Three Vaccine Myths That Everyone Should Know

FacebookTwitterGoogle+EmailDiggRedditShare

A fully vaccinated child should be one of the healthiest children in the world; however, statistics show that children are unhealthier now than ever before. Despite having as many as 68 mandated vaccines from birth to eighteen, American children are far from healthy according to statistics.

Let us examine several reports in more detail weighing up the differences between the myths and the media reports.

Myth #1: Whooping Cough Vaccination Prevents Children From Catching The Whooping Cough

On December 2nd an article entitled ‘Vaccine a dud, says city doctor’ in the Queensland Times Australia, stated that a whooping cough epidemic was sweeping Australia and that many of the victims were in fact ‘fully immunized’.

Dr Carson, a veteran of 30 years as a GP, said the current vaccine was simply not doing its job. He said:

“The vaccine is no good; we’re seeing whooping cough in people that shouldn’t really have it, it is showing up in kids that have been vaccinated.” http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/12/02/vaccine-a-dud-says-city-doctor/

This is nothing new. Kids that have been vaccinated against whooping cough have been still getting whooping cough for years. This report from 2010 says:

“Whooping cough is on the rise in industrialized countries, despite long-standing vaccination programmes. Now researchers from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, have an explanation for why: at least two strains of the bacteria that cause the infection have evolved to evade today’s vaccines”. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/02/whooping-cough-evolves-to-esca.html

In fact an interesting article can be found in ‘Emerging Infections Diseases Vol. 6, No. 5, September-October 2000,’ that states that recently vaccinated adults can infect unprotected infants.

Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers, Israel
Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants. The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection. Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

Surprisingly data can be traced back as far back as 1970 showing that vaccinated children still contract whooping cough Hilary Butler once said:

I have a huge collection of newspaper articles about kids with pertussis dating from the late 70′s, and… most of them are vaccinated children.http://www.whale.to/a/pertussis_q.html

In an article by Heidi Stevenson written in July of this year entitled ‘Whooping Cough Outbreaks in Vaccinated Children Become More and More Frequent’ Stevenson wrote:

The one thing that is apparent about whooping cough is that it’s becoming more common, and the victims are proving to be vaccinated more often than not. That, of course, doesn’t stop the vaccinators from blaming unvaccinated people for the outbreaks—though there never seems to be an adequate explanation for the claim.

Most recently, an outbreak of whooping cough hit Smithtown, New York. Thirteen students, all of whom were vaccinated, were affected.http://www.gaia-health.com/articles451/000484-whooping-cough-in-vaccinated.shtml

This clearly proves that it is a myth that all vaccinated children are safe from whooping cough because they are not.

Myth #2: Flu Vaccines Protect Us From Catching The Flu

In October this year an article in the Daily Mirror UK stated that the flu vaccination fails in 41% of adult patients. The Daily Mirror said:

SCIENTISTS have called for a new generation of flu vaccines after research found the most popular TIV type fails in 41% of adult cases.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/26/flu-vaccine-fails-in-41-of-adult-patients-115875-23514992/#ixzz1fl9z3X3p

Another report stating that flu vaccines are failing to protect us against the flu can be found on the ‘Asthma Health Care’ Blog.

Asthma Health Care clearly states that flu vaccines do not work. They report that in a review of 51 studies involving more than 294000 children it was found there was no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo.

In children over 2 yrs, the vaccine was found to be effective against flu, only 33% of the time. http://www.fbasthma.info/videos/flu-vaccines-do-not-work.html

These results are especially worrying because according to the CDC vaccine schedule children are given the flu vaccine every year from the age of six months. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

On the 4th December 2011 ‘The Epoch Times’ produced an eye catching article entitled ‘One Way to Prevent Flu: Catch the Flu.’ Dr John Briffa the author wrote:

As I wrote recently in “‘Roll up’ for the Flu Vaccine?” flu vaccination is a lot less effective than we have been led to believe. Plus, many individuals need to be vaccinated for one person to benefit. In other words, the vast majority of people who are vaccinated against flu will not benefit.”

Dr Briffa’s article continued to highlight issues surrounding the ‘Swine Flu pandemic that never was’ in 2009. Briffa explained that there is evidence published online in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases that states that catching a previous flu infection might have helped contain the H1N1 virus and this is why so few people became ill.

According to Briffa, “Researchers in America assessed about 500 people during 2009 and 2010. The individuals were tested for the presence of antibodies to H1N1 viruses in their blood. These were individuals who had not been vaccinated, meaning the antibodies must have come from natural contact and from infection with the flu virus.

Staggeringly only 33% actually became ill with H1N1 and these were the ones without antibodies. Out of all the people with the antibodies, only 18% became ill with Swine Flu . This was obviously a lot less than was expected. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/one-way-to-prevent-flu-catch-the-flu-152431.html

What this means is; the only real way to protect oneself from catching the flu is to have had a previous infection.
About.com explains this in far more detail and proves exactly why the flu vaccine does not work. http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa011604a.htm

Myth #3: The HPV Vaccination Protects Women Against Cervical Cancer.

This is probably the biggest myth of all.

To begin with the HPV vaccine is a vaccine that protects women against HPV virus’s that can lead to cervical cancer and not cervical cancer itself. There are over 100 different strains of the HPV virus and only 15 of these can lead to cervical cancer. The HPV vaccine Gardasil is only effective against 6, 11, 16 and 18 and the HPV vaccine Cervarix is only effective against types 16 and 18.

