The US Centers for Disease Control – #1 Enemy of the US People – Does More Harm To US Citizens Than Terrorists – [Including Al Quaeda and ISIS Combined]

[ED: The following article is republished from AL Witney.  It is a sobering thought that the number of US citizens harmed by its own government and agencies, including the CDC, is vastly more substantial than US citizens harmed by terrorist activity.  The US Government and its agencies are the greater threat to US citizens.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal includes the following

Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.

Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor, The BMJ, USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good? BMJ 15 May 2015 Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h2362 ]


The Centers for Disease Control is a rogue institution engaged in the destruction of the health of the American population:-

  1. CDC is a for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet
  2. CDC partners with big pharma
  3. CDC deceives health practitioners as well as the public
  4. CDC is rife with corruption
  5. CDC orchestrates propaganda campaigns based on non-existent threats
  6. CDC wastes billions of dollars and cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease
  7. CDC hires researchers to create bogus studies
  8. CDC does not protect the population, but promotes whatever agenda those who control the White House [the international banksters] wish advanced
  9. CDC pays public health institutions and even has employees stationed in their state offices
  10. CDC ignores congressional reports and/or hearings
  11. CDC actively discredits/destroys reputable researchers
  12. CDC bilks insurance companies out of billions of dollars by knowingly creating disease through their massive vaccination programs
  13. CDC hires private think-tank corporations to produce phoney ‘consensus’ science reports
  14. CDC promotes the dumping of toxic wastes from the chemical fertilizer industry into public drinking water in the name of ‘fluoridation’ contributing to ill health
  15. CDC has a long and nasty relationship with the CIA

While most physicians and public health workers may be unaware of the depth of the cover-up regarding vaccines, the harm they are causing is incalculable and the damage being inflicted on us and our children is devastating. Since the illnesses or injuries caused by toxic vaccines frequently don’t show up for weeks or even years, the medical industrial complex maintains plausible deniability.

Many good physicians have come forward (like those affiliated with the International Medical Council on Vaccination) and exposed the dangers of vaccines as have CDC whistle-blowers. The truth is everywhere. [See: CDC Exposed]

Question: Why would legislators trust any recommendation coming from the CDC?

Answer: They wouldn’t . . .  if they were told the truth.

Which organization in this movement is willing to get past the vaccination “choice” argument and help advance the truth i.e. the CDC and their so-called recommendations cannot be trusted AT ALL!

Here is a 40 minute interview with Dr David Lewis, former CDC/EPA employee and author of Science for Sale, blowing the whistle on the CDC, et al:

Dr David Lewis on In Defense of Humanity



AL Whitney
Retired Registered Respiratory Therapist Former Court Appointed Special Advocate for Children Spouse of a retired Family Practitioner

People for Safe Technologies

Save Children At Risk – Demand Release of Trial Data On Dangerous Vaccine – Help Yourself, Your Children and Others – Tell The Director, Christian Medical College, “Release Rotavirus Vaccine Trial Data”

Vaccines which kill and injure children are unacceptable.  This is why you are asked to sign the petition linked to below. The problem with the rotavirus vaccine is it can kill.  The other problem is the rotavirus is no risk to your child.

Read on for why. 

30 Seconds of your time could save a child’s life, so click the link and sign the petition:

To Director, Christian Medical College: Release Rotavirus Vaccine Trial Data

Rotavirus vaccine is given to children to interrupt the circulation of the rotavirus to prevent diahorrea.  In developed western economies this is not a killer disease.  The vaccine is part of a programme directed to eradication of the virus.  Your child gets the vaccine because some anonymous officials have decided they don’t want to develop a proper treatment.  They want to be heroes and claim the credit for eradicating a disease which is no threat to your child or any child in your entire country.  It does not seem to matter who gets in the way.  That your healthy child is put at risk of death on the way somehow does not seem important to some of them.  That larger numbers of third world economy children are put at risk also seems not so important – just as long as no one identifies and names those concerned as pushing a killer vaccine.

Rotavirus vaccine causes some children’s intestine to fold into or collapse into itself.  This is called intussusception.  It is dangerous and a killer.  It seems that many if not all rotavirus vaccines have this problem.  So if you are in a developed western country you have every right to insist 1) your child is not given a rotavirus vaccine and 2) those who push the vaccines develop effective treatments instead for the very few who might have a problem with the virus.

This killer vaccine is no benefit to your healthy baby, but is a threat even to your baby in the USA:  Intussusception Risk after Rotavirus Vaccination in U.S. Infants N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1766May 1, 2014DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1402790.  This “telescoping” often blocks food or fluid from passing through. Intussusception also cuts off the blood supply to the part of the intestine that’s affected. Intussusception can lead to a tear in the bowel (perforation), infection and death of bowel tissue. It requires an x-ray and surgery to diagnose and correct the situation.

See the end of this post for a list of the top countries listed where rotavirus is of zero risk and for those where it is near negligible risk.

So you should be asking, why is my baby being given this vaccine?  And if you are in the USA, with the imminent introduction of the US “Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015” you have to ask why is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices mandating a useless vaccine for my child which only puts my child at risk of death.  Under the Bill currently before Congress your child has to have vaccines ACIP mandates – no if’s, no but’s and no religious or conscientious exemptions and even if the vaccine is pointless and puts your child at risk including of death – like rotavirus vaccine [courtesy of Dr Paul Offit].

This brings us to the science and the main topic of this post.  Rotavirus Vaccine 116E has according to a letter in the journal Vaccine in 2015, been tested in only 4532 infants (4532 received vaccine; 2187 were controls). There was an excess of 11 cases of intussusception per 10,000 vaccinated. This is 5 to 10 times higher than the risk of intussusception with Rotashield vaccine (which was withdrawn from the market) and nearly 70 times higher than the risk of intussusception with the current, internationally licensed vaccine, RotaTeq.  Ultrasound evidence of intussusception was found in 17 who had received the 116E vaccine (3.75/1000 or 37.5/10,000) and in 6 babies receiving placebo (2.636/1000 or 26.36/10,000): Letter to Editor – Intussusception risk with 116E rotavirus vaccine in Vellore, South India. Drs Jalaj Bajaj & Jacob M. Puliyel Vaccine 2015

So please click the link and sign this petition:

To Director, Christian Medical College: Release Rotavirus Vaccine Trial Data

The WHO has said it is unethical not to disclose data from a trial of this nature. Instead of disclosing the data, there is concern it is planned to do an uncontrolled trial in 100,000 more children exposing them to risk of death without disclosing the data from the previous trial. The full data must be provided from the Vellore trial.

Intussusception rates varied in the different regions studied by John and colleagues. In Vellore it was 581/100,000 child-years and in Delhi it was much lower – 27.7/100,000 child-years. John J, et al Active surveillance for intussusception in a phase III efficacy trial of an oral mono-valent rotavirus vaccine in India. Vaccine 2014;32 (August (Suppl. 1)):A104–9.

The regional differences in intussusception rates could mean that it may be more risky to use the vaccine in some areas. The authors called for segregated data from Vellore for vaccinated and control where the intussusceptions cases were highest. This data could also point out if a certain section of the population were more susceptible to adverse effects. However despite several attempts the data is not being shared which is a cause for great concern.

We would request the Director, Christian Medical College to release the trial data as per the recent WHO call for ethics and transparency in research.

Don’t be pushed around by some of the thugs and bullies who accuse people concerned for children’s safety that they are “anti-vaccine” instead of pro children’s safety.  They are encouraged by Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum or some thugs and bullies amongst those individuals who congregate at Dr David Gorski’s rants on the non-science or near science-free “scienceblogs” blog or by the likes of Dr Paul Offit, who attacks anyone whilst making money from his own rotavirus patents: Paul Offit – Liar “Doctor of Vaccine Profit” Voted His Patented Rotavirus Vaccine For US Children When On Vaccine Safety Committee.


A word of warning about the statistics.  These are World Health Organisation estimates.  In CHS’s opinion WHO is not a reliable source of data and their estimates can be what we believe is exaggerated.  Do not forget that it was the WHO’s SAGE Committee headed by the UK’s Professor David Salisbury which brought us the swine flu debacle and at least 800 children who developed the serious condition of narcolepsy from GSK’s in our view near pointless for children swine flu vaccine.  Some of the people who push vaccines appear in our opinion to be fanatics who do not listen to science, ethics or reason.

ISO3 Country 2008 rotavirus deaths, aged < 5 95%
confidence interval
 < 5 rota mortality rate (per 100 000 population < 5)
AND Andorra <10 0 -10 0 0.1
ARE United Arab Emirates <10 0 -10 0 0.3
AUS Australia <10 0 -10 0 0.2
AUT Austria <10 0 -10 0 0.2
BEL Belgium <10 0 -10 0 0.5
BHS Bahamas <10 0 -10 0 0.1
BLR Belarus <10 0 -10 0 0.1
BRB Barbados <10 0 -10 0 0.0
BRN Brunei Darussalam <10 0 -10 0 0.2
CAN Canada <10 0 -10 0 0.0
CHE Switzerland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
CHL Chile <10 0 -10 0 0.1
COK Cook Islands <10 0 -10 0 0.0
CYP Cyprus <10 0 -10 0 0.1
CZE Czech Republic <10 0 -10 0 0.3
DEU Germany <10 0 -10 0 0.1
DMA Dominica <10 0 -10 0 0.0
DNK Denmark <10 0 -10 0 0.4
ESP Spain <10 0 -10 0 0.1
EST Estonia <10 0 -10 0 0.0
FIN Finland <10 0 -10 0 0.2
FRA France 18 12 – 23 0 0.5
GBR United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
GRC Greece <10 0 -10 0 0.0
GRD Grenada <10 0 -10 0 0.0
HUN Hungary <10 0 -10 0 0.1
IRL Ireland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
ISL Iceland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
ISR Israel <10 0 -10 0 0.0
ITA Italy <10 0 -10 0 0.0
JPN Japan 20 14 – 26 0 0.5
KNA Saint Kitts and Nevis <10 0 -10 0 0.0
KOR Republic of Korea <10 0 -10 0 0.1
KWT Kuwait <10 0 -10 0 0.2
LUX Luxembourg <10 0 -10 0 0.0
LVA Latvia <10 0 -10 0 0.0
MCO Monaco <10 0 -10 0 0.1
MLT Malta <10 0 -10 0 0.0
MNE Montenegro <10 0 -10 0 0.0
NLD Netherlands <10 0 -10 0 0.2
NOR Norway <10 0 -10 0 0.5
NZL New Zealand <10 0 -10 0 0.2
POL Poland <10 0 -10 0 0.0
PRT Portugal <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SGP Singapore <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SMR San Marino <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SRB Serbia <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SVK Slovakia <10 0 -10 0 0.1
SVN Slovenia <10 0 -10 0 0.0
SWE Sweden <10 0 -10 0 0.3
SYC Seychelles <10 0 -10 0 0.0
USA United States of America 14 10 – 19 0 0.0
VCT Saint Vincent and the Grenadines <10 0 -10 0 0.0
ARG Argentina 45 41 – 49 1 0.4
BGR Bulgaria <10 0 -10 1 0.3
BHR Bahrain <10 0 -10 1 0.3
BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina <10 0 -10 1 0.5
CRI Costa Rica <10 0 -10 1 0.3
CUB Cuba <10 0 -10 1 0.7
HRV Croatia <10 0 -10 1 0.6
LCA Saint Lucia <10 0 -10 1 0.2
LTU Lithuania <10 0 -10 1 0.3
MUS Mauritius <10 0 -10 1 0.4
MYS Malaysia 15 14 – 16 1 0.4
NIU Niue <10 0 -10 1 0.3
QAT Qatar <10 0 -10 1 0.6
ROU Romania 14 13 – 16 1 0.4
RUS Russian Federation 90 82 – 99 1 0.4
UKR Ukraine 16 14 – 17 1 0.2
ATG Antigua and Barbuda <10 0 -10 2 0.9
TTO Trinidad and Tobago <10 0 -10 2 0.4
URY Uruguay <10 0 -10 2 0.9
ALB Albania <10 0 -10 3 0.7
ARM Armenia <10 0 -10 3 0.7
LBN Lebanon <10 0 -10 3 0.5
MDA Republic of Moldova <10 0 -10 3 0.6
MKD The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia <10 0 -10 3 1.1
OMN Oman <10 0 -10 3 1.1
THA Thailand 153 139 – 168 3 1.2
TUR Turkey 188 171 – 206 3 0.7
TUV Tuvalu <10 0 -10 3 0.4
LKA Sri Lanka 72 65 – 78 4 1.0
MEX Mexico 464 422 – 507 4 1.1
BRA Brazil 857 780 – 937 5 1.3
CHN China 4161 3,783 – 4,548 5 1.2
LBY Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 38 35 – 42 5 1.4
PLW Palau <10 0 -10 5 1.1
COL Colombia 282 256 – 308 6 1.5
KAZ Kazakhstan 92 84 – 101 6 0.7
SLV El Salvador 34 31 – 38 6 1.4
FJI Fiji <10 0 -10 7 1.9
SYR Syrian Arab Republic 173 158 – 190 7 2.1
VNM Viet Nam 524 476 – 572 7 1.3
VUT Vanuatu <10 0 -10 7 2.1
BLZ Belize <10 0 -10 8 2.2
SAU Saudi Arabia 241 219 – 263 8 2.1
SUR Suriname <10 0 -10 8 1.3
TUN Tunisia 68 62 – 75 8 2.1
EGY Egypt 819 697 – 945 9 1.8
MDV Maldives <10 0 -10 9 2.4
PER Peru 277 244 – 311 9 2.1
SLB Solomon Islands <10 0 -10 9 1.6
TON Tonga <10 0 -10 9 2.8
VEN Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 251 228 – 275 9 2.2
JOR Jordan 75 68 – 82 10 2.0
MNG Mongolia 26 24 – 29 10 1.2
ECU Ecuador 162 143 – 182 11 2.4
PAN Panama 38 34 – 41 11 2.5
WSM Samoa <10 0 -10 12 3.0
FSM Micronesia (Federated States of) <10 0 -10 13 1.5
GEO Georgia 35 32 – 38 14 2.6
PHL Philippines 1564 1,422 – 1,710 14 2.2
NRU Nauru <10 0 -10 15 1.8
PRY Paraguay 121 110 – 132 16 3.1
GUY Guyana 17 15 – 18 22 3.9
NIC Nicaragua 147 130 – 165 22 3.5
NAM Namibia 66 56 – 76 23 2.4
CPV Cape Verde 13 11 – 15 24 3.1
DOM Dominican Republic 274 249 – 300 26 4.4
HND Honduras 257 234 – 281 27 5.0
MHL Marshall Islands <10 0 -10 28 5.0
BWA Botswana 67 57 – 78 30 2.8
PNG Papua New Guinea 277 252 – 303 30 2.2
PRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 517 440 – 595 30 4.4
JAM Jamaica 78 71 – 85 32 6.1
IRN Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1974 1,795 – 2,158 33 5.3
DZA Algeria 1173 998 – 1,354 34 4.2
LAO Lao People’s Democratic Republic 281 256 – 307 40 3.2
UZB Uzbekistan 1091 992 – 1,193 41 3.4
AZE Azerbaijan 329 299 – 360 44 3.6
MAR Morocco 1316 1,121 – 1,520 44 5.4
IDN Indonesia 9970 9,066 – 10,899 45 5.8
IRQ Iraq 2257 1,921 – 2,598 46 5.4
KGZ Kyrgyzstan 259 236 – 283 48 5.1
GAB Gabon 95 81 – 109 52 3.2
LSO Lesotho 143 122 – 165 52 2.5
ZWE Zimbabwe 903 769 – 1,043 54 2.9
TKM Turkmenistan 284 259 – 311 55 4.4
ZAF South Africa 2882 2,454 – 3,328 56 4.1
KIR Kiribati <10 0 -10 60 5.8
GHA Ghana 2090 1,780 – 2,413 61 3.6
KHM Cambodia 921 837 – 1,007 61 4.8
TLS Timor-Leste 114 97 – 131 63 4.5
BGD Bangladesh 9857 8,392 – 11,347 65 6.0
GTM Guatemala 1502 1,323 – 1,684 71 9.8
NPL Nepal 2601 2,214 – 2,994 72 6.6
SWZ Swaziland 112 95 – 129 72 3.9
BOL Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 946 833 – 1,061 76 6.2
IND India 98621 83,958 – 113,521 77 5.5
STP Sao Tome and Principe 18 16 – 21 78 4.6
MDG Madagascar 2787 2,374 – 3,218 88 6.0
ERI Eritrea 730 621 – 842 89 6.1
SEN Senegal 1951 1,661 – 2,252 98 5.4
BTN Bhutan 72 61 – 83 99 7.7
TJK Tajikistan 865 787 – 946 101 7.0
MWI Malawi 2558 2,178 – 2,954 102 4.3
GMB Gambia 290 247 – 335 104 4.6
COM Comoros 126 107 – 145 107 5.4
TZA United Republic of Tanzania 8171 6,958 – 9,434 108 5.8
CIV Côte d’Ivoire 3393 2,889 – 3,917 116 4.1
MOZ Mozambique 4481 3,815 – 5,173 116 3.6
MMR Myanmar 4717 4,016 – 5,430 119 8.1
COG Congo 723 616 – 835 121 5.8
BEN Benin 1757 1,496 – 2,029 122 4.5
LBR Liberia 771 656 – 890 122 4.8
TGO Togo 1050 894 – 1,212 123 5.3
KEN Kenya 8005 6,817 – 9,243 125 6.4
DJI Djibouti 142 121 – 165 128 6.2
GNQ Equatorial Guinea 131 112 – 152 129 4.5
YEM Yemen 5094 4,337 – 5,864 132 7.4
SDN Sudan 8450 7,195 – 9,756 135 5.9
GIN Guinea 2328 1,982 – 2,687 145 4.6
MRT Mauritania 780 664 – 900 156 6.3
ZMB Zambia 3617 3,080 – 4,176 160 5.9
NGA Nigeria 41057 34,960 – 47,402 161 4.7
UGA Uganda 10637 9,058 – 12,281 173 7.3
CAF Central African Republic 1162 989 – 1,341 181 4.9
HTI Haiti 2234 1,968 – 2,505 182 10.3
PAK Pakistan 39144 33,324 – 45,058 191 9.5
CMR Cameroon 5825 4,960 – 6,725 196 6.2
RWA Rwanda 3472 2,957 – 4,009 206 8.8
SLE Sierra Leone 2058 1,752 – 2,376 218 5.0
BFA Burkina Faso 6228 5,303 – 7,191 222 5.3
ETH Ethiopia 28218 24,028 – 32,579 235 9.8
NER Niger 7473 6,363 – 8,627 258 7.3
MLI Mali 7253 6,176 – 8,374 262 6.1
AGO Angola 8788 7,483 – 10,147 263 6.9
GNB Guinea-Bissau 641 545 – 740 273 7.7
COD Democratic Republic of the Congo 32653 27,804 – 37,699 283 7.0
BDI Burundi 3561 3,032 – 4,111 314 9.5
SOM Somalia 5110 4,351 – 5,899 317 7.6
TCD Chad 6347 5,405 – 7,328 327 8.0
AFG Afghanistan 25423 21,643 – 29,263 474 13.8


