Vaccination policy was put over vaccine safety to save compulsory vaccination programs.
By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 12, 2012
For the past 30 years, vaccination policy was put over vaccine safety … health agencies asked the pharmaceutical industry to ‘correct the print’ when the lab results did not match reality, but did nothing about vaccine safety itself. Although this report only includes information about the hoax known as compulsory vaccination as it has been documented for the past three decades, the horrors of vaccinations have been recorded since at least 1910. As exposed by Child Health Safety, vaccines not only did not save us from disease, but indeed immersed us into it.
For three decades, collusion between Big Pharma and government agencies around the world served to conceal the dangerous side effects vaccines have always had on human health. Such secrecy prevented the public from making informed decisions regarding the use of vaccines. Parents who take their children’s doctors word at face value before deciding whether or not it is a good idea to vaccinate them have been cheated and lied to either by ignorant doctors who never read a real vaccine study, or who were bought off to publicize the ‘wonders’ of vaccines.
The decision to put vaccination policies above the well-being of millions of people around the world is a gross example of ethical misconduct, which as shown on documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, has been imposed as a way to protect the vaccination programs in almost every country. The effectiveness and safety of vaccines has been supported by a list of false premises upon which pseudo-science has been built to make it look as if vaccines were the best to come around since the invention of the wheel.
In truth, though, concepts like “herd immunity”, the importance of maintaining certain vaccination rates, vaccine effectiveness, safety and their role in preventing mass disease have all been embellished to make up for the lack of solid scientific evidence. Perhaps the most outrageous fact is that health agencies have effectively waived the right of individuals to receive critical information about the demonstrated risks of vaccines, which were well-known by people who were supposed to protect the population from risky science.
As pointed by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, author of the document “The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention“, which compiles the history of deception behind vaccination policy, health authorities have unquestionably violated the Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics by ignoring or hiding the dangers that vaccine ingredients represent for human health. Organizations such as the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) of the UK, have made it their jobs to withhold information concerning vaccines, their effectiveness and the health effects on humans, as shown on its protocol from March 30, 2010.
The question is why would health authorities lend themselves to this kind of corrupt schemes? The answer is simple: Many members of government health agencies had, and continue to have deep ties to the pharmaceutical corporations. We know this because that is what documents obtained through FOIA requests show. Health officials and pharmaceutical companies’ representatives met in what is described as “commercial in confidence meetings” which were supposed to be kept secret. These meetings served as fora to decide what information would be published and what would be kept from the public regarding vaccine safety. The names of many participants in those meetings were also removed from JCVI’s website.
In her report The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention, Lucija Tomljenovic not only shows proof of generalized collusion between Big Pharma and government health agencies, but also collects enough proof to detail exactly what those responsible for protecting the health of the public have done in order to further the vaccine industry’s commercial goals. Proof of these and other assertions made below is taken from the Minutes of JCVI CSM/DH Joint Sub-committee on Adverse Reactions.
According to Tomljenovic, between 1983 and 2010, health authorities failed to examine safety concerns about vaccines that had been found during their own investigations. She cites as an example JCVI’s decisions not to investigate, skew data and select information that showed unfavorable results to be taken out of safety reports.
Besides trying to hide negative data or select only beneficial information to be put on medical reports, health authorities restricted contraindication criteria to boost vaccination rates, while not concerning themselves with safety issues. On multiple occasions it was requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to data sheets when such data was in conflict with official advice on immunization. The Minutes show that the health authorities sought, above all, to maintain acceptance rates for vaccination as high as possible even though the effectiveness of vaccines such as the one indicated to treat whooping cough, for example, were suspicious of causing serious respiratory disease. Authorities failed to investigate in detail.
The Chairman of the Committee asked members to consider “History of seizures, convulsions, or cerebral irritation in the neonatal period”. Professor Hull said that this contra-indication would include children with disguised brain damage; this was good for the reputation of the vaccine in that it prevented an apparent association between vaccination and the discovery of brain damage.”
As it has been abundantly proven before, vaccine safety has been based on dubious studies, whose methodology was more than questionable, while health agencies discarded independent research that showed the real results from clinical studies. This type of actions, says Tomljenovic, intended to promote vaccination policies above all. While only official studies were taken into consideration in order to evaluate the safety of vaccines, authorities always treated safety concerns as overblown and insignificant.
“That boosting vaccine uptake appeared to be the major force driving the JCVI’s decision process can be inferred from their request to the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine Merieux to modify the data sheet information related to contraindication to adverse effects, at the 1st May 1987 meeting. Apparently, it was not sufficient to amend existing information on immunisation in their Memorandum to Infectious Diseases, it was also necessary to make that information concordant with the advices stated on manufacturer’s data sheets,” reports Tomljenovic.
“At a later meeting on 23rd October 1987, the JCVI also pressed for a change in the pertussis vaccine licensing details from the manufacturers, in spite of a pertussis vaccine-suspected injury litigation that was ongoing at that time. The Chairman of the JCVI approached the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries to resolve this issue.”
Health authorities such as JCVI, promoted in-house plans and propaganda campaigns to present new vaccines as the solution to treat and cure disease, even though the science behind those vaccines did not prove their efficacy. Both the pharmaceutical industry and the scientific community charged with taking care of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines sought to include new vaccines into the pediatric vaccine schedule, even though licenses had not even been granted. In one case, the committee reviewing data resulting from studies performed to test the safety of the MMR vaccine, agreed that “data from Dr Fombonne was persuasive and indicated that the frequency of regressive autism appeared not to have increased.” The big problem with most epidemiological studies such as the one performed by Fombonne is that they only show results regarding “association” and not “causation”, which basically means that the results are unreliable since they do not estimate true risk.
While in private the tests conducted to determine vaccine safety did not actually test causation, in public, health agencies said that their tests “did not show evidence to support a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease.” Statements such as this one, issued by the CSM found fertile soil at JCVI, who saw the papers as helpful and expressed its strong support for the conclusion reached by the CSM.
During their secret meetings, vaccine industry representatives and their government insiders attempted to create new ways to curb or completely eradicate independent vaccine research that questioned official studies. But worse than everything cited above, both the vaccine industry and health officials took advantage of parents’ ignorance and trust to promote false information about vaccine safety and effectiveness. They did so by promoting questionable data originated in their unchallenged studies which not only were not scientifically supported, but that also put the health of children, women, the elderly everyone else at risk.
On a May 7th, 1999 meeting, officials discussed the importance of keeping the Minutes and the discussions about the new Group C meningococcal vaccines confidential. Professor Hull, the Chairman of the Committee at the time, said that “this was the main agenda item for the meeting.” He said that too much information had been published and that such publications were making important decisions more difficult to take. Apparently, three new brands of meningococcal Group C conjugate vaccine were about to hit the market and the decision to sell them would be dependent on providing those vaccines
licenses and the wording of those licenses. For the specific case of the Group C meningococcal vaccines, doctors who had a seat at the Committee had been actively involved in the production and testing of the vaccines while working with the manufacturers.
“Professor Cartwright was involved in manufacturers’ studies on the vaccines, including health trials. Dr Goldblatt was involved in one company-sponsored study and had provided a clinical expert report to the MCA for one manufacturer. Dr Jones was involved in trials for two of the companies involved. Dr Schild said that NIBSC was evaluating the vaccines.” Despite the obvious conflicts of interest, no objections were presented. In fact, it was agreed that these and other doctors would be welcome to provide “valuable input to the discussion in common interest.” What would that common interest be?
Health officials and vaccine manufacturers continued to meet to talk about availability of supposedly scarce vaccines, as well as the introduction of new ones. They also talked about obtaining financial support to train staff from the health services about immunisation. “The Chairman said that Departmental officials had recently met vaccine manufacturers who were keen to be informed, in confidence, of the outcome of JCVI discussions which might affect their own plans.” reads the report detailing the JCVI meeting from 4th May 1990. The studies taken into account to determine whether or not vaccine-related adverse effects should be or not a concern did not properly study, much less detected long-term outcomes.
So what exactly have the pharmaceutical industry and the health official tried to hide from the public by selectively reporting on the results of studies that test the efficacy and safety of their vaccines? In one simple sentence, that their vaccines have played no part in the eradication of disease throughout history, that the idea to push vaccines on the public has its origins — at the very least — on a purely mercantilist scheme. Big Pharma has intentionally tried to sell their pharmaceutical products even though they know of the health risks of using them.
Take for example the vaccination that sought to end Scurvy, Typhoid and Scarlet Fever. Scurvy is a disease caused by poor nutrition, more specifically low levels of vitamin C. In the UK, the end of the Scurvy plague was not the result of the vaccination campaign to immunize children against the disease, but a consequence of improved living conditions that meant people had more access to fresh fruit and vegetables. (see chart on page 4) The same occurs with the other two diseases cited above. Both in Australia and the United States, mortality rates decreased substantially in the absence of vaccination campaigns, where better living conditions were present. (see chart on page 6).
Similar situations occur when reviewing the danger of getting sick with measles as late as 2007. The chance that anyone in England or Wales, for example, got sick of measles in 2007 was of 1 in 55 million. That is 30 to 60 times lower than getting struck by lightning. Measles mortality rates had fallen sharply between 1912 and 1975, 13 years before the measles vaccine was introduced. By 2010, measles mortality in the United States was at a rate of 4 in every 100 million people. (see chart on page 8)
The same is true for mumps, whose death rates went from about 32 million in 1901 to nearly 0 in 1996. In the case of mumps, though, the medical profession is taken beyond operating on the base of ignorance and into the criminal law and unethical treatment of children. That is because treating a patient unnecessarily for a medical condition or misleading a patient to adopt clinical treatment even when it is dangerous, is a criminal offense. This is the case with the mumps vaccine. According to the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, “since mumps and its complications are rarely serious, there is little indication for the regular use of the mumps vaccine.” In fact, males all over the world who received the mumps vaccine, and who were not allowed to create natural resistance to mumps by contracting it, are now at risk of getting mumps as teenagers or adults which would make them victims of orchitis and sterility.
The next case is Rubella. Graphic information — chart — about death rates is not provided due to the rarity of cases of death in the last century, and the few ones encountered are not even enough to plot a graph. In spite of this reality, the medical industry managed to introduce Rubella vaccines in the immunisation schedule. As it happens with mumps, the risks of injecting vaccines against Rubella are higher than any medical complication caused by the disease, which in most cases are limited to rashes. According to the Danish Medical Bulletin of March 1987, 92% of women with Rubella cases managed to deliver healthy babies. The risk is even lower if those women caught Rubella as children. Of course government health agencies reject the reality of how inoffensive Rubella is to people; even to children, and come up with papers to scare parents into believing that it is necessary to vaccinate them with the MMR poison cocktail. Three examples of this kind of scare tactic are exposed on three papers: False Government Rubella Scare Stories: Reply to Professor Louis Z. Cooper, from June 6, 2005, Rubella Scares: Demonstrating the Figures are False from August 11, 2005 and False Government Rubella Scare Stories: Only 20,000 percent Overstated, from June 1, 2005.
Additional proof of falsehood on government and medical industry’s assessment of the effectiveness and safety of vaccines are found repeatedly on studies related to other disease such as Diphtheria, Tetanus and Smallpox. (see graphs on page 17-23).
Amazingly, despite the well known dangers of vaccines, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are being persecuted by police, health officials and school staff. Also, philanthropic organizations are working extra hours to come up with ways to deliver vaccines to the population in a way people have no say about whether they want to use them or not. For example, as we reported last week, Bill Gates is actively working on drone delivery systems to spray vaccines over entire populations, in programs that he says are full of ‘bold ideas’. In the United States the American Medical Association recently presented a plan that would make vaccines mandatory. “AMA recently published a paper proposing the introduction of a new law to force you and your children into experimental vaccine trials, says the report by Christina England. Back on October 9, Lisa Garber from Natural Society reported on how 13,000 people injected with spinal steroid injections for back pain are now victims of fungal meningitis. The vaccines were contaminated with steroids.
Despite the fact vaccines have only caused disease and death for the past century, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry continue to use people as guinea pigs in the open air and lab experiments. Last July, DARPA announced its plan to produce massive amounts of flu vaccines, in case that a global pandemic hit us hard. DARPA said their experimental vaccines would be grown in vegetables. Of course, we now know that it was the flu vaccine what really caused the last flu pandemic, not the H1N1 strain. On July 16, Reuters reported that a new vaccine which contained weakened live viruses in it mutated and created two new deadly strains. The vaccine had been administered to a population of chickens. The animals got sick and experienced respiratory disease. “The viruses emerged in 2008, a year after Australia started using a European vaccine along with two very similar Australian vaccines to fight acute respiratory disease in poultry. The illness causes coughing, sneezing and breathing difficulties in birds, normally killing 5 percent of them.” Back in January, the state of Texas air-dropped rabies vaccine of 7,000 square miles, a true open air experiment that endangered the health of the population in that area. The spraying was done even though rabies cause 2 or less deaths a year in the whole American territory.
The accounts of the type cited above are numerous. You can read more about government’s criminal actions regarding vaccine use by typing the word “vaccines” on our search box for a long list of articles.
If this information and the rest contained in the sources cited within the article is not enough to indict governments and the medical industry for crimes against humanity, then there is nothing that will be able to achieve it. Governments and their corporate cohorts have knowingly poisoned humanity for at least 100 years and using many patients are subjects for experimental pharmaceutical products whose effectiveness and safety have never been properly evaluated. They have prioritize vaccination policy over vaccine safety, and in doing so, they have helped concealed the dangers that vaccines pose to those who are swindled into believing that vaccines treat and / or cure disease, when the contrary is true. Health authorities have published inaccurate and misleading information with the explicit intention to hide the risks of vaccine side effects. What else there needs to be found?
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.
for its size, population and resources. But there is one more way in which Brazil is similar to the so called developed world: It also violates civil liberties. Different from say, the United States or England, police here do not harass citizens that much. However, the violation of their liberties and rights is still done quietly. Brazil is a country with very limited access to information and people here know very little about their rights and duties. This panorama is fertile ground for government abuse and corruption.
According to many civil rights and privacy groups the use of scanners is a gross violation of privacy laws. The images generated from the scanners are saved in hard drives and kept for further use in surveillance. Although authorities in Brazil deny the capacity of the scanners to provide such images, Angelo Gioia, from the Federal Police in Rio de Janeiro, admitted it is a more invasive method of surveillance. Currently, Brazilian laws allow for searches of people when there are founded suspicions of illegal activities, but do not regulate the use of this kind of scanners. Goia believes there should not be any limits when it comes to security. The cost of every body scanner is $170,000. Body scanning technology 
e offices all around the country to renew their driver licenses or identification and do not inquire or wonder about the new technology used in those documents. In other countries where it has been implemented, the National ID card is rejected by informed citizens as well as pro privacy groups because it contains all information related to the bearer of the card: Social Security number, physical address and a unique identification number that unlocks a wide variety private information such as bank accounts, savings, workplace, voting record, and so on.
