The Early Death Syndrome

What are vaccinations for?
by Bob.

The Commercial Profitability In Early Death Syndrome:

There is profitability to certain quarters of debilitating 
people for half their lives. While this seems to run contrary 
to the early death cost-cutting strategy, it fits--first fleece 
them, then kill them. Cancer chemotherapy is their most 
efficient version, with manufactured food debilitating and 
chemo fleecing and both killing early. 

Dumbing down from birth also would seem to run counter 
to killing early because it decreases productivity and increases 
costs, but first priority is control, hence dumbing down the 
competition. Mercury in vaccines, sapping via food, no or 
minimal phonics in school, drugs, narrowband media, create 
a crippled class good only for service and over-specialized 
jobs. They don't compete for top positions and aren't capable 
of revolt or insisting on accountability. Lost productivity is 
offset by drug, entertainment, and other direct financial 
taps on Stupid Americans. Just when they've had enough 
time to make up for their mental slowness and intermittent 
info access and they start to realize they've been duped, 
they're killed off. 

-Bob 
 

THE PAIN IN YOUR ARM

Excerpted from Health Wars by Phillip Day (www.credence.org)

PHILLIP DAY?S REPORT ? THE PAIN IN YOUR ARM (Part 2)

An Overview of the Question of Immunisation http://www.credence.org

I am constantly asked what my views are on vaccination/immunisation and I know this is a question that worries every parent. And so I would like to feature some insights into this subject from my new book Health Wars, which I hope will help you lay the matter to rest once and for all. It is my considered opinion, after all the research I have done into this subject, that immunisation represents one of the great medical frauds of our time. When one sees how populations are frightened constantly by the threats of new infectious epidemics, and how parents are coerced and terrorised into having this unnatural, bizarre and ancient religious ritual performed on those they love the most, and most disturbingly, how the deaths and maimings plainly traceable to immunisation are swept under the carpet by a (mostly) complicit media, one begins to get the true picture of how a highly profitable and cynical industry is prepared to do or say almost anything to keep the global arms outstretched, teeth bared and gritted ? and the needles going in.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.? ? H L Mencken

Today immunisation is colossal business. There is hardly an illness that does not scare the pants off the public to the extent that they will sign on for just about any immunisation program for themselves and their newborn children. But in the Third World, a more sinister program has been underway. In one of the opening chapters of this book, and also in World Without AIDS, we have quoted industry?s abuse of drug prescription, immunisation and ?aid distribution? in the developing nations and how these widespread and government-sanctioned programs are causing appalling attrition among the targeted populations. While none of us wishes to consider humanity?s greed and desire for control at its worst, in summarily denying that such agendas are planned and underway, we choose to ignore the clear, unequivocal body of evidence.

?THE VACCINE AGAINST PREGNANCY?

On 21st January 1995, Sister Mary Pilar Verzosa RGS, of Pro-Life Philippines, Pandacan, Manila, wrote a letter to Judi Brown, President of the American Life League. The letter contained an alarm, which has since been sounded across the globe. Part of this letter reads as follows:

"At present we are doing research on the tetanus vaccines that were given last March 1994 by our Dept of Health to women of reproductive age. Many of the women complained of bleeding (miscarriages) and allergies. We got alarmed recently when we received communications from Magally Llaguno that the vaccine in Mexico contained hCG... if you have enough [research] papers, could your group do a press release via international press like Reuters so that all countries could be alerted?"[1]

The substance in question found in the vaccine was human Chorionic Gonadotrophin. Professional pharmacologist Judith Richter writes thus: "hCG is released by the fertilised egg cell soon after fertilisation and continues to be produced by the placenta. It stimulates the corpus luteum in the ovary to continue to produce progesterone." [2]

From this, most would be led to believe that the presence of hCG in a tetanus vaccine would actually have a beneficial effect on the overall health of the female recipient. However, such hCG is not that of a pregnant woman's own embryo and actually causes antibodies to be created that see the embryo or foetus as a foreign body and repel it through miscarriage. Thus hCG acts as a chemical abortion agent, and in the case of it being given to girls of reproductive age who are not pregnant, hCG likewise causes prevention of all fertilisations and therefore acts as a sterilising agent. Additionally, according to medical researchers Dr Judith Richter, Dr George Isajiuw and Robert Whelan[3], hCG suppresses the immune system and in certain cases may cause the onset of opportunistic diseases if malnutrition and mineral depletion are also in evidence.