Andrew Wakefield Phone In Tomorrow Sunday – Blog Talk Radio – 15th February


What have vaccines done to your kids. Have CPS social services taken your children after vaccine damages ? PRO AND ANTI VACCINE’S PLEASE TUNE IN.

CALL USA 3476770812
CALL UK 01444 390270



Officials Covered Up “Massive” UK Measles Outbreak in Highly MMR Vaccinated Children & Adults – Officials Withheld The Evidence – Parents Not Warned – Children Unprotected – BBC Directly Implicated

In 2012 and 2013 outbreaks of measles occurred in large numbers of children and adults in areas of highly vaccinated populations in the North of England.   The North of England outbreaks involved the same MMR vaccine in use in the USA, Merck’s MMR II. 

Instead of warning parents in the North that their children were at risk and taking precautionary measures, nothing was said.  The British public were not told the MMR vaccine was failing to protect children from measles. 

A classic diversionary misinformation tactic was employed by British health officials to cover up this major failure of the MMR vaccine to protect children from an age old childhood disease.

CHS brings its readers full details of the official figures with extracts of the official documents in which they appeared.

As CHS previously reported, a journal paper published in 2012 reported that Merck’s MMR II vaccine was not working and a new vaccine was called for by the author: Mayo Clinic Expert Confirms Measles Vaccine Is Failing – So it’s NOT the unvaccinated.

In January and February 2013 there were 265 laboratory confirmed cases of measles in the North of England reported on Page 4 Health Protection Briefing Note 2013-19 Measles outbreak in England Jan+Feb 2013 authorised to be published by Dr Mary Ramsey of Public Health England Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control (CIDSC). These were over half the confirmed cases in the whole of England in 2013 up to that time [450 laboratory confirmed cases]. 

The rate of overreporting of measles cases meant only 1 in 4 reported cases were measles, so 450 cases translates to approximately 1800 reported cases with over 900 of those notifications being in the North of England:

[Click on Table to enlarge and view in a new window]

Table confirmed cases from Health Protection Briefing Note 2013-19 Measles outbreak in England Jan+Feb 2013

It was predictable that the North of England measles outbreaks in these highly vaccinated populations could cause outbreaks elsewhere in the UK. And it seems they did.

In comparison to the already far higher numbers in the North of England which had started at the beginning of November 2013, the position in Wales was comparatively insignificant.  By 7th February 2013 there had been approximately 40 laboratory confirmed cases in Wales. The October 2013 final report into the Welsh outbreaks confirmed there had been 168 measles notifications compared by that time to the 1800 notifications in England and exceeding 900 in the North of England.

UK government health officials in early 2013, lead by Dr Mary Ramsey of Health Protection England, deliberately focussed attention on smaller outbreaks in South Wales and the public were not warned about the scale of measles outbreaks in the North of England.  The media were generally not kept informed about what was happening in the North.  It was made to look like the whole of the UK was put at risk by the vaccination dissenters in Wales.  The truth and the official statistics indicate the reverse.  The failure of the MMR vaccine was putting the country at risk of measles outbreaks.  Wales was used to divert attention.

Outbreaks in the UK were in effect being blamed on the many dissenting parents in Wales who were justifiably undecided about vaccination for their children in view of the serious risks vaccination poses to far too many children and the relatively low risk in comparison that measles in reality poses.  Every week over months all the news in the UK about measles was about Wales and the parents who had not vaccinated their children. There were weekly media briefings and press releases over months.  Little to nothing was said about the position in the North. 

Dr Mary Ramsey and others used the opportunity to create a scare by focussing on Wales and not publicising the scale of the pre-existing outbreaks in the heavily MMR vaccinated North of England which predated those in Wales and which it seems may have caused them.  This appears to have been a cynical attempt to increase the vaccination statistics in areas of lower vaccination uptake. 

As the expectant and then shortly after appointed Head of Immunisation, Public Health England, Dr Ramsey would be judged on her performance in getting children vaccinated.  So this gives the impression, perhaps unfairly and perhaps not, that the entire affair of measles vaccinations in England and how the outbreaks were publicised [and not publicised] were influenced by the internal political interests in Public Health England.  The priority was clearly to vaccinate.  Warning parents their vaccinated children were at risk from a failing MMR vaccine was not.

And its was done despite officials knowing Merck’s MMR II vaccine was not working as it was claimed publicly that it did.

By the end of August 2013 there had been 757 confirmed cases in the North as published in Health Protection Report Vol 7 No. 40 – 4 October 2013:

[Click on Table to enlarge and view in a new window]

Table Confirmed Cases from 2013 England confirmed - to End Aug hpr4013These figures did not include any cases from September to December 2012. In comparison, in Wales there had been in total of 432 cases confirmed with onset dates between 1 November 2012 and 16 June 2013, as reported in the October 2013 final report into the Welsh outbreaks.  The North of England had over twice the number of confirmed cases in a shorter period.

And putting all of this into context, the numbers in Wales and in the North of England were extremely low compared to the tens of thousands of cases in the 1960s and earlier which health officials even today use to claim 1 in 1000 children will die from measles when that is knowingly a serious untruth.  In the 1960s British doctors did not panic over a few cases of measles as CHS reported here with quotes from the British Medical Journal in 1959: British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is.

The role of the BBC, the UK’s public service broadcaster, paid for by a direct tax, a licence fee levy on all households having a television, shows that it acts as a mouthpiece for the establishment and fails to carry out the task of responsible journalism and news reporting.  When the Welsh outbreaks were dying out, a presentation was prepared on 24 April 2013 by Dr Mary Ramsey, Head of Immunisation, Public Health England and presented to the media

Following Dr Ramsey’s presentation, and using most of its charts and graphics, the BBC published a news story on

Measles outbreak in maps and graphics

How had Dr Ramsey briefed the BBC to describe the position in the highly vaccinated North?  This is what and how the BBC reported:

The cases at the opposite end of England have been put down to bad luck, despite the relatively high levels of vaccination there.”

It is a scandal of the 21st Century that there is still no effective treatment for children who contract measles.  The most powerful nation in the world cannot protect its children against a simple centuries old disease which is steadily dying out and that there is no effective treatment for measles.  What is the US NIH spending its US$40 billion tax dollar budget on each year and why is it not spent on a simple effective treatment for measles. 

Despite vaccination millions of children still die in third world economies from basic childhood diseases.  If instead there were an effective treatment for diseases like measles those lives could be saved. 

The President of the United States is the President of a country which has to watch from the sidelines as nuclear powers like India lead the world into space. He remains unable to protect US children from basic childhood diseases when the US has the ability to develop effective treatments to save lives.

It is also a scandal that the President of the United States has recently effectively demanded and bullied parents into vaccinating their children risking serious conditions like 1 in 60 developing autism as a result of vaccination and threatening them with all-out compulsory vaccination even for those children for whom vaccination poses a clear and present danger of serious consequences and even death.

As for the measles vaccine, for a supposedly well-established vaccine there are quite a large number of current measles vaccine trials:

1 Recruiting Immunogenicity and Safety of GSK Biologicals’ Combined Measles-mumps-rubella Vaccine in Volunteers, Seven Years of Age and Older

Conditions: Rubella;   Mumps;   Measles
Interventions: Biological: Priorix®;   Biological: Merck’s M-M-R®II, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine
2 Recruiting Immunogenicity and Safety Study of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Biologicals’ Combined Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) Vaccine in Subjects Four to Six Years of Age

Conditions: Rubella;   Mumps;   Measles
Interventions: Biological: Priorix®;   Biological: Merck’s M-M-R®II, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine (also known as M-M-R Vax Pro™);   Biological: Kinrix®;   Biological: Varivax®
3 Recruiting Safety and Immunogenicity Study of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Biologicals’ Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine (209762) Compared to Merck & Co., Inc.’s MMR Vaccine in Healthy Children 12 to 15 Months of Age

Condition: Measles; Mumps; Rubella
Interventions: Biological: GSK Biologicals measles, mumps and rubella vaccine live (GSK 209762);   Biological: Merck & Co., Inc.’s M-M-R®II (also called M-M-R Vax Pro®), combined measles-mumps-rubella virus vaccine;   Biological: Varivax® (Merck & Co., Inc.);   Biological: Havrix®;   Biological: Prevnar 13® (Pfizer Inc.)
4 Not yet recruiting Study of Immunogenicity, Reactogenicity and Safety of the Combined Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine Produced by Bio-Manguinhos/Fiocruz in Children 12-15 Months of Age, Followed by Tetraviral Vaccine in Children 15-18 Months.

Conditions: Measles;   Mumps;   Rubella;   Varicella
Interventions: Biological: MMR  Bio-Manguinhos;   Biological: MMR GlaxoSmithKline

6 Recruiting

Safety & Immunogenicity of MMR Vaccine by DSJI to That by Needle-Syringe in 15-18 Months Old Children

Condition: Immune Response to MMR Vaccine
Intervention: Biological: MMR vaccine

Vaccines Proven To Cause Sudden Death in Children – 67 Deaths Only Explicable As Caused By Vaccines – Drug Safety Regulators Had The Information for Over 2 Years And Let Children Die

This confirmation vaccines cause children to die suddenly was published this month on the US National Library of Medicine’s website.

For decades regulators and public health officials have insisted parents were wrong to blame vaccines when their children died suddenly shortly after vaccination.  It was coincidence they would say – nothing more. 

The deaths were no more than the number usually to be expected they would add.

But all the time drug safety regulators appear to have been holding the evidence.

A confidential 1271 page GSK document ordered recently by an Italian Court to be published shows that multiple vaccines cause sudden child deaths.  [The document is a formal confidential previously unpublished submission by GlaxoSmithKline to the European Medicines Agency from 2011 and 2012.]

The GSK document contains data about deaths occurring as a result of administration of Prevenar 13 vaccine [from Pfizer], Infanrix Hexa from GSK and some other vaccines.  Prevenar 13 is given to all British children.

The analysis has been published on the US National Library of Medicines website using the data GSK provided to the European Medicines Agency.  The data is conclusive.  It is very clear and there is no room for argument.

And the analysis is simple.  Anyone can understand it.  The very plain data the document contains proves the matter without any doubt whatsoever.

Here is the one of the points from the published analysis [but there is more to read online].  It is not rocket science but very simple to understand:

(Source: Table 36 The GlaxoSmithKline Biological Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance report to Regulatory Authority)…… if one analyses the data looking at deaths in first 10 days after administration of vaccine and compares it to the deaths in the next 10 days, it is clear that 97% of deaths (65 deaths) in the infants below 1 year, occur in the first 10 days and 3% (2 deaths) occur in the next 10 days. Had the deaths been coincidental SIDS deaths unrelated to vaccination, the numbers of deaths in the two 10 day periods should have been the same. Similarly in children older than 1 year, 87.5% deaths (7 deaths) occurred in the first 10 days and 12.5% (1 death) occurred in the next 10 days.

Here is the data presented in a way that the clustering of deaths can be seen clearly [click on the table to open a larger version in a new window]:
20150210 GSK PSUR 15+16 Infanrix Hexa Deaths

The clustering of deaths around the time of vaccination demonstrates a link between the vaccination and the sudden deaths. It indicates this is not by chance as otherwise the deaths would be spread across the entire 20 days. Rather than showing the total deaths each day, GlaxoSmithKline showed the cumulative figures which had the effect of disguising the clustering of deaths around vaccination. They did this by listing the cumulative number of deaths. So by day 19 after vaccination GSK’s total was 67 deaths. But there had only been two deaths in those last 10 days and not 67. In contrast 65 deaths occurred on the first day of vaccination up to the 10th day following vaccination.

And here you can see GSK’s Table 36.  The way it is prepared disguises the clustering of deaths around the time of vaccination – the total cumulative number of deaths up to 10 days from vaccination is 65.  That number over the next 10 days increases by only 2.  So in 10 days there were 65 deaths and between day 11 to day 20 after vaccination there were only another two deaths.  So only the vaccine can be the cause of this:

TABLE 36  20111216 GSK Infanrix Hexa Summary Bridging Report 16-12-2011

The worst aspect is that the Observed to Expected ratio of deaths reported compared to deaths expected if the vaccine was not the cause was based on numbers of doses.  As each child was meant to receive three doses and not one, the Expected number of deaths was based on a population three times greater than it was, calculated by how many doses of the vaccines were distributed as if each child received only one dose.

Further, the day of vaccination and the prior day is when the Healthy Vaccinee Effect is greatest.  In short on those days the chance of a vaccinated child having some other illness including one which might result in a sudden death is very low – and can be expected to be less than a 0.1 chance relatively.  This arises because parents tend to avoid having their child vaccinated when unwell.  Over the day of vaccination and succeeding six days  the chance of illness rises practically linearly to return to chance of 1 relatively.  The Expected calculation for the seven days starting on the day of vaccination relied on a correction of 0.8 which is several times higher than appropriate for the first few days following vaccination.  And no adjustment was made for under reporting of adverse events.

All of these factors resulted in the ratio of Observed deaths to those Expected calculated by GSK was much more than three times lower than it should have been. So for the day of vaccination with 16 observed deaths, substantially fewer than that would be expected.

This is how GSK presented their formula:

GSK OE Formula cropped

Here is a serious issue.  This kind of information is routinely provided to regulators like the MHRA but never made public.  On the one occasion such a document is published as a result of the actions of a judge in an Italian Court it is possible to show beyond any doubt that multiple vaccines cause sudden deaths in children.

This appears a serious failing of European regulators.

All the EU regulators including the MHRA have had this information for at least three years and failed to act on it.

Further, the MHRA has an agreement with the drug industry not to publish information like this despite the provisions of the UK Freedom of Information Act.

And here is an example of how slanted news reporting is.  The following report is not an independent objective balanced report of the facts:

Dawn Papple, Independent Outsourced Freelance Writer, Social Media Marketer, Independent Contractor

It is by someone called Dawn Papple apparently from the Greater Detroit Area USA who lists her working activities as Independent Outsourced Freelance Writer, Freelance Writer, Social Media Marketer, Graphic Designer, Independent Contractor.

This appears to be a somewhat racist press report, referring to the information being just from India and “the doctor from Delhi” [as if we can all ignore it] and claims the issue is being raised by “anti-vaccine” proponents.  It does not address properly the safety of children nor does it contain any proper overview of the real risks of disease for  children against the risks of vaccines nor why there are real causes for concern.

There is clearly an intentional bias.  Criticising the original edition of this CHS article, prior to this revision to review Papple’s report, Papple states:

The doctor who analyzed the data did not state that there was no room for argument, though. He did not brazenly state that the hexavalent Infanrix vaccine causes sudden death in babies.

It may not have been “brazen” as Papple writes emotionally, but it does look like he did and Papple knows that.  She wrote earlier in the article that the doctor stated:

this demonstrates a link between the vaccination event and the sudden deaths.”

Dawn Papple does not question whether the information GSK provided is reliable and downplays the way GSK disguised the clustering of deaths around the time of vaccination stating, as if it were the wrong approach [emphasis added]:

Rather than compounding the total deaths each day, as in the documents found online, the pediatrics doctor suggests we examine how many more deaths happened right after the vaccine was given compared to as the days went by. He said this demonstrates a link between the vaccination event and the sudden deaths.

A substantial omission from Dawn Papple’s article is she does not discuss that GSK has been caught, found guilty of and fined substantial sums of money for serious misconduct including paying up with the largest health fraud settlement in US history.  But Dawn Papple takes as true what GSK says compared to a doctor who with courage has reported publicly this problem with vaccine caused sudden deaths which GSK kept secret and reported in a disguised manner to the safety regulators. 

CHS has reported on GSK’s problems with fraud and the like before.  Here is an example:

GSK Fined US$3 BILLION – largest health fraud settlement in U.S. history

Remarkably, Papple claims this CHS article is by “an anti-vaccine advocate from Child Health Safety“.  She has no information to support such a spurious claim and when CHS is pro-safety, democracy and informed and free choice.  Papple it would seem is against.

Absent from the report is the issue that parents are told vaccines are entirely safe when they are not. Also absent from the report is the fact that vaccines are given to children the majority of whom especially in the western world are highly unlikely to suffer serious adverse effects of disease.

In other words normal healthy children are being given vaccines which can kill some of them who may never have a problem from the childhood diseases concerned, even if they caught them. 

The report also fails to address the fact that no effective treatments for basic well-known longstanding childhood diseases have been developed.  That is a scandal in the scientific 21st Century.  If there were effective treatments vaccines would not be needed.

So not only will the public will not get balanced information, here you can see attacks against the dissemination of information via social media.

With mainstream media reporting about vaccination issues being successfully made a near blackout except for reports promoting vaccines, this article shows how the next targets are likely to be shutting down social media and the internet for people to get information about vaccine issues.

Here from the report is a dubious claim which contradicts and downplays under-reporting of adverse vaccine reactions:

According to the statistics within the document, even if the doctor from Delhi’s fears are spot on, the risk of sudden death, while existent, would also be exceptionally rare after vaccination with the hexavalent Infanrix vaccine.”

Earlier in the report it refers to adverse vaccine reactions being under-reported but fails to explain how substantially under-reported they are.  So the information in the GSK document represents a small fraction of the problems of adverse vaccine reactions.

And interestingly, this article, seemingly reviewing the GSK document and many other publications also has been written in a very short space of time when the material concerned is extensive and would require a very long time to consider it.  It also contains no quotes from sources approached by the author, Dawn Papple, to support what she has written including the statements she makes as if of fact and the opinions she expresses [with no medical or scientific qualifications]. That is very poor journalism in our view.

The GSK document is 1271 pages alone.  Journalists normally do not have that kind of time.  This article is written by someone who describes her work as Independent Outsourced Freelance Writer, Freelance Writer, Social Media Marketer, Graphic Designer, Independent Contractor.

If you were to form the opinion that her publication is trash journalism, you might be right and we would agree.

WARNING TO PARENTS – Protect Your Child From Another Clearly Dangerous Vaccine – HPV [Gardasil & Cervarix] – And The Common Corruption in Government Public Health Agencies

Here you can see at a glance why this vaccine should be withdrawn worldwide and ask yourself why do health officials promote such dangerous, ineffective, unaffordable and unnecessary vaccine programmes.  CHS has previously reported on this vaccine:

SaneVax is an international non-profit organization working with representatives in over 25 countries. SaneVax believes vaccines should be scientifically proven safe, affordable, necessary and effective.  The SaneVax Team say they cannot support HPV vaccination programs for the following reasons:


  • HPV vaccines account for nearly 25% of the reports on the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. VAERS was established in 1990. HPV vaccines were introduced 16 years later in mid-2006.  And there are over 80 other vaccines approved for use in the United States.  Since the introduction of HPV vaccines [including Gardasil and Cervarix]:

    • reports of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis [ADEM] have increased over 1,000%;
    • infertility reports increased 790%;
    • reports of blindness increased 188%;
    • spontaneous abortions by 270%.
  • when 24,000 girls were injected with HPV vaccines during ‘demonstration projects’ an estimated 5% (1200) were left with chronic health problems and/or autoimmune disorders;
  • Japan withdrew the government recommendation for the administration of HPV vaccines after only 6 weeks when reports of adverse events after Gardasil were 26 times higher than the annual flu shot;
    • reports after Cervarix were 52 times higher than the annual flu shot;
    • 24.9% of the adverse events reported were considered serious.
  • Denmark reports that 24% of the adverse events reported after HPV vaccinations were considered serious.
  • adverse events reports in Italy are ten times higher than most other vaccines – at a rate of 219/100,000. The cervical cancer rate in Italy is 7.7/100,000.


  • HPV vaccination programs do not eliminate the need for pap screening, they simply add the price of 3 injections to already overburdened healthcare systems around the globe.
  • There is an already proven safe and effective method of controlling cervical cancer in most developed countries – pap screening and good gynecological follow-up. Countries without this practice in place would be money ahead to spend their healthcare budget developing the infrastructure to provide this type of care.
  • Cervical cancer causes 2.3 deaths/100,000 women in the United States. The cost of 3 doses of HPV vaccine for 100,000 women is an estimated $30,000,000 ($100/dose) to try and eliminate less than 3 deaths which could have been avoided with pap screening and good gynecological follow-up. How many medical professionals could be trained and/or medical facilities built with that same 30 million dollars?


  • The human papillomavirus has never been proven to cause cancer by itself. Other risk factors must also be present in order to prompt the development of cancer.
  • According to the World Health Organization, only 0.15% of all people exposed to any high-risk strain of HPV will ever develop cervical cancer. The vast majority of HPV ‘infections’ are benign and cause no medical problem whatsoever.
  • HPV type prevalence varies greatly from one region to the next. Are the HPV types targeted by current vaccines the same ones prevalent in your country?
  • There is no excuse for exposing the female population of the world to the risks involved with HPV vaccination when there is an already proven safe, affordable, necessary and effective means of controlling cervical cancer.


  • According to the World Health Organization, only 1% of CIN1 progresses to the next stage, only 1.5% of CIN2 progresses. Only 12% of CIN3 lesions, which are actually considered a pre-cursors to cancer. Nevertheless, the FDA allowed the manufacturers of HPV vaccines to use these often self-reversing abnormal lesions as endpoints to judge the efficacy of their products.
  • The other endpoint used to predict efficacy was antibody titers. No one has determined what level of antibodies is necessary to prevent HPV infections. It is simply assumed that the higher the antibody titer level, the better the potential protection.
  • HPV vaccines have not been clinically proven to prevent a single case of cancer.
  • There is no guarantee that eliminating one risk factor for the development of cervical cancer will have any impact on the disease incidence or mortality rate.
  • It will take more than 20 years to determine whether or not HPV vaccines perform as advertised.
  • There is no guarantee that any suppressed oncogenic HPV type will not mutate over the next 20 years and become more dangerous.

More US CDC Research Fraud – Publishing False Figures to Promote A Pointless Vaccine to The US and Third World

The video below shows with references to peer reviewed citations in journal papers that the US Centers for Disease Control medical scientists engage in using peer reviewed journal publications, in this case Health Economics, to promote Hep B vaccine on false and made up figures.  Hepatitis B vaccine is given to every US baby immediately following birth when the disease risk is predominantly to intravenous drug abusers and practitioners of unsafe sex and not babies.  Hepatitis B vaccine has a reputation as a particularly toxic vaccine: UK Government Caught Lying On Baby Hep B Vax Safety.

This 7 minute video contains citations to peer reviewed journal publications showing the CDC falsifying disease data to promote the Hep B vaccine by claiming 250,000 hepatitis cancer deaths in India and published this in a journal paper. The paper claims a death rate at 5000% of the true figure such that the vaccine is being promoted on a completely false basis which cannot be justified on the basis of the true figures.

The findings which show this further US CDC research fraud were published in the Lancet medical journal. The CDC could not justify the figures but the CDC paper has not been retracted by the publishing journal: Health Economics.  The correspondence with the journal can be found here: Letter to the Editor Policy analysis of the   use of Hepatitis B, Hemophilus  influenzae type B, Streptococcus pneumoniae-conjugate  and Rotavirus vaccines   in   the   National   Immunization Schedules. HEALTH ECONOMICS Health Econ. 13: 1147–1148 (2004).

The correspondence and response of the US CDC author can be read here.