It is generally accepted that vaccines are safe, rigorously tested, properly regulated and publicly endorsed for health reasons. However, in the last 15 years there has been a raging debate among parents over the association between vaccines and the rise of autism spectrum disorders as they are labelled in children, in other words neurological problems. While there has been numerous studies to confirm the safety of vaccines and the adjunctive’s used in them, the controversy over their safety has continued to rage and many questions remain over their use and those people charged with endorsing their use. It is a fact that countries with the highest standards of healthcare are also the same countries suffering with the highest incidents of neurological problems among their young!
In this article I would like to cover some of the more controversial aspects of the vaccine debate which are not commonly known.
History of vaccines and adverse events
One can only understand a subject or industry by looking at the history of the organisations and companies involved to know what events led to the current status quo and to better know how these entities acted in the past when faced with difficult challenges.
Going back a few years, there was a huge race to find a vaccine for Polio, in this race there were three main proponents, Albert Sabin, Jonas Salk and Hilary Koprowski. The procedure used in the late 1950s to amplify vaccines were done with kidneys cells from monkeys (still used for some vaccines to this day), which led to contamination of viruses from monkeys to humans and as such there is a strong body of evidence to link the spread of HIV to a mass vaccination program in the Congo in the late 1957 - 1960, which correlates precisely to the spread of HIV. This has been the subject of strong debate among the scientific community, however to this day the scientific explanation of the spread of HIV is blamed conveniently on people killing and eating monkeys in the same locations as those vaccine programs and at the same time!
The vigorous denial by the scientific community despite the lack of evidence to support their denials demonstrates a pattern of behaviour which is likely motivated more by business interests than it is for attributing blame where it rightly belongs.
Whats more, prior to the Koprowski vaccine program in the Congo, the Sabin and Salk vaccines were used widely on millions of people which were later found to contain an undetectable virus named SV40. This virus causes cancer in humans and it is now one of the most well studied viruses known.
SV40 was still being detected in human cancers as recently as year 2000 following contamination via vaccinations, despite being supposedly tested for and eliminated from the vaccine production lines. But whats also telling is the history of the discovery and handling of SV40 by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC). Once discovered the government mandated that the virus should be detected and removed from vaccine production lines, but due to weak scientific design the procedure used was not robust which led to continued contamination for many years after its first being detected, regardless of mounting scientific evidence that SV40 tests were crude and unreliable the CDC regulations were NOT changed and oral polio vaccine manufactures did NOT voluntarily adopt technical improvements to ensure SV40 was detected and eliminated from their products.
Nevertheless the CDC disputed these claims and they stated: while SV40 has been found in some cancers, it has not been determined that SV40 caused these cancers.; On the country there is a very strong body of evidence to prove that SV40 does cause cancer and apparently it is only the CDC who is in denial on this one.
Given this history, with vaccines causing the spread of viruses different to the ones they were meant to protect from and with the implications that millions of people are affected by such epidemics, one would expect and DEMAND that procedures used today to check vaccine safety are 100% robust and that the people charged with controlling and regulating their safety were independent, impartial, and HIGHLY competent. However there is a compelling body of evidence that calls into question the safety of vaccines recommend for use today and further demonstrates that the people charged with their regulation are unfit for the office they occupy.
The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the enviroment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk.
Adjuvants and preservatives Mercury and Aluminium
(l)ethal Mercury was added to vaccines protect them from contamination, in this sense we are talking about contamination that is possible in multiuser vials, multiple needle entires can be theoretically contaminated with bacteria or other viruses and hence the use of (l)ethal Mercury to keep them sterile (11 children died in the 1930s as a result of bacteria contamination which back then was incurable) . Although used only in small amounts mercury was claimed to be safe by the FDA according to some very suspect experiments carried out in 1931 where the subjects were NOT monitored for more than one day I kid you not!
MMR controversy and Thimerosal Mercury Removal
In 1999 Andrew Wakefield suggested the MMR vaccine maybe unsafe could be related to the rise in ASD, although the scientific community disregarded his warning and swiftly vilified him then ostracised him from their community. They quietly went on to remove Thimerosal Mercury from many childhood vaccines in 2001. While no blame was attributed to the unnecessary use of this toxin it is highly suggestive that regulators had legitimate concerns over legal claims and decided to finally adopt the correct precautionary principle approach.
Is aluminium hydroxide use in vaccines safe?
Aluminium has been added to some vaccines for nearly 100 years because it potentates the effect and thus smaller amounts can then be used over a wider population, because apparently there is a shortage of such vaccines to go around.
Some might also question: is the motive for the use of aluminium because such adjuvants make vaccines cheaper!
However, some recent safety tests on aluminium demonstrate it has been linked to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and there is much further evidence to question its use in childhood vaccines, both HERE and HERE.
Thus clearly the precautionary principle should be adopted for the use of Aluminium hydroxide along with all other potentially harmful and unnecessary extra ingredients which may make vaccines cheaper (or help stretch them out over a greater population) and aluminium should be absolutely removed from all vaccines until such time that proper testing has been carried out. Yet on the contrary, aluminium is injected on day one of life for new born babies inside an unnecessary hepatitis B vaccine which is now on the national program for all babies in many countries. Hepatitis B vaccine is NOT recommended for use in babes by even the manufactures instructions unless for high risk groups (people invected with the sexually transmitted disease) so why is this particular vaccine given to new born babies? Especially when it has been implicated in the past with developmental issues.
So who should one trust to verify the safety of vaccines!
The onus to prove if such vaccines, or their additives, or any combination thereof, are safe for use is NOT on the pharmaceutical companies since they cannot be trusted because they have a direct conflict of interest. Instead one preferably trusts that government agencies who regulate vaccines safety. However, those entities have time and again in the past shown they were either highly incompetent or that they too had conflict of interests. Thus given the serious amount of chaos that can occur when these vaccines cause harm, EVERY single effort MUST be made to investigate all aspects of safety and efficacy of such products including the way in which they are given. Any failure to make EVERY such effort MUST be considered to be motivated by a conflict of interest, since there is no acceptable room for incompetence in this debate.
To this day, there have been no government agency studies carried out to verify the safety of the vaccine combinations as they are given nor have there been any official studies to check specifically for neurological developmental problems between vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups! In fact the studies carried out on individual vaccines are wholly inadequate!
When there is controversy between different sources of evidence, parents must educate themselves and not simply trust on face value ‘government bureaucrats’ who are sometimes incompetent but often corrupted by conflicts of interest. While this is a controversial statement, it is not without foundation and upon looking at the historical studies and safety tests already carried out or the vacuum thereof and reviewing the statements made by such authorities, it quickly becomes obvious where ulterior motives are more important than the safety of your child.
Controlled safety studies currently relied upon by Paediatricians:
Of all the controlled studies that have been carried out on individual vaccines, one of the most cited MMR vaccine safety studies in the UK followed the subjects involved over a three week period and if no symptoms were discovered and reported in that timeframe then they were not considered relevant or attributed to the vaccine (Remember SV40!). THIS TIMEFRAME IS SIMPLY UNSATISFACTORY and its certainly not ‘science’. When the person who conducted that study, was also the same person responsible for approving the vaccines use, and was the same person charged with regulating its ongoing use, then came out defending its safety, proclaiming everyone should trust the ‘controlled’ study, despite growing concerns from a panicked public that regressive autism followed the MMR, the woman (Elizabeth Miller) dismissed that the vaccine was responsible along with saying “i think most doctors working in autism believe theres no increase”, ‘its necessary to have two doses of MMR because about 10% don’t have adequate protection from one dose.’. That begs the question: Why are there no tests done to rule out the 90% who don’t need a second dose? she also stated ’vaccines have been looked at to understand why allergies have been increasing but there’s no evidence vaccines have anything to do with it’, and “there was no increase in autism occurring more by chance shortly after MMR (within 3 weeks) in this big sample of nearly 500 children, obviously you can understand some parents by chance will notice [autism] shortly after vaccination but does this occur more often than expected by chance and in this big group there wasn’t any evidence at all that parents reported symptoms shortly after MMR more often than expected by chance.”
It will be no surprise then to learn she is also calling for mandatory vaccinations citing free choice should be removed from ‘anti vaccine’ advocates as they are potentially dangerous to others. This ’controlled study’ clearly did not follow subjects long enough (3 weeks) and was not carried out on enough people (500) to provide any statically signifiant value.
The corrupt UK regulator MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) has also been exposed as having a conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical companies by the BBC documentary Panorama over its handling of the SSRI scandal.
Another of the most cited and relied upon studies is from the CDC in 2004, which proclaimed the same MMR vaccine safe, then in 2014 it was revealed that the study was manipulated to remove the significant number of neurological injuries caused by the vaccine. The whistleblower in this case was the same person who actually carried out the study [LINK]! My verdict is that the CDC are clearly motivated by a conflicts of interest and cannot and should not be relied upon in the future.
There are numerous problems with other official studies that are regularly cited as supposedly proving safety and efficacy, yet again after looking in more detail one finds unsatisfactory interpretations of the data such as the Danish study which actually showed a rise in neurological connections connected to the MMR, or the Japanese example where it is claimed neurological issues increased following the introduction of the separate M. M. R. vaccines in 1992, following the removal of the triple MMR vaccine in 1990, what they left out was that in 1991 where no form of MMR vaccine was given, cases of neurological issues actuality subsided!
Independent studies which find vaccines along with other drugs (paracetamol) are potentially causing neurological problems
Parents must review independent or private research studies wherever they are carried out and judge the data according to the merits of the research and scope of the findings.
One of the largest independent studies carried out which compared vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups asked parents if their children had neurological problems and found a significant increase in the vaccinated groups of 1/45 cases of autism and 1/15 cases of some form of behavioural issues vs their unvaccinated counterparts. This compelling and highly significant independent study proves that there are significant risks associated with the current vaccine schedule as recommended by paediatricians and government agencies charged with regulating vaccine use.
It is not sufficient to debate the findings further or argue about the details, by now there have been millions of demands made by concerned individuals, parents and doctors for tax payers money to be spent on proper independent and uncorrupted open safety studies. Yet despite these calls and despite already having the data exist which simply needs to be published, nothing has been released. When government bodies state they need more time to investigate, or they need to do more studies, or they haven’t got the data, these are all clearly lies driven by conflicts of interest. These are not suitable responses given the chaos having already being caused to victims of vaccine damage.
The [OBVIOUS] scientific approach
Well designed studies are necessary to establish efficacy and safety, it is not acceptable to rely on the published reports from pharmaceutical companies (who only release favourable data) instead regulators can be judged according to the value of the studies that they have commissioned OR NOT. There is absolutely no excuse for their failure to commission rigorous scientific studies that compare vaccinated groups vs unvaccinated groups over the medium to long term (over 2, 5, 10, 20 years respectively) looking for adverse correlations with diseases or worse outcomes associated with each groups. This data should then be published without manipulation (as happened with the CDC) so as to provide parents with informed choice. Then new studies should commence each year with groups being monitored to understand how minor changes in the vaccine schedule effect outcomes.
That is obvious and absolutely necessary!
Conflicts of Interest
Thus reasons NOT to commission such robust studies cannot be in the name of science. These could include conflicts that future profits will be reduced following any negative findings: Conflicts that unvaccinated groups may create health epidemics. Conflicts that overstating potential problems could cause more deaths or harm as a result of avoidable illnesses. Or conflicts that previously vaccinated groups harmed as a result could sue for damages where possible. These conflicts while understandable are unacceptable reasons for bad science and do not contribute to the scientific approach.
Instead they amount to a conflict of interest on part of those who’s mandate is to actually regulate such industries and the vacuum of data currently unavailable exposes the current ineptness and inadequacy of regulators who are closely associated with political law makers. Lastly, laws which have been passed in many states in the USA to force compulsory vaccination without FIRST having rigorous safety studies which prove that the vaccines are in fact safe and effective MUST also be motivated by a conflict of interest on part of legislatures. Given the history that some vaccines have caused the spread of epidemics among healthy populations, forcing healthy babies to be injected with vaccines which have not yet been rigorously studied amounts to Pseudoscience, Quasi-science and Bad Science at very best to manslaughter at very worse!
Politicians are not qualified (especially in a vacuum of safety data) to make such decisions nor impose such dangers and risks onto healthy babies despite whatever personal beliefs or opinions they hold or motives they maybe driven by! The only people who are qualified to make these decisions are the parents, who without government mandated robust studies which compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups, they will be forced to rely on the independent studies which currently put the risks of neurological problems at 1-in-15 of vaccinated children will suffer with a worse neurological outcome as the price to pay for some protection from a few specific viruses.