1. Jon Rappoport: The big vaccine-autism lie
“How is a self-contained world built?
Well, you can take a major situation which has an obvious cause, and then relabel the situation with a new name and say the cause is unknown.
Then you can claim you’re looking for the cause, and you can keep looking and stalling for 50 years.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
If you doubt this, look up the definition of autism in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and try to find a definitive lab test that leads to a diagnosis of autism.
There is no such test.
That means there is no confirmed cause of autism.
And THAT means there is no proof autism is a single and specific condition.
Like other so-called developmental disorders or neurological disorders, autism is a collection of behaviors and symptoms, clustered together by committees of psychiatrists.
Various forms of neurological damage.
This means the cause(s) could be coming from a variety of places.
Neurological damage, brain damage.
They were there.
They saw their children before vaccination and after vaccination.
High-class sophisticated deceptive diversion.
For example: shuffling various disease and disorder labels; studies claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism; the hoops the government makes parents jump through, in order to try to obtain financial compensation for their damaged children; the legal deal allowing vaccine manufacturers to avoid law suits; the invented cover stories claiming autism begins in utero or is a genetic disorder; the pretension that autism has even been defined—
The child suffers brain damage.
That’s the truth which the government buries in a mountain of obfuscation.
Unsurprisingly, there is no reliable count.
Her article was published in the Sept./Oct. 2004 issue of Mothering Magazine.
Gathering information from several sources, Fisher makes a reasonable estimate of vaccine damage—actual figures are not available or carefully tracked or vetted.
The system for reporting adverse effects is broken.
“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year?
Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination?
Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ [JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”
The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”
If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”
Because they want to lie.
What about all the studies that show this vaccine and that vaccine are safe?
The following quote will give you a clue.
The writer is an insider’s insider, and a doctor.
She’s scrutinized more published medical studies than all the “highly educated” science-blog writers in the world put together.
On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published Dr. Angell’s devastating assessment of medical literature:
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, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)
It diverts attention from the grave harm vaccines are causing.
Autism is essentially any kind of severe neurological damage a child suffers from unknown causes.
When the cause is obvious and known—as in the case of vaccines—the names and labels are changed:
2. Robert Kennedy’s World Mercury Project:The Varicella Vaccine, Skyrocketing Shingles and CDC Chicanery
“Collusion” is the word du jour, and the practice’s very characteristics—deception, fraud, misrepresentation and secrecy—often prevent collusive acts from coming to light.
In the scientific research community, would-be deceivers draw on a variety of tricks to slant their message, including manipulating data, employing other questionable research practices, not disclosing conflicts of interest, harassing whistleblowers and engaging in outright censorship.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is no stranger to any of these tactics, but eventually, as Shakespeare once predicted, the “truth will out.”
Critics and senior scientists, in growing numbers, have been pulling back the veil on the CDC’s unethical modus operandi, arguing that questionable practices have become “the norm and not the rare exception.”
Adding to this emerging picture of a public agency captive to “rogue interests,” a March 2018 article in the Annals of Clinical Pathology describes CDC’s suppression of inconvenient research findings pertaining to its Universal Varicella Vaccination Program.
The author, an independent computer scientist, outlines in morbidly fascinating detail the “collusion” between CDC and its local public health partner to conceal unwanted chickenpox vaccine outcomes from the public.
One virus, two diseases
Prior to the 1990s, natural chickenpox (caused by the varicella zoster virus) was a nearly universal childhood experience and, in children with normal immune systems, played out as a mild disease that conferred long-term immunity. In 1995, without any compelling medical reason to do so, the CDC added the chickenpox vaccine to the childhood vaccine schedule for 12- to 15-month-olds.
In 2006, acknowledging the problem of waning vaccine effectiveness, it indicated that four- to six-year-old children needed to get a second (booster) shot.
Following natural chickenpox infection, the virus remains latent in the body.
If reactivated later in life (usually in immunocompromised adults), the virus resurfaces in the form of shingles (herpes zoster or HZ).
Before introduction of the vaccine, the high prevalence of natural chickenpox in communities served to hold shingles in check for most adults by regularly boosting a type of immunity called cell-mediated immunity.
In fact, a 2002 study showed that exposure to natural chickenpox in adults living with children “was highly protective against [herpes] zoster.”
Those authors cautioned that mass chickenpox vaccination was likely to cause a major shingles epidemic and predicted that shingles would affect “more than 50% of those aged 10-44 years at introduction of vaccination.”
Before and after introduction of the vaccine, researchers also warned of the vaccine’s potential to shift the average age of chickenpox infection upward—a problematic scenario given that chickenpox is more severe in adults—while shifting downward the average age at which shingles occurs.
From predictions to reality
The Annals author was hired as a research analyst in 1995 by the Los Angeles Department of Health through the CDC-funded Varicella Active Surveillance Project.
For reasons specific to the project’s self-contained geographic locality, the project benefited from unusually high-quality data and “uninterrupted and stable data collection.”
Thus, the research analyst found himself ideally positioned to monitor the rollout of the chickenpox vaccination program from its inception and assess its outcomes—both positive and negative.
Initially, his sole mandate was to analyze varicella data.
In 2000, however, after anecdotal reports began trickling in from school nurses about “unexplainable increases in the number of cases of HZ…among school-aged children,” the analyst persuaded the CDC to add active surveillance of shingles to his duties.
In short order, this dual surveillance effort revealed two clearly negative consequences of the varicella vaccination program:
- Widespread chickenpox vaccination had “accelerated the recurrence of shingles in children who had had natural chickenpox” to rates higher than those published “in any historical study.”
Previously, “such high HZ incidence rates were…associated with older adults, not children.”
- The mass varicella vaccination program also had “increased the likelihood of shingles recurrence in adults.”
Neither finding was palatable to the public health agencies eager to publicize their vaccination program as an unmitigated success.
Obfuscation and malfeasance
From this point until the analyst quit in disgust in 2002, the CDC either sat on or out-and-out forbade publication of any studies “suggesting negative findings or deleterious effects,” engaging in at least 23 distinct actions “contributing to obfuscation and malfeasance.”
In one nonsensical attempt to “bury” the findings, the project investigators “simply and spuriously argued that the [surveillance project] did not provide a suitable platform for which to study HZ incidence rates.”
When the analyst refuted this argument, the agencies sought to statistically mask the unwanted findings.
For example, they improperly averaged shingles rates across the two very different subgroups of children (vaccine recipients and children who had previously had natural chickenpox) to hide the spike in shingles in the second group.
The CDC and local health department also went after the research analyst, both before and after his employment with them. Actions included:
- Directing him “not to pursue further analysis of trends in HZ cases”
- Denying him permission to contact individuals who had reported a second recurrence of shingles within a year of their first reported case
- Attempting to discredit him through ad hominem attacks
- After his resignation, serving notice “to ‘cease and desist’ publication in a medical journal when he sought to objectively publish all of the data and results” and pressuring journal editors to postpone publication.
More than two decades into universal chickenpox vaccination in the U.S., the program’s early promises ring hollow.
Instead, the Annals author makes a compelling case that the program has resulted in a “fabricated cycle of disease and treatment” that has a substantial health care cost burden and is “causing distress” to vaccine recipients—and non-recipients—of all ages.
Elsewhere, the author quoted a parent whose daughter received the varicella vaccine at age four (having never had natural chickenpox) and then had recurrent and painful episodes of shingles at ages 13 and 16; the parent expressed regret for “a dangerous vaccine with awful side effects that stay with you for a lifetime…far worse than chickenpox in one’s youth.”
Case reports likewise refer to “vaccine-strain zoster severe enough to cause neurological complications such as meningitis or encephalitis” in healthy children.
Recently, Italian scientists suggested that routine varicella vaccination programs may have “perverse public health implications” due to the “intrinsically antagonistic” dynamic between chickenpox and shingles.
Likewise, an agency—the CDC—that is in charge of promoting vaccine uptake while being tasked with vaccine safety at the same time has an inherent conflict of interest that does not serve the public.
Over a decade ago, a Nature editorial discussed parents’ declining confidence in vaccine safety and concluded that there was a “strong case” to be made for establishing “a well-resourced independent national agency that commands the trust of both the government and the public in matters of health protection.” Johns Hopkins University researchers similarly called for an independent National Vaccine Safety Board separate from the CDC or any branch of government in order to “ensure optimal vaccine safety.”
It’s high time to follow through on those vital recommendations.
3. Dr Judy Wilyman: Newsletter # 198 The Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia
14 May 2018
On the 27 April 2018 a seminar was held in Sydney to discuss the Censorship of the VaccinationDebate in Australia.
At this seminar Emeritis Professor Brian Martin, from the University of Wollongong, spoke about the loss of freedom of speech in Australia on vaccination and I spoke about the reasons why this has become necessary on this scientific issue.
My presentation starts are 45.30 mins into the video.
This censorship involves:
- Councils preventing university research that discusses the public interest in vaccination policies from being presented in council venues.
- Australian journalists misrepresenting university research on vaccination to the public – whilst the University of Wollongong (that is in partnership with industry) remains silent.
- Powerful industry lobby groups targeting owners of public venues with the loss of their reputation if they allow the public to discuss vaccination issues at their venues.
Hence the need to keep the venues secret until the day of the event.
- The University of Wollongong (UOW) breaching its charter to present integrity in academic knowledge by promoting the government’s claims about vaccine safety and efficacy on its website one week after my PhD thesis was finished and published on the UOW website in 2016.
This is a breach of integrity because the UOW academics who have signed their names to this statement have never researched vaccination science in-depth or had any publications on this topic.
- The UOW is deceiving the Australian public with this promotion of false claims about vaccination that is supported by the signature of Professor’s Heather Yeatman and Alsion Jones, who have no professional expertise in the area of vaccination science or policy.
These strategies are designed to confuse the public about the science of vaccination and they have resulted in doctors and parents being prevented from discussing the medical risks of vaccination in public venues and in the mainstream media in Australia – a situation that is dangerous to public health.
Australian journalists are being allowed to provide their unqualified opinion to the public that all vaccines are good for you.
This is being based on false information due to institutional biases in the political system.
The Medical Board of Australia (MBA) is describing the risks of vaccines as ‘anti-vaccinationmaterial’ and there has been no scrutiny of the science that the MBA is describing as ‘anti-vaccination‘.
The MBA is not being held to account by any public authority.
This is enabling the MBA to choose the ‘accepted literature’ on vaccination safety and efficacy.
The public has a right to know that the only research on vaccine safety and efficacy that is ‘accepted’ by the MBA and the Australian government is funded, performed and promoted to doctors and the public, by the pharmaceutical companies.
That is, the companies that are profiting from our health.
The control of infectious diseases in Australia was achieved by 1950-60 without the use of the 16 vaccines that the Australian government has mandated with financial coercion into Social Welfare policies. The Australian government is deceiving the public about the necessity for these 16 vaccines and this is a crime against the Australian public.
The Australian government has removed choice in the use of 16 vaccines for new parents for welfare payments, for the use of childcare centres, for immigrants and for university students choosing a career in the health profession.
Even though there is no Australian adult that has used all, or even most, of the 16 vaccines that are now mandated for welfare benefits, childcare centres, immigrants and university students, the Medical Board of Australia is claiming that ” a 95% uptake rate of all 16 vaccines is essential to control these infectious diseases in the Australian population.
This is an oxymoron.
None of the 16 vaccines have ever been used with a 95% uptake rate in the Australian population to control any infectious disease and the MBA has not provided any evidence to support this claim.
Most of the vaccines have been added to the recommended schedule after 1990 when no infectious disease was a serious threat to the majority of Australians.
Many of the mandated vaccines – chicken pox vaccine, rotovirus vaccine (for gastroeneritis), menningococcal and pnemococcal vaccines – were only added to the schedule in 2013 and mandated with coercion in government policies in 2015 when Scott Morrison was the Minister for Social Services (for implementation in January 2016).
These vaccines have never been used in any population with a 95% uptake rate to control any infectious disease and the Australian government has committed a crime with this legislation.
This is a crime because it breaches the Nuremberg Code that requires fully informed consent with truthful knowledge about vaccines and their ingredients and serious adverse events, being provided to the individual, with an assessment of the individual’s own particular genetics and circumstances, before consent to the procedure is provided.
Doctors and nurses in Australia are currently being forced to breach the Geneva Convention – the right for patients to have fully informed consent without financial or other coercion to vaccination – by an MBA that is threatening them with de-registration if they present ‘anti-vaccination‘ materia. Many Australian health practitioners are currently being investigated for their integrity in presenting the risks of vaccination to their healthy patients.
The government is also falsely claiming that ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ and the evidence for this fact is provided in my University of Wollongong PhD thesis.
As with all drugs, the risks of vaccines are being downplayed, and even ignored, by the pharmaceutical companies who are informing the government about vaccination policies through powerful industry-lobby groups such as SAVN / the Australian Skeptics Inc and the Friends of Science in Medicine.
These lobby groups are also being supported by the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA).
This influence is occurring through funding arrangements, donations and honoraria provided to representatives on government vaccine advisory boards.
Here is a link to our seminar on the Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia held in Sydney on 27 April 2018.
Please forward this newsletter to family and friends to ensure they can investigate these issues and protect their health from harmful government vaccination policies.
Judy Wilyman PhD
Bachelor of Science, University of NSW
Diploma of Education (Science), University of Wollongong
Master of Science (Population Health), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Wollongong.
PhD in The Science and Politics of the Australian Government’s Vaccination Program, UOW School of Humanities and Social Inquiry.