Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO)

Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO) | comply-vaccinations | Civil Rights General Health Government Government Control Losing Rights Medical & Health Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

A new bill, HR 1313, has been introduced by North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx which is designed to give employers absolute power over the employee by mandating whatever they deem to be proper “heath prevention” measures. These measures would include submitting DNA records as well as mandatory vaccinations and other perceived “health preventive” measures designed for the “greater good” of the general public. The result of not complying with this new law of course would be losing your job.

This kind of legislation thus gives large corporations government-like political status and god-like powers over the individual and further widens the gap between the rich and poor. But even more importantly this kind of legislation strips away intimate individual medical privacy and further solidifies the global control grid being created by the ruling elite as they attempt to complete their new world order plans of permanent human enslavement. No need to imagine how this “future” new world order enslavement will look like anymore. We’re seeing it all being rolled out in real-time and in broad daylight for the world to see.

As I discuss in my video below, all of this is part of the Communist-Globalist “peaceful revolution” strategy which is designed to financially neutralize the individual by first making the individual financially dependent on the state or the rulers, and then the threat of having all their food and survival (work related) income taken away is enough to “peacefully” silence the individual into submission.

Writer Dena Schmidt at NaturalHealth365.com writes regarding this latest bill:

While Republican congresswoman Virginia Foxx is the main sponsor of H.R. 1313, she is not the originator of the legislation. It is actually part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

Obamacare already threatens to assess penalties, surcharges and higher health insurance premiums to businesses and workers who refuse vaccinations – which the healthcare legislation refers to as “disease prevention.”

Solutions:

It’s time to pay attention and fight back. Organize your counterattack smartly, effectively and efficiently. Start somewhere and then build from there knowing that every voice counts. Below Schmidt explains some of the politics behind this resolution and offers a way to take action:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) calls the H.R. 1313 bill a threat to both businesses and the people employed by them. Instead of allowing for free choice in health and wellness decisions, the legislation would attempt to implement a “carrot and stick” method for “strongly compelling” businesses and workers to accept the agendas of big pharma and its paid-off government officials.

The National Vaccine Information Center is urging concerned citizens to contact their own representatives and senators to express their views about H.R. 1313. When doing so, please remember to express your opinions intelligently and respectfully – you are far more likely to be heard if you are firm but polite when explaining your point of view.

All of this serves to remind us that science has been undermined by the ruling elite and that government pseudoscience has taken its place. This politicized science is then used to make claims which are then used to take away your rights. So first let’s be mindful of how this problem began and then let’s fight back with awareness, information-spreading and do what we can to introduce our own new bills to secure our right to privacy and health. Let’s remind both governments and large corporations that our right to natural health and personal physical and mental well being is inalienable and cannot be taken away.

Related video

Additional links below:

Contact Congresswoman Virginia Foxx here

Contact your local representatives here


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

How Vaccinated Kids Infect The Non-Vaccinated

How Vaccinated Kids Infect The Non-Vaccinated | infected_vaccines_transmit | Medical & Health Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

With the thousands of mainstream media articles blaming the non-vaccinated for disease outbreaks, this article will provide a necessary counterbalance by showing the vaccinated can (and do) infect the non-vaccinated… 

A groundbreaking study published in 2013 in the journal Vaccine titled, “Comparison of virus shedding after lived attenuated and ​pentavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine,” referenced the fact that rotavirus vaccines contain live viruses capable of causing infection, shedding and even transmission to non-vaccinated subjects:

“In fact, transmission of these two rotavirus vaccines or vaccine-reassortment strains to unvaccinated contacts has been detected [9–13][1], even in the absence of symptoms.”

One of the five studies referenced in the passage above confirming that the vaccinated can infect the non-vaccinated, “Sibling transmission of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq) associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis,” published in 2009, is the first report in the literature to identify the transmission of rotavirus vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis requiring emergency medical attention:

“We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care.”

The study also indicated that two of the five strains of rotavirus within the Rotateq reassorted to produce a more harmful virus either within the vaccinated infant or within the subsequently infected unvaccinated sibling:

“Results of our investigation suggest that reassortment between vaccine component strains of genotypes P7[5]G1 and P1A[8]G6 occurred during replication either in the vaccinated infant or in the older sibling, raising the possibility that this reassortment may have increased the virulence of the vaccine-derived virus.”

This phenomenon of Rotateq vaccine strain ​reassortment and subsequent gastoenteritis infection in vaccine recipients was also observed in a 2012 study in 61 infants.[2] Additionally, A Nicaraguan study published in 2012 found “the widespread use of the RotaTeq vaccine has led to the introduction of vaccine genes into circulating human RVs.,” revealing that the widespread introduction of the vaccine strain has altered the genetic makeup of wild-type rotavirus that now infects exposed populations.[3]

It has been estimated that between 80-100% of infants shed rotavirus at some point during 25-28 days after vaccination.[4] [5] This reveals that the vaccinated, contrary to widespread assumptions about the the risks represented by the non-vaccinated, pose a clear risk of infecting the non-vaccinated, and may be producing the ideal virological conditions for the recombination of diverse rotavirus strains into vaccine-resistant ‘super viruses.’

Another case study, reported on in the National Vaccine Information Center’s document on vaccine viral shedding:

“In 2010, a case report was published in Pediatrics describing a 30-month old healthy boy who had never received rotavirus vaccine and was infected with vaccine strain rotavirus. 237 He ended up in the emergency room with severe gastroenteritis 10 days after his healthy two-month old brother was given a dose of Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine. A stool sample was taken in the emergency room and came back positive for RotaTeq vaccine derived strains after RT-PCR testing.”

The authors of the case report noted that “transmission of RotaTeq strains to unvaccinated contacts was not evaluated in the pivotal [pre-licensure] clinical trials.” They added that  both RotaTeq and Rotarix [GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals] vaccines have “the potential for vaccine-virus transmission to contacts.”

The Rotateq Vaccine: Shot Through with Conflict of Interest

The Rotateq rotavirus vaccine was co-created by Dr. Paul Offit, widely recognized as the vaccine industry’s leading promoter and apologist. He is the co-patent holder of one of two live rotavirus vaccines the FDA has approved, and which the CDC recommends should be administered to infants in 3 doses at ages 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months.

Historically incapable of self-recusal, despite his glaring conflicts of interest, Offit regularly positions himself as an expert on vaccines, even though he personally gains from presenting his product (and the CDC’s vaccine schedule as a whole) as safe and effective.  Case in point, in one notorious interview in Parenting magazine he claimed a child can receive 10,000 vaccines simultaneously without harm (corrected from 100,000 which he suggested in a previous interview).

The Rotavirus Vaccine Was Dirty from the Start

The first rotavirus vaccine – Rotashield – comprised of four reassorted rhesus-human rotaviruses was approved in 1999, only to be withdrawn from the market by the FDA nine months later when it was found to increase the risk for a deadly form of bowel obstruction known as intussusception in a small subset of highly vulnerable children.[6]

Offit’s Rotateq, which consists of 5 reassorted human-bovine retroviruses (yes, that means GMO), was believed to be a safer alternative when it was approved by the FDA in 2006, but newly published research reveals his vaccine suffers from the same exact deadly problems.

Published this month in Vaccine and titled, “Intussusception risk after RotaTeq vaccination: Evaluation from worldwide spontaneous reporting data using a self-controlled case series approach“, the study evaluated worldwide reports to the manufacturer of Rotateq up to May 2014, adjusting for the phenomenon of under-reporting.  The study found that the relative risk of intussception associated with the administration of Rotateq vaccine increases “3-7 days following vaccination, mainly after the first dose and marginally after the second and third doses.”  The increase in relative risk reached 3.45 fold in the period 3-to-7 days after the first dose, relative to the 15-30-day period control period.

Another study linking Rotateq to intussusception was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine finding approximately 1.5 (95% CI, 0.2 to 3.2) excess cases of intussusception per 100,000 recipients of the first dose.[7]

Live Vaccines: A Pandora’s Box of Adventitious Viruses  

Death or debilitation by bowel obstruction rapidly following Rotateq vaccination is an acute adverse effect that is unlikely to be overlooked or ignored. This is why the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS): a passive, vaccine post-marketing surveillance system, has found it to be a significant side effect.  VAERS, however, is believed to capture as little as less than 1% of the actual damage being done by vaccines, indicating that the extent of harm of the Rotateq is several orders of magnitude than presently indicated by this report.

Exposure to Rotateq therefore suffers – like many live vaccines – from a darker side, as far as adverse effects go, which may take months, years, or decades to manifest as part of the multifactorial smog cloud of modern day toxicities and exposures that eventually make their way into the bottleneck of a classical diagnosis.