Some professionals believe that the reason the HPV vaccine was promoted as a vaccine that could protect women against cervical cancer was to encourage sales. This was proven in a paper written by Prof Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC in January this year. She said:

“Merck promoted Gardasil primarily as a vaccine against cervical cancer, rather than promoting it as a vaccine against HPV infection or sexually transmitted diseases”.

Tomljenovic then stated:

The fact is that malignant cervical cancer takes decades to develop 2 3 and yet the longest clinical trial on Gardasil was only four years in duration 4. In other words, Gardasil was never shown to prevent cervical cancer [emphasis added]. Furthermore, in all clinical trials conducted by Merck the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 precancerous lesion was used as the efficacy endpoint for evaluating the Gardasil 4. What is the problem with using the CIN 2/3 lesion as the standard for efficacy? First, if the marketing claim for Gardasil is that the vaccine “protects against cervical cancer” 1 2 5, then cervical cancer should have been used as the endpoint for efficacy, not a surrogate marker such as a CIN 2/3 precancerous lesion [emphasis added].” http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Gardasil-vaccination-risks-vs-benefits-FINAL1221.pdf

In 2006, an article appeared on the Right to Life Committee website that also stated that Gardasil did not protect against cervical cancer, however, they went a step further and stated that these vaccines also did not protect against many HPV infections either. http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2006_3_Gardasil.htm

These facts may be true but the media is still promoting the HPV vaccines as vaccines that protect against cervical cancer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15879222

Occasionally however, newspapers do tell us the truth even if they do not realize it. One article, published in July 2011 in ‘The Guardian’, appears to promote the HPV vaccinations by using the impressive title ‘Cervical cancer vaccine a success, says Lancet report,’ however, the article is full of statements saying quite the opposite. Here are a few examples:

“Australia introduced nationwide HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccination for women aged 12 to 26 from 2007.

While it will take many years to find out whether vaccination programmes definitely reduce the numbers of cervical cancers in the population, Australian scientists were able to analyze the results from their screening programme to find out whether there has been any drop in the number of young women with abnormal cell changes that are the precursor of cancer.”

This is a very ambiguous quote. On the face of it this statement looks positive and it appears as if the scientists have been able to analyze data and come up with impressive results. Now read the above again because the scientists have forgotten these important facts:

  • It takes ‘many years to find out whether the vaccination programmes definitely reduce the numbers of cervical cancers in the population’ and the vaccine was only introduced in 2007, which was only four years ago, therefore it is far too early to tell.
  • The majority of the girls having the vaccine will not be sexually active.
  • The scientists would only need to find one case less in the data that they were analyzing, to see it if there “had been any drop in the number of young women with abnormal cell changes that are the precursor of cancer.

Moving on, the article states:

Publishing in the Lancet medical journal, they report that the proportion of girls aged 17 and younger with high-grade abnormalities fell by almost half, from 0.80% to 0.42%.

This statement is very strange because in the UK you cannot have a smear test below the age of 25 years; however, according to this report in Australia they are giving CHILDREN smear tests! Or are they?

Of course not, the Australian government says that all women over 18 who have ever had sex are advised to have a Pap smear every two years, even if they no longer have sex. This is because the most common type of cervical cancer usually takes up to 10 years to develop. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/content/papsmear

The Guardian then says:

But there was no drop in the numbers of women with cervical abnormalities who were older than 17. This is unsurprising since the vaccine is known to be most effective if given to girls before they become sexually active.

This was not as ‘unsurprising‘as the article stated, because the vaccine is not a cervical cancer vaccine and therefore will not protect women against cervical cancer!!! In my opinion what the Lancet has really published is a paper full of ‘false representation’. Sadly either the Guardian have not realized this and not understood the results, or they have lied to carry on protecting Merck/GSK the manufacturers of the HPV vaccines. Here is the Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/17/cervical-cancer-vaccine-success-lancet

Conclusion

The truth is, vaccine after vaccine is found to be failing to do what parents expect and that is to protect our children. The Governments are lying to us, the pharmaceutical companies are lying to us and the media is lying to us. Our children are getting sicker and sicker when they should be healthier now than ever before.

This was clearly shown in this powerful statement written in a study by Gary Null. PhD and Nancy Ashley, VMD. MS. They said:

It seems that we have allowed a vaccination industry to become much like military-industrial-complex– it cannot be touched, questioned, or changed…Since vaccination became commonplace from the 1950s to our present day, the health of the average American has gotten worse, and as a nation we have become sicker and sicker. Chronic fatigue, depression, allergies, asthma, attention deficit disorders, autism, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinbsons’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, lupus, asthma, fibromyalgia, IBS – we are plagued with a host of debilitating, chronic diseases that tend not to kill us quickly, but leave us disabled and dysfunctional: dependent on the pharmaceuticals industry to keep us going. We know that we are destroying our own natural immune system by relying on vaccines to briefly and incompletely protect us against certain bacteria and viruses, but what else is happening to us by allowing ourselves to be injected with this witches’brew of degradation products? Are we too sick to notice that there is a problem? Time will tell, but how much time do we have?

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/health-headlines/2011/11/30/gary-null-phd-and-nancy-ashley-vmd-ms-deadly-injection-the-h.html

I believe that we have all time in the world but only if we take on board that the reason the vaccines are failing to keep children healthy is to finance the pharmaceutical companies. After all, when our children are ill we go to a doctor and the doctors prescribe drugs that are manufactured by the same pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the vaccines. This proves to me that there is system in their madness.

H/T: Vac Truth

Photo Credit: Rubén Díaz Alonso


Leave a Reply