Few studies have compared the health of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children. There are only a handful, in fact, which is unfortunate given how many scientists are publishing papers each year which make it clear that several issues surrounding vaccines, including forced vaccination, require further discussion.
In fact, when Congressman Bill Posey presented this concern to the CDC in 2012, they tried to evade his question several times before ultimately admitting they have not carried out such a study.
A pilot study released on April 27th published in the Journal of Translational Sciences involving more than approximately 700 homeschooled 6- to 12-year-olds from four American states compared 261 unvaccinated children to 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, taking into consideration their overall health based on records of vaccinations and physician-diagnosed illnesses. The study found some alarming information.
As reported by Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), the study found that vaccinated children were more than three times more likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum. Furthermore, it found that vaccinated children were thirtyfold more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than non-vaccinated children. Vaccinated children had more than quadruple the risk of being diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children and were more than 300% more likely to receive an ADHD diagnosis. They were also 340% more likely to be diagnosed with pneumonia and were at great risker of contracting chronic illness in general.
The team of scientists was led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Mawson, author of more than fifty published studies. They concluded that in a “final adjusted model designed to test for this possibility, controlling for the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination, the[se] factors remained significantly associated with neurodevelopmental disorders.”
Another study published in 2014 by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein arrived at similar conclusions, determining that vaccinated children were more likely to suffer from asthma, eczema, ear infections, hyperactivity, and many other chronic conditions.
And in 1992, a study comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated children revealed that vaccinated children were more likely to suffer from asthma, eczema, ear infections, hyperactivity, and many other chronic conditions.
The researchers also discovered a tenfold increase in tonsillitis incidence in vaccinated children, and that unvaccinated children were less likely to have undergone tonsillectomy operations. The video linked above this paragraph is from Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, who in 2010 published a book titled “Make An Informed Vaccine Decision For The Health of Your Child: A Parent’s Guide To Childhood Shots.”
Based on the little information available, the recent first of its kind study, and the information collected in the early 90s, it appears that unvaccinated children are sicker than vaccinated children.
It’s no secret that more and more parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children, and for good reason.
So ask yourself, why does corporate media continue to ridicule those who choose not to vaccinate, or even those who simply question vaccinations? That’s not what true science is about; it’s about looking at all of the information from a neutral perspective. Mainstream media has derided and ridiculed so-called “anti-vaxxers,” and most people simply believe their narrative. They never hear about the hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors, researchers, and publications that emerge every single year questioning the efficacy of vaccines.
This is evident by looking at simple statistics, as a new study published in the journal EbioMedicine demonstrates: “Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population.”
The study concludes with the observation that “after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some VH exists among French GPs, whose recommendation behaviors depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them.”
This was in France, but it’s a global phenomenon. In the United States, for example, a new study published in the journal Pediatrics has found that many paediatricians don’t strongly recommend the HPV vaccine.
Causation Doesn’t Mean Correlation, You Say?
Studies are often published that draw faulty connections between phenomena. This is why the Bradford Hill Criteria exists. It is a group of guidelines that help determine if there is a true causal relationship two things.
So, if you’re thinking that causation doesn’t mean correlation, please refer to those guidelines. The authors of the studies are obviously from the world of academia and have published multiple peer-reviewed studies. Combined with all of the hundreds of studies that also raise cause for concern, their opinion at least warrants an open and healthy debate. Science has clearly not settled this issue.
Using the recommendations of the Bradford Hill criteria, it becomes clear from many studies that there is a direct link between vaccines and developmental disorders.
Take aluminum, for example, which has been being added to vaccines for approximately 90 years. One disturbing fact that many people still don’t know is that 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.
If we look at the other side of the coin, it’s now firmly established in scientific literature that aluminum can lead to a host of neurodevelopmental disabilities, and serious autoimmune outcomes in humans.
We know, from the work of Richard Flarend, that aluminum is commonly absorbed into the body, into areas it shouldn’t be, and has been found in various urine samples from multiple studies examining this topic. This holds true for aluminum from multiple sources, not just vaccines.
We also know that if significant aluminum load exceeds the body’s capacity to get rid of it, it is deposited into various tissues within the bones, brain, liver, heart, spleen, and muscles.
“We increasingly have this compound that was not part of any biochemical process on Earth, that can now only go and do havoc, which is exactly what it does. It causes all kinds of unusual biochemical reactions.”
– Dr. Chris Shaw, a neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia
Here is a great video by Dr. Christopher Exley, a professor of bioinorganic chemistry at Keele University and an honorary professor at UHI Millennium Institute. He is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.
When it comes to vaccines, the problem is that aluminum doesn’t come into the same method of excretion when given in the form of a vaccine. That’s the whole point of adjuvants — they are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over again. It can’t be excreted because it must provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. This is why they put it into vaccines in the first place.
A fairly recent study published in Frontiers of Neurology explains how this biopersistence — demonstrated by its “capacity to migrate in lymphoid organs and then disseminate throughout the body within monocyte-lineage cells and progressively accumulate in the brain” — is so troublesome.
It also points out that, “in spite of their long usage, the literature has pointed out that the adjuvanticity mechanisms of aluminum salts remain basically unknown despite most active investigation in the field in recent years.”
Animal studies have also shown the same thing.
A study published in BioMed Central (also cited in the study above) in 2012 found more cause for concern: “Intramuscular injection of alum-containing vaccine was associated with the appearance of aluminum deposits in distant organs, such as spleen and brain where they were still detected one year after injection.”
Multiple studies have concluded that, as a result of these deposits, aluminum from vaccines can lead to multiple neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer’s and Autism.
“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.”
– Jose G. Dores, professor at the University of Brasillia’s Department of Nutritional Sciences.
Aluminum Is Just One Example That Goes Beyond Association
Aluminum is just one example of harmful vaccine ingredients. Mercury is another. There are hundreds of studies, 80 of which were presented at a press conference with Robert De-Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr, which show a high cause for concern. Conversely, there are zero showing that it is safe to inject into babies. You can find out more about that in this article:
A $100,000 message from Robert F. Kennedy Jr & Robert De Niro To American Journalists and Scientists
The above studies are just a few examples. If we go beyond the science, we have a number of examples of scientific fraud and the manipulation of science. Perhaps the most eye-opening one in recent news is the author of multiple CDC studies that are most commonly cited to debunk the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Dr William Thompson stated that the CDC falsified data and that there is a link between vaccines and autism. 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.”
It’s Not About “Anti-Vaccine” or “Pro-Vaccine”
It’s disturbing to see mainstream media continue to push the idea that this is an open and shut case — that vaccines are necessary for the greater good, that they save lives, and that there is no reason to question their administration or ingredients list.
As yourself, why are so many doctors and scientists publishing papers and questioning the efficacy of vaccines and yet getting no coverage from corporate media?
Why are those who question and want to talk about vaccines labelled “anti-vaccine?” The funny thing about that is, people like Dr. William Thompson and Robert F. Kennedy junior are actually “pro-vaccine.”
Even if you support vaccinations, you cannot deny that the amount of evidence warranting concern is huge, and the last thing we need to do is call this an open and shut case without the possibility of further dialogue and discussion. That is the exact opposite of what science endeavours to accomplish, and as long as studies continue to emerge showing the dangers associated with vaccinations, so too will the questions and controversy. One thing is for sure, these labels don’t help and serve only to divide us.
When the corporate world tries to shut down simple discussion and questioning, it’s time to start digging.