Rotateq, for instance, has been identified to be contaminated with a number of adventitious viruses; that is to say, viruses that contaminated the live cells and/or biological components involved in the original vaccine manufacturing process. These surreptitious agents, unknown to the manufacturers and regulatory agencies that approved them, infected the vaccines the children given them. These viruses include:

  • Porcine Circovirus 1 (PCV-1): In 2010 the FDA suspended the Rotarix vaccine due to the discovery that it was contaminated with PCV-1 virus, a pig virus, the implications of which as far as human exposure are still unknown. Considered less a risk than PCV-2, known to cause a debilitating wasting disease in piglets, the FDA determined, after review, that PCV-1 does not represent a risk to the millions of children exposed to it.
  • Porcine Circovirus 2 (PCV-2): A 2014 study conducted by CDC researchers and published in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutcs titled, “Detection of PCV-2 DNA in stool samples from infants vaccinated with RotaTeq®,” found for the first time that PCV-2 is shed in the stool of those vaccinated with Rotateq. They found “A total of 235 (28.5%) samples from 59 vaccine recipients were positive for PCV-2 DNA by one or more assays used in this study.” Additionally, “Twenty-two of the 102 vaccine recipients (21.6%) shed RotaTeq® vaccine strain and 10 of these vaccinees (9.8%) were shedding both PCV DNA and rotavirus vaccine RNA.”  In pigs, PCV-2 has been linked to serious health problems including, “PCV2-associated pneumonia, PCV2-associated enteritis, PCV2-associated reproductive failure, and Porcine Dermatitis and Nephropathy Syndrome (PDNS).” [source]. In 2010, The FDA ruled, against the precautionary principle, that neither “PCV1 or PCV2 are known to infect or cause illness in humans, however PCV2 may cause illness in pigs.”
  • Baboon endogenous strain 7 retrovirus DNAa 2014 study published in Advances in Virology titled, “Screening of Viral Pathogens from Pediatric Ileal Tissue Samples after Vaccination,” found evidence of contamination with a baboon retrovirus.
  • Class D Simian Retovirusa 2010 study published in Journal of Virology revealed that the Rotateq vaccine contains  simian retrovirus DNA (with a 96% match of certainty), which Judy Mikovits, PhD, confirms may contribute to adverse health effects, regardless of whether it is a self-replicating virus or not.

Because live vaccines are manufactured through co-culturing cells and biological fluids from various different species, there is plenty of opportunity for viruses to adapt to, and  recombine to produce infectious agents capable of far greater virulence. Rotateq is just one of many vaccines in the CDC’s immunization schedule that contain live viruses capable of infecting those given it, including retroviruses, which have been called a modern-day Plague owing to the fact that they are capable of infecting the host as non-HIV acquire immunodeficiency viruses. For more information read Dr. Judy Mikovits and Kent Heckenlively’s new book Plague or listen to my interview of Dr. Mikovits on Fearless Parent Radio.

Clearly, given the evidence revealing the potential unintended, adverse effects of the Rotateq vaccine, especially the potential for it to infect those exposed to it with adventitious viruses, the implementation of the precautionary principle requires the immediate suspension of its use until proper toxicological reevaluations can be made. Anyone who questions the safety of the present CDC immunization schedule should be able to point to the Rotateq as a perfect example of why the schedule is not at all evidence based but rather founded in a mythological belief in the safety and effectiveness of products that have never been proven sound.


REFERENCES

 [1] [9]  Phua KB, Quak SH, Lee BW, Emmanuel SC, Goh P, Han HH, et al. Evaluation of RIX4414, a live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial involving 2464 Singaporean infants. J Infect Dis 2005;192(Suppl. 1):S6–16.

 [10]  Dennehy PH, Brady RC, Halperin SA, Ward RL, Alvey JC, Fischer Jr FH, et al. Comparative evaluation of safety and immunogenicity of two dosages of an oral live attenuated human rotavirus vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005;24:481–8.

[11]  Payne DC, Edwards KM, Bowen MD, Keckley E, Peters J, Esona MD, et al. Sibling transmission of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq) associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis. Pediatrics 2010;125:e438–41.

 [12]  Boom JA, Sahni LC, Payne DC, Gautam R, Lyde F, Mijatovic-Rustempasic S, et al. Symptomatic infection and detection of vaccine and vaccine-reassortant rotavirus strains in 5 children: a case series. J Infect Dis 2012;206:1275–9.

 [13]  RiveraL,Pen ̃aLM,StainierI,GillardP,CheuvartB,SmolenovI,etal.Horizontal transmission of a human rotavirus vaccine strain—a randomized, placebo- controlled study in twins. Vaccine 2011;29:9508–13.

[2] J Infect Dis. 2012 Aug 1;206(3):377-83. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jis361. Epub 2012 May 21.

Identification of strains of RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine in infants with gastroenteritis following routine vaccination. Donato CM1, Ch’ng LSBoniface KFCrawford NWButtery JPLyon MBishop RFKirkwood CD.

[3] Infect Genet Evol. 2012 Aug;12(6):1282-94. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2012.03.007. Epub 2012 Apr 2.

Vaccine-derived NSP2 segment in rotaviruses from vaccinated children with gastroenteritis in Nicaragua. Bucardo F1, Rippinger CMSvensson LPatton JT.

[4] Phua KB, Quak SH, Lee BW, Emmanuel SC, Goh P, Han HH, et al. Evaluation of

RIX4414, a live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial involving 2464 Singaporean infants. J Infect Dis 2005;192(Suppl. 1):S6–16.

[5] Comparison of virus shedding after lived attenuated and pentavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine

[6] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Intussusception among recipients of rotavirus vaccine—United States, 1998–1999. JAMA 1999;282:5201 CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science

[7] N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 6;370(6):503-12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1303164. Epub 2014 Jan 14 Intussusception risk after rotavirus vaccination in U.S. infants.  Yih WK1, Lieu TA, Kulldorff M, Martin D, McMahill-Walraven CN, Platt R, Selvam N, Selvan M, Lee GM, Nguyen M

 

©  April 29, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post How Vaccinated Kids Infect The Non-Vaccinated appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To “Improve” Vaccination?

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To "Improve" Vaccination? | infant-vaccine | Medical & Health Propaganda Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally “safe” and “effective” a priori.

Along the way, we happened upon a 2010 study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases which has been shared more than any other article on our database, and which suggests that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from deactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and “vaccine potency.” The concluded the study with the following statement:

“INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”

It is not difficult to comprehend what caused the flurry of interest in this study. Readers were obviously disturbed by the suggestion that women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine’s purported “efficacy.”  Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula in the interim, a synthetic ‘breastmilk alternative’ that has been linked to over 60 serious health conditions, as well as increased infant mortality?  And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real-world effectiveness? [See: Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines]

First, it should be made clear that the term “efficacy,” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody-elevating effects, does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether or not a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the infectious agent of concern.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is primarily a highly successful business enterprise dependent on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by “health experts,” and the manufacturers who produce, them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be overestimated or understated.

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To "Improve" Vaccination? | images2 | Medical & Health Propaganda Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine researchers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating “false flag” responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection – and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus. Truth be told, there is actually a shocking lack of evidence to support flu vaccines, in any age or population.

What’s worse, the vaccine response can “blow back” causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (auto-immunity).  In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and this “front door” can be left wide open to unmet infectious challenges.

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To "Improve" Vaccination? | tregcells_home_1 | Medical & Health Propaganda Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.  One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of “natural” antigenic challenges for the infant, this breast milk derived, indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the “enemy,” the reduction in antibodies that accompanies a well-nourished breastfed infant’s blood work, after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine, is a sign of health, not disease.

This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern medicine — always attempting to “improve on Nature” — drives us sick, mentally and physically. Can’t we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?

© April 24, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To “Improve” Vaccination? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines

Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines | vaccine-animal-cells | Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Vaccine animal cells are widely used by Big Pharma in the making of their concoctions. Bird, pig, cow, dog, monkey, mouse, worm & insect DNA can all be found in various vaccines.

Vaccine animal cells are a disturbing but frequently overlooked aspect of the whole vaccination issue. Fortunately, there has been a wide-growing awareness of the many toxic ingredients and adjuvants used in vaccines (see here for a list of the top 10). While people rightly object to substances such as mercury, MSG, aluminum and formaldehyde, how much attention has been placed upon vaccine animal cells? Did you even know that many vaccines use animal DNA to grow and culture the bacterium or virus being vaccinated against? Today’s vaccines have been made from a variety of animal cells, including but not limited to DNA from birds (chicken cells are very common), cows, pigs, dogs, monkeys, worms and other insects. This information alone makes many people shudder. The vaccine packaging label often states that these cells are there only in trace amounts, but they are present nonetheless. What are the implications of this? How many people are having reactions due to taking a vaccine with cells of an animal to which they are already allergic?