Sister Pilar wrote a second letter three months later on 16th April 1995: "We are in the midst of a court battle regarding the anti-tetanus vaccines used in the mass immunization of women of reproductive age.[4] The vials we tested proved positive for beta-hCG, while the women had antibodies against beta-hCG. This means their blood had built up antibodies against pregnancy. The women we tested had miscarriages, stillbirth or premature births. The government has all its forces against us - media is on their side and we don't know how the judge will turn?"

Johns Hopkins University, long a major player in the field of eugenics[5], produced a report that as of 1990, 123 million women in developing countries had been surgically sterilised. Further, JHU was also under contract to the US Agency For International Development, according to the article 'Coming Attractions: Phantom Sterilizations',[6] which also cites a report prepared by the University on a proposed sterilisation program by vaccine. [7]

That these programs are also underway in our own industrial societies is all the more poignant and alarming when the human face of suffering is imprinted over the antiseptic starkness of the facts:

SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (SIDS)

The following excerpt comes from a statement made by a distraught grandmother testifying before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources (USA), regarding vaccination injury compensation:

"My name is Donna Gary. I am a constituent of Senator [Edward] Kennedy's from Massachusetts. Our family should have celebrated our very first granddaughter's first birthday last month. Instead we will commemorate the anniversary of her death at the end of this month.

Our granddaughter, Lee Ann, was just eight weeks old when her mother took her to the doctor for her routine check-up. This included of course her first DPT inoculation and oral polio vaccine. In all her entire eight weeks of life, this loveable, extremely alert baby had never produced such a blood-curdling scream as she did at the moment the shot was given. Neither had her mother ever before seen her back arch as it did while she screamed. She was inconsolable. Even her daddy could not understand Lee Ann's uncharacteristic screaming and crying.

Four hours later, Lee Ann was dead. "Crib Death," the doctors said. "SIDS" (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). "Could it be connected to the shot?" her parents implored. "No." "But she just had her first DPT shot this afternoon. Could there possibly be a connection to it?" "No. No connection at all," the emergency room doctor had told them definitely.

"In the months before Lee Ann was born, I regularly checked with a friend as to the state of her grandchild's condition. He is nearly a year and a half older than Lee Ann. On his first DPT shot, he passed out cold for fifteen minutes, right in the paediatrician?s office. "Normal reaction for some children," the paediatrician reassured. The parents were scared but knew what a fine doctor they had. They trusted his judgment.

When it was time for the second shot, they asked, "Are you sure it's all right?" Their paediatrician again reassured them. He told them how awful it was to experience, as he had, one of his infant patient's bout with whooping cough. That baby had died.

They gave him the second shot that day. He became brain-damaged."

In 1975, when Japan raised the age to receive vaccinations from 2 months to 2 years, the incidence of cot death (SIDS) virtually disappeared in that country.[8] In 1991, the Institute of Medicine released a report documenting a causal relationship between the rubella vaccine and acute arthritis in adult women. During that same year, links were found between this same vaccine and chronic fatigue syndrome. In 1992, the World Health Organization came under pressure and suspended use of a new measles vaccine when it was found that children in Third World countries had an increased risk of dying from other diseases in the years following administration of this vaccine, due to a suppressed immune system.

WHAT IS MY RIGHT WITH IMMUNISATION?

Each member of the public must investigate the question of immunisation thoroughly. This is so his undoubted later position against immunisation in all its forms can be maintained on the basis of facts and not the prevailing perceived wisdom of the highly profitable immunisation industry and its associated coercion and terrorism of the public.

Often mothers and fathers are put in extreme positions of coercion, the doctor or relative saying, ?Well, Mrs Hawkins, if you do not get young Peter vaccinated, and he gets meningitis, on your head be it.? Not having your child immunised because of concerns for safety is enough in some countries to have the parents put on a ?bad parents? register and their child denied access to schools and education (?Because your non-immunised child could cause other children to become ill and die, Mrs Hawkins.?)

On the 15th February 2001, US media network NBC aired an episode of the popular medical soap ?ER?. The television drama contained a storyline about a family who chose not to vaccinate their children, and one of the children contracts measles and dies from complications while the doctors on the show lash out at the mother and categorically deny any risks posed by the vaccine. The show provoked a rash of angry reactions from citizens, not least from the parents of those children who had been maimed or killed by adverse vaccination reactions. Leading vaccine critic Dr Joseph Mercola thinks there are other related storylines NBC might be interested in following up:

Serious adverse reactions to vaccines (I have a Microsoft Excel data base of 25,000 adverse reactions to hepatitis B vaccine from the FDA and CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, available on request).

The money trail: state agencies or school districts that get money for forcing children to receive vaccines, and conflicts of interest that compromise the "experts" who testify for mandates. CDC stonewalling on requests for safety data on hepatitis B and other vaccines.

Parents or other caregivers jailed for murder when their babies die, possibly from a vaccine reaction, when there is no direct evidence that they ever abused the child in any way. (Was a vaccine history taken in the English nanny case, by the way?)

Parents whose children are excluded from school and reported to Child Protective Services because they have exercised a legal and conscientious objection to a mandated vaccine (even against a disease such as hepatitis B that is very rare in children and not ordinarily transmitted in a school setting).[9]

In the case of ?AIDS? of course, the dastardliness knows no bounds, as the pharmaceutical industry smacks its lips at the thought of immunising millions of ?vulnerable? Africans, Asians, Indonesians and Latin Americans from a range of diseases, not caused by any ?HIV?, but because of poor sanitary conditions and malnutrition, bringing on cholera, dysentery, malaria and tuberculosis.

Professor of the Athenian Faculty of Medicine, Leon Grigorski puts it this way: "We are ourselves creating the diseases, and we are heading toward general cancerization and mental defectives through encephalitis, by the use of vaccines." [10]

In Joyce Marshall?s view: ?Upon limiting access to information the medical-industrial complex is able to maintain its authority mystique. Isolation is a well-known technique of brainwashing. Choices that challenge the position of the authority are limited and often times hidden. Because the intellect learns by comparison, when it is presented with only one point of view or other points of view are denigrated, it loses its capacity to discriminate and ultimately its capacity for fully rational thought.? [11]

Parents do have a choice, but often capitulate in the face of organised establishment outrage. Decades ago, the unsinkable Herbert Shelton was abrupt and dismissive of the public?s continued flirtation with immunisation. With the fury felt by many of his day on the subject, Shelton sums up that ??this criminal practice will end as soon as parents develop sufficient interest in the welfare of their children. At present parents offer up their children on the altars of the [vaccination] goddess, because commercial ghouls demand it, and hope that the children will not be greatly injured. If a child is invalided for life or is killed, the parents meekly accept the lying excuses of the scoundrels who maim and murder children for money, cry a little, and return to their movies and joy rides. Reader, do you know how Judas felt after he had sold his master for a few pieces of silver? If you have surrendered your child to be vaccinated and inoculated, after you learned the truth, you know how he felt. There is one great difference between you and him - Judas had decency enough to go out and hang himself.? [12]

To be fair, many parents wish to avoid immunisation for their children, but nevertheless go through with it to avoid the persecution that inevitably follows. Medical community and friends and family alike make it very hard on mothers and fathers who declare that they do not want to immunise their children ?for the child?s sake?. However today pressure groups have formed, to which dissenters may join, receiving a measure of comfort and security in the knowledge that, despite the trials, they made a correct and caring decision. The following piece comes from the Irish Republic:

MMR - WHY DO SOME IRISH PARENTS REFUSE TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN VACCINATED?

Kathryn Holmquist looks at the growing resistance to immunisation: ?Many of the parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated are informed, articulate and independent thinkers with a suspicion of the medical establishment. They do not want the State to dictate to them in the important matter of their children's health.

The State wants 95 per cent of children to be immunised against measles, but the growing anti-vaccination movement is going to make that near-impossible. In Britain, avid campaigners include the Allergy Induced Autism Group, Jabs, the Informed Parent Group and the International Vaccination Newsletter.

In the US, where vaccination is mandatory for school enrolment, websites disseminate information from vaccine dissenters. The Informed Parents Vaccination homepage claims that the US Food and Drug Administration's Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System receives about 11,000 reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination annually, some one per cent (112 cases) of which are deaths from vaccine reactions. It alleges that "both national and international studies have shown vaccination to be a cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)?. In the Republic, the Informed Immunisation Network was set up by parents who believe that they have a right to be fully informed about the pros and cons of vaccination. The network argues that the Department of Health gives only one point of view, in favour of vaccination, when it should be presenting a balanced picture.

"I am not an extremist but, based on the information I have, I am happy with my decision not to have my children immunised," says Anne Dunne, a member of the network.? [13]

And in the United States:

HOUSE DEBATES VACCINE SAFETY 5th August 1999: ?We can no longer keep our heads buried in the sand like an ostrich pretending there is no problem,? said Rep. Dan Burton, as he waved a sheath of documents he said showed thousands of casualties over the last year. [14]

DOCTORS DO NOT PROPERLY EXPLAIN SIDE-EFFECTS RISKS PRIOR TO GIVING VACCINATIONS

40% of US physicians did not mention risks of the vaccines they were administering, and 90% did not mention the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, according to a 2001 survey.[15]

LEADING AMERICAN NUTRITIONIST SPEAKS OUT AGAINST MEASLES, MUMPS AND RUBELLA (MMR) VACCINE

Dr Joseph Mercola states: ?Children do NOT get sick and die from some bad, scary virus unless they have some predisposing factors. The major ones would be eating sugar and drinking soda and juice instead of water.

I am absolutely certain that IF ANY child dies in the US from measles complications there are many more children who die from the disease who WERE vaccinated.

It is true that measles can be fatal. Perhaps 1 in 1,000 children who gets measles has complications, occasionally resulting in death. Measles is very rare these days, but vaccinated children can get it too. Of cases reported in Colorado between 1987 and 1998 (time interval probably chosen to include the epidemic of 1989-90), 45 were in "exemptors," but 137 were in vaccinated children (see JAMA of 12/27/00). In most cases, the source of the infection was not known or stated, but it was probably not indigenous to the U.S.? [16]

And a remarkably candid front-page headline in the UK?s Mail on Sunday reads as follows:

MEASLES JAB: NEW LINK TO BRAIN DAMAGE. ?A Professor O?Leary, Director of Pathology at Coombe Women?s Hospital in Dublin, provides compelling evidence of an association between infection by the measles virus and autism in children, many of whose parents said they developed the condition after they had been injected with Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine or MMR?.? [17]

While the Sunday Times reports:

MORE MMR GRIEF IN BRITAIN

?One third of the members of a British government committee that has advised that the MMR vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella is safe have financial interests in drug companies that make the treatment.

Twelve of the 36 members of the British Committee on Safety of Medicines have financial links with the MMR manufacturers, whose products they have given the all-clear on the basis of published research. Most members are academics or medical experts who specialize in pharmacology.

Five of them hold shares in the drug companies, or are paid consultants, while another seven have received grants or sponsorship from them to fund academic studies or clinical trials.

All members declare their financial interests in a register and before meetings. The chairman then decides whether they can participate in discussions.

Campaigners against the MMR vaccine, who fear it causes autism or bowel disease in children, claim the financial links between drug watchdogs and the pharmaceutical industry could lead to a conflict of interest.

While the government and most of the medical establishment argue that the vaccine is safe, research by Dr Andrew Wakefield, of the Royal Free Hospital, London, claimed the trials leading to the MMR vaccine's adoption in Britain were too brief to detect the feared complications.? [18]

And in Japan:

WHY JAPAN BANNED MMR VACCINE

?Japan stopped using the MMR vaccine seven years ago. Japan is virtually the only developed nation to turn its back on the vaccine. Government health chiefs claim a four-year experiment with it has had serious financial and human costs.

Of the 3,969 medical compensation claims relating to vaccines in the last 30 years, a quarter had been made by those badly affected by the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, they say.

The MMR was banned in Japan in 1993 after 1.8 million children had been given two types of MMR and a record number developed non-viral meningitis and other adverse reactions were recorded.? [19]

BUT WASN?T THE MMR VACCINE TESTED?

PROMINENT SCIENTISTS ASSERT MMR VACCINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LICENSED IN THE UK

?According to The London Sunday Herald, many prominent British researchers are now convinced that the controversial MMR shot should never have been licensed in the UK.

This shocking assertion is to be made in an upcoming report to be published in the journal Adverse Drug Reactions, the paper reports.[20] This is of course assuming that UK health officials are not successful at preventing the publisher from printing the article, as they have reportedly attempted to do.

Several senior clinicians, including a former senior professional medical officer at the UK Department of Health, argue that the MMR should not have been licensed back in 1988 because there was insufficient evidence of its safety and the decision to license it was ?premature?."[21]

Dr Peter Fletcher, who was a senior professional medical officer for the UK Department of Health in the early 1980s, concurs with much of the criticism of MMR:

"Being extremely generous, evidence on safety was very thin, being realistic there were too few patients followed-up for sufficient time. Three weeks is not enough, neither is four weeks. On the basis that effective monovalent vaccines were available, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines could be confident that delay in granting a license would not result in a catastrophic epidemic of measles, mumps and rubella.

Caution should have ruled the day, answers to some important questions should have been demanded and encouragement should have been given to conduct a 12-month observational study on 10-15,000 patients and a prospective monitoring program set up with a computerized primary care database. The granting of a product license was definitely premature." [22]

The Sunday Herald reports that someone from the Adverse Drug Reactions journal said:

"All the reviewers conclude that something needs to be done about MMR and that there is a case to answer against the vaccine. The first thing this paper says is that the MMR vaccine should not have been licensed. There was not enough evidence of the safety to license it. The view is that the evidence was inadequate."

Dr John Griffin, editor of the Adverse Drug Reactions journal, is irate over a letter he received from a government health official, which he says tried to put him under pressure not to publish the potentially damaging MMR paper:

"I think this is an attempt to put pressure on me not to publish the article and I resent that. We are going to publish the article. We are not going to be deterred by threats. I think putting pressure on us not to publish is despicable."[23]

KNOW THE VACCINE?S CONTENTS

The plain fact is, vaccines kill and maim regularly, yet very little is publicly known about vaccine methodology or the substance of what is actually being injected into the human system during the inoculation. This is not altogether unsurprising. In the above case for example, Professor O?Leary was immediately instructed by his employers not to give any further information to the press.[24]

Hepatitis B vaccine contains mercury, aluminium and formaldehyde. The pertussus or whooping cough vaccine contains the same ingredients. Other components found in common vaccines include parts of aborted foetuses, dog and monkey kidneys, ethyl-glycol and carbolic acid (a full list of these fillers is contained in the end section of this book). These vaccines are then grown and strained through cultures. Cultures include monkey kidney, chicken embryo, embryonic guinea-pig cells and, in the case of rubella, Hepatitis A and chicken pox, dissected organs of aborted foetuses. Says one concerned vaccine researcher, ?Would you mix this and feed it to your child from a bottle? Yet the government requires it to be injected with a syringe directly into our children?s bodies.? [25]

To date, the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program or NVICP, established in 1986, has paid out in excess of $1 billion in injury awards to Western vaccine-recipients. And there are quite literally thousands of cases pending. This despite the fact that the Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala narrowed the definition of vaccine damage to such an extent that only immediate and severe reactions can now qualify. Seizures, disorders, brain damage, ataxia, paralysis, learning difficulties and deaths that occur many days or weeks following these vaccinations are now excluded. Added to this, doctors have little incentive to report themselves to the government?s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS, prompting former director of the FDA David Kessler to confess that ??only 10% of vaccine injuries are ever reported.? [26] Lisa Jillani, of People Advocating Vaccine Education, has observed the growing number of children now suffering from 20th Century behavioural disorders, and reports:

?So the injuries can even conservatively amount to tens of thousands of children, while doctors continue to diagnose and treat mysterious new illnesses and maintain the ?one in a million? adverse reaction myth taught in medical schools.? [27]

A front-page article appeared in the UK Sunday Observer, dated 27th August 2000. The Observer obtained documents revealing that the UK government had attempted to cover up 11 deaths of children as a result of receiving the meningitis vaccine. The document also revealed that more than 16,000 adverse reactions to the meningitis jab had been reported by GPs, since the nationwide campaign began last year. With the UK Department of Health admitting that only between 10 and 15 percent of adverse reactions are reported, the actual number of children damaged as a result of this vaccine is probably far higher.

Notwithstanding the billions being made every year by the vaccine industry in the face of such damaging effects of their products, opposition to the mandatory use of vaccines is mounting, not least because there has never been any impartial and empirical evidence that demonstrates even remotely that immunisation does any good whatsoever. But in the short-term, while the political chess-game is played out, there is much we can do to avoid the misery and pitfalls of this errant arm of medicine. We can read up on the subject using the many commendable books and organisations available. Then we can come to our own informed decision based on all the evidence.

This is a course of action tragically not followed by those heartbroken families who have had to endure so much, falsely secure in the lie that the immunisation system was there to improve their loved ones? health. We can avoid these mistakes.

Excerpted from Health Wars by Phillip Day (www.credence.org)