View Single Post
Old 07-26-2015, 10:12 PM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
Gone Guy
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In a Hole
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 21
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Originally Posted by vremya View Post
In one post you're trumpeting on how studies prove your point and in the other you say studies can't be trusted because they're flawed. Make up your mind!

The increase in asthma and allergies are most likely due to environmental and lifestyle changes, not vaccinations or the lack thereof.
The typical studies test for one toxin. If there seems to be no connection, they conclude the vaccine is safe. But that's not how it works. There are many variables that could have a deleterious effect on the outcome. I don't know about you, but I would rather err on the side of caution.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►
This article has been corrected. See Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 September; 30(9): 1429.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
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. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.

Keywords: infant mortality rates, sudden infant death, SIDS, immunization schedules, childhood vaccines, drug toxicology, synergistic effects, linear regression model
Go to:
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of child health and overall development in countries. Clean water, increased nutritional measures, better sanitation, and easy access to health care contribute the most to improving infant mortality rates in unclean, undernourished, and impoverished regions of the world.1–3 In developing nations, IMRs are high because these basic necessities for infant survival are lacking or unevenly distributed. Infectious and communicable diseases are more common in developing countries as well, though sound sanitary practices and proper nutrition would do much to prevent them.1

The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes 7 out of 10 childhood deaths in developing countries to five main causes: pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and malnutrition—the latter greatly affecting all the others.1 Malnutrition has been associated with a decrease in immune function. An impaired immune function often leads to an increased susceptibility to infection.2 It is well established that infections, no matter how mild, have adverse effects on nutritional status. Conversely, almost any nutritional deficiency will diminish resistance to disease.3

Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country,4 33 nations have better IMRs. Some countries have IMRs that are less than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are below 2.80. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening.”5

There are many factors that affect the IMR of any given country. For example, premature births in the United States have increased by more than 20% between 1990 and 2006. Preterm babies have a higher risk of complications that could lead to death within the first year of life.6 However, this does not fully explain why the United States has seen little improvement in its IMR since 2000.7

Nations differ in their immunization requirements for infants aged less than 1 year. In 2009, five of the 34 nations with the best IMRs required 12 vaccine doses, the least amount, while the United States required 26 vaccine doses, the most of any nation. To explore the correlation between vaccine doses that nations routinely give to their infants and their infant mortality rates, a linear regression analysis was performed.

Go to:
Methods and design
Infant mortality

The infant mortality rate is expressed as the number of infant deaths per 1000 live births. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which keeps accurate, up-to-date infant mortality statistics throughout the world, in 2009 there were 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States (Table 1).8 The US infant mortality rate of 6.22 infant deaths per 1000 live births ranked 34th.

Table 1.
Table 1.
2009 Infant mortality rates, top 34 nations8
Immunization schedules and vaccine doses

A literature review was conducted to determine the immunization schedules for the United States and all 33 nations with better IMRs than the United States.9,10 The total number of vaccine doses specified for infants aged less than 1 year was then determined for each country (Table 2). A vaccine dose is an exact amount of medicine or drug to be administered. The number of doses a child receives should not be confused with the number of ‘vaccines' or ‘injections' given. For example, DTaP is given as a single injection but contains three separate vaccines (for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) totaling three vaccine doses.

Table 2.
Table 2.
Summary of International Immunization Schedules: vaccines recommended/required prior to one year of age in 34 nations
Nations organized into data pairs

The 34 nations were organized into data pairs consisting of total number of vaccine doses specified for their infants and IMRs. Consistent with biostatistical conventions, four nations—Andorra, Liechenstein, Monaco, and San Marino—were excluded from the dataset because they each had fewer than five infant deaths, producing extremely wide confidence intervals and IMR instability. The remaining 30 (88%) of the data pairs were then available for analysis.

Nations organized into groups

Nations were placed into the following five groups based on the number of vaccine doses they routinely give their infants: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26 vaccine doses. The unweighted IMR means of all nations as a function of the number of vaccine doses were analyzed using linear regression. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of determination (r 2) were calculated using GraphPad Prism, version 5.03 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA, Home - Additionally, the F statistic and corresponding p values were computed to test if the best fit slope was statistically significantly non-zero. The Tukey-Kramer test was used to determine whether or not the mean IMR differences between the groups were statistically significant. Following the one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) results from the Tukey-Kramer test, a post test for the overall linear trend was performed.

Go to:
Nations organized into data pairs

A scatter plot of each of the 30 nation’s IMR versus vaccine doses yielded a linear relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.46–0.85) and p < 0.0001 providing evidence of a positive correlation: IMR and vaccine doses tend to increase together. The F statistic applied to the slope [0.148 (95% CI, 0.090–0.206)] is significantly non-zero, with F = 27.2 (p < 0.0001; Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
2009 Infant mortality rates and number of vaccine doses for 30 nations.
Nations organized into groups

The unweighted mean IMR of each category was computed by simply summing the IMRs of each nation comprising a group and dividing by the number of nations in that group. The IMRs were as follows: 3.36 (95% CI, 2.74–3.98) for nations specifying 12–14 doses (mean 13 doses); 3.89 (95% CI, 2.68–5.12) for 15–17 doses (mean 16 doses); 4.28 (95% CI, 3.80–4.76) for 18–20 doses (mean 19 doses); 4.97 (95% CI, 4.44–5.49) for 21–23 doses (mean 22 doses); 5.19 (95% CI, 4.06–6.31) for 24-26 doses (mean 25 doses; Figure 2). Linear regression analysis yielded an equation of the best fit line, y = 0.157x + 1.34 with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009) and r 2 = 0.983. Thus, 98.3% of the variation in mean IMRs is explained by the linear model. Again, the F statistic yielded a significantly non-zero slope, with F = 173.9 (p = 0.0009).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.
2009 Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses (five categories).
The one-way ANOVA using the Tukey-Kramer test yielded F = 650 with p = 0.001, indicating the five mean IMRs corresponding to the five defined dose categories are significantly different (r 2 = 0.510). Tukey’s multiple comparison test found statistical significance in the differences between the mean IMRs of those nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and (a) those giving 21–23 doses (1.61, 95% CI, 0.457–2.75) and (b) those giving 24–26 doses (1.83, 95% CI, 0.542–3.11).

Go to:
Basic necessities for infant survival

It is instructive to note that many developing nations require their infants to receive multiple vaccine doses and have national vaccine coverage rates (a percentage of the target population that has been vaccinated) of 90% or better, yet their IMRs are poor. For example, Gambia requires its infants to receive 22 vaccine doses during infancy and has a 91%–97% national vaccine coverage rate, yet its IMR is 68.8. Mongolia requires 22 vaccine doses during infancy, has a 95%–98% coverage rate, and an IMR of 39.9.8,9 These examples appear to confirm that IMRs will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care. As developing nations improve in all of these areas a critical threshold will eventually be reached where further reductions of the infant mortality rate will be difficult to achieve because most of the susceptible infants that could have been saved from these causes would have been saved. Further reductions of the IMR must then be achieved in areas outside of these domains. As developing nations ascend to higher socio-economic living standards, a closer inspection of all factors contributing to infant deaths must be made.

Crossing the socio-economic threshold

It appears that at a certain stage in nations' movement up the socio-economic scale—after the basic necessities for infant survival (proper nutrition, sanitation, clean water, and access to health care) have been met—a counter-intuitive relationship occurs between the number of vaccines given to infants and infant mortality rates: nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates give their infants, on average, more vaccine doses. This positive correlation, derived from the data and demonstrated in Figures 1 and ​and2,2, elicits an important inquiry: are some infant deaths associated with over-vaccination?

A closer inspection of infant deaths

Many nations adhere to an agreed upon International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for grouping infant deaths into 130 categories.11–13 Among the 34 nations analyzed, those that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst IMRs. Thus, we must ask important questions: is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health? Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with over-vaccination? Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.14 Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.15,16 In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD. SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system.17 By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.18

In 1992, to address the unacceptable SIDS rate, the American Academy of Pediatrics initiated a ‘Back to Sleep’ campaign, convincing parents to place their infants supine, rather than prone, during sleep. From 1992 to 2001, the postneonatal SIDS rate dropped by an average annual rate of 8.6%. However, other causes of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) increased. For example, the postneonatal mortality rate from ‘suffocation in bed’ (ICD-9 code E913.0) increased during this same period at an average annual rate of 11.2%. The postneonatal mortality rate from ‘suffocation-other’ (ICD-9 code E913.1-E913.9), ‘unknown and unspecified causes' (ICD-9 code 799.9), and due to ‘intent unknown’ in the External Causes of Injury section (ICD-9 code E980-E989), all increased during this period as well.18 (In Australia, Mitchell et al. observed that when the SIDS rate decreased, deaths attributed to asphyxia increased.19 Overpeck et al. and others, reported similar observations.)20,21

A closer inspection of the more recent period from 1999 to 2001 reveals that the US postneonatal SIDS rate continued to decline, but there was no significant change in the total postneonatal mortality rate. During this period, the number of deaths attributed to ‘suffocation in bed’ and ‘unknown causes,’ increased significantly. According to Malloy and MacDorman, “If death-certifier preference has shifted such that previously classified SIDS deaths are now classified as ‘suffocation,’ the inclusion of these suffocation deaths and unknown or unspecified deaths with SIDS deaths then accounts for about 90 percent of the decline in the SIDS rate observed between 1999 and 2001 and results in a non-significant decline in SIDS”18 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Reclassification of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths to suffocation in bed and unknown causes. The postneonatal SIDS rate appears to have declined from 61.6 deaths (per 100,000 live births) in 1999 to 50.9 in 2001. ...
Is there evidence linking SIDS to vaccines?

Although some studies were unable to find correlations between SIDS and vaccines,22–24 there is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT “may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study.”25 Walker et al. found “the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization.”26 Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.27

Ottaviani et al. documented the case of a 3-month-old infant who died suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after being given six vaccines in a single shot: “Examination of the brainstem on serial sections revealed bilateral hypoplasia of the arcuate nucleus. The cardiac conduction system presented persistent fetal dispersion and resorptive degeneration. This case offers a unique insight into the possible role of hexavalent vaccine in triggering a lethal outcome in a vulnerable baby.” Without a full necropsy study in the case of sudden, unexpected infant death, at least some cases linked to vaccination are likely to go undetected.28

Reclassified infant deaths

It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to over-vaccination. Some infants' deaths categorized as ‘suffocation’ or due to ‘unknown and unspecified causes' may also be cases of SIDS reclassified within the ICD. Some of these infant deaths may be vaccine related as well. This trend toward reclassifying ICD data is a great concern of the CDC “because inaccurate or inconsistent cause-of-death determination and reporting hamper the ability to monitor national trends, ascertain risk factors, and design and evaluate programs to prevent these deaths.”29 If some infant deaths are vaccine related and concealed within the various ICD categories for SUIDs, is it possible that other vaccine-related infant deaths have also been reclassified?

Of the 34 nations that have crossed the socio-economic threshold and are able to provide the basic necessities for infant survival—clean water, nutrition, sanitation, and health care—several require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses and have relatively high infant mortality rates. These nations should take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes. Of course, all SUID categories should be re-inspected. Other ICD categories may be related to vaccines as well. For example, a new live-virus orally administered vaccine against rotavirus-induced diarrhea—Rotarix®—was licensed by the European Medicine Agency in 2006 and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008. However, in a clinical study that evaluated the safety of the Rotarix vaccine, vaccinated babies died at a higher rate than non-vaccinated babies—mainly due to a statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related fatalities.30 (One biologically plausible explanation is that natural rotavirus infection might have a protective effect against respiratory infection.)31 Although these fatalities appear to be vaccine related and raise a nation’s infant mortality rate, medical certifiers are likely to misclassify these deaths as pneumonia.

Several additional ICD categories are possible candidates for incorrect infant death classifications: unspecified viral diseases, diseases of the blood, septicemia, diseases of the nervous system, anoxic brain damage, other diseases of the nervous system, diseases of the respiratory system, influenza, and unspecified diseases of the respiratory system. All of these selected causes may be repositories of vaccine-related infant deaths reclassified as common fatalities. All nations—rich and poor, industrialized and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals. Progress on reducing infant mortality rates should include monitoring vaccine schedules and medical certification practices to ascertain whether vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified as ordinary mortality in the ICD.

How many infants can be saved with an improved IMR?

Slight improvements in IMRs can make a substantial difference. In 2009, there were approximately 4.5 million live births and 28,000 infant deaths in the United States, resulting in an infant mortality rate of 6.22/1000. If health authorities can find a way to reduce the rate by 1/1000 (16%), the United States would rise in international rank from 34th to 31st and about 4500 infants would be saved.

Go to:
Limitations of study and potential confounding factors
This analysis did not adjust for vaccine composition, national vaccine coverage rates, variations in the infant mortality rates among minority races, preterm births, differences in how some nations report live births, or the potential for ecological bias. A few comments about each of these factors are included below.

Vaccine composition

This analysis calculated the total number of vaccine doses received by children but did not differentiate between the substances, or quantities of those substances, in each dose. Common vaccine substances include antigens (attenuated viruses, bacteria, toxoids), preservatives (thimerosal, benzethonium chloride, 2-phenoxyethanol, phenol), adjuvants (aluminum salts), additives (ammonium sulfate, glycerin, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium chloride), stabilizers (fetal bovine serum, monosodium glutamate, human serum albumin, porcine gelatin), antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B), and inactivating chemicals (formalin, glutaraldehyde, polyoxyethylene). For the purposes of this study, all vaccine doses were equally weighted.

Vaccine coverage rates

No adjustment was made for national vaccine coverage rates—a percentage of the target population that received the recommended vaccines. However, most of the nations in this study had coverage rates in the 90%–99% range for the most commonly recommended vaccines—DTaP, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib (when these vaccines were included in the schedule). Therefore, this factor is unlikely to have impacted the analyses.9

Minority races

It has been argued that the US IMR is poor in comparison to many other nations because African–American infants are at greater risk of dying relative to White infants, perhaps due to genetic factors or disparities in living standards. However, in 2006 the US IMR for infants of all races was 6.69 and the IMR for White infants was 5.56.13 In 2009, this improved rate would have moved the United States up by just one rank internationally, from 34th place to 33rd place.8 In addition, the IMRs for Hispanics of Mexican descent and Asian–Americans in the United States are significantly lower than the IMR for Whites.6 Thus, diverse IMRs among different races in the Unites States exert only a modest influence over the United States' international infant mortality rank.

Preterm births

Preterm birth rates in the United States have steadily increased since the early 1980s. (This rise has been tied to a greater reliance on caesarian deliveries, induced labor, and more births to older mothers.) Preterm babies are more likely than full-term babies to die within the first year of life. About 12.4% of US births are preterm. In Europe, the prevalence rate of premature birth ranges from 5.5% in Ireland to 11.4% in Austria. Preventing preterm births is essential to lower infant mortality rates. However, it is important to note that some nations such as Ireland and Greece, which have very low preterm birth rates (5.5% and 6%, respectively) compared to the United States, require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses (23) and have correspondingly high IMRs. Therefore, reducing preterm birth rates is only part of the solution to reduce IMRs.6,32

Differences in reporting live births

Infant mortality rates in most countries are reported using WHO standards, which do not include any reference to the duration of pregnancy or weight of the infant, but do define a ‘live birth’ as a baby born with any signs of life for any length of time.12 However, four nations in the dataset—France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland—do not report live births entirely consistent with WHO standards. These countries add an additional requirement that live babies must also be at least 22 weeks of gestation or weigh at least 500 grams. If babies do not meet this requirement and die shortly after birth, they are reported as stillbirths. This inconsistency in reporting live births artificially lowers the IMRs of these nations.32,33 According to the CDC, “There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States' relatively low international ranking.”32 Nevertheless, when the IMRs of France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland were adjusted for known underreporting of live births and the 30 data pairs retested for significance, the correlation coefficient improved from 0.70 to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.52–0.87).

Ecological bias

Ecological bias occurs when relationships among individuals are inferred from similar relationships observed among groups (or nations). Although most of the nations in this study had 90%–99% of their infants fully vaccinated, without additional data we do not know whether it is the vaccinated or unvaccinated infants who are dying in infancy at higher rates. However, respiratory disturbances have been documented in close proximity to infant vaccinations, and lethal changes in the brainstem of a recently vaccinated baby have been observed. Since some infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated, and babies vaccinated against diarrhea died from pneumonia at a statistically higher rate than non-vaccinated babies, there is plausible biologic and causal evidence that the observed correlation between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants should not be dismissed as ecological bias.

Go to:
The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.

Efforts to reduce the relatively high US IMR have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Once again, what chronic illnesses are you referring to that we should be concerned about? You never have named them in several years.
They were listed in just today's post. Here's another article listing many of the chronic illnesses associated with vaccines.

Vaccines: A Century of Lies and Deceit
Vaccines: A Century of Lies and Deceit

Posted by: TLB Staff

Published July 8, 2015, filed under HEALTH
vaccine 2

First published 11/08/2014 … Updated 07/08/2015

Commentary by: Roger Landry (TLB)

I am not known for saying things softly or in a delicate fashion … This will be no exception! Because what has been perpetrated on the American people soars well beyond evil and accelerates …

With the first real concerted push to vaccinate Americans coinciding with WWI (and the dismal failure this precipitated), we as a society have been under the dark cloud of Vaccines in earnest for nearly a century. The pitfalls and danger of this mechanism were suspected by many doctors and researchers even then. But then it exploded to biblical proportions into what we suffer today.

The first thing you will find when reading the attached letter is that this letter to the editor (in a fashion) is well over a decade old and cites research proving the dangers of vaccines going back well over a generation or more. The second thing that will come to mind is that almost all we are aware of today, has also been known to researchers, doctors and physicians for decades or generations. The conclusion you must come to is that, like Big Pharmaceutical companies, we as a society (on average) seem content to attack the symptoms resulting from the issue instead of the root of the issue. We look for ways to alleviate the symptoms of autism, polio, auto-immune disorders etc… without focusing on the root cause of these maladies … vaccines!

Aluminum, Mercury, Formaldehyde, Live (attenuated) viruses and much more, all deadly or in best case, dangerous to human physiology on a massive scale, injected directly into our bodies with nothing to prove efficacy or safety over an extended period of time, ever presented to a trusting public.

It speaks volumes that after almost a century of vaccinating the American public, no long term efficacy or harm study has ever been conducted by this government via such entities as the CDC concerning vaccines … while on many other mechanisms of possible harm such as a multitude of environmental toxins or radiation, a study has been performed.

I would state with a very high level of confidence that just the opposite is true. I would dare to say such studies have been conducted and the resulting data has been purposely withheld from the public due to the massive outrage that would result. But most of all, and by far the biggest reason, is the hugely negative impact it would have on vaccine sales, and ultimately big pharmaceuticals bottom line.

The most blatant of this proof (although many such scenarios exist) is fairly well known to most of us, this being the contamination of the polio vaccine with the (known) cancer causing SV40 virus. The CDC stated this virus was removed from the vaccine in 1963, but recent evidence has shown SV40 to have contaminated the vaccines possibly as late as the year 2000 … and today better than one out of three baby-boomers are afflicted with, or dying from, cancer.

Let us also not forget the recent CDC whistle blower Dr. Thompson’s revelation of a massive thirteen year cover-up of the CDC’s own research data tying the MMR vaccine directly to autism, something as many as one out of every twenty eight male children are afflicted with today.

And just how common is vaccine damage?

Approximately thirty thousand (30,000) VAERS reports are filed annually, and the CDC states that only 1-10% of actual cases are ever reported as such … Yea do the math, on the low side by CDC estimates 300,000 cases of vaccine damage occur every year! Now not all of these are life threatening, but how many are life wrecking? If even 10-20% are life threatening, wrecking, or stealing we are still talking about 30,000 – 60,000 incidents a year, that is still a huge number.

Now take the above numbers and plot (add) probable vaccine damage over just the last decade … 300,000 x 10 = 3,000,000 and if we use 1% reported figure … 30,000,000. Now what if this was plotted over the last century … The number would be astronomical. Quite a devastating scenario for something sold to us as the “Savior of Humanity”!

We can easily see, with even the most rudimentary research, the possible incidence of vaccine damage (which comes in many forms) is mind bending and so far above the lies and platitudes fed to us by those we are conditioned to trust that it is almost inconceivable.

Please understand that if the immensely overused statement “Your chances of vaccine damage are less than one in a million” were true … Vaccines would be among the safest mechanisms on this planet, but all data points Blatantly to Exactly the Opposite.

How many incidences of cancer, autism, autoimmune disorder, food allergy and many other life threatening or damaging maladies could have been avoided if we had focused on the root cause, the one thing all of these blights have in common … vaccines … instead of the symptoms, which the above stated maladies represent? How much death and suffering could have, would have, been avoided if agencies mandated with the protection of our health had come forth with the data they were aware of generations ago? The answer is untold MILLIONS! Millions dead, or damaged for life over the almost century of vaccinations administered to the American society, resulting in massive suffering and the loss of untold personal and community treasure, and all for profit or the proverbial bottom line.

These are all facts, not guesses or assumptions! But where is the massive public outcry? Who has gone to prison for life to pay for all this “PREVENTABLE” suffering and death? If you or I are responsible for the death of another, we will go to prison for life, or even lose our life, but entities such as the CDC or their owners/masters, the Big Pharmaceutical companies, enjoy total immunity for facilitating the accumulated death and/or suffering, over the last century, of more human beings than ANY modern war can account for!

Why are we as a society still focused on the symptoms or results of this evil mechanism instead of the root of the problem itself? Why are there almost “400” new vaccines awaiting approval by this corrupt and complicit government health agency, vaccines who’s efficacy and safety are based on a track record of lies and deceit?

It is time to wake up to the tragedy untold millions have and are suffering, because it will only get worse … much worse!

Isn’t a Century of Suffering and Death, a Century of Lies and Deceit … Enough ???

Please read on …


Vaccination and Immune-deficiency in Children

By: Gunner Ødum MD

Classical Homeopath MDSKH

Like everybody else I have been told that vaccinations can protect us against dangerous diseases like small-pox (variola), tuberculosis, diphteria, polio, tetanus and whooping cough. These are all of them serious illnesses, which have cost the lives of a lot of people. Children have been especially threatened, and consequently I have never been in doubt, when it came to vaccination of children. It was important to protect them against these dreadful diseases.

Side effects

This was my attitude as a student of medicine and later on as a qualified doctor. I was told that on rare occasions there might be serious side effects like encephalitis, but they occurred so seldom that they were nothing compared to the damages and deaths caused by the diseases themselves. Most side effects consisted of a local irritation caused by the insertion, a little screaming and some passing fever. Moreover I was told that the serious brain damages might be coincidental, having nothing to do with the vaccination.


As mentioned before I`m a qualified doctor and have worked as such in the Danish health insurance system for 10 years (1977-1986). Concurrently I had become interested in alternative therapy, but I still believed that vaccination was the safest protection against infant and children diseases. In 1987 I started an education as a Classical Homeopath. This was the start of my skepticism towards the effectiveness of vaccinations. Nevertheless I submitted to being vaccinated, when I was sent to Croatia in 1993 as a UN – doctor.

A change of attitude

The real change of attitude took place when in November 1995 I worked as a substitute for a doctor in Scoresbysund, Greenland. I had been given the Danish translation of a book about homeopathic treatment of vaccination damages. The reading of this book made me alert to the problems of vaccination, and I loathed being forced to vaccinate the Greenland children. Two things about the book fascinated me especially:

The possibility of treating children suffering from side effects from vaccination with homeopathic nosodes. Learning that the decline in the number of deaths among children suffering from children’s diseases was not due to vaccinations. This decline had started long before doctors had begun vaccinating and was primarily due to better personal hygiene, improved sanitation, pure drinking water, wholesome food and generally improved condition of life.

When returning from Greenland in December 1995 I immediately applied my new knowledge on children suffering from various chronic diseases. It was my suspicion that these diseases had been originated by vaccinations.

Four cases

With a background in this understanding I started proving my suspicion by giving children suffering from the above mentioned chronic diseases homeopathic nosode therapy.

In the following I’m going to describe four cases:

Case 1.

Kris was born on 7th of March 1990. I first saw him in 1992, when I treated him for asthmatic bronchitis. His mother told me he was born a healthy child, weighing 3.200 g. He had been given the usual vaccinations stipulated by the Danish health system. After one of these the parents remembered him crying and screaming all through the night. They didn’t remember how old he was at that time, but it had been difficult to get in contact with him. He had high fever after each vaccination, and after the third DiTePol and MMR his mother had noticed a remarkable change in his behavior. He was seldom happy, often dissatisfied and became easily angry and aggressive. Occasionally it was difficult to get into contact with him.

At the age of 10 months he started in day-nursery and had recurrently returning otitis media and bronchitis. He was given penicillin several times, had both eardrums punctured and a drainage tube inserted. He lost weight, looked pale and unhealthy and was often tired.

After I had given him two homeopathic remedies his ear problems disappeared, while his bronchitis still recurred.

In 1992 he had started in Kindergarten, where he was extremely shy and reticent. When his parents had visitors he hid in his room and would see nobody. He often had furious fits of rage, kicking, beating and scratching. As this behavior grew worse his anxious parents came to see me in December 1995, the day after my return from Greenland. I gave Kris a vaccine nosode. It was the first time I tried a nosode therapy. When I saw Kris again one month later his behavior had changed remarkably. His fits of rage had diminished and become less violent, and his parents had obtained a better contact with him. His appetite had improved and he had put on weight.

One year later his parents told me that Kris had developed positively. His bronchitis was still recurring, but he no longer felt so ill and weak as formerly.In school he was still a little shy, but the teachers described him as a happy boy who felt secure and comfortable.

I must admit that I felt rather astonished to see the dramatic effect of just one vaccine nosode, but I also felt confirmed in my suspicion that it was the vaccines that had brought about the change in his personality.

Case 2.

Her name was Elisa and she was almost 2 years old when I saw her in October 1995. She had also gone through the usual vaccination Programs . Six months old she started in a day-nursery and had constantly recurring colds with coughs and fever. In periods of fever she had to be looked after by her grandmother, but when she returned to the day-nursery she fell ill again.

I started the therapy by giving her a homeopathic remedy Calc-p C 200. It helped her to stay well for a whole month. When she fell ill again I gave her another Calc-p C 200 with the same result. She was well for a month, but then fell ill again. I started wondering why this was so.

After I had returned from Greenland and successfully had tried the nosode therapy on Kris, I thought that Elisa might be the victim of an Immune-deficiency caused by vaccines. I tested her and found that she had been especially weakened by the whooping cough vaccination. So I gave her vaccine nosode. The result was astonishing. Elisa was well for more than 6 months. Then she had another vaccination according to the usual vaccination Programs – and fell ill again. The same thing happened every time, whichever vaccine she was given.

This was the second time I had seen the effect of nosode therapy. I had also learned that the effect of homeopathic remedies like Calc-p C 200 is limited because homeopathy seems to be blocked up by vaccines.

Case 3.

My third case was Kristoffer. He was born in 1988 and 7½ years old, when I saw him in March 1996. Since infancy he had suffered from otitis media and now had to read lips because he was almost deaf. He had also developed asthma and was daily given Bricanyl spray and Spirocort spray. Because of his asthma he could not play with other children. He had no appetite and was often aggressive and sorry for himself.

I tested him for vaccination damage and gave him a vaccine nosode. The parents told me that already the first evening there was a noticeable change. For the first time in years Kristoffer was hungry! In the course of a few weeks he had changed totally. His appetite was better, he had more energy, his hair was glossy and his hearing had improved to the extent that he need not read lips any more. A couple of months later his asthma medicine was discontinued, and he could now play with other children, running and riding his bicycle.

I no longer doubted that vaccines caused serious damages on children’s health’s, but what amazed me was the fact that one single pill could initiate a process of healing so quickly in a child having suffered from vaccination damages since infancy.

Case 4.

Carina was born in May 1993 and had been given only some of the vaccinations stipulated for her age. Generally she was strong and healthy and her problems were not colds or otitis media. Still she had had pneumonia in connection with colds. Her problem was not having a language. When she was 3 years old she could not say one understandable word. Her mother came to me because she had heard about the damaging effects of vaccinations on children’s health, and now she wanted her child to be sort of purified for vaccines.

I tested Carina and was confirmed in my suspicion that her problem was caused by vaccines. I gave her a vaccine nosode, and less than two days later she was able to utter a whole sentence containing 4 understandable words. At the same time she was in a very unstable psychic state of mind, being very irritable and aggressive. From now on language was pouring out of her mouth, and her personality changed completely after having been confined by lack of language. After 6 month she was in possession of a language adequate to her age. Her immune system must have benefited, too, because when an epidemic of impetigo broke out in her Kindergarten, she was the only one not to catch it. This case started me wondering whether many of the speech problems met with in schools could have their origin in vaccinations? If so, then a nosode therapy would be more helpful than any educational endeavors!

Chronic diseases

After these 4 initial cases in 1996 I have treated more than 700 children whose immunity had been weakened by vaccinations. The chronic diseases I had seen in a lot of children were the following:

Constantly returning colds.

Fluids from the ears/ otitis media.

Defective hearing.

Asthma and bronchitis.

Recurring pneumonia.

Eczema of various kinds.

Sleeping problems.

Appetite problems.


Physical or psychic handicaps.

Speech disturbances.

Backward readers.

Behavior disorder.

DAMP – children (Dysfunction as to Attention, Motor nerves and Perception)



Rheumatoid arthritis and

Diabetes Mellitus.

Vaccines are highly noxious substances

It was not difficult for me to understand why so many children were ailing, when I considered what was the content of the vaccines injected into infants and children. Primarily vaccines contain pathogenic germs or vira, mostly grown on animal tissue. These germs or vira have been weakened or killed in order not to provoke the disease – anyway only in a mild form. These vaccines contain tissue fixatives (formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxide) and preservative (thiomersal, a mercury compound). Certain vaccines even contain neomycin, which is an antibiotic. When injected they cause local reactions (redness, swelling at injection site) or even systemic reactions (fever, vomiting). Thiomersal causes various allergies.

Vaccination programs in Denmark

All medical systems – except orthodox or allopathic medicine – look at the human body as a whole and interconnected system. Homeopathy understands disease as a need of the body to rid itself of toxins, and it does so in an orderly and meaningful fashion without attempting to suppress the symptoms. Vaccines introduce vira directly in the bloodstream while the natural way of catching a disease goes through the air passage or the digestive organs, where the local immune defense sets in. Far from preventing diseases vaccines push the disease into a chronic form and deeper into the body, where it then attacks vital organs. The result of suppressing measles and other infectious diseases in this manner is cancer and other autoimmune and chronic diseases.

It has been documented in medical literature (Viera Scheibner 1993) that people who contracted cancer and other chronic degenerative diseases in later years have remarkably few infectious diseases of childhood to report.

The sordid story of vaccination programs reveals the enormous gaps in the knowledge base of the orthodox medical establishment, especially a profound lack of knowledge of the dynamics of health and disease and functioning of the human body. It is the same medical industry, which enjoys the protection of the institutions of the State in most industrially developed countries.

Prevention is better than cure

After these 4 initial cases I have treated more than 700 children whose immunity had been weakened by vaccinations, but all the time I kept thinking: We can`t solve this problem with the help of therapy. The only solution is stopping vaccinations! I know we are talking about big business now, and that we are up against powerful forces. The vaccination industry is backed up world-wide by WHO in close co-operation with governments, financiers and industrialists. But this is no excuse for not starting doing something now. Because if we don’t try to stop this madness now the coming generations will suffer not only from Immune-deficiency, but we`ll see changes of genetic codes caused by the animal tissues injected into our children.


Ravi Roy & Carola Lage-Roy: Homøopatisk behandling af vaccinationsskader (Klitrose 1995).

Isaac Golden: Vaccination. En gennemgang af risiko og alternativer (Klitrose 1998).

Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.: Vaccination. 100 years of orthodox research shows that vaccines represent a medical assault on the immune system. (Australian Print Group, Maryborough, Victoria, Australia 1993).

Guilaine Lanctôt, MD.: The Medical Mafia (The Key Inc. 1995. P.O. Boks 223 Morgan, U.T. 05853 USA.). Danish translation, Klitrose 1999.

Original (attached) letter appeared HERE

Vaccines: A Century of Lies and Deceit | The Liberty Beacon
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.07138 seconds with 11 queries