Bird Cells

Chickens and their embryos have long been used in the production of vaccines. Thomas Rivers and others at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (see here for Rockefeller influence on Western medicine and Big Pharma) popularized the method in the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous vaccines use chicken DNA such as the influenza (flu) vaccine, the MMR vaccine, the rabies vaccine and the yellow fever vaccine.

Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines | vaccine-animal-cells-pigs-479x320 | Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Pig Cells

Next up is pig DNA. Zoster (Shingles – Zostavax) contains “hydrolyzed porcine gelatin”, while the rotavirus (Rotarix and RotaTeq) vaccines contain “porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV-1)”.

Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines | vaccine-animal-cells-cow-serum-abattoir-479x319 | Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Vaccine animal cells include fetal cow serum (cow blood), harvested from abattoirs like this one pictured above.

Cow Cells

A large number of vaccines (e.g. the adenovirus vaccine, the MMR vaccine, the rotavirus vaccine and the varicella [chickenpox] vaccine) are made from fetal bovine serum, i.e. cow blood. The cow blood serum is used as a substrate or nutrient broth for viruses to grow in cells. Anyone with any feeling at all for animals is going to shudder at how this cow blood is collected. The Humane Research Australia site describes the serum harvesting process like this:

“After slaughter and bleeding of the cow at an abattoir, the mother’s uterus containing the calf fetus is removed during the evisceration process (removal of the mother’s internal organs) and transferred to the blood collection room. A needle is then inserted between the fetus’s ribs directly into its heart and the blood is vacuumed into a sterile collection bag. This process is aimed at minimizing the risk of contamination of the serum with micro-organisms from the fetus and its environment. Only fetuses over the age of three months are used otherwise the heart is considered too small to puncture.

Once collected, the blood is allowed to clot at room temperature and the serum separated through a process known as refrigerated centrifugation.”

This goes to show that concerns about vaccine animal cells don’t have to be limited to concern about your own health or the health of your family, but rather wider issues such as animal welfare. Do you really want to be participating in a manufacturer-consumer chain with end products made like this?

Dog Cells

Hold on, because this list of vaccine animal cells is going to get more gross and disgusting as we progress. Since many people eat eggs, pork, diary and steak, perhaps the thought of injecting yourself with chicken embryos, porcine cells and cow blood isn’t that bad (for some). But what about dog DNA? Where do you draw the line? In late 2012, the FDA approved the seasonal influenza vaccine, Flucelvax, manufactured by Novartis. Flucelvax is mass-produced using the Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell line as a vaccine substrate. MDCK are kidney cells from untested dogs, originally derived from a female cocker spaniel in 1958.

Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines | vaccine-animal-cells-african-green-monkey-479x319 | Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Vaccine animal cells also include those from the African Green Monkey, pictured here.

Monkey Cells

From dog to monkey … while dog cells in vaccines are a relatively new concoction, monkey cells have been around awhile, at least since the days of the polio vaccine when Sabin and Salk were engaged in a great race to see who could produce a better polio vaccine. From my point of view, they both failed in the end, since many became ill from the polio vaccines (some of which were infected with SV40 or Simian Virus 40, a cancer-causing monkey virus – see the conclusion of this article).

Natural News recently highlighted how the ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine is grown and cultured in African Green Monkey kidney (vero) cells. The vaccine insert label contained the following warning:

Vaccine WARNINGS related to the vaccine using African Green Monkey kidney cells

Not surprisingly, this vaccine is known to cause extremely serious and even deadly side effects at a shockingly high rate. Here’s the WARNING box from the vaccine insert sheet, linked above:

WARNING:

See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning

Myocarditis and pericarditis (suspect cases observed at a rate of 5.7 per 1000 primary vaccinees (95% CI: 1.9-13.3)), encephalitis, encephalomyelitis, encephalopathy, progressive vaccinia, generalized vaccinia, severe vaccinial skin infections, erythema multiforme major (including STEVENS-JOHNSON SYNDROME), eczema vaccinatum resulting in permanent sequelae or death, ocular complications, blindness and fetal death, have occurred following either primary vaccination or revaccination with live vaccinia virus smallpox vaccines. These risks are increased in certain individuals and may result in severe disability, permanent neurological sequelae and/or death [see Warnings and Precautions (5)].”

The aforementioned page on the CDC website states that other vaccines contain African Green Monkey kidney cells, including the polio vaccine (IPOL by Sanofi Pasteur), DTaP-IPV (Kinrix) and DTaP-HepB-IPV (Pediarix).

Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines | vaccine-animal-cells-mouse-DNA-479x430 | Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Mouse DNA is part of the many types of vaccine animal cells.

Mouse Cells

From primates we now go on to smaller mammals: mice. Vaccine animal cells include rodent cells. Vaccines such as the Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine and the rabies vaccine used to contain mouse brain cells. They have been used in many Asian countries. Other vaccines that either include or used to include mouse DNA are the inactivated mouse brain vaccine (IMB), suckling mouse brain vaccine (SMB), JE virus vaccine (Beijing-1) and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis vaccine (ADEM).

Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines | vaccine-animal-cells-armyworm-479x322 | Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Some vaccine animal cells are those derived from the armyworm, pictured above.

Worm Cells

Flucelvax is a great vaccine to take if you want a full dose of vaccine animal cells. Not only does it contain dog DNA, but also worm DNA! That’s right: the Flucelvax flu shot has worm ovary cells from the armyworm spodoptera frugiperda. The FDA approved the Flublok vaccine in 2013. The worm cells are from an insect cell line called “expresSF+®”. The vaccine package insert for Flublok also states it may contain other viruses like the baculovirus:

“Each 0.5 mL dose of Flublok may also contain residual amounts of baculovirus and host cell proteins (≤ 28.5 mcg), baculovirus and cellular DNA (≤ 10 ng) …”

Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines | flublok-vaccine-insert-label-479x79 | Medical & Health Science & Technology Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines
Insect Cells

Finally, to top it all off, we have more insect cell lines being used in vaccines. In 2007, a company known as Protein Sciences Corporation developed a patented influenza vaccine produced from caterpillar eggs:

“A flu vaccine made in insect cells instead of chicken eggs is safe and at least as effective as standard shots, a study reports. Scientists say the experimental vaccine marks an advance toward the development of a faster method of making flu vaccine.

In today’s Journal of the American Medical Association, John Treanor of the University of Rochester, N.Y., tested an experimental vaccine made by using an insect virus, baculovirus, to produce virus proteins in cells taken from caterpillars.”

Conclusion: Is It Really Good for Human Health to Inject Ourselves with Bacteria- and Virus-Containing Animal Cells?

The question of whether it’s truly good for the health for humans to take infected animal cells into their bloodstreams needs to be thoroughly examined. The immune system of the human body is designed to recognize foreign substances as invaders – and kick into gear to defend the human organism against them. Are we helping or harming the body by putting animal cells (foreign DNA particles and fragments) straight into our blood? Yes, many people eat animal flesh and animal products in the form of beef, fish, chicken, dairy products and eggs, but digesting these in our stomach is a very different thing than having them directly injected into our bloodstream. Even the mainstream medical site The History of Vaccines admitted that vaccine animal cells are not ideal:

“… using animals in vaccine development – particularly live animals – is not ideal. Research animals are costly and require extensive monitoring, both to maintain their health and to ensure the continued viability of the research. They may be carrying other bacteria or viruses that could contaminate the eventual vaccine, as with polio vaccines from the mid 20th century that were made with monkey cells and eventually found to contain a monkey virus called SV40, or Simian Virus 40 …”

The article goes on to claim that the monkey virus SV-40 or SV40 (found in polio vaccines) was found to not be harmful to humans. This claim is highly dubious. As I mentioned in the article Cause of Cancer Explained? Widespread Monkey Virus SV-40 From Old Polio Vaccines Could Be One of the Factors, there may well be a connection between SV40 and cancer. The reason is that many viruses can be reactivated through stress, a toxic environment and a lowered immune system. Bernice Eddy was a bacteriologist at the NIH and was told to safety test the Salk polio vaccines in 1955. She discovered faulty batches and found that the vaccine virus wasn’t dead but was still alive and able to breed. When she tried it on her monkeys, they became paralyzed. To her credit, she then tried to delay the release of the vaccine … unsuccessfully. Afterwards, millions of Americans were injected with contaminated polio vaccines.

What do you think? Do you believe that injecting yourself with vaccine animal cells can really lead to good health? Post your comment below.

 

Sources:

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/toxic-vaccine-adjuvants-the-top-10/

*https://vactruth.com/2013/10/28/7-disgusting-ingredients/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/western-medicine-rockefeller-medicine/

*https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

*http://www.humaneresearch.org.au/campaigns/fetal_calf_serum

*http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-03-09-cdc-confirms-natural-news-100-correct-on-report-of-african-green-monkey-kidney-cells-used-in-vaccines.html

*https://www.cdc.gov/japaneseencephalitis/vaccine/index.html

*http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/01/18/169695011/a-worms-ovary-cells-become-a-flu-vaccine-machine

*https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm336020.pdf

*http://www.proteinsciences.com/Archives/files/assets/common/downloads/page0060.pdf

*https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/cause-of-cancer-monkey-virus-polio/


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Vaccine Animal Cells: Bird, Pig, Cow, Dog, Monkey, Mouse, Worm and Insect DNA Used in Vaccines appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Gandhi’s Anti-Vaccine Views Ring True A Century Later

Gandhi's Anti-Vaccine Views Ring True A Century Later | ghandi-vaccines | Medical & Health Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Almost one century ago, Gandhi published a book where he deconstructed the dangers and lack of effectiveness of vaccines and the agendas surrounding them.  His voice rings true now more than ever.

The internet meme above has been subject of a good bit of controversy. Not only is Gandhi taking what many today consider an extreme ‘anti-vaxxer’ stance, but some have questioned whether or not he ever made this statement, or statements like it.

The truth is that this quote only scratches the surface of Gandhi’s biting critique of the dangers, inefficacy, and malfeasance associated with the vaccination campaigns of his time. Gandhi, of course, is history’s most celebrated anti-imperialist, having almost single-handedly set into motion India’s independence from British colonial rule. He was extremely sensitive to Western forms of control and oppression, and was able to apply his intellect to the manner in which the Western medical establishment was coercing millions of Indians to succumb to the unhealthy practice of smallpox and plague vaccination

Gandhi's Anti-Vaccine Views Ring True A Century Later | ghandi1 | Medical & Health Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

Read/Download the entire book here

The relevant chapters from his book A Guide to Health are republished below, but we have summarized some of the key points he makes so you can get a quick sense for how remarkably relevant his views on the topic are still today, and perhaps entice you to read the entire chapter thereafter.

Key points:

  • The nature of diseases like smallpox have been misconceived. While smallpox has a contagious component, vaccinated individuals can become infected, and non-vaccinated individuals remain immune, disproving Jenner’s original theory that vaccination equates to bona fide immunity.
  • Vaccination is a unsanitary practice. By injecting the ‘filth’ of a diseased cow and smallpox patient into the body of a healthy individual one inevitably makes them sicker, possibly producing new infections, ultimately resulting in a greater disease burden.
  • The route of administration of the vaccine — injection— harbors special dangers versus natural (oral) exposures to infection.
  • Fear of disease drives people to vaccinate against commonsense and rationality.
  • Vaccination is unethical and immoral because of the manner in which the vaccine is produced (through the great suffering of poisoned animals)
  • The income generated through vaccination is the driving reason why the medical profession does not wish to identify aforementioned problems in safety and efficacy.
  • Conscientious objectors should be willing to stand their ground with courage and face persecution and penalties.
  • Those objecting for medical reasons should aspire towards mastery of the subject such that they will be able to win others towards their perspective.
  • Sanitation, hygiene, fresh air, water, and clean food are essential for preventing infection and/or helping those infected to recover.

Below is the full chapter where Ghandi reveals his views on vaccination in detail.

A GUIDE TO HEALTH

by Mahatma Gandhi

Chapter VI

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES: SMALL-POX

Now we will proceed to deal with the treatment of contagious diseases. They have a common origin, but, since small-pox is by far the most important of them, we will give a separate chapter to it, dealing with the rest in another chapter. [Pg 105] We are all terribly afraid of the small-pox, and have very crude notions about it. We in India even worship it as a deity. In fact it is caused, just like other diseases, by the blood getting impure owing to some disorder of the bowels; and the poison that accumulates in the system is expelled in the form of small-pox. If this view is correct, then there is absolutely no need to be afraid of small-pox. If it were really a contagious disease, everyone should catch it by merely touching the patient; but this is not always the case. Hence there is really no harm in touching the patient, provided we take some essential precautions in doing so. We cannot, of course, assert that small-pox is never transmitted by touch, for those that are physically in a condition favourable to its transmission will catch it. This is why, in a locality where small-pox has appeared, many people are found attacked by it at the same time. This has given rise to the superstition that it is a contagious disease, and hence to the attempt to mislead the people into the belief that vaccination is an effective means of preventing it. The process of vaccination consists in injecting into the skin the liquid that is obtained by applying the discharge from the body of a small-pox patient to the udder of a cow. The original theory was that a single vaccination would suffice to keep a man [Pg 106] immune from this disease for life; but, when it was found that even vaccinated persons were attacked by the disease, a new theory came into being that the vaccination should be renewed after a certain period, and to-day it has become the rule for all persons—whether already vaccinated or not—to get themselves vaccinated whenever small-pox rages as an epidemic in any locality, so that it is no uncommon thing to come across people who have been vaccinated five or six times, or even more.

Vaccination is a barbarous practice, and it is one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time, not to be found even among the so-called savage races of the world. Its supporters are not content with its adoption by those who have no objection to it, but seek to impose it with the aid of penal laws and rigorous punishments on all people alike. The practice of vaccination is not very old, dating as it does only from 1798 A.D. But, during this comparatively short period that has elapsed, millions have fallen a prey to the delusion that those who get themselves vaccinated are safe from the attack of small-pox. No one can say that small-pox will necessarily attack those who have not been vaccinated; for many cases have been observed of unvaccinated people being free from its attack. From the fact that some people who are not vaccinated do get the [Pg 107] disease, we cannot, of course, conclude that they would have been immune if only they had got themselves vaccinated.

Moreover, vaccination is a very dirty process, for the serum which is introduced into the human body includes not only that of the cow, but also of the actual small-pox patient. An average man would even vomit at the mere sight of this stuff. If the hand happens to touch it, it is always washed with soap. The mere suggestion of tasting it fills us with indignation and disgust. But how few of those who get themselves vaccinated realise that they are in effect eating this filthy stuff! Most people know that, in several diseases, medicines and liquid food are injected into the blood, and that they are assimilated into the system more rapidly than if they were taken through the mouth. The only difference, in fact, between injection and the ordinary process of eating through the mouth is that the assimilation in the former case is instantaneous, while that in the latter is slow. And yet we do not shrink from getting ourselves vaccinated! As has been well said, cowards die a living death, and our craze for vaccination is solely due to the fear of death or disfigurement by small-pox.

I cannot also help feeling that vaccination is a violation of the dictates of religion and morality. [Pg 108] The drinking of the blood of even dead animals is looked upon with horror even by habitual meat-eaters. Yet, what is vaccination but the taking in of the poisoned blood of an innocent living animal? Better far were it for God-fearing men that they should a thousand times become the victims of small-pox and even die a terrible death than that they should be guilty of such an act of sacrilege.

Several of the most thoughtful men in England have laboriously investigated the manifold evils of vaccination, and an Anti-Vaccination Society has also been formed there. The members of this society have declared open war against vaccination, and many have even gone to gaol for this cause. Their objections to vaccination are briefly as follows:

(1) The preparation of the vaccine from the udder of cows or calves entails untold suffering on thousands of innocent creatures, and this cannot possibly be justified by any gains resulting from vaccination.

(2) Vaccination, instead of doing good, works considerable mischief by giving rise to many new diseases. Even its advocates cannot deny that, after its introduction, many new diseases have come into being.

(3) The vaccine that is prepared from the blood of a small-pox patient is likely to contain and [Pg 109] transmit the germs of all the several diseases that he may be suffering from.

(4) There is no guarantee that small-pox will not attack the vaccinated. Dr. Jenner, the inventor of vaccination, originally supposed that perfect immunity could be secured by a single injection on a single arm; but when it was found to fail, it was asserted that vaccination on both the arms would serve the purpose; and when even this proved ineffectual, it came to be held that both the arms should be vaccinated at more than one place, and that it should also be renewed once in seven years. Finally, the period of immunity has further been reduced to three years! All this clearly shows that doctors themselves have no definite views on the matter. The truth is, as we have already said, that there is no saying that small-pox will not attack the vaccinated, or that all cases of immunity must needs be due to vaccination.

(5) The vaccine is a filthy substance, and it is foolish to expect that one kind of filth can be removed by another.

By these and similar arguments, this society has already produced a large volume of public opinion against vaccination. In a certain town, for instance, a large proportion of the people refuse to be vaccinated, and yet statistics prove that they are singularly free from disease. The fact of the [Pg 110] matter is that it is only the self-interest of doctors that stands in the way of the abolition of this inhuman practice, for the fear of losing the large incomes that they at present derive from this source blinds them to the countless evils which it brings. There are, however, a few doctors who recognise these evils, and who are determined opponents of vaccination.

Those who are conscientious objectors to vaccination should, of course, have the courage to face all penalties or persecutions to which they may be subjected by law, and stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defence of their conviction. Those who object to it merely on the grounds of health should acquire a complete mastery of the subject, and should be able to convince others of the correctness of their views, and convert them into adopting those views in practice. But those who have neither definite views on the subject nor courage enough to stand up for their convictions should no doubt obey the laws of the state, and shape their conduct in deference to the opinions and practices of the world around them.

Those who object to vaccination should observe all the more strictly the laws of health already explained; for the strict observance of these laws ensures in the system those vital forces which counteract all disease germs, and is, therefore, the [Pg 111] best protection against small-pox as well as other diseases. If, while objecting to the introduction of the poisonous vaccine into the system, they surrendered themselves to the still more fatal poison of sensuality, they would undoubtedly forfeit their right to ask the world to accept their views on the matter.

When small-pox has actually appeared, the best treatment is the “Wet-Sheet-Pack”, which should be applied three times a day. It relieves the fever, and the sores heal rapidly. There is no need at all to apply oils or ointments on the sores. If possible, a mud-poultice should be applied in one or two places. The diet should consist of rice, and light fresh fruits, all rich fruits like date and almond being avoided. Normally the sores should begin to heal under the “Wet-Sheet-Pack” in less than a week; if they do not, it means that the poison in the system has not been completely expelled. Instead of looking upon small-pox as a terrible disease, we should regard it as one of Nature’s best expedients for getting rid of the accumulated poison in the body, and the restoration of normal health.

After an attack of small-pox, the patient remains weak for sometime, and in some cases even suffers from other ailments. But this is due not to the small-pox itself; but to the wrong remedies employed [Pg 112] to cure it. Thus, the use of quinine in fever often results in deafness, and even leads to the extreme form of it known as “quininism”. So too, the employment of mercury in venereal diseases leads to many new forms of disease. Then again, too frequent use of purgatives in constipation brings on ailments like the piles. The only sound system of treatment is that which attempts to remove the root-causes of disease by a strict observance of the fundamental laws of health. Even the costly Bhasmas which are supposed to be unfailing remedies for such diseases are in effect highly injurious; for, although they may seem to do some good, they excite the evil passions, and ultimately ruin the health.

After the vesicles on the body have given place to scabs, olive oil should be constantly applied, and the patient bathed every day. Then the scabs rapidly fall off, and even the pocks soon disappear, the skin recovering its normal colour and freshness.

Chapter VII

OTHER CONTAGIOUS DISEASES

We do not dread chicken-pox so much as its elder sister, since it is not so fatal, and does not cause disfigurement and the like. It is, however, exactly [Pg 113] the same as small-pox in other respects, and should therefore be dealt with in the same way.

Bubonic Plague is a terrible disease, and has accounted for the death of millions of our people since the year 1896, when it first made its real entry into our land. The doctors, in spite of all their investigations, have not yet been able to invent a sure remedy for it. Now-a-days the practice of inoculation has come into vogue, and the belief has gained ground that an attack of plague may be obviated by it. But inoculation for plague is as bad and as sinful as vaccination for small-pox. Although no sure remedy has been devised for this disease, we will venture to suggest the following treatment to those who have full faith in Providence, and who are not afraid of death.

(1) The “Wet-Sheet-Pack” should be applied as soon as the first symptoms of fever appear.

(2) A thick mud-poultice should be applied to the bubo.

(3) The patient should be completely starved.

(4) If he feels thirsty, he should be given lime-juice in cold water.

(5) He should be made to lie in the open air.

(6) There should not be more than one attendant by the side of the patient.

We can confidently assert that, if plague can be [Pg 114] cured by any treatment at all, it can be cured by this.

Though the exact origin and causes of plague are yet unknown, it is undoubted that rats have something to do with its communication. We should, therefore, take all precautions, in a plague-infected area, to prevent the approach of rats in our dwellings; if we cannot get rid of them, we should vacate the house.

The best remedy to prevent an attack of plague is, of course, to follow strictly the laws of health,—to live in the open air, to eat plain wholesome food and in moderation, to take good exercise, to keep the house neat and clean, to avoid all evil habits, and, in short, lead a life of utter simplicity and purity. Even in normal times our lives should be such, but, in times of plague and other epidemics, we should be doubly careful.

Pneumonic Plague is an even more dangerous form of this disease. Its attack is sudden and almost invariably fatal. The patient has very high fever, feels extreme difficulty in breathing, and in most cases, is rendered unconscious. This form of plague broke out in Johannesburg in 1904, and as has been already said, 2 only one man escaped alive out of the 23 who were attacked. The treatment for this disease is just the same as that for [Pg 115] Bubonic Plague, with this difference that the poultice should be applied in this case to both sides of the chest. If there be no time to try the “Wet-Sheet-Pack”, a thin poultice of mud should be applied to the head. Needless to say, here as in other cases, prevention is better than cure.

2 Part II, chap. IV

We are terribly afraid of cholera, as of plague, but in fact, it is much less fatal. Here the “Wet-Sheet-Pack”, however, is of no effect, but the mud-poultice should be applied to the stomach, and where there is a tingling sensation, the affected part should be warmed with a bottle filled with warm water. The feet should be rubbed with mustard-oil, and the patient should be starved. Care should be taken to see that he does not get alarmed. If the motions are too frequent, the patient should not be repeatedly taken out of bed, but a flat shallow vessel should be placed underneath to receive the stools. If these precautions are taken in due time, there is little fear of danger. This disease generally breaks out in the hot season, when we generally eat all sorts of unripe and over-ripe fruits in immoderate quantities and in addition to our ordinary food. The water also that we drink during this season is often dirty, as the quantity of it in wells and tanks is small, and we take no trouble to boil or filter it. Then again, the stools of the patients being allowed [Pg 116] to lie exposed, the germs of the disease are communicated through the air. Indeed, when we consider how little heed we pay to these most elementary facts and principles, we can only wonder that we are not more often attacked by these terrible diseases.

During the prevalence of cholera, we should eat light food in moderation. We should breathe plenty of fresh air; and the water that we drink should always be thoroughly boiled, and filtered with a thick clean piece of cloth. The stools of the patient should be covered up with a thick layer of earth. Indeed, even in normal times, we should invariably cover up the stools with ashes or loose earth. If we do so, there would be much less danger of the spread of disease. Even the lower animals like the cat take this precaution, but we are worse than they in this respect.

It should also be thoroughly impressed on the minds of persons suffering from contagious diseases, as well as those around them, that they should, under no circumstances, give way to panic, for fear always paralyses the nerves and increases the danger of fatality.

© April 24, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post Gandhi’s Anti-Vaccine Views Ring True A Century Later appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

What Are The Dangers Of The MMR Vaccine?

What Are The Dangers Of The MMR Vaccine? | vaccine | Autism Awareness Toxins Vaccines

The measles vaccine has initiated a grand debate about immunization. The United States has reignited the concern over an illness that, although relatively harmless in most cases, has been somewhat nonexistent in recent years. [1] Concerns over vaccines and autism appear to have resulted in the decline of vaccination rates, possibly contributing to outbreaks. But is this actually true? Or, as the research suggests, could the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine simply not be as effective as we’re being told? Or, could it even be dangerous?

What’s in the MMR Vaccine?

The ingredients contained in most vaccines are often unrecognizable terms that should, at first glance, appear worrisome. Injecting chemical ingredients–not to mention a live (albeit weakened) virus–into your bloodstream doesn’t sound like the wisest decision. Here’s a basic rundown of the ingredients in the MMR vaccine [2]:

Minimum Essential Medium

This is the medium that grows the Rubella virus and contains vitamins and amino acids and fetal bovine serum, which is produced from blood collected at commercial slaughterhouses.

Sodium Phosphate

Typically added to maintain pH balance and to keep active ingredients suspended in water. It can cause gastrointestinal problems but has also been linked with organ damage. In some instances, it can cause a severe allergic reaction that might include heart arrhythmia, seizure, and loss of consciousness.

Recombinant Human Albumin

Human albumin is a protein found in blood plasma and recombinant means it’s genetically engineered. In essence, the vaccine contains genetically-engineered human blood, and it’s uncertain as to the source. When this is injected, it’s been known to cause chills, fever, nausea, increased heart rate, and difficulty breathing.

Neomycin

An antibiotic that’s been known to cause serious allergic reactions in some individuals. Anyone who has ever had a life threatening allergic reaction to neomycin (or antibiotics in general) should absolutely avoid the MMR vaccination! One of the scariest things about neomycin is that it can cause late reactions, sometimes 3-4 days after exposure, well into the time period when you may think you’re in the clear.

Sorbitol

A synthetic sweetener often added to foods and beverages, sorbitol is used in vaccines as a stabilizer. Some people are allergic to sorbitol or fructose and should avoid it but even without the allergy, sorbitol can cause gastrointestinal issues and aggravate IBS.

Medium 199

Also used as a stabilizer. This medium contains vitamins, amino acids, and fetal bovine serum. Fetal bovine serum, again, is produced from the blood collected at commercial slaughterhouses.

Hydrolyzed Gelatin

Hydrolyzed gelatin is collagen collected from the bones of animals, including cows, fish, poultry, and rabbits. It contains free glutamic acid (MSG) and aspartic acid, two amino acids that can negatively affect neurological health. Even worse, injecting gelatin greatly increases the risk of infection from synthetic growth hormones and mad cow disease.

Chick Embryo Cell Culture

Derived from chick embryo, this cell culture is used to grow and store the live virus in the vaccine. When injected, the immune system is exposed and gets to work to build short-lived immunity against the illness.

WI-38 Human Diploid Lung Fibroblasts

WI-38 is a cell culture line obtained from aborted fetuses and used in the production of various vaccines. The purpose of this cell line is to culture and grow live viruses.

What About the Measles Booster Shot?

Following the initial dose of the measles vaccine, a booster shot is recommended at varying intervals to support immunity against the disease. The booster is the same vaccine containing a weakened version of the live virus that targets the immune system in an effort to elevate it back to a protective state. Since a vaccine, if effective, is said to wean after a few years’ time, receiving a booster every few years or so is supposed to rev up the body’s defense system by recharging the previous immunization.

Adults who missed out on the MMR vaccine in their childhood and those tested to show they are not immune to the disease are urged to receive a booster. The issue is that the MMR booster contains similar ingredients as the MMR vaccine, prompting the same health threats. While most people can receive a booster without any issue whatsoever, there is always a risk that reactions can occur following injection of the live virus.

Measles Vaccine and Autism: What’s the Connection?

It should be noted that the CDC advises pregnant women against receiving the MMR vaccine for fear that it may harm the developing fetus. This warning should tip most people off. While it’s not conclusive that the MMR vaccine–or any vaccine, for that matter–causes autism, we do know that a number of connections have been made. A now-refuted publication in the medical journal The Lancet reported that the MMR vaccine and autism were indefinitely linked. Despite the claims of the author, other reputable publications and mainstream media outlets continue to explore the possibility of the connection between neurological damage and immunization. [3]

A number of cases relating to the MMR vaccine and autism have been made public. The Italian Health Ministry in 2012 ruled that the MMR vaccine received by a nine-year-old boy caused him to develop autism. [4] The family was awarded with £140,000 in damages. According to the news report at the time, up to 100 similar cases were being investigated by lawyers in Italy. Health officials generally regard the development of autism immediately following vaccination a mere coincidence, but with more and more cases coming to light, it becomes increasingly difficult to support this theory.

The Full Story

The media is quick to blame the anti-vaxxers, as they’re calling them, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children on moral, religious, or health grounds, for pastmeasles outbreak in North America. This one-sided viewpoint isn’t investigating the numerous accounts of adverse reactions to vaccinations, or the fact that the measles vaccine isn’t always 100% effective at preventing the illness. Measles, like the chicken pox, is a relatively benign disease that, once infected and recovered from, provides immunity from future occurrences. This isn’t to say that infection with the illness is ideal or to downplay the negative complications that can arise, but it is a conversation worth having in today’s discussion on vaccines.

How are you approaching the news of the measles outbreak? What are your thoughts on the vaccine? We’d love to hear your voice in the comments!

References:

  1. Walter A. Orenstein, Mark J. Papania and Melinda E. Wharton. Measles Elimination in the United States. J Infect Dis. (2004) 189 (Supplement 1): S1-S3. doi: 10.1086/377693.
  2. Centers for Disease Control. Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary. CDC Fact Sheet.
  3. Sharyl Attkisson. Vaccines, Autism and Brain Damage: What’s in a Name? CBS News.
  4. Paul Bignell. Italian court reignites MMR vaccine debate after award over child with autism. The Independent.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post What Are The Dangers Of The MMR Vaccine? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Multiple Infant Vaccines Linked To Dramatically Increased Mortality

Multiple Infant Vaccines Linked To Dramatically Increased Mortality | vaccines_infant_mortality1 | Medical & Health Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

A new study published in the journal Vaccine has brought to light an extremely disturbing though still virtually unreported dark side to immunization campaigns within low-income countries, namely, the observation that infant mortality sometimes increases when the number of co-administered vaccines increases; a finding diametrically opposed to the widely held belief that vaccination is always a life-saving intervention, and that the more vaccines administered to infants the better.

New Study Links DTP and Yellow Fever Vaccines To Infant Deaths

The new observational study from the West African country Guinea-Bissau titled, “Co-administration of live measles and yellow fever vaccines and inactivated pentavalent vaccines is associated with increased mortality compared with measles and yellow fever vaccines only,”[i] opens with a reference to the already consistent observation in the biomedical literature that the co-administration of inactivated diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine and live attenuated measles vaccine (MV) increases mortality compared with receiving MV only. [ii] [iii]

The purpose of the new investigation was to determine whether co-administration of pentavalent vaccine (PV) with MV and yellow fever vaccine (YF) had similar negative effects. Both PV and YF vaccines were introduced in Guinea-Bissau in 2008, with PV containing 5 vaccine antigens in one shot (DTP-H. Influenza type B-Hepatitis B).

The study findings emerged from a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 2007-2011, where researchers administered vitamin A at routine vaccination contacts among children aged 6-23 months in urban and rural Guinea-Bissau. A total of 2331 children were randomized to placebo, receiving either live vaccines only (MV or MV+YF) or a combination of live and inactivated vaccines (MV+DTP or MV+YF+pentavalent).

When mortality was compared, the adjusted mortality rate ratio (MRR) for co-administered live and inactivated vaccines compared with live vaccines only was over three times greater (3.24 (1.20-8.73). When MV+YF+pentavalent was compared with MV+YF only, the adjusted MRR was almost eight times greater (7.73 (1.79-33.4)) for the combination of the three vaccines versus two.

The researchers concluded:

“In line with previous studies of DTP, the present results indicate that pentavalent vaccine co-administered with MV and YF is associated with increased mortality.”

Pentavalent and Yellow Fever Vaccines Already Linked To Fatalities

This finding takes on a more disturbing light when one considers that by the end of 2013, largely through the efforts of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI), pentavalent vaccines will have reached close to 200 million children in 72 developing countries. GAVI also states that yellow fever vaccines have been administered to 60 million children, “averting an estimated 160,000 future deaths.” Pentavalent vaccines have already created widespread controversy by being linked to clusters of infant deaths in every Southeast and South Asian country where they have been introduced, including Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and India. Similarly, yellow fever vaccines have been linked to deaths as far back as 2001, when 7 people were found contracting yellow fever and dying from the vaccine itself.  The obvious question then emerges: Could both the pentavalent and yellow fever vaccines actually be increasing mortality despite GAVI’s position that they are a life-saving intervention that presumably should be administered to every at risk child in the developing world?

What adds additional weight to this concern is that there is already a well-established history of DTP (and oral polio) vaccines being linked to increased morbidity and mortality in low-income countries, starting with this 2000 BMJ article also in a population of vaccinated infants from Guinea-Bissau that found recipients of one dose of DTP or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines. A 2011 study of Guinea-Bissau females found DTP vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls.[iv] Clearly the vaccines can cause significant harm. Another far more recent study published this year in the journal Tropical Medicine and International Health found that DTP vaccination is responsible for higher mortality among Indian girls. Another 2005 study on vaccinated female infants in India found that those who receive both the tuberculosis vaccine Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) and DTP experience significantly higher mortality than those who receive only one of the two vaccines.[v]

Given the multitude of studies showing vaccine-induced harm, including increased infant mortality, especially for DTP vaccines, one wonders how global vaccination campaigns can blatantly promote them as infallibly effective and extremely safe.

Evidence That Vaccines Are Toxic Exposures

It has been hypothesized that this association with DTP vaccines and increased mortality may be due to the Th2-polarising effect of the aluminum phosphate adjuvant in the vaccine, as well as the chronic inflammation caused by the intramuscular administration of the vaccine at the site of injection, [vi] but another obvious explanation is that the vaccines themselves are toxic exposures, with the more vaccines given to infants the higher the likelihood of synergistic toxicity and resultant morbidity and mortality.

Exactly this possibility was raised by a 2011 study published in the journal Human and Experimental Toxicology titled, “Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?”,[vii] which brought to the fore the fact that, “The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country.  The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year-the most in the world-yet 33 nations have lower IMRs.” The study found that there is a highly statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.

With the ongoing expansion of immunization schedules in the U.S. and globally, justified by the idea that more vaccines, and more vaccine antigens combined within each injection, will confer greater overall benefit to health (that far outweigh the risks of the vaccines themselves), and by ‘vaccine safety’ spokespersons such as Paul Offit claiming as many as 10,000 vaccines can be administered to a child at once safely, this new study indicates quite the opposite is true.


[i] Ane Bærent Fisker, Henrik Ravn, Amabelia Rodrigues, Marie Drivsholm Ostergaard, Carlito Bale, Christine Stabell Benn, Peter Aaby. Co-administration of live measles and yellow fever vaccines and inactivated pentavalent vaccines is associated with increased mortality compared with measles and yellow fever vaccines only. An observational study from Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine. 2013 Dec 7. pii: S0264-410X(13)01663-0. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.11.074.

[ii] J Agergaard, E Nante, G Poulstrup, J Nielsen, K L Flanagan, L Østergaard, C S Benn, P Aaby.Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls. A randomised trial from Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine. 2011 Jan 10;29(3):487-500. Epub 2010 Nov 18. PMID: 21093496

[iii] Peter Aaby, Sidu Biai, Jens Erik Veirum, Morten Sodemann, Ida Lisse, May-Lill Garly, Henrik Ravn, Christine Stabell Benn, Amabelia Rodrigues. DTP with or after measles vaccination is associated with increased in-hospital mortality in Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine. 2007 Jan 26;25(7):1265-9. Epub 2006 Oct 18.

[iv] J Agergaard, E Nante, G Poulstrup, J Nielsen, K L Flanagan, L Østergaard, C S Benn, P Aaby. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls. A randomised trial from Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine. 2011 Jan 10;29(3):487-500. Epub 2010 Nov 18. PMID: 21093496

[v] Lawrence H Moulton, Lakshmi Rahmathullah, Neal A Halsey, R D Thulasiraj, Joanne Katz, James M Tielsch. Evaluation of non-specific effects of infant immunizations on early infant mortality in a southern Indian population. Trop Med Int Health. 2005 Oct;10(10):947-55. PMID: 16185228

[vi] Mogens Helweg Claesson. Immunological Links to Nonspecific Effects of DTwP and BCG Vaccines on Infant Mortality. J Trop Med. 2011 ;2011:706304. Epub 2011 May 5. PMID: 21760811

[vii] Neil Z Miller, Gary S Goldman. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 May 4. Epub 2011 May 4. PMID: 21543527

 

© April 8, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post Multiple Infant Vaccines Linked To Dramatically Increased Mortality appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Australian Mandatory Vaccines Push: “No Jab No Pay”, “No Jab No Play” and PM’s Big Pharma Wife

Australian Mandatory Vaccines Push: “No Jab No Pay”, “No Jab No Play” and PM’s Big Pharma Wife | australian-mandatory-vaccines-1 | Sleuth Journal Vaccines World News

First it was “No Jab No Pay”; now it’s “No Jab No Play”. Find out the link between the Aussie PM’s Big Pharma wife and Australian mandatory vaccines.

Australian mandatory vaccines are ever closer to becoming a reality – or perhaps they already are for those needing welfare and public education. The Australian Government has decided that it’s No Jab, No Pay policy wasn’t quite fascist enough, so it has upped the ante by going one step further. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is trying to forge a policy where parents with unvaccinated children will not be able to enroll them in public school! That’s right: it’s Australian vaccine fascism. No Jab, No Pay may also become No Jab, No Play if the PM and his Big Pharma wife, Lucy Turnbull, get their way. Let’s take a further look at the push for Australian mandatory vaccines, keeping in mind the horrendous history of vaccines, which have injured, sterilized, paralyzed and killed countless people all over the world.

No Jab, No Play

The Independent reports in its article Unvaccinated children could be banned from attending preschool across Australia that Aussie PM Turnbull is pushing for Australian mandatory vaccines by making public education dependent upon vaccination rates:

“Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has written to state and territory leaders to push for nationally consistent laws to protect young children from disease.

He writes: “At our next Coag [Council of Australian Governments] meeting I propose we agree that all jurisdictions implement legislation that excludes children who are not vaccinated from attending childcare or preschool, unless they have a medical exemption.

“Vaccination objection is not a valid exemption. We must give parents the confidence that their children will be safe when they attend childcare and preschool.

“Parents must understand that if their child is not vaccinated they will be refused attendance or enrollment.””

When Turnbull writes “vaccination objection” above, he refers to what is known as the philosophical or religious objection or exemption, which is the right of the individual to refuse vaccination on the grounds that it goes against his or her philosophical (or religious) beliefs.

The cute phrase No Jab, No Play was used by Australian Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt. It sounds clever, however it disguises a horribly authoritarian objective of forcing parents to make the choice between poisoning their child with toxic vaccines or getting free public education – a choice which for most families would be very difficult given the high price of private education in Australia.

Like many nations with 2-party political systems, the Australian Left (the Labor Party) doesn’t offer any opposition to the push for mandatory vaccines. It was the outspoken Pauline Hanson who criticized Turnbull for this move, but she was (predictably) put back into place by the force of the Australian Medical Association. Again from The Independent:

“Pauline Hanson was forced to apologise after she was criticised by the Australian Medical Association and others for suggesting vaccines were not safe and incorrectly claiming that parents could conduct their own tests to evaluate vaccination safety.

She told the ABC’s Insiders programme that successive governments had “blackmailed” people into having their children vaccinated because Australia has a policy of withholding childcare fee rebates and welfare payments from parents who do not have their children fully immunized.”

The article ‘No Jab, No Pay’ Policy Has A Serious Ethical Sting points out how this No Jab, No Pay policy hurts poorer Australian families:

“The “no jab, no pay” policy has harms beyond the physical: it may unfairly deny funds to people who already suffer from hardship. While much attention is given to the half of non-vaccinators who consciously refuse, people have failed to vaccinate for other reasons such as having an ill child, or being caught up in what may be an already difficult separated family situation.

People who do not vaccinate for reasons other than disagreement and concern tend to have lower household incomes (60% have a household income less than A$50,000) and lower education levels (34% have year ten or less education). Single-parent households are also over-represented in this sub-population – 21% versus 15% of families nationally.”

Big Pharma and Lucy Turnbull

If you think the PM is pushing vaccines because he cares deeply for the health of ordinary Australians, think again. Lucy Turnbull is chairman of the pharma corporation Prima Biomed and is the PM’s Big Pharma wife. She has worked closely with Big Pharma giants GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. The Sydney Morning Herald in 2015 reports that the Turnbulls were listed as “the third biggest shareholder” in Prima Biomed.

Australian Mandatory Vaccines Push: “No Jab No Pay”, “No Jab No Play” and PM’s Big Pharma Wife | australian-mandatory-vaccines-2-479x319 | Sleuth Journal Vaccines World News

Australian mandatory vaccines: the agenda is afoot.

The 2 Assumptions Underpinning the Push for Australian Mandatory Vaccines

There are 2 fundamental assumptions behind Turnbull’s ploy. The first assumption is that of herd immunity. I have discussed this concept in an earlier article entitled Herd Immunity vs. Viral Shedding: Who’s Infecting Whom?, but here’s the basic point: herd immunity is based on faulty logic and numerous assumptions. It assumes vaccines work, it assumes the vaccinated don’t carry disease and it assumes vaccine-induced immunity is as good as natural immunity. As it turns out, it may in fact be the vaccinated who are spreading the disease through viral shedding.

The second assumption is that the State or the Government has the power to force you to take any medicine it deems fit for the sake of “public safety”. Of course, protecting public safety is a legitimate function of  Government, but where it gets tricky real fast is that dictators, autocrats and tyrants always (almost without exception) justify their draconian acts by claiming they are protecting the public. It’s always the same excuse. How many times have we heard the hackneyed phrase national security? At a certain point we have to evaluate whether it’s more important to preserve individual rights, liberty and sovereignty – or the “rights” of the abstract “group”. Who owns your body? You or the Government?

Here’s the bottom line: forcefully medicating people without their informed consent is a drastic and extremely coercive step, even if herd immunity were a completely watertight theory and even if every single vaccine were safe and effective – two rather big, fat and rotund “ifs”. However, the entire concept of informed consent is being watered down.

Australian Mandatory Vaccines Push: “No Jab No Pay”, “No Jab No Play” and PM’s Big Pharma Wife | australian-mandatory-vaccines-3-479x319 | Sleuth Journal Vaccines World News

Australian mandatory vaccines: Are people going to let themselves get experimented upon?

Informed Consent Under Attack

The push for Australian mandatory vaccines is more evidence that the concept of informed consent is under attack. As the Organic Prepper reports, the US Government is helping out Big Pharma in America by watering down informed consent even further. A new law was passed in December 2016 endorsing an informed consent waiver:

“A new law quietly passed last December contains a waiver of informed consent that eliminates the requirement of pharmaceutical companies to let you know if a medication or vaccine given to you or your child is experimental. Wow. One last Christmas surprise from President Obama.

This is according to Section 3024, “Informed Consent Waiver for Clinical Investigations” of H.R. 32, the “21st Century Cures Act.” Here’s the wording of the text:

Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.

“Clinical testing” is not clearly defined. Furthermore, who the heck gets to decide what “minimal risk” is? The pharmaceutical companies? The FDA? Medical professionals? How incredibly patronizing.”

The truth is that mandatory vaccines go against the Australian Constitution, as well as ideals in the Hippocratic Oath and the Australian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics. However, those pushing the vaccine agenda have ways around this, such as by introducing fake health threats and health scares (e.g. the dreaded zika virus caused by a pesticide) to try to justify the imposition of quarantine laws:

“As a general rule, there are no diseases for which vaccination is compulsory for persons living in Australia. However … where cases of quarantinable diseases arise, quarantine officers have the power to require a person who is subject to quarantine to submit to vaccination or prophylaxis if this is considered necessary to prevent the spread of the disease or is specified in the International Health Regulations. The Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) was amended in 2008 to meet certain requirements under the International Health Regulations (2005) for vaccinations and other health measures related to travelers.”

Here is an excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath:

“With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.”

Here is an excerpt from the Australian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics:

“Approach health care as a collaboration between doctor and patient.”

How exactly is mandatory vaccination a “collaboration”?

Conclusion: Beware of Creeping Soft Push for Australian Mandatory Vaccines

The No Jab, No Pay and No Jab, No Play are examples of creeping soft policy whereby the Australian Government is trying to coerce people into accepting vaccinations without trying to mandate it in law (which would be difficult, unconstitutional and result in pushback). So it’s using strong-handed tactics to mess with people using its services (welfare, public education) and get the vaccination rates higher through the back door. Informed consent is being constantly eroded, despite the fact it is cornerstone concept in medicine (and in law), because it recognizes the right of the individual to choose (or not choose) his own treatment. To allow governments and corporations to run roughshod over this right is to pave the way for medical tyranny. It is to allow collectivism to triumph over individualism. It is to allow third parties the legal right to dictate to you what you must put inside of your body.

Inform yourself and others around you about what adjuvants and ingredients are in vaccines. See for yourself how monkey virus SV-40 was linked to the cancer-causing polio vaccine. See for yourself how NWO agenda man Bill Gates admitted that vaccines lead to depopulation. Governments only try to push mandatory vaccines on people who don’t know about them. How informed are you?

Sources:

*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-unvaccinated-children-malcolm-turnball-nationwide-ban-attending-preschools-a7625246.html

*http://theconversation.com/no-jab-no-pay-policy-has-a-serious-ethical-sting-40078

*http://www.primabiomed.com.au/about_us/board.php

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/herd-immunity-vs-viral-shedding/

*http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/uninformed-subject-vaccine-med-experiment-poses-no-minimal-risk-03272017

*https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/zika-virus-bioweapon-or-fake-pandemic/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/zika-or-insecticide-pyriproxyfen-behind-microcephaly-cases/

*https://www.loc.gov/law/help/health-emergencies/australia.php

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

*http://www.amsws.org.au/media/docs/images/ama_code_of_ethics.pdf

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/toxic-vaccine-adjuvants-the-top-10/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/cause-of-cancer-monkey-virus-polio/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/bill-gates-vaccines-reduce-population-growth/


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post Australian Mandatory Vaccines Push: “No Jab No Pay”, “No Jab No Play” and PM’s Big Pharma Wife appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO)

New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO) | medical-doctor | Civil Rights General Health Government Government Control Government Corruption Losing Rights Medical & Health Multimedia Parental Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

A new law quietly passed last December contains a waiver of informed consent that eliminates the requirement of pharmaceutical companies to let you know if a medication or vaccine given to you or your child is experimental.

Wow. One last Christmas surprise from President Obama.

This is according to Section 3024, “Informed Consent Waiver for Clinical Investigations” of H.R. 32, the “21st Century Cures Act.” Here’s the wording of the text:

Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.

“Clinical testing” is not clearly defined. Furthermore, who the heck gets to decide what “minimal risk” is? The pharmaceutical companies? The FDA? Medical professionals? How incredibly patronizing.

I don’t know about you, but before taking medication or allowing my children to, I want to know all of the details. What are the risks? What are the potential side effects? What is the worst thing that could happen if we don’t take it?

I want to be fully informed and make my own decision, and anything less than that is a type of condescension that makes my blood boil. My children and I are not Big Pharma’s lab rats.

I hadn’t heard a thing about this until my friend Melissa from Truthstream Media send me the horrifying video below and I knew that I had to let you folks know right away.  Sign up here to stay up to date with the latest news and information that relates to your freedom and well-being.

This video is a must-watch and explains it in far more detail.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Science Teacher May Be Disciplined for Urging Students Be Informed of Vaccine Risks

Science Teacher May Be Disciplined for Urging Students Be Informed of Vaccine Risks | school-1024x615 | Medical & Health Science & Technology Special Interests Vaccines

By: Kate Raines, The Vaccine Reaction |

In March 2015, science teacher Timothy Sullivan approached public health nurses administering vaccines to high school students at his school in Waterford, Ontario, Canada and asked whether they had appropriately informed the students about the potential risks of the shots they were giving. He noted that the teenagers were required to give informed consent and the nurses, therefore, had the obligation to make sure they were fully informed.1

Mr. Sullivan also made the point that, “some of the components in the vaccines were deemed ‘toxic’ in his science lab.” The nurse allegedly answered that they alerted parents and teens about common vaccine risks like fever or soreness at the injection site and she claimed that “a screening tool allows nurses to assess if there are any underlying conditions that would trigger a more serious reaction among students” and added that “the risk of death from receiving a vaccine is so very, very rare.”1

Who Decides What Facts Can or Cannot Be Taught?

The complaints against Mr. Sullivan appear to have focused on how disruptive his comments were to the planned vaccination event rather than the accuracy or inaccuracy of his views. The reality of vaccine risks for death and serious side effects has been acknowledged by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). All of these organizations have stated that vaccines may cause adverse reactions and death in a small percentage of patients. According to the CDC, “although immunization has successfully reduced the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccination can cause both minor and, rarely, serious side effects.”2

The CDC acknowledges the “possible” though “rare” association between “hepatitis B vaccine and anaphylaxis; measles vaccine and a) thrombocytopenia and b) possible risk for death resulting from anaphylaxis or disseminated disease in immunocompromised persons; diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine (DTP) and chronic encephalopathy; and tetanus-toxoid-containing vaccines and a) Guillain-Barre syndrome, b) brachial neuritis, and c) possible risk for death resulting from anaphylaxis.”2

An article from the journal Vaccine, published on the NIH website, stresses that vaccines are safe for most people, but admits there are “cases where a known or plausible theoretical risk of death following vaccination exists [that may] include anaphylaxis, vaccine-strain systemic infection after administration of live vaccines to severely immunocompromised persons, intussusception after rotavirus vaccine, Guillain-Barré syndrome after inactivated influenza vaccine, fall-related injuries associated with syncope after vaccination, yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease or associated neurologic disease, serious complications from smallpox vaccine including eczema vaccinatum, progressive vaccinia, postvaccinal encephalitis, myocarditis, and dilated cardiomyopathy, and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis from oral poliovirus vaccine.”3

In the case of Mr. Sullivan, he claims to be not so much against vaccines as for the concept of informed consent, although after acquiring the package inserts pertaining to the vaccinations being administered to the students, he said he found it “embarrassing really that I didn’t know about the effects as a parent, as a teacher, as a biology teacher. I was unaware of the severity of some of the side-effects.”

Mr. Sullivan has now been found guilty of professional misconduct by the disciplinary board of the Ontario College of Teachers.4 With the conviction of Mr. Sullivan, the college is asking for penalties including a formal reprimand, a month-long suspension, and completion of an anger management course.

In deciding on the penalty phase, the board could strip Mr. Sullivan of his teaching certificate and impose fines of up to $5,000. The complaint against Mr. Sullivan holds that he was out of line in addressing the students, and that it is a parent’s place, not a teacher’s to address vaccine concerns. Mr. Sullivan said, “I teach science. You don’t just teach one side of the story.”5

References:

The post Science Teacher May Be Disciplined for Urging Students Be Informed of Vaccine Risks appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS