More and more parents around the globe are choosing to opt out of vaccinating themselves and their children. As a result of this trend that’s been gaining more and more momentum, a harsh response has come from the “pro-vaccine” community -criticizing parents for their decision to not vaccinate. At the end of the day it’s not really about “pro-vaccination” or “anti-vaccination,” it’s not one “against” the other or about pointing fingers and judgement, it’s simply about looking at all of the information from a neutral standpoint. It’s about asking questions and communicating so people can make the best possible decisions for themselves and their children. Parents love their kids and the vaccine “controversy” has made it difficult for many parents to know what to do.
The study concludes with the observation that “after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some vaccine hesitancy exists among French GPs, whose recommendation behaviours depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them.”
As a result, the study outlines how “up to 43 % of GPs sometimes. or never, recommend at least one specific vaccine to their patients.”
The percentages differ because the study was broken down as to which vaccines, and whether they are recommended never, sometimes, often or always. You can refer to the study for more details.
The authors’ overall findings “suggest that VH [vaccine hesitancy] is prevalent among French GPs. It may make them ill at ease in addressing their patients’ concerns about vaccination, which in turn might reinforce patients’ VH.”
Again, this isn’t a secret, another study (out of many, cited in the France publication) outlines how “more research is needed to understand why some health professionals, trained in medical sciences, still have doubts regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.”
Parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are not just doing it based on belief, they are doing it based on science and information, some of which will be presented in this article, and more.
Common vaccine ingredients include:
Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria
Aborted Human Fetal Cells
Let’s talk about aluminum for a bit. When it comes to the most widely used adjuvant ingredient found within vaccines, many questions have yet to be answered, particularly when it comes to where the aluminum goes after injection, an issue known as biopersistence.
It’s been put into vaccines for decades, with not one study being published showing that it’s safe to inject into humans.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers themselves have not conducted or included appropriate toxicity studies/testing proving the safety of aluminum, or any other ingredients, for that matter. These ingredients have been put into vaccines based on the assumption that they are safe. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s kind of disturbing, isn’t it?
So because vaccines have been viewed as non-toxic substances, the FDA and vaccine manufactures have not conducted appropriate toxicity studies to prove the safety of vaccine ingredients – more specifically, aluminum. ( http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/223.short )
I have a document from 2002 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients…and testing specifically in animal models…Back then, the FDA states that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe, when I read this I was kind of pulling my hairs out [thinking] ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ – Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic, PhD., a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia where she works in neurosciences and the Department of Medicine. ( http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/29/vaccine-adjuvants-brain-effects.aspx )
One reason this question arises is because a causative role has been established in what’s known as macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) lesion in patients who have myalgic encephalomyelitis, or brain inflammation. Myalgia, arthralgia, chronic fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, dysautonomia, and autoimmunity have been temporally linked to aluminium adjuvant-containing vaccine administration (Gherardi and Authier, 2003; Authier et al., 2003; Exley et al., 2009; Rosenblum et al., 2011; Santiago et al., 2014; Brinth et al., 2015; Palmieri et al., 2016).
Evolve Your Inbox & Stay Conscious Daily
Inspiration and all our best content, straight to your inbox.
“Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggested that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.” ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26082187 )
This study has prompted further research evaluating the potential hazards of injected aluminum, which begs the question, why hasn’t proper evidence and evaluation been published showing that it’s safe to inject aluminum into babies via several vaccines in a short period of time? Aluminum adjuvants may be effective for stimulating an immune response, but to simply presume there are no consequences for doing this, or to not emphasize or even state the adverse effects that have been discovered, is, I would argue, criminally negligent.
A study published in BMC Medicine showed that alum-containing vaccines were associated with the appearance of aluminum deposits in distant organs, such as the spleen and brain, and were still detectable one year after injection. The same group from France published another study two years later, emphasizing that there are “several gaps in the knowledge on alum particles, including their exact mechanisms of action, their fate after injection, their systemic dissemination, and their safety on the long-term. Efforts have been done in the last years to develop novel adjuvants, but attempts to seriously examine safety concerns raised by the bio-persistent character and brain accumulation of alum particles have not been made.”
Fast forward to this year, and multiple in vivo studies have been published showing that injected aluminum, and aluminum used as an adjuvant within vaccines, does not come into the same method of excretion as aluminum that accumulates in our body from our food, for example. Our bodies do a good job at eliminating this type of aluminum, but the same cannot be said of injected aluminum. This is why multiple studies are implicating injected aluminum with multiple neurodegenerative disorders, like autism in the short term, or Alzheimer’s in the long term, because aluminum could be going to the brain and staying there for life.
Apart from observed behavioural abnormalities, the 2017 study showed that the “measurement of cerebral Al (aluminum) revealed a significantly higher Al level in brains from animals injected . . . than in brains from control group.” ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X16303043#bib0135 )
What’s also interesting is that there was “no significant increase” detected in the animals that were injected with a higher dose.
It’s concerning, especially because we already know that environmental aluminium has long been suspected to act as a co-factor in several chronic neurological diseases (Van Rensburg et al., 2001; De Sole et al., 2013; Exley 2013, 2014). Please refer to these studies to see the mechanism by which these authors are suggesting aluminum is transported to the brain.
“Experimental research . . . clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.”
– Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic ( http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf )
This is just a brief summary about the recent problems associated with aluminum. There are many more, and you can further your knowledge by doing your own research or checking out the articles linked below that go into more detail:
Researchers Discover Where The Aluminum Goes After It’s Injected Into A Babies Body From A Vaccine ( http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/11/21/researchers-discover-where-the-aluminum-goes-after-its-injected-into-a-babies-body-from-a-vaccine/ )
Some of the Highest Values For Brain Aluminum Content Ever Measured Found In People With Autism ( http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/11/29/some-of-the-highest-values-for-brain-aluminum-content-ever-measured-found-in-people-with-autism/ )
Study Shows How Glyphosate & Aluminum Operate Synergistically To Destroy The Human Brain ( http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/09/23/study-shows-what-glyphosate-aluminum-operate-synergistically-to-destroy-the-human-brain/ )
Worlds Leading Expert In Aluminum Toxicology Makes It Clear Why It’s A Problem – Even In Vaccines ( http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/09/23/worlds-leading-expert-in-aluminum-toxicology-makes-it-clear-why-its-a-problem-even-in-vaccines/ )
Not long ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP), announced a $100,000challenge today aimed at putting an end to including mercury, a neurotoxin that is 100 times more poisonous than lead, in vaccines administered in the U.S and globally.
It offered to anybody, including journalists and scientists, who can provide a study showing that it is safe to inject mercury into babies. This will be difficult, as hundreds of studies (that were also present at the press conference in print form) suggest that it isn’t safe at all, and can significantly increase the risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders.
Nobody was successful. You can read more about that story here ( http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/02/15/a-100000-message-from-robert-f-kennedy-jr-robert-de-niro-to-american-journalists-scientists/ ).
This is exactly why we should be concerned about it, and why many parents are.
Mercury has been removed from multiple vaccines, but not all of them.
Here is a quote from Dr. Jose G. Dores, a professor at the University of Brasilia’s Department of Nutritional Sciences who recently published a study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. In the study, he offers the following observation: “Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children.” ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344667/ )
That goes for both mercury and aluminum.
A fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the Journal Bio Med Research International found that:
“The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies.” See: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/247218/
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Even the smallest amounts can cause cumulative adverse effects.
Organic mercury can cross the blood-brain barrier, and numerous studies have fingered it as a major offender in increasing the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), tic disorders, delayed language and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Shamefully, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refuses to admit that mercury is an ASD risk factor.
A meta-analysis (published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology by Tina Jafari and other researchers at Iran’s Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences) focuses exclusively on mercury. The second study (published in Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry by Amene Saghazadeh and Nima Rezaei at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences) examines mercury along with other heavy metals such as lead. Both research teams used state-of-the-art statistical techniques to produce unbiased results.
Both studies found significantly higher concentrations of mercury in the red blood cells of ASD patients versus healthy controls, and the first meta-analysis found significantly higher levels in the whole bloodof ASD patients.
The two meta-analyses examined mercury levels for each type of specimen or tissue. Both studies found significantly higher concentrations of mercury in the red blood cells of ASD patients versus healthy controls, and the first meta-analysis found significantly higher levels in the whole blood of ASD patients. (The second study also found higher levels of lead in both the red blood cells and blood of individuals with ASD, which is suggestive of possible combined or synergistic effects.)
The list goes on and on. The international journal Science of the Total Environment has just published a compelling study from the Republic of Korea, where autism prevalence is high. The study identifies a strong relationship between prenatal and early childhood exposure to mercury and autistic behaviors in five-year-olds.
Dr. William Thompson, a longtime senior CDC scientist, published some of the most commonly cited pro-vaccine studies, which showed that there was absolutely no link between the MMR vaccine and autism (Thompson, et al. 2007, Price, et al. 2010, Destefano, et al. 2004). However, Dr. Thompson recently admitted that it was “the lowest point” in his career when he “went along with that paper.” He went on to say that he and the other authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is “completely ashamed” of what he did. He was “complicit and went along with this,” and regrets that he has “been a part of the problem.”
A study with revised information and no data omitted was published by Dr. Brian Hooker (a contact of Dr. Thompson) in the peer reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration, and it found a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study has since been retracted around the same time of this controversy.
Thompson’s attorneys, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Bryan Smith of Morgan & Morgan, also released a statement from Dr. Thompson, which mentioned Hooker: “I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.” See: http://morganverkamp.com/statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/
He had to invoke whistleblower protection and turned extensive agency files over to Congress. He said that for the past decade, his superiors have pressured him and his fellow scientists to lie and manipulate data to conceal a causal link between vaccines and brain injuries, including autism.
Here is an official statement of Dr. Thompson describing the situation in his own words. This is perhaps the best source of information regrading this matter. As you can see, he is not “anti-vac.”
After Thompson’s disclosures, a group of CDC scientists came together and exposed the fact that malpractice and fraud has now become “commonplace” within the CDC.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
When a parent points to the idea that scientific and industry fraud contributed to their decision to not vaccine their child, they can instantly be deemed “conspiracy theorists” or greeted with some sort of rude response that makes them out to be “fools.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, and those types of responses often come from those who have failed to do any investigation for themselves.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
Here is why parents are actually pointing to scientific/industry fraud when it comes to making their decision, and to be honest, with this type of information out in the public domain, who can really blame them?
It’s hard to know where to start when there are so many examples:
In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” See: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
– Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, is also a medical investigator. A few years ago she uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and suggests that this practice continues to this day. The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations. The JCVI made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates.
“The transcripts of the JCBI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufactures on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website.” See: https://www.nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BSEM-2011.pdf
Although a “whistle-blower” is not science, it does add to the science that is already there by giving it an “extra leg” so to speak. stuff like this seems to be cropping up every year giving parents more reasons not to vaccinate their children, just as it is cropping up every year giving parents more reasons to vaccinate their children.
We also have statements (hundreds) from scientists and doctors like this one (quote below) which also seem to be contributing to a lack of trust for vaccine manufacturers and the studies they sponsor. Much of the published scientific studies that say there is no need to worry about vaccines, and that there is no autism link are actually sponsored by the vaccine manufactures themselves:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world). – Dr Marcia Angell, Physician, Author, Former Editor in Chief of the NEJM