Prime Minister of Chad visits kids paralyzed after taking Meningitis Vaccine

January 14, 2013 1 Comment

Usual globalist suspects are behind MenAfrivac vaccination campaign under which children were injected

By CHRISTINA ENGLAND | VACTRUTH | JANUARY 14, 2013

On January 6, 2013, I wrote an article entitled Minimum of 40 Children Paralyzed After New Meningitis Vaccine describing how at least 40 children in Gouro, Chad, located in northern Africa, became paralyzed after they had received the meningitis A vaccine, MenAfrivac. [1]

Further research about the Meningitis Vaccine Project shows the effort was a massive collaboration among major organizations. The vaccine, developed by the India Serum Institute, was funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in partnership with WHO and PATH, specifically to combat meningitis in Africa. We wonder why none of these groups are offering a statement about this devastating event.

A TIMELINE OF DISTURBING EVENTS

On January 8, 2013, Mr. M., who wishes to remain anonymous, managed to leak television footage from the local television station TeleTchad, showing the Prime Minister of Chad, Emmanuel Nadingar, making an impromptu visit to one of two hospitals accommodating the sick children in hopes of reassuring parents and children. [2]

On January 9, 2013, a full-page article was published by La Voix, entitled The Fate of the Paralyzed Children is Worrying. La Voix, a print-only publication, reported that one parent, speaking from the bedside of her sick son, told reporters that some time after receiving the vaccination, three of the children became ill and their health became increasingly disturbing.

Another citizen told the newspaper, “It took three to four people just to stabilize the children. Panicked by the turn of events, the team took to their heels.”

On January 10, 2013, an article was published by the Journal Du Chad titled Chad: A Vaccine Against Meningitis Caused Casualties, reporting that fifty children aged between 1 and 29 years were admitted to two hospitals, the Hospital of the Mother and Child and the General Hospital National Reference. [3]

Bemadji Benoit, journalist for the Journal Du Tchad, wrote that on day one of the vaccination program, three of the children were said to have become ill, suffering from convulsions, vomiting, headaches, and diarrhea. Their conditions were described as critical. Worried by what had happened to their children, parents reported that they had tried to alert the vaccinators but said that the team continued with the vaccination program.

WHAT WENT WRONG?

By watching this video, you will have learned that the following organizations were involved with the MenAfriVac vaccination project:

  • CDC – Centers for Disease Control
  • FDA – Food and Drug Administration
  • BMGF – The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • PATH – Program for Appropriate Technology in Health
  • MVP – Meningitis Vaccine Project
  • WHO – World Health Organization
  • UNICEF – United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

So, let us examine what information some of these organizations have shared about this vaccine. Most of them make statements that contradict recommendations from the manufacturer of MenAfriVac.

THE CDC

The CDC provided a statement about the new meningitis vaccine on their website:

“The ‘Meningitis Belt’ in Africa includes 26 of the world’s poorest countries. Frequent outbreaks and sporadic explosive epidemics result in tens of thousands of meningitis cases. Elimination of this disease could reduce morbidity and mortality, disabilities, and countries’ health expenditures.

CDC’s work in meningitis prevention spans several decades and was important in establishing the burden of disease that contributed to the investment case for development of and the mass campaigns that first introduced MenAfriVac™ in Burkina Faso in 2010. This meningococcal A conjugate vaccine was developed specifically to combat epidemic meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa by a consortium of partners including CDC, PATH, WHO, FDA, the Health Protection Agency and the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” [4]

THE MENINGITIS VACCINE PROJECT

According to the Meningitis Vaccine Project, the MenArfriVac vaccine was specifically designed to meet the needs of Africa’s Meningitis Belt because the vaccine can be transported and stored for as long as four days without refrigeration or icepacks. [5]

THE WHO

The World Health Organization repeated similar information on their website, clearly stating:

“The meningitis A vaccine known as MenAfriVac®, created to meet the needs of Africa’s meningitis belt, can now be kept in a controlled temperature chain (CTC) at temperatures of up to 40°C for up to four days.” [6]

THE BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION

And The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which funded the project, also gave similar information:

“Banikoara is home to the world’s first controlled temperature chain (CTC ) campaign. MenAfriVac, a vaccine produced by Serum Institute of India through the Bill & Melinda Gates-funded Meningitis Vaccine Project a partnership between WHO and PATH, is the first vaccine to be prequalified by WHO for use at ambient temperatures of up to 40°C for up to four days.” [7]

PATH

On its website, PATH, a nonprofit global health organization, emphasized the importance of partnerships in the development of MenAfrivac, praising the role of the U.S. government for making the vaccine a reality. The US government assisted with the campaign by offering funding, improving surveillance of the disease, addressing regulatory issues, providing technical expertise to India Serum, developing the conjugation method used in the vaccine, facilitating licensure of U.S.-based intellectual property, and testing the immune response of clinical trial participants. [8]

UNICEF

UNICEF, another major organization involved with the vaccination program, stated on their website:

“On October 31, 2012, MenAfriVac® received approval to be kept outside the cold chain for up to four days at up to 40°C, in a controlled temperature chain (CTC). MenAfriVac® is the first vaccine intended for use in Africa approved for this type of use, potentially setting a regulatory path that other heat-stable vaccines can follow.” [8]

WHAT THE MANUFACTURER SAID

However, in 2010, the manufacturer of MenAfriVac, Serum Institute of India, stated completely different information:

“MenAfriVac should be stored and transported between 2-8ºC. Protect from light. The diluent should be stored at 25°C. It is recommended to protect the reconstituted vaccine from direct sunlight.” [9]

These words from Serum Institute lead us to ask the vital question,  Can MenAfriVac be stored outside the cold chain?

WAS THIS VACCINE PROPERLY LICENSED?

In April 2012, OPTIMIZE Immunization Systems and Technologies for Tomorrow shared additional information about the MenAfriVac vaccine in a document authored by two individuals from PATH and one individual from WHO. The document, entitled MenAfriVac™ Planned for Use in a Controlled Temperature Chain, contained key evidence about the lack of appropriate licensure for this vaccine to be used outside of the cold chain:

“Unpublished data obtained from the vaccine manufacturer show that MenAfriVac has proven stable at temperatures of 40°C for limited periods of time. This indicates that the vaccine could be safely distributed outside of the 2°C to 8°C range for a specific period under controlled conditions during campaign activities. The data are currently being reviewed and Serum Institute of India plans to formally submit the request for a MenAfriVac license variation within the next few months.” [10]

So, was a revised license ever granted for the use of MenAfriVac?

Apparently not. According to the report of a meeting which took place in October 2012 between the World Health Organization’s Immunizations, Vaccines and Biologicals group and the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (IPAC), the vaccine would not be endorsed until 2013, at the earliest:

“The session began with an introduction by Mr. Michel Zaffran, who highlighted the groundbreaking progress made with MenAfriVac®, which will be the first EPI vaccine licensed for use in a controlled temperature chain (CTC).”

 … This is the final review of the document by IPAC prior to the planned field testing during the MenAfriVac® campaign in Benin in November 2012, where one district will use the vaccine in a CTC. After the field testing has been conducted, the revised final guidance document will come back to IPAC for endorsement in 2013.” [11]

CONCLUSION

As the days turn into weeks, the paralyzed children continue to lie in their hospital beds, immobile and frightened. Their parents feel confused and worried about their children’s future health. These families deserve an explanation of how this tragedy was allowed to happen and reassurance for their new future.

This project was organized and paid for by the leading organizations governing vaccines today, groups with millions of dollars available to make sure vaccines are as safe as possible. Why did these groups ignore the advice of the India Serum Institute, which stated that their product must be stored within a specific cold temperature range? Why have none of these organizations issued a statement about what happened to these paralyzed children? Who is going to explain how the vaccines were stored and transported? What is the African government going to do to help the children and parents at the heart of this vaccination disaster?  How many children must be injured before the use of the MenAfriVac vaccine is suspended?

References

  1. http://vactruth.com/2013/01/06/paralyzed-after-meningitis-vaccine/
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEBGG7KFQpU
  3. http://journaldutchad.com/article.php?aid=3998
  4. http://www.cdc.gov/ncird/div/DBD/newsletters/2012/summer/mening.html
  5. http://www.meningvax.org/
  6. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs141/en/
  7. http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2013/01/Saving-Time-amp-Lives-Meningitis-A-Vaccine-Breaks-the-Cold-Chain-Barrier?p=1
  8. http://www.path.org/menafrivac/government-partners.php
  9. http://www.unicefusa.org/news/releases/100-millionth-person-receives-meningitis-vaccine-unicef.html
  10. http://www.seruminstitute.com/content/products/product_menafrivac.htm
  11. http://www.path.org/files/TS-optimize-newsletter-apr12.pdf
  12. http://www.who.int/immunization_delivery/systems_policy/IPAC_2012_October_report.pdf

Filed under Africa, English, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , ,

NATO begins shipment of Patriot Missiles to Turkey

January 7, 2013 Leave a comment

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 7, 2012

A first group of U.S. soldiers has arrived in Turkey on Friday to work on the deployment of Patriot missile defense system that Turkey had asked NATO for to defend against a supposed imminent Syrian missile attack, said the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) .

The Patriot surface to air missiles are long range defense system used to intercept ballistic missiles as they can reach targets at high altitudes. The 27 U.S. soldiers landed in the city of Gaziantep, in southern part of Turkey, about 50 kilometers from the border with Syria. The soldiers began working to install the missile system, said the state news agency Anadolu.

“These forces will increase Turkish air defense capability and help curb the escalating crisis along the border of the Alliance,” EUCOM said in its statement, referring to the tense situation prevailing in the border between Turkey and Syria. “The deployment is only defensive and will not support a no-fly zone or any offensive operation,” said EUCOM.

Turkey requested help from NATO after several incidents in which missiles and bullets from the Syrian side killed and injured several people in Turkish territory. In addition, the Damascus government has fired ballistic missiles, known as Scud, to targets near the border with Turkey, where Turkish-backed terrorist groups operate with the aid of western nations such as the United States and several European nations.

Syria has spent nearly two years mired in a civil war between rebels and the government, a conflict orchestrated by Western powers that seek to end the presidency of Bashar al-Assad. The civil war already  killed more than 60,000 people.

The worst incident occurred on the Turkish side on 5 October when five women died as a result of an explosion in the city of Akcakale, after an unidentified mortar shell fired from Syria landed near a populated area in Turkey. Since then, Turkey began blaming the Syrian government for any and all attacks.

The NATO ally in the region later deployed tanks along the border and responded with its own artillery repeatedly, but since such actions did not end in a massive build up against Assad, the Turkish president decided to ask NATO for a Patriot missile defense system which analysts see as the first step of the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria, from where more terrorist attacks will be launched by western-backed rebel groups.

NATO accepted Turkey’s application in December so three member countries will contribute to this deployment. Those countries are the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands, with two batteries of missiles each, in addition to its own military personnel to operate them.

Both the German Army as well as the Dutch Defense Ministry said that their respective Patriot will sail for Turkey on January 8. Each country will send its troops later and expects these batteries to be operational in February.

In total, more than 1,000 soldiers of these three countries will come to Turkey to operate these missiles to be deployed in the provinces of Gaziantep, Adana and Kahramanmaras, all in the south of the country.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Filed under Africa, English, North America, World Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Reduce Two Leading Childhood Diseases by 50% or More without Vaccines

January 4, 2013 Leave a comment

By JEFFREY J. AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | JANUARY 4, 2012

It’s not black magic or some out-of-date belief—just good old-fashioned common sense.

Better hygiene, sanitation, and organic food are the foundations for good health. But to what degree could one of those elements (hygiene, for example) have an effect on decreasing a disease? I think finding the answer to this question and considering the evidence is valuable for parents who are considering vaccinating their children.

Why?

Mainstream health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and other such agencies in the United States use emotionally charged language to declare that vaccines—not better sanitation or hygiene— saved the world from deadly diseases.

It is for this reason that I must warn you: Those who push vaccines often trivialize or underestimate the information I am going to share with you. It completely destroys what they have been told for many years.

If you’re interested in learning more, read on.

The Gold Standard

The big secret vaccine peddlers avoid like the plague is, one amazingly simple act reduced two diseases by 50% or more. The most vital point to remember: The decrease in morbidity of—or the rate of incidence of a disease—those affected by the diseases had nothing to do with vaccines!

To get our answer, we turn to Karachi, Pakistan.

In 2002, a randomized controlled trial (a gold standard of scientific research) was performed by Dr. Stephen P. Luby in Karachi, Pakistan. The goal of the study was to assess the impact of hand washing and bathing with soap in settings where infectious diseases are leading causes of childhood disease and death. [1–3]

It is known as the Karachi Health Soap Study.

It’s noteworthy to keep in mind that the variable studied was hand washing—not improved sanitation (waste water treatment), clean drinking water, better food or storage, or even vaccines. In Karachi, sewage contaminates the drinking water and feces contaminates the environment. This is what makes the study so radically powerful!

If you want to see an overview of what was done, read on.

The Power of Simplicity and Education

Here are the some relevant facts you should know about the Karachi Health Soap Study[3]:

  • 25 neighborhoods were either given an antibacterial soap (containing 1.2% triclocarban) or plain soap.
  • 11 neighborhoods were the control. In other words, no hygiene promotion occurred, and no soap was dispensed in these neighborhoods.
  • Both the antibacterial soap and plain soap looked and smelled identical.
  • Both types of soap were packaged identically in generic white wrappers. Neither the fieldworkers nor the families knew whether the soaps were antibacterial or plain.
  • Fieldworkers reviewed with the families the health problems that resulted from contaminated hands and provided them with specific hand-washing instructions.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged households to wash their hands after defecation, after cleaning an infant who had defecated, before preparing food, before eating, and before feeding infants.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged participants to bathe once a day with soap and water.

Here’s what happened next…

Dramatic Decrease in Diseases

Remember my warning in the beginning of the article about the information being dismissed? As you will see, the results are very dramatic.

As noted by the study, in the first 6 months not much change or variation (only 6%) was noted between the different groups. In the graph below, the biggest change came in the second half of the year.

karachi-statistics

The results of the study were analyzed after 51 weeks.

  • Primary diarrhea outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 47% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
    • Plain soap: 52% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
  • Primary respiratory outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 45% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group
    • Plain soap: 50% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group

It is essential to reemphasize, the World Health Organization lists pneumonia (lower-respiratory infection) and diarrhea as the number 1 and number 2 diseases, which kill more than 3.5 million children worldwide each year. [3–5]

This seems to be in harmony with the principle that Antoine Bechamp—and even Weston Price—wrote about many years ago: The health of the host is everything. The disease is nothing. [6]

Considering that the people in the Karachi study drank the same water, ate the same foods, had the same indoor plumbing (or lack thereof), etc., a significant question has to be asked. If simple hand washing can decrease the morbidity of diarrhea and pneumonia by 50% or more, what happens when better sanitation facilities, food storage, and quality of food are introduced?

Even more important, I’d think there would be comparative data on the effectiveness of hand washing and vaccines. But if that were to happen—given the safety track record of soap versus vaccines—the entire vaccine program would receive a severe death blow.

What we know is when the standard of living increases, mortality and morbidity rates fall.

As an example, mortality rates (not morbidity) in the United States decreased prior to the introduction of vaccines (notice there was not a vaccine for scarlet fever).

united-states-mortality-rates

What could cause such an intense drop in mortality rates? It obviously wasn’t the vaccines. If vaccines caused a 50% drop in morbidity or mortality rate of a disease within a 6-month period, the media would broadcast it all over the news, singing the praises and benefits of getting injected.

The irony of this study is that the Centers for Disease Control provided some funding and reviewed the data. Here’s an excerpt from the study:

The balance of the funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Inclusion of soap trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services. These data were presented in part at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, GA, USA, in February, 2004. [3]

So, now you know that some people at the Centers for Disease Control know. But here’s the clincher.

Vaccine Pushers

The Centers for Disease Control recommend the following vaccines in the United States to prevent the very same diseases discussed above.

For diarrhea: RotaTeq® (RV5) and Rotarix® (RV1). [7]

For pneumonia: Pneumococcal, haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pertussis (whooping cough), varicella (chickenpox), measles, and influenza (flu) vaccine. [8]

Does the Centers for Disease Control mention washing hands as a means of prevention? Sure—in passing.

They say something to the effect that good hygiene is important, but is not enough to control the spread of the disease. They recommend vaccines.

handwashing-karachi-e1356757852356Then again, you might want to consider why the CDC is so adamant about recommending vaccines. For example, this is from an article on Mercola.com:

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned millions of dollars as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine … The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine— effectively, to vote himself rich. [9]

Could the deep ties to the pharmaceutical companies be the reason the CDC puts more emphasis on vaccines? Considering the evidence presented in the Karachi Health Soap Study, which would you choose—better hygiene or a vaccine?

Conclusion

What’s the moral of the story?

The data revealed by Stephen P. Luby in the Karachi Health Soap Study is nothing short of spectacular. Children who washed their hands and skin with plain soap had 52% less diarrhea and 50% less pneumonia. Good hygiene has a significant impact on decreasing disease, and I think it is something we take for granted in the United States.

Please remember this point: If better nutrition and sanitation were added as components of this or a future study, I suspect that Karachi, Pakistan, would see a more dramatic drop in diseases, much like in the United States—and I would highly encourage such efforts.

Just imagine the implications of a comparative study being performed between hygiene practices and vaccines for decreasing disease. What do you think the outcome would be? My money would be on hygiene practices being the clear winner.

Here’s the shocking reality.

You hold in your hands the real power and master key to good health. It doesn’t come through the tip of a needle.

References

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_evidence
  3. Luby, Stephen P., Mubina Agboatwalla, Daniel R. Feikin, John Painter, Ward Billhimer, Arshad Altaf, and Robert M. Hoekstra.“Effect of Handwashing on Child Health: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” The Lancet 366, no. 9481 (July 16, 2005): 225–233. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66912-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023513
  4. WHO Pneumonia Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs331/en/
  5. WHO Diarrhoeal Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/
  6. http://www.naturalnews.com/030384_Louis_Pasteur_disease.html
  7. http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/about/prevention.html
  8. http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Pneumonia/
  9. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/25/vaccine-doctor-given-at-least-30-million-dollars-to-push-vaccines.aspx

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Special Reports Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

1,742 new reasons to avoid Infanrix Hexa vaccine cocktail

December 28, 2012 Leave a comment

By CHRISTINA ENGLAND | VACTRUTH | DECEMBER 28, 2012

Last week, VacTruth reported details of the 1,271 page confidential GlaxoSmithKline document, regarding their six-in-one vaccine. More confidential papers have recently been leaked to the press. The Belgian website Initiative Citoyeene  reported both leaked documents.

The latest confidential document concerns the Prevenar 13 vaccine, a pneumococcal vaccine manufactured by Pfizer (now merged with Wyeth). [1] This vaccine replaced the original 2010 vaccine Prevenar, which, as reported by the manufacturer, has actually increased, rather than decreased, serious infections.

The Prevenar 13 protects infants against Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria which can lead to cases of meningitis, bacteraemia (an infection of the blood), pneumonia and ear infections. [2] It is usual for the six-in-one vaccination Infanrix Hexa and the Prevenar 13 vaccine to be administered to small babies at the same time.

According to the leaked confidential Wyeth (Pfizer) documents and a reply from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), both the manufacturer and the agency are aware of a significantly higher number of adverse neurological events in children vaccinated with both Prevenar 13 AND Infanrix Hexa, as per the Belgian vaccination schedule at ages two months and four months.

 THE FIRST SET OF LEAKED DOCUMENTS

First, let’s revisit the leaked confidential document regarding the Infanrix Hexa vaccine information, which I revealed just days ago on VacTruth. I exposed a hidden GlaxoSmithKline document that had been leaked to the press, revealing 36 infant deaths. [3]

The document, titled Confidential To Regulatory Authorities Infanrix Hexa Summary Bridging Report [4] stated that between October 23, 2009, and October 22, 2011, GlaxoSmithKline received a total of 1,742 reports of adverse events, including 503 serious adverse events, after children had received the 6 in 1 vaccine, Infanrix Hexa.

(Infanrix Hexa is a 6-in-1 vaccination, which combines the Combined Diphtheria, Tetanus and Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B enhanced Inactivated Poliomyelitis and the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine. It is used in 92 countries worldwide.)

The GlaxoSmithKline confidential document detailed each and every one of the 1,742 adverse events. The list was so long, it required a full twenty pages. Here are some of the adverse events detailed on charts between pages 11 and 31 of their document:

  • 106 cases of cyanosis

  • 69 cases of loss of consciousness

  • 165 cases of hypotonia

  • 102 cases of hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes

  • 107 cases of convulsions

  • 20 cases of epilepsy

  • 98 cases of febrile convulsions

  • 33 cases of grand mal convulsions

  • 47 apnea attacks

  • 108 cases of vomiting

  • 43 cases of Gaze Palsy

  • 12 cases of anemia

  • 1 case of bone marrow failure

  • 6 cases of cardiac arrests

  • 53 cases of diarrhea

  • 593 cases of pyrexia (high temperature)

  • 22 cases of gait disturbance

  • 6 cases of anaphylaxis

  • 62 cases of pertussis (whooping cough)

  • 2 cases of meningitis pneumococcal

  • 3 cases of arthritis

  • 16 cases of muscle twitching

  • 22 cases of tremors

  • 264 cases of crying (does not indicate the severity)

  • 2 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome

  • 10 cases of respiratory arrest

  • 7 cases of Kawasaki’s disease

All of these adverse events occurred after the child received the Infanrix Hexa vaccination, some just hours after being vaccinated. I am sure you will agree that these documented facts make extremely uncomfortable reading.

However, if this information is not disturbing enough, in the document, GlaxoSmithKline revealed on page twenty a total of 68 cases of vaccination failure! This fact proves that, not only does their vaccine appear to cause death, injury and illness in multiple children, but that this vaccine failed to give any “protection” at all to at least 68 children.

The document was signed by Safety Scientist Vanessa Corman and Vice President, Lead Biological Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance Dr. Felix Arellano, M.D., from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

THE SECOND SET OF LEAKED DOCUMENTS

Now, let’s continue with the shocking new papers that the Belgian website Initiative Citoyeene have revealed. They stated:

“On the 4th of January this year, at the end of the required 6-week period, two Pfizer Group Regulatory Affairs Directors, Mary Allin and Helen Edwards, sent a response to Dr. S. Spinosa of the European Medicine Agency on the topic of ‘higher number of neurologic events reported in Italy following the coadministration of Pevenar 13 and hexavalent vaccines.’ The two directors specified at the end of this letter that based on data supplied, they did not feel there was any need to modify the vaccine’s reference safety information (RSI), in other words, its package insert.”

So, let’s take a closer look at one of the confidential reports that Initiative Citoyenne has been quoting. This confidential document reveals that over a two-year period, 22 deaths were reported, representing 2.6% of the total number of cases and a total of 51 reported cases of lack of efficacy, or vaccination failure! [4]

BRAIN DAMAGE AND DEATH

The next section relates to reports of neurological events.

The Master of Health Administration (MAH), was asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), to provide a cumulative review of neurological reactions in those cases, which were reported to have received Prevenar 13 concomitantly (at the same time) with hexavalent (6-in-1) vaccine.

The MAH reported that during the two-year period between July 10, 2009, and July 9, 2011, a total of 1,691 cases of adverse events were reported after the Prevenar 13 vaccine. Of those adverse events, 312 cases (18%) were indicative of neurological reactions. [5] The 1,691 cases were then divided in three different datasets. The Initiative Citoyenne website explained the findings:

“An important fact is that Pfizer assessed the respective frequency of neurologic accidents in three different groups of children: those who had all received only the Prevenar 13 on the same day, those who had received both the Prevenar 13and other vaccines on the same day and those who had received both the Prevenar 13 and a hexavalent vaccine on the same day.

Of the 934 children who had only received the Prevenar 13 and experienced adverse effects, 87 displayed neurologic events (87/934 = 9%).

Of the 287 children who had received the Prevenar 13 plus other vaccines on the same day, and experienced adverse effects, 62 had had neurologic episodes (62/287 = 21%).

Of the 470 children who received the Prevenar 13 plus a hexavalent vaccine, on the same day, and reported adverse effects, 163 had experienced neurologic reactions (163/470 = 34%!!). It is therefore clear that the concomitant administration of several vaccines, particularly those recommended in the Belgian vaccine schedule (Prevenar 13 alongside Infanrix Hexa), multiplies the risk of neurologic reactions including serious and potentially irreversible adverse events!”

To describe the enormity of the situation, they further stated, in easy-to-understand terms:

“To grasp the extent of the problem, just remember that the Belgian annual birth rate is approximately 128,000, a very large majority of whom receive BOTH the Prevenar and the Infanrix Hexa. A simple calculation reveals therefore that the annual number of serious adverse effects, taking ONLY this vaccine into account, could be 3% x 128,000 births = 3,840 children!”

MORE REASONS TO AVOID THIS SIX-IN-ONE VACCINE

Interestingly, the Prevenar 13 leaflet mentioned earlier states reasons why your child should not be given Prevenar 13:

“Your child should not have Prevenar 13 if he or she has ever had an allergic reaction to pneumococcal or DIPTHERIA VACCINES, or any of the ingredients listed at the end of this leaflet.”

Despite this warning, the Prevenar 13 vaccine is often given at the same time the Infanrix Hexa vaccine, which includes a diptheria component! These vaccines are recommended from as early as six weeks of age, according to the leaflet, at which time a parent would not know whether their child was allergic to the diptheria component or not.

One Belgian child who lost her life as a consequence of being given several vaccinations in one visit, which included the Infanrix Hexa vaccine together with Prevenar, was Stacy Sirjacobs. Stacy was an eight week-old premature twin who died in December 2011. [6]

These vaccines were given to Stacy despite advice given by the European Medicines Agency in their ANNEX I SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS for Infanrix Hexa report which stated:

“When Infanrix Hexa is co-administered with Prevenar (pneumococcal saccharide conjugated vaccine, adsorbed), the physician should be aware that data from clinical studies indicate that the rate of febrile reactions was higher compared to that occurring following the administration of Infanrix Hexa alone.”
 [7]

Furthermore, the document contained information about administering the vaccine to premature infants:

“Limited data in 169 premature infants indicate that Infanrix Hexa can be given to premature children. However, a lower immune response may be observed and the level of clinical protection remains unknown.

The potential risk of apnea and the need for respiratory monitoring for 48-72h should be considered when administering the primary immunisation series to very premature infants (born ≤ 28 weeks of gestation) and particularly for those with a previous history of respiratory immaturity.”

TROUBLING QUESTIONS

The European Medicines Agency offered warnings about administering the vaccine concomitantly with another vaccine and cautioned health care providers to consider the additional risks of vaccinating premature infants. Then why was little Stacy, a baby born one month prematurely, delivered by Caesarean section, resuscitated at birth, who spent the next four days in an incubator, given these vaccinations and then sent home without any extra advice?

Her death was a tragedy, yet babies are still dying and being neurologically damaged on a regular basis. The proof is in the manufacturer’s report in black and white. The drug companies know, the regulatory agencies know and worse still, our governments know.

Slowly, day-by-day, the depth of their corruption is being uncovered. Parents are not being told the truth, they are being deceived and lied to and the price they pay is extremely high.

CONCLUSION

These adverse events were being reported as far back as 2009.  So, why are these two vaccines still being recommended for babies as young as 6 weeks old? Surely, the most sensible and responsible action would be for the manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer to suspend the use of these vaccines until their use can be shown to be reliable, effective, and safe. Instead, this information is being hidden from the public.

Furthermore, the mainstream media is so quiet you could hear a pin drop. Dr. Rebecca Carley, an expert specializing vaccine-induced diseases syndromes, has often stated on her radio shows that vaccinations are the ‘True Weapons of Mass Destruction,” and the evidence contained in these leaked, confidential documents shows she could be right.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the website Initiative Citoyenne for bravely revealing the truth.

The staff at VacTruth wishes to express their heartfelt condolences to the family of Stacy Sirjacobs and other families whose children have suffered injuries or death following vaccination.

References

  1. Initiative Citoyenne Press Release http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/71/2012-2013…
  2. Prevenar 13 leaflet Consumer Medical Information http://www.nps.org.au/__data/assets…
  3. http://vactruth.com/2012/12/16/36-infants-dead-after-vaccine/
  4. Confidential To Regulatory Authorities Infanrix TM hexa Summary Bridging Report http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/71/2012-2013/confid.pdf
  5. Prevenar 13 PSUR 04 – Response to RSI Neurological Events PFIZER CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 Prevenar 13 Pneumococcal saccharide conjugated vaccine, 13 valent adsorbed PSUR 04 – Response to Question on Neurological events http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/3/27/09/71/2012-2013/emea-responses–Prevenar-13-Pfizer-Confidential.pdf
  6. http://vactruth.com/2012/01/19/baby-dies-after-first-shots/
  7. European Medicines Agency ANNEX I SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS for Infranrix Hexa http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Firearms are Confiscated, Innocents are Betrayed

December 27, 2012 Leave a comment

JPFO | DECEMBER 27, 2012

In the history of the 20th Century, there were zero wars between what we would term “democratic” countries. The wars that killed so many millions involved either (1) non-democratic vs. democratic countries, or (2) non-democratic vs. nondemocratic countries.

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by nondemocratic governments.

The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where “gun control” ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Three Elements For Human Suffering Hold the above facts in mind, and consider this three-element formula for horrific human suffering:

(1) Evil exists in the world. This concept sounds obvious, but actually there are legions of people, many of them highly-educated and highly-placed, who believe that “bad things happen because there is too much inequality of wealth and not enough education.” Many of these people cannot accept the idea that Evil exists and that people are capable of doing Evil. They prefer the “poverty, disease, and ignorance” explanation
for bad behavior.

If the concept of Evil needs proof, then consider just a few examples of terrible things done by people who are not poor and not ignorant: (a) when government leaders develop written plans to persecute and exterminate a disfavored group, and then carry them out; (b) when a parent methodically goes from room to room strangling or drowning or stabbing several children; (c) when a young adult straps on a bomb and boards a city bus carrying people to work or school, detonates the bomb, and kills dozens of the people
and seriously maims dozens more.

(2) Imbalance of Power Creates Opportunities for Evil. This point should be obvious, too. On the micro level, consider the Carlie Bruscia case. Remember how a security video camera caught the act of the predator contacting Carlie, then grabbing her by the wrist and taking her away. This is just one example, but it makes the point. Carlie was 12. The predator was 35 or so and a strong male. The predator was probably three times a strong as Carlie, plus he had a plan and a motivation. Carlie had much less strength and no plan for defense. It was nearly a sure thing that the predator would win.

Carlie was brutally raped and murdered.

Consider the recent case where Iraqi terrorists shot down in cold blood a whole bus load of women and children. The victims were powerless compared to the terrorists. All it took then was an Evil idea, and the victims being selected. The power advantage of the aggressors made the rest easy.

Now on the macro level. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure that there was no great imbalance of power among the branches of government. In each branch of our Constitutional government there are checks and balances. Where government systems have checks and balances, and where these operate with open discussion and competition for votes, you have the sort of “democratic” society that rarely makes war on another “democratic” society. As Professor Rummel pointed out, unbalanced political power within nations is a major factor in the outbreak of wars between nations.

(3) Betrayal of Trust Multiplies the Results of Evil. This point is much more subtle because most of us do not want to think about it. It’s too painful. On the micro level, consider the doctor or nurse or medic who starts killing the patients. One doctor in Britain was believed to have murdered some 35 patients (he killed himself in jail). A male nurse in the Pacific Northwest also terminated dozens of patients. How could this happen?

Notice: in addition to the Evil idea and the imbalance of power, these victims had put themselves into a position of dependence. The patients submitted themselves willingly to the potential killer. They trusted the doctor or nurse – they willingly gave up their self defense – they created the imbalance of power – and placed their lives at the mercy of the supposed caregiver and protector. When an Evil idea formed in the minds of the caregivers and protectors, then the killing was next.

This terrible result is worse than just murder because it involves the evil of taking advantage of someone who has placed his or her trust in the killer. Many of the Jews who boarded trains bound for death camps in Nazi Germany could not allow themselves to believe that their own countrymen, their own police and army, would betray them so fatally. Children and teens often fail to even try to resist a child molester or kidnapper, because the children cannot grasp that a trusted adult could turn against them.

The Effects of Civilian Disarmament Ideas

Now you have the basic groundwork. Next, consider “gun control” ideas and laws. To the extent that “gun control” causes any results, those results are:

(1) The non-evil, peaceful, law-abiding people will be discouraged from owning, carrying, using, and even learning more about or practicing with firearms. “Gun control” laws act to discourage firearms ownership and use by making it more expensive, embarrassing, difficult, or legally risky to have and use guns.

(2) “Gun control” laws do not decrease the incidence of Evil – not one bit. Gun control laws discourage people, or impose costs on people – but they do not affect evil minds and evil intentions.

(3) “Gun control” laws encourage people to render themselves less powerful. Turn in guns, not own guns, avoid guns, learn little or nothing about guns. “Gun control” laws work only in the direction of causing law-abiding people to reduce their personal defense power.

(4) “Gun control” laws thus make it necessary for people to rely upon their government or private defense providers. For most people, hiring a private body guard or other security service that would come anywhere close to the effectiveness of being personally armed, is too expensive. So most people depend upon their government police and upon dialing Emergency 911.

(5) The more Draconian the “gun control” laws and policies, the more it is likely the civilians are unarmed.

(6) When a government takes power with evil intentions, and extensive “gun control” laws are in place, then you have the set-up for destruction. Most of the people have obeyed the laws and placed their self-defense trust in their governments. The people are relatively we ak. Meanwhile, the aggressors are mostly undeterred by gun control laws. The aggressors would include street criminals, organized crime, and government agencies (e.g. the Nazi SS, the Soviet KGB, various death squads). In fact, the government agencies are usually specifically exempted from the “gun control” laws.

So, there are deliberate programs of persecution by government, as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia / Ukraine or in Cambodia. There are cultures of civilian powerlessness as in China during the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking in 1937. There is the malign neglect that allows armed parties to raid and attack defenseless people, as in El Salvador and Uganda. In all cases, the imbalance of power, coupled with the people’s helpless dependence upon the same entity that doesn’t mind if they get killed or enslaved, produces the worst human suffering imaginable.

How Can An Armed Society Help?

Now, you may ask: “Yes, but what difference would it make if the people were armed?” The answer is pretty simple: even evil people calculate the costs. Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.1

It is known that Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the Nazis did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth.2 Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.3

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries.
Likewise, in the Iraq War, the American military chooses to deploy its forces in a manner less likely to result in American casualties. Thus, the American military does not blindly attempt to move into some towns and regions where they know the civilian resisters (“insurgents”) are armed and dangerous.

We therefore learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations. All of these facts and observations suggest the following conclusion:
When a civilian population widely possesses firearms such as rifles, shotguns and handguns, along with ammunition for them, and the population has the training with the weapons along with the ethic of self defense, then the population is very unlikely to be conquered and persecuted either by their own government or by an invading force.

This conclusion means that lives are saved and human suffering is avoided when the population generally undertakes to prepare for its own armed defense. Stated simply: an armed population saves lives.
The data from the 20th Century suggest that millions of non-combatant lives were lost to genocide and persecution, because (a) the afflicted populations were tremendously underpowered compared to the killers, (b) the population relied solely upon their government to protect them, and (c) the government protectors either failed or actively turned against the populations.

Can All Evil Be Prevented?

Is an armed population absolutely safe from all invasion and persecution? No. But we have to consider the incentives of the aggressors. The better question is: will an invader or persecutor be more likely or less likely to attack an armed civilian population? Or, given a choice, would an invader or persecutor more often choose to afflict an armed population or an unarmed population?

It is possible to imagine scenarios where an armed population cannot do anything to protect itself against nuclear attack, for example. Such scenarios suggest only that no defense strategy is perfect, and that Evil can find a way to hurt and kill people. Overall, however, an armed population stands a much better chance of freedom from attack, persecution and slaughter than does an unarmed population.

History shows that Evil forces look for populations to enslave and annihilate. Evil selects those populations where it can operate with the least cost to itself. It is thus both a moral and practical imperative for populations to possess and learn to effectively use firearms for defense of self, family, community, and nation.

We hope this answers your question about the need and effectiveness of widespread private ownership of firearms.

Watch the film Innocents Betrayed below:

Resources

(1) Innocents Betrayed – the video documentary – makes a strong case because it presents the pictures and the flesh and blood reality of how the powerful can so easily destroy the powerless. It shows also how “gun control” laws are instrumental in paving the way for destruction.

(2) Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament is our book upon which Innocents Betrayed is based. The book does not talk about the Second Amendment – it talks about the problem of disarmed citizens vs. powerful forces, and it develops further how the rhetoric of “gun control” leads to a deadly physical and moral paralysis.

(3) Death by Government, by Professor R.J. Rummel, takes a different tack from our book. While our book focuses on the civilian disarmament issues, Prof. Rummel looks at the political systems that create the situations that make genocides and mass persecutions possible … even inevitable.

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88