the censorship of so called conspiracy theorist David Icke. They did so by spreading disinformation. Icke raised concerns about the possible link between 5G and the spread of coronavirus. He did not incite violence, as suggested in the BBC’s disinformation. The BBC misled the public utterly when they stated:

“Conspiracy theories linking 5G signals to the coronavirus pandemic continue to spread despite there being no evidence the mobile phone signals pose a health risk.”

While I agree with the BBC that there is no evidence of a link between 5G and the apparent coronavirus, we certainly can’t rule it out. Because the second half of their statement, that there is no evidence that mobile signals pose a health risk, was a mendacious deceit.

There iswealth of evidence of that risk.

The leading medical journal The Lancet noted these risks in 2018:

…mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects.”

Why are the BBC so willing to mislead the public and expose them to unnecessary health harms? Is it deliberate or are they just shoddy journalists?

Either way, quite clearly they are habitual pedlars of disinformation. They appear to no better than the worst clickbait sites that have proliferated over recent years.

The MSM is responsible for the majority of misinformation and disinformation circulating at the moment. We must diligently verify every claim they make and check the evidence ourselves. They are not to be trusted. As the BBC quite rightly points out:

STOP BEFORE YOU SHARE
CHECK YOUR SOURCES

(If it’s the MSM check to see if they offer any evidence at all or if it’s just their opinion. If it’s their opinion ignore it. It’s almost certainly unfounded)

PAUSE IF YOU FEEL EMOTIONAL

(If you do feel emotional you have probably just been manipulated by the MSM)

“Science Led” Means Cherry Picking Science

The UK State has been keen to insist that we all believe their lockdown response is led by the science. However they have cherry picked the science to roll out the lockdown and ignored the considerable scientific evidence which contradicts it. Both the UK and U.S. governments used the computer models of Imperial College London (ICL), predicting millions of deaths, to justify the removal of our civil liberties.

Almost as soon as the lockdown was in place the scientists, having launched their vaccine research fund raiser, downgraded their projections from an estimated 550,000 deaths in the UK to 20,000 or even lower. Neil Furguson, the lead scientist responsible for the initial ICL report stated that they had revised the figures because of the effectiveness of the lockdown safety measures.

1VaccinICL

Claiming the lockdown would need to last for at least 18 months until a vaccine is found. ICL are grant recipients of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They have shown no interests at all in researching possible preventative treatments, reducing the need for a vaccine, such as hydroxychloroquine.

The initial ICL computer models were based upon unproven assumptions. They assumed that SC2 would spread like influenza. This was contrary to the findings of the World Health Organisation who stated both that SC2 did not appear to spread as quickly as influenza and was less virulent.

The WHO found up to a 20% infection rate, where people were exposed to SC2 in crowded settings for prolonged periods, and a 1-5% infection rate in the community. This was nothing like the spread of the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

However, publishing their paper on March 16th, the ICL completely ignored the WHO research which was published a month earlier and stated, without any justification whatsoever:

COVID-19, a virus with comparable lethality to H1N1 influenza in 1918”

1Boffin
Dr Knut M. Wittkowski

Public Health England (PHE) disagreed with ICL’s evidence free assumptions and downgraded COVID 19 from a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID), due to relatively low mortality rates.

However, ignoring both the WHO and PHE, the UK and US decided only the ICL knew what they were talking about. Cherry-picking their highly dubious research, they insisted the lockdown was necessary to “flatten the curve” and, in the UK, protect the NHS.

The science the State has chosen to believe is the minority view it seems. Epidemiologists, epidemiological statisticians, microbiologists, mathematicians and many other scientists and academics the world over have repeatedly warned that the lockdown is precisely the wrong thing to do.

COVID 19, the disease supposedly caused by SC2, is experienced as little more than a bad cough or cold by the vast majority of relatively healthy people. Dr Knut M. Wittkowski (Ph.D) is among the growing number of globally renowned scientists who question what we are told by the State and its MSM. In regard to both SC2 and COVID 19.

Dr Wittkowski stated:

“With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus. it’s very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus to get herd immunity as fast as possible, and then the elderly people, who should be separated, and the nursing homes should be closed during that time, can come back and meet their children and grandchildren after about 4 weeks when the virus has been exterminated….If we had herd immunity now, there couldn’t be a second wave in autumn.”

Such scientists and academics are all completely ignored by the State. Yet they believe others, such as Professor Neil Ferguson and Professor Karine Lacombe without hesitation. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the scientists the State chooses to believe overwhelmingly appear to have close links to the globalist foundations and pharmaceutical corporations developing the vaunted coronavirus vaccine.

Are You Sure About The Coronavirus Lockdown?

Those who reject all criticiam of the lockdown, and simply accept whatever the State tells them, presumably believe the State only has our best interests at heart and would never do anything to harm us. Perhaps they believe that to question the claims of the State can only ever be conspiracy theory.

Certainly that’s the message constantly reinforced by the MSM.

However, there is also plenty of evidence that the State frequently deceives the public. We only need look to the WMD lies told to start an illegal Iraq war in 2003 to understand that the State is willing to further the interests of the powerful and cares little about lives lost in the effort.

1Hitchens-300x207

Therefore, in the UK, it is worth recapping what it is we are consenting to with the Coronavirus Act:

We consent to increased State surveillance of ourselves and our family.

We are happy that we could be detained, without charge, because some state official suspects, or claims they suspect, we may be infected.

It is fine with us that we or our loved ones can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act on the recommendation of a single doctor and neither we nor they need to have the protection of a second opinion before we are locked up.

We accept that the state can retain our biometric data and fingerprints for an extended period.

We consent that jury trials are a bit of an anachronism and Judges can hear more evidence by video or even audio link.

We think its fine that the evidence required, and processes undertaken, to determine and record our or our loved one’s deaths can be eroded to the point where they can be registered by people with no medical or legal expertise at all.

We don’t think the NHS needs to adhere to practice standards or bother with assessing the needs of some patients, especially older people.

We are also fine with the complete suspension of democracy in Britain.

We accept all of this based upon a unique subset of scientific opinion which, contrary to every known scientific principle, can never be questioned.

We agree with the MSM that people who question any aspect of the stories they tell us are dangerous because these people just don’t care if their own loved ones die. Only true believers care about their families.

We also accept the need for the State to invest considerable resources creating counter disinformation units whose purpose is to censor anything and everything which questions our firmly held beliefs. The beliefs informed by the many of the same people doing the censoring.

1Bakri
Doing the censoring

I don’t know about you, but I remain unconvinced by the evidence I’ve seen so far. I have no doubt that there is a health crisis and excess seasonal deaths, but I have seen no evidence at all that the numbers are unprecedented or unusual in any way. Evidence we will explore in greater detail in Part 2.

I accept that we should exercise the precautionary principle and take steps to limit the risks to the most vulnerable but I do not accept that the lockdown is the best way to go about it. Nor do I see any necessity at all for all the other dictatorial clauses in the Coronavirus Act. I do not consent.

If you think this will all be over soon and won’t get worse I’m afraid you may be disappointing. The UK state have based this lockdown on the scientific rubbish spewed out by ICL. Here’s another one of the ICL’s recommendations:

The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more).”

There is nothing to suggest this isn’t the intention of the State. Certainly voices in the U.S. are already indicating their desire for an 18 month lockdown. Apparently taking their cue directly from the discredited ICL report and steadfastly ignoring everything else. Nor should we assume the draconian powers seized by the state won’t get worse.

Most of this response is being driven by globalist policy emanating, on this occasion, from the World Health Organisation. Speaking at the daily WHO press briefing on the March 30th Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, said:

Lockdowns and shutdowns really should just be part of an overall comprehensive strategy…..Most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household at family level….Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”

Given that we now live in a de facto dictatorship there’s no reason to believe that states across the globe won’t use this as justification to start removing people from their homes. My hope is that sense will prevail and, as it becomes clear the pandemic is waning, public pressure will mount to repeal this dictatorial legislation.

However, given some of the comments I have seen on social media over the last two weeks, the panic buying and attacks upon anyone questioning the State’s narrative, it seems many people are so frightened they desperately need to believe the State is trying to save them.

This fear is based upon apparent ignorance of the economic severity of the lockdown and the monumental health risk it poses. People don’t seem to want to know there is considerable doubt the Coronavirus Act is even legal in international law. There is also doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is an identifiable virus and the statistics we are given may well be based upon tests that can’t identify it anyway. There is evidence that the statistics we have been given have been deliberately manipulated to exaggerate the health risk and there is no evidence these excess deaths are “unprecedented.”
SOURCE

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/17/coronavirus-lockdown-and-what-you-are-not-being-told-part-1/

Photos: off-guardian.org

Header photo: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

(Note: I have reproduced the entire article given so many now are being taken down, lost forever).

Viruses: a different perspective (Jon Rappoport)

From Jon Rappoport

“Give us your huddled masses, yearning to be vaccinated. We’ll find a virus and say a vaccine must be produced.”

One research-estimate suggests there are 320,000 viruses on Earth that infect mammals.

This means: types of viruses. For each type, I suppose you could say there are at least trillions of individual viruses.

So we should all be dead. Long gone. But we aren’t.

First of all, there are what’s called endogenous viruses. They live in the human body and they watch television and they lie around and don’t cause illness. On sophisticated tests, they can show up, and researchers will mistakenly assume they’re doing damage. They’re doing nothing.

Then there are exogenous viruses. They come in from the outside, enter the body, and look for cells in which they can take up residence and multiply. The immune system notices, and either ignores them as trifling or mounts a defense to defeat them. These viruses can also show up on sophisticated tests. Researchers tend to (falsely) believe the mere presence of the viruses signals trouble (illness).

This is a massive mistake. So-called viral infection, if it means anything significant at all, amounts to much more than mere presence. A few particles of virus showing up on a test says nothing about actual illness. There must be millions and millions of a virus actively replicating in the body to cause disease.

And even then, a healthy and strong immune system could ultimately defeat this bunch of little doofuses.

That leaves who knows how many other viruses out there, never living in or entering the human body at all. They’re playing music or their version of baseball or finding warm condos in cows or sheep or moose.

Now we come to what-if type speculations. Suppose dangerous viruses are flying in from planets far away? Suppose they’re combining in caves and then crawling into the bodies of rock climbers? Suppose biowar labs are fiddling and diddling and cooking up altered versions of several viruses that will kill millions of people? CAN YOU PROVE THIS ISN’T SO?

READ MORE

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/03/03/viruses-a-different-perspective/

Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

A little Melbourne girl of eight went BLIND after suffering an horrific allergic reaction to a routine vaccination

We are told these reactions are rare but how rare are they given all the reactions that are coming to light & are written off generally as coincidence or when death occurs, as SIDS. If there is one thing we can learn from these occurrences surely it is to ask for the risks of reactions and to see copies of the tests for safety that have been done. Check out the Vaxxed Youtube channel for the many reactions that have occurred.  Explore also the Vaccine Reaction website.

This is from dailymail.co.uk

  • Isabel Olesen, from Melbourne, left fighting for her life after allergic reaction
  • Developed painful sores all over her body 48 hours after routine vaccination
  • Had Stevens Johnson Syndrome – a rare allergic reaction to medication 
  • She survived but was left with life-changing side effects including blindness
  • Defied the odds by riding a bike, rollerblading and completing three triathlons 
  • WARNING: DISTRESSING CONTENT

An eight-year-old girl was left fighting for her life after suffering a horrific allergic reaction following a vaccination.

Isabel Olesen, from Melbourne, developed painful sores all over her body 48 hours after undergoing a routine immunisation and later went blind.

Her mother, Edwina, 39, later discovered she had Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) –  a rare and life-threatening allergic reaction to medication or an infection.

Isabel Olesen, from Melbourne, was left fighting for her life after suffering a horrific allergic reaction following a vaccination

Isabel Olesen, from Melbourne, was left fighting for her life after suffering a horrific allergic reaction following a vaccination

The little girl developed painful sores all over her body 48 hours after undergoing a routine immunisation and later went blind

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4670136/Little-girl-went-blind-routine-vaccination.html?fbclid=IwAR13kBRqzK7Q_gbaOSV2b5gUvYn4mggevhtpngElk-AX_3zPCtwc2xGiCCY

Unvaccinated Children Pose ZERO Risk to Anyone: Harvard Immunologist to Legislators

From vaccineimpact.com

Dr-Tetyana-Obukhanych.jpg
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych

An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide.

You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.

I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases.

People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.

2. Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.

3. While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.

4. The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding. [1]

Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.

5. Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f). These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4). The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.

6. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.

In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.

How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events.

Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science.

A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).

When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.

Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?

Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:

“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.” [2]

Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated. [3]

Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. [4] The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA. [5]

Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items #6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.

It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals. [6] [7]

Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.

Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?

The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15.

Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.

Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism.

The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.

Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).

In summary:

1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all;

2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free;

3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and

4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.

Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue risk to the public.

Sincerely Yours,

~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

Tetyana Obukhanych earned her Ph.D. in Immunology at the Rockefeller University, New York, NY with her research dissertation focused on immunologic memory. She was subsequently involved in laboratory research as a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine, before fully devoting herself to natural parenting.

(Original Source: legislature.vermont.gov – Testimony Senate Health & Welfare Committee Wednesday April 22, 2015 H.98 – public records)

Editor’s Note: This article has been slightly edited to reflect the language from the letter submitted to the Vermont General Assembly on April 22, 2015. As part of the Vermont Senate Health & Welfare Committee, it is a matter of public record and accessible here.)

UPDATE: The above links on the Vermont government website no longer work. Here is a copy.

 

For appendix also go to the SOURCE:

http://vaccineimpact.com/2017/harvard-immunologist-to-legislators-unvaccinated-children-pose-zero-risk-to-anyone/?fbclid=IwAR0wC_5o69DMo-Uwqhh0cFNkGKnNCPOdafNCrVhR9U66xKq2yLzLB9u0NJo

An Australian Vet who exposed extreme cruelty to animals on export ships has been dismissed from her Govt job – (sign the petition)

Are we surprized at this? A regime that didn’t count its first peoples citizens of their own country until 1967? And the Aussie Vet who blew the whistle now, predictably, has no job. Great stuff Australia.

From animalsaustralia.org

An experienced live export vet has given ABC’s 7.30 a glimpse into the conditions endured by animals on live export ships — and it’s not a pretty picture.

Animals at this stocking density are not able to all lie down at onceSpace

IMAGE: Dr Lynn Simpson

In addition to the stress of the unfamiliar environment, noise and constant ship movement, at the typical high stocking density of a long haul voyage, it is not usually possible for all animals to lie down naturally at the same time. Stocking densities allowed by Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) are much higher than any land-based feedlot or intensive housing system.

Not enough sawdust is provided for all animals to have soft bedding to lie onBedding

IMAGE: Dr Lynn Simpson

Adequate sawdust or other soft bedding to rest on is not available to cattle on board a live export ship. Some sawdust provisions are required but they are not nearly sufficient, leaving animals travelling on hard, non-slip surfaces which can often result in painful abrasions, lameness and injury. Australian standards only indicate that bedding should be replaced “as necessary” leaving this decision in the hands of exporters.

Animals are often coated with faeces by the end of the journeyFaeces

IMAGE: Dr Lynn Simpson

READ MORE & SIGN THE PETITION AT END OF ARTICLE

https://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/whats-it-like-on-a-live-export-ship.php?fbclid=IwAR22JLWpZuIvSOnvk899K8zJPKa6mSaSI5hNKfc75ePDdLoze0EYftffChw

DTP Vaccine Increases Mortality in Young Infants 5 to 10-Fold Compared to Unvaccinated Infants

From worldmercuryproject.org

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

For many years, public health advocates have vainly urged the CDC and WHO to conduct studies comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations to measure overall health outcomes.  Now a team of Scandinavian scientists has conducted such a study and the results are alarming.  That study, funded in part by the Danish government and lead by Dr. Soren Wengel Mogensen, was published in January in EBioMedicine.  Mogensen and his team of scientists found that African children inoculated with the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine, during the early 1980s had a 5-10 times greater mortality than their unvaccinated peers.

The data suggest that, while the vaccine protects against infection from those three bacteria, it makes children more susceptible to dying from other causes.

The scientists term the study a “natural experiment” since a birthday-based vaccination system employed for the Bandim Health Project (BHP) in Guinea Bissau, West Africa had the effect of creating a vaccinated cohort and a similarly situated unvaccinated control group.  In the time period covered by this study, Guinea-Bissau had 50% child mortality rates for children up to age 5.  Starting in 1978, BHP health care workers contacted pregnant mothers and encouraged them to visit infant weighing sessions provided by a BHP team every three months after their child’s birth.  Beginning in 1981, BHP offered vaccinations at the weighing sessions.  Since the DPT vaccine and OPV (oral polio) immunizations were offered only to children who were at least three months of age at the weighing sessions, the children’s random birthdays allowed for analysis of deaths between 3 and 5 months of age depending on vaccination status.  So, for example, a child born on January 1st and weighed on April 1st would be vaccinated, but a child born on February 1st would not be vaccinated until their following visit at age 5 months on July 1st.

READ MORE

https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/dtp-vaccine-increases-mortality-in-young-infants-5-to-10-fold-compared-to-unvaccinated-infants/

Vitamin C deficiency discovered in critically ill patients, researchers reveal in a recent NZ study

Remember the man dying in Waikato Hospital, where the authorities wanted to switch off his life support? His family suggested Vit C (IV) – no go. Would’t have a bar of that. So they enlisted a lawyer to fight for that right. They dragged their feet all the way on this – and the man is now alive & well back on his farm. But for the lawyer he would be gone…..
EnvirowatchRangitikei


(Naturalhealth365) Sepsis, a systemic, body-wide complication of infection, features a grim mortality rate – particularly if it progresses to septic shock. Accounting for roughly one out of three hospital deaths, septic shock is fatal 30 to 50 percent of the time (conservatively speaking) – and claims roughly 250,000 lives a year in the United States. But, one way – gaining popularity – to avoid becoming a ‘death statistic’ is to rely on vitamin C, as soon as possible.

Natural health experts have long insisted that illnesses, such as sepsis, drastically deplete the body’s stores of vitamin C, an indispensable nutrient which can only be obtained through diet or supplementation. Now, a recent study from New Zealand reveals the devastating extent to which critical illnesses rob the body of vitamin C – even when patients are being given the amounts recommended by the conventionally-trained health experts.

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/vitamin-c-ascorbic-acid-2454.html

Bayer and Death: 1918 and Aspirin

From foodfreedom.wordpress.com

“Farbenfabriken Bayer’s worldwide efforts had left few places lacking aspirin. In the United States, Bayer’s giant factory produced aspirin under “American” management. After Bayer executives were charged with violating the Trading with the Enemies Act in August 1918, advertisements encouraged confidence in aspirin.” Karen Starko

The world has believed for almost a century that a new and virulent virus came out of nowhere worldwide and killed millions in 1918.  Two reports, one published in 2008 and the second in 2009, lay that myth to rest for good.

via Bayer and Death: 1918 and Aspirin

A Harvard immunologist has written an open letter explaining why unvaccinated children pose no risk to their vaccinated counterparts

Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych.  I hold a PhD in Immunology.  I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide.  You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.  I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases.  People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

  1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces.  Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine.  Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.

READ MORE

http://yournewswire.com/harvard-unvaccinated-children-risk/

The most dominant cause of heart attacks – this will surprise you

An article here from naturalhealth365: “A relatively small handful of the better heart surgeons in the country would insist upon an examination of the mouth as part of their pre-operative evaluations, especially when contemplating heart valve surgery. If there was a lot of gum disease and/or evidence of any infected teeth, this had to be resolved as best as possible before proceeding with the planned surgery.

dentist-674654_1280The very sound logic for this evaluation was that infection in the mouth could end up infecting the heart post-operatively. The fact that only a few surgeons have followed and continue to follow this protocol remains clear evidence that even our finest and most respected physicians in the country remain largely unaware of this most critical mouth disease-heart disease connection…”

“Chronic periodontal disease has ultimately pointed the way to realize, along with the work of the pioneering researchers noted … [in the article], that the ultimate, most clinically devastating dental infection is the root canal-treated tooth. Huggins and Haley found potent pathogen-generated toxins in 100% of over 5,000 consecutive extracted root canal-treated teeth, while normal teeth extracted for orthodontic purposes demonstrated no such toxicity.

The simple fact, still remaining to be properly realized and embraced, is that nothing really comes close to the negative impact of root canal-treated teeth in terms of the numbers of people who end up with life-altering chronic degenerative diseases and early death”.

Read more: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/heart-attacks-cardiovascular-disease-1547.html

Note: naturalhealth365 has an upcoming summit with more on this topic:

Register now for The Holistic Oral Health Summit to learn more, online and FREE from Sept 28 – Oct 5