Nanobots and 5G

This graphic (Figure 1) caught my attention on Twitter, yes I know it's now called X, in relation to contaminants in the Covid vaccines.

Figure 1: link

The graphic is associated with the following story:

Pfizer Vial Content: COVID-19 Injections Are Synthetic Nano Circuits That Communicate With 5G

Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger: Pfizer Covid vial contents exposed by WHO whistleblower.

"It contains graphene oxide, parasites, RFID, metals, and nano-circuitry. DARPA and Bill Gates developed these non-biological synthetic injections to control the minds and bodies of the population."

"Dr. Charles Morgan formerly with the CIA in a 2018 DARPA meeting talking to the U.S. Military about CRISPR gene editing technology says they can engineer a "unique thing" to kill only one person in the world. In this case, they used this 'mRNA' technology to kill millions of innocent people in the world."

"This is why through the PCR test they took everyone's DNA and put it in a database in order to target specific people and races in the future, not only to kill them but to control their thoughts and actions."

Stories like this have been in circulation for a while and its hard to separate fact from fiction. I'm sure that our reptilian overlords would love to implement this sort of biotechnology if they could but whether they have achieved this capability and implemented it via the vaccines is uncertain. Heading into the future however, the possibility becomes more and more likely. 

At the end of the day, the average person has no idea what any vaccine contains and to believe that vaccines are intended to protect us from pathogens is to plumb the depths of gullibility and naivete. While needles can be avoided, it's more difficult to avoid vaccines that are introduced into food or spread via an aerosol. This again is the future or has this future already arrived as well.

A Match Made In Hell

In attempting to research this topic, I forgot to activate my VPN from within the country that I am resident in. The alert shown in Figure 1 was instantly displayed:

Figure 1: trying to access rumble

Oops! Somebody or a group of somebodies has decided that this is not suitable viewing on the pretext that my privacy is in jeopardy. Fortunately, I have a VPN and I can choose a country that has not yet put rumble on its blacklist. It won't be long before VPNs will be made illegal and anybody who wants to use the Internet will require authorisation via a digital ID. When that time comes, only officially approved websites will be accessible.

This post is about Pfizer's recent acquisition of a cancer research company called Seagen for a whopping $43 billion dollars, despite the latter company recording losses of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last couple of years ($602 million in 2022 and $738 million in 2023). Here is a link to a video on rumble that discusses the acquisition. Here is a link to the Pfizer website in which the acquisition is proudly announced on December 23rd 2023. Here is an excerpt:

“Cancer remains a leading cause of death, and one in three people in the U.S. will receive a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime. With one of the largest investments in Pfizer’s history, we are going all in on cancer with the goal of delivering breakthroughs that drastically improve the lives of people with cancer,” said Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “With Seagen’s proprietary, world-leading Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) technology, together with the scale and strength of Pfizer's capabilities and expertise, we are poised to change the cancer treatment paradigm. We believe Oncology will be a significant growth driver for Pfizer and contribute meaningfully to the achievement of our near- and long-term financial goals.”

So there are profits to be made because cancer is poised to become "a significant growth driver in the near- and long-term". Pfizer needs to recoup its $43 billion investment and seems confident that it will. Does the company know something? Of course it does. The term "turbo cancers" only came into vogue less than a year ago and has of course baffled medical professionals. People in their thirties, forties and fifties are suddenly being diagnosed with advanced and aggressive cancers. People whose cancers were in remission suddenly find that they are reactivated. All these people received their Covid vaccinations and yet this is dismissed as a possible cause.

Perhaps "dismissed" is too strong a word because that would imply the medical establishment had at least entertained the possibility of a link when in fact the possibility was never entered their minds at all. The vast majority of doctors and nurses are programmed to never doubt the efficacy of vaccines. Those that have doubts know to keep it to themselves. A very few will voice their concerns publicly and thus attract the attention of the medical mafia who will do their utmost to end the professional life of their foolhardy brethren.

Pfizer made billions of dollars in vaccine sales from the fake pandemic and it now stands to make billions, perhaps trillions more, from the sale of pharmaceuticals designed to combat the turbo cancers that the vaccines have caused. As the company says "we are going all in on cancer" and the pharmaceuticals that they will be peddling will have all sorts of nasty side effects that may prolong the life of sufferers but make them far more miserable than they might have been without the intervention. In the end, they will die. They will not be cured because the last thing that Pfizer and the medical establishment want is a cure. 

Doubtless, mRNA technology will be involved in the development of these products, and the fear factor will be ramped up to terrify even those who are currently cancer-free to submit to a miracle cancer vaccine to be taken yearly. As this article announces:

The next big advance in cancer treatment could be a vaccine

After decades of limited success, scientists say research has reached a turning point, with many predicting more vaccines will be out in five years.

These aren’t traditional vaccines that prevent disease, but shots to shrink tumors and stop cancer from coming back. Targets for these experimental treatments include breast and lung cancer, with gains reported this year for deadly skin cancer melanoma and pancreatic cancer.

“We’re getting something to work. Now we need to get it to work better,” said Dr. James Gulley, who helps lead a center at the National Cancer Institute that develops immune therapies, including cancer treatment vaccines.

More than ever, scientists understand how cancer hides from the body’s immune system. Cancer vaccines, like other immunotherapies, boost the immune system to find and kill cancer cells. And some new ones use mRNA, which was developed for cancer but first used for COVID-19 vaccines.

It can be noted that there is no attempt to find what might be causing these cancers. The focus is solely on treatment via drugs or vaccines. The twentieth century saw the rise of allopathic, drug-based medicine to the detriment of all other forms of alternative medicine. The massive investment by philanthropists in schools of allopathic medicine ensured this dominance which continues into the current century along with its unholy alliance with the pharmaceutical industry. Indeed a match made in hell. 

I happened to notice that sleazy Russell Brand, card-carrying member of the controlled opposition, is railing on YouTube against the sinister implications of this acquisition of Seagen by Pfizer. Clearly the gatekeepers are not worried about this conspiratorial sort of speculation spreading and confident that their future plans for humanity's cull are on course.

Panic Stations

The WHO never rests because the battle against pathogens is never ending. An interesting article appeared in IFLSCIENCE on November 3rd 2021 with the title:

Vaccine Urgently Needed For Bacteria Killing 

150,000 Babies Annually, WHO Reports

In this post, I'll dissect the article and add some comments. It begins:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has called for the development of a vaccine against Group B streptococcus (GBS), a common bacteria implicated in the deaths of around 150,000 babies each year.

This translates to:

PROBLEM: GBS is killing 150,000 babies per year

REACTION: How can we prevent these deaths?

SOLUTION: A vaccine must be developed

We'll return to this problem, reaction, solution in a moment. The article goes on to highlight the dangerous nature of this pathogen.

In their report, issued November 2, the WHO revealed the global burden of GBS is much higher than previously thought. As well as the aforementioned alarming number of newborn deaths, the bacterium is also linked to over half a million preterm births and at least 46,000 stillbirths a year – though the real numbers are likely even higher, as there are significant data gaps around the total burden of death and disease.

“This new research shows that Group B strep is a major and under-appreciated threat to newborn survival and wellbeing, bringing devastating impacts for so many families globally. WHO joins partners in calling for urgent development of a maternal GBS vaccine, which would have profound benefits in countries worldwide,” Dr Phillipp Lambach, Medical Officer from WHO’s Immunisation, Vaccines and Biologicals department, and report author, said in a statement.

Now comes the kicker. We learn the GBS is "harmless" and forms part of the microbiome of about 15% of mothers giving birth. 

GBS is harmless for most who carry it. An average of 15 percent of pregnant people – nearly 20 million per year – carry the bacterium in their vagina. While this is usually asymptomatic, GBS can pass to babies during pregnancy, childbirth, or in the early weeks of life, which can be extremely serious. The bacterium is linked to neonatal and newborn meningitis and sepsis, both of which can be fatal, and can result in neuro-developmental impairment and congenital defects.

However, these mothers can pass the bacteria on to their babies before, during and after birth. One might expect that the mother's immunity to the deleterious effects of GBS would be passed on to her child. Given half a chance this might happen but medical intervention will ensure that this probably does not happen. The article explains that:

Currently, antibiotic therapy is used to treat cases in infants and parents. Antibiotics are also used as a precaution to prevent GBS and are administered during labor to parents in whom the bacterium has been detected. However, the risk still remains high.

“Prevention of early onset GBS is possible in countries where it is policy,” Professor Joy Lawn, Director of the Maternal Adolescent Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and contributor to the report told IFLScience. “However, even with high use of GBS test and treat in pregnancy, GBS stillbirths and GBS-associated preterm birth will not be likely to be prevented by antibiotics.”

So we learn that a test has been devised to detect this "harmless" pathogen that can easily turn deadly and a positive test means that a course of antibiotics is administered to the expectant mother, ensuring that her microbiome is devastated before giving birth.

Where does GBS take its highest toll? We learn that:

This is the case across the world, but particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of GBS was the greatest. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, rates of maternal GBS are the highest in the world – accounting for almost half of the global burden. Eastern and South-Eastern Asia are also disproportionally affected.

In other words, GBS strikes in those countries where sanitation and nutrition is poorest. Here we might reframe our previous problem, reaction, solution:

PROBLEM: GBS is killing 150,000 babies per year in low and middle income countries

REACTION: How can we prevent these deaths?

SOLUTION: Let's improve sanitation, nutrition and the health infrastructure of these countries.

Of course, this is never a solution in the eyes of the WHO. The current solution of administering antibiotics is not a big money spinner and so the inevitable is proposed:

A preventative maternal vaccine, therefore, is urgently needed, the WHO says. Several candidates are in the pipeline, but none are available yet, despite almost 40 years of work.

“The idea for a maternal GBS vaccine was suggested about 4 decades ago, but is only in the last decade that more progress has been made,” Prof. Lawn told IFLScience.

Boosting natural immunity is never an option. Where potential pathogens are involved, a vaccine must be sought and it seems that one or more of them are nearly here.

“One hexavalent [six-in-one] vaccine is entering phase 3 trials in humans... Then following is a protein based one.” A few, including an mRNA vaccine, are in pre-clinical trials, she added.

The miracle that is modern medicine may soon produce an mRNA vaccine to combat GBS. Given the devastating effects of this bacterium, the vaccine may well receive emergency approval before the trials are even concluded. It may well be administered to all expectant mothers, just in case. It may well be mandated for any woman entering hospital to give birth. We learn that the benefits are financial as well:

Promising as this is, the report highlights the urgency of the situation and calls for vaccine developers and funders to accelerate the development of a safe and effective GBS vaccine. An estimated 50,000 GBS-related deaths, as well as over 170,000 preterm births, could be prevented every year if said vaccine reached 70 percent of pregnant people. The benefits would not only be health-focused but also financial – the report claims that between $1 billion and $17 billion could be saved worldwide from just a year of maternal GBS vaccination.

No mention of the profits to Big Pharma of course. These vaccines are being developed for the benefit of humanity, to save the babies. Anyone who questions their administration is clearly a monster. The article concludes:

“A new maternal vaccine against GBS would be a game-changer in the reduction of newborn and maternal deaths for the most affected countries,” Dr Martina Lukong Baye, Coordinator of the National Multisector Programme to Combat Maternal, Newborn & Child Mortality at the Ministry of Public Health in Cameroon, said. “We plead to all stakeholders to treat this as a matter of moral priority.”

Wow, so it's a moral priority to develop a vaccine that can be administered to pregnant women. It's not hard to understand the game being played here and yet it will be almost impossible to stop it. Big Pharma will aggressively promote it, Big Medicine will enthusiastically embrace it, and Big Media will sing its praises. Big Government may even mandate it.

This is just another example of the medical madness that has overtaken global health. Confusingly, GBS is also an acronym not only for Group B streptococcus but also for Guillain-Barré syndrome, a known side-effect of the Covid mRNA vaccines. In any case, once again we have a manufactured crisis with a pre-planned solution.

Vaccines and the Spanish Flu

I watched a BitChute video today titled THE TRUTH REGARDING THE 1918 SPANISH FLU AND THE LINK TO TODAY. The hypothesis is that the Spanish Flu was really caused by a faulty meningococcal vaccine, produced by the Rockefeller Foundation and administered to US troops embarking for the Western Front. The fact that the Reuters Fact Check team were quick to jumpt on it enhances its credibility.

Figure 1

In investigating the matter further, I came across this article that suggests the hypothesis is plausible:

World War I (1914-1918) occurred at a key transition period in the history of medicine, a time when there was a gap “between knowledge and effective action,” according to a paper published last week in the journal Lancet.

Although many physicians at the start of the war still clung to the old idea that infectious diseases were caused by “bad” air and unpleasant smells (miasma), a growing number — including William Gorgas, who served as surgeon general of the U.S. Army Surgeon General during the war — had come to accept that microorganisms were really the source of such illnesses, writes Dr. G. Dennis Shanks, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Australian Army Malaria Institute.

Yet although Gorgas and others knew, at least rudimentarily, what caused diseases like typhoid, tetanus and tuberculosis, their understanding was of limited use, Shanks points out. Antibiotics had not yet been developed, and vaccines were mostly crudely brewed mixtures of killed bacteria. As a result, military doctors had few effective tools on hand to fight any kind of infection.

“Controlled clinical trials had yet to be devised,” says Shanks. “Treatment was by trial and error or dictated by authority.”

Still, he adds, “medical science was progressing, and got drawn into the maelstrom of World War I. Medical laboratories … were deployed with the armies. Top research physicians joined the war as uniformed specialist consultants. … New drugs and vaccines were tried in abundance and reported with remarkable rapidity in medical journals. Some of the interventions worked and became part of the medical armamentarium; others did not and were eventually superseded.”

Another article from FIAR News gives a fair and balanced account of the hypothesis. It is well worth reading in full. To quote from it:

... the emerging evidence supports postulations that the 1918 pandemic was caused by a misguided – and very experimental – Rockefeller Institute meningitis vaccination program which was initiated at Fort Riley by the US military and spread to the world from there. This essay will attempt to briefly document the evidence that is available so far. There will, of course, be many objections to the content of this essay, not only from the ideologues and trolls but from those in high places with vital body organs requiring protection.

I've written about the Spanish Flu before in a post titled Aspirin and the Spanish Flu on October 24th 2019. In that post, I quote from John Hamer's book The Falsification of History:

The 20 to 50 million deaths during 1918 have long been attributed to a virulent new virus but the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) has now clearly stated that common upper respiratory bacteria was responsible, not a new virus.  There was no new deadly virus but there was something new in 1918 and that was toxic aspirin, being used in totally inappropriate, dangerous dosages.  

“... just before the 1918 death spike, aspirin was recommended in regimens now known to be potentially toxic and to cause pulmonary oedema and may therefore have contributed to overall pandemic mortality and several of its mysteries. Young adult mortality may be explained by willingness to use the new, recommended therapy and the presence of youth in regimented treatment settings (military)” stated Dr. Karen Starko.  

Use of Bayer aspirin and other generic aspirin suppressed immunity, allowing the bacteria to develop into a massive bacterial infections and pneumonias.  In addition to the deaths by pneumonia, the use of Bayer aspirin (and generic versions) at toxic doses can explain the lingering mysteries of extremely rapid deterioration from health to death as well as the death of young, apparently otherwise healthy people.  Bayer's heavy advertising and government and medical recommendations fuelled use of both Bayer aspirin and generic versions.  

Based on the primary role that aspirin played in the millions of 1918 deaths versus the survival of those who avoided it in favour of natural treatments, it would suggest that 1918 was not a plague caused by a virus, but a pharmaceutical industry issue.  And given the scale of the deaths, it was without question, the greatest medical catastrophe in human history, exceeding even the ‘Great Plague’ of the Dark and Middle Ages.

The two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's possible they both contributed to the staggering death toll. What's clear is that a flu was not the cause of the deaths and that medical mistakes most likely were the culprit.

The Influenza Vaccine and COVID-19

An interesting article on the Home Vaccine Education Network suggests that those who have had regular flu shots may be at risk of more severe reactions to the COVID-19 virus and it could also be a contributing factor in the onset of so-called "long COVID" that I dealt with in an earlier post. The article also some interesting background on the flu vaccine that I'll include below:

The Flu Shot:  Never Supported by Science

In 1972, Dr. John Anthony Morris reported his research findings on the influenza vaccine to his superiors at the FDA.  A distinguished doctor and government researcher, Dr. Morris had been comissioned 13 years earlier to scientifically justify the FDA's plans to widely expand the flu vaccination program.   To his expectant audience, however, his results were thoroughly disappointing.   Dr. Morris reported that the flu shot provided no measurable net benefit, in part because the injected product failed to stimulate antibody production in the lungs, thus allowing for viral replication in this sensitive area.   It was later realised that the lack of benefit also derives from the flu shot's ability to  increase vulnerability to viruses not covered in the shot, including unmatched strains of flu and different respiratory viruses dangerous in their own right.   Dr. Morris' finding of no net benefit of the influenza vaccine has been repeatedly verified with contemporary data, including a study by Simonsen et al. (2005)   that found that the large increase in flu vaccination of the elderly between 1980 and 2001 failed to decrease flu season mortality, and a study in Britain which found that the vast increase in flu shot uptake by those who had just turned 65 (vs. those who were just a bit younger) provided no decline in hospitalisations or deaths.

Corruption, Not Public Health 

Given the powerful results of   Dr. Morris' research, the flu vaccine's only perk could be to line the pockets of Big Pharma, and should have been regulated out of existence.  Unfortunately, the cozy relationship between the FDA, CDC, and the pharmaceutical industry, well documented today, is not a new phenomena.   Instead of reconsidering the vaccination program Dr. Morris' supervisors swiftly closed his laboratory and blocked publication of his results.    Breathing a sigh of relief that good science would not be placed in the way of good profits, Big Pharma continued pushing for expansion of the flu shot market.  Even if there wasn't a huge benefit in ordinary years, they argued, it was important to have manufacturing in place in order to churn out large quantities of vaccine quickly to save the world during the next serious pandemic (History of Vaccines, by Arthur Allen).

The Flu Shot Makes A Flu Pandemic - Worse?

Enter 2009, the first major flu pandemic to occur after  mass influenza vaccination had become a reality.  Big pharma did indeed heroically turn out millions of doses of pandemic influenza vaccine.     Unfortunately,  most of the doses did not become available to the general public until after the pandemic was nearly over.  In addition there was the inconvenient finding that individuals who had obediently taken the seasonal flu vaccine the year before were  more likely  to develop pandemic influenza illness that was medically attended.    Public health experts were shocked by these findings but kept their lips sealed as Big Pharma and their sponsored government agencies used  the public spotlight on the flu in 2009 as a springboard to push for an even larger flu vaccination program.   For the first time the flu vaccine was recommended for every American citizen, especially children, who by 2020 were the largest consumers of the shot despite lack of evidence of benefit and the mercury that was allowed to remain in the vaccine.

The Flu Shot Promotes Other Viruses

As alluded to above, 2009 was not an anomaly; the flu shot  routinely increases the rate of infection with other pathogens, negating any benefits of the shot.   While many of the studies of this phenomena worked with patients who had freely chosen whether or not to take the flu shot, (Dierig et al., 2014), one study met the gold standard of a blinded, randomised, placebo controlled trial (Cowling et al., 2012).  While it has been generally hypothesised that the mechanism of the increase in non-flu illnesses is viral interference - the observation that illness with one virus may block others  - it was found by Riken et al. (2018)  that the increase in non-flu infections starts in the first 14 days after receipt of the flu vaccine, before any immunity to the flu has developed.  This indicates that like the DTP vaccine and other inactivated pathogen vaccines, the vaccine engenders non-specific immune system changes which increase vulnerability to certain other infections.  Most of the studies on the flu vaccine have focused on children, or found statistically significant results only in children, however one study to find an affect in adults found that while the flu shot appeared to offer cross protection against certain pathogens for this population, the vulnerability to several other pathogens, including coronavirus, was specifically increased.   This study was with regards to "old" coronaviruses, not COVID-19.    The potential of the flu shot to fuel COVID-19, however, was firmly established, and, as we demonstrated above, can now clearly be seen in the COVID data.

The article presents a rather simplified bar graph to illustrate the impact that the level of flu vaccinations have on COVID mortality rates (see Figure 1):

Figure 1

In regards to these results, the article observes that:

Countries with high flu vaccine coverage, as of July 2020, suffered up to at least 20 times more COVID-19 fatalities/million as countries with low coverage. There appears to be a TIPPING POINT  that occurs at 45% -50% flu vaccine coverage. At vaccination coverage levels either below or above this point there is little correlation with COVID fatality, but the average fatality rate in countries with coverage over the tipping point is significantly higher.  This indicates that reaching a certain density of individuals made especially vulnerable to COVID  by flu vaccination results in connected clusters of vulnerability that span the system (that is, the percolation threshold is reached) which suddenly creates  sharply worse outcomes.   This could be explained if there is an exceptionally virulent variant or variants of COVID that spreads only among flu vaccinated individuals, because it has adapted to immune system shifts that are commonly triggered by the vaccine.  This variant could only become widespread when it can easily spread along chains of vaccinated individuals.

The most powerful correlation, however, is seen when we look at vaccination rates of children (again, 2018/2019 season).  For this data there appears to be a small tipping point around 63% and a much larger one  around 69%.  Every single state with a high COVID death rate, including New York, had a high flu vaccination rate of children.  Since child deaths nonetheless remain low, this must indicate that the children passed a more lethal infection on to their elders, indicating again that the primary role of flu vaccination is to cause individuals to pass more severe cases of COVID-19 to each other.  

The flu vaccinations have been aggressively pushed over the past decade, especially for the elderly. In May of 2019, I posted about topic (link). Of course, the propaganda push for COVID vaccinations has reached insane levels with all sorts of tricks being used to get people to step forward. Such tricks include:

• exaggerated or simply erroneous statistics as to what percentage of a population has received shots: any statistics relating to COVID-19 should be viewed with deep suspicion.
  
  
• fabricated shortage: if something is in short supply, it incites more interest because it becomes more desirable or there is a feeling that you may miss out if you don't seize on the first available opportunity
  
  
• fear-mongering and shaming: if you don't get the jab, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is much increased or so you would be led to believe. Alternatively, if you question the vaccine or the official narrative concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, then you have some kind of psychological flaw (and vague studies and doubtful polls will be adduced to confirm this).
  
  
• the carrot: if you have the jab, you'll be able to get back to work, meet with your friends and travel because the vaccination passport is coming and you'll be eligible for it.
  
  
• the stick: if you don't have the jab, you won't be able to get back to work, meet with your friends and travel because the vaccination passport is coming and you won't be eligible for it unless you get the jab

Large study again confirms MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism

ANOTHER BOGUS VACCINE STUDY

Via AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Washington on Wednesday, March 6th, 2019 at 09:08 pm, the following statement appeared in an article in The Jakarta Post:

The study, which followed all Danish children born between 1999 and 2010 until 2013, compared the number of vaccinated and unvaccinated kids who were diagnosed with autism, and found no difference.

This sort of study, comparing a vaccinated group of children with an unvaccinated group, is exactly what those suspicious of vaccines have been demanding and now here is one such study, which followed more than 650,000 Danish children for over a decade. However, all is not as it seems. To quote directly from the paper itself:

A general criticism of observational vaccine effect studies is that they do not include a completely unvaccinated group of children. The number of children completely unvaccinated throughout childhood will be low in a country such as Denmark. We evaluated the association between MMR and autism in children with no DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccinations in the first year of life; we found no support for an association in this vaccine-naive subpopulation.

This is indeed strange. DTaP-IPV/Hib stands for:

• Diphtheria
• Tetanus
• Pertussis
• Hepatitis B
• Polio
• Haemophilus influenzae Type b 

So what is being said here? Were the unvaccinated children in the study, vaccinated against MMR but not against DTaP-IPV/Hib? It's by no means clear. How low were the numbers of "completely unvaccinated" children in the study. It's not stated as far as I can see. In a blog titled j.b.handley blog, the author makes six point in criticism of this study:

1. We’ve still only studied a single vaccine. Even though children receive 11 vaccines, and MMR isn’t given until 12 months old, long after many other vaccines.
2. The most compelling data in the study will never get covered: why is the autism rate in this study only 1 in 100? 
3. They abuse the word “unvaccinated” and the media will, too.
4. This doesn’t tell us anything about aluminum adjuvant as a trigger for immune activation events
5. The national register in Denmark is unreliable, according to published science.
6. Finally, and this is actually the most important point but also the most confusing: the study doesn’t take into account “Healthy User Bias”

It's well worth going to this blog and reading the full details regarding each of these points. Here is a brief biography regarding J.B. Handley:

J.B. Handley is the proud father of a child with Autism. He and his wife co-founded Generation Rescue, a national autism charity, in 2005. He spent his career in the private equity industry and received his undergraduate degree with honors from Stanford University. His first book, How to End the Autism Epidemic, was published in September 2018 by Chelsea Green Publishing. The book has sold more than 50,000 copies, was an NPD Bookscan and Publisher’s Weekly Bestseller, broke the Top 40 on Amazon, and has more than 400 Five-star reviews: Paperback, Kindle, and Audible available  on Amazon.

Such a "massive study" as was carried out would require some hefty funding and it seems to have come from the Novo Nordisk Foundation for the most part, although the Danish Government is also mentioned as contributing. Of course, even if this flawed study had found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the results would never have been published. How could they be? It would destroy trust in vaccines overnight and a multi-billion industry would collapse. Before this study even got underway, there could be only one outcome but the perception has been created that this was a fair, massive, unbiassed, scientifically objective study comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. The study will be referenced of course for decades to come and that was the point of carrying it out.

if one vaccine domino falls, they all fall

it's gone too far to turn back now

the dogma that must be believed is

that all vaccines are safe

no matter how many you receive or how often

it's proven Science if there is any doubt

Pneumonia: More Fear Mongering

Here is the header from an article that appeared in today's Jakarta Post:

Pneumonia to kill nearly 11 million children by 2030, study warns

The article was taken from NEWS DESK, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Paris, France on Tuesday, November 13th, 2018 at 03:04 am. The article goes on to say that:

Pneumonia will kill nearly 11 million children under five by 2030, experts warned Monday on a global day aimed at raising awareness of the biggest infectious killer of infants worldwide. 

While in the developed world the severe lung infection mainly affects the elderly, in developing nations it is children who bear the brunt, with hundreds of thousands dying each year from the easily preventable disease.

It continues:

A new analysis conducted by Johns Hopkins University and the aid group Save the Children using forecasts based on current trends showed more than 10,800,000 under-fives would succumb to the disease by the end of the next decade.  

Furthermore, a handful of countries are set to carry the highest burdens, with 1.7 million children set to die in Nigeria and India, 700,000 in Pakistan and 635,000 in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Yet there is some good news.  

The study, published on World Pneumonia Day, found that scaling up existing vaccination coverage, coupled with cheap antibiotics and ensuring good nutrition for children could save a total of 4.1 million lives. 

Of course, the article is intended to grab attention. Save the Children CEO Kevin Watkins, whose group operates health programs in some of the countries worst hit by the disease, called for prices of major existing pneumonia vaccines to be lowered "dramatically". It's unlikely that pharmaceutical companies will be lowering their prices. Instead the hope is that governments in developing countries will subsidise the cost from their health care budgets. Much needed funds are thus diverted from where they could be truly useful such as improving sanitation and nutrition.

In the nineteenth century, measles epidemics killed a great many children in England and other developed countries because families lived in vermin-infested, overcrowded and unventilated dwellings with primitive sanitation. Additionally, children ate poorly and sometimes not at all. When housing conditions and diet were improved, measles ceased to be a significant factor in childhood mortality.

It is the same of course with pneumonia which as the article admits "mainly affects the elderly in developed countries". In these countries, pneumonia does not take a significant toll of children because they are generally well-fed and adequately housed. It's a transparent ploy on the part of NGOs like Save the Children to attract funds but what organisations lie behind these NGOs. Well, the usual villains of course. One of this NGO's global partners is GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), laughingly described on the NGO's website as "a science-led global healthcare company on a mission to help people do more, feel better and live longer".

Ah no, GSK is, according to Wikipedia:

a British pharmaceutical company headquartered in Brentford, London. Established in 2000 by a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham, GSK was the world's sixth largest pharmaceutical company as of 2015, after Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Hoffmann-La Roche and Sanofi.

Of course, nobody is going to donate money to a pharmaceutical company and so GSK and other Big Pharma companies hide behind NGOs like Save the Children and push a very straight forward agenda: marketing their products. Save the Children and its current CEO have been mired in controversy lately. In July, as reported in this article in The Guardian: "(British) MPs question Kevin Watkins on failing to investigate claims of sexual misconduct by senior charity staff". Specifically:

Pauline Latham MP questioned Watkin’s decision to use £114,000 in charity funds on lawyers “to try and stop reports [of inappropriate behaviour] coming out”, adding that such money was likely to have been taken from funds raised by volunteers in the UK. 

Clearly, when donating money to NGOs like Save the Children, one needs to seriously consider how the money is being spent. However, if one were casually reading the article under discussion in the Jakarta Post or elsewhere, the simple takeaway would be that the pneumonia vaccine can save the lives of millions of children. If only it were that simple.

Vaccines damage the immune systems of children throughout the world but in developing countries, children's immunity is further compromised by overcrowded living conditions, poor sanitation and inadequate diet. These children do not need vaccines and yet limited health care funds are being diverted to this end.

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.

Long-tailed macaques invaluable for vaccine development: Expert

It was the headline (Long-tailed macaques invaluable for vaccine development: Expert) that caught my attention in The Jakarta Post. As can be seen the story involves an "expert" and so ought to be believed. Here is the story, dated Wedneday, May 23, 2018:

Long-tailed macaques, also known as crab-eating macaques, have important value for the development of vaccines in Indonesia, the world’s largest vaccine supplier, an expert has said. 

Amir Hamidy, member of the Scientific Authority at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Indonesia, said long-tailed macaques were a non-endangered species currently listed in Appendix 2 of the Convention. This means people are permitted to hunt the species but within a quota system.   

"First we must see what benefits we can get from long-tailed macaques. Because the pressure from the international community, such as the Animal Welfare Association, on the use of wildlife, especially primates, is quite high. We are not permitted to exploit the species and must also maintain its population and natural habitat,” Amir said on Tuesday. 

The scientist was referring to the possible uses of long-tailed macaques for the development of vaccines, produced with the animal's kidney tissue culture.  

“We supply the world with vaccines. We export our vaccines to many countries and we can develop polio and TB vaccines by using long-tailed macaques. But the macaques we use must be from a breeding facility to ensure they are clean and healthy,” said Amir. 

“The use of long-tailed macaques to develop vaccines is one example of the uses of biodiversity,” he added.

Despite the involvement of a so-called expert, the story is undoubtedly and depressingly true. What surprised me about the story was that Indonesia is the world's largest vaccine supplier and that vaccines are still being developed using mashed-up monkey kidneys as a culture.

It was from another Jakarta Post article (Bio Farma temporarily suspends diphtheria vaccine exports to tackle outbreak) that I learned:

State-owned vaccine manufacturer Bio Farma has temporarily stopped its diphtheria vaccine exports to focus on vaccine distribution to fulfill domestic demand as Indonesia strives to contain an outbreak of the infectious disease.

So Bio Farma is owned by the Indonesian government. The company has a surprisingly long history dating back to 1890. While Indonesia may be the world's largest vaccine supplier, neither Bio Farma or any other Indonesian pharmaceutical company features in the top 50 companies for 2017 (link). Indonesia's largest pharmaceutical company is Kalbe Farma and has featured in the news recently (see article: Indonesia's first biomedicine factory opens) and, to quote from the article:

Apart from vaccines and antisera produced by state-owned Bio Farma, most biopharmaceutical products in Indonesia have been imported. Kalbe aims to break this dependence on biopharmaceutical imports by finally manufacturing its own biogenerics. 

Meanwhile, there have been some interesting developments regarding compulsory vaccinations in Jakarta. This story from The Jakarta Post, dated May 22, 2018 summarises the situation:

Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan has decided to revise a recent circular that was criticised for discouraging immunisation drives in the city. 

The circular, which was distributed at the end of April through puskesmas (public health centres), annulled a previous regulation on basic immunisation as an admission requirement for kindergarten and elementary schools. 

Anies said he did not mean to discourage immunisation campaigns, but he also did not want it to become an obstacle for children to enrol at schools. 

"The circular will be retracted and we'll issue another one, because it has generated various interpretations," the former education minister told reporters on Monday at City Hall. 

Anies said the revised circular would ensure that schools provide immunisation access to children who were unvaccinated when they applied to schools. 

Health practitioners and parents criticised the Jakarta Education Agency for issuing the new circular that stripped immunisation from admission requirements, saying that communicable diseases still plagued the nation's capital. 

The original regulation that made basic immunisation mandatory for school admission was issued by former governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama. 

Clearly the Jakarta Governor is trying appease two antagonistic sides. On one side is a lot of citizens who are suspicious of vaccinations, especially following the recent dengue fever vaccination debacle in the Philippines. On the other side is the pharmaceutical  and medical industries that makes a lot of money out of vaccinations. These are the same tensions that exist in many countries, although the latter side does not enjoy the same dominance as it does in many Western countries. However, even in the West, the number of citizens who refuse to unconditionally accept the vaccination orthodoxy is growing and becoming better organised.

In Indonesia however, Islam is also being called upon in the fight against Big Pharma, as this article reveals:

One of the leading anti-vax campaigners is Dewi Hestyawati, who calls herself a Holistic Islam Health Activist. 

She says diseases like diphtheria and polio can be warded off and treated with diet and alternative therapies. 

"The Prophet shows us that immunisation should come from the regular daily consumption of healthy substances : honey, herbs, olive oil; dates and goat's milk. If we don't follow that, we can be easily infected with diseases," she said.

Dewi Hestyawati has a Facebook page and, one thing leading to another of course when going down these rabbit holes, she makes reference to a Doctor Andrew Moulden who died prematurely in 2014 at age 49, under suspicious circumstances. A website has been set up by a friend to keep his ideas alive. Here is a link to a talk he gave in Montreal in 2009.

What particularly struck me about Doctor Moulden's comments was that vaccines can cause reduced blood to nerves connected to the eyes and face, so that eyes can become "turned" in exactly the same way as happened to my brother Tony. I remember when he was pre-school and it was suddenly discovered that he had a turned eye. He needed to wear spectacles with a patch. 

I'm wondering if he didn't suffer vaccine reactions which caused not only caused his turned eye but also his acoustic neuroma that doctors said had probably been growing since he was two years of age. Of course, there was no suspicion that vaccines might have caused these two seemingly unrelated problems and perhaps also led to Tony's behavioural problems. No one will ever know now of course but it seems highly likely that he was damaged. Being so much younger than his other two brothers (Peter - born 1953 and myself - born 1949), he would have received different "flavours" of vaccines and probably more of them.

It's interesting to compare the number of recommended vaccines in the late 1940's versus 2010 (source):

Late 1940s | Recommended Vaccines
Smallpox
Diphtheria
Tetanus
Pertussis 

2010 | Recommended Vaccines
Diphtheria
Tetanus
Pertussis
Measles
Mumps
Rubella
Polio (IPV)
Hib
Hepatitis B
Varicella
Hepatitis A
Pneumococcal
Influenza
Rotavirus

Let's close this post with the following observation by Doctor Moulden:

Every Vaccine Produces Microvascular Damage 

Cancer Vaccine?

I'll reproduce the article that prompted this post in full, as it's not very long.

Stem cells which train the body to attack tumours could be the key to a breakthrough cancer vaccine. Researchers in California found the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) build an immune response to the disease in mice because of their remarkable similarity to cancer cells. The iPS could in the future be injected into humans to prevent the development of cancers – possibly for years after vaccination. They are made using samples from skin or blood, which are reprogrammed to mimic embryonic stem cells – meaning they can develop into any type of cell in the body. In a study, scientists tested the iPS cells on groups of mice with artificially induced breast cancer, injecting them once a week for four weeks. Within four weeks, breast cancer tumours were rejected by 70 per cent of the injected mice, while 30 per cent had significantly smaller tumours. Dr Joseph Wu, of Stanford Medical School, said: “Although much research remains to be done, the concept is pretty simple. “We would take your blood, make iPS cells and then inject the cells to prevent future cancers. “I’m very excited about the future possibilities.”

At first I thought that this was just another vaccine to be added to the growing list of what humans presumably need to stay healthy. However, it seems less a vaccine and more a series of medical procedures, so it may prove more of a boon to the medical mafia than to the drug companies, although they'll be looking for a way to profit from it if they can. Certainly if the procedure proves effective, then most of drugs used to treat cancer would become obsolete. The procedures wouldn't come cheap: blood must be taken, iPS cells manufactured and then injected. The procedure has the merit of using the body's own cells and so is very different from your usual vaccine.

It will be interesting to see what comes of it but it has the potential to be very disruptive to the way the cancer industry currently operates. The new procedure may well be shut down if it proves successful but less lucrative than current approaches. The medical mafia has no interest in curing cancer cheaply, even though many researchers (perhaps Dr Joseph Wu included) may be genuinely striving toward this goal. Meanwhile, many more rodents and other animals will suffer as the studies continue toward the human guinea pig stage.

Dengvaxia

This caption of this news article in The Jakarta Post immediately grabbed my attention when I read it: Philippines suspends world-first public dengue vaccination program. Here is the article in its entirety:

The Philippines said Friday it had suspended a landmark public vaccination program for the potentially deadly dengue virus after its manufacturer warned it could worsen the disease in some cases. French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi announced Wednesday that its world-first dengue vaccine could lead to more severe symptoms for people who had not previously been infected. The Philippines has vaccinated more than 733,000 children with Dengvaxia since 2016 when it became the first country to start using it on a mass scale.

But it said Friday the programme had been suspended. "In the light of this new analysis, the DOH (Department of Health) will place the dengue vaccination programme on hold while review and consultation is ongoing with experts, key stakeholders, and the WHO (World Health Organization)," Health Secretary Francisco Duque said. Sanofi had initially said its Dengvaxia vaccine was "critical" in the fight against dengue, the world's most common mosquito-borne virus. It said Wednesday that a new study has confirmed Dengvaxia's benefits for "those who had prior infection". "For those not previously infected by dengue virus, however, the analysis found that in the longer term, more cases of severe disease could occur following vaccination upon a subsequent dengue infection," Sanofi said.  Duque stressed that the government had not yet received reports of any problems with Dengvaxia. "Currently, there is no reported case of severe dengue infection among those who received the vaccine," he told reporters.

The content contains several perplexing elements. Purportedly "there is no reported case of severe dengue infection among those who received the vaccine" and yet the new study shows that "more cases of severe disease could occur following vaccination". Clearly there is a contradiction here. Additionally, why are children who have been vaccinated contracting dengue in the first place? Isn't the point of vaccination to prevent the child succumbing to the disease? Furthermore, "the French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi announced Wednesday that its world-first dengue vaccine could lead to more severe symptoms for people who had not previously been infected". A pharmaceutical company is admitting that its vaccine is dangerous after inoculating 733,000 children. This is strange indeed and clearly there must be a lot more to this story. Time to delve a little deeper.

Here is a YouTube video uploaded 30th November 2017 discussing the news:



Apparently, "eleven countries, including the Philippines, have approved the commercial release of Dengvaxia: Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand" according to Rappler. It is only in the Philippines however, that it was rolled out on such a massive scale. In the Rappler story, it's said that:

The vaccine was approved for sale in the Philippines a few weeks after then President Benigno Aquino III received executives from the company in a courtesy call in Paris, France, in December 2015.

Clearly the executives of the company managed to persuade Aquino to approve the vaccine. I wonder what incentives were provided? But back to the present and the evidence must have been quite damning for a drug company to admit openly that a product it developed is a failure. Doubtless more details will come to light as "the office of the Philippine president on Sunday vowed to hold accountable those responsible for a suspended dengue immunisation program, which it said placed thousands of lives at risk" (source).

Alarm as Super Malaria Spreads in South East Asia

This was one headline that caught my eye on today's BBC News. The article begins:

The rapid spread of "super malaria" in South East Asia is an alarming global threat, scientists are warning. This dangerous form of the malaria parasite cannot be killed with the main anti-malaria drugs. It emerged in Cambodia but has since spread through parts of Thailand, Laos and has arrived in southern Vietnam. The team at the Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit in Bangkok said there was a real danger of malaria becoming untreatable. Prof Arjen Dondorp, the head of the unit, told the BBC News website: "We think it is a serious threat. "It is alarming that this strain is spreading so quickly through the whole region and we fear it can spread further [and eventually] jump to Africa."

The news article is based on a letter that appeared in The Lancet Infectious Diseases website this month (October 2017). The letter, quite brief, references four sources, the second of which is referred to as "a sinister development" in which a single dominant artemisinin-resistant P falciparum C580Y mutant lineage has arisen in western Cambodia, outcompeted the other resistant malaria parasites, and subsequently acquired resistance to piperaquine (link). It's a long and detailed scientific article and I'm not competent to assess its validity or significance but I did note that funding for the study came from The Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The multiple authors pointed out that the funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

In fact most of the founding for this Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit comes from The Welcome Trust that describes itself as:

Wellcome exists to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas to thrive.

We’re a global charitable foundation, both politically and financially independent. We support scientists and researchers, take on big problems, fuel imaginations, and spark debate. 

Disturbingly, the organisation lists vaccine development at the top of its list of types of supported projects. It would not be unreasonable to suspect that, when a news article like this appears, some sort of new antimalarial vaccine might be in preparation. The idea would be to promote the threat of a malaria apocalypse (as opposed to an Ebola or Zika apocalypse) to maximise vaccine sales. There's no such new vaccine promised at the moment, but a vaccine does exist. 

The only approved one at the time of writing is RTS,S. It requires four injections, and has a relatively low efficacy (26–50%). Due to low efficacy, WHO does not recommend the use of RTS,S vaccine in babies between 6 and 12 weeks of age. The vaccine is going to be studied further in Africa in 2018. Research continues into recombinant protein and attenuated whole organism vaccines. It was developed by developed by PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Here is a link to an earlier post of mine on a Malaria Vaccine. It seems that this latest article might be an attempt to justify an extension of the trial of the vaccine to South East Asia in addition of Africa. Let's watch developments and see how this alarming global threat unfolds.

Malaria Vaccine

"Because the way each person's body deals with the disease is different and we can't predict what you will do if you get exposed to the disease," According to a BBC News report, "the world's first vaccine against malaria will be introduced in three countries - Ghana, Kenya and Malawi - starting in 2018." Three doses are required, spaced three months apart, and then a fourth dose eighteen months later. Without the fourth dose, the benefits decline rapidly. As it is, the vaccine benefits less than four in ten children. The pilot will involve 750,000 children of whom half will get the vaccinations. The funding is coming from the usual suspects:

• Gavi - The Vaccine Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation)
• Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria
• Unitaid
• WHO (World Health Organisation)
• GSK (GlaxoSmithKline)

An earlier article in The Guardian dated 30th June 2016 is less positive:

As the vaccine wears off, the study shows that children living in areas where there is high transmission of the disease end up with more infections than those who have never had a jab – known as the malaria rebound effect. Unvaccinated children – if they survive malaria – develop some natural immunity over the years.

One has to be skeptical of yet another vaccine being added to the hefty number that children already receive. How effective will be the collection and collation of the data relating to 750,000 children in these countries? The pilot involves a control group of 375,00 who get no vaccinations and the same number in the vaccinated group whose vaccine regime extends over 27 months.

To quote from The Guardian article again:

Dr David Kaslow, vice-president for product development at Path, a non-profit international organisation that has been a key player with the pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline, said up to six doses could be needed to maintain the protective effect.

Six doses of a vaccine? With this in mind, one would suppose that this vaccine, rolled out across Africa and South East Asia, would be a big money spinner for the pharmaceutical companies involved. If the benefits are dubious, well so what and given the reported rebound effect, drawbacks may outweigh benefits. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has a long history of criminal activity so this company's involvement in anything should be enough to raise suspicions.

Developing countries are an excellent venue for testing out new vaccines. GSK was convicted for killing 14 babies during vaccine trials in Argentina in 2012. It was fined less than US $100,000 for the offences (source). The problem with vaccines is not the vaccines themselves but the way they are brought to market. The pharmaceutical companies oversee the trials, there is little independent testing because of the expense involved. They lobby governments to push the vaccines via the healthcare infrastructure in various countries. If they can persuade governments to mandate the vaccine, all the better. They ensure that mainstream media carries news of the supposed benefits of vaccines.

The more sophisticated the health care services of a country, the more warmly vaccines are embraced. In developing countries, there is well-deserved skepticism about the benefits of vaccinations but not so in countries like Australia. The elderly dutifully line up for their flu shots. From neonate to teenager, the young are subjected to a plethora of shots to protect them allegedly from a dangerous, pathogen-filled world. Any reservations about the number of vaccines received or their scheduling is howled down as being a matter for health care professionals to decide. Of course, any criticisms from within the health care community are rare and any person bold enough to voice concerns risks ostracism from her or his fellow professionals. There seems to be no middle ground. One is either for or against vaccines.

ABC News recently carried this news article: Are you an unvaccinated adult? Here's what you need to know about catching up. The article goes on to suggest the following:

• MMR — measles, mumps, rubella — approximately $35.00 per dose
• Varicella (chicken pox) — approximately $80.00 per dose
• Hepatitis B — approximately $20.00 per dose
• Poliomyelitis (polio) — approximately $39.99 per dose
• Tetanus/whooping cough/diphtheria — approximately $45.00 per dose
• Influenza (flu) — approximately $20.00
• Hepatitis A — approximately $65.00 per dose
• Human Papillomavirus (HPV/Gardasil) — approximately $200.00 per dose
• Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib) — approximately $24.95 per dose
• Meningococcal C — approximately $100.00 per dose

This amounts to well over A$600. The government will actually cover these costs for an individual up until the age of 20, which means that taxpayers are footing the bill. One comment by a doctor in the article is revealing: Because the way each person's body deals with the disease is different and we can't predict what you will do if you get exposed to the disease. This observation could be applied equally well to vaccines. It's clear that in certain individuals the reaction to a vaccination can be unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic. The argument always is that the benefits of vaccines outweigh their drawbacks. For those who suffer catastrophic reactions, this is of little comfort.

Can it be that vaccines are less about public health and more about private profits? What happens when we follow the money trail? The following quote from ENCOGNITIVE.COM is revealing:

The vaccine industry was worth about $23 billion in 2014 and expected to reach $42 billion by 2020. That's big business. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole is BIG Business, thus the moniker Big Pharma. Below are some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, as of October, 2014. After looking at these numbers, you'll understand why they're called BIG Pharma and how it is that they're able to steer and dictate public health policies. Almost every single public policy pertaining to drugs and vaccines was drafted by the pharmaceutical industry--it is able to do this by showering money on those it seeks to influence.
Big Pharma's sphere of influence extends from journalists to doctors: 

• TV Networks (advertising),
• Scientists (research grants),
• Researchers (research grants, salary),
• Doctors (kickbacks, consulting fees, prescriptions, legal bribery),
• Government Bureaucrats (revolving door, stock options),
• Universities and Colleges (endowments, research grants, tuition sponsorships)
• Public Health Officials (revolving door, stock options),
• Politicians (campaign contributions, revolving door),
• Journalists (paid stipends, through TV network owners)
• Consumers (mass advertising, fear-mongering/scare tactics through media).

Of course, if fears of a pandemic can be heightened to the point of hysteria, then vaccines can be fast-tracked and administered to all who are gullible enough to take them. Here are the big players in the pharmaceutical game (from ENCOGNITIVE.COM):

Big Pharma by the Numbers 

Sanofi
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $42 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $138 billion
Headquarter: Paris, France
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), Euronext 

GlaxoSmithKline
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $24 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $106 billion
Headquarter: Brentwood, England
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), London 

Merck
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $42 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $156 billion
Headquarter: Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Johnson & Johnson
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $76 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $280 billion
Headquarter: New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Eli Lilly and Co.
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $21 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $70 billion
Headquarter: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Novartis
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $56 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $237 billion
Headquarter: Basel, Switzerland
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), SIX (Swiss Exchange) 

Astellas
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): N/A
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): 3.52 trillion Yen
Headquarter: Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Stock exchange: TKO (Tokyo Stock Exchange) 

Roche Holding Ltd.
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $90 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $246 billion
Headquarter: Basel, Switzerland
Stock exchange: OTCMKTS, SIX (Swiss Exchange) 

Pfizer Inc 
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $47 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $177 billion
Headquarter: New York, New York, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

The first legal duty of a public listed company: maximise profit for shareholders.