OXFAM

A report from Oxfam notes that:

Pharmaceutical companies behind some of Australia’s best-known brands avoided an estimated $215 million a year in tax in Australia over a three year period - almost four times the $63 million actually paid - Oxfam says. 

The report, ‘Prescription for Poverty’ looks at four of the world’s largest global pharmaceutical companies - Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Merck, Sharpe & Dome (MSD Australia), and Abbott – which in Australia are estimated to have unfairly avoided paying $215 million in taxes a year between 2013 and 2015.

No surprises there but Oxfam's CEO Helen Szoke went on to say, clearly ignorant of the irony:

“To put it in perspective, if this amount were invested in healthcare in these countries, this could pay for 10 million girls to be vaccinated against the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer and kills one woman every two minutes around the world,” Dr Szoke said. 

OXFAM IS A SCAM

Pay who? Oh, Merck, the pharmaceutical company that produces the vaccine Gardasil! Of course she also implies that Gardasil would reduce this alleged death rate from cervical cancer. Ah well, she's a doctor so she's bought into the whole vaccination mythology but the irony is that while she criticises the tax avoidance schemes of the pharmaceutical companies, she does not have the slightest hesitation is suggesting that money be given right back to them via one of the most notorious vaccine on the market.

Oxfam of course is one of those sham organisations that purport to be working toward alleviating poverty and improving health in developing countries. This quote from Oxfam's own website gives an insight into what it's really on about:

Vaccines have contributed to some of the greatest public health successes of the past century, averting 2.5 million child deaths every year and millions more bouts of illness and disability. Yet even as the demand for existing, new and planned vaccines grows in developing countries, financing for immunization in poor countries has reached a crisis point, and major problems in the vaccines market mean that access to existing vaccines and development of new vaccines will be impeded and delayed. 

That's what Oxfam sees as a way of improving the health of children in developing countries: undermine the already weakened immune systems of malnourished children by subjecting them to a barrage of vaccinations.

Let's not forget Oxfam is a Scam.

An Acne Vaccine?

There are seemingly no limits to the vaccine madness that has taken hold of the world. This article in today's online edition of The Jakarta Post reports on a study in the United States that looked into the possibility of vaccination to prevent acne.

"Current treatment options are often not effective or tolerable for many of the 85 percent of adolescents and more than 40 million adults in the United States who suffer from this condition," Huang said. "New, safe and efficient therapies are sorely needed."

Despite the damage caused to adolescents by Gardasil, the pharmaceutical companies would of course love to be able to promote an anti-acne vaccine to such a huge market. As with the production of all vaccines, clinical trials of potential candidates would be limited if not overtly fraudulent. The safety of vaccines will always be secondary to the need to maximise profits.

There's further information about a potential vaccine here. Having suffered from acne myself as a youth, I would have welcomed a cure and would have opted for a vaccine had one been available. Of course back in those days, I thought vaccines were safe and beneficial. I didn't much the safety of vaccines or the need for them until much later in life. My parents never questioned the vaccine propaganda of the times and told me how the polio vaccine had stopped the terrifying spread of poliomyelitis. This vaccine that I received was later found to be contaminated with a cancer-causing virus of simian origin.

I often wonder whether my youngest brother's acoustic neuroma wasn't caused by the additional vaccines that he received because he was born in 1960, eleven years after me. He was around four years of age when he suddenly developed strabismus.

I remember my mother being quite shocked at the discovery because this was certainly not something that he had from birth. This sudden onset of strabismus in toddlers and children is a classic sign of brain damage caused by the aluminium in vaccines as outlined in Forest Maready's book Crooked B (see my post about this). When my brother was diagnosed with his brain tumour (acoustic neuroma) at age 19, the doctors were of the opinion that, because of its size, it had been growing since he was two years of age. Of course, no one will ever know if his tumour was caused by vaccine damage but I am highly suspicious that this was the reason.

