Fw: Dr Peter Aaby--Vaccinating Expert

[Zenaan Harkness]

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 <gilmay97 at gmail.com> -----
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:51:18 +1000
From: Gil May <gilmay97 at gmail.com>
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 -----