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Here you can see at a glance why this vaccine should be withdrawn worldwide and ask yourself why do health officials promote such dangerous, ineffective, unaffordable and unnecessary vaccine programmes.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

#1 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT SAFE

  • 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.

#2 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT AFFORDABLE

  • 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?

#3 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT NECESSARY

  • 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.

#4 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE

  • 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.

22 Years Later Corrupt UK Drug Regulator The MHRA Eventually Changes “not recommended” to “must not be used” – but just for the one dangerous drug

That the UK’s drug regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is corrupt is not difficult to demonstrate, as just this one previous CHS article demonstrates: UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million

The following article by Bob Fiddaman is another dramatic example of the risks supposed drug safety regulators pose to children around the world and is reposted with permission:

Not Recommended Tuesday, July 15, 2014 Bob Fiddaman, FIDDAMAN BLOG

People that know me pretty much know that the words ‘not recommended’ mean absolutely nothing to me.

When used on drug information leaflets, ‘not recommended’ serves as a reminder to prescribing physicians that the drug they are about to prescribe to the patient is not recommended for them, be it because they don’t have an illness that the drug is indicated to treat or that it could be potentially dangerous.

Last week British tabloid, The Mirror, ran with an article about pensioner Ron Sheppard.  Sheppard had been campaigning for almost 22 years to force changes to the way a steroid [Depo-Medrone] was used on millions of patients. And now, writes The Mirror,

drug company Pfizer has applied to UK drug regulators to change the drug labelling.

It is likely to be switched from “not recommended” for use in epidurals to “must not be used”.”

22 years on and now Pfizer decide that the drug must not be used in epidurals. It would appear that Pfizer know the difference between “not recommended” and “must not be used”, either that or they fear future lawsuits.

“Not recommended” is simply not good enough, particularly when it comes to children being prescribed antidepressants.

Would it be practical for the likes of antidepressant manufacturers to change the patient information leaflets for antidepressants from ‘Not recommended for children’ to ‘Must not be used in children’?

The defence of the pharmaceutical industry has, for many years, been this ‘not recommended’ nonsense.

“It specifically states that our product is not recommended for use in children”, is a line thrown around when pharmaceutical products have been implicated in child/teen suicides. Hidden in their defence, however, are facts that they have promoted the use of antidepressants in children – reps, armed with cash incentives or other lavish gifts have, for decades, persuaded doctors that  “not recommended” are just two words that have to appear on leaflets for legal reasons. A rep from Glaxo would have told doctors that Paxil was safe to use in kids…it was the other SSRi’s that were unsafe. A rep from Lundbeck would have told doctors that Celexa was safe to use and that it was other SSRis that were dangerous.

That’s how marketing works and it was those two words that allowed pharmaceutical companies to get away with it for decades.

If a rep had visited a doctor and offered him cash incentives to prescribe a drug that said “must not be used”, would the outcome have been the same?

“Not recommended” can be written off as a legal requirement, it can be a discussion starter with a pharma rep and doctor, it can be twisted to convince the doctor that it’s okay to prescribe adult drugs to children or drugs with a link to birth defects to pregnant mothers.

It’s time to change all of that.

The following “must not be used” in children, adolescents and pregnant mothers.

Citalopram
Fluvoxamine
Escitalopram
Paroxetine
Sertraline
Fluoxetine

They “must not be used” to treat illnesses other than those indicated on the leaflet.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why this has never been done.

‘Not recommended’ has helped the pharmaceutical industry get away with murder and, at the same time, earned them billions of dollars. Money over life.

Just a small example here.

Bob Fiddaman.

Counties sue narcotics makers, alleging ‘campaign of deception’ – Los Angeles Times

Shortlink to this post: http://wp.me/pfSi7-2fl

5888752_sTwo California counties sued five of the world’s largest narcotics manufacturers on Wednesday, accusing the companies of causing the nation’s prescription drug epidemic by waging a “campaign of deception” aimed at boosting sales of potent painkillers such as OxyContin.

Officials from Orange and Santa Clara counties — both hit hard by overdose deaths, emergency room visits and escalating medical costs associated with prescription narcotics — contend the drug makers violated California laws against false advertising, unfair business practices and creating a public nuisance.

In sweeping language reminiscent of the legal attack against the tobacco industry, the lawsuit alleges the drug companies have reaped blockbuster profits by manipulating doctors into believing the benefits of narcotic painkillers outweighed the risks, despite “a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary.” The effort “opened the floodgates” for such drugs and “the result has been catastrophic,” the lawsuit contends.

Click below to read the full story:

Counties sue narcotics makers, alleging ‘campaign of deception’ – Los Angeles Times.

We are constantly being told that vaccines are approved by governments who have thoroughly tested them for both safety and effectiveness. Yet the same government regulators who approve vaccinations have also approved these drugs which are now the basis of a lawsuit in Los Angeles. How much can we trust what these officials tell us? Are vaccine safety and efficacy trials just more ‘tobacco science’? When will we see lawsuits by counties in the US and elsewhere due to the terrible toll caused by vaccine injuries and deaths? The answer is, we believe – it’s only a matter of time.

Congressman “CDC Should Be Investigated” – US Centers for Disease Control Vaccine Safety Corruption Compared to Bernie Madoff

Congressman Bill Posey Has Strong Words for Government Agency. Concludes: “I think the CDC Should Be Investigated.”

U.S. Congressman Compares Corruption in CDC’s Vaccine Safety Studies to SEC’s Handling of Bernie Madoff Scandal

“Vaccines Saved Us” – Intellectual Dishonesty At Its Most Naked

If there’s one thing about the drug industry backed vaccine movement CHS has learned over the last several years, it’s that it’s almost completely immune to evidence, science, and reason.

No matter how much evidence is arrayed against it, there are those among its spokespeople who always find a way to spin, distort, or misrepresent the evidence to combat it and not have to give up the concept that vaccines don’t cause autism. “Its a mystery” but bizarrely the one thing they are are sure of “its not vaccines“, even when this has been confirmed in the past by leading health officials and agencies through gritted teeth when publicly embarrassed by media attention: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines.

Not that this is any news to readers of this blog, but it bears repeating often. It also bears repeating and emphasizing examples of just the sort of disingenuous and even outright deceptive techniques used by promoters of vaccine pseudoscience to sow fear and doubt among parents. These arguments may seem persuasive to those who have little knowledge about science or epidemiology. Sometimes they even seemed somewhat persuasive to us; that is, at least until we actually took the time to look into them.

One example of such a myth is the claim that “vaccines save millions of lives” also sometimes going under the claim that “vaccines are safe and effective.”  Now this is something health officials and health departments started, with their shroud-waving tactics threatening parents their children would die without vaccines.  But what has happened instead is children develop autistic conditions in their millions with the amazing figure of around 1 family in every 25 in the USA with an affected child.  That is vastly higher than pretty much anything else put together including the diseases the vaccines are alleged to protect against.

These people ignore completely and disparage evidence like that on sites which have large sets of graphs showing that the death rates of several vaccine-preventable diseases, including whooping cough, diptheria, measles, and polio were falling before the vaccines for each disease were introduced. Pretending to be scientific the vaccine movement disparage and criticise articles having quotes like the one from Andrew Weil in his book Health and Healing:

Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available – the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.

A well-known US stand-up comedian, television host, political commentator, satirist, author, and actor, Bill Maher has said similar things about vaccines.  The vaccine movement complain that “vaccines didn’t save us” is a gambit and has become a staple of vaccine safety websites. They complain vehemently when for example, people they describe as “ignorant bloggers” write:

The mythology surrounding vaccines is still pervasive, the majority of the population still believes, in faith like fashion, that vaccines are the first line of defense against disease. The true story is that nutrition and psychological/emotional health are the first line of defense against disease.

Vaccines are a concoction of chemical adjuvants and preservatives coupled with virus fragments and have clearly been implicated in the astounding rise in neurological disorders around the world, yet the ‘popular’ media has embedded itself as a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical cartel and simply does not report in any responsible way the real situation.

Gorski and the vaccine movement call it the “toxins” gambit.  At risk of exposure for absolute intellectual dishonesty, they are forced to concede that of course, it is true that better sanitation is a good thing.  They concede it has decreased the rate of transmission of some diseases.  Sanitation can do this, with many infectious diseases being transmitted person-to-person through the air from aerosolized drops of saliva from coughs and sneezes or from being deposited on objects that people touch frequently, like doorknobs and suchlike.

They claim “vaccines didn’t save us” is a mere strategy and a distortion. They allege the best way to demonstrate this is to go on to the very first website that currently shows up on a Google search for “vaccines didn’t save us.” And guess what?  You will end up here on CHS.

And who is the main crank spreading the claim it is a lie?  None other than the internet’s crankiest of medical crank doctor bloggers, Dr David Gorski over at Science Blogs dot com and as ORAC on his “Respectful Insolence” blog.  He originally directed his comments to another site’s page entitled Proof That Vaccines Didn’t Save Us, claiming it’s “one of the most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of anti-vaccine propaganda” that he’s ever seen. 

Well of course for Dr David Gorski, he almost always seems to say that or something like it.  No matter what he previously commented on, the one he comments on next is the “most“, its “breathtakingly“, or “spectacularly” intellectually dishonest, pretty much no matter what he writes about. 

The formula Gorski uses in his inane prattling is lapped up by his devoted followers, who like small dogs around his ankles jump up and down yapping for attention in subservient comments on his posts.

We say this not because Gorski uses a common distortion, but rather because he ups the ante every time with his primeval urges to make generous use of hyperbole, adding them with abandon to his disparaging writings.

Gorski’s distortions are hidden in plain sight, too, which is why he should have props for sheer chutzpah.

Actually, we have to give Gorski some backhanded kudos for how he always manages to devise some disparagement to represent the classic vaccine movement lies.  This he combines with some very clever cherry picking. We won’t take them all on in this post. Maybe we’ll take some of them on in a future post. In the meantime, what we will do is to take on some main ones because they represent a common vaccine movement theme against sites with graphs very similar to the one found in posts like this.

In fact, let’s look at Gorski’s attack on the late Ian Sinclair’s website.  He tells you to notice that there are six graphs, four of which are for vaccine-preventable diseases for which widespread vaccination was undertaken, two for which it was not. He will then say all of them show decreasing death rates from various diseases. And he will exclaim “Wow! It seems like slam dunk evidence, doesn’t it? Vaccines didn’t save us! After all, death rates were declining years before the vaccine, and they were declining for the diseases that didn’t even need a vaccine!

So having taken the main proposition which any sensible person would, Gorski then goes about trying to show you how deceitful, and cunning and manipulative are your own eyes.  He writes to persuade you to conclude from what is plain from decades and often a century or two of vaccination statistics, that you are wrong.  You cannot, nay, you must not believe it. 

Crazily, these kinds of graphs have only been brought into play because Gorski and people like Gorski have been frightening parents for a good century or two that their children will die and vaccines will save them from that.  So he and others are engaged in trying to move the goalposts to clear up the mess they made with what in other circumstances Gorski might describe as their own “most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of vaccine propaganda that” Gorski “has ever seen“. [Don’t ya love it!]

Death rates.

This is how he follows on with a deceptively simple: “Here’s the problem.” Wow, David will say and he has in fact gone on to say: “It’s not surprising that death rates were declining before introduction of the vaccines. Medicine was improving.” Of course you will not realise that the data goes back two hundred years because David does not tell you, and that is way before socialised medicine ever came on the scene and way before the vast majority of working people could afford it [and believe us, a large proportion in the USA, long without socialised medicine, still cannot].  And yet the steady dramatic falls in disease mortality continued.

Now here is the real deceit.  Gorski never once mentions “attenuation“, which is well-known in medicine and it is the steady decline in severity of diseases over time, as shown by all these graphs.  His claim is to completely pretend natural attenuation of diseases does not exist and that it is all about “medicine improving“. 

Now would you agree that is or is not intellectual dishonesty?  Do you think it is right for a medical professional, a trained medical doctor, to abuse medical knowledge to make a claim a competent medical expert simply should not make?

David goes on:

More importantly, supportive care was improving. For example, take the case of polio. Before the introduction of the iron lung and its widespread use, for example, if a polio patient developed paralysis of the respiratory muscles, he would almost certainly die. The iron lung allowed such patients to live. Some even survived in an iron lung for decades.” 

Well, you will think, that is pretty convincing.  Everyone has heard of polio and iron lungs.  But what David fails to tell you is that was for a short period around the 1950s and that he has completely airbrushed out the prior 150 years.  He ignores the 1850s or the 1900s when large parts of western economies had working people living tightly packed in slums without adequate sanitation, nutrition or clean water, ripe for the spread of infectious diseases. 

Have you seen the film “Angela’s ashes“? If not, watch it and you will soon get some idea about how bad slums and living conditions were.  And that is not showing the worst either.  But you will realise what misleading garbage is written on blatant propaganda attack sites like Science Blogs dot com by Gorski and his buddies. 

Gorski fails to acknowledge or even accept [despite mountains of historical evidence outweighing his own cherry-picked bias] that as living conditions improved deaths from disease dropped dramatically before medicine even had much of a chance to play even a small role. 

In the UK the National Health Service only came into existence in 1948.  Before then ordinary working people got by without Gorski’s alleged “supportive care”.  His ridiculous claim it was “improving” is also pointless save to deceive.  When you haven’t got “it” in the first place, improvements in “it” are just as worthless.  But Gorski ploughs on having sucked the gullible into his scribbled rants.

But so as not to lose you and any credibility completely Gorski concedes “No doubt improved nutrition also played a role as well.” But with that tiny concession buried in thousands of Gorski’s inanities he rapidly moves on: “However, if you want to get an idea of the impact of vaccines on infectious disease, take a look at this graph  from the CDC of measles incidence, not death rates“:

CDC Measles Incidence Graph

Now here’s the problem” as Gorski would say.  [In fact he won’t and he did not for this part, so we need to]. First, he cherry picks starting in 1950.  That bizarrely leaves out the massive decline over the prior 150 years.  So no: 1) the vaccine was certainly not responsible for the massive decline in mortality and 2) that decline was still continuing after the vaccines were introduced and 3) it took place before “improved” medicine was commonly available to many [but still not all] in the West.

But Dr David Gorski leaves out even more.  So if you have not realised before, let’s help you now.    What else has Dr Gorski left out?  Notice the graph seems to show measles cases dramatically falling?  What you may not have noticed is that he has palmed the card and dealt you a crooked hand from the deck of cards he has hidden under the table.

Now here’s the problem“.  Without telling you, without batting an eyelid and likely without you noticing at all he flips to a graph of measles cases and not deaths to change the game completely.  So in one move, a “sleight of hand” just like a three-card trickster who cheats you of your money, he has changed the entire proposition from saving us all from death to saving us from getting what might often be a mild dose of measles, [with no risk of 1 in 25 families having a child with autism as a result of vaccination as US leading health officials have admitted].  And he has done this without telling you, without batting an eyelid and likely without you noticing at all.  He just flips to a graph of measles cases and not deaths.   It is not the same argument and is not comparable.  But you probably did not notice, but David certainly did.

Well “what’s wrong with that“, you might ask.  Plenty.  Want to know why?  Let’s explain it, straight  – with no Gorskiesque deceit in sight.

When Gorski’s graph shows a fall in cases, it is not showing a fall in cases.  It is showing a fall in the numbers of diagnoses of measles which have been reported.

When doctors say they are diagnosing what they really mean is they are guessing pretty much all the time.

The problem with statistics on cases and not deaths is they depend upon lots of doctors’ guesses.  Doctors’ guesses also follow fads, fashions and trends.  And Gorski also fails to point out that symptoms are not like those in textbooks.  Some diseases have symptoms which look a lot like other diseases.  Some patients will have some but not all symptoms.  Some symptoms are milder in some patients than others.  So a diagnosis a patient has one disease and not another is often a guess. And it is often wrong.

What Gorski does not tell you is the practice of medicine is not science.  In fact he will tell you he “follows the science“.  He seems such a zealot he would probably prefer to throw himself under a train before admitting medical practice is not a science.

When doctors believe there could be a measles epidemic they can diagnose 73 out of 74 patients as having measles when they don’t have measles.  That is a real figure obtained from official data. You can find details here [at the end of the “Introduction” and before the “Contents”].

This also works in reverse.  When doctors have information a child has been vaccinated they will tend to rule out the vaccinated disease as a possibility and guess [diagnose] a different disease.  That is what the educated guessing process doctors call “diagnosis” is all about.

So when there are real measles cases, and doctors think the symptoms they see are not likely to be measles, they don’t diagnose measles. 

Did Gorski tell you any of this?  Nope.  But we are.  In fact all doctors in the USA were told that in 1967 measles was to be eradicated in just that year alone with the measles vaccine.  This was in a formally published statement “EPIDEMIOLOGIC BASIS FOR ERADICATION OF MEASLES IN 1967 A Statement By the Public Health Service” by David J. Sencer, M.D., H. Bruce Dull, M.D., Alexander D. Langmuir, M.D. PHR Vol. 82, No. 3, March 1967 253

So you can be sure that in the USA from the moment the first vaccine was licensed in 1963, the hype would have already started.  Thus, on the one hand the graph Gorski presented you has figures for diagnoses [guesses] showing a dramatic decline of measles cases from the very moment the vaccine was first licensed in the USA.  And on the other hand the moment doctors think it cannot be measles, they stop diagnosing measles and guess something else instead. So when there are real measles cases they will not be diagnosed.

So Gorski’s graph is totally misleading.  But glossing over it all he goes on to argue by analogy claiming “Similar results were seen most recently from several other vaccines, including the Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine, as the CDC points out:

Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping) to anything other than the vaccine.”

And then you might ask, what is wrong with that?  Again, plenty.  The clue is in the word “estimated” in “the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993“?

To put it bluntly, one too many a health official including one too many in the US CDC make up grossly exaggerated estimates to make it look like they are doing their job.  Paying their mortgage depends on it.  So on the one hand they want to make it look like disease is everywhere and on the other that they are controlling and fixing the problem. 

The CDC was officially castigated by the US Senate in an official report CDC Off Centeras an agency which “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“  but which was managing to spend US$11 billion in tax dollars every year not doing what even its name says it is supposed to – Center for Disease Control.

Flu death estimates are a classic example.  The US CDC claims there are an estimated 36,000 annual flu deaths so they can promote flu vaccines and prove later how successful they have been.  Their problem is the UK were doing the same thing, but got caught and the Chief Medical Officer had to “fess up”.  You can read the details here.  Flu deaths in the UK averaged no more than 33 annually despite Department of Health claims estimating 12,000 people die annually: 360 times higher than actual deaths.  If a plane fell out of the sky over the UK, the way the Department of Health calculated flu deaths, these would have been included in their flu deaths figure.  Read it for yourself and see here.

Now, do you think Dr David Gorski is being intellectually honest?

Gorski’s graph claims a fall in measles cases from the moment the first measles vaccine was licensed in 1963.  The widespread use of measles vaccine in the US in a mass public vaccination programme started in 1967 which was nearly 5 years later. And the early vaccines were withdrawn because they were ineffective or caused high rates of adverse reactions.  The 1963 licensed inactivated (“killed”) vaccine was withdrawn in  1967 because it did not protect against measles virus infection – it just did not work but it took nearly 5 years to find out. Additionally, it was not until 1968 that what was claimed a more effective safer vaccine was introduced.  This was the attenuated strain vaccine (Edmonston-Enders). These further attenuated vaccines caused fewer reactions than the original Edmonston B vaccine.  The 1963 licensed live attenuated vaccine (Edmonston B strain) was withdrawn in 1975 because of a high frequency of adverse reactions.  A further attenuated vaccine (Schwarz) was first introduced in 1965 but is also no longer used: Measles Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases The Pink Book: Course Textbook – 12th Edition Second Printing (May 2012)

As you can see, the US authorities kept a useless vaccine in use for 5 years seemingly without realising it.  They kept a harmful vaccine in use for at least 10 years before replacing it.  So this gives you an idea of how difficult it is for parents to prove a vaccine is useless or one harmed their child when the US CDC pretends for 10 years a vaccine they later withdrew as dangerous is OK to give US kids.  And it also tells you, you cannot trust government and you cannot trust health officials.

And you may also not realise it but these were dangerous, unethical and illegal mass experiments on children, US children, directed by health officials of what is now the US Centers for Disease Control.  And the CDC is still doing illegal and dangerous experiments on US children with vaccines, but telling the public and media the vaccines are safe and effective.  Nothing has changed.  Has the US CDC ever used any of its annual US$11 billion budget in developing an effective treatment for measles?  Nope.  There is no effective treatment.  The CDC is a one trick pony.  And if they did develop an effective treatment like a measles pill, and a pill for other diseases, they might be out of a job.

Does Dr David Gorski warn you?  Nope.  He instead does the opposite with misinformation put out in a distasteful manner on his blogs.  [And he is supposed to be a professional medical doctor with high ethical standards, just like the CDC’s health officials.]

So you can see how Gorski simply laps up information he gets off the internet from unreliable and dangerous websites like that operated by the US Centers for Disease Control without exercising any critical faculties over dangerous and false health information given out by US health officials which ends up with US kids getting harmed [and possibly killed].  It is typical of the genre.  But he will attack and disparage others from the relative safety of his own blogs and he does so routinely.  Go over to his blogs and read for yourself.  Make your own mind up whether Dr Gorski is fair and open minded or is he something else?  Ask yourself are his blog posts fair and balanced or bullying and harassing those whose legitimate views he wants to censor from common knowledge in favour of his drug industry supporting version of the “truth“.  Overall ask yourself is he and Science Blogs dot com a source to be trusted?

The answer to that has to be a Big Fat “NO”.

And for how many other “vaccinatable diseases” have the records of reported cases diminished not because the vaccine works but because medical professionals do not diagnose the cases?  Remember, in many cases symptoms can be mild and/or look like another disease.  In the UK claims were being made for whooping cough being practically eradicated when the reality was the cases were not being reported: Easily Missed? Whooping cough Harnden, A BMJ 2009;338:b1772. Research Whooping cough in school age children with persistent cough: prospective cohort study in primary care Harnden, A BMJ 2006;333:174

Polio is another because not only are cases unlikely to be reported but cases not involving any symptom of paralysis are hardly likely to be noticed let alone reported and the UK form for reporting is for cases involving temporary or permanent paralysis and not non paralytic polio.

One thing you can say for sure about a death, is the patient is dead.  And another is death is the most extreme consequence of a disease.  A measure of how less dangerous a disease has become is from the rate at which mortality falls over time, so you can be certain all other kinds of adverse consequences will similarly be far less serious.  But Gorski never tells you that nor that statistics on reported cases are wholly unreliable.  That is not what Gorski or the US CDC want you to know or even guess at.  The more tax dollars the CDC can spend on vaccines, the more certain they are of staying in a job.  But then, they do have mortgages to pay don’t they, so we guess it must be OK to pay for them with your child’s health or the next child’s autism or asthma or diabetes [and so on and so forth].

All of the foregoing is why people don’t believe allopathic doctors like Gorski or government health officials and experts.  Because one too many are deceiving you, misleading you and acting against your best health interests and those of your children.  And if you want a great example, go over to Dr David Gorski’s various blog sites and read the nasty cranky stuff he writes, full of deceptions and misleading information.

Why You Must Not Sign A “Refusal To Vaccinate” Form – [At least, if you want to keep your kids that is]

CHS reproduces this post from the For Ohioans website February 9, 2014.

[UPDATE: For Ohioans is now Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines [PAMV]. The article and further advice is now found on that site here:

**(Details for parents and vaccine-aware health care providers.)**
 **(Details for employees and students**)

CONTACT PAMV: Email: sayno2flushots@gmail.com]

______________________________

The following is not legal advice. It is merely sharing ideas, understandings and suggestions regarding ways of dealing with vaccine recommendations by the CDC and vaccine mandates by the STATE.

The “Refusal to Vaccinate” form was created by the American Academy of Pediatric’s ‘legal department’ as a response to the growing number of toxic vaccines recommended by them and the growing number of parents who are becoming educated on this issue. According to the CDC our children should now receive 37 doses of vaccine between 0-16 years. [See Vaccine Schedule]

Recently in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA a statute was implemented (AB 2109) that requires their own form filled out and submitted to get a vaccine exemption.

The following strategy now being used to overcome vaccine awareness is the most diabolical strategy possible! It is unlikely that physicians have any idea what they are asking their patients to sign . . . or to sign away. It is essentially a signed confession. So please read and understand why you can’t sign it and why it is really something other than what if appears to be.

Here are 12 reasons that no parent can sign this form unless they are interested in being statutorily charged with neglect or intentionally causing harm. Repeating more boldly:

This form, if signed, could be used to have your child(ren) removed from your custody! It is a form designed to stand up in court!

*TWELVE REASONS PARENTS CANNOT SIGN THIS FORM


#1
The form attaches a child ID # that will be identifiable in the electronic records system across the country. Everyone from the school to the NSA will be able to determine who is and who is not vaccinated.

#2
The scientific term for HPV vaccine is listed to discourage parents from making the connection to the dangerous vaccine for HPV called Gardasil. [See Open Letter From a Grandmother to Her Daughters About Gardasil]

#3
Do not place any marks in any of these boxes. The physician’s records will indicate which vaccines your child has received. It would be best to put a large X through the entire section.

#4
The CDC Vaccine Information Statement is pure unadulterated propaganda. The real information about vaccines was exposed in 30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards See info about the CDC – #9.

#5
Again the parent is misled to think the truth about vaccine risks is on the CDC web site.The doctor has the vaccine package inserts right in his/her office. Why is it not offered and explained to the parent? The physicians may have read them or not. However, the physicians are certainly aware that if the parents read the ‘official risks’ put out by the drug corporations, they would refuse the vaccines. Full disclosure is almost NEVER a part of the process.

#6
“I understand the following: The risks and benefits of the recommended vaccine(s).” This of course would be agreeing to a false statement. You cannot understand the risks without reading and understanding the package inserts.

#7
Parents are falsely told that without vaccines their children could suffer dire illnesses but are not told the dire illnesses/injuries the vaccines themselves could cause . . . including death. [See 30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards]

#8
This refers to the “herd immunity myth” of 1933, which has been proven unscientific over and over and over again. Simply put: if other children have been vaccinated – and the vaccines work – they won’t contract a disease from your child.

#9
Entities are listed as “strongly recommending” the vaccine schedule. Again however, parents are NOT given full disclosure as to exactly who/what the entities are and what their motivations might be. Listed on the Refusal to Vaccinate form are the following:

  • The ‘physician’ – is rewarded for administering vaccines by higher reimbursements for his fees. His vaccine “rates” are checked to determine whether or not he/she is entitled to more money. Physicians, public health workers, and drug companies have all been given immunity from any possible lawsuits that may arise as a result of vaccine-caused injury or illness. In other words, if a vaccine harms your child or causes autism you cannot sue any of them.
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF ILLINOIS – that receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their Journal, etc. This organization relies heavily on what they believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
  • The American Academy of Family Physicians which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF KANSAS – that also receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their Journal, etc.This organization also relies heavily on what they believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).


Bottom line: all of the above “entities” make more money if they vaccinate our children and even more if our children get sick from the vaccines . . . including the pediatricians themselves.

#10
This is the broadest and most nefarious part of this so-called form.

Nevertheless, I have decided at this time to decline . . . I know that failure to follow the recommendations about vaccination may endanger the health or life of my child and others . . . I therefore agree to tell all health care professionals in all settings what vaccines my child has not received because he or she may need to be isolated or may require immediate medical evaluation and tests that might not be necessary if my child had been vaccinated.”

This is not only deceptive and untruthful [see numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8] it is asking you to confess that you know you are harming your child (and others) and don’t care. It is asking you to agree to inform any/all people who consider themselves to be healthcare “professionals” (not defined) of your child’s vaccination record. You are also agreeing to permitting undefined healthcare professionals to keep your child in isolation due to unproven or unknown exposure to a myriad of undefined communicable diseases – with or without testing.

#11
This is an admission that you understand this contractual document – and its significance – ‘in its entirety’. This means that you accept the false information sited as factual, chose NOT to do what you now know to be good for your child and others (are negligent), obligate yourself to embarrass and confuse your child by tracking and reporting on the vaccines you protected your child from, and give permission for your child to be tested or removed from your care and put in isolation for any ‘supposed’ exposure to any ‘undefined’ communicable disease by anyone calling themselves a healthcare worker. [Ohio Revised Code 3701.13]

In short, the form wants you to attest to the following . . . in writing:

1. You understand you are signing a contract with performance requirements

2. You accept false information as factual and don’t care

3. You don’t care if your child or others are harmed by your decision

4. You agree to volunteer to all pretend healthcare workers your child’s vaccine record

5. You agree to allow others to test or isolate your child for unproven exposure to a disease

#12
Here is the kicker. You are asked to sign, initial and date this document in front of a witness who also dated their signature. This is called an unconscionable adhesion contract: “a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.”

Let’s think . . . how much money is made by forcing all children in America to be ‘fully’ vaccinated? Billions or is it trillions?


*For Californians

Here is the form that is being used in California as is should be filled out:  **California Personal Beliefs and Exemption Form**

Note: only the child’s name is filled out and the form refers to an attached VACCINATION NOTICE (see below). The LEGISLATORS and employees of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA have absolutely no authority to require parents go to a health care provider. They are not qualified to make that determination and have absolutely no authority (or training) to establish those parameters


*SUGGESTED RESPONSE (OR WHAT I WOULD DO)



STEP ONE

  • Inform the nurse or doctor that as the Refusal to Vaccinate form is an adhesion contract with performance requirements, you must take it home and read it more thoroughly. No one can force you to sign a contract. It is very important that you don’t allow yourself to get bullied into signing this form on the spot.
  • Ask for the vaccine package inserts to take with you. Explain that you always get a list of side effects from the pharmacist when you pick up a prescription – before your take it. Say you need those inserts to make an informed decision. If they ask you to accept a ‘handout’ say no. Just politely repeat your request. If they still say no, just let it go.
  • On your next visit to the pediatrician or family practitioner, inform him or her that you are not interested in signing the Refusal to Vaccinate form because after due consideration you have decided that it would not be in your child’s best interests . . . which it would not!

STEP TWO

*THE VACCINATION NOTICE

It is time to place our position regarding vaccines on the record (and in the record) for the physician and the school system. The physician needs to have your notice regarding vaccines on file. This also protects him or her from the vaccination-business police (like public health employees) who monitor patient records.

This notice is designed to inform your doctor or your child’s school of the reasons you are opposed to their administering vaccines to your child and make it perfectly clear that you do not consent. The reasons listed on the notice are easy to validate. Suggestions for implementing this notice are on page 1 and the notice itself is on page 2. Read the notice thoroughly before you fill it out and present it. It has to be something you agree with and will attest to by signing it before 2 witnesses or a notary public. Without the witnesses or notary public it is nothing more than a memo, which will most likely be ignored. If you do not agree with the notice, do not use it. People can always create their own. A notice is only a signed statement of facts that you know to be true.

Vaccination Notice

The Vaccination Notice will be an education for all parties involved.

  • Most folks don’t know their physician gets more money for vaccinating ALL children in his/her practice.
  • Most folks don’t know that all those manufacturing or administering vaccines have been granted immunity from lawsuits.
  • Most folks don’t know that by refusing to give the parent/guardian the package insert the parent is kept unaware of the real health risks associated with vaccines.

These facts are stated on the vaccine notice. Notices are used by many for many purposes. According to the http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice

The concept of notice is critical to the integrity of legal proceedings. Due process requires that legal action cannot be taken against anyone unless the requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard are observed.

This notice will stand irregardless of the myriad of vaccine mandates the untrained legislators decide to pass via statutes in the future. Be sure to keep a copy for your own records and note the date it was presented, and the party it was presented to!!


IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “NOTICE”
The vaccination notice is designed to inform your doctor, hospital or school of the reasons you are opposed to their administering vaccines to your child and that you do not consent. See Notice http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice The reasons listed on the notice are easy to validate. This approach should help put an end to the endless pressure that pediatricians and school personnel inflict on vaccine-aware parents.

FILLING OUT THE “NOTICE”

  1. Items in red need to be personalized.
  2. Select son or daughter as applicable.
  3. Corporate entities need to be in all caps.
  4. The health department of each state is listed in its corporate name in all caps on Dun and Bradstreet. This information is accessible for free online.
  5. At the bottom of the notice is a space for the parent’s signature and the signature of two witnesses. Of course the dates need to be identical. An acceptable alternative to two witnesses would be to sign in front of a notary and have them stamp it for you. Use blue ink for signatures.

DELIVERING THE NOTICE
This notice requires little discussion. Just hand it to the nurse, doctor or clerk, or attach it to the Refusal to Vaccinate or the PERSONAL BELIEFS EXEMPTION TO REQUIRED IMMUNIZATIONS forms[1]. Politely explain that you are not comfortable with the vaccine risks and wish to have this notice placed in the child’s records so you don’t have to bring in a new one each time your child sees the doctor or nurse. If asked where you obtained the document, simply say from another parent, which is true. Giving more information is not required and is not advisable. Citing websites or vaccine aware organizations just motivates those in the vaccination-distribution-business to track down and discredit folks that are doing their best to bring good information to the public.

Do not answer detailed questions about your objections to any vaccine or the source of your information. Just repeat what is on the notice; “I am aware of multiple scientific peer-reviewed papers that have exposed the dangers of many vaccines.” Doctors and nurses are well armed with ‘talking points’ designed to overcome all claims you might make regarding vaccines and nearly all authors you might site. According to Russell Blaylock, MD there are lots of peer-reviewed articles on this topic for doctors and nurses to read. It is their job to seek this information. It is not your job to provide it to them. The notice just states facts and is designed to be self-explanatory.

Should the clerk, doctor, or nurse refuse to accept your notice, politely explain that their decision to accept your notice as the “agent” is not optional as it is directed to the “principal’ as well. Keep a copy for yourself and write the name of the agent, his/her position and the date on the bottom of your notice. Save the notice for your records. If there is too much resistance to placing the notice in your child’s records, send it certified mail to the physician, hospital administrator or superintendent of schools.


[1]The only info the parent should provide on these forms is name of the child and “see attached addendum”. (Sample) Anything more can be used against the parent AND the doctor, as these forms are designed to be tracked.

The Vaccination Notice

Template (updated 6-17-14)

Star Reader’s Comment – “I won’t vaccinate because Medics are not truthful about safety and then won’t take responsibility for harm caused”

The following was posted on CHS by a reader called Lucy

Having read almost all the replies here, I’d like to share my recent experience and what really peeves me off. For starters, I don’t care whether people vaccinate or don’t vaccinate, what I do care about is being deceived by the very person I am told to trust when it comes to the health of my children – my GP.

I asked my doctor and the health nurse at the same clinic “how safe are vaccinations?” They both told me “completely and totally safe”.

Now that’s a lie.

Even the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the vaccines don’t make that claim, and in fact, gives a list of what could happen.

Anyway, after several months of intense research I decided to delay the vaccinations in my 2 youngest children (I have 6) and have always been a bit unsure about them (my mother and father BOTH got polio FROM the polio vaccine in the 50′s). So I needed to get the doc to fill out a form stating I was objecting to it when the nurse started in on me.  So I listened patiently about how completely safe they were etc etc, then I produced a document and told her that if she signed it I would vaccinate my children then and there, she refused. The document said that she would be fully financially liable if my children suffered from a vaccine induced injury and required care for the rest of their lives. When she refused, I asked why, because she had just told me they were completely safe. I then told her that if she had been honest with me and listed the pros and cons of the vaccine I would have gone ahead with it, not investigated the reasons why doctors and health professionals find it necessary to deceive their patients.

And for those of you who think doctors report serious adverse reactions, what a joke. I was given medication that very nearly led me to wipe out my entire family (no history of mental illness, violence, nothing) when I told the doctor she said “we can try another one”. Maybe she was unaware that the TGA had issued a warning and watch on this medication for suicide, rage and violence. A pity I had to do my own research to find this out. Also a pity that she didn’t report it, you’d think being locked up in your room for 2 days so you couldn’t harm your family would warrant reporting.

On another separate matter, my kids were injected with the rotavirus vaccine, I discovered that the TGA had issued warning to all doctors that after a few years of study it was found that it increased the risk of a bowel problem, and for doctors to inform every parent to watch their child for specific symptoms for a period of time after the 1st and 2nd injections. The people who vaccinated my children never mentioned a word, three different doctors no less, and according to my friends, they have never been informed either. I just find it completely unacceptable and the whole vaccination/medication process a hidden procedure, where being told the truth is like a game of hide and seek.

And finally, also not a vaccination, but drug, who in their right minds, makes a drug to be given to 6 year olds that causes suicidal thoughts and violent tendencies? Has the world gone mad??