Believe as you determine … I offer this simply as FYI … But consider this … IF… vaccines are SAFE why then does “big-pharma” demand and obtain from Conre$$ … “get out of jail free” card leaving them off the hook for product liability offenses on all vaccines

…Believe as you determine … I offer this simply as FYI … But consider this … IF… vaccines are SAFE why then does “big-pharma” demand and obtain from Conre$$ … “get out of jail free” card leaving them off the hook for product liability offenses on all vaccines

More scientific proof to refuse vaccines      According to the U.S. CDC and FDA, vaccines are ‘safe.’ That’s the mantra both have been propagandizing for longer than anyone can remember, but is it true?

Excerpted… Well, if you consider

The results of this new investigation show the presence of micro- and nanosized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccines’ samples which is not declared among the components and whose unduly presence is, for the time being, inexplicable. A considerable part of those particulate contaminants have already been verified in other matrices and reported in literature as non biodegradable and non biocompatible.

That candid report is from the research article “New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro-and Nanocontamination” published in Volume 4, Issue 1 – 2017 issue of the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. [1]   The article is 13 pages in length and should destroy once and for all the pseudo-science and pharmaceutical drivel that vaccines are unanimously: 1) ‘safe’; 2) effective; and 3) should be mandated for everyone from day one of birth to their grave.

Forty-four vaccines from 2 countries (France and Italy) were analyzed. The authors, Antoinetta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari, state the study was designed and “aimed at verifying a possible physical contamination.”  They explain the protocol they used and the results they found.

Thirteen of the 44 vaccines tested contained Aluminum and “organic-inorganic composites” as listed in Table 2 of their report. In some vaccines they found: Lead (Pb) Cervarix (sample 17), the HPV vaccine; Agrippal S1 (sample 22); Meningitec (samples 31 & 33); and Gardasil (sample 37), the HPV vaccine.

“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten [atomic number w74] or stainless steel were also identified.” Ironically, the only veterinary vaccine tested, Feligen, proved free of inorganic contaminants.

 

They are composed respectively of Tungsten [W], Aluminum [Al], Iron [Fe] but in different concentrations. [1]

Prevenar (infants 6 weeks to children 17 years) [2] and Infarix (DTaP) [3] are two infants’ and children’s vaccines.

Regarding the extremely small sizes of the contaminants, the study authors say,

As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic  because most of those particles cannot be degraded.

[CJF emphasis added]

The above findings are of particular interest since the inflammatory process is involved in all brain encephalopathies and all stages of chronic disease formation. Since those particles cannot be degraded, every vaccine a child receives just adds to the toxic body burden building up over the course of all the vaccines a child is given from day one of life until he/she meets the required mandatory CDC/FDA schedule. Is there any wonder why today’s children have the highest demographic for chronic disease than any before them?

But here’s the really truly biochemical horror part:

It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA [23].  23 ceser.in

That statement alone, in my opinion as a retired healthcare professional, ought to be damning enough to press criminal charges against the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine makers.

In Figure 7 red blood cells appear, but can’t be identified as human or animal. Unbelievable, and Big Pharma, the CDC and FDA promote such shoddy biological products as injectables mandated for infants at 2, 4, and 6 month ‘well baby’ pediatrician visits.  There ought to be a law against that.

The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case.

The above study results, plus numerous verified fraudulent vaccine research papers and vaccine science reported by the U.S. CDC, are more valid reasons for parents rightfully refusing vaccinations for their children.

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services must issue a moratorium on all vaccines. Furthermore, the Vaccine Court has to be made accountable to all harmed vaccinees.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) must be revisited by the 115th Congress immediately to correct the mistake(s) Congress made in giving vaccine makers a “get out of jail free” card leaving them off the hook for product liability offenses on all vaccines.

References: [1] medcraveonline.com, [2] netdoctor.co.uk, [3] rxlist.com, activistpost.com

Resources:
U.S. CDC/FDA Vaccine Excipients and Media Summary

cdc.gov

 

…Ander here’s their cousin… Mainstream medical journalism is an illusion …  The Illusion called medical journalism: the deep secret

—Some of the greatest illusions are sitting out in the open. They are bypassed for two reasons. People refuse to believe they are illusions, despite the abundant evidence; and the professionals dedicated to upholding the illusions continue their work as if nothing at all has been exposed.

Medical journalists in the mainstream rely completely on studies published in prestigious journals.

This is the rock. This is the science.

This is also the source of doctors’ authoritarian and arrogant advice to patients.

“Studies show…”

Well, that wraps it up. Nothing else to prove. The studies in the journals are the final word.

Medical reporters base their entire careers on these published reports.

But what if higher and more credible authorities rejected all these studies? What if they’ve scrutinized more studies than any reporter or doctor possibly could…and have come to a shocking and opposite conclusion?

This very thing has happened. And the conclusions have been published. But medical reporters ignore them and go their merry way, as if a vast pillar of modern medicine is still intact…when it isn’t, when it has been decimated.

Buckle up.

Let us begin with a statement made by Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world—a journal that routinely vets and prints thousands of medical studies:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” — Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009

You might want to read that statement several times, to savor its full impact. Then proceed to this next one, penned by the editor of The Lancet, another elite and time-honored medical journal that publishes medical studies:

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Still standing? Here are several more statements. They are devastating.

The NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011), Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies”:

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two more quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”):

“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

Here is another Angell statement:

“In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored [drug] trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

If you have the patience to read and re-read these statements, you’ll see they are marking out a scandal of scandals—the entirety of medical literature is a pipeline for deep fraud.

Citing with confidence a study on a drug, for example, would carry no more weight than an article about a celebrity in a gossip rag.

But medical reporters must pretend their sources are correct. It’s their job. If they reject published studies, they have nothing left—except to expose the giant scandal I’m outlining in this article. Biting the hand that feeds them would put them out of work. They’d end up writing about picnics for some local paper—if they were lucky.

However, that’s not my problem or yours. It’s theirs. They chose their profession.

We can settle on the truth. We can even spread it.

Why not?

Jon Rappoport

%d bloggers like this: