One of the little known facts about many vaccinations is that many of
the main stream vaccines actually sensitize the receiver to the
problems, rather than catalyze the boy's immunity.
No blood-brain barrier before the age of 6 months, when that barrier
begins to form (takes up to 2 years), means that the toxins,
preservatives, heavy metals, animal cell residues and other substances
found in many faccines, go into a baby's brain without filtration
through the blood brain barrier.
Also, injection of vaccine means no filtering through the stomach walls,
or going through the HCl in the stomach either (not to mention the lack
of blood brain barrier in infants and young toddlers).
The question which is not properly answered by the "medical" or
"scientific" community is which is less (or more) dangerous:
The risks to the receiver of a vaccination from being vaccinated.
vs.
The risk of contracting a disease for which one could have been
vaccinated "against".
And finally, assuming such comparative risks were properly (actually
scientifically) quantified, whether it is right for "the state" to
impose its own assessment of the comparative risks, on its citizens, by
force or other (e.g. financial) pressure.
This is a real, and not a hypothetical, current issue in Australia,
where all financial "family benefits" as they are called here, are being
denied to parents who choose to not vaccinate, thereby imposing a
pressure upon parents to vaccinate.
Zenaan
----- Forwarded message from Gil May -----
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:51:18 +1000
From: Gil May
Subject: Dr Peter Aaby--Vaccinating Expert
*Dr. Peter Aaby has spent more than 30 years studying the causes of
excessively high child mortality in Guinea-Bissau, and has published his
research in dozens of professional journals. He was awarded the Novo
Nordisk Prize for distinguished research on measles and measles vaccination
in 2000.*
He also has vaccinated thousands of children during his career, and it's
this part of his research that is causing a global controversy. With
archives of *more than 1 million research files to back him up*, Dr. Aaby
has published several papers questioning the safety of the DTP vaccine
(diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis). His first article appeared 10 years ago.
Since then *he has published 34 other papers, all questioning the safety of
the DTP*.
Offering unequivocal scientific evidence going far and beyond what any
other vaccine researcher has done, Aaby and his team give compelling
reasons for changing the schedules for DTP vaccination, and for possibly
modifying other vaccination protocols.
*Information that Could Change Public Healthcare Forever*
Clearly, Dr. Aaby has science-based information that could change public
healthcare forever – and perhaps even change the vaccine schedule for
infants in the U.S. But before you read any further, I urge you to click on
the links above and listen to both segments of the BBC's broadcast, *The
Vaccine Detectives*.
Here, you'll learn about some of Dr. Aaby's studies, which showed that:
-
A single dose of DTP vaccine not only *doubled the mortality rate* in
infants, but *more than quadruped* the rate after the second and third
DTP doses.
-
Vaccines and vitamin supplements have unexpected, long-term effects –
good and bad – on the immune systems of children.
-
There is a *definite increased mortality risk to girls* of combining DTP
and measles vaccines.
-
*Girls were 41 percent more likely to die* if they were given vitamin A
at birth, while boys seemed to slightly benefit from the supplement.
Once you hear these startling broadcasts, I think you'll understand why
I think it's criminal that the CDC and the WHO are possibly risking
thousands of children's lives by embarking on new studies that duplicate
the decades of research that Dr. Aaby has already done, while they do
nothing to address the issues his studies raise.
What's outrageous is that they are ignoring DOZENS of studies, not just
one or two. For example, in a study published in 2007, Aaby
reported that *fatality
was* *increased* for children ages 6 months to 17 months old, *if they
received the DTP with or after measles vaccination*. The increase was
significant enough for Aaby to suggest that *the DTP reduces the
benefits of the measles vaccine*.
Dr. Aaby also found that a girl's vaccination status is critical in
determining her chances of surviving pneumonia: if she's had the measles
vaccine as the last vaccination before she comes down with pneumonia, *she's
more likely to survive than if her last vaccination was DTP*. And the
studies go on, 34 of them, all questioning the safety and/or timing of the
DTP.
The evidence from Dr. Aaby's research is so compelling that the WHO
actually sent an investigator, Dr. Kim Mulholland, to Guinea-Bissau to
scrutinize Dr. Aaby's records. But when Mulholland reported that he
*couldn't
find* *a single thing wrong *with the records, WHO officials seemed
disappointed, Mulholland said.
Ten years later, the WHO still has neither confirmed nor refuted Dr.
Aaby's studies, leading Mulholland to question, "Why is it that the
international community is sitting back on their hands and ignoring this?"
According to Peter Smith, chair of the WHO's Global Advisory Committee
on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), it's because the evidence isn't "sufficiently
strong enough" to accept the "hypothesis" that the DTP has a negative
effect on children.
I suppose that's why the WHO and CDC are stalling making any changes to
the DTP schedule while they do their own studies. But the new studies will
take years to complete – if ever. Why would they do this? Why would they
ignore *data that obviously show that children are dying* *from possible
problems with the DTP*, the vaccine schedule, and vitamins given to
newborns?
Dr. Aaby has the answer:
*"If the DTP was to be found to have a negative effect, it would be
devastating to the vaccination program," *he said*. "You can understand
why they don't like it. But I don't think that's a good reason for not
examining the logic."*
*Explosive Data on Other Vaccine Safety Issues also Ignored *
It's puzzling why world health officials are so hesitant to trust Aaby's
logic, when his tenacious record-keeping already saved lives in 1990, when
a new vaccine for measles was withdrawn by the WHO after Aaby alerted
investigators that it was possibly harming girls.
Later, Aaby and the investigators learned that it wasn't the new measles
vaccine causing the problems – it was the way it interacted with the DTP
vaccine. The implications of these findings are huge and go far beyond the
borders of Guinea-Bissau:
*"If I'm right about DTP, you're probably increasing the mortality rate
at least 50 percent in this age group,"* Aaby told the BBC.
Aaby's records, published over a 10-year period in those 34 studies I
mentioned earlier, indicated that it was possible that the* DTP vaccine
was making the immune system of girls more susceptible to other infections*.
It also showed that vitamin A may* amplify the negative effects of the
DTP vaccine on girls! *
Again, why are they risking children's lives – particularly girls' –
while they wait on more studies? As the BBC pointed out, the vitamin A
connection is terribly important because there is a strong push by the WHO
to give it to all newborns in low-income countries. Hoping to reduce infant
mortality in Guinea-Bissau by as much as 30 percent, Dr. Aaby and his wife
and research partner, Christine Benn, gave this supplement to thousands of
Guinea-Bissau newborns.
They found that boys had a slight benefit by getting the vitamin. *But
girls who received the supplement had a* *41 percent higher* *chance of
dying* – indicating that there may be a non-specific, gender-based
effect of the vaccine and vitamin A on girls that health officials need to
address.
On this issue, Benn is so sure that *the risks to girls so clearly
outweigh the benefits to boys that she doesn't believe any other further
studies need to be done on giving vitamin A at birth. *
The gender issue is a new concept in vaccine safety because, previously,
vaccine trials have only been carried out on men, so as to avoid ill
effects on women were they to become pregnant, said Dr. Katie Flanagan, an
immunologist who works for the British Medical Research Council. And now
that Dr. Aaby's research shows that girls appear to have different
responses to both vaccines and vitamins than boys, Flanagan thinks it's a
safety aspect that should be studied:
"*It makes perfect sense*," Flanagan said. "*Now that Peter (Aaby) has
brought this issue up … I think it's time to get on and investigate it and
understand it."*
Similar trials in Zimbabwe, where 14,000 children received vitamin A,
came up with similar results. But, still, the WHO is ignoring this
life-and-death information, and forging ahead with three new major studies
in India, all giving vitamin A to newborns. This worries Benn, who believes
that at least 30 girls died in her own trial, before she and Aaby
determined that the vitamin was triggering their deaths.
*"This must be explained before we give vitamin A to all girls in
Southeast Asia," *Benn said*." I would personally not ever again conduct
another vitamin A trial in an area with high mortality."*
*The Politics Behind 'Vaccine Safety'*
Dr. Aaby is not against vaccines. His life's work involves giving
children vaccines, so he's not being "anti-vaccine" by questioning vaccine
safety paradigms. He is merely suggesting that from his observations, some
vaccines have certain serious adverse events – life and death safety issues
– connected to them that warrant slight changes to global health policy and
vaccination protocols.
It seems simple. But in reality, it appears that vaccines are too tied
to industry politics to allow for things like paying attention to data that
show increased infant mortality for girls.
So what excuses did health officials give the BBC for ignoring Dr.
Aaby's work? Here's a sampling of what they said:
-
Immunization in general is a field plagued by "woolly thinking" with
rational argument suppressed by the need to counter "anti-vaccine"
propaganda. (Mulholland).
-
Working out all the possible adverse effects of vaccines poses a dilemma
for pharmaceutical companies that have invested billions in vaccines, and
for funders like Bill Gates, who have put their faith in vaccines, vitamin
supplements and other interventions (Paul Fine, professor, London School of
Medicine).
-
Denying vaccines to children while officials test for possible long-term
adverse effects from the vaccines – even deaths – may not be "ethical,"
(Smith)
Woolly thinking?
A dilemma for Bill Gates? "Ethical" questions about waiting to make sure
vaccines are safe? If that's not all politics, I don't know what is.
Personally, I think the non-politically-correct reason that Benn gave for
the WHO's and CDC's stalling tactics hits the nail on the head:
*"It goes for vaccines and vitamin A, that there is such a fear that the
public will get any kind of feeling that there could be anything
problematic about the public health interventions."*
Sadly, the history of vaccines is riddled with stories like Dr. Aaby's,
of adverse events that are largely dismissed by world health officials who
fear that acknowledging problems might make the public aware of the truth
about vaccine safety.
*Where the Money is – and How Vaccine 'Safety' Figures in*
Rotavirus vaccine inventor Dr. Paul Offit is often quoted by mainstream
media as their "go-to authority" on vaccine issues. He sits on the board of
the medical website Medscape.com, as well as on vaccine maker Merck's
scientific advisory board. He presently holds the $1.5 million Merck-downed
chair in vaccinology at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP).
As a spokesperson for the vaccine industry, Offit has talked about
vaccine profits and safety for a number of years. Regarding the profits –
or supposedly lack thereof –he wrote in *Health Affairs* in 2005 that
drug companies were abandoning vaccines because they cost too much to make.
"Pharmaceutical companies are businesses, not public health agencies,"
Offit lectured the reading public. "They are not obligated to make
vaccines."
Admitting that "vaccine shortages are not coincidental," Offit
threatened more shortages if Congress didn't give cough up more incentives
for vaccine companies to stay in business. Those incentives, he said,
needed to go beyond what they were already getting through the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). He also said Congress needed
to increase funding for the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC), plus give
drug companies even greater tax breaks to invest in vaccines.
*Complaining that vaccines are held to higher safety standards than
other drugs*, Offit said drug companies would be more encouraged to make
vaccines if unborn children were included in the NVICP so they wouldn't
have to worry so much about losing money through litigation involving
unborn children.
And Congress listened. By 2007, Offit happily told the New York Times
that vaccines were now "roaring back" as money-makers. Those money-makers
included the federal government paying drug companies for simply making
"milestones" in vaccine development, as opposed to having to wait until a
vaccine was actually ready for market, and a commitment by world leaders to
fund and purchase vaccines in advance of their being introduced to the
market.
And what role did vaccine safety play in this new boom market? All you
have to do is read this transcript advising health professionals on
"countering vaccine misinformation" to know that health officials' concerns
are more about convincing the public that vaccines are safe than admitting
that some vaccines can, and do, cause harm.
*'There are No Risk-Free Choices'*
We know that vaccines are not completely safe. The reason we know this
is not because of Dr. Aaby's story, but because experts like Paul Offit and
even the industry itself tell us they're not completely safe, or without
risk. For example, the Merck Manual Online says, "No vaccine is 100 percent
effective and 100 percent safe."
Researchers studying the limit of risk parents would be willing to
accept with a rotavirus vaccine said it this way: "Despite the obvious
benefits of vaccination, no vaccine is completely safe."
And, speaking as an authority on vaccine "safety" in 2006, none other
than Dr. Paul Offit himself told Medical Progress Today* "**there are no
risk–free choices with vaccines*." So there you have it: three
authoritative healthcare sources saying flat-out that vaccines come with
risks, and that they are NOT completely safe.
We also know that other scientists besides Dr. Aaby have published
concerns about the safety of the DTP, for example, this one suggesting that
the DTP could cause asthma in some children, or this one suggesting that it
also could cause allergy-related symptoms in children later in life. In
fact, there are so many scientific studies questioning the DTP's safety
that the National Vaccine Information Center has devoted a whole section of
links to these life-and-death studies on its website.
So if Dr. Aaby isn't the only one worried about the DTP, why is it that
some people are telling the BBC that he could be a danger to the global
health system? Or, more bluntly, why are health officials seemingly
ignoring Dr. Aaby's DTP studies that, in particular, show a higher
mortality rate for girls?
Is what Peter Smith said on behalf of the WHO really true – that world
health leaders don't believe Dr. Aaby has enough evidence to warrant an
alarm call on the DTP? Or would it be closer to the truth that what health
officials are really afraid of is that Dr. Aaby's right, and that people
will hear about it and refuse vaccines for their children in record numbers
in both developed and Third World countries, and thus "endanger" world
health officials' global plan for vaccines?
The good news is that a growing number of scientists around the world
are concerned enough about this issue that they're demanding that world
health officials pay attention.
In the meantime, I urge you to stand up for healthcare freedom, for the
right to choose what is best for you and your children when it comes to
vaccines. You can do this by joining with a very good friend of mine,
Barbara Loe Fisher, who in 1985 co-authored the seminal book, *DPT: A
Shot in the Dark* outlining DPT vaccine risks, and co-founded the
National Vaccine Information Center.
By making a generous donation to this non-profit charitable
organization, you will be fighting for your right to know the truth about
vaccines and studies like of Dr. Aaby's that I've shared with you here. If
you sign up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org
http://www.nvicadvocacy.org/ you will get plugged into your state and
learn how to stand up for your freedom to legally make voluntary choices
about vaccination for your children and yourself.
----- End forwarded message -----
