By Dr. Mercola
As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher,1 founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), July Fourth celebrates the American Declaration of Independence, which asserts that "all men are created equal," and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Unwilling to submit to the tyranny of the aristocracy any longer, the Declaration is a pledge, promising that the United States would uphold the "unalienable natural right to life and liberty that belongs to every person."
Yet today, 240 years later, we again find ourselves in a situation where we're increasingly oppressed by an elite "who want the legal right to judge, shame, segregate, discriminate against and punish fellow citizens who do not share their beliefs," Fisher writes, adding:
"Nowhere is this truth more self evident than in the oppressive implementation of one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination laws that fail to respect biodiversity or human rights and crush citizen opposition, in violation of the informed consent ethic and freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religious belief ...
The appropriation of unaccountable authority by medical trade and the militarization of public health in the 21st century should be of concern to every person who values life and liberty."
Vaccines Are 'Unavoidably Unsafe'
Both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe,"2 and this is what precipitated the decision to grant drug companies immunity against vaccine injuries and deaths.
If vaccine makers could actually be sued for damages, most would probably go out of business.
This "free pass" means that if the vaccine fails to protect you or your child, or worse, ends up injuring or killing, you cannot sue the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine.
As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, vaccine makers have started churning out an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.
Bill Threatens to Strip Virginia of Religious and Medical Exemptions
At the same time, there's a concerted, nationwide effort to eliminate choice by removing religious and conscientious [sic] vaccine exemptions, which were instituted more than 50 years ago.
"[In] 2015, Vermont lost the conscience exemption and California lost the personal belief exemption protecting both exercise of conscience and religious beliefs. This year, the vaccine machine invaded Virginia," Fisher writes.3
"A proposed law was introduced in the House of Delegates in January 2016 to strip away not just the religious vaccine exemption, but also the medical exemption for all children, whether they are being homeschooled or are enrolled in public or private schools.
An individual physician would no longer exercise professional judgment when granting a child a medical exemption but would become a government agent enforcing the narrow one-size-fits all federal vaccine contraindication guidelines ... which means that 99.99 percent of children would not qualify for the medical vaccine exemption in Virginia."
Fortunately, parents in Virginia rose up and were able to suppress the bill. But it may be only a temporary victory. Similar legislation is expected to be reintroduced next year.
Interestingly, not only does Virginia have one of the lowest vaccine exemption rates in the U.S., Virginia is also "hallowed ground where freedom of thought, conscience and religion [were] first defined as a natural right and [were] codified into American law," Fisher notes.
Virginia's history as a leading defender of religious and personal rights is likely one of the reasons they're now trying to undermine personal and religious freedom in that state with the most restrictive anti-choice law of any state to date.
Lawsuit Filed to Overturn California Vaccine Requirements
Despite overwhelming opposition, California lost the personal belief exemption last year. The new law took effect on July 1.
That same day, a group of parents and the nonprofit Education 4 All filed a lawsuit to overturn the new law, which requires all children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public or private school and/or daycare.
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their child according to the mandated schedule have only two options: they can try to get a medical exemption, which is extremely difficult and rarely obtained, or home-school their child.
Any child who previously attended school under a personal belief exemption must be fully vaccinated by kindergarten and seventh grade to be allowed to stay in school.
According to CBS News,4 the lawsuit says "the law violates the children's right to an education as guaranteed under California's constitution, and asks for a judge to suspend the law while the suit plays out."
The plaintiff's attorney, Robert T. Moxley, said the law "has made second class citizens out of children who for very compelling reasons are not vaccinated," adding they hope to be granted an injunction "while the judicial process takes place to see if this law is constitutional, which it most certainly does not seem to be."
Forced Vaccinations Are Unethical and Dangerous
In a recent article for congressional blog The Hill, Gretchen DuBeau, executive director for Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), writes:5
"When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients and the CDC schedule to be completely safe.
The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done. Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.
Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body's immune system into action.
Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down's syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done."
Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. They're not doing it out of some misplaced desire to rebel against authority.
But rather than conducting the necessary research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to simply push for forced vaccinations instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.
Assumptions and Comparing Apples to Oranges Are Not Good Science
DuBeau goes on to talk about how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set the limit on the amount of aluminum allowed in vaccines, saying this limit is not based on safety studies but rather on the amount required to boost vaccine effectiveness. The agency is simply assuming the current levels are safe, based on inappropriate data.
The safety level for orally ingested aluminum was set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on rat studies. However, while the EPA's minimum risk level is used to justify aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, you really cannot compare orally ingested aluminum and intra-muscularly injected aluminum. These two routes of administration do not produce the same health effects. As noted by DuBeau:
"[I]ngesting aluminum orally, where only about 0.25 percent is absorbed and then filtered by the kidneys, is very different than injecting it directly into muscle, where it may be absorbed at nearly 100 percent efficiency over time and can accumulate in organs, including the brain.
This complete lack of evidence proving the safety of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines is unacceptable and should concern any parent who trusts health authorities with the safety of their children."
Many Scientists Have Raised Concerns About Potential Vaccine Dangers
DuBeau takes a strong stand against California's mandatory vaccination law (SB 277), calling it "ill-advised," as it mandates dosing all school-aged children with a dangerous metal known to have neurological effects. She also points out that the scientific community is nowhere near as unanimous as proponents of SB 277 and other forced vaccination laws would like you to believe.
"Many doctors and researchers have raised serious concerns about vaccine ingredients like aluminum," she writes. "Animal studies, for instance, have demonstrated a link between repeated inoculation with aluminum-containing vaccines and severe neurobehavioral outcomes ... and altered expression of certain genes in the brain.
According to DuBeau, children who get all of the vaccines on the CDC's schedule may receive as much as 4,225 micrograms of aluminum in their first year of life. "To put this in perspective," she says, "the animals mentioned above were given an aluminum dose in a range that is nearly comparable to what children on the CDC schedule receive. This should give us all pause."
Also consider this: the amount of aluminum injected into a newborn baby via the hepatitis B vaccine equates to an adult getting 10 doses of the vaccine in one day, when you consider the difference in weight between the two.
In order for an adult to get the same amount of aluminum per kilo of weight that a child receives at the age of 2 months, the adult would have to get 34 adult doses of the hepatitis B vaccine in one day. Does it really seem reasonable or wise to inject that hefty a dose of aluminum into a baby?
Doctor Highlights Risks and Excessive Cost of HPV Vaccine
One medical doctor raising concerns about vaccine hazards is Gary G. Kohls, who is now retired. In a recent article,6 he responds to a commentary in the News Tribune, "written and endorsed by area board-certified pediatricians, oncologists and obstetricians/gynecologists," who promote "the universal use of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for pre-teen and teen-age girls."
According to Kohls, "the commentary appeared to be a part of a worldwide, billion-dollar promotion campaign," to encourage women around the world to get vaccinated, and financing this campaign is "one of the most profitable, price-gouging pharmaceutical companies in the world, Merck."
"In 2006, after only three to five years of clinical trials, the FDA approved for marketing the most expensive vaccine in the history of the world, Gardasil, which has been proclaimed as preventative for cancer of the cervix, a claim that was never proved and which has, to date, not prevented a single case of cervical cancer ... mainly because cancer of the cervix takes 20 to 50 years to develop," he writes.
The only thing these short-term industry-funded studies showed was that the vaccine "produced transient anti-HPV immune complexes in most of the young female vaccine recipients." They also found "modest reductions in the development of abnormal Pap smears." However, it's well known that 90 percent of all HPV infections clear up on their own within two years anyway, so that's hardly a medical breakthrough.
Kohls notes that the antigens in Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline's version of the HPV vaccine, Cervarix, are "genetically engineered proteins that, thanks to the neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant in each dose, can cause serious autoimmune disorders and unknown levels of potentially serious mitochondrial damage."
'Number Needed to Treat' Statistic Reveals Risks and Cost of HPV Vaccine Far Outweigh Alleged Benefit
The HPV vaccines are also exorbitantly priced, costing approximately $140 for three doses, plus office visit charges. According to Kohls, the News Tribune commentary bore all the hallmarks of an industry campaign, including all the standard talking points. Missing entirely was any mention of the potential downsides and risks of the HPV vaccines, and without this information, how can a parent or young woman make a fully informed decision?
Kohls goes on to discuss the statistical measure known as "Number Needed to Treat" (NNT), which is a simple way to relate the effectiveness of any given treatment. A drug's NNT tells you how many people have to receive the drug in order for one person to benefit from it.
"For instance, the NNT for a course of penicillin for penicillin-sensitive streptococcal pharyngitis is one, meaning that one cure occurs for every one course of treatment. If a treatment results in only half of patients benefitting, the NNT is two (the inverse of the fraction 1/2). The smaller the NNT, the more beneficial the treatment," he explains.
"An article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) ... stated that for Gardasil, the Number Needed to Vaccinate (same principle as the NNT) to prevent four or five cases of cervical cancer for a typical 12-year-old girl would be 9,080, meaning that 9,075 girls would be risking the serious adverse health consequences of Gardasil ... while still not receiving the alleged benefit, the prevention of cervical cancer." [Emphasis mine]
Neither doctors nor patients are informed about NNT statistics, yet this can be a very important treatment consideration. In Kohl's view, the cost of the HPV vaccine, both in terms of dollars and cents and their potential adverse health effects "come nowhere near outweighing the alleged benefit."
It's very unusual for a doctor to come out with such strong views. Most would do so under the threat of potentially losing their medical license. However, Kohl is retired, so he doesn't have to fret about that possibility, which may be why he's able to be so outspoken in the first place.
Complaint Filed Over European HPV Vaccine Assessment
Kohls is not the only one expressing concerns over the way the HPV vaccine is being pushed while risks are overlooked. On May 26, the Nordic Cochrane Center, which is part of Cochrane, an international network considered the gold standard within the evidence-based medical model for assessing the effectiveness of common medical interventions, filed a complaint with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), questioning the EMA's 2015 Assessment Report on the safety of HPV vaccines. In the 19-page letter to the EMA, Cochrane Nordic Center writes:7
"We are concerned about the EMA's handling of this issue as reflected in its official report and ask the EMA to assess:
1. Whether the EMA has been open and accountable to the citizens and has respected their rights to know about the uncertainties related to the safety of the HPV vaccines.
2. Whether the EMA has lived up to the professional and scientific standards that must be expected of the agency to guarantee that the administration enjoys legitimacy when evaluating the science and the data related to the safety of the HPV vaccines.
3. Whether the EMA has treated fairly — in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy — a Danish whistleblower, Dr. Louise Brinth, when she raised concerns about possible serious harms of the HPV vaccines.
4. Whether the EMA has treated fairly ... the observations and concerns the Danish Health and Medicines Authorities and the Uppsala Monitoring Centre had raised about possible serious harms of the HPV vaccines.
5. Whether the EMA's procedures for evaluating the safety of medical interventions guarantee that the administration enjoys legitimacy. The EMA asked the manufacturers of the vaccines to assess potential harms of their own products in which they have huge financial interests.
6. Whether the extreme secrecy, with life-long confidentiality agreements, which the EMA imposed on its working group members and scientific experts, is needed; is legitimate; is in the public interest; and guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy.
7. Whether the redactions the EMA imposed on documents it delivered to the citizens according to Freedom of Information requests were needed; were legitimate; are in the public interest; and guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy.
8. Whether the EMA has behaved in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy in relation to declaring conflicts of interest. We noticed a Guido Rasi's name associated with patents for inventions and wonder whether this is the same person who is the EMA's director.
If so, we believe Rasi has failed to declare his conflicts of interest. We also believe that the rapporteur for the EMA's report, Julie Williams, has failed to declare her conflicts of interest.
9. Whether the EMA behaves in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy when the agency use experts with financial ties to the manufacturers, in particular considering that it is always possible to find experts without such conflicts.
10. In the interest of transparency, we urge the EMA to ensure that the names of all the experts consulted are disclosed together with their conflict of interest declarations ... "
Functional Disorders Linked to HPV Vaccine
According to Cochrane Nordic Center, the EMA ignored significant data showing there may be severe adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine, "the prominent symptoms, which are suspected of being caused by the vaccine," bearing strong similarities to functional disorders such as:
According to the complaint, "the hypothetical mechanism is an autoimmune reaction triggered by either the active component of the vaccine or the adjuvant in the vaccine."
Cochrane also claims the EMA's internal 256-page report, which served as the basis for the draft of its 40-page official report, contradicts the final report. "We find that the EMA's comments are unprofessional, misleading, inappropriate and pejorative, and that the EMA's approach involves cherry-picking, which is unscientific," Cochrane writes.
Cochrane also notes that the Uppsala centre compared adverse events reported following HPV vaccination and vaccination with all other vaccines given to women. Based on their findings, it would appear the HPV vaccine carries a FAR higher risk of severe side effects than any other vaccine, yet the EMA claims no conclusions could be drawn from this data:
- POTS was reported 82 times for HPV vaccines versus once for other vaccines
- CRPS was reported 69 times for HPV vaccines versus 16 for other vaccines
- Autonomic nervous system imbalance was reported 77 times versus 16 for others
- Fibromyalgia was reported 62 times for HPV versus 39 for other vaccines
FluMist Found to Be Worthless Against Influenza
In related news, The Washington Post8 recently wrote about the "mystery" of why FluMist suddenly stopped working. Until recently, the spray form of the flu vaccine was preferred over the injectable flu vaccine for children between the ages of 2 and 8. FluMIst is a live attenuated vaccine, meaning it contains a live but weakened version of the flu virus.
In June, a CDC advisory panel decided the nasal spray "was so ineffective that it should not be used by anyone during the 2016 to 2017 season," The Washington Post reports. Data from last winter's flu season revealed FluMist was only 3 percent effective among children aged 2 to 17. This is yet another instance where almost everyone who received the vaccine risked their health for what amounts to no potential benefit whatsoever.
According to Dr. David Kimberlin, a professor of pediatrics at The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), the reason for FluMist's failure is still not understood. Researchers at MedImmune, the makers of FluMist, are trying to determine the cause. As noted by The Washington Post:
"In any given flu season, vaccine effectiveness varies. One factor is how well the vaccines match the virus that is actually prevalent. Other factors include the age and general health of the recipient.
In the overall population, the CDC says studies show vaccines can reduce the risk of flu by about 50 to 60 percent when the vaccines are well matched. Now, researchers are trying to find a common factor behind FluMist's recent incidents of poor performance."
One of the questions researchers will attempt to answer include whether the flu vaccine may lose effectiveness when given to a child who has been previously vaccinated against influenza several times.
What does all of this tell you? In my view, it speaks loud and clear to the fact that vaccine makers really don't know as much about their product as they purport to know. Yet despite this lack of knowledge, they insist vaccines are beneficial and worth just about any risk to the individual in order to protect society at large.