Link

Even after reading Maready's book, it was only now when writing this blog post that I remembered my own brother's sudden onset strabismus. That's how conditioned I was to not connect his condition to vaccine damage. Certainly at the time, there was never any question that his condition had been precipitated by a recent vaccination. It was just accepted and he suddenly had to wear spectacles with a patch over one of the lenses so that his misaligned eye would be encouraged to straighten up. While Tony's strabismus was the result of damage to the muscles controlling eye movement, his tumour may have been the result of impairment to the nerves related to hearing and balance.

It's too late now to know what his vaccination schedule was back then. The clinic where he would have received his shots is still there, I suspect, but my brother would have to request access to his records if they are available. He's not likely to do that and in fact he dutifully receives his flu shots every year and seems to have complete faith in the medical "profession". Almost certainly however, my brother was a victim of a war on his well-being. It is a war that was only ramping up when he was at his most vulnerable but it is now in full swing and gaining momentum.

Original Antigenic Sin

This book can be viewed or downloaded from the Internet Archive

I've just finished reading Suzanne Humphries book about the history of vaccination. The book really conveyed the awful living and working conditions that working people endured in the nineteenth century that allowed diseases like measles, diphtheria and whooping cough to take such a heavy toll of the population. Here is the Amazon review:

Not too long ago, lethal infections were feared in the Western world. Since that time, many countries have undergone a transformation from disease cesspools to much safer, healthier habitats. Starting in the mid-1800s, there was a steady drop in deaths from all infectious diseases, decreasing to relatively minor levels by the early 1900s. The history of that transformation involves famine, poverty, filth, lost cures, eugenicist doctrine, individual freedoms versus state might, protests and arrests over vaccine refusal, and much more. Today, we are told that medical interventions increased our lifespan and single-handedly prevented masses of deaths. But is this really true? Dissolving Illusions details facts and figures from long-overlooked medical journals, books, newspapers, and other sources. Using myth-shattering graphs, this book shows that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases. If the medical profession could systematically misinterpret and ignore key historical information, the question must be asked, “What else is ignored and misinterpreted today?” Perhaps the best reason to know our history is so that the worst parts are never repeated.

Of course I'd heard before that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases but this book confirms the reality of that in meticulous detail. The author also introduced me to the term original antigenic sin explained by Wikipedia as follows:

Original antigenic sin, also known as the Hoskins effect, refers to the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilise immunological memory based on a previous infection when a second slightly different version of that foreign entity (e.g. a virus or bacterium) is encountered. This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections. The phenomenon of original antigenic sin has been described in relation to influenza virus, dengue fever, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and to several other viruses.

The vaccination process is so unnatural that the body's immune response to later exposure to viruses in the wild is impaired, thus accounting for the increased vulnerability of the vaccinated population. This idea was quite new to me whereas previously I'd thought that the vaccination process itself was valid and that any problems were the result of adjuvants and other foreign material.

The response of vaccine developers to the problems caused by original antigenic sin is to modify and enhance the vaccines, not to question the efficacy of the vaccination process itself. Big Medicine and Big Pharma have too much invested in the vaccination industry to abandon it now. It's encouraging that Suzanne Humphries is a qualified medical doctor so the criticism is coming from within the profession. Here is an excerpt from her website:

Dr Humphries is a conventionally educated medical doctor who was a participant in conventional hospital systems from 1989 until 2011 as an internist and nephrologist.  She left her conventional hospital position in good standing, of her own volition in 2011. Since then, she’s been furthering her research into the medical literature on vaccines, immunity, history, and functional medicine.

I've discovered that she has a YouTube channel with 40 videos uploaded so far. Interestingly, the view count for her videos seems ridiculously low. For example, her most recent video from two weeks ago has 40 views according to the thumbnails but 130 views once you actually click on the video. Here's the video: NOW TAKEN DOWN BY YOUTUBE

Suzanne Humphries has written an autobiography titled Rising From The Dead and I've read the Amazon preview but not yet the entire book. It's a very interesting read. Here is an excerpt